Tyrone Biggums wrote:
>>Read it and weep, gullible dolt.
>
> The sample is ridiculous.

Ipse dixit and completely IGNORANT. The sample wasn't 65 people, as you
stupidly suggest. Keep reading if you haven't killfiled me yet, moron.

> I have 15+ years of research experience.

In what field? And why do you not comprehend the nature of the
meta-analysis of this study?

> 65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic
> factors, environment, etc. etc. etc.

Whoa, dumb ass. The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies: "110
homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were
analysed."

The *MEDIAN SIZE* was 65 -- but the studies had anywhere from 10 to 1573
participants. And before you get all carried away in mocking that which
you clearly didn't comprehend, keep in mind these were studies which
purportedly showed benefits of homeopathy (i.e., sugar pills). This
meta-analysis found that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect
of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

> This "study" is a sad joke

No, it's actually illustrative.

> and proves nothing.

You mean aside from the fact that sugar pills have can have a placebo
effect (if they have any effect at all)?

> Try again.

YOU try again, dummy. It wasn't a "study of 65 people," it was a
meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy studies compared to 110 allopathic
studies with a median size of 65 participants (range of 10-1573). You
didn't even comprehend that, did you, pussy.

> Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too.

Is ignorance really bliss?