View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 5th October 2008, 05:51 AM
alach11 alach11 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 14
alach11 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus View Post
I did not suggest this was a comparison - I suggested it was convincing eveidence for homeopathy's efficacy. Yet you imply I am stupid for (not) making this comparison!
What's the point of mentioning it if it has no bearing on modern medicine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus View Post
Who are you to give me orders? Attitutde!
If you can't find a study of a similar standard don't be offended, just admit that there is not evidence to prove the effectiveness of homeopathy in these fields of medicine.[/quote]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus View Post
Traditional medicine means herbs. In relation to pharmaceuticals it suggests bloodletting and the use of crude mercury as a medicine.

The validity of RDBPCTs is currently being discussed on another thread.
Pharmaceuticals have progressed beyond bloodletting in the last few hundred years. Homeopathy hasn't changed much as far as I'm aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus View Post
Of course you are assuming that you need a molecule of original substance for the medicine to work, which might not be the case.
Without a trace of the original substance all you have is pure water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Similibus View Post
homeopathy is a science, and as such can withstand any degree of scruitiny.
I disagree. It does not stand up to mathematical scrutiny as I proved earlier.
Reply With Quote