You were doing so well before embarassing yourself by quoting gaia-health. As I've already said, I've no interest in defending the bad behaviour of big pharmeceuticals, (do I really have to repeat myself on this?) it has no effect on the efficacy of homeopathy and is a distraction from the fact that homeopathy cannot be shown to work.
If you'd like to post a link where my analysis crops up on another site in that form please do so. And even if it does you could try and answer it rather than say, "oh someone else says that", but do go ahead anyway.
As for anonymous bebunking, They have contributed NOTHING to this discussion save pedalling the same tired lines which I've already addressed. Their attempts to dismiss the scientific value are typical of someone who doesn't get the importance of the studies or knows that they doesn't go in their favor. I'm surprised you support anonymous in this as you DO seem to understand the need for scientific validation.Accordingly I'm won't respond to them anymore unless something new is contributed.
Finally by the basophile do you mean Ennis' basophil experiment?
The one nobody else seems to be able to rectify and even she remains skeptical of. The one Dana Ullman hates BBC Horizon and others for because it was so publically debunked?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=124309
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e5kt2v0fjrwy65kh/
If you mean a different one please post a link, and I'll read it.
Comment Reply
You were doing so well before embarassing yourself by quoting gaia-health. As I've already said, I've no interest in defending the bad behaviour of big pharmeceuticals, (do I really have to repeat myself on this?) it has no effect on the efficacy of homeopathy and is a distraction from the fact that homeopathy cannot be shown to work.
If you'd like to post a link where my analysis crops up on another site in that form please do so. And even if it does you could try and answer it rather than say, "oh someone else says that", but do go ahead anyway.
As for anonymous bebunking, They have contributed NOTHING to this discussion save pedalling the same tired lines which I've already addressed. Their attempts to dismiss the scientific value are typical of someone who doesn't get the importance of the studies or knows that they doesn't go in their favor. I'm surprised you support anonymous in this as you DO seem to understand the need for scientific validation.Accordingly I'm won't respond to them anymore unless something new is contributed.
Finally by the basophile do you mean Ennis' basophil experiment?
The one nobody else seems to be able to rectify and even she remains skeptical of. The one Dana Ullman hates BBC Horizon and others for because it was so publically debunked?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=124309
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e5kt2v0fjrwy65kh/
If you mean a different one please post a link, and I'll read it.
February 13, 2012 - 11:02amThis Comment
Reply