Irène Grosjean, a danger for naturopathy?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It wasn't Pasteur who sent two notes to the Academy of Sciences in 1858, my dear friend, it was Pouchet... Failed again.

The debate resumed in the middle of the XNUMXth century, revived by Felix Archimede Pouchet, director of the Rouen museum. The latter defends the spontaneous ovulation of mammals, denying the role of sperm in reproduction. In 1858, he sent two notes to the Academy of Sciences, where he defends spontaneous generation, which he describes as heterogeny, then publishes Heterogeny, or Treatise on Spontaneous Generation in 1859.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/blog/11112022/pa ... de=desktop
You're welcome.

Ps: Grilled by SCS who is, without wanting to affirm anything and with the reservation that it must be taken in these cases, undoubtedly a toxic pervert as well. But let's wait for the catch-up at the branches... I'm impatient!

[Obamot]

But that won't change anything guys.

Since some sources invariably attribute the theory to one or the other, Janic cannot be said to have made a mistake. Who's gonna decide this? Well I don't care...the fact is that there are two sources saying two different things.

And there like parasites you are both rubbing your hands to tell you ah ah ah ah there is a contradiction so we crushed Janic.

But we don't give a damn: Janic did not commit a fault. And you didn't run over anyone.

On the other hand, and this is the important point, we see deep inside you the dark intention of rejoicing in someone's failure or mistake! You rub your hands but it's not glorious that.

Is this normal behavior in society?
It's a shame.

And apart from the fact that he's capable of manipulating people, that's what I blame Guy for and who guns him down. forum.

[Ahmed]

Considering language as an approximation with a strong polysemous tendency (even more, if affinities ), it is not totally inadequate, from a global perspective, albeit slightly offbeat, to attribute a postulate to a person different from the authentic author, insofar as the effect of logical symmetry comes into play here fully its role (it could very well have been Pasteurizer, after all, huh, you would be less clever, pov' naz*) and on the other hand it must also be considered that this comes under the inalienable right of opinions, which cannot legitimately be forced to submit to the sad diktat of reality .

*"We are the protest!"

[Janic]

guy

Or the opposite of what you say. It's stupid huh, you were "almost" there...

unlike you, I'm quite willing to acknowledge a misinterpretation of the quote.
But as you have shown the bad example many times, you are inappropriate to sing croaking.
For example, where is the incontrovertible evidence that any vaccine has been able to prevent epidemics. So far, total nothing!
Where are the anatomical proofs that the human being is made to eat bidoche: for the moment total nothingness too!
and I do not go back beyond ... for now!
But, we were at the video of the girl criticizing the book of IG where, with skill it must be recognized, she only aligns fallacies on fallacies without attaching herself to concrete and precise points (like you) of danger naturopathy therefore= trash!

[Obamot]

Considering language as an approximation with a strong polysemous tendency (even more, if affinities ), it is not totally inadequate, from a global perspective, albeit slightly offbeat, to attribute a postulate to a person different from the authentic author, insofar as the effect of logical symmetry comes into play here fully its role (it could very well have been Pasteurizer, after all, huh, you would be less clever, pov' naz*) and on the other hand it must also be considered that this comes under the inalienable right of opinions, which cannot legitimately be forced to submit to the sad diktat of reality .

*"We are the protest!"

Well no:
1) No matter how sarcasm you do, you forget the substance.
2) we are witnessing a conjuring trick and I can easily prove it.
3) you who previously had ethical values ​​here you don't care about our heads with a rhetorical artifice?

Or elsewhere, you're bordering on the lowlands of political stance, you who at the slightest opportunity showed us that you were well above that, well, we don't really know where you are anymore.

[sicetaitsimple]

Since some sources invariably attribute the theory to one or the other, Janic cannot be said to have made a mistake. Who's gonna decide this? Well I don't care...the fact is that there are two sources saying two different things.

Ah good? There would be a source that attributes these notes to Pasteur? Which? Apart from Janic's maybe a little foggy mind, what can happen and no one is going to hold it against him, but it's still him who put the subject on the carpet!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

To the extent that some sources invariably attribute the theory to one or the other...

Since you affirm it, therefore post a source (even rotten) which would attribute this theory (it is indeed a question here of "spontaneous generation") to Pasteur, since he has demonstrated, it is a historical fact, before the floor of the Academy of Sciences, its non-existence. Quote: "I summon you to publish them to try to prove your statements because you are not credible: you have 72 hours!"

[Obamot]

I'm not affirming anything, I'm just observing, observing what? That in this case, again it's you who makes a mess. And when they take your hand in the jam jar, you say you expected it... you're a comedian. Finally no, a storyteller.

Since some sources invariably attribute the theory to one or the other, Janic cannot be said to have made a mistake. Who's gonna decide this? Well I don't care...the fact is that there are two sources saying two different things.

Ah good? There would be a source that attributes these notes to Pasteur? Which? Apart from Janic's maybe a little foggy mind, what can happen and no one is going to hold it against him, but it's still him who put the subject on the carpet!

What is heartbreaking are the mockeries and in this case they are not justified.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

unlike you, I am willing to admit a misinterpretation of the quote.

Well that's good, you're more honest than ObaGPT (note, it's not difficult) and it's all to your credit.

[Obamot]

unlike you, I am willing to admit a misinterpretation of the quote.

Well that's good, you're more honest than ObaGPT (note, it's not difficult) and it's all to your credit.

What a manipulator, that's incredible.
I didn't have to comment on anything, I was content to observe.