The paper I added from the respected journal Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery is a review article, so it meets MEDRS.And the above sentence in the article is unsupported. -- Neb46545 ( talk ) 15:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC).If this were true it would have profound implications for science, but the only people who seem able to produce any evidence that it does, were already believers before they started.The value and integrity of the Swiss report have been called into question by many sources.Such claims can not be addressed by popular belief, but are most appropriately assessed through the scientific method.Also you should declare any conflict of interest, such as being a practitioner of homeopathy (rather than a doctor, as your username implies).
Another contribution to misinformation. -- EDtoHW ( talk ) 15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC).You appear to be unclear on the concept of what a placebo is but this is not the place to hash that out.It should also be mentioned that any demonstration of persistent structure in liquid water does not say anything about a plausible mechanism for homeopathy.I suggest we start adding the information from this research into the article right away.This is why WP:MEDRS exists - to filter out the garbage by insisting that we rely on meta analyses and systematic reviews.There are some reliable sources pertaining to the putative connection between homeopathy and hormesis.
A collection of editors making sure that the rules are followed is not the same thing as a collection of editors forcing their opinions or the opinions of any arbitrarily selected cross section of the population.Current assessments using the modern scientific method do a fine job of establishing its true worth.Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is no reason to think homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work.The real problem is that the lack of relevance of hormesis is blindingly obvious.A very interesting bit found here on the Indian-born 2009 Nobel laureate in chemistry, expressing his expert perspective on homeopathy and astrology in India.The fourth paper looks at the effect of various homeopathic dilutions on anxiety in mice.After 8 hours approximately of unwilling to eat. high dose methotrexate order set: cialis sahan reklam.
The handful of papers that purport to make the link are by the latter, as far as I can tell.Or, as seen above with Roy, vital information (such as an experimental section) is omitted, making it impossible to determine if any research was done at all.No one said to use the review to prove homeopathy but to inform what high quality sources say about research on homeopathy as MEDS dictate.A core error that homeopathy shills make is to represent everything other than worse-than-placebo, as positive.We are here to determine what material is of high enough quality to include in an honest and informative article about homeopathy.The blue text that you see throughout my earlier posts indicates a clickable link which will lead you to appropriate sources which support my statements.Encyclopedias are all about elision -- keeping things in proportion.
You are not suppose to evaluate yourself the reliable sources but to inform about notable contradictions in the literature as Everymorning talk correctly points out.Again you keep judging the content of the paper and you should not according to the all wiki policies you want to follow. ( Of course it is very simplistic to accept that all the editors who find this article highly biased and make specific suggestions for improvement are.somehow all wrong and disruptive and therefore banned.) -- EDtoHW ( talk ) 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC).The core of my argument is that the specific paper suggested by Everymorning is unintelligible gibberish.I would also like to note that this article currently cites 4 papers published in that journal.Incredible, the James Randi Foundation are the real crackpots and quackpots.Out of a quarter billion Hindi speakers, only a few hundred are regular contributors to Wikipedia, and fewer than a dozen put something in the article on homeopathy.That would improve the article which today reads as anti-homeopathy propaganda and not as an encyclopedia. -- EDtoHW ( talk ) 08:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC).Adhering to NPOV means that Wikipedia is not neutral on the subject of homeopathy.The most perplexing aspect of his writings is his appeal to epitaxy.
It makes no mention of statistical power and only uses 4 dogs per test group.Besides, the more recent and more extensive Australian assessment should supersede it.
A preponderance of articles like this will make Wikipedia obsolete. 220.127.116.11 ( talk ) 18:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC).To get back to your question about this specific paper by Roy, I must ask again - do you even bother to read the papers you are suggesting here, or do you simply skim the abstracts.Not treating the sick, or giving them sham medicine, was of course better than taking them to a hospital.Please cite useful references for making improvements to the article.
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.The vitriol of scientific and medical communities should not be placed as an authoritative condemnation of homeopathy, especially as an introduction to the term.Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature.A Bayesian analysis should also be a requirement of any quality study.
Three out of 32 papers examined - that alone should tell you something.Using this word immediately indicates the strong bias of the writer.I just read the Hindi article on homoeopathy using a fairly crude translation and it appears to include no criticism on it and presents it as a valid treatment.Of all the places where I thought I would encounter overt racism in Wikipedia, this is one of the last places, but I guess I should have known better.The article is actually just an overview of various studies that have been carried out.
I refer the hon. gentleman to Shang et. al. and Linde et. al. 1999. The more carefully a study is designed, the less likely it is to be positive.Of course, the existing clinical trials of homeopathy are generally not well-designed, so even that is being overly optimistic).
© 2016 jgbxd.tk. .