From the other thread:
Originally Posted by JamesGully
The written report states that the 110 conventional medical studies were chosen using a random number generator, and were chosen without knowledge of the trial results. If you wish to claim that all of the researchers are lying, it becomes a trivial exercise to dismiss the scant support for homeopathy with the same claim. Your other criticisms actually support the veracity of the report. If Shang had gone through and selected out the best conventional medicine trials, then they would have fared better in measures of quality.
There are only 110 homeopathy trials, out of thousands, that meet the standard of reasonable quality (controlled, double-blind, randomized). At the time of the study, there were 353,809 medical trials that met that standard. And the only real difference in measures of quality were in the area of “adequate concealment of allocation”; a minor characteristic which wouldn’t be considered substantive. So, how come? Because to do so would have been foolish.
Shang found that both the 21 homeopathic studies and the 9 conventional studies had substantial (and this time the word is appropriate) bias present. Who cares what the studies show? You cannot draw valid conclusions about the treatment in the presence of substantial bias.
Because they were not higher quality studies, and because independent studies should be treated…well…independently.
The largest trials were selected because they were the least influenced by bias. If you continue to insist that large trials cannot be done in homeopathy, then I will continue to point out that it is difficult to draw conclusions from your little trials due to bias.
Really? But none of your complaints are valid.
None of your criticisms stand up to scrutiny, though.