Corwin

I guess every board needs a peanut gallery.

LordSnooty

I'll be happy to oblige you Corwin. It really is a deeply erotic pleasure.

Check out this link - it's to a UK based homeopathy bulletin board:
<a href="http://www.homeopathyhome.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi" target="_blank">http://www.homeopathyhome.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi</a>

They discuss all aspects of homeopathy, there. If you're lazy (and the evidence indicates that you are), you might want to check this specific link:
<a href="http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=006656" target="_blank">http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=006656</a>

The above link discusses the Horizon programme. It even contains a statement (sixth post down) by the 'Society of Homeopaths'. Incredibly, NOT ONE POSTER claims that the dilution test was irrelevant. They simply indulge in speculation as to how the tests could have been flawed/rigged. There is at least one other thread on this board that has discussed the Horizon programme.

If you want more proof, don't hesitate to ask.
What a fine analogy! The only difference being that evolution has been proven (to the satisfaction of any even remotely intelligent person) to be true. Homeopathy has not. Do you see? Do you see what I did there, in pointing out the 'evidence problem'?
Good idea. If you ignore physics, there's no reason why homeopathy shouldn't work!

Paul

Corwin

Of course it has. And if one uses the same standard for evolution that you're applying to homeopathy... guess what?

It falls apart. For the same reason.

If you don't look for modern evidence gained through modern practices... guess what? You aren't going to find any. (Which is all well and good.... if you want to disprove the point. Terribly scientific of you.)

** watches the point sail over someone's head... gee... what a shock... **

LordSnooty

Show me one shred of evidence that has been obtained through modern practices and has not been fully discredited. Puh-leeeeaaaase.

Incidentally, you ignored the most important part of my post (presumably you couldn't think of any smart-ass remarks when confronted with proof). The bit where I showed that complete dilution is essential. Read it again. You might like to read it several times, until you can understand. Here's the science part - concentrate!
If was a joke. I was mocking you.

Can any long-time board members confirm my suspicious that Corwin is an idiot troll? He appears to ignore evidence and just post drivel, so my assumption is that he's either a troll or mentally enfeebled in some way.

Cheers,

Paul

Leigh

Sorry, Glory, I don't remember which TP novel that bit about homeopathic beer was in. I think it was just one of those throwaway footnotes which aren't really part of the main story - but are actually the funniest part, IMO. It was in reference to the Broken/Mended Drum, IIRC, so it was one of the novels with an Ankh-Morpork setting.(admittedly, that's about half of them)

Leigh

Corwin

Several people on this board have posted their experiences. Of course this is simply anecdotal... but then if you won't do studies, don't bitch when there aren't any.

It's amusing that the people who are most strenuously opposed to research in 'alternative' areas aren't people who have tried something and been burned... but those who have something to lose, or who are simply too hidebound and conservative to consider alternatives.

Yes... ad hominem is such a valid debate technique. It's so much easier to think I'm a troll or that I'm somehow 'stupid.' That means you don't have to question your precious preconceptions....

Remember.... if you don't think about it... it'll go away!

** rolls his eyes and throws up his hands **

Damn fundies.

Mad Kally

<a href="http://www.homeowatch.org/history/fishbein.html" target="_blank"> The Rise and Fall of Homeopathy (1932)
Morris Fishbein, M.D.</a>

<a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html" target="_blank"> Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions. (1842)
--Oliver Wendell Holmes</a>

Corwin

That's nice dear.

Got anything more recent than eighty years ago?

Thank you very much for proving exactly my point.

Mad Kally

Corwin:Thank you very much for proving exactly my point.

The point is that they knew it was bogus way back then.

Corwin: Got anything more recent than eighty years ago?

Go back and read the OP.



<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

LordSnooty

There was a study, you may have read it in the first post... no, wait, I can't be bothered.
Zzzz...
You didn't answer me about the dilution thing. I'm really, genuinely surprised about that. Seriously. I'm amazed.

I'll ignore you now, but if you post any more trolling bullshit then I won't hesitate to report you to a moderator. You might think you're an accomplished attention seeker because of your high post count, but let me tell you - you're just too obvious by half.

Paul