Homeopathic excuses

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://www.hpathy.com/research/shere-proving-homeopathy.asp

Hans and I have exchange a few PMs connected with this link, but I think it is of sufficiently broad interest to warrant a public thread.

It is interesting to see that bach has taken on board the fact that homeopathy is amenable to testing. The obstacles he lists are all true, as far as I can see, but he presents them as if they are giant problems as opposed to trivial co-founders that would not adversely affect any demonstration of a biologically meaningful main effect.

The other interesting thing is that previously he has adamantly refused to believe in the necessity of controlled trials, preferring what he calls "clinical evidence" i.e. accumulated anecdotes that are all predicated on the assumption that homeopathy works and thus any clinical outcome can be interpreted by homeopathy's narrative rules, which as we have previously discussed renders it unfalsifiable provided they do not look outside their own box.

[Mojo]

Of course, another implication is the fact that the homeopath, “treating” the control group, may after awhile conclude that his patient is in fact taking only placebo, from the lack of any clinical response, good or ill, over a sustained period of time and numerous prescriptions. In this circumstance, it is possible that the trial will come to an early end, by identification of the placebo group, and this, in fact, could form the basis for an interesting, testable hypothesis of its own! Well, why not perform the trial and see if they really can tell the difference? If they can reliably identify the placebo group, they will be able to gain access to a source of funding for their future research!

The only way to find out, of course, is to perform the trial.