It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by hawkiye So you pretend to know what I have done... Sigh! The summary doesn't say its a summery and doesn't even list the abstract or journals etc. like a said NO SOURCES!
And gee how convenient the academic cultists don't publish their journals on line for the pubic to see unless you are in their club... Sigh again.
And I don't "believe" anything I draw conclusions based on verifiable facts and evidence along with real world experience not cult worship of some supposed authority figures who can't even source their claims...
I really do not know how to respond .....
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726 - 732, 27 August 2005
Summary
How do you miss the word SUMMARY in big red letters?
And still no verifiable sources!
OMG the journal IS the source. That IS source material .... I really am speechless. Don't act like you have the first clue about research if you think giving you a MEDICAL JOURNAL is not providing a source. I have almost limitless patience and you are quickly exhausting it. I work with psychotic patients all day long and never lose my patience at all, ever. Congratulations.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hawkiye
You are completely clueless. Anyone can access it. You simply need a subscription, that is how EVERY journal works. How do you think they stay in business? If you are a college student you can most likely access it for free using your student account. The journal is there, no one has to take my word for it. You simply wish to remain ignorant. I gave you the abstract so you can see what the study says without paying for it. You are welcome to pay for it and get right into it (although without a course in Research and statistics you may not understand much). Live ignorant, or not, your choice. I can't make you choose knowledge.
Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by hawkiye
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD,Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD,Linda Nartey MD,Peter Jüni MD,Stephan Dörig,Jonathan AC Sterne PhD,Daniel Pewsner MD,Prof Matthias Egger MD
The Lancet - 27 August 2005 ( Vol. 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726-732 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2edit on 27-1-2013 by alkali because: edited for completeness
Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible
explanation for positive findings of placebo-controlled
trials of both homoeopathy and allopathy (conventional
medicine).8,9
Originally posted by hawkiye
That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hawkiye
And with that, I will end my discourse with you. Impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational zealot.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by hawkiye
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD,Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD,Linda Nartey MD,Peter Jüni MD,Stephan Dörig,Jonathan AC Sterne PhD,Daniel Pewsner MD,Prof Matthias Egger MD
The Lancet - 27 August 2005 ( Vol. 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726-732 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2edit on 27-1-2013 by alkali because: edited for completeness
That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...
Interesting enough it does say the homeopathy works as does allopathy but both could be due to placebo as I said in an earlier post.
Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible
explanation for positive findings of placebo-controlled
trials of both homoeopathy and allopathy (conventional
medicine).8,9
edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible,31 but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis. By contrast, with identical methods, we found that the benefits of conventional medicine are unlikely to be explained by unspecific effects.
Originally posted by alkali
Originally posted by hawkiye
That is better but still unverifiable without a lot of time and effort. iIt's 2013 there is no reason this stuff can't be online and easily accessible And it doesn't tell me who funded the study etc...
I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Actually it says homeopathy is consistent with placebo effects, and allopathy is not.
We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible,31 but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis. By contrast, with identical methods, we found that the benefits of conventional medicine are unlikely to be explained by unspecific effects.
The information is all right there for you. But it will take time and effort to find the truth. So which is it? Do you want the truth simply given to you, as I did. Or do you want the sources to sift through and see for yourself? Seems like you are finding any excuse possible to cling to your old beliefs. Sorry, truth takes time and effort if you want to see the sources for yourself.edit on 27-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by alkali
I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.
I did and I am not impressed just more articles in academic cultist journals most people do not have access to much less even know exist funded by drug companies to commission studies that find their products favorable and any other possible remedy as worthless. You're welcome to take them as authoritative if you like despite the fact that they contribute to making doctors and conventional medicine the number 3 cause of death. However I do not worship in that cult...
Originally posted by alkali
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by alkali
I suggest you read the "Acknowledgments" section at the end.
I did and I am not impressed just more articles in academic cultist journals most people do not have access to much less even know exist funded by drug companies to commission studies that find their products favorable and any other possible remedy as worthless. You're welcome to take them as authoritative if you like despite the fact that they contribute to making doctors and conventional medicine the number 3 cause of death. However I do not worship in that cult...
