GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... More and more crazy, more and more stupid. That said, without dogmatism.
We can do without your daily health bulletin.
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... More and more crazy, more and more stupid. That said, without dogmatism.
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... go back to watch the replay of "letters and numbers" ...
Exnihiloest wrote:GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... go back to watch the replay of "letters and numbers" ...
Your old schnock references say more about you than me.
Dolores wrote:...
It seems to me that Marc Henry proceeds as follows: he does research work on water and does not draw the conclusions you say about homeopathy. Far from it, and he says that his discoveries and theses do not make it possible to affirm anything whatsoever in this field. But... he will then explain how, starting from there, we could envisage possibilities... to be demonstrated. And in these possible possibilities, a computer uploading, homeo Montagnier type, etc. It disturbs, it annoys, but it is not problematic exposed in this way.
...
We are quite far from: he is a charlatan... we just have an absence of justification for the attempt at replication (and several competing hypotheses are possible).
It's biochemistry mixed with quantum bioelectronics. Without going into these extremely advanced areas but using simple means, I will only tell you this: what he says is completely serious, I have definitively cured myself of a fairly serious illness (which can end in a chair rolling) by applying some of the principles that Professor Marc Henry talks about in his debates and on the web.Dolores wrote:Hello,
There's a vibe here
Just to say that it is possible to carry out interesting research, that it may be fruitful and innovative, and that the researcher (and even more the rest of the informed, here and there) draw hasty conclusions from it or use it to explore other levels of thought (non-scientific, poetic, philosophical, metaphysical, aesthetic, etc.).
It seems to me that he proceeds as follows: he does research work on water and does not draw the conclusions you say about homeopathy. Far from it, and he says that his discoveries and theses do not make it possible to affirm anything whatsoever in this field. But... he will then explain how, starting from there, we could envisage possibilities... to be demonstrated. And in these possible possibilities, a computer uploading, homeo Montagnier type, etc. It disturbs, it annoys, but it is not problematic exposed in this way.
Otherwise I saw that, on a BFM interview, Pascal Charbonnel, vice-president of the College of General Medicine, indicates: (taken in https://menace-theoriste.fr/lhomeopathi ... -medias-1/)
The study referred to by MA Auquier is this one "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance characterization of traditional homeopathically manufactured copper (Cuprum metallicum) and plant (Gelsemium sempervirens) medicines and controls" published in the journal Homeopathy in 2017. The article does not address the question of the biological effects of homeopathic remediesbut is interested in another question, that of the possibility that high dilutions behave differently than just plain water. The study purports to show that these dilutions would cause a change in the structure of the water. It has since been cited 5 times in the scientific literature, only in journals centered around homeopathy. This context makes analysis difficult: the scientific community has not for the time being given credit to this work, and as such this study cannot nowadays be taken as proof of anything. We will have to wait for a replication of these results. before taking them seriously.
We are quite far from: he is a charlatan... we just have an absence of justification for the attempt at replication (and several competing hypotheses are possible).
Back to "Science and Technology"
Users browsing this forum : Macro and 159 guests