History Marc Machin copy seems to explain the difference between evidence and testimony.
When I say that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo, we always oppose the "evidence" of effectiveness such as: "My son had asthma and since he takes the homoeoamplicons he left! "Or" There are thousands of people relieved by homeopathy. "This is not proof, they are only as evidence and scientific proof, it's worthless.
Marc Machin's conviction demonstrates that a witness may always be biased. Sometimes totally inexplicable. Understand how an innocent person can accept blame for a murder he did not commit? Why do medical stories told by some patients are so different from the reality?
A proof is something else. This is something that can be reproduced exactly. A DNA test proves it. You can do it again ten times, you have ten times the same result. You can do it again by others and you'll still have the same result.
A scientific study may be evidence, if properly constructed. If you study the action of paracetamol against pain with a beautiful study, you will always get a share of paracetamol than placebo. By cons, if you ask people their experiences of paracetamol, you who will say that "nothing else to calm" and those who will tell you that "it does not bother me."
say that homeopathy has not proved its effectiveness is not an insult against the followers of the small granules, but a fact. All testimony will change nothing.
Thank you for your interest to the blog of Dr. V. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment