Opinions without evidence to support them are worthless.

CitizenJimseracwrote:

On Dec 4, 11:20 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

CitizenJimseracwrote:

On Dec 4, 9:35 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

CitizenJimseracwrote:

On Dec 3, 7:58 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote=

Cosmologists and other leading edge scientists use the word "G=

metaphorically as a sort of in-joke.

Ah! You mean just like those "double blind" studies
that approve drugs such as THIS ONE->

According to a recent report from the FDA Genentech's drug Avast=

not help women with breast cancer live significantly longer, and=

caused serious side effects, including a few deaths.

And yet, you wish to use that same failed testing methodology to=
"approve" Homeopathy? I guess you have faith in your beliefs =

eh?

How is this a response to what he said?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was no rational response because he has none.

You're insane, aren't you?

The poster illustrated this nicely by the expected insults and then
signed out, exactly as I expected.

In other words, you posted a non sequitur to elicte irritation.

No it was not a non sequitur and no it was not to elict irritation.

Yes, it was: "You mean just like those "double blind" studies that
approve drugs such as THIS ONE" is a non sequitur response to
"Cosmologists and other leading edge scientists use the word "God"
metaphorically as a sort of in-joke." It doesn't have anything to do
with what it purportedly is a response to.

My point is that the issue of God's existence, as with the issue of
Homeopathy cannot be directly proved by science.

Actually, "homeopathy" has been refuted by science.

They are unknown things.

How many other unknown things to you believe in?

WE can only observe effects and draw our own conclusions.

What "effects" do you assert have been observed?

Homeopathy MIGHT be proven or disproven at some point in the future.

http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html
. . . In this case, it appeared that a significant reduction in the
symptoms of the homeopathic group, compared with placebo, was shown.
However, a second examination of the protocol [by Dr. Henri Broch,
prominent French author and skeptic] revealed that the first group had
resorted to antihistamines. The same year, another placebo-controlled
study, intended to establish the real efficacy of homeopathy using
Opium 15 C and of Raphanus 5 C, showed that the remedies were
effective only in terms of unverifiable signs. No significant
differences were observed between the homeopathic group, a placebo
group, and patients who were given nothing at all....

...it would appear, a well-known homeopath, Dr. Fritz Donner (assisted
by a pharmacologist and an internist), was ordered to come up with the
necessary proof. However, his findings were not published, and they
were withheld from the medical community for many years. It was only
in 1969 that a translation of the Donner report appeared in a French
magazine, and the results were never published in Germany.

Dr. Henri Broch, who was responsible for the report coming to light,
cites, among other things, two letters from Fritz Donner to,
respectively, E. Unseld, president of the German Association of
Homeopathic Physicians, and H. Sch=C3=B6ler, editor-in-chief of the
Allgemeine hom=C3=B6opathische Zeitung [General Homeopathic Journal]. Thes=

confirm that all of Donner=C2=B4s findings were negative, and that he came=
under pressure to suppress the results of his research. As Donner
himself stated (translated from the French): "One cannot inform
homeopaths about the real nature of homeopathy, nor can one publish it
in a homeopathic journal. In the best homeopathic tradition, anyone
can come up with the most glaring absurdities and they will be
published; in contrast, the fundamentals of an important remedy for
diphtheria will never be published, and the researcher who works on
these sources will be threatened with immediate dismissal." ...

"Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of
chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the
dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult =E2=80=94 the characteristics =

which prevent advances that would change Hahnemann's original
principles. Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological
quality, and are subject to bias. Homeopathic product labels do not
provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although
homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be non-toxic due to
their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html...
The results of clinical trials are published whether they are
favourable or not. Yet, when it comes to homeopathy, the standards of
evidence are highly questionable.

Twenty years ago, I was invited to advise the Blackie Foundation
Trust, a charitable foundation for the advancement of homeopathy, on
clinical trials. I helped them carry out a trial on the effect of
arnica on bruising caused by a traumatic childbirth, versus a placebo.

At the end of the trial, the placebo came out better than the arnica.
Strangely, the results were never published.

