Ringworm On Cats When Healing

GWUP Conference 2009: Interview with Amardeo Sarma, CEO of professional "skeptics"

the end of May at the Hamburg Museum of Ethnology, the GWUP 2009 Conference under the theme "Science under fire" instead. Association Board Amardeo Sarma said in an interview with GWUP.WATCH what it's all in his central presentation "of evidence - Why do psychics and alternative medicine call for new rules" about. This interview is fictional. It has been so ever and is intended as satire.



Mr. Sarma They have in May 2008, Prof. Dr. Stefan Willich of Charite University Hospital Berlin indirect reports, he would manipulate study results (1) . There you have so far no written document in which you prove your allegations unfounded. Get the last on the GWUP Conference 2009 in?

Amardeo Sarma: you overdo it. Had someone asked me, I would have given him my press release (2) explained very well. The message has, however, in the last 11 months, leading to almost no media interest.

Why did not your allegations in a scientific Work specified in detail and published in a scientific publishing house?

Amardeo Sarma: Well, the press release was deliberately exaggerate somewhat to the demands of the media business needs. With such delicate conflicts it has advantages when you leave as few written traces. As part of a scientific publication, I should have more objective and also clarify the controversy. So that they would become too complicated for mass media and uninteresting.

Spiegel, Focus, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt - all key media have Willich your allegations against Professor and the Berlin Charité ignored, although they were so simple, striking and "media-friendly". Just think of your clever choice of words: "genuflect to the alternative medicine lobby."

Amardeo Sarma: Yes, I find it very unsatisfactory. That with the "kneeling" show I can.

Well then get away with it. Who fits in scientific methods such as accurately? Who falls to his knees?

Amardeo Sarma: Professor Willich expressed in 2006 in the German Medical Journal to the effect that he no longer randomized controlled trials as the exclusive wants criterion for judging the effectiveness of use of new therapies. He calls instead for "pragmatic" approaches. In other words, Willich wants to leave the high academic standards and low quality RCT study types - level off - so-called pragmatic trials (3) .

This is your interpretation. Do you have Mr. Willich in advance of your press release given the opportunity to make its views clear? Have you Willich interest in a substantive, constructive and respectful dialogue with the Lord?

Amardeo Sarma: What you are supposed to have a dialogue. The criticism of RCT-Willich is obvious and scandalous.

This is again your interpretation. Subject of an objective and constructive dialogue with Mr. Willich it might be to discuss his perspective in a respectful manner and without personal attacks.

Amardeo Sarma: Sorry. I have no interest. With people who adapt scientific methods as long as the needs of alternative medicine until they achieve the results that do, the representatives of complementary medicine, I lead no dialogue.

But if you have no dialogue, then you can not learn if you might fundamentally . Err

Amardeo Sarma: The GWUP has over 870 scientists and science lovers. We are not wrong.

In the field of medical research, you have not a single scientist (4) . Your interpretation of the statements of Prof. Willich is also wrong and downright hair-raising. Willich has in the German Medical Journal (5) suggest that lead RCTs have serious vulnerabilities, self-induced distortions of the results and must therefore be supplemented by supply studies.

Amardeo Sarma: Prof. Edzard Ernst me explained it differently.

Why you so scared to share their expertise with Stefan Willich?

Amardeo Sarma: Stefan Willich is a dangerous pseudo-scientists, the scientific methods while adapting to the needs of alternative medicine until they achieve the results that do, the representatives of complementary medicine.

If you avoid a dialogue with Willich, then you will never know if you're wrong. Willich care researcher and his views are 100% consistent with the Advisory Council on Assessment of Developments in the health (6) .

Amardeo Sarma: What do you think about it, I do not care.

say why that call psychics and alternative medicine new rules? RCTs have been criticized by health services researchers and parapsychologists have to do with this topic at all.

