View Single Post
Old 29th November 2007, 09:28 PM   #55
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
[quote=Rolfe;3197860]I agree, none of this comes even close to fitting the criteria for inclusion in this thread. However, as Dana has advanced the brain tumours as being suitable, I'll just cover the small in vivo part of that study again, having now seen the full paper.

[/LE

Thanx Rolfe. You fell right into that trap that I placed for you. You see, you all show the real sloppiness of your thinking about homeopathy by assuming that all homeopathic medicines are beyond Avogadro's number. In fact, the majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies are in the material dose range (under 24X or 12C).

If you now choose to only call homeopathic medicines those that are over Avogadro's number, you'll have to be arrogant enough to create your own dictionary too.

By the way, when Hahnemann first began experimenting with the "law of similars" (I prefer to consider this a type of resonance), he only used "material doses" of medicines for the first 20 years. Only in the last 20 years or so in his life did he begin testing even higher potencies. Initially, he too was extremely skeptical, but being the good scientist that he was, he was more interested in what was true than arm-chair assumptions about what he (or others) thought was true. Not all of us can be this smart.

Now that you call the medicine that was used in these brain cancer cases as non-homeopathy, you all can now start using this non-homeopathic medicines (I won't tell).

Oh...and thanx for coming to the aid of homeopaths by telling us all that THESE brain cancer cases were not "inidivudualized" and didn't have homeopathic "casetaking"--thus, this made these treatments non-homeopathic.

Cool...now you can help me damn that Shang et al "comparison" of the 110 homeopathic and allopathic trials...which got whittled down to the 21 high quality homeopathic trials and ONLY 9 (!) high quality allopathic trials...which then got whittled down to 8 homeopathic trials (7 of which only used a SINGLE MEDICINE without individualization...therefore, according to Rolfe, these trials were not homeopathic) and down to only 6 allopathic trials...which were no longer matched with each other in any way.

Perhaps, SOMEONE can finally tell us which were the 21 homeopathic trials and the 9 allopathic ones. Shang NEVER divulged, most likely because this review would show real benefits from homeopathic treatment. Isn't anyone suspicious of "black box" comparison studies like this? Why are only the homeopaths complaining here about junk science? Hmmmm.

The fact that the Lancet published this junk science just shows you how threatened they are with homeopathy. After all, to put all rationaity and ethics aside just to attack homeopathy suggest some major homeo-phobia. The Lancet does seem to believe in boogeymen.

Come out of the medicine closet people. I know that the people on this list are smart, but smart and narrow-minded isn't smart at all.

I am STILL waiting for someone (!) to speak in defense of the Shang "study." Waiting...waiting...
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top