ze ma ta diplomovka nebavi, tak som teda hladal a nasiel.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1668980/pdf/bmj00112%2D0022.pdf
(from total of 107 trials) "58 trials the same
single homoeopathic treatment was given to patients
with comparable conventional diagnoses." na zvysku boli pouzite ine metody.
ako som vravel, neexistuje jedno spravne homeopatikum na liecbu danej choroby. cize vacsia polovica testu mala predispoziciu na zly vysledok. (napriek tomu, only in:) "24 trials no positive
effects of homoeopathy were found."

"Conclusions-At the moment the evidence of
clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw
definitive conclusions because most trials are
of low methodological quality and because of
the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates
that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of
homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed
trials."
cize presne ako som vravel uz skor, tazko sa to hodnoti..


v tomto clanku http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10784270?dopt=Abstract porovnavaju lieky a homeopatika na pripade akutnej hnacky. davno som spominal, ze s akutnymi vecami by som sam siel radsej za klasickym doktorom. napriek tomu homeopatia zaznamenava maly, ale hlavne nedostatocne popisany uspech. tento vysledok sa k mojmu prekvapeniu podarilo zreprodukovat tu: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10784270?dopt=Abstract


v dalsom teste http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278 sa vysledok zopakovat nepodarilo. tu je dovod: "Tablets containing a combined preparation of the five most common single homeopathic remedies used to treat diarrhea or placebo were administered" cize ziadny individualny pristup, ako predtym. logicke.


ten experiment s panom Jacques Benvenist som po par riadkoch prestal citat, lebo som tomu nerozumel ani kokot a o linku s liekom na malariu sa ani vyjadrovat nebudem, to je cisty ojeb na turistov.