On Fri, 9 May 2008 08:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac
<Jimserac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 6, 10:56 am, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ralph) wrote:
>
>
>Finally someone who can see his
>way past the Randi scam, despite
>Martin's oh so sincere "arguments"
>that it was all OK and on the up and up.
Hi PeterB, are you stalking me now?
And I didn't say it was all on the up and up. All I said that even the
people who were there and had every reason to distrust and discredit
Randi didn't claim he switched anything or did anything tricky.
Benveniste knew exactly who and what Randi was and was extremely
bitter after his failure, but he never accused Randi of anything like
that. Have you ever wondered why?
>There are indeed a number of well established
>"scientific" journals which derive
>great income from "standard" medicine
>and which therefore somehow seem
>to NOT publish, ignore or discredit
>alternative medicine. The most
>famous example is the Lancet, a famous
>British medical journal which, back
>in the late 1980's was still publi****ng
>valid Homeopathy research with successful
>results. All that changed later when
>editor Mad dox launched his anti-homeopathy
>crusade and devoted an issue in 2005 to
>trying to sabotage it - complete with
>an ANONYMOUS editorial entitled the "End of Homeopathy".
Maddox was editor of the Lancet? Do try to get your basic facts right.
Oh I forgot, facts don't matter where you're from.
> About the only thing that ended was the
>respect for Lancet as NUMEROUS people criticized
>the shoddy research, cherry picked results
>and and other distortions of articles in that issue.
>For just ONE of MANY criticisms of the
>research in that issue see this link:
>http://www.hpathy.com/research/bhatia-lancet-homeopathy.asp
Any criticism from uninterested, independent third parties? Of course
not!
>Regarding memory of water - some scientific Homeopathists do not agree
>with this concept and reject it, such as Dr. Vitoulkas.
>There is onging research right now that indicates that it may be possible
based
>on unknown structural properties of water.
>A distinguished scientist by the name of Dr. Rustum Roy, an expert in
materials
>science, has published papers recently sup****tive of it.
>
>Meanwhile, people with chronic diseases for
>which ALL STANDARD MEDICINE TREATMENTS HAVE FAILED continue to see
>Homeopathists, get treated and have positive results - some people
>formerly bedridden are able to resume normal lives.
Anecdotes, but of course no evidence.
> Homeopathy is on the border of the known and the unknown
No it's not. It's known that it had no effect beyond placebo, because
there's nothing in it. There is nothing unknown about homeopathy. The
only amazing thing about it is how people fall for something that even
the slightest bit of common sense can see is utter nonsense.
> and standard scientists and medicinists can't
>handle that so they call it placebo,
No, it's called a placebo because in every trial were homeopathy is
compared with a placebo, there is no difference in effect.
> stamp their feet, jump up and down or
>call on James Randi to show everyone that because it can't beat the
"million dollar challenge"(sic) it must be
>false.
You're making things up again. We're just pointing out that Randi will
pay a million dollars to anyone who can, by any means of their
choosing, tell the difference between plain water and a homeopathic
remedy. The homeopaths have for over 200 years shown to be incapable
of telling the difference between water and one of their remedies. The
question is: why? Try to figure out the answer for yourself.
>Citizen Jimserac
|
