|
liamcavin (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
So your argument is: AMA were found guilty of doing wrong to chiropractors, therefore must also be guilty of doing wrong to homeopathy, therefore all evidence against homeopathy is invalid? Although to be fair to you, that is a strawman of my own.
den151redbank (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Anyone who is dissuaded from trying and using homeopathy has had something very precious stolen from them. They just don't know it. After ten years of experience with it I can say it is the most wonderfully healing and effective medicine I could have imagined. It treats the most serious and the most common acute illnesses. Millions of people all over the world have given the same testimony for 200 years. HOMEOPATHY WORKS ON ALL LEVELS.
wizzardssleeve (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
What a bewildering strawman statement. The only person who is referencing the AMA is you.
Other people are relying on the reams of quality studies and meta-analyses that have been done of homeopathy (including those by homeopaths), all of which show it doesn't work. And the fact there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence to support it that isn't anecdotal.
But apparently none of that is "worth debating" :) That wouldn't be because you *can't* debate it, would it?
BriscoCountyJr23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Perhaps if there was something other than the AMA's stance on homeopathy, then there would be something worth debating.
BriscoCountyJr23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Nothing speaks clearer than the Courts ruling against the AMA for falsifying studies to make competing medical systems look bad.
k0ekjebakker (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
yep, you are saying if millions believe in something it must work or be true, well than 400 years ago everyone believed the world was flat! was that true? I am not a ''hater'' but I am sceptical
wizzardssleeve (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's not "some times in testing" that it fails. If we're talking methodologically sound studies, it's "all times in testing".
Will I be convinced? Well that depends on the reason, doesn't it? If it's some going to be vague unsubstantiated claim that it's because of quantum mechanics then no, I won't be. If it's a solid verifiable reason then I might be.
So, lets have the reason please.
And answers to my other two questions whilst you're at it.
liamcavin (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Come on Brisco surely you can do better than that. Can you post your thoughts please in an original format and not just copy?
dd1857's demented posts might not make much sense but at least he is original.
dd1857 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yep I Know why some times in Testing on the Diseses it fail..
I know that so will give you the reson but will that satisfy you..Or you will still go ahead with your ideas??
wizzardssleeve (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'll take it that's a "no", you're not going to answer my questions, shall I?
I'll also take it that the reason for that is that - despite having claimed to have done loads of research into this topic - you can't cite even study you find persuasive, provide one argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy, and have no explanation for why it doesn't work when tested.
Is that fair to say? |
