The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives

[ABC2019]

The problem comes precisely from the fact that you take the doctors H for assholes, incapable of knowing how to distinguish, after 12 years of medical studies, a placebo effect from a drug effect. .

in this case you have an even bigger problem, since this is what you think of the vast majority of doctors who do not believe in homeopathy.

on the contrary, there are no problems from doctors to doctors whatever their specialty.

I wonder if you understand what you read sometimes. Doctors opposed to H. say that the H. has no more results than placebo, it is written black on white. So are they right, or wrong? it can't be both!

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homéopathie
It's wikipedia where everyone can tell what they want, and it's also a way to discredit a competitor.

not at all, wikipedia gives references that you can go and see and check if you have any doubts. That's what the references are for.

[Janic]

on the contrary, there are no problems from doctor to doctor whatever their specialty.

I wonder if you understand what you read sometimes. Doctors opposed to H. [*] say that H. has no more results than placebo, It's written in black and white. So are they right, or wrong? it can't be both!

as you point out THE opponents, not THE supporters to whom this kind of article does not refer. It is as if an article of the same kind was written by the butchery industry denigrating vegetarianism or better veganism. How many of its authors would be VGL? No ! and therefore they would defend only their sector only, not the practitioners of this food mode which they denigrate without having practiced the least of its aspects. So in general it’s those who ignore the most, who talk about it the most as if they know something about it, of which you mainly, in H. and probably in VGL also as a non-practitioner.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homéopathie
It's wikipedia where everyone can tell what they want, and it's also a way to discredit a competitor.

not at all, wikipedia gives references that you can go and see and check if you have any doubts. That's what the references are for.

It gives the references of their fellows, none of their opponents. Find, in politics, a party praising its opponents in this area: no ! It would be suicidal. There it is the same thing! Intelligent people will realize that it is oriented towards the defense of a system, without compensation, the others will continue to believe that Wikipedia is a bible with its evangelists of a new model.

[*] in this area as in others, there are those who say and those who do.
50 years ago no pharmacy made H except on order (and still), today all even in places where there is no Homeopath, like my little town.
Non-homeopathic doctors also make familial H by indicating such or such remedy H by saying to themselves that "if it doesn't do good, it doesn't hurt"to use the formula and sometimes notice, that indeed, it is not placebo as they have been told and repeated in anti H advertising marketing. And opponents in principle, they then become non-adversaries, c This is how H spread at its beginnings, by first-hand observation, in the field of patients, from doctor to doctor, long before they were trained in universities.

[ABC2019]

on the contrary, there are no problems from doctor to doctor whatever their specialty.

I wonder if you understand what you read sometimes. Doctors opposed to H. [*] say that H. has no more results than placebo, It's written in black and white. So are they right, or wrong? it can't be both!

as you point out THE opponents, not THE supporters to whom this kind of article does not refer. It is as if an article of the same kind was written by the butchery industry denigrating vegetarianism or better veganism.

So you confirm that the doctors opposed to H. are "assholes, unable to distinguish, after 12 years of medical studies, a placebo effect from a drug effect." Is that right?

[ABC2019]

It gives the references of their fellows, none of their opponents. .

that's not the question. I tell you that they give references, that is to say that you can check what those who do not think like you have really said. You may not agree, but at least you are sure that is what they said.

What you don't do.

[Janic]

So you confirm that the doctors opposed to H. are "assholes, unable to distinguish, after 12 years of medical studies, a placebo effect from a drug effect." Is that right?

you should stop your day and night handjobs by projecting your fantasies onto others.

Janic wrote:
He gives the references of their fellows, none of their opponents. .

that's not the question.

On the contrary, when we want appear honest, (but is that their goal?) is to maintain a balance between points of view, but there is only one.

I tell you that they give references, that is to say that you can check what those who do not think like you have really said. You may not agree, but at least you are sure that is what they said.

It is obvious how a political party will abound in references (which it will have invented itself) not those of its opponents

What you don't do.

if you want information, you will seek it in the right place, that is to say with the competent organizations, it is elementary. Or did you take the same step on the H ?,I tell you that they give references, that is to say that you can check what those who do not think like you have really said. You may not agree, but at least you are sure that is what they said.
For example I have industrial skills and even if I tinker with my cars, I do not take myself for a reference in this area. However, for all competent information, it is necessary to contact the garage owners, or even the manufacturers. Do the same, instead of playing the flies!

[ABC2019]

So you confirm that the doctors opposed to H. are "assholes, unable to distinguish, after 12 years of medical studies, a placebo effect from a drug effect." Is that right?

you should stop your day and night handjobs by projecting your fantasies onto others.

you really are not clear, these doctors write black on white that the H. is no more successful than a placebo effect, so are they right, or are they wrong? if we could get a clear answer from you, that would be cool!

For the references, I don't know what their purpose is, but I just note that they give them, which makes it possible to discuss them, whether or not we agree with these references.

[ABC2019]

Or did you do the same approach on the H?, [I] [u] I tell you that they give references, ie you can check what those who do not think like you really said.

saying it is good, proving it is even better, and for that you just have to post a link of a page where there are references, which I did for Wikipedia. How else to know that this is not a simple bluff on your part?

if you don't understand the problem in a discussion to post only arguments that could be exactly the same if you had nothing to say, I don't know how to explain it to you better.

[Janic]

you really are not clear, these doctors write black on white that the H. is no more successful than a placebo effect, so are they right, or are they wrong? if we could get a clear answer from you, that would be cool!

it is however clear from the beginning: are they homeopaths themselves? What are their qualifications in H to write this kind of nonsense? How long did they have it not practiced?

For the references, I don't know what their purpose is, but I just note that they give them, which makes it possible to discuss them, whether or not we agree with these references.

one cannot argue with ignorant people. I took a 4 hour crash course in QM, so I'm qualified to say it's "placebo" compared to conventional mechanics. It would be enough that I said it and wrote it for you to believe it so really, you are qualified in MQ.

[pedrodelavega]

it is however clear from the beginning: are they homeopaths themselves? What are their qualifications in H to write this kind of nonsense? How long did they have it not practiced?

You do not need to have practiced or understood the principles of how homeopathy works to see its effects.

[ABC2019]

[quote = "janic" it is however clear from the beginning: are they homeopaths themselves? What are their qualifications in H to write this kind of nonsense? How long did they have it not practiced?

There is no need to have practiced or understand the operating principles of homeopathy to see the effects. [/ Quote]
nor to ask where are the studies proving its effectiveness, and in addition you were given the names of homeopathic doctors who, having looked into the question of where are the studies proving its effectiveness, did not find any and concluded that it was just placebo

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Grams

these people there know perfectly what homeopathy is, they know it inside out, they admit being wrong, and they know very well that if others believe in it, it is not because they know about studies that others do not know, but it is that they do not care if they have an education or not.

So if I have to designate charlatans, it is those who claim to know the action of a drug without having studies at their disposal.