Quack busters, homopathetic "drugs", evidence

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected], Sep 13, 2005.

  1. We need not to go to the truble of dipping our toes in the swamp of saying
    that one side or the other consists of evil people with money grubbing
    motivations, to me even if true for any or all it is irrelevant. We do
    need to look at what scientific evidence can be brought to bear in support
    of either. The homopathitic crowd struggel to bring even a few standard
    scientifically valid research studies to the table. As the recent mega
    study shows, even that atempt fails. On the part of the quack buster
    crowd are thousands of studies published yearly for the same disorders and
    which show scientiffically valid results. This is why the homopathitic
    apologists make such a deal about self reported results which are at very
    best suggestive that it might be useful to consider that something could
    be going on in some instances, but is certainly not scientific evidence.
    The bottom line, if and when homopothetic "drugs" can survive standard
    normal every day standards of scientific evidence and scrutiny, then it
    might be worth taking a look; but past track records provide little hope
    for optimism in this regard.