The homeopathy explained metaphorically for Dummies

[ABC2019]

Fault ! If some are linked to cover-ups, others are linked to industrial, social, political (like the Levothyrox which made the news) (always the vaccines in question)

this is not contradictory, interests lead to concealment precisely. Which brings down your argument "since H.'s are doctors, they are necessarily credible", since you at the same time accuse other doctors of not being so.

then we should know, are the statistics necessary to affirm things or not?

Very late, after !
Vaccine statistics go back over a century and can, then, show a particular evolution according to the subjects and in this case they become useful

Is that so? and therefore, more than a century after the discovery of H, it would be just as useful to have stats, right? if you claim that it is not the vaccines that have reduced diseases, on the basis of stats studies, what proves to you that H. has been useful so where are the stats studies that prove it?

do not make me believe that you would have a certain partiality in demanding for the vaccines a proof, of which you would dispense H; !!! coming from someone as honest and frank as you, it would be incredible !!!

It's not contradiction, it's just the manipulation everyone uses to support their point of view and you know something about it since you do it too.

don't project your perverse worldview onto others, please. But I find the "you do it also"rather succulent as an admission. For once you were sincere.

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "26/02/20, 01:29

janic wrote: Error! If some are linked to cover-ups, others are linked to industrial, social, political (like the Levothyrox which made the news) (always the vaccines in question)

this is not contradictory, interests lead to concealment precisely. Which brings down your argument "since H.'s are doctors, they are necessarily credible", since you at the same time accuse other doctors of not being so.

As soon as you have written an anerie, you will find an even bigger one to write next.
a) indeed, they are more credible in THEIR field than those who are not. Dixit a cardiology surgeon is more credible in cadiology than a proctologist. Everyone has their specialty and they, at least, know how to make a difference.
b) And therefore in fact those who have not studied and practiced are not. Even a CP kid would understand that! But you no ! Poor France!

then we should know, are the statistics necessary to affirm things or not?

Very late, after!
The statistics on vaccines go back over a century and can, then, show a particular evolution depending on the subjects and in this case they become useful

Is that so? and therefore, more than a century after the discovery of H, it would be just as useful to have stats, right?

CP level again. They exist within the profession, you just need to inquire

if you pretend that it’s not the vaccines that have reduced diseases, based on stats studies,

Myself I pretend nothing. I am not the author of the state statistics and therefore even you can verify it. Oh sorry! you are used to not checking anything and to content yourself with internet fakenews!

what proves to you that H. has been useful so where are the stats studies that prove it?

do not make me believe that you would have a certain partiality in demanding for the vaccines a proof, of which you would dispense H; !!! coming from someone as honest and frank as you, it would be incredible !!!

I don't have to demand anything, by what right, by the way? The evidence in question does not come from me, but from the statisticians themselves, like any good civil servant doing his job, address yourself, again to them, it is accessible to the general public. For the H:
not being a medicine opening, these officials did not have and still do not have the mission to do it, since paid by the State for conventional medicine only? So back to the professionals of the H who only can answer you, what you don't want to do, since your usual fakenews are enough for you.

janic wrote: It's not contradiction, it's just manipulation that everyone uses to support their point of view and you know something since you do it too.

do not project your perverse vision of the world onto others, please.

No need, I just reproduce what tu manifest yourself. Who denigrates H and the rest without knowing anything about it? if it is not manipulation what could be? Unless it is also a lie, an inconsistency, obviously blatant ignorance, but tu shamelessly manipulates reality. And you want to pass yourself off as a paragon of virtue? Only you can believe it!

But I find the "you do it too" enough succulent as confession. For once you were sincere.

Me too!
Me, at least I do not take refuge in a reassuring negationism and that related to what TU do, not to whom or anything else. If you manipulate, that gives me the right to manipulate: if you cheat, to cheat; if you lie, to lie just to speak TON language. If you were honest, ... but I dream, sorry! I would be the same! And like only me is honest obviously , that settles the question!

