http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.htmlI'll just let the comments do the talking:
"Perhaps you were unaware, but the reference that you use as being supportive of homeopathic efficacy in influenza has been withdrawn by the Cochrane Review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588329
Even if review was still accepted, it could certainly not be considered rousing support for homeopathic efficacy:
"the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes."
As I said, certainly not impressive."
---
"Why should anyone agree that homeopathy is scientifically worthwhile because a Nobel Prize winner seems to believe that homeopathy has merit? That is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. Expertise in one field, like virology, doesn't automatically translate into expertise in another, like physics.
Montagnier's publication of research on high dilutions was actually published in a brand new jounal of which he is chairman of the editorial board. That certainly calls into question the indepedent peer-review process in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Research_on_electromagnetic_signals_from_DNA
Many Nobel Prize winners have gone on to believing in ideas with little or no evidencial support:
Brian Josephson believes both in parapsychology and cold fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson#Parapsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Josephson#Cold_fusion
Linus Pauling thought that DNA was a triple-helix (it isn't, it's a double helix) and he also believed that high dose vitamin C can cure many things (but there is no scientific evidence to back up such a belief).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_pauling#Career
Being a Noble Prize winner doesn't make one any less infallible than any other scientist. That is why one must look at the data, not just whether something is published or not, but what the quality of the data is and whether or not the conclusions follow from the evidence provided."
---
""Memory of water" is impossible based on the second law of thermodynamics. It isn't even worth discussing. It's like if somebody argued that gravity really goes up."
---
And the best one, for laughs:
"By the laws of homeopathy, if he wants to make his argument stronger, he has to make it weaker. Then it will be very effective."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
