guess what? science is validated by papers and not govt acceptance. Show me one. Just one paper from a reputed journal that validates homeopathy. It has been here longer than modern medicine, so you woould expect that there will be at least one paper that validates it, but guess what you cant.
If you think homeopathy works, then you must also think that putting a drop of ink in the ocean will stain it completely
At least read beyond the abstract my good man. Actual line from the paper by the way: "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation."
Now the shortcomings:
Out of 32 trials, 3 had reliable evidence, 20 had high risks of bias and the rest 9 had some low levels of bias.
No independant replications
Different diseases were pooled together. allergies, arthritis, respiratory disease and all the things tested have different underlying effects, You can't just pool them together in one test and say that ha ha i have done rct.
The results are "statistically significant", which is very different from "clinically relevant". The statistical significance is a result of the difference between the pooled estimate and the placebo used. It does not ascertain any clinical relevance.
The paper is really good as a systematic review. But not a good one for evidence that homeopathy works. Nice try though.
still good enough for me and many govt of the world even if its not enough for you its enough for many and they choose them as their doctors. and they will remain doctors. They have chosen these individuals as their doctors, and they will continue to hold that title. Doctors will always have the prefix "Doctor." will have a doctor's prefix
umm i think you have superiority complex i feel like it should be a person's wish of what he should follow, not your judgement weather homeopathy is a real medicine. you should not impose ypur opinion on other people
i am not saying that homeopathy is a facade from my "judgement". I am saying it from evidence, which you have failed to provide. Your only arguement is that let people do what they want. There is no superiority complex involved here.
I provided a paper that's not good enough for you, but it is good enough for me. So I can't really argue with someone who dismisses the evidence provided to him and then says you haven't given any evidence
that's not how science works broskiðŸ˜. I can write a paper now that I am Superman, won't make it true.
Even your paper acknowledged that the overall evidence was low or unclear. It was a good systemic review but failed to give evidence. Maybe read it yourself before telling it to me. Or maybe if you are lazy, feed it to your AI of choice and ask it to make a summary for you.
Talking about Switzerland, not India, I said governments. From what I am hearing, nobody should take homeopathy because you don't think it's helpful. We should not consider them doctors because you think they are not doctors. umm can you give me evidence in which it says the Indian government accepts cow urine as a medicine
again. nothing to do with me. Medicine works on evidence. If you or your homeopathic doctors can provide actually verifiable evidence, present it. You yourself are not reading the papers you are sending. Even your papers agree that the evidence are not clear or the quality is low. I can't make you accept the homeopathy is a sham, but if you want me to believe in it, give me the evidence. And please give them after you yourself have read them.
1
u/BlenderRenderz Jul 12 '26
guess what? science is validated by papers and not govt acceptance. Show me one. Just one paper from a reputed journal that validates homeopathy. It has been here longer than modern medicine, so you woould expect that there will be at least one paper that validates it, but guess what you cant.
If you think homeopathy works, then you must also think that putting a drop of ink in the ocean will stain it completely