Did you? The study was funded by the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health which had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the writing of the report.
There were no drug companies involved.
What specifically do you disagree with in the article? Also, where do you find peer-reviewed studies to support your beliefs that homeopathy is effective?
According to the PEK Report,[1] results of the evaluation were inconclusive, and in June 2005, the five complementary therapies under evaluation - anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine (more precisely, traditional Chinese herbal therapy) - were removed from the list of services covered by the compulsory health insurance scheme (KLV).
The terms-of-reference for the PEK study stated that the results of the study would determine which complementary medicines, if any, would continue to be supported by the national insurance program in Switzerland. However, before the study was completed and the final draft report reviewed by the international Review Board, the government announced that it would withdraw support for all complementary approaches to medicine.[5]
Considerable uproar followed, including protests from many scientists involved in the study (including the scientific director of the program) about political interference in the scientific process:[5]
"The international review board of PEK has publicly protested at political interference in the scientific process."[6]
"There is a consensus among the review board members that the final PEK process deviated from what would have been expected by conventional standards."[7]
[edit]ECH evaluation of PEK report
According to the European Committee for Homeopathy's evaluation of the PEK report,[8] the results were, for the government, surprisingly positive towards complementary medicines. According to the ECH evaluation:
The PEK study showed that the quality of homeopathic care was superior to that of conventional care. This difference could not be explained by the seriousness of the illnesses, because homeopathic doctors saw even more seriously and chronically ill people. (Page 2)
Whereas the authors of the overall PEK report drew the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy, the authors of the meta-analysis came to a different conclusion. This seems rather odd, because both groups of authors based their conclusions on the same extensive literature search and predefined inclusion criteria. (Page 4)
The Swiss Association of Homeopathic Doctors (SVHÄ) highly criticizes the PEK report and asserts that the study has serious flaws. (Page 5)
The meta-analysis was conducted at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM) of the Bern University, under the direction of Prof. Dr Matthias Egger. The ISPM did not include any expert from the field of homeopathy. It was not before January 2005 that homeopathic experts were allowed to peruse the meta-analysis. ISPM Director Prof Egger repeatedly has pronounced his conviction that homeopathy cannot be effective because its working mechanism is implausible. This does not seem to be a particularly unbiased position. (Page 6)
Although homeopathy and other CAM therapies proved to be cost-effective and may save millions of Swiss Francs on the health budget, the Swiss government decided to exclude all CAM therapies from the compulsory health insurance scheme as from 30 June 2005. (Page 6)
A conference scheduled for April 2005 to present and discuss the results of the PEK was cancelled because the National Health Office suppressed the publication of the study data. (Page 7)
Some collaborators were coerced into deleting all PEK related data from their computers. (Page 7)
A final meeting of the international Review Board (of 6 professors from Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and the UK responsible for the scientific quality of the PEK) to be held in June 2005 for a final assessment of the project, was cancelled. (Page 7)
A recommendation in the report's final draft to keep homeopathy, anthroposophical medicine and herbal medicine in the compulsory health insurance scheme was deleted in the final publication. (Page 7)
Originally posted by ollncasino
Homeopathic medicine is “rubbish” and is nothing more than a placebo, England’s chief medical officer has claimed.
Professor Dame Sally Davies said she was “perpetually surprised” homeopathy was provided on the NHS, and branded homeopaths “peddlers.” Giving evidence to the Commons Science and Technology committee, she also expressed fears about the prescription of homeopathic remedies to treat malaria and other illnesses.
‘I’m very concerned when homeopathic practitioners try to peddle this way of life to prevent malaria or other infectious disease,” she said.
“I am perpetually surprised that homeopathy is available on the NHS.” Dame Sally, who is England’s most senior doctor, concluded by remarking that homeopathy “is rubbish”.
The Telegraph
A 2010 Science and Technology Committee agreed that Homeopathy was no more effective than a placebo, while a UK Lancet study also came to the conclusion that homeopathy was no more effective than the standard sugar pill given as a placebo in clinical trials.
Of course, the established medical community isn't entirely unbiased in this matter.
edit on 27-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)