And i would add that homeopathic drugs are not required to prove their effect in blinded trials to be registered. Thanks to Boiron and their powerful sugar-coated pills lobby.
Do you have a reliable source for that? I omitted adding a source because if you look for scientific research on homeopathy you find essentially only studies stating that it does not work, Wikipedia has plenty of references.
I too would be interested in a source. I don't think that homeopathy works, but I am willing to admit I can be wrong. Doubt is essential to make progress:
Also, the placebo effect shouldn't be used dismissively. If you convince someone they should be feeling pain (tell them they're next to a low frequency transmitter that causes pain when they're really next to an empty speaker box), that pain is real in the sense their nervous system can have a physical reaction to it. It is in their heads, but perceptions can generate physical responses.
You have to be very, very when discussing the placebo effect to distinguish between reporting differences and actual differences. That gets very complicated when you only have self-reporting of a subjective state to evaluate things on.
The classic study was on asthma treatments. Patients would subjectively report feeling better when on the placebo treatment, but the objective measurements of lung function showed no difference.
If people report being in less pain or less depressed when on a placebo treatment but attempt & complete suicide at the same rate... well, fuck.
That was not meant dismissive, the placebo effect is of course a well established and very real effect. But there is nothing more than the placebo effect in homeopathy.
Note that most of what we call placebo effect is actually return to the mean. True placebo effect exists but its much more limited than what people usually think.
Naively I would expect regression toward the mean to weaken the placebo effect - using a placebo seems a better idea in light cases and even in a controlled study you would probably not be allowed to only use placebos in severe cases so that it seems more likely that the situation worsens which would reduce the observed strength of the placebo effect in the other direction.
The knowledge of homeparhy in Science is really limited.
We cab image the the surface of the top of iceberg as what know the science of homeopathy.
All the iceberg is what you can know learning study and practice homeopathy for years or a live. this is my vision
No, homeopatic anecdotes are not science. Science has studied homeopathy and found it to be complete and utter nonsense. That's the end of the story, it's superstition and does not work. You either understand that, or remain willfully ignorant. There are no other options.
Homeopathy doesn't work, that's a fact, what part about that known fact seems to confuse you? Why are you insisting something that is KNOWN to not work, works? What don't you get?
There is no mechanism of homeopathy other than the placebo effect, homeopathy is pseudo-scientific bullshit, simple as that, it's fiction. If you think it works, it only demonstrates that you have no understanding of the placebo effect and are easily taken in by bullshit.
> Clinic results are differente from test with placebo
reply
Yes they are differents. Homeopathy cure the person not the hill. In test only the hill is observed not the unity of person. Tests are exclusives, clinics is inclusives
When you run a well-conducted trial you find zero benefit to homeopathy. When you run a poorly-conducted study, with poor blinding or weak randomization you find some benefits to homeopathy. When you don't even run a study, but just give people homeopathy in clinics they'll tell you it works because they say they can feel a difference.