Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/07 12:03]
legatum [QUESTION 2]
+++ en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/07 12:06]
legatum [QUESTION 5]
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===== QUESTION 5 =====
-It is astonishing to note that a "man of science" would consider the Shang et al. 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet the "definitive meta-analysis[(Schwarcz J. Answer to a homeopath’s criticism. //Chemically Speaking// June 5, 2012.)]" —notwithstanding the fact that major flaws have been underlined by a large number of scientists[(Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P. Homeopathy in Healthcare. //Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety and Costs//. Herdecke: Springer, 2011, 39-46. )] [(Frass M, Schuster E, Muchitsch I, Duncan J, Gei W, Kozel G, Kastinger-Mayr C, Felleitner AE, Reiter C, Endler C, Oberbaum M. Bias in the trial and reporting of trials of homeopathy: a fundamental breakdown in peer review and standards? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 780.)] [(Iris R. Bell. All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than others: can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 763-769.)] [(Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005; 366: 2081.)] [(Haselen RV. The end of homeopathy: wishful thinking? //Complementary Therapies in Medicine// 2005; 13: 229-230.)] [( Reilly D. Sir: is that bias? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 785.)] [(Milgrom LR. Homeopathy and the new fundamentalism: a critique of the critics. //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2008; 14: 589-594.)] [(Jobst KA. Homeopathy, Hahnemann, and The Lancet 250 years on: a case of the emperor's new clothes? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 751-754. )] [(Kiene H, Kienle GS, Schön-Angerer TV. Failure to exclude false negative bias: a fundamental flaw in the trial of Shang et al. //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 783.)] [(Peters D. Shang et al. Carelessness, collusion, or conspiracy? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 779-780. )] [(Rutten ALB, and Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. //Homeopathy// 2008; 97: 169–177. )] [(Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. //Journal of Clinical Epidemiology// 2008; 61: 1197- 204. )] [(Flávio Dantas. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005: 366: 2083. )] [(Frass M, Singer SR, Oberbaum M. Homeopathic research after the Lancet meta analysis—A moment for introspection. //Complementary Therapies in Medicine// 2005; 13: 303-305 )] [(Fisher P, Berman B, Davidson J, Reilly D, Thompson T, Bell IR, Belon P, Bolognani F, Brands M, Connolly T, Dantas F, Endle PC, De Freitas F, Dean ME, Eizayaga F, Eizayaga J, Jansen JP, Jobst K, Koster D, Lewith G, Mathie R, Mercer S, Nicolai T, Oberbaum M, Peters D, Poitevin B, Rutten L, Schwartz G, Spence D, Steinsbekk A, Thompson E, Walach H, Whitehouse PJ. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005: 366: 2082-2083. )]) —if only for the fact that six of the eight large studies used in the final analysis were not following the rule of individualization, which is fundamental to homeopathy. Do you still think that this meta-study, which is composed of a majority of studies that violate this fundamental principle, can be used as proof against homeopathy? How do you explain that the accompanying editorial of the Lancet[(Editorial. The end of homeopathy. //Lancet// 2005; 366: 690.)] was able to come up to such radical conclusions, despite the fact that the study didn’t even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines for meta-analyses[(Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. //Lancet// 1999; 354: 1896-1900.)], and that the body of scientific evidence on homeopathy extends much beyond the limitations of the Shang et al. meta-analysis?
+**It is astonishing to note that a "man of science" would consider the Shang et al. 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet the "definitive meta-analysis[(Schwarcz J. Answer to a homeopath’s criticism. //Chemically Speaking// June 5, 2012.)]" —notwithstanding the fact that major flaws have been underlined by a large number of scientists[(Bornhöft G, Matthiessen P. Homeopathy in Healthcare. //Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety and Costs//. Herdecke: Springer, 2011, 39-46. )] [(Frass M, Schuster E, Muchitsch I, Duncan J, Gei W, Kozel G, Kastinger-Mayr C, Felleitner AE, Reiter C, Endler C, Oberbaum M. Bias in the trial and reporting of trials of homeopathy: a fundamental breakdown in peer review and standards? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 780.)] [(Iris R. Bell. All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than others: can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 763-769.)] [(Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005; 366: 2081.)] [(Haselen RV. The end of homeopathy: wishful thinking? //Complementary Therapies in Medicine// 2005; 13: 229-230.)] [( Reilly D. Sir: is that bias? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 785.)] [(Milgrom LR. Homeopathy and the new fundamentalism: a critique of the critics. //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2008; 14: 589-594.)] [(Jobst KA. Homeopathy, Hahnemann, and The Lancet 250 years on: a case of the emperor's new clothes? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 751-754. )] [(Kiene H, Kienle GS, Schön-Angerer TV. Failure to exclude false negative bias: a fundamental flaw in the trial of Shang et al. //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 783.)] [(Peters D. Shang et al. Carelessness, collusion, or conspiracy? //Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine// 2005; 11: 779-780. )] [(Rutten ALB, and Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. //Homeopathy// 2008; 97: 169–177. )] [(Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. //Journal of Clinical Epidemiology// 2008; 61: 1197- 204. )] [(Flávio Dantas. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005: 366: 2083. )] [(Frass M, Singer SR, Oberbaum M. Homeopathic research after the Lancet meta analysis—A moment for introspection. //Complementary Therapies in Medicine// 2005; 13: 303-305 )] [(Fisher P, Berman B, Davidson J, Reilly D, Thompson T, Bell IR, Belon P, Bolognani F, Brands M, Connolly T, Dantas F, Endle PC, De Freitas F, Dean ME, Eizayaga F, Eizayaga J, Jansen JP, Jobst K, Koster D, Lewith G, Mathie R, Mercer S, Nicolai T, Oberbaum M, Peters D, Poitevin B, Rutten L, Schwartz G, Spence D, Steinsbekk A, Thompson E, Walach H, Whitehouse PJ. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? //Lancet// 2005: 366: 2082-2083. )]) —if only for the fact that six of the eight large studies used in the final analysis were not following the rule of individualization, which is fundamental to homeopathy. Do you still think that this meta-study, which is composed of a majority of studies that violate this fundamental principle, can be used as proof against homeopathy? How do you explain that the accompanying editorial of the Lancet[(Editorial. The end of homeopathy. //Lancet// 2005; 366: 690.)] was able to come up to such radical conclusions, despite the fact that the study didn’t even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines for meta-analyses[(Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. //Lancet// 1999; 354: 1896-1900.)], and that the body of scientific evidence on homeopathy extends much beyond the limitations of the Shang et al. meta-analysis?**
+===== QUESTION 6 =====
+**In the debate, you said of Professor Rustum Roy of Penn State University, "Rustum Roy, who was referred to, is not highly regarded in the scientific community. He is one of those outliers. And there are many such." On what basis do you base your opinion that Professor Roy is not highly regarded in the scientific community? Are you aware that in 2003 the ISI (Phila) rated his lab the #1 in the world on the basis of highly cited scholars[(Roy R. Interdisciplinary materials research: the reluctant reformer of Western science. //Facets// 2005; 4: 18-21. )] and that he has published over 1,000 papers in peer-review journals? Which ones of his results are therefore not trustworthy? How do you decide whether a scientific article published in a peer-reviewed journal is trustworthy, such as the one of Roy in Materials Science[(Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell I, Hoover MR. The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. //Materials Research Innovations// 2005; 9: 577-608.)] in 2005 or the one of Chikramane in Langmuir[(Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. //Langmuir// 2012; 28: 15864-15875.)] in 2012?**

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools