In post 284 I thought it was a mistake until I looked up the article Malik referenced. Once again the journal was not given. Very suspicious.
From Malik's posting:
That set off bells and whistles. While looking for the source of this obvious bad study and to verify it was as bad as Malik posted I ran into this:
http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/tag/scientific-method/
This person has already done a good job of verifying how bad the study was. In fact, the participants knew the purpose of the study and knew what they received!
At the given URL, the reader of the study says:
So by my count Malik has only posted 1 study suggesting the value of homeopathy. Can the 5% false positive level be broken? Doubtful.
From Malik's posting:
The study was designed as an international, multi-centre, comparative cohort study of non-randomised design.
That set off bells and whistles. While looking for the source of this obvious bad study and to verify it was as bad as Malik posted I ran into this:
http://skepfeeds.wordpress.com/tag/scientific-method/
This person has already done a good job of verifying how bad the study was. In fact, the participants knew the purpose of the study and knew what they received!
At the given URL, the reader of the study says:
Fun Fact – 81% of the patients in the homeopathy group had chosen homeopathy and the results from the homeopathy group were…drum roll….86.9% reported complete recovery. Can you say placebo?
So by my count Malik has only posted 1 study suggesting the value of homeopathy. Can the 5% false positive level be broken? Doubtful.