Combo meds

[Shannon Nelson]

Hmmmmmmmmm..... (drumming fingers...) Okay, I look forward to hearing.
You'll have to sue a whole lot of the population of several countries too, tho, and cases going back a couple of hundred years....
)

[Shannon Nelson]

Yes, thanks for correcting my mistake.

[John Harvey]

Well, that's the belief I asked you, but you didn't have time, to give grounds for. You know, dictionaries do reflect common usage. Strange, isn't it, that none of them define homoeopathy in a way that might include any of the delusional practices defended on this list?

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

If you want me to continue this at *all* for now, please rephrase this without derogatory terms in it. I just don't have the patience to keep filtering at the moment.

[John Harvey]

Easy enough to make, especially when details aren't available. It would have been nice to know the potencies involved in these experiments, wouldn't it, or at least whether they were high enough to be ultramolecular.

Cheers --

John

[Theresa Partington]

Thank you Fran. This is what you sent me before and I see that the reference is to Weber, Endier etc 2008.
On the UK Society of Homeopaths website they quote experiments where potentised thyroxine actually retarded the develoment of the tadpoles without the presence of thyroxine having stimulated it first. That appears to have been published in Homeopathy in 2004 by Guedes in Brazil and replicated other experiments. So we are talking about two different experiments, it would appear. One where Pot thyr was acting negatively on developing animal and one where it appeared to antitode thyroxine in the water or in the animal. (And was itself antidoted before being put in the water by mobile phone radiation in an extension of the experiment...).
I need to think about this. I am still a bit taken aback by the 2004 findings!
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

[John Harvey]

As per your request, Shannon:
I'm sorry if you consider "delusionary" a pejorative term; it's merely a term that accurately refers to convincing substitution of unreality for reality.

Now, to the point: have you considered why it might be that no dictionary appears to have caught up with your international survey of the misunderstanding of homoeopathy as being a free-for-all that you say is more common now than a true understanding of its meaning?

Could it possibly be that you have been suckered?

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

Well, I was looking for an excuse to bow out again, and this fills it nicely. Thanks! I'm sure we'll have another go at a later time.
Cheers.

[John Harvey]

Hmm. Well, you might like at least to consider how to most reliably check your impression, if that impression requires that all the dictionary-makers have been suckered. It doesn't seem entirely likely, does it. Maybe it's possible that they haven't.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .