janic wrote: "I also think that the lobbies believed that as with us, they could impose their laws, but when we push men into their entrenchments, they will no longer respect the rules established by a government , or industrial groups "and who said that?
It's you! that's why I signed it.
thank you for quoting me, but we are still very far from it, and it is a comparison between the USA and France, so it is a bit out of context, because not the same judicial system and not the same culture
In this area, it is everywhere the same thing, whether internally or externally from any country.
you speak of an unknown evil for asbestos, so to whom to attribute an unknown evil?
I'm not talking about unknown evil, but not recognized, which is not the same thing! As for imputing, it's not difficult. In the industrial field, the technologies, except a few too specific, are similar and from which we benefit by multiple similar cases known and listed. For example the mercury or lead industries whose pathologies are very specific and which have been found to correspond to the products used, not to the technologies themselves. So it doesn't take decades to target responsible products.
it is good to make hypotheses or to take facts, but it is completely empirical and it can lead to making serious mistakes, poor Galileo paid the price, he may have proven these words
Do not mix everything! These are known and technologically mastered industrial processes, otherwise it is like comparing automobile accidents linked to the driver with faults specific to the vehicle. So nothing empirical, otherwise never breaks down with your vehicle if you have to wait a century for the mechanic to find out where your breakdown comes from.
so as long as you don't have proof of what you are saying you are sailing blind, and sometimes you can do worse than good, so the same goes for biodynamics to return to the subject, nothing proves its effectiveness,
Remix again! The intoxication by a material and the more subtle form of biodynamics cannot be compared.
but fortunately, the decoctions that we are sure will not hurt, so that you believe it does not cause me any problem because it is safe, you are free to believe in what you want,
I am not a biodynamic and therefore it is not a question of my beliefs, but of the results obtained by its practitioners, who themselves are not in bistro theories, but in the field.
by cons where I do not agree is that we trade, because if you do not provide proof of its effectiveness, selling is for me equivalent to scam
because BP does not trade in your opinion?
Or the scam comes from those who discredit a subject that they have no control over and who want to pretend that they control the results because they have read some papers from a competing industry. So it is not hidden behind a computer desk that the effectiveness of this or that method is measured, but by its application in a real situation which will give, or not, the expected result, whether in biodynamics or agrochemistry .
the government in another area was right to no longer reimburse homeopathy
Remix again!
The reimbursement has only one goal: to dissuade its current users by this non-reimbursement, which will work for some individuals, few users in self-medication.
But its ultimate objective (not governments but the chemical medicine industry) is to prevent its teaching 'in universities, hoping to do away with this technique of care. This is automatically missed because, before the recent success of the H, its users were already non-reimbursed and doctors, trained or not, used it despite everything.
. who has never been able to prove its effectiveness,
There are several ways to check the effectiveness of something: either in labs dedicated to the study of a subject; the other is to verify it in the field, that is to say on voluntary users in order to compare these two methods. And users don't care about lab tests that don't give the expected results, where H gets it in real life.
for biodynamics we could also talk about business is business, we make money on the back of believers and in the genre these companies
of bobobio have nothing to envy to bobobigpharma,
we can put them on the same podium, both to make money, with a big flat,
everything is related to money in our monetized world. Pensions, minimum wage; social assistance, your salary, like the huge profits paid to shareholders. So the “organic boho” like the others do not work for the beautiful eyes of the princess, but to feed their family too. Whether or not their agricultural methods are agreeable to the supporters of all synthetic chemicals in agriculture who also make money to feed their families, it does not matter, it is by the fruits it gives that we recognize a tree.
the bigpharma most of the time proves its effectiveness, while the other never
If you call the 150.000 cancer deaths (plus 140.000 cardio and everything else) that bigpharma has failed to cure (despite all its money) and who have, each year, a small garden of dandelions on their stomachs; a sign of efficiency.? what if they missed even more cases.? As for the other as you say, there is on one side the smear campaigns of BP who fear to lose
client and on the other, the other continues to heal where BP planted. So keep barking, you won't stop the caravan from passing.
A little observation would allow you to see that more and more food manufacturers, make more and more organic, including biodynamic, advertise their products without aluminum, without adjuvants, without preservatives, etc. ... the wind turns and you stay behind like the adversaries of Galileo precisely.
"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