[ABC2019]

As soon as you have written an anerie, you will find an even bigger one to write next.
a) indeed, they are more credible in THEIR field than those who are not. Dixit a cardiology surgeon is more credible in cadiology than a proctologist. Everyone has their specialty and they, at least, know how to make a difference.
b) And therefore in fact those who have not studied and practiced are not. Even a CP kid would understand that! But you no ! Poor France!

and therefore the proponents of official medicine who use antibiotics and anti cancer drugs are completely credible, since they are specialists who have studied these molecules well.

CP level again. They exist within the profession, you just need to inquire

Since you yourself recognize that you are a non-specialist, and that you claim that non-specialists are not credible, I therefore have no reason to believe your statements. You see I am improving, I apply your principles !!

] I don't have to demand anything, by what right, by the way? The evidence in question does not come from me, but from the statisticians themselves, like any good civil servant doing his job, address yourself, again to them, it is accessible to the general public. For the H:
not being a medicine opening, these officials did not have and still do not have the mission to do it, since paid by the State for conventional medicine only?

so in principle, you admit that statistics are useful for obtaining information on the effectiveness of a product or technique (or its dangers?)

So back to the professionals of the H who only can answer you, what you don't want to do, since your usual fakenews are enough for you.

it is false, I am willing to do it, it is you who gives me no reference when I ask you. And it is also false, I do not spread any fakenews.

] No need, I just reproduce what tu manifest yourself. Who denigrates H and the rest without knowing anything about it? if it is not manipulation what could be?

it is false, I did not denigrate it, on the contrary, I asked to indicate to me where were the studies proving its effectiveness. By asking you that, I took the risk that you tell me, so it's not manipulation on my part. It's just you who refuse to give them, that's all.

Unless it is also a lie, an inconsistency, obviously blatant ignorance, but tu shamelessly manipulates reality. And you want to pass yourself off as a paragon of virtue? Only you can believe it!

But I find the "you do it too" enough succulent as confession. For once you were sincere.

Me too!
Me, at least I do not take refuge in a reassuring negationism and that related to what TU do, not to whom or anything else. If you manipulate, that gives me the right to manipulate: if you cheat, to cheat; if you lie, to lie just to speak TON language. If you were honest, ... but I dream, sorry! I would be the same! And like only me is honest obviously , that settles the question!

So you confirm once again what I said (as always): you only know how to align the assertions that H. are competent, and to insult those who do not believe in it, all the way through, but never state only one piece of objective evidence that the H. be effective. Thank you for confirming and reconfirming again, at each of your posts, my diagnosis .

[Janic]

ABC2019 »26/02/20, 09:55

janic wrote: As soon as you've written an anerie, you find another even bigger one to write next.
a) indeed, they are more credible in THEIR field than those who are not. Dixit a cardiology surgeon is more credible in cadiology than a proctologist. To each his own specialty and EUX, at least, know how to tell the difference.
b) And therefore in fact those who have not studied and practiced are not. Even a CP kid would understand that! But you no ! Poor France

and therefore the proponents of official medicine who use antibiotics and anti cancer drugs are completely credible, since they are specialists who have studied these molecules well.

Obviously since it is their specialty and only within THEIR framework. But outside this framework, their skills stop there as for all professions. So, I repeat, an aviation engineer is competent in aviation, not in the navy, nor vice versa (but he can be interested in it as an amateur of course, but not as a specialist, of course).

CP level again. They exist within the profession, you just need to find out

Since you yourself recognize that you are a non-specialist, and that you claim that non-specialists are not credible, I therefore have no reason to believe your statements. You see I am improving, I apply your principles !!

and so there, and there only, you are right, you must not ME believe. But you can believe the professional doctors in H, who can explain everything you want to know!

so in principle, you admit that statistics are useful for obtaining information on the effectiveness of a product or technique (or its dangers?)

and off we go for a ride! Can you read at least what is written for the nth time. Statistics can only be useful after a sufficient number of cases and over sufficiently long periods to reflect the reality of any subject. Then yes ; YES; YES, they are useful .... APRES only.