Amardeo Sarma: This is also clear to me. In the media business but it has advantages, if we have a supply of researchers such as Prof. Stefan Willich bring linguistically related to the ugly term "parapsychology". The surrounds him with an aura of the trivial.

you think, even if it is totally inappropriate ... some dirt stuck?

Amardeo Sarma: The have told you (smiles ).

Mr. Sarma, thanks for this interesting conversation.
.
Important Note: This interview has been so ever and is intended as satire. All answers are hypothetical and not from GWUP Board Amardeo Sarma.

The blog went the way on 8 H. May 2009 on the background the Causa Sarma / Willich Reviews "Amardeo Sarma, homeopathy, and randomized controlled trials (RCT)"

Read also:
Krista Federspiel & Amardeo Sarma in Munchausen's review: "Anthroposophical Medicine"
.
About the Association GWUP eV:
ass Watch: wiki entry "GWUP"
.

Extra Large Vanity Mirrors

"GWUP criticized new Chair of Complementary Medicine at the Charité. Legitimate criticism and character assassination?

On 23 May 2008 published the "Skeptics" Society GWUP a press release in which board Amardeo Sarma the internationally approved social physicians and epidemiologists Prof. Dr. Stefan Willich from the University Hospital of the Berlin Charité indirect reports, he would manipulate the study results. Amardeo Sarma has not explained his statements to date, concrete and supported by sound arguments.


The "skeptics" GWUP club is known for its lurid, tendentious and often arrogant press releases. What consisting entirely of non-scientists Association Board (1) but on 23rd May 2008 the circulation, violates the principles of good scientific practice and the Press Code (2) of the German Press Council. Under the heading "GWUP criticized new Chair of Complementary Medicine at the Charité (3) it states:

" As a bow to the alternative medicine lobby criticized the Society for the Scientific Investigation of Para Sciences (GWUP eV) the circumstances of the establishment of an endowed professorship for "Complementary Medicine at the Charité in Berlin."
"Scientific methods will appear as long as the needs of alternative medicine are adjusted until they get the results seek the representatives of complementary medicine. "
Getting statements from participants and leaders of the Charité, as Stefan Willich, however, promised for the adherence to scientific standards, little good."

The critical passages in the press release do have the character a permissible expression (4) . Formulations such as "kneeling" and "until they achieve the results that do, the representatives of complementary medicine" , however, can be interpreted as indirect subordination of scientific manipulation. They may Stefan Willich "make or degrade in contempt of public opinion" (5) . As is always classify GWUP press release law, an aspect is simply outrageous:

The association GWUP e. V. has to date failed to explain concrete and valid evidence of what exactly led him to his allegations.

Who is right in front of whom the reason for the knee? Who fits in scientific methods such as accurately? Those who leave just as scientific standards? The "skeptics" Club GWUP answer questions of this kind and persevering with stony silence. On his website (6) he offers no evidence. Only the non-specialist mathematicians and ao. University Professor Ulrich Berger (7) of Vienna University of Economics was to three - adventurous - willing to speak:


from In his second July 2008 (8) Ulrich Berger responds:

"as is" primarily ideologically motivated layman "I have, unfortunately, still no official reply from the GWUP to convey,"


In a commentary dated 7th July 2008 (9) Ulrich Berger writes:

"Dear Mr. Fritzsche,
it's not that complicated how to present it here. The "imputation of missing scientific competence and integrity with respect to Prof. Dr. Stefan Willich" is neither "indirect" or "legal language", it simply exists only in your imagination.
How should I contact with the ammunition to support objects of your imagination? And above all: why the "


In a science blog-Article 2? November 2008 (10) speculated Ulrich Berger:

"The fact that cohort studies such as those by Witt et al 2005 will be advertised in the lecture notes as evidence of the effectiveness of Homöoapthie confirms my view the criticism of GWUP (And other) on the establishment of the finally with Dr. Witt occupied endowed chair at the Berlin Charité.

