[H] Isaac Golden's 2nd Response on Homeoprophylaxis
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:22 pm
>X-ClientAddr: 211.29.132.144
[snip -
Isaac Golden wrote:]
weren't
[snip]
Just to be clear, it was 210 practitioners nationwide who responded to that
survey, and another 322 who were mailed the questionnaire didn't bother
replying, so I'm not sure Mr Golden's statistics truly reflect what actually
happens in practice here in Australia.
Such is the nature of statistical reporting.
I thought the 8 questions on the survey were framed rather poorly. The
'yes or no, 'not sure', choices made it difficult to accurately answer the
questions in the wider definition of homoeoprophylaxis.
Yes, additional comments were invited on the survey , but how these
comments were evaluated and tabulated into statistics by Mr Golden is not
clear, at least in the follow-up article in Similia Vol 14, No. 2.
Looking forward to a more indepth analysis.
Chris
Suburban homoeopath.
B. Hom. AHA. AROH. PTGOHOPE.
[snip -
Isaac Golden wrote:]
weren't
[snip]
Just to be clear, it was 210 practitioners nationwide who responded to that
survey, and another 322 who were mailed the questionnaire didn't bother
replying, so I'm not sure Mr Golden's statistics truly reflect what actually
happens in practice here in Australia.
Such is the nature of statistical reporting.
I thought the 8 questions on the survey were framed rather poorly. The
'yes or no, 'not sure', choices made it difficult to accurately answer the
questions in the wider definition of homoeoprophylaxis.
Yes, additional comments were invited on the survey , but how these
comments were evaluated and tabulated into statistics by Mr Golden is not
clear, at least in the follow-up article in Similia Vol 14, No. 2.
Looking forward to a more indepth analysis.
Chris
Suburban homoeopath.
B. Hom. AHA. AROH. PTGOHOPE.