No, I have not gone away yet, but I am just about to do so, not because I am "broken," but because this conversation is broken. While some of you may be a tad diplomatic, you still are so entrenched in your position, you don't even consider that you may be wrong.
When you make statements that apply more strongly to yourself than to those you intend to insult, you run the risk of inducing a fit of the giggles in your audience. There is only so much of this sweet torture we can withstand, after all.
I can and will assert that homeopathy is without merit if or when there is adequate evidence to prove it so, but the body of evidence (basic science, clinical research, AND historical empirical evidence) weighs much more heavily for homeopathy than against it.
You know that can't be true, else you wouldn't need to convince us.
And because GOOD scientists have humility and because I have not yet found a good scientist on this list (arrogance limits vision), this conversation is boring.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. I can think of many counter-examples, and I cannot think why it would be necessary considering that humility will be thrust upon you once you start doing/saying silly and stupid things.
My previous longer posts were from a forthcoming book. I'm sorry if I do not have the time to include all of the references, but please know that what I've written is true. It is classic that all of you assume that I am "wrong," without even asking me to be more specific. This is part and parcel of your unscientific thinking processes (you are right; others are wrong). My references to Holmes' writing is from his collection of essays, not just one. The fact that you all will quibble with what he said or didn't say WITHOUT knowing the facts (and again, without humility) is typical of your mindset.
You've been caught in too many outright lies. And I like how you failed to mention the part about how further investigation confirmed the initial suspicion that you were lying yet again.
The worst that you seem to say is that I am "quote mining." Because I have no interest in quoting ALL of Holmes' work, how else can a writer quote work without being specific to one statement or another. Every quote from Holmes that I found could be found in other writing of his in slightly different language (THAT is not quote mining...YOUR critique is a weak effort to create a defense...a VERY weak effort).
You misunderstand. "Quote mining" is when you compile a selection of quotes, taken out-of-context, in order to provide the illusion of support, which obscures (or reverses) the original meaning of the text - i.e. what you did to Dr. Holmes.
I have provided evidence of the work of Rustom Roy, PhD (I mentioned that he had 13 papers published in NATURE, and I got attacked for not knowing that he had actually had 15 papers published in NATURE). His 2005 paper on water structure comes from some of world's leading scientists who understand WATER STRUCTURE, and I told you to watch out for a 2007 paper in which he conducts experiments that verify his previous writings on the subject. I could have provided you with a URL to a presentation on this new research, but I couldn't help but notice that no one inquired about what this new research was (the people on this list do not really want to learn; you want to attack, and you want to feel superior).
You do realize that this is recorded, right?
I referenced Rey's work in one of the most respected physics journals in the world, and the worst that could be said was quoted from Benveniste (who you normally attack!)...this "worst" statement is that the study wasn't blinded. So, if I fly and show the world that I can fly, you would say that it isn't true because I (or you!) wasn't blinded. Some physical phenomena, like Rey's work, cannot be influenced by belief, and it is not necessary to have every basic science study be blinded (especially in physics--don't take this out of context).
We've heard that excuse before. And yet we still have the Magically Disappearing Results Show when blinding is introduced. I'll ignore that your example shows a profound misunderstanding of what blinding means - presumably you were too rushed (or tired or impaired) to come up with a valid example.
The Elia work is substantial and remains unrebutted...despite many references to this being forthcoming.
Cute. It is the
criticism of the Elia work that you have yet to rebutt.
The influenza studies have been replicated by 3 independent groups of researchers. There have been 4 studies on allergic conditions by a group at the University of Glasgow and 3 studies on childhood diarrhea.
None of which provided convincing evidence for the effectiveness of any specially prepared water.
Even the CHEST study on COPD is weakly criticized. When you consider the results of that study (P<.0007), the initial state of the homeopathic treated group was still substantially significant (not just "significantly" different than the placebo group).
A weak criticism is something like "the exact details of how the allocation was hidden weren't described". The discovery that the two groups were different
before the treatment was given (meaning that the differences after treatment cannot be solely attributed to that treatment (if at all)) would be considered a moderate to strong criticism.
I cannot help but sense that most of the people on this are a bit like that angry SAM guy. He can blame homeopathy all he wants, but I know that we all know that his wife left him for good reasons that have nothing to do with homeopathy. I cannot help but sense that you folks were kidded as children for being smart-alec nerds, and now, you want to get back at anyone and everyone who simply has a different worldview.
I know you're trying to get this particular insult to stick (you've floated it several times now), but you aren't getting any takers. Maybe try something new? I'd get pissed off if you accused me of getting my medical info from WebMD, for example. Well, not now, but you get the idea.
Mr. Monkey has STILL not evolved and is still asking the same innane questions about some machine that I have never heard of...and yet, he insists that I answer this questions.
Because the skills and understanding necessary to answer those questions are also necessary to the evaluation of homeopathy. And the kinds of mistakes you make suggests that you do not have those skills. By asking you those questions, he's giving you the benefit of the doubt by providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.
Linda
