Donna, that's amazing!
On a slightly less amusing note I recall one which "proved" that
vitamin E does not prevent heart disease. The daily dose they used to
"prove" this was 40 IU. Could it have been a typo? I'd like to think
so, but who knows? And even 400IU is I believe only considered a
moderate dose. But to a casual reader (or someone who read only the
abstract; or someone unfamiliar with therapeutic dosages) I suppose it
would have looked convincing.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
science of homeopathy
Re: science of homeopathy
Oh those studies that 'prove' the ineffectual nature of E are particularly good (sarcastically said). They most often use a synthetic version of E, or completely fail to disclose what form of E was used in the study. Of course the source, age, and storage are not discussed either. It is exceptionally easy for the pharmaceutically funded research to 'fudge' the basic materials - much less the results - to achieve the desired results. While this is taking the topic beyond the homeopathic focus of the list - it is perhaps good to point out that the 'studies' that others demand as proof of the value of homeopathy - are not a necessarily a standard to which we need to aspire.
-
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: science of homeopathy
Please read "The emerging science of homeopathy" by Signori and Bellavite...
.real hard core conventional scientific demonstration of homeopathy........
not easy reading though.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
.real hard core conventional scientific demonstration of homeopathy........
not easy reading though.....
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: science of homeopathy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD."
wrote:
Bellavite...
homeopathy........
Indeed not easy reading but very interesting at least as far as I
have come and as far as I have understood.
But the fact alone that it has the word Homeopathy in it is already
a reason for most scientists to ignore the book.
The only way to ever come any further in getting homeopathy accepted
is a real discussion with scientists.
We have to research every word and every principle that is used by
homeopaths to see how that can be compared with what is discovered
and known already in science.
As a start it is very important to only explore the basics and not
give just conclusions to each other.
So the word has to be interaction instead of opinion.
Well ofcourse this is just my opinion
Annemieke
wrote:
Bellavite...
homeopathy........
Indeed not easy reading but very interesting at least as far as I
have come and as far as I have understood.
But the fact alone that it has the word Homeopathy in it is already
a reason for most scientists to ignore the book.
The only way to ever come any further in getting homeopathy accepted
is a real discussion with scientists.
We have to research every word and every principle that is used by
homeopaths to see how that can be compared with what is discovered
and known already in science.
As a start it is very important to only explore the basics and not
give just conclusions to each other.
So the word has to be interaction instead of opinion.
Well ofcourse this is just my opinion

Annemieke