Reason 1,225 to hate The Huffington Post

They’re like the Fox News of the left–sensationalist, populist, tacky–but they also post articles like “The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence.”

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. of the left you mean? and there is evidence that homeopathy is not all quackery.

  2. Crap. “Of the left,” I meant.
    What evidence? I’m honestly curious. The only peer-reviewed paper I know of was Benveniste’s 1988 piece in “Nature,” but it was published with an editorial stating that, if [Benveniste’s] findings were correct, everything we know about chemistry and physics is wrong. Benveniste was later found to have conducted methodological errors, and no subsequent researchers have been able to replicate his results. (Also, it turned out Benveniste and two of his coauthors had been paid by a French homeopathy outlet.)
    The entire premise of homeopathy seems to me self-contradictory. That is, its propoments claim trace amounts of medicine (or rather, herbs) work better than conventional-sized doses. But they say trace-medicine has to be dissolved and shaken into water first, because water is able to “remember” the chemical properties of things dissolved in it. So the water, they claim, becomes for all intents and purposes more medicine. So why wouldn’t a larger dosage work just the same?
    About the best I’ve heard about homeopathy is that it works as well as a placebo.

  3. If I’m not mistaken, the first article you posted talks about only compares *placebo effects* in patients told they were being given conventional and homeopathic medicines. Even if the results are comparable, it only proves that people *think* homeopathy can work as well as conventional medicine.
    As for the second article–and I do recognize this is my shortcoming–I can’t tell what publication the article actually appeared in.
    In any case, one paper on one round of experiments doesn’t prove much.The findings are only relevant if they’re replicable. These three papers’ abstracts don’t say anything about these experiments being replications of earlier trials that returned similarly positive results. Moreover, a paper can’t be aware of any methodological errors which went into its own production. I’d also be curious to see the funding the papers’ authors recieved.
    Even if the findings of all three findings of the papers were sound, we still couldn’t say whether or not the homeopahtic remedies are useful in a relevant medical capacity. Mainstream medications go through years or decades of trials before they’re even submitted to regulatory agencies like the FDA to be approved for effectiveness and safety.
    I admit I have only a passing familiarity with homeopathy. I mean no offense, but it’s a topic I’ve not immersed myself in because I’ve recieved the impression that homeopathy is essentially a settled issue among mainstream scientists. I don’t mean that as an appeal to authority. The “I mean no offense” sentence is an explanation as to how I arrived at the position I’m at, not a defense of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: