Janic wrote:what do you want, i can't help it if your perception of the word science is so limited.
Perhaps it is you who has too broad a vision.
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri PoincaréJanic wrote:It is up to the Russians to harmonize its various services and, for the moment, the Ministry of Health does not follow the point of view of the academy in question.
Unfortunately, legislation does not always follow science ...
Janic wrote:It does not seem that the French Academy of Sciences has issued a positive or negative opinion on homeopathy. So we find, depending on the country, researchers favorable to H and others opposed. It's life !
Researchers favorable to homeopathy are rare. On this subject, the scientific consensus is now broad because for 200 years, the many advances in science tend rather to refute the hypotheses put forward by Samuel Hahnemann (discovery and experiments on the placebo effect for example)
https://www.surlatoile.com/discussion/1 ... omeopathie "The French Academy of Medicine has recommended that the government no longer reimburse homeopathic treatments whose effectiveness is not proven.
"(...) To date, no proof of the functioning of homeopathy could be provided. Note that James Randi offers
a million dollars to anyone who will be able to prove that homeopathy really works. A
BBC team and some homeopaths convinced had tried the experiment in 2002,
without success. "
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/l ... ucre_28730 "Homeopathy is useless. This is in essence the conclusion of a vast report made public at the beginning of March 2015 and produced by
the largest research organization in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). "
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article886 "(...)The
first attempt at therapeutic trial bringing together, it seems, a methodology satisfactory for the time, was carried out under the Third Reich. Indeed, the "purity" and "return to nature" side of National Socialism had found in homeopathy a therapeutic measure. Rudolf Hess is in charge of Dr Fritz Donner,
homeopath himself, to supervise a vast experiment which, let's be frank, wanted to be objective. The trials carried out on a large scale will be interrupted in 1939. After the war it is Fritz Donner himself who will collect and summarize the results. He will write, let us quote, that "o
n failed to achieve any success that we can credit the homeopathic method ... despite the efforts made. Of course,
no homeopathic journal has agreed to publish this text."
"(...) The results of this test will be published in March 1988 in The Lancet. It consisted of testing the action of Opium and Raphanus on the restoration of intestinal transit after an intra-abdominal operation. It was chosen by homeopaths themselves following "remarkable" results published by Pr. Chevel (who is also part of the commission) in 1992 (Bobigny) and Pr. Aulagnier in 1993 (Vienne). Six hundred patients of twelve hospitals were divided into four groups, receiving respectively: opium + raphanus, opium + placebo, Two placebos and nothing (test group). The results showed no notable distinction between the four groups "
"(...) In 1987, following a controversy, the Academy of Medicine indicated that the prescription of homeopathic medicines" is only justified in pathological manifestations which heal spontaneously "."
Janic wrote:For researchers to find out why it works so well,
"Before understanding how ghosts go through walls, we must already prove that they are exiting!"sen-no-sen wrote:Frankly if a guy without a diploma who would have won 3 times in the lotto kitty explained to you that it is possible to win the lotto (simple example), and that on the other a scientist full of diplomas explains to you by a + b that it is not possible who would you listen to?
Proving the value of your bank account is easily achievable, proving the effectiveness of therapy is a little more complicated.