Exnihiloest »25/11/20, 22:33
Janic wrote:
This is highly scientific, we can not doubt it!
Indeed, CQFD.
What do we say? Indeed!
And it is much more scientific than homeopathic medicines, which we know so well that they have no effect.
Who is ON? You?
Millions of patients have seen these effects, supposedly not to exist, for over a century, as they had seen the same effects of A that had not cured them. This technique is also used on animals by veterinarians H, on vegetation by farmers. So either you give credit to those who think that whispering in the ears of horses, in the ears of plants, is "charlatanism" that works effectively or you will have to find a real rational and really scientific explanation.
that they are not given the tests required for real drugs.
This decision does not depend on the faculties directly, but on the governments. A democratic state does not have the role, admittedly, of supporting one industry or another, but of protecting the health of populations, without a priori caste. Because as powerful as the pharmaceutical industry is in the whole world, the legislators are not in their boots… shod. However, the role of laboratory tests is to verify, first of all, the
toxicity medication . But checking non-toxic drugs would be absurd and expensive for nothing. So the legislator decided that beyond the second Hahnemanian dilution there could be no toxicity of any product, including for the toxic drugs of A. If you want to change international law for most countries, feel free!
Finally, the courts convict therapists for charlatanism
out when a patient who could have been treated by a more effective therapy was dissuaded from doing so by that therapist in question. No H, that I know of (who is above all a doctor in allopathy), acts in this way and therefore little, if not no, of trial on this presupposition of charlatanism. The medical associations themselves are as reluctant as governments to take a clear and solid position on the subject. Indeed, the growing number of patients having recourse to it, after having been abandoned by conventional medicine, underlines the benefits of this non-violent or toxic medicine (even if it would be a supposed placebo! Which medicine A uses) besides!) and long live placebology in this case, the medicine of the future!
So who is ON? Big pharma? [*] They are not stupid enough to credit themselves with incompetence so they
accuse others, not themselves of being charlatans, despite their many failures of care. This is of the highest scientific level ... but without proof as usual.
What would be the interest of testing a powder of perlimpine which we know that the effect is placebo and that there is no more risk than with powdered sugar?
Re question: who is ON?
If Doctors H really believed in the effectiveness of their perlimpine powders, I am sure he would request the same clinical trials for their drugs as for the others.
Roughly, to use the analogy, as if the navy considered that aviation, which does not require the same tests as ships, would be charlatanism by this fact alone. The day the ships have wings we will talk about it again.
Oh, the intellectual level below the daisies.
But they know they can't prove anything beyond the placebo effect. Charlatans, but not idiots.
That, on the other hand, is stupid indeed! As stupid as saying the navy can't prove ships fly. Charlatans but not idiots! Unlike some, follow my gaze!
graduates have every right not to say the same as their faculties, so tell me, do you think any medical graduate calls H. quacks?
the diplomas
or not in anything (especially) have every right to say bullshit like the others, there is no prohibition to that since you do it permanently and no need to be a doctor for that!
Janic wrote:
and spit out a lot of extra bullshit, but you're used to it! After the charlatans H, here are the universities which do bobology to lie to future patients in hospital. Also tell them that they are crooks, you are no longer close!
Does a university have the legal right to act in this way by outlawing itself? I doubt it and you don't know anything about it, like the rest of it. But the gratuitous and false accusations you are not close!
if it was illegal to tell anything, astrology would also be prohibited.
Astrology is not a medical discipline, in case you didn't realize it, where doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath: (not astrologers)
The Hippocratic oath, as it is still taken in medical schools during the thesis defense, is as follows: " In the presence of the masters of this School and in front of the effigy of Hippocrates, I promise and I swear to be faithful to the laws of honor and probity in the practice of medicine. » hypocrisy and lies are hardly a part of it. but you are not a doctor so YOU can afford it and you use it extensively
Once again, giving children sugar to make them forget their sores is perfectly legal.
When it is practiced by a doctor instead of a drug, with a patient, it does not obey the oath above.
Now that parents put sugar in the bowl of chocolate and in the jam, none of them even need to be a dietitian or nutritionist to do that, but they don't do medicine! Do you see the difference? It is unlikely, moreover!
[*] guess who wrote that?
they are so scared of fake news, or have been recovered by big pharma or transformed into Radio-Elysée, that they have become incapable of the slightest critical spirit. Servile self-righteous people are better off serving soup.@Obamot
All that is peak, you try to slash it, right?
He seeks to slash everything he ignores, especially! You know the story of the fly of the boat who believes by doing BZZZ, BZZZ that it is she who makes the boat move forward!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
No. Nothing special, you have to develop your previous reasoning.