Although the HRI welcomes thorough research in homeopathy, only studies carried out using appropriate and rigorous scientific methods can produce meaningful results. We therefore lament the recent publication by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which fails to meet this standard.

The NHMRC says: Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or
delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who
are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health
practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.

The National Health and Medical Research Council expects that the Australian public will be offered treatments and therapies based on the best available evidence.

Ramen, Schüttler und Verdünner!

Ja warum sollte es denn anders sein? Verdünnung und Verschüttelung bringt genausoviel Heilkraft in den Zucker ein wie die überaus heilsame, sanfte und traditionelle FSMoPathie, die ihre Nudelige Heilkraft durch spirituelles Aufsprechen einbringt.

Aber nein, Globulisten regen sich auf:

Australia’s NHMRC publishes flawed report despite concerns raised during public consultation

The Homeopathy Research Institute says: We maintain that the conclusions of the NHMRC report are inconsistent with the evidence.

The inaccuracy of the NHMRCs conclusions stem primarily from one fundamental flaw at the heart of this report.

Vermeintliche Problemchen in der Methodik

Erstens: Vermixung von verschiedensten Homöopathie-Studien

The NHMRC reviewers considered the results of all trials for one condition together as a whole, even though the individual trials were assessing very different types of homeopathic treatment.

Weil so die Grundprämissen der Homöopathie (Simileprinzip, Potenzierung, Arzneimittelbildfindung) ausreichend analysiert werden können. Achja, die Grundprämissen der Homöopathe (Simileprinzip, Potenzierung, Arzneimittelbildfindung) erscheinen im 3. Jahrtausend, mit der Kenntnis der heutigen Medizin, etwas lächerlich.

Zweitens: Missing Papers

Secondly, we are deeply perplexed as to the reasons for the exclusion of some of the best evidence for key clinical conditions.

In der Metaastudie ist unter Anderem die homöo-positive Arbeit „Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials.“ (Jacobs et al.) nicht inlkludiert.

Jacobs et al performed meta-analysis a meta-analysis of the treatment of childhood diarrhea using homeopathy in 2003, N=242 in placebo controlled trials, p-value = 0.008. This meta-analysis was excluded … why? [Link]

Warum? [Beweisaufnahme Homöopathie].

Drittens:

The NHMRC also need to justify their use of N=150 as a line between reliable and unreliable trials and they certainly need to explain why size is relevant at all when the findings are statistically significant.

Lernt Statistik! Dann dürft Ihr auch mitforschen.
Ramen.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s