This is not a lone case - there have been countless trials of
homeopathic remedies in which they are compared to a placebo, but if
only one positive result in 100 emerges, that is the one cited. This
is, in my opinion, intellectual bankruptcy.

http://www.cinam.net/son1-2-cp.html
Homeopathy is a pseudomedical practice devised and discredited many
years ago. It has gained new popularity among some advocates of
socalled =EF=BF=BDalternative=EF=BF=BD medicine.

Homeopathy involves the mistaken belief that substances have a
stronger effect on the body as they are made more dilute. Homeopaths
also believe that tiny amounts of substances diluted in water or
alcohol obtain mystical=EF=BF=BDhealing energy=EF=BF=BD through vigorous s=

when these solutions are so dilute as to contain only water or
alcohol. Homeopathy=EF=BF=BDs principles have been refuted by the basic
sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology (4). It is
important that any observer of homeopathy understand that belief in
this pseudomedical technique signifies a basic lack of understanding
of the fundamental principles of science.

http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-66/issue-10/564.html
Homeopathy is an unconventional system of medical practice based on
principles developed in the 18th century. The principles of homeopathy
include the belief that disease represents a disturbance in the body=E2=80=

ability to heal itself. =E2=80=9CRemedies=E2=80=9D are determined by notin=

symptoms produced by large doses of a substance in a healthy
individual and applying these substances in highly diluted doses to
relieve the same symptoms (the =E2=80=9Claw of similars=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94=

and the =E2=80=9Claw of infinitesimals=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 the smaller the =

powerful the effect).37 Neither of these =E2=80=9Claws=E2=80=9D has been p=

leaving no basis for homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are made from
various sources (mineral, botanical, etc.) in the form of liquids,
spherical pellets or tablets according to the Homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia of the United States. The substances are diluted with
alcohol or distilled water and vigorously shaken, or ground and
combined with lactose. These substances are then further diluted to
concentrations ranging from 1/105 to 1/1030,37 violating a basic law
of chemistry that limits the dilution that can be made without losing
the original substance altogether (Avogadro=E2=80=99s number, 6.023 x 1023=

Although the principles of homeopathy have been refuted by basic
science and medicine, homeopathic remedies are promoted by physicians,
dentists, pharmacists, naturopaths, health food stores and a variety
of unregulated sources. Reviews of controlled studies of homeopathic
remedies found insufficient evidence that homeopathy is efficacious
for any clinical condition;38-40 however, the clinical effects of
homeopathy were reportedly not completely due to placebo.40 At
present, although well-designed research on homeopathy may be
warranted, funding is difficult to justify for a treatment lacking a
rational basis.

Meanwhile we have these people claiming "scientific" approaches to
everything when their "science" is full of holes.

E.g.?

The appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy.

Actually, and "appeal to autority" is perfectly legitimate, if the
person happens to be an authority in the area in question.

So then in these matters, let the individual decide.

Rather than asking someone who might be an expert in the subject.

I am against one group of people saying that their opinions are
somehow better and therefore others should stop forming their
alternative opinions in matters such as these.

That's nice, except if it happens one person or group's opinion
actually happens to be better.

In these such matters, EVERYONE'S opinion is valid.

How do you come to THAT ridiciulously illogica conclusion? You're
asserting that a fast food cashier's opinion is equally valid in
matter ofs, say, brain surgery, as a brain surgeon's?

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:56:20 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:

Why don't you just *****(tm), instead?

All your fancy, self-important bloviation aside, you're just a silly
little idiot.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*

Plain to see how you've risen to the top of your profession ;-)

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:56:20 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:

Why don't you just *****(tm), instead?

All your fancy, self-important bloviation aside, you're just a silly
little idiot.

Plain to see how you've risen to the top of your profession ;-)

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:57:34 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:m5rpk3tbfjdf99ddc4n0vkd2o26omohlms@4ax.com...

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:32:50 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:52:48 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote:

I have never had a problem communicating with JessHC.
I wonder where your blockage lies?

His colon.

More likely the semi-colon; not many people use them the way I do.

Priest holes?

Excuse me?!? ;)

You know the things.
Cavaties in which Catholic priests hid from searches during the
reformation.