Memorandum submitted by Sue Young HO 51

 

 

I watched with dismay as the bias against homeopathy was given free reign in your Commission on homeopathy the other day - Can someone please enlighten me how the supposed 'placebo effect' is relevant to the following:

 

Animal studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-animal-studies/

 

Plant studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/

 

In vitro studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-in-vitro-and-related-studies/

 

Physics and chemistry studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-physics-and-chemistry-studies/

 

Fungus studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2009/10/maria-curie-sklodowska-university-in-poland-proves-homeopathy/

 

DNA studies?

http://avilian.co.uk/2009/09/luc-montagnier-foundation-proves-homeopathy-works/

 

Charles Darwin's work with drosera?

http://avilian.co.uk/2009/03/charles-darwin-proved-homeopathic-dilutions/

 

Please also see

http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-meta-analysis/

 

The latest Shang et all meta analysis done in 2005 is very biased, has a very small sample size and does not quote its sources, and turns all the earlier meta analysis, carefully conducted with large sample sizes and which do quote their sources, in favour of homeopathy upside down - this is very poor science and quite obviously malicious.

 

I do trust you can see the vast ecomonic forces fueling this auto de fe against homeopathy, which is based on lies, more lies, spin and mistruth.

 

Sue Young RSHom

 

November 2009