Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!

[pedrodelavega]

Proof to the contrary by taking the “worst” of your examples http://www.medecine.unige.ch/enseigneme ... sseurs.pdf

Dsl but this is not proof. It is a report on "Healers in French-speaking Switzerland: Relation with the medical community"
See content of the report.

[Obamot]

It is implied. It scathingly shows that healers are not excluded from official medicine at HUG (and elsewhere). The weird thing is, that doesn't even surprise you. If I show your post to the HUG specialists, they will still have stomach cramps And Professor Calmy as tutor, rhôoooo what a “disappointment” for you ...! It does not appeal to you more than that .... You will tell me so much

There is a directory of healers who have given results in hospitals!

Look a little ...

[Obamot]

apparently Obamot either, whatever his ramblings moreover, it does not adhere to these two proposals either.

ABC2019 and Obamot, it would be good to stop the quibbling ...

That's what I said in “OFF” when it is the others who insult me, it still falls on me!

“I like” your criteria ...! (What are they exactly, if there were any ...)?

[ABC2019]

It is implied. It scathingly shows that healers are not excluded from official medicine at HUG (and elsewhere). The weird thing is, that doesn't even surprise you. If I show your post to the HUG specialists, they will still have stomach cramps .

It's not surprising, we know that the medical world is largely rotten by conflicts of interest, you keep showing it, and the alternative medicine market is still juicy ...

otherwise you have an example of a "tangible" effect which is not "proven", that we understand what you mean by that?

[pedrodelavega]

It is implied.

Well not exactly.

[Obamot]

That's it ... stomach cramps happen last laugh before warning!

[Obamot]

It's not surprising, we know that the medical world is largely rotten by conflicts of interest

Ah finally...!!! You will have taken the time.

Tomorrow you might admit that the definition of lethality seen by the WHO is correct? Who knows?

After tomorrow...

And then who would have told you that I was “for” the use of healers, anyway?

[pedrodelavega]

Tomorrow you might admit that the definition of lethality seen by the WHO is correct? Who knows?

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... .1-fre.pdf

[Obamot]

You could sum it up in one sentence, because I don't have time to spend hours there.

I have already spent time there for notions that have not yet had to be clear to you!

In the meantime, my contacts at HUG / CHUV (even if they are sometimes contradictory and officially guided by political considerations) are enough for me. And this is all the more revealing.

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "25/10/20, 13:01

janic wrote: Of course this is a point of view, a simple opinion; but based on highly publicized assumptions (we wonder by whom ...?) or through personal experimentation, on lived experience? There is no indication that can be used as justification and in this case it is more than an opinion, it is a real belief without real foundation.

as I told you (but that you obviously do not print) this survey is to identify opinions regardless of their validity

hence my comparison with religion or politics (see what is happening in the USA: a beautiful bazaar of contradictory opinions and this country will be ruled by a character in a deeply divided country. And whoever wins will claim to be representative of its inhabitants because it has the authority of the moment.

(do you realize anyway that I put in some proposals that I personally do not share at all?)

Could you do otherwise?

So there is no proof to ask.

On the contrary ! you recommend your opinion against as representative of particular opinions in individuals, most of the time ignorant of the subject, and which seems to release a real majority. It is like too often fakes news taken as is without verification in the field; that is to say among those who practice such or such a particular nonconformist therapy with respect to the current allopathic domination.

But as often, it is those who cry the most at not being understood who are completely locked in their own speeches, without listening to what they are told.

“The hospital that wants to judge charity! "

And as I told you just above, this thread is not to discuss whether homeopathy is valid or not but to identify the different opinions towards you.

So I repeat myself: opinions based on what? On fakes news invented by incompetent people on this subject!
Yet this is the heart of the matter, if only through the formulation of your proposals.

We are still waiting for your proposal if you do not agree with any of those I propose.

It is not a question of knowing if I agree or not with proposals made by a character who does not know the subject and who does nothing but want to give, precisely, an impression of knowledge

Something tells me that we will wait a long time ...

I wait until you really and seriously study this medicine before you write anything like this biased poll.
So to an inaccurate and tendentious formulation, I do not have to add my own. For any authorized opinion only competent people can express themselves with sufficient authority: therefore consult the literature and the regular results of H obtained by thousands of doctors around the world for 150 years ... and abandon your usual fakes news before trying to express yourself on a subject that you know nothing about and that you prefer to continue to ignore.

otherwise you have an example of a "tangible" effect which is not "proven", that we understand what you mean by that?

breathing is a tangible fact, with no proof needed. Evidence (but of what kind) only serves to provide further confirmation of what is tangible.