[anoncake]

> Suzanne Humphries

A homeopath(1) who cites two studies(2) published in a predatory journal, at least one of which was later retracted(3)?

I think you need to get your bullshit detector checked.

(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20130729083449if_/http://drsuzann...

(2) Mawson 2017 at http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccinati...

(3) https://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/08/retracted-vaccine-aut...

[RobertRoberts]

And here it is. You attack _her_ instead of the information she presents. (And then since people always say _something_ debatable, attack only that)

1) Is Dr. Suzanne Humphries a homeopath?

No she is not, yes she has training in it and yes she's removed it from her CV.

In this video she says "No, it [homeopathy] did not work"... summarizing her statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLrqmvjrIjI#t=2m30s

2) Retracted paper

A retracted paper (a pilot study at that) from a journal is not proof against the paper's results. It's only proof that the paper was retracted.

Also, it looks like (from your link) it was retracted because of a "twitter storm"... not a scientific basis.

3.) Her actual views summarized pretty well:

Consider her scientific perspective in the video below on the topic of vaccines. (only 20 minutes, it's worth 1 viewing, even if you disagree in advance)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC0Tbb3diI

[anoncake]

Homeopathy is not debatable, it is obvious bullshit. Not noticing that more or less immediately, as a MD at that, is a pretty good sign that someone is really bad at anything science. Taking studies published in a predatory journal seriously is another sign, though perhaps not as strong one.

None of this is proof that her views are wrong, but they are clear signs that she is bad enough at anything science that she is not worth listening to.

[RobertRoberts]

I understand you reticence to debate her points, she has a solid perspective.

[anoncake]

Debating crazies is tiring and pointless. Goodbye.