Memorandum submitted by Sue Young (HO
51)
I watched with dismay as the bias against homeopathy
was given free reign in your Commission on homeopathy the other
day—Can someone please enlighten me how the supposed "placebo
effect" is relevant to the following:
Animal studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-animal-studies/
Plant studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/
In vitro studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-in-vitro-and-related-studies/
Physics and chemistry studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-physics-and-chemistry-studies/
Fungus studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2009/10/maria-curie-sklodowska-university-in-poland-proves-homeopathy/
DNA studies?
http://avilian.co.uk/2009/09/luc-montagnier-foundation-proves-homeopathy-works/
Charles Darwin's work with drosera?
http://avilian.co.uk/2009/03/charles-darwin-proved-homeopathic-dilutions/
Please also see
http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-meta-analysis/
The latest Shang et al meta analysis
done in 2005 is very biased, has a very small sample size and
does not quote its sources, and turns all the earlier meta analysis,
carefully conducted with large sample sizes and which do quote
their sources, in favour of homeopathy upside down—this
is very poor science and quite obviously malicious.
I do trust you can see the vast economic forces
fuelling this auto de fe against homeopathy, which is based on
lies, more lies, spin and mistruth.
Sue Young RSHom
November 2009
| 
