The Australian government is reviewing a legal loophole allowing pharmacists to prescribe natural therapies such as homeopathy, animal hormones to check their efficiency and be sure it is not risky for the women's health.
Let’s hope that they make it mandatory for these quacks to comply with the same standards as ‘regular medicine’ (in other words: medicine)
I wonder if the agency would be willing to schlepp SA’s health ministry off to The Hague on account of its obstinately ludicrous claims about the African potato & friends trouncing HIV/AIDS. After all, it’s obvious that some Australians can come into harm’s way as a result of our stupidity.
You’re joking, right? If not, please cite a proven, documented example in a respectable medical journal (The Lancet, say) where this is true beyond placebo.
In other words, you’re happy to continue clouding the issue with misapplied terminology that is in any case semantically wrong.
Why am I not surprised?
And not a single one of the research reports you cite is (a) from a mainstream medical journal, or (b) from a credible independent source, so I’ll dismiss them as convenient confabulations with much the same facile ease with which you have listed them. If homoeopathy actually worked as you claim, then it would have found its way into conventional medicine a long time ago, long before the multinational drug empires came into existence, in fact.
Milgrom’s paper invoking Quantum Entanglement – on the macroscopic scale, no less – as a possible explanation for the failure of double-blind randomised controlled trials to prove unequivocal efficacy of homoeopathic trials is an excellent case in point illustrating the desperate measures the proponents of alternative medicine will resort to in order to preserve their illusions.
The paper provides exactly nil, zip, zero, nada, nothing, null and void evidence that homoeopathy “cures where Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails,” so citing the paper was, at best, a mistake, and, at worst, a quite deliberate attempt to deceive the audience.
Instead, the paper proposes a solution to the problem why homoeopathy fails to pass properly conducted tests. The proposal, however, shows only that the author’s understanding of Quantum Theory is considerably less than his knowledge of statistical methods, which he is clearly also not on top of. He blandly asserts that a macroscopic quantum coherence (or “entanglement”) exists among the state (or “wave”) functions of the homoeopath, the patient and the homoeopathic dilution.
He fails to give a rigorous account of either the posited entanglement or its originating mechanism. Technically speaking, he neglects to list his gauge field assumptions and the Hamiltonian of the alleged system is conspicuously absent. Thus, there is no basis provided in the paper upon which one could properly evaluate the physical plausibility of the proposal. Moreover, an average second-year university physics student will spot these suspicious omissions without any trouble.
Unfortunately for Milgrom, such a clear-cut case of abducting well-established physics for the purpose of preserving the preposterous does him no credit at all. Physicists have yet to observe macroscopic quantum coherence, except in the case of Bose-Einstein Condensates, which in any case can only exist at temperatures a tiny fraction above absolute zero (–273.15°C). One might be forgiven for thinking that such anxious dredging of inapplicable notions can only be symptomatic of the hopeless sham homoeopathy seems intent on relegating itself to.
Milgrom’s paer has nothing to do with the quote “Homeopathy cures where Conventional Allopathic Medicine fails”. The quote is based on the title “Homeopathy cures where Allopathy fails”, a book written by Dr. S.C.Madan, who was an allopath but converted to homeopath.
It’s very clear that English is not a language you are completely comfortable with. However, the above post patently illustrates that following a logical sequence of arguments also gives you some trouble because all of the above is totally irrelevant. You yourself cited the Milgrom paper, among a few others, in response to my challenge to you which reads, “You’re joking, right? If not, please cite a proven, documented example in a respectable medical journal (The Lancet, say) where this is true beyond placebo,” and my challenge was in direct response to your claim that reads, “Hmeopathy cures where Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails.”
Once again: You yourself cited the Milgrom paper. It clearly doesn’t support your claim. It is thereofore not germane. So why did you bring it up?
I have cited the paper so as to tell you that studies are there to rove the efficacy of Homeopathy. This is one thing. And the quote is another. You have mixed them both.
Please at least try to grasp the following point because it’s not clear whether you really don’t understand or whether you’re being deliberately provocative: No, it is you who mixed them up by introducing a paper that is irrelevant to your point that homoeopathy succeeds where conventional medicine fails.
And the paper doesn’t prove the efficacy of homoeopathy. As pointed out, it invents some deeply ignorant comic-book science that’s supposed to explain why we can’t prove the efficacy of homoeopathy. But even if the science was actually valid (which it’s patently not), it would do absolutely nothing to endorse homoeopathy because the question of its actual effectiveness is not addressed at all in that paper.