User Tools

Site Tools


en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/08 15:39]
legatum [QUESTION 14]
en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz [2013/02/08 15:47]
legatum [QUESTION 23]
Line 97: Line 97:
  
 **When you referred to the paper Benveniste published in Nature in 1988, you omitted to explain the fact that his experiments have since been successfully replicated by four independent laboratories in Europe and that the issue is now closed?​[(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Robertfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. //​Inflammation Research// 1999; 48: S17-S18.)] [(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Robertfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. //​Inflammation Research// 2004; 53: 181-188.)] Isn’t this, the proof—reproducible evidence that UMPs have biological effects—that you have been asking for? Please explain your criteria for rejecting this body of research?** **When you referred to the paper Benveniste published in Nature in 1988, you omitted to explain the fact that his experiments have since been successfully replicated by four independent laboratories in Europe and that the issue is now closed?​[(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Robertfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. //​Inflammation Research// 1999; 48: S17-S18.)] [(Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Robertfroid M, Sainte-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. //​Inflammation Research// 2004; 53: 181-188.)] Isn’t this, the proof—reproducible evidence that UMPs have biological effects—that you have been asking for? Please explain your criteria for rejecting this body of research?**
 +
 +===== QUESTION 24 =====
 +
 +**Please consider the following scenario recently related to me by a German colleague: As a young MD, she did an internship with a homeopathic pediatrician. Over the course of several weeks, she observed how one child after another recovered within days under homeopathic treatment from ailments like ear infections, UTI, bronchitis, bronchiolitis,​ pneumonia, impetigo and other acute diseases. No conventional medication was used, no side effects, no complications. If you were in a position of being a young doctor and watching these effects like she was, would you consider studying homeopathy more deeply?**
 +
 +Questions like #24 are so puerile and smack so strongly of the ignorance of scientific methodology that they don't merit further discussion.
 +
 +===== QUESTION 25 =====
 +
 +**On what philosophical or scientific basis, would you say skeptics consider their inexperience coupled with an immovable bias more reliable than the experience of many generations of homeopaths all over the world corroborated with loads of undeniable facts?**
 +
 +===== QUESTION 26 =====
 +
 +**Since our subject is the wellbeing of our fellow human beings, the outcome of this debate carries a certain amount of responsibility. In light of this responsibility,​ can you state that you have investigated homeopathy thoroughly and with an open mind, and have found out beyond reasonable doubt that it is nothing else than placebo, despite the many inaccuracies I have pointed out in your statements and the references I gave showing that they are contradicted by more reliable historical sources or recent scientific studies?**
 +
 +===== QUESTION 27 =====
 +
 +**You wrote, "​Choice consumers make is based on scientifically informed opinion. In the case of homeopathy, misinformation can have consequences ranging from a needless waste of money to forgoing more effective treatments[(Schwarcz J. A whole lot of sugar helps this pill go down. //Montreal Gazette//. April 21, 2012.)] ." I agree with you on this very point, and I have pointed out many serious inaccuracies in your statements or writings about homeopathy and referred you to more relevant historical sources or recent scientific research. To what extent, do you and the McGill Office for Science and Society take responsibility for the information you disseminate to the public, when it is contradicted by reliable sources or recent scientific evidence?**
 +
 +As to the final question, we take full responsibility for whatever information we disseminate. The scientific community stands firmly behind the notion that homeopathy is nothing other than an example of the placebo effect. Data can be dredged up to attempt to counter the evidence the same way that Creationists publish all sorts of papers that sound scientific and appear to be so to the uninitiated. But of course Creationism is bogus. How many serious scientists think the Earth is 5700 years old? How many think that homeopathy is more than placebo?
 +
  
 {{anchor:​schwarcz_answers}} {{anchor:​schwarcz_answers}}
en/misc/talk-qa-saine-schwarcz.txt · Last modified: 2013/02/08 15:57 by legatum