Rationalwiki.org says: DOCTOR Nancy Malik is a homeopathy shill, fact-blind delusional crank and serial comment spammer. According to Nancy, „Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone“ – which may be a record for the number of terms used in the precise opposite of their actual meaning in a single sentence: „evidence-based“, „modern“, „nano“ and „medicine“ do not mean what Nancy thinks they mean. Her trademark copy-and-paste comment „Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails“ scores [over 600] hits on a certain search engine beginning with G.
Ramen, dear followers of my scientific religion and of my alternative- and paraesoteric teachings!
To cut a long story short, I often responded to her „scientific“ utterances on healing, medicine and homeopathy with the single terminus technicus #bullshit. She blocked me soon, of course. However, I asked her to answer some questions, which she did. I am thankful for her answers!
Of course, me as a non-medic, non-homeopath and Guru, I can comment on her „scientific“ answers in a scientific way. DISCLAIMER: Dear people, I dare to call my utterances scientific, but if you find errors and flaws in my text, please tell me, where I am wrong! I am not infallable, I am not going to be infallable and I do not claim to have access to or to understand of all knowledge on homeopathy and science! Ramen.
Q1) What is Science? How would you define Science?
Dear „Dr“ Nancy, your answer is a complete fail, at least, if we are trying to stay on a scientific niveau. You posted a link to an advertisement article for homeopathy, which contains blunt lies about science in general, and misinformation about homeopathy in particular:
- „According to World health Organisation, highly acclaimed service of Homeopathy is the fastest-growing and second-most widely-used system of medicine in the world“
Well yes, the WHO might have said that homeopathy is the fastes growing „system of medicine.“ However, there can be only one SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, which is usually called evidence-based medicine (EBM). As far as me and google know, homeopathy is not part of EBM, because homeopathy has no more healing powers than sugar pills have. And please, do not let us forget that the WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases!
- „Homeopathic medicine is firmly rooted in laws of nature and proven principles of modern science and supported by sound research methodology for its efficacy and effectiveness.“
Science, especially quantum physics does not provide a single hint for the effectiveness of any dilution/shaking-based water-memory-effect healing-information-power woowoooQuack! Each quantum physicist (besides Deepak Chopra, Harald Walach, Luc Montagier and Jacques Benveniste) will tell you that the current kind of quantum physics does not at all suggest any „water memory“ or „dilution effects“. Also is homeopathy not at all supported by sound research methodology, it rather is supported by quack resp. esoteric science or pseudo science! This last claim is strengthened by the fact that no high-ranking science-journal does publish theoretical work on the physics of homeopathy, only journals on alternative science do publish those topics.
- „By conducting quality research in homeopathy, the scientists in research institutions have created new benchmarks in research standards. More scientists will be encouraged to do the same.“
No, see above. A homepath which is conducting quality research will find out that homeopathy has as much healing powers as sugar pills have.
May I give you answers to „What is science“?
- Tim Minchin: „Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.“
- Science is Method. Method is free of contradictions.
- Science is obeying dictatorship of nature.
- A scientist shall not have any beliefs beforehand, resp. he shall be willing to drop his beliefs, if necessary.
- Science is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), as long as we are in the field of medication research. However, an RCT is only applicable to drugs, which have some physical/chemical/biological theory behind them which is supporting their effectiveness by the laws of nature. Homeopathy has no scientific theory behind it, it is just a religious dogmatic system of wishful thinking. So any RCT with two groups (homeopathic sugar vs. sugar) will end up showing a random result, ie, one sugar has slightly better healing powers than the other. An RCT on two equally strong medications is nonsens! An RCT can only make sense when we have prior theoretical knowledge, which supports a biological effect in the body. The only theory on homeopathy is that it can heal as well as sugar pills!
2) What is Evidence? How would you define Evidence?
You linked to a very very nice blog article, which is explaing the following technical terms:
- Confidence Interval,
- Odds ratio,
- Double-blind study design,
- and many further scientific terms.
However, as science has shown, again and again, by respecting all these issues while performing a study, it turns out that homeopathy is a placebo.
Are you willing to accept ALL studys on homeopathy, or only those you would like to be true?
3) How would you define Esotericism? / 4) How would you define Believe?
Dear Nancy, I do not understand why you refused to answer questions 3 and 4! These two questions, and the question „What is Theology“ shall be fitting your style of thinking much more, I guess!
So let me give you a short hint to the answers of these questions: In science, you start with a question and you might be ending up finding the answer by following the strict protocol of the philosophy of science. In science one does not know the answer beforehand, right?
In „believe research“ you know the answer beforehand:
- Theology: Read the Bible/Koran!
- Homeopathy: Read Hahneman/Kent/Boericke!
Whoever breaks these dogmas, will be ignored or ridiculed or has conspired against the believers.
… to be continued …
Hail Eris und Ramen,
Mr_MIR @ live.de