Re: Homeopaths Without Borders practice exploitation not humanitarianism
Christine E. Jahnig wrote: "Provide documented, objective material proving that homeopathy did not normalize my pressures..."
Ms Jahnig appears not to understand where, in a scientific discussion, the burden of proof lies: it is with the person who is making the extraordinary claim. In this instance, the claim is that a concoction that contains no measurable amount of the substance named as being the "remedy" is capable of effecting a cure. Ms Jahnig supports this claim with anecdote and hearsay, but not with evidence.
(NB: I am not disputing Ms Jahnig's claim that her "pressures" were "normalized" after she took a homeopathic "remedy". This could have been due to any number of things, the most likely one being a placebo effect.)
Ms Jahnig also wrote: "In fact, the remedies that reduced my pressures are the most commonly used remedies for these two conditions"
Here we have a problem with the tenets of homeopathy. Leading homeopaths assert that a homeopathic "remedy" has to be "individualised" to the patient, not to the disease. Some other homeopaths suggest that this is only the case for chronic disease (of which hypertension and intraocular pressure are examples). Indeed, this need for individualised "remedies" is one basis of the special pleading employed by homeopaths who use it to assert that their claims for efficacy of homeopathy cannot be evaluated by RCTs.
To summarise, Ms Jahnig has not only failed to offer evidence for her claim, but has also made a claim that is unsupported by the tenets of the treatment system for which she is claiming efficacy.
Rapid Response:
Re: Homeopaths Without Borders practice exploitation not humanitarianism
Christine E. Jahnig wrote: "Provide documented, objective material proving that homeopathy did not normalize my pressures..."
Ms Jahnig appears not to understand where, in a scientific discussion, the burden of proof lies: it is with the person who is making the extraordinary claim. In this instance, the claim is that a concoction that contains no measurable amount of the substance named as being the "remedy" is capable of effecting a cure. Ms Jahnig supports this claim with anecdote and hearsay, but not with evidence.
(NB: I am not disputing Ms Jahnig's claim that her "pressures" were "normalized" after she took a homeopathic "remedy". This could have been due to any number of things, the most likely one being a placebo effect.)
Ms Jahnig also wrote: "In fact, the remedies that reduced my pressures are the most commonly used remedies for these two conditions"
Here we have a problem with the tenets of homeopathy. Leading homeopaths assert that a homeopathic "remedy" has to be "individualised" to the patient, not to the disease. Some other homeopaths suggest that this is only the case for chronic disease (of which hypertension and intraocular pressure are examples). Indeed, this need for individualised "remedies" is one basis of the special pleading employed by homeopaths who use it to assert that their claims for efficacy of homeopathy cannot be evaluated by RCTs.
To summarise, Ms Jahnig has not only failed to offer evidence for her claim, but has also made a claim that is unsupported by the tenets of the treatment system for which she is claiming efficacy.
Competing interests: No competing interests