9 Comments

  1. Mailer Daemon
    Bla, bla, “gishgallop” is a pseudofalacy invented in the rational wiki. The use of this tactic only contradict the burden of proof statement. The other criticis are only ad-hominem or straw man attacks and insults. In example:

    “contains a defence of Jacques Benveniste’s refuted claims.”

    Really??? In russian academy of sciences has replicated the Benveniste-Montaigner high diution experiments with other chemical compounds:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0012501614090012

    2. Sorry, “A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy”. is fraud: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828

    3. “Nightingale and John Snow were among the founders of the field of epidemiology, which is the starting point for the systematic analysis of disease and cure that eventually became evidence-based medicine”

    XD, Fool idiot; Florence Nightigale practice homeopathy

    http://www.springer.com/medicine/complementary+%26+alternative+medicine/book/978-1-4939-0526-3

    Full text of page 16:

    -Florence Nightingale Ward (1860–1919) described her main causes in life as “heaven, homeopathy and women’s rights”. She received her training in New York and then in 1888 returned to San Francisco, where she opened a practice. In 1907, she founded a private clinic named the Florence N. Ward Sanatorium. She obtained an appointment as professor of obstetrics at Hahnemann Medical College and earned a reputation as one of the country’s fi nest female surgeons. Recognition of her abilities came when she was elected as a
    Fellow of the American College of Surgeons. –

    About of Evidence Based Medicine, pseudoskepiks is fraud:

    http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0102-311X2014001202368&script=sci_arttext

    Shut up pseudoskepitk!

    Reply

    • Factual accuracy is obviously not your strong point. The term “Gish Gallop” is documented at least as far back as 1994, and was coined by Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education. RationalWiki was started by Peter Lipson in 2007, as far as I recall.

      Yes, Benveniste’s claims are refuted. I am not familiar with your claimed Russian repetition, Russian scientific claims are a bit of a curate’s egg (e.g. Natasha Demkina), but the claimed replication by Ennis was also refuted (and incidentally one co-investigator was the president of Boiron).

      The link you cite to support your claim that the systematic review of systematic reviews is “a fraud”, is in a SCAM-specific journal, and does not actually refute the review.

      Nightingale did not practise homeopathy, that’s even more of a ludicrous falsehood than Dullman’s claim that she advocated it. She dismissed it as fit only for the “reckless physicking of amateur females”, since she knew the pillules were at least inert. This is completely clear from her papers.

      “Homeopathy has introduced one essential amelioration in the practice of physic by amateur females; for its rules are excellent, its physicking comparatively harmless–the ‘globule’ is the one grain of folly which appears to be necessary to make any good thing acceptable. Let then women, if they will give medicine, give homeopathic medicine. It won’t do any harm.”

      Only the most determined homeopathist will misunderstand this. You also appear to deny her pioneering role in medical epidemiology. That is an even greater injustice than reversing her views on homeopathy. Her polar area plot launched one of the first evidence-based policy initiatives.

      Your source, written I not by a homeopath and repeated only by other homeopaths, discusses Florence Nightingale Ward, née Ferguson, 1860-1919. Florence Nightingale, the statistician, nurse and social reformer, lived from 12 May 1820 to 13 August 1910. They are different people.

      I read the rant by homeopaths. Needless to say they reverse the truth, as homeopaths usually do. It is homeopaths, not the reality-based community, who refuse to accept conflicting data. The scientific consensus encompasses all the verified observations, from the poorly conducted highly positive trials in zero-impact SCAM-specific journals to the tightly controlled negative ones in mainstream publications. And the consensus of those published studies is that the higher the study quality, on objective measures, the less likely it is to produce a positive outcome. The totality of evidence is a small net positive effect, consistent with the expectation for a null treatment (as per Ioannidis).

      Now, mGufo or whoever you are, bugger off and find someone who gives a shit about your insane rantings.

      Reply
  2. Bruno
    Can’t handle different perceptions of viewing a problem Guy???

    My way or the Highway!!!!!!

    Ummmmm!!!!

    Reply

    • Nonsense. I am simply bored with this person’s fallacious nonsense. He castigates dissenting opinion as “pseudo skepticism” but knows so little of the subject that one can conclude only that he is aping a more intelligent homeopathy shill he has encountered elsewhere. Every point he made in that rant was wrong. Not another viewpoint or a difference of opinion, just wrong. And on the basis of these incorrect statements of his, he engages in snide attacks. Pointless, dull, not even a talented troll.

      Reply
  3. Bruno
    Did you not accuse me of the same charge??????
    Reply

    • Which charge? If it was abject stupidity, then probably, yes.

      Reply

Leave a Reply