Anon2 - Strange that the main author of that series of basophil experiments doesn't agree with you.
"After over 20 years research trying to find out if high dilutions of histamine have a negative feedback effect on the activation of basophils by anti-IgE, what do we know? The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories – although the same is true for conventional studies. Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies. After standardization of a number of parameters, it is recommended that a multi-centre trial be performed to hopefully put an end to this ‘‘never-ending story’’." Ennis - Homeopathy ((2010) 99, 51–56)
So these replications are poorly standardised; well any one who actually read her papers would see they are generally all over the place, another case of the conclusions in a paper not matching the data. Ennis and Benveniste have very similar careers in homeopathy, they both claimed they were skeptical before they tested it, they both produced discredited publications and they both then associated themselves firmly in the camp of the homeopaths.
You seem to think that lack of effectiveness in other drugs demonstrates homeopathy works. Well it doesn't, just means that more poorly researched treatments have to be removed.
No idea where you get your BMJ quote from, actually 13% have observed others fabricating/altering data. As several people can observe one person fabricating results (after all once someone spots something wrong he/she will discuss it) then the actual number who are guilty of fraud (for fraud is what it is) will be lower, probably a lot lower. But the scientific establishment is aware there is a problem, a survey is just the start for rooting out the fraudsters and also hopefully the reasons why people do this. Certainly, if they are found they are severely dealt with, Wakefield of the MMR scandal is a good example.
But you can usefully compare this with the treatment of frauds in homeopathy. How many are observed by other homeopaths? How many are found out by other homeopaths? What penalties have been issued by homeopaths against their fraudulent brethren?
In the UK, homeopaths have been found advertising, against the rules of their society, that water is a good prophylactic against malaria. What penalties ensued? Absolutely nothing!
Comment Reply
Anon2 - Strange that the main author of that series of basophil experiments doesn't agree with you.
"After over 20 years research trying to find out if high dilutions of histamine have a negative feedback effect on the activation of basophils by anti-IgE, what do we know? The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories – although the same is true for conventional studies. Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies. After standardization of a number of parameters, it is recommended that a multi-centre trial be performed to hopefully put an end to this ‘‘never-ending story’’." Ennis - Homeopathy ((2010) 99, 51–56)
So these replications are poorly standardised; well any one who actually read her papers would see they are generally all over the place, another case of the conclusions in a paper not matching the data. Ennis and Benveniste have very similar careers in homeopathy, they both claimed they were skeptical before they tested it, they both produced discredited publications and they both then associated themselves firmly in the camp of the homeopaths.
You seem to think that lack of effectiveness in other drugs demonstrates homeopathy works. Well it doesn't, just means that more poorly researched treatments have to be removed.
No idea where you get your BMJ quote from, actually 13% have observed others fabricating/altering data. As several people can observe one person fabricating results (after all once someone spots something wrong he/she will discuss it) then the actual number who are guilty of fraud (for fraud is what it is) will be lower, probably a lot lower. But the scientific establishment is aware there is a problem, a survey is just the start for rooting out the fraudsters and also hopefully the reasons why people do this. Certainly, if they are found they are severely dealt with, Wakefield of the MMR scandal is a good example.
But you can usefully compare this with the treatment of frauds in homeopathy. How many are observed by other homeopaths? How many are found out by other homeopaths? What penalties have been issued by homeopaths against their fraudulent brethren?
In the UK, homeopaths have been found advertising, against the rules of their society, that water is a good prophylactic against malaria. What penalties ensued? Absolutely nothing!
February 13, 2012 - 1:13pmThis Comment
Reply