ak sa spickovi vedci z roznych oborov vobec v niecom dokazu zhodnut, tak je to fakt, ze s postupujucim mnozstvom zisteni narazaju na stenu neuveritelne komplexnych javov a faktov, pri ktorych skratka musia povedat, ze ano, vieme teraz toho viac, ale ked vidime, ake je to vsetko zlozite, tak vlastne nevieme skoro nic

len tu na kyberii vedia ludia vsetko alebo takmer vsetko
a sranda je, ze su to takmer stale ti isti :)

"podla mojho nazoru je to najma dosledok toho, ze stale su tu celkom slusne sance pri mnohych ochoreniach, ze sa stav zlepsi alebo zhorsi bez ohladu aktualnu liecbu, alebo neliecbu, ludia maju samozrejme tendenciu to pripisovat aktualne uzivanym liekom"

tu je mozno zakopany realny uspech homeopatie: pri nezavaznych ocohreniach sa ludia aspon nezatazuje zbytocnou liecbou, lebo uz maju pocit, ze nieco pre seba robia a tak nezamerne nechaju telo liecit a regenerovat sa sami. plus umocnene placebom...

(to je je to v principe scestne a niekto na tom ryzuje je druha vec)

hodnoverne vs hodnoverne

ja to tu vobec nesledujem ani som to cele necital ale na temu homeopatika mi napadlo ze ci je koloidne striebro realne funkcny liek alebo ci to je len picovnka?

aky je tvoj nazor na cinsku medicinu? ( sorry ze odbocujem, ale ta mi pride este menej sofistikovana a pochopitelna ako homeopatia) a predsa ju uspesne starocia praktizuju miliony ludi?

nemam nic proti medicine. fakt som si nie isty, ci sa vlastne bavis so mnou..

nemam uz moc co povedat, odpoved na tvoj prispevok uz tu odznel, stacilo len davat pozor. zhrniem co si napisal do styroch slov:
homeopatika nie su ako lieky.

mas pravdu. a doplnim aj, ze homeopaticka liecba je ina ako klasicka a preto testy, kde sa pri jednej chorobe zamienaju homeopatika s liekmi (zjednodusene povedane) su zbytocnym plytvanim energie a penazi nedovercivych ludi.

chcem len vidiet ferovy boj medzi klasickou medicinou a homeopatmi..

heh - este jednu vec. hned tvoja prva veta o homeopatikach ukazuje, ze si to video asi ani nevidel, lebo chlapik si dal celkom pracu dokazat - extenzivne, na prikladoch publikovanych clankov z vazenych chemickych casakov - ze tvoja prva veta neplati.
ten princip, na ktorom maju pracovat nie je vyvrateny.

z toho usudzujem, ze si to video nepozeral, pretoze v tom mas jasno, predsa nepotrebujes ziadny novy uhol pohladu

pocuj, normalne sa do tychto debat radsej nezapajam - strata casu - ale dnes nahodou mam chvilku a zaujal ma tvoj jednoznacny nazor, tak reagujem.

na zaciatok - na homeoopatiu nemam ziadny nazor, pretoze som sa o to nikdy nezaujimala a nemam dost informacii. mam teda vyhodu nezaujatosti, zaujima ma to len cisto z "vedeckeho" pohladu

ale o tom ako funguje novodoba veda a publikacna cinnost nieco viem.

takze si zoberiem jeden z clankou co cituje chlapik homeopat na videu - konkretne
Research on homeopathy: State of the art
Author(s): Walach, H (Walach, H); Jonas, WB (Jonas, WB); Ives, J (Ives, J); Van Wijk, R (Van Wijk, R); Weingartner, O (Weingartner, O)
Source: JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Volume: 11 Issue: 5 Pages: 813-829 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.813 Published: OCT 2005
Times Cited: 41 (from Web of Science)

bolo to uverejnene v casaku, ktory je Q1 v Medicine (miscelaneous) - t.j. povedala by som doveryhodny zdroj. Impakt 1,5

je to metodologicky clanok, ktory potvrdzuje to co hovori typek na videu - sucasne vyskumy maju chyby v designe.

citujem z abstraktu:
In this paper, we review research on homeopathy from four perspectives, focusing on reviews and some landmark studies. These perspectives are laboratory studies, clinical trials, observational studies, and theoretical work. In laboratory models, numerous effects and anomalies have been reported. However, no single model has been sufficiently widely replicated. Instead, researchers have focused on ever-new models and experiments, leaving the picture of scattered anomalies without coherence. Basic research, trying to elucidate a purported difference between homeopathic remedies and control solutions has also produced some encouraging results, but again, series of independent replications are missing. While there are nearly 200 reports on clinical trials, few series have been conducted for single conditions. Some of these series document clinically useful effects and differences against placebo and some series do not. Observational research into uncontrolled homeopathic practice documents consistently strong therapeutic effects and sustained satisfaction in patients. We suggest that this scattered picture has to do with the fourth line of research: lack of a good theory. Some of the extant theoretical models are reviewed, including placebo, water structure, silica contamination, energy models, and entanglement models. It emerges that local models, suggesting some change in structure in the solvent, are far from convincing. The nonlocal models proposed would predict that it is impossible to nail down homeopathic effects with direct experimental testing and this places homeopathy in a scientific dilemma. We close with some suggestions for potentially fruitful research.

ok, pozriem radsej este na clanky ktore toto dalej citovali, ci najdem nejake, ktore nemaju v nazve alternative ani hoomeopathy a pod. (je pravdepodobne, ze vedecka obec je rozdelena v tomto na dve tabory, tak hladam nieco akoze objektivne)

nasla som 4, z toho 2 uznali ze nejake zlepsenie (oproti placebu) bolo, ale vysledky su zmetene, treba lepsi design
1 (farmaceuticky casak) - ze to absolutne nefunguje
a 1 zase dost zaujimava:

Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients - a prospective observational study of two independent cohorts
Author(s): Rostock, M (Rostock, Matthias)[ 1,5 ] ; Naumann, J (Naumann, Johannes)[ 1,2 ] ; Guethlin, C (Guethlin, Corina)[ 2,6 ] ; Guenther, L (Guenther, Lars)[ 2 ] ; Bartsch, HH (Bartsch, Hans H.)[ 1 ] ; Walach, H (Walach, Harald)[ 3,4 ]
Source: BMC CANCER Volume: 11 Article Number: 19 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-19 Published: JAN 17 2011
Times Cited: 1 (from Web of Science)

BMC Cancer je v Q1 v Oncology, dostat sa tam s clankom je mokrym snom hociktoreho Ph.D alebo aj docenta mediciny. keby zverejnili hlupost, pokazia si meno.

z abstraktu:
Conclusion: In our prospective study, we observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment. It would take considerably larger samples to find matched pairs suitable for comparison in order to establish a definite causal relation between these effects and homeopathic treatment.


viac casu tomu nedam, to mi staci. moj zaver je, ze homeopatia zdaleka nie je dosledne popreta vedou ako pises, pretoze by sa nou tieto periodika ani nezaoberali. ukazuju sa zaujimave vysledky a musime si pockat na kvalitne sppravene vyskumy, cas ukaze.

na zaver pre istotu alebo pre pomalsich radsej zopakujem : toto neni prispevok na obranu homeopatik, ale na obranu nezaujateho, otvoreneho pristupu.

kokos, ze ta to este bavi :)

uz pochop ze ziadne clinical trials nedopadnu v prospech homeopatik lebo je to konspiracia farmaceutickych firiem!