A quiet typical homeopathic reponse. Assuming I haven't studied it & tried it and criticising on that basis.
extraordinarymedicine.org certainly tried to debunk it, but remember those same writers were fine with the admission criteria before publication because it seems they truly belived it would come down on the side of homepathy. Then when it didn't they were outraged by the studies ommited. Studies ommited by the very criteria they thought would back them up. Same goes for D.Ullman.
None of these people (with the possible exception of Dr Peter Fisher) will enter into a debate of the flaws of shang. Fisher (although I don't agree with him) at least has a try at constructive debate, even if his hasn't performed well.
Comment Reply
A quiet typical homeopathic reponse. Assuming I haven't studied it & tried it and criticising on that basis.
extraordinarymedicine.org certainly tried to debunk it, but remember those same writers were fine with the admission criteria before publication because it seems they truly belived it would come down on the side of homepathy. Then when it didn't they were outraged by the studies ommited. Studies ommited by the very criteria they thought would back them up. Same goes for D.Ullman.
None of these people (with the possible exception of Dr Peter Fisher) will enter into a debate of the flaws of shang. Fisher (although I don't agree with him) at least has a try at constructive debate, even if his hasn't performed well.
January 20, 2012 - 11:30amThis Comment
Reply