I DON'T reject the rationality of science. I am very glad we have it. I reject FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. Some of the writings in the journals are not written by the scientists themselves. I'll see if I can find some more info on that; I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere. Neither am I suggesting anything is a conspiracy - you are using that word, not me. What I am saying is the method used by scientists to determine what might constitute as "scientific evidence" is not going to work in some cases, because this world involves more than just the laws of science, and even science doesn't know all there is to know, and many times we have seen so-called scientific evidence being disproved many years down the line - SO SCIENCE doesn't have the perfect system, yet, for determining what is possible and what isn't in every case.
I'm sure you'll learn something from the following:
http://www.quantec.ch/english/biocom...y_quantec.html
Sensational study of University of Leipzig
Karen Nieber, a professor of pharmacology, merely wanted to prove that homeopathy doesn't work. She argued that with potencies higher than X 23 not a single molecule of the original tincture could possibly be present, mathematically speaking, and that no pharmacological effect would be possible.
In the search for an experimental setup in which any possible placebo effect can be ruled out, she had a brilliant idea: she put a rat's intestine in a fluid culture medium and used organic threads to fix it to a sensor so that she could measure any shortening of the intestine caused by cramps. Then she added a stimulant (atropine) to the fluid culture medium to produce severe cramps in the rat's intestine. The intestine shrank and the scales showed a strong traction.
When she then added belladonna X 90 to the culture medium, the intestine relaxed and the scales showed less traction. This proved that homeopathy is effective in the absence of any material substances - and in 2003 she won the € 10,000 Hans Heinrich Reckeweg award. Click here to read more about studies that confirm the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments.
The connection to QUANTEC
QUANTEC too works with the homeopathic principle, which concerns more the transmission of information than material substances. And with QUANTEC we have been able to demonstrate several times that it really works.
Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings
www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!
----- Original Message -----
From: homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: [H] Re: Gimpy, Blogs and All
> AND the pharmaceutical companies will ensure this will never be the
> case, not because it lacks scientific evidence, but because they will
> lose millions and all their power. NO WAY will they allow that, and for
> that reason and that reason only THEIR SCIENTISTS are going to "prove"
> no matter what that homeopathy cannot work.
Christine, I know you are trying to rationalise your beliefs by
invoking the existence of a grand conspiracy but there is no conspiracy,
it is your beliefs that need rethought. Scientific findings are written
up in papers and submitted to journals so their veracity can be assessed
by the judgement of their peers. If there was a conspiracy it would be
rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands
of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a
conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of
science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.
--
gimpyblog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gimpyblog's Profile:
http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
View this thread:
Gimpy, Blogs and All