Homeopathy researcher criticised over ‘misconduct’ in drug trial

jhe great thing about dealing with a homeopathic researcher accused of misconduct is that all you need to do is bring in10,000 non- medical non-researchers and also just one homeopath and you have sorted the problem.

This is interesting. The person supplying research should not be part of the belief system of that being researched. The research provided by the company controlling HS2 would certainly fall into that category; and yet nothing has been said by any academic institution about the ethics involved in the research involved in, and surrounding the building of such a large project. Why is that. Discuss.

So, if an individual deliberately falsifies or corrupts the data from an experiment and then knowingly uses that data to write up a PhD and is subsequently exposed for their actions, should the awarding body rescind the PhD?

Even WITH cheating "the study found no statistically significant clinical improvements among those taking homeopathic treatments compared with those on a placebo".

Having watched this (and similar dust-ups in related areas of pseudoscience) for decades I cannot get past the simple, uncomplicated fact that homeopathy cannot work. It is not possible and the core belief that water can somehow maintain a memory of a compound that has been diluted into nonexistence is ... well, just ridiculous. But irrational beliefs still abound in these fields. Jim Alcock and I recently published an analysis of the similarly pseudoscientific field of parapsychology in the American Psychologist. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31453-001