Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cdn_ash" data-source="post: 3056406" data-attributes="member: 149065">No, this is not what I am doing. Did you even read what I wrote? As I said, we have to look at ALL the studies done and then we can determine whether there is a significant positive outcome, but we don’t find this. What we find is that there is a general negative outcome across all the studies. It is this I am basis my views on.If a specific claim were to be repeatedly demonstrated to be effective, I would happily endorse it.Placebo effect is likely to be a large reason behind it, but confirmation bias is also likely (i.e. taking something else, or even allow time itself to take effect, and then crediting the homeopathic substance with causing the healing.) There doesn’t seem to be another known mechanism by which it can work. Maybe there is, I don’t know, but it has not been demonstrated. Sure, if it can be demonstrated, even the placebo. If it can be shown that the placebo provides a significant effect then maybe it can play a role. I think we need to study how the placebo actually works… can it be influenced manually, controlled etc. If this is could be known and done they great, we would have discovered a new means of treatment.Well this is a baseless claim. You merely assume that since the study is negative is must have been done by someone who doesn’t want it to be proven. Sceptics and MDs are often the best people to do such studies since they can remain impartial (don’t just assume a sceptic is out purely to ‘debunk,’ they are in fact aiming to establish the truth of a claim, nothing more), while someone who has invested their career in what is being tested and already believes it would have an emotional investment and to some extent need or desire some scientific basis to support their treatment. As I said, you tend to find that the better designed the test; the more likely it is to be negative.I never said this wasn’t the case. However I would think that scientific sceptics tend to be more impartial for the reason I stated above. James Randi is a good example… any test he does on pseudoscience or the paranormal must be agreed by both parties (in fact the test is often designed by the claimant themselves, and they also decide what constitutes a pass and a fail).And how does it work? How is it done? Has it been undergone a double-blind test?</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Loading…