mediator
Technomancer
I wud say "ROFL"! U r actually more talented than ur other brigade member present here.
U posted 4. "Scientific Questionable therapies" the point of which has indeed been debated over. Repeatitions wont help u neways. U underlined the last line ".......we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies", but u forgot to underline the initial clause that says "However until the evidence is available.....".
Isn't the history of success counted as an evidence other than the "explanation"? This statement or any other doesn't imply that "Its bullsheet" neways!!
But neways, one of the lines says, 'Scientific Questionable therapies can be ineffective or even harmful', the next says 'none of the starting material is left in the final solution', so hows it harmful?? U r putting homeopathy as if it falls under the extreme case i.e harmful, to be saying that it is not recommended. And the final line in ur red underlining says, ""However until the evidence is available we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies"? Why shudn't we, if scientifically they r inert? Another line says, "The proposed explanation of why something works may be wrong, yet the therapy itself may have some usefulness via some 'unknown' mechanism".
So instead of linking articles which only tell to be cautious, its better to use ur own brain sometimes!
"The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.
In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent."....previous post!
What do u recommend regular hospitals or the homeopathic ones?
I have been cured by homepoathy and many others likewise. So take my friendly advise and keep ur unnecessary whining & the troll thread to urself that its "bullsheeet"! "Comprehend" what scientific souls are saying. No where they r saying that it is "bullsheet"! It seems the critics, are ignoring the successes again.
I wonder how much u'll repeat this time.
U posted 4. "Scientific Questionable therapies" the point of which has indeed been debated over. Repeatitions wont help u neways. U underlined the last line ".......we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies", but u forgot to underline the initial clause that says "However until the evidence is available.....".
Isn't the history of success counted as an evidence other than the "explanation"? This statement or any other doesn't imply that "Its bullsheet" neways!!
But neways, one of the lines says, 'Scientific Questionable therapies can be ineffective or even harmful', the next says 'none of the starting material is left in the final solution', so hows it harmful?? U r putting homeopathy as if it falls under the extreme case i.e harmful, to be saying that it is not recommended. And the final line in ur red underlining says, ""However until the evidence is available we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies"? Why shudn't we, if scientifically they r inert? Another line says, "The proposed explanation of why something works may be wrong, yet the therapy itself may have some usefulness via some 'unknown' mechanism".
So instead of linking articles which only tell to be cautious, its better to use ur own brain sometimes!
"The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.
In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent."....previous post!
What do u recommend regular hospitals or the homeopathic ones?
I have been cured by homepoathy and many others likewise. So take my friendly advise and keep ur unnecessary whining & the troll thread to urself that its "bullsheeet"! "Comprehend" what scientific souls are saying. No where they r saying that it is "bullsheet"! It seems the critics, are ignoring the successes again.
I wonder how much u'll repeat this time.
Last edited: