janic wrote: If you read what you said
It is not because you indicate something that it is true: You need figures, sources
.
.therefore:
http://www.cedh.org/data/media/file/int ... OUN-VF.pdfInteresting for its graphics and treatments given as:
"Symptomatic treatment
Tarentula15 CH, KaliumBromatum15 CH for agitation, lack of verbal and visual communication, Ignatia30 CH for anger and Lachesis30 CH for aggression with self-harm. Medorrhinum30 CH for agitation, Silicea30 CH for ENT infections and delayed acquisitions.
Field treatment:
Lycopodium30 CH 1 weekly dose for anorexia, recurrent ENT infections, familial ATCD of metabolic diseases with atopy and digestive disorders. "http://www.homeopathe.org/Docupdf/Autisme2015.pdf"In the space of two years, I was able to treat about twenty pure autism cases, including 16
usable files with a follow-up of at least a year, and I must admit that the results are
surprising: all children except one are well improved, none wanted to stop the
treatment due to adverse side effects, and especially 6 cases are so spectacular that the
children are considered out of the autism spectrum, what i had never seen in
all my pediatric career."https://www.contre-info.com/on-peut-gue ... ent-glauzy"Dear Dr Tinus Smits, when did you first become interested in autism?
My interest in autism came from the first experience of detoxification of children, victims of vaccines. I have found that autistic children suffer from attention deficit disorder. They show hyperactivity, mood changes and aggressiveness. By detoxifying the body of the vaccines received, we obtain a complete cure.
What are the causes of autism?
I came to this conclusion after using CEASE homeopathic therapy on autism cases of different levels of severity. My hope led me to deduce that autism is a multifactorial pathology, 70% attributable to vaccines, 25% to the administration of drugs or other toxic substances, especially during pregnancy. It is only in 5% of cases that this disorder is caused by organic pathologies. "http://homeoclassique.com/?p=533"
In the case of our son, traditional medicine had nothing to offer. We used speech and language therapy, but alongside these types of behavioral therapies, traditional medicine had nothing to offer us."
http://www.plantes-et-sante.fr/soignez/ ... l-efficaceetc ....
janic wrote: ALL the studies done by allopaths incompetent in homeopathy.
How do you know?
Just as I know that avionics studies are not done by naval engineers.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
etc ...
janic wrote: The industry is not your strong it seems and you regularly confuse. It is not a question of efficiency, first, but of STUDY, of design. Efficiency measures do not come until much later, but without confusion of specialty.
The studies that have been discussed since the beginning of the debate are clinical studies to measure effectiveness. You quoted it yourself below.
Of course it is a question of measuring efficiency, but NOT according to the criteria that A wants to impose and which are valid ONLY for its products.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
Bis repetita: clinical trials of A are not suitable and applicable to H.
janic wrote: The conventional, standardized methods in question are not applicable to homeopathy as the doctors say and repeat. So no one can say that even by putting wings on a submarine, it could fly according to conventional, standardized methods of aviation: it cannot work.
The classic, standardized methods in question are not the design / manufacturing methods (airplane wing on a submarine ???). These are the methods for assessing the reliability of effectiveness as you mentioned below
janic wrote: “The CLASSIC, STANDARDIZED and accepted methods relating to the evaluation of the reliability of the effectiveness of therapies have been implemented. This work was supervised by the commission on homeopathy, set up by the NHMRC ”
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article2436This does not preclude the fact that
if it is according to the criteria established BY THE H. and therefore classic, standardized and accepted
BY THEIR PROFESSION, his assessment may be valid.janic wrote: clinical trials of allopathy are not applicable to H; but if the H defines its own criteria in phase III, this poses no problem.
You always advance a lot of things without link / without source: What are these criteria?
If, instead of seeking to demolish H. you were interested
really to this therapy, you would know!
Where are they defined? How do you know, for example, in the studies you cited if these criteria were applied
Read them first, without a priori (I know it borders on the impossible) and you will know!
NB: just a remark on the cited tests, it is that the H. intervenes
after the failures of A (which is almost without effective means against Autism) and whose results are encouraging to continue on this path in this disease and the rest too. Also interesting since it is not likely to be a placebo since this effect has already been eliminated by previous A. therapies.