|
|
Post by summand on Jan 12, 2011 22:18:52 GMT
In a discussion I had today, the following website was thrown at me: www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-scientific-is-modern_b_543158.htmlThe interesting part of that article(for me) is the that British Medical Journal's "Clinical Evidence" reviewed approximately 2,500 treatments and found: • 13 percent were found to be beneficial • 23 percent were likely to be beneficial • Eight percent were as likely to be harmful as beneficial • Six percent were unlikely to be beneficial • Four percent were likely to be harmful or ineffective. • 46 percent were unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful Here is the current overview: clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jspI tried to find out which treatments are in that list, but alas, that info is only available for paying members. So, does anybody here know something about that analysis? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jan 12, 2011 22:28:48 GMT
In a discussion I had today, the following website was thrown at me: www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-scientific-is-modern_b_543158.htmlThe interesting part of that article(for me) is the that British Medical Journal's "Clinical Evidence" reviewed approximately 2,500 treatments and found: • 13 percent were found to be beneficial • 23 percent were likely to be beneficial • Eight percent were as likely to be harmful as beneficial • Six percent were unlikely to be beneficial • Four percent were likely to be harmful or ineffective. • 46 percent were unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful Here is the current overview: clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jspI tried to find out which treatments are in that list, but alas, that info is only available for paying members. So, does anybody here know something about that analysis? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jan 12, 2011 22:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 12, 2011 23:11:01 GMT
How can you be an expert in homeopathic medicine?
It has nothing in it.
Its like being an expert in nothing and then bragging about it
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jan 12, 2011 23:23:02 GMT
Check out the Wikipedia entry for this guy .... Here's part of it....
Ullman was interviewed on the American Broadcasting Company program 20/20 in a segment about homeopathy (January 30, 2004).[5] He claimed that homeopathic preparations of extremely high dilution, i.e. those likely to contain zero molecules of the original substance, are effective because, he said, "the water gets impregnated with the information or memory of the original substance."[5] When asked to suggest a laboratory experiment that 20/20 could independently conduct as a way to test the legitimacy of homeopathy, Ullman recommended the Ennis experiment, a study that seemed to show that ultra-dilute solutions of histamine, diluted to the levels used in homeopathic remedies, could affect cells just as the controls did.[7][8][9] The result of 20/20's experiment was negative; the homeopathic dilution failed to produce a measurable effect when compared to plain water.[5] Ullman has claimed the test was flawed as it was not a direct replication (repetition) of Ennis' work.[10][11] However, this experiment and one run by the BBC were ruled to be valid by independent experts commissioned by the BBC, and the BBC did not claim the study to be a repetition but a replication.[12]
In an editorial in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, editor-in-chief Gerald Weissmann criticized the scientific basis of homeopathy and included Dana Ullman in his criticism. Weissmann criticized Ullman for recommending, during the 2001 anthrax attacks in the USA, the use of the homeopathic preparation called Anthracinum to prevent infection. Ullman said he recommended Anthracinium for people who are at high risk of infection and who decline ciprofloxacin because of concerns over its side effects. While Ullman expressed concern about vendors "taking advantage of people wrapped up in the fear of the situation", he said "It would be irresponsible for us not to provide something that might be helpful." There is no evidence for the efficacy of Anthracinum, which is derived from nosodes gathered from infected pigs, and then diluted to "a point where no molecules of the disease product remain." In a right-of-reply letter, Ullman depicted Weissmann's editorial as an "unscientific critique" of homeopathy and cited five peer-reviewed studies. Weissmann responded: "Mr. Ullman is clearly a devotee of his art, and I respect his opinions. I’m afraid that I view Mr. Ullman’s references to the efficacy of homeopathy as modern versions of those Dr Holmes distrusted," and went on to quote from a well-known critique of homeopathy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.: "...such cases deserve very little confidence. Yet they may sound well enough, one at a time, to those who are not fully aware of the fallacies of medical evidence."
|
|
|
|
Post by summand on Jan 13, 2011 9:59:19 GMT
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the Ullman article. That homeopathy is pure bullsh*t is easily argumented. And he makes several claims that are simply bogus. But the statistic I mentioned, comes from a (as far as I can tell) reputable medical journal. clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jspIt says that for 46 percent of current treatments it is unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful. I had hoped that somebody here would have more information about that. The website does not tell which treatments are in the list they used to compile the statistic. If, for example, homeopathy is on the list, the derived statistic is useless. If only "real" treatments are on the list, well, that wouldn't be that swell  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 13, 2011 12:44:18 GMT
"water gets impregnated"
I love that line.
If true, every time you drink water you are drinking the impregnated excrement of every person on the planet. mmmm Yummy
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jan 13, 2011 12:52:32 GMT
It says that for 46 percent of current treatments it is unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful. I had hoped that somebody here would have more information about that. |
|
|
|
Post by summand on Jan 13, 2011 14:09:34 GMT
Amaris: NP. I was unclear when asking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jan 13, 2011 14:19:38 GMT
Amaris: NP. I was unclear when asking. 
|
|
