@Mooney_Driver
It is the classic mistake (and the main marketing strategy) of homeopathy to confuse anecdotes with science. And of course all users of homeopathy argue that “it is good enough if it works”.
But homeopathy doesn’t work as medicine, or not more than prayers, chocolate or consoling your baby. The Placebo effect is much more than what you describe and for the layman it’s very hard to recognize the difference.
No, Osanit does not contain sugar, because it would not be marketable to kids.
Homeopathy in itself (strong in Germany, because favoured by the Nazis as “New German Medicine” and just as hard to kill as the “Flugleiter”) is a “therapy” developed by a layman in times before chemistry (or the human biochemistry) was even understood and is – solely – based on belief, nothing else. For a start please read the article about H. on German Wikipedia which is very good.
Sure, no problem if your baby stopped crying! But as i said that hardly qualifies as “research”, and you will find just as many parents who will tell you that it never worked.
I personally had two female friends (one a very well known German actress) who had breast cancer in very early stages (survival rate +95 percent at that stage), both were (against many advices) treated with homeopathy, both died within three years. And that happens all the time, in Germany and in Switzerland too – without anybody going to jail for it.
As i said, the book “Trick or Treatment” is the best popular science book about it, if you don’t want to get into the science studies.
When i was at a doctor with one of my kids when they were small and he recommended homeopathy i told him that if i wanted to pray I’d go to church. We never came back. I want evidence based medicine developed by science – only – for my kids. Because the next time it might not be toothache.
Xylitol research proved that it is better for teeth than sugar. Wow ;-) Please read about Xylit, and why your baby maybe stopped crying (what Peter wrote).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
We have to be careful not to generalize as well. Of course there is vital and honest science still around and the advances in medicine and other subjects are important and vital for all of us. But science has become a bit like news at times… there is honest and dedicated research and there is biased and bought b.s. coming out of corrupt research organisations and folks whose goal is not to advance mankind but either advance themselfs no matter how or to press a political agenda. And unfortunately in recent years, politics and science have become enthusiastic bedfellows when it comes to changing society. Which, I may add, is not the job of say atmospheric science nor of medicine and a lot of other subjects.
“still” is understating it (and actually rather insulting). The reason for the (in some sciences) problematic situation is basically two:
Any “corruption” of scientists primarily comes from these circumstances which are mainly outside the control of scientists themselves.
I think I said exactly the same thing 
outside the control of scientists themselves
Except of course working in research is a lifestyle choice, and if the only funding you can get is from Prizer, Glaxo, etc then, ahem, going along with that is also a lifestyle choice. Joining the world’s oldest profession is also, generally, a lifestyle choice 
Where do you think where all the life saving medicine (need some examples? I guess not) is developed? Is it maybe, sometimes, in pharmaceutical companies?
You totally miss my point Alexis.
If a pharma company pays a bunch of researchers to come up with a study showing that say some statin has side effects below x%, with the objective obviously being to create the appearance that the study was unbiased (because few people will believe a study done by the company itself) then that study is obviously flawed. It may not be actually bogus data but who is going to believe it?
That doesn’t prevent it being picked up by various national media, because they are always looking to fill the columns.
Now, how would such a study achieve the “desired result”? Well, a popular method is to give everybody a card on which to write any side effects, and set strict criteria for acceptance of those cards. What will also help is the fact that most of the sample have a sedentary lifestyle (which is why they ended up where they are in the first place) and consequently have all kinds of collateral issues, so they won’t notice if they get a few extra aches and pains. With health correlating with education, some % of the group will have difficulty writing anything legible on the cards. Actually a significant issue is adjusting for the % who cannot read the instructions. Most of them won’t be doing regular (or any) exercise so they won’t notice exercise related muscle pain. And since most people never change their diet no matter how near to death they get (the “everything is fine, in moderation” bollocks advice given out by the UK NHS is merely an acknowledgement of reality) that keeps things ticking along nicely…
Obviously, research can be done well, but it is a lot harder, needs a lot more running around, and if it gets funded by the manufacturer then you are on a slippery slope anyway. So many academics have been discredited in recent years (having been overtly or covertly “bought”) that it is hard to find research that can be believed.
I guess that is a completely different topic now. Very different to comparing scientific research in general and inside companies with prostitution.
Sure there’s black sheep. Just like everywhere. That cannot speak against scientific research.
Let’s leave it that.
Alexis wrote:
Homeopathic “medicines” ARE the rest. You don’t have to do do anything. Dosages like “C200” contain ZERO molecules of the ingrediant on the bottle (google it). “Belladonna C200” and any other one (there’s thousands) … are exactly the same, pure sugar.
If they have been properly manufactured. Then there is also this:
FDA analysis found the levels of atropine and scopolamine in some of the CVS tablets and the levels of scopolamine in some of the Hyland’s tablets far exceeded the amount stated on the products’ labels.
Science: The latest 737 Max is 14% more efficient than the current 737 NG and 20% more efficient than the original 737 NG.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Science: The latest 737 Max …
I would rather call that “development” and economic pressure. The underlying science (e.g. materials which can support greater combustion temperatures, theories on which the aerodynamic refinements are based) is of courses the basis but it was all known and understood when the pre-predecessor of the 737 Max was designed. Only customers did not want to pay for such things then… Also, a big portion of the increased efficiency of the latest 737 comes from the extra rows of seats which they managed to cramp inside.
