Assertion: belladonna | /r/HasAspect | clinical effects
Facets:
Source sentences:
text: Yes, my objection is that the present wording cites a source that states there are studies (with their own limitations) suggesting homeopathic atropa belladonna may have clinical effects, but the present article concludes, "there is no support for any clinical effect of ultramolecular homeopathy within this model.
text: In 2003, the largest double-blind randomized controlled trial (RTC) conducted for homeopathic proving concluded that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo.
text: In 2003, the largest double-blind randomized controlled trial (RTC) conducted for homeopathic proving concluded that 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo implies that other properly run studies that reached contradictory conclusions exist, even though none do.
text: I believe it is more scientifically accurate and also significantly compelling to state that a recent large well controlled study concluded, "30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo.
text: A recent large scientific study concluded 30C homeopathic atropa belladonna has no clinical effects that would distinguish it from a placebo.