Comments on: Homeopathy Research Institute – The Highest Scientific Standards…

By: Research into Homeopathy is Unethical | The Quackometer

Research into Homeopathy is Unethical | The Quackometer — Fri, 06 May 2011 21:52:09 +0000

[...] too surprising though, as I have been very critical of the standard of Alex Tournier’s work at the Homeopathy Research Institute. And I have been [...]

By: Just Wondering

Just Wondering — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:09:13 +0000

The duty a doctor to his patient is to make him feel better, if alternative medicine can achieve this then why should we abolish it?

So doctors should be allowed to prescribe copious amounts of marijuana / cocaine / LSD / alcohol if it makes people feel better?

By: Andy Lewis

Andy Lewis — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:09:43 +0000

Ronaldo – perhaps you would like to point out one mistake I have made rather than just rant rubbish?

By: Ronaldo

Ronaldo — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:40:19 +0000

This article is the most deluded load of rubbish I have ever come across on the internet. The author clearly has a weak scientific background, or perhaps is still living in the dark ages.
1) The duty a doctor to his patient is to make him feel better, if alternative medicine can achieve this then why should we abolish it?
2) People like you are of the type who have had their weak minds narrowed further by the pharmaceutical industry, who continually tell us how useless this form of treatment is.
3) If sceptics could just be quiet and let these professionals conduct the research they propose then we can finally find out if this form of medicine is important.
4) Why hasnt research been carried out already, well funding is a problem. Who wants to fund a group of scientists looking into the health benefits of water? I’m guessing thats what you think, don’t undermine these homeopaths, the science is there, however there is a lack of believe as it doesn’t comply with common scientific belief. I suppose like religion, just because we don’t know what happens, scientists immediately say its nothing. Scientists (and I am one) must try and get over the arrogent view that they know everything. Dismissing something that seems to work just because it can’t be explained doesn’t seem like a logical approach to something.

You claim to be knowledgable, but by laying into these scientists as you do, I don’t think you’re forming a credible arguement, just being plane rude. I think if you spent time looking at data you will see some benefits. I am not completely behind this form of treatment and I am aware of some professional telling us it can ‘cure’. But I think people like you are holding back humanity, we need to progress and if you continually prevent the drive and quest for knowledge these people have then I’m sorry you’re doing a bad job as a human being. I suggest in the future get you facts correct before slamming people.

By: NickA

NickA — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:39:00 +0000

To follow up on bobp’s comment – there are plenty of charities that are established as companies limited by guarantee – the fact that it is a guarantee company does not mean that it cannot be charitable. But – I have looked at the Charity Commission’s web site and it is not a registered charity.

By: Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:17:00 +0000

Certainly, claiming that dreadful Rao et al. paper as evidence for homeopathy would seem to indicate a lack of critical thinking.

Is there any indication of what research they’re actually going to conduct?

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:36:00 +0000

It's good to see some French sceptics picking up the very same 'research' nonsense that was reposted on a homeopathy blog...

Le délire de l’homéopathie

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:25:00 +0000

shpalman said, “Is that two page newsletter all they have to show for about half a year of “highest scientific standard” research?”

No, it’s about all they have to show for over 200 years of research.

By: BobP

BobP — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:18:00 +0000

Actually the stated aims identify it as primarily a PR body - the ARH release says that the research will be "about homeopathy as it is practised today". The HRI statement itself is even less specific.

On their "projects" page -
#1 is nothing to do with homeopathy; they are incorporating a homeopathic "trojan" into a conventional follow-up study of breast cancer patients.

and #2 is explicitly to do with PR, researching about but not into homeopathy.

By: le canard noir

le canard noir — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:00:00 +0000

Bob 1 – Logo Added.
Bob 2 – Yes, I think there will be more wonders when we look beneath the covers of the HRI. Homeopaths accuse meof being a paid shill, but the HRI looks as if it does require money. Are they doing this in their spare time? What is the purpose of the HRI if it is not to disseminate reliable information? Why was it set up? Could be funny.