spangles
Bouncy Castle
I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this on - i'm no fan of big pharma - but i do know that if big pharma could prove homeopathy worked beyond placebo, they'd be making millions out of it (after all, the profit margins on water and sugar pills are almost limitless), so why aren't they? clinical studies have to hold their results to scrutiny by scientists worldwide, including scientists paid by the opposition to disprove their findings. that's the whole point of the scientific method (which I am a big fan of) - everything is looked at with scepticism and judged only on results which can be replicated. Test, test, and test again - and then make all your methodologies and results available to the whole scientific community, otherwise you'll be discredited.
which is not to play down the placebo effect. or even the nocebo effect (where people are told that the pills / medicine they are taking is just a placebo, and it *still* works in a small number of them) amazing thing, the psyche. But it doesn't work on an acceptable proportion of people, and it can't reliably be replicated in controlled (or uncontrolled) conditions.
As for other complementary therapies (herbal remedies, supplements and the like), some of them work and become part of the received wisdom - some are taken on by the pharmaceutical companies (eg: willow bark=aspirin). Nutrition is an area where new theories have to be created regularly to make people's names (just like research chemistry, but often with less testing) - which leaves it vulnerable to awful quacks with no real qualifications like Gillian McKeith passing off utter scientific impossibilities as her own ground-breaking discoveries. One of the major reasons I put faith in CD is that it came from a research science background, and was subject to proper clinical trials, and it comes with a huge evidence-base. Like I say, i think there are correlative reasons why some diets work (anything that makes you concentrate on what you're eating and bans fatty/sugary, processed foods will likely lead to weight loss) - but that doesn't mean they're causative.
which is not to play down the placebo effect. or even the nocebo effect (where people are told that the pills / medicine they are taking is just a placebo, and it *still* works in a small number of them) amazing thing, the psyche. But it doesn't work on an acceptable proportion of people, and it can't reliably be replicated in controlled (or uncontrolled) conditions.
As for other complementary therapies (herbal remedies, supplements and the like), some of them work and become part of the received wisdom - some are taken on by the pharmaceutical companies (eg: willow bark=aspirin). Nutrition is an area where new theories have to be created regularly to make people's names (just like research chemistry, but often with less testing) - which leaves it vulnerable to awful quacks with no real qualifications like Gillian McKeith passing off utter scientific impossibilities as her own ground-breaking discoveries. One of the major reasons I put faith in CD is that it came from a research science background, and was subject to proper clinical trials, and it comes with a huge evidence-base. Like I say, i think there are correlative reasons why some diets work (anything that makes you concentrate on what you're eating and bans fatty/sugary, processed foods will likely lead to weight loss) - but that doesn't mean they're causative.