So back to the professionals of the H who only can answer you, which you do not want to do, since your usual fakenews are enough for you

.It's wrong, I want to do it, it is you who does not give me any reference when I ask you.

And re blabla; in 10 seconds, I found on the internet what you have not managed to do since you want to drown the fish and I am not an expert in this area. If it is not bad faith, what will it be? But even assuming it, after those 10 seconds, I told you the right professional bodies and what came out of it? your litany: " you did not inform me "Yeah, yeah!

And it is also false, I do not spread any fakenews.

Oh yes ! When we repeat lies without checking them this is called "fake news".
Reread yourself!

No need, I just reproduce what you manifest yourself. Who denigrates H and the rest without knowing anything about it? if it is not manipulation what could be?

that's not true, I didn't denigrate her, on the contrary,

Funny ! I carried over a whole list of TES affirmations, (coming from fakenews found on the internet), it is verifiable since referenced.

I asked to tell me where were the studies proving its effectiveness. By asking you that, I took the risk that you tell me, so it's not manipulation on my part. It's just you who refuse to give them, that's all.

And blah, blah, blah! Is your record scratched? Simply go to the sites indicated!

so you confirm once again what I said (as always): you only know how to align the assertions that H.s are competent,

and blah, blah, blah! Only those with skills, In any domain, are, how to say? … .Competent here, I was looking for the word and therefore not the others. Elementary my dear Watson !

and insult those who don't believe it,

ah, ah, ah; Oh oh oh ! the fantasy! Those who do not believe the skills of the competent are just ... incompetent, that does not insult anyone!

at post length, but never indicating a single objective evidence that the H. be effective.

and blah, blah, blah, the record always scratched! Not only ignorant, but also hypocritical!

Thank you for confirming and reconfirming again, at each of your posts, my diagnosis

And that confirms mine, you suck in H. (and not only) and you want to remain so. This will allow you to continue your fakenews as usual.

[ABC2019]

Obviously since it is their specialty and only within THEIR framework. But outside this framework, their skills stop there as for all professions. So, I repeat, an aviation engineer is competent in aviation, not in the navy, nor vice versa (but he can be interested in it as an amateur of course, but not as a specialist, of course).

and therefore it proves that you did not understand anything that makes the specificity of a scientific approach, which is precisely based on a universal method whatever the field of study - there is no need to be a specialist in a field, to know if it applies scientific methods or not.

And I gave you one of the criteria, extremely simple to verify: the existence of dated references on the experiments having led to the conclusions of this science. This criterion absolutely does not require being a specialist to simply verify that these references exist and are given publicly.

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "26/02/20, 13:44

and therefore it proves that you did not understand anything that makes the specificity of a scientific approach, which is precisely based on a universal method whatever the field of study - there is no need to be a specialist of a domain, to know if it applies scientific methods or not.

Except that you have to be a specialist in a field to measure its real validity. As already said: The Lancet openly recognized that the majority of studies were biased by different aspects. So only a specialist will make the distinction that neither you nor I could make.

And I gave you one of the criteria, extremely simple to verify: the existence of dated references to the experiments that led to the conclusions of this science. This criterion absolutely does not require being a specialist to simply verify that these references exist and are given publicly.

Exactly not precisely because of bias. And these are only knowable by competent specialists. However, pseudo-studies on H are made by non-specialists who want to apply THEIR protocols where these are not adapted to it and which refuse any other than their own. So all your speech breaks your face at the same time!

But in the case of vaccines, precisely, none of your famous criteria have been applied "which is precisely based on a universal method whatever the field of study"- to this new religion and it is precisely verifiable.

[ABC2019]

by ABC2019 "26/02/20, 13:44

and therefore it proves that you did not understand anything that makes the specificity of a scientific approach, which is precisely based on a universal method whatever the field of study - there is no need to be a specialist of a domain, to know if it applies scientific methods or not.

