Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    05 May '14 12:14
    http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    enjoy
  2. 05 May '14 12:20
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    enjoy
    LOL
    That's a good one! Also a great message in the small print below that.
  3. 05 May '14 21:38
    Simple and to the point. I like it.
  4. 05 May '14 21:54
    Yes, that's exactly how it works.
  5. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    06 May '14 03:29
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    enjoy
    Less is more.
  6. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    11 May '14 09:23
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    [b]Less is more.[/b]
    No. More is more. Less is, well, less.
  7. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    11 May '14 09:27
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    enjoy
    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.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 May '14 19:56
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    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.
    Short and to the point!
  9. 12 May '14 15:25
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    No. More is more. Less is, well, less.
    I 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.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 May '14 18:44
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    No. More is more. Less is, well, less.
    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.
  11. 12 May '14 19:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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.
  12. 12 May '14 20:15 / 3 edits
    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.
  13. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    12 May '14 21:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    in my experience for I have known a number of persons
    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
  14. 13 May '14 06:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    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
    I 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.

    Hey Forked knight wanna join my clan?

    The Zen Masters - Clan 25203
  15. 13 May '14 07:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    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.
    it 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.

    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!