11 May 14
Originally posted by PonderableBravo.
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/
enjoy 🙂
You can't imagine what incredible BS I was expecting on that page. It was only your name on the post that made me click it just to see what it could possibly be that you agreed with. I know you to be a reasonably bright man, and so, I was intrigued. Still, I had to laugh once I got there and saw it. 🙂
11 May 14
Originally posted by SuzianneShort and to the point!
Bravo.
You can't imagine what incredible BS I was expecting on that page. It was only your name on the post that made me click it just to see what it could possibly be that you agreed with. I know you to be a reasonably bright man, and so, I was intrigued. Still, I had to laugh once I got there and saw it. 🙂
12 May 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI believe the phrase "less is more" is applied when one wants to convey the general meaning of "less of X here results in more of desirable Y" where X is not Y. You can have less of X and more of Y. When applied to the the OP link here, it can mean something vaguely along the lines "a lot less words here results in more of a concise quick-to-read explanation of the truth"- or something like that.
No. More is more. Less is, well, less.
12 May 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThe homeopathy crowd takes things to extremes, like mixing down chemicals so much there is one molecule of some agent in a glass of water.
No. More is more. Less is, well, less.
I don't know how people can continue to believe that nonsense.
Whatever the molecule they dilute down, there is probably more of those molecules in the air they breathe than in the glass of water they think is helping them.
12 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseHomeopathy is attractive because doctors don't treat the whole person because of constraints on time or the medicines they prescribe are too severe or have too much adverse side effects or they are simply ineffective so people turn to alternative more natural treatments. To say that homeopathy doesn't work is quite erroneous in my experience for I have known a number of persons get well after attending a homeopath.
The homeopathy crowd takes things to extremes, like mixing down chemicals so much there is one molecule of some agent in a glass of water.
I don't know how people can continue to believe that nonsense.
Whatever the molecule they dilute down, there is probably more of those molecules in the air they breathe than in the glass of water they think is helping them.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Homeopathy is attractive because doctors don't treat the whole person because of constraints on time or the medicines they prescribe are too severe or have too much adverse side effects or they are simply ineffective so people turn to alternative more natural treatments. To say that homeopathy doesn't work is quite erroneous in my experience for I have known a number of persons get well after attending a homeopath.
Homeopathy is attractive because doctors don't treat the whole person
“treat the whole person”? What is that supposed to mean? I have several times had a chest infection and had antibiotics to kill it off. The antibiotics killed it off -it worked. Was this treating the “whole” me then or not? -what does that mean and how is it relevant?
or the medicines they prescribe are too severe or have too much adverse side effects or they are simply ineffective
but they are effective at least much of the time while homeopathy, excluding the placebo effect, is always ineffective.
so people turn to alternative more natural treatments.
what has “ natural” got to do with it? How effective a treatment is has nothing to do with how “natural” it is -whatever that is supposed to mean! If being “natural” has an effect and homeopathy is “natural” (and I fail to see what is particularly “natural” about the process! ) then I guess that, if anything, science has proven there that a treatment being “natural” makes it ineffective! -except, actually, it doesn't, because the word “natural” has no scientific meaning in this context!
To say that homeopathy doesn't work is quite erroneous in my experience for I have known a number of persons get well after attending a homeopath.
Science has proven they would have got better if they did NOT attend a homeopath. You have made a false inference here so it is you that is quite erroneous. The false inference here is that if a person takes treatment and gets better then that is an indicator that treatment has made them better BUT this is in despite the clear absence of any scientific evidence that the treatment actually works! How do you know they would have got better without treatment? How do you know they didn't get better because their medical condition was naturally temporary? Many medical are just temporary! Many medical conditions will naturally go away by themselves without treatment due to whatever causing them fading away or the natural healing process or the immune system fighting of the infection etc. I for one have on many occasions recovered from a medical condition without treatment thus, if any proof was needed, proving this to be true.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh, so your completely anecdotal evidence should be trusted, whereas actual double-blind scientific experiments that have been conducted to investigate the matter should not?
in my experience for I have known a number of persons
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
Originally posted by forkedknightI have not said it should be trusted, you are free to distrust it and dismiss it but its almost impossible to refute the fact that they are better.
Ah, so your completely anecdotal evidence should be trusted, whereas actual double-blind scientific experiments that have been conducted to investigate the matter should not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
Hey Forked knight wanna join my clan?
The Zen Masters - Clan 25203
Originally posted by humyit means looking at the person as a whole, i mean how hard can it be to engage your imagination, sleeping patterns, diet, emotional state, environment, all kinds of things not associated with a purely materialistic approach. I was also given a course of antibiotics by my dentist and i ended up in hospital after taking a reaction to them, not sure what your point is.Homeopathy is attractive because doctors don't treat the whole person
“treat the whole person”? What is that supposed to mean? I have several times had a chest infection and had antibiotics to kill it off. The antibiotics killed it off -it worked. Was this treating the “whole” me then or not? -what does that mean and how is it relevant?
...[text shortened]... om a medical condition without treatment thus, if any proof was needed, proving this to be true.
No i disagree i have known person get better after attending a homeopath and some who will not go near a conventional general practitioner and who prefer a much more gentle and sustained form of treatment.
Natural has everything to do with it, one only needs to look at the complicated effects and counter effects of the copious amounts of concoctions of chemicals that are given to people on a daily basis with varying degrees of success. If a gentler and more natural remedy can be found then surely its preferable to the, 'take theses three times a day for the rest of your life', approach.
I have done no such thing, i have known at least three personal friends who became better after having attended a homeopath after 'the God of science' failed them or made them worse! Now like our friend above you are free to distrust and dismiss this anecdotal evidence but you cannot refute it, because it has happened, much to your chagrin i suspect.
Whether it was the direct result of the immune systems resilience or the treatment they received i cannot say, but what i can say is the conventional materialistic approach FAILED them and they were forced to look for alternatives! A bitter pill to swallow if you pardon the pun!