Except that you have to be a specialist in a field to measure its real validity. As already said: The Lancet openly recognized that the majority of studies were biased by different aspects. So only a specialist will make the distinction that neither you nor I could make.

it is part of good scientific practice to avoid or correct biases. But there is no need to be sharp in medicine to realize that studies are biased, it is precisely the methodology that counts, not the discipline to which it applies. And it is still necessary that these studies exist to criticize them !!

And I gave you one of the criteria, extremely simple to verify: the existence of dated references to the experiments that led to the conclusions of this science. This criterion absolutely does not require being a specialist to simply verify that these references exist and are given publicly.

Exactly not precisely because of bias.

you're really totally off the mark. There are biased studies, full of errors (there are many in the history of science), and others done correctly and reproduced many times. But it is still necessary that these studies exist and can be criticized to find out. This is why I tell you that the first condition of a good scientific approach is the existence of studies that we can examine, and possibly criticize. Without cited studies, any criticism is impossible, and therefore it is not scientific.

[ABC2019]

However, pseudo-studies on H are made by non-specialists who want to apply THEIR protocols where these are not adapted to it and which refuse any other than their own. So all your speech breaks your face at the same time!

this is completely false, I just quoted you from a study cited by an H. which "proves" for him the action of H.

http://www.homeopathie-francaise.com/in ... e-grenoble

With Doctor Jobert, we published in the journal Pediatrics in 1990 an article entitled: Aconitis in homeopathic dilution and post-operative agitation of the child.
This article reported on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study performed in the pediatric surgery department with 50 children. It showed that the drug Aconit in homeopathic dilution (4CH) was effective on postoperative agitation in a very significant way (95% of good results with Aconit against 30% with the placebo). Contrary to what critics claim, there are therefore convincing controlled studies in favor of the effectiveness of homeopathy. Science is discreet, but it is indisputable.

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "26/02/20, 17:09

Janic wrote:
However, pseudo-studies on H are carried out by non-specialists who want to apply THEIR protocols where they are not adapted and who refuse any other than their own. So all your speech breaks your face at the same time!

this is completely false, I just quoted you a study cited by a H. who "proves" for him the action of H.

http://www.homeopathie-francaise.com/in ... e-grenoble

except as its author says, it is an exception and he ends his speech by confirming what I wrote

They do not know that the infinitesimal is not essential to homeopathy. That the use of placebo was codified by the creator of homeopathy in 1825!

Homeopathy is also accused of not providing statistical evidence according to modern methods. This can currently only be done by teams comprising statisticians, with means which cannot be available to a doctor who practices outside a teaching hospital.

No reading committee accepts an article on homeopathy unless it says bad things. "What! I see the word "homeopathy" in this article proposal! It is to lose your dentures! Nothing should defile the temple of medicine of which we are the guardians! "

On the other hand, on the shelves of university libraries, not subject to reading committees, one can find homeopathy theses, and awaiting consultation, articles which are not cited by detractors.

The results of homeopaths are only published in their own journals : it is total incommunicability! Apparently, the aftermath of the polemics of incredible violence is not healed, coupled with a "leftist" aspect of certain homeopaths (Fourierism). It is the pursuit of unreasonable hatred.

In 1835, to members of the Academy of Medicine who came to ask him to ban homeopathy, Guizot replied: “Hahnemann is a great scientist; if homeopathy is a chimera or a worthless system, it will fall by itself. If, on the contrary, it is progress, it will spread despite all of our preservation measures, and the Academy of Medicine must wish it before any other, it which has the mission of doing science to encourage discovery.

Are you sure you read it?

[ABC2019]

Homeopathy is also accused of not providing statistical evidence according to modern methods. This can currently only be done by teams comprising statisticians, with means which cannot be available to a doctor who practices outside a teaching hospital.

So you and he would recognize that there aren't really any serious studies available, even though "it's not your fault"? (in contradiction with what is reported above elsewhere ...)
Overall otherwise, the article is the same as your posts, which is not surprising if you share a common culture: an incoherent mix of blah, paranoia, "but we are not like the other scientists but in fact we are like them but in fact we are the victim of ostracism but in fact there are millions of people who believe us "... and the same thing is always missing: credible facts, to the support your beliefs.