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.