The homeopathy explained metaphorically for Dummies

[ABC2019]

Okay, so if you are unable to tell me yourself some significant links where these things are explained (how we do the tests, with which protocols, and what the results are measured), I deduce that you are someone who is capable of believing something hard, but without having any idea yourself of what validates them. In short, a religious type believer, as there are indeed billions on earth.

In this case, continuing this conversation cannot bring anything new, since you are obviously going to loop in this attitude, pretending that these tests exist, but that you are unable to give them to me, but that it is my fault if I don't go get them.

I will gladly resume this conversation with you when you have indicated a link giving this information, so that we can discuss it together. If you don't, it's not worth continuing. Take your granules well but do not abuse them, sucrose is in itself known to have harmful effects on health !!!

https://www.santemagazine.fr/alimentati ... ger-170900

[Janic]

Okay, so if you are unable to tell me yourself some significant links

Ah, ah! even I who suck on the internet, I would be able to find what you are supposed to be looking for! Unless you're the one who can't do it, then I'll give you some basics for that.

where these things are explained (how we do the tests, with what protocols, and what the results are measured), I deduce that you are someone who is capable of believing hard in something, but without having any have your own idea of ​​what validates them. In short, a religious type believer, as there are indeed billions on earth.

Wow ! another call to religion as an excuse for your inability to find information from the right sources! Like what even a doctorate does not make capable of performing such simple acts.
As for your own superstitious beliefs (so as not to get out of your speech) it is no better!

In this case, continuing this conversation cannot bring anything new, since you are obviously going to loop in this attitude, pretending that these tests exist, but that you are unable to give them to me, but that it is my fault if I don't go get them.

Ah, ah, ah! this kind of naive provocation, don't work on me for a long time, you must have realized it!
It is therefore not your fault, (this notion of guilt guilt inheritance from religious speeches for spotty teenagers) precisely) you do not want it that's all and it is your right.

I will gladly resume this conversation with you when you have indicated a link giving this information, so that we can discuss it together.

and hypocrite in addition!
You guys can always run to do the job for you and since you have no desire to discuss but just to convince yourself that you are right to believe in your own conditioning, like all of us!

If you don't, it's not worth continuing.

Count on me not to do it:

Take your granules well but do not abuse them,

No risk if I had to weigh everything I swallowed, it wouldn't even fit in a small spoon.

sucrose is in itself known to have harmful effects on health !!!

My god what horror! Thank you for worrying about my health, but I have been doing it for a long time without your help.
https://www.santemagazine.fr/alimentati ... ger-170900
You see when you want to bother, you can find what you want. Just a little effort and you can even find what I let you look for on your own, like a big boy.

When in SM I practiced well before this magazine exists, and well beyond the few advices which it gives finally, in this N °. But like all these magazines, the old people who created them are dead or retired, and young people today are much more open to new things like healthier food and less chemical treatments, too, and tomorrow they will probably be openly without vaccines, it's just a matter of time to get there and it starts slowly:
https://www.santemagazine.fr/traitement ... ts/vaccins

[Gébé]

Okay, so if you are unable to tell me yourself some significant links where these things are explained (how we do the tests, with which protocols, and what the results are measured), I deduce that you are someone who is capable of believing something hard, but without having any idea yourself of what validates them. In short, a religious type believer, as there are indeed billions on earth.

In this case, continuing this conversation cannot bring anything new, since you are obviously going to loop in this attitude, pretending that these tests exist, but that you are unable to give them to me, but that it is my fault if I don't go get them.

I will gladly resume this conversation with you when you have indicated a link giving this information, so that we can discuss it together. If you don't, it's not worth continuing. Take your granules well but do not abuse them, sucrose is in itself known to have harmful effects on health !!!

https://www.santemagazine.fr/alimentati ... ger-170900

Excellent synthesis of these 27 pages of 262 messages.
The last is an additional illustration

[Janic]

Excellent synthesis of these 27 pages of 262 messages.
The last is an additional illustration

Ah, gebé, if you didn't exist, you should ... not invent yourself!

[Gébé]

Your all-out ad-hominem attacks in no way compensate for the void and / or inconsistency of your sales pitch. Come on, treat yourself, swing us two full basins of more cat porridge seasoned with two good ladles from whoever says who is.

[Janic]

30 / 01 / 20, 18: 08

Your all-out ad-hominem attacks in no way compensate for the void and / or inconsistency of your sales pitch. Come on, treat yourself, swing us two full basins of more cat porridge seasoned with two good ladles from whoever says who is.

Poor honey, it doesn't suit you because you find yourself there in front of a mirror that sends back your image? Condolences!
It is not called attacking but returning the ball to its sender. The tender side of the left cheek after being hit on the right cheek is not my thing.

[ABC2019]

We obviously have two radically different schools of thought that oppose each other,

One who defends scientific thought, and who thinks that scientists are on the whole pretty good scientists.

And the other who claims to defend scientific thought, but who claims that scientists are not scientists.

Which is more consistent, in your opinion?

[Janic]

ABC2019 »30/01/20, 18:38

We obviously have two radically different schools of thought that oppose each other,

Ah, well, that then I hadn't even noticed!

One who defends scientific thought, and who thinks that scientists are on the whole pretty good scientists.

it is not enough to pretend to be scientific to be so. Scientific thinking has an obligation to be neutral, but men by nature are not for many cultural, educational reasons. This is why we find lots of scientists with beliefs in harmony as in opposition to each other or against each other. It doesn't question real science, but human nature. And whether you like it or not, all Hs are scientists by training certified by their official diplomas.

And the other who claims to defend scientific thought, but who claims that scientists are not scientists.

It only exists in your fantasies! Science is one and true scientists, can in no case say this kind of thing, if they really have this scientific thought. But in reality everyone is influenced by their own choices. This is why there are and have been very great scientists opposed by their culture, '(including religious) much more than by the object of their reflection.

Which is more consistent, in your opinion?

question without object other than cultural! Since, for the subject, the scientists H are as coherent as the A in another culture, like the atheists compared to the believers, the blacks or white or yellow or red towards the other skin colors, the VG vis à vis meat people , provaccines with regard to the proletariat of conscience, etc ...

[plasmanu]

I asked my daughter in high school S what she thought about it

IMG_20200130_182015.jpg (239.37 KB) Viewed times 1469

[ABC2019]

question without object other than cultural! Since, for the subject, the scientists H are as coherent as the A in another culture, like the atheists compared to the believers, the blacks or white or yellow or red towards the other skin colors, the VG vis à vis meat people , provaccines with regard to the proletariat of conscience, etc ...

here we come to the bottom of the problem: science is only culture, subjectivity, relativism, a discourse among others, everything is equal ...

Still, it was not with charlatans and magicians that you could have had the computer on which you are typing your answer ... so no, janic: in science, not everything is equal .