en:misc:talk-saine-novella-question01
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
en:misc:talk-saine-novella-question01 [2013/07/29 16:00] legatum [Pneumonia during the 1918-1920 Influenza Pandemic] |
en:misc:talk-saine-novella-question01 [2013/09/16 09:17] 62.65.168.3 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Novella-Saine Post-Debate Q & A ====== | ====== Novella-Saine Post-Debate Q & A ====== | ||
| + | Answered question from the [[en:misc:talk-saine-novella|Debate on Homeopathy]]. | ||
| **1- What do you consider to be the best clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy for any indication? (March 28, 2013)** | **1- What do you consider to be the best clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy for any indication? (March 28, 2013)** | ||
| Line 160: | Line 161: | ||
| As this self-satisfactory level of evidence may not be satisfactory to everyone, I will now move closer to the central idea of your question. | As this self-satisfactory level of evidence may not be satisfactory to everyone, I will now move closer to the central idea of your question. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{anchor:homeopathy_clinical_evidence}} | ||
| ===== What is the Best Clinical Evidence for Homeopathy? ===== | ===== What is the Best Clinical Evidence for Homeopathy? ===== | ||
| Line 445: | Line 448: | ||
| Incidentally, it is a strange fact how detractors of homeopathy rely so much on expert opinion when they recognize it to be the least valuable level of evidence. From earlier time until now, professed experts on homeopathy, whom skeptics have relied on, have been found to be shams and/or the evidence they advanced against homeopathy have been shown to be flawed, like we have seen above with the French Academy of Medicine, Holmes, Shang et al., the //Lancet// editors, Edzard Ernst, etc. | Incidentally, it is a strange fact how detractors of homeopathy rely so much on expert opinion when they recognize it to be the least valuable level of evidence. From earlier time until now, professed experts on homeopathy, whom skeptics have relied on, have been found to be shams and/or the evidence they advanced against homeopathy have been shown to be flawed, like we have seen above with the French Academy of Medicine, Holmes, Shang et al., the //Lancet// editors, Edzard Ernst, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{anchor:homeopathy_statistics}} | ||
| ===== Statistical Analysis of the Epidemiological Evidence ===== | ===== Statistical Analysis of the Epidemiological Evidence ===== | ||
en/misc/talk-saine-novella-question01.txt · Last modified: 2013/09/16 09:17 by 62.65.168.3
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