Ulrich Berger seems at first view, that would be appropriate here somehow a defining and explaining Amardeo Sarma. A week later he tried to pull himself through language acrobatics from the affair. The choice of words "kneeling" and "until they get the results, which do the representatives of complementary medicine," he strip out completely. And in November 2008 he is an explorer: A published at the Medical University of Vienna script gives information about the quality of research at the University Hospital the Berlin Charité.

And the earth is flat ...

Read also: GWUP Conference 2009: Interview with Amardeo Sarma, CEO of professional "skeptics"
.
About the Association GWUP eV:
ass Watch: wiki entry "GWUP"
.

How Many Oz Of Indian Hair For A Full Head

Discussion to. Univ. Prof. Ulrich Berger

Performs ao. Univ. Prof. Ulrich Berger a fanatic and self-righteous religious war, as claimed by GWUP.WATCH on 08.04.2009 (1) ? Are the "Society for Critical Thinking" and the club GWUP e. V. able to objectively, rationally and constructively deal with criticism? To address this issue today and in a new (just announced here first) blog posts.



Ao. Univ. Prof. Ulrich Berger and many of his club friends are masters of handing out, condemnation, polemical. They overwhelm the objects of their often fanatical religious war with scorn, malice, and partly justified, partly, however, unjustified and grossly exaggerated criticism. But if they are asked to give an account of the style of their criticism and the criteria of their sentences, they turn out regularly as oversensitive and criticism incompetent interlocutor.

So also in the controversy surrounding Ulrich Berger. Heinz Oberhummer , like Berger Member of the Society for Critical Thinking "and" skeptic "organization GWUP, is his friend in a club comment to help. Purely argumentative, he is either unable or unwilling to respond to specific arguments and details of the controversy. Oberhummer writes in his commentary:

"If, like Ulrich Berger reveals pseudo-science and mysticism, and this spread in a blog, science defends against such nonsense. Then turn the tables and those who defend the science, with fundamentalists compare, to put them as dogmatic and ideological conflicts that have a certain audacity. "has
Oberhummer expressed his binary thinking springing logic, that the act of" uncovering Age "Ulrich Berger in his view, makes immune to criticism. The question of whether a supposed "New Age-detection" may also spread even pseudo-science and in approaches is a charlatan is in Oberhummer not allowed, even as a "brazen" titled.

comes across with his argument, Heinz Oberhummer as a textbook-dogmatist. Dogmatism is defined as: "adjustment with its steep slope, views, the conflict of their own, strictly rejected without having the ability to use information to others for themselves. " In the case of Ulrich Berger, this means that a" skeptic "is by definition immune from criticism. A discussion of the style and the scientific basis of the supposed "New Age-uncovering" Berger is not allowed.

Instead of finally taking on the individual arguments of Berger's criticism of position, Upper lobster is seen in a third (for lack of reasonableness deleted) comment that responds again not a single word on the specific criticisms and instead using fundamental allegations and insults ends.

What does not create an astrophysicist Heinz Oberhummer either intellectually or emotionally (an objective, dispassionate discussion of the criticism of Ulrich Berger) catches up with another anonymous commentator after at least in part. He manifested that he is Prof. Stefan N. Willich and Esowatch Esoblog question or criticism of Ulrich Berger can not understand. This is a substantive and legitimate contribution to the discussion.

GWUP.WATCH declines in the next blog article comprehensively and with the necessary references to the issues raised in this comment questions.
.
About the Association GWUP eV:
ass Watch: wiki entry "GWUP"
.

Gas Furnace Themostat

Open-Source Collaboration The

When searching for an appropriate technology for a platform for our project is really just Open - Source in question ( justification ). The community of people on a professional basis Commons develops and grows in many areas there are really good Open - Source software.

need for our project, we have a developable social - community solution. On the quest for it, I'm Elgg . Org encountered that might initially look
a good impression. However, since we still can not say exactly
which features meet the program schlussentlich must
is difficult to assess whether the approach, with the Elgg works for our purposes is the right one. After all Elgg was 2008 by the Computerwoche as the best Open - excellent source tool for collaboration ...