Minutus

You want me to tell you in one post what took me 6 years to research and put to paper, summarize it in around 40-50 pages with a explanation showing how I got there?

You clearly demonstrated that you are not interested and not willing to read what others write or what is common knowledge:
- you admitted not having read Roy's paper until recently...why not?
- you did not bother to check anything about deuterium and tritium, just offered your "opinion" and were completely wrong, but presented your argument as if whatever you said was the pure truth and reality
- you were not "aware" of the different receptors, did not bother to check something that I learned more than 30 years ago in second year of medical school

Basically, you emit opinions and thoughts as facts in a preposterous, pompous, pedantic succession of Dickensenian sentences hoping to drown the reader in verbosity and boredom. When challenged to READ the FULL articles, papers or books with explanations, you go ahead with personal attacks, claiming that all I want is to sell my books.

No, indeed, I cannot discuss anything more without fact, experiments, proofs, because I have reached the limit of what I can understand, explain, demonstrate, without more information, more real data. That is the difference between the scientific approach and your airy-fairy theorizing about things you do not have a clue about.

Don't bother answering......

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Hi, Joe --

Yes, I'm prepared to mention something I understand tentatively and to stand corrected when I'm wrong. And yes, I'm prepared to engage you in discussing what at first blush looks completely unjustified as an explanation -- only to find that after blathering on about receptors and clathrates, you'll confess that it is in fact completely unjustified pure conjecture that you can't support -- and to let it go at that.

But no, what you now concede (if not in so few words) is baseless conjecture does not inspire me to buy a bookful of the same in order waste time absorbing thoughts that, though inspired and imaginative, ultimately may prove irrelevant to reality and worse than useless.

And I'm sorry that the less than overwhelming rush on your book of thoughts has disappointed you. But no, your unpreparedness to discuss how your hypothesis might overcome the difficulties obvious even to somebody as relatively ignorant as I am does not warrant everybody's rushing out to buy the book in the hope of obtaining the reasons you're unable to present in any concise way. Some of the rest of us have lives too!

And frankly, the misleading way in which you've baited others to buy the book in order to understand what you yourself cannot explain in this forum could be seen to verge on an unreasonable degree of unsolicited commercial advertising for little more than the first instalment of a mystery.

If you have something to say that is more useful than promises of enlightenment through a commercial relationship with you, you have all the time and space in the world to do so in lieu of guerrilla marketing, and you have available a large audience expecting of you something intelligent and not entirely self-serving. I recall previous conversations in which you have contributed truly useful insights free of charge, so I know you're capable of it. It's entirely up to you. What is not up to you is to blame the customer for not being sufficiently tempted to buy the goods -- especially on the basis of promises (of factual bases, in case it's not clear!) that, as you've admitted, you're unable to keep.

Kind regards,

John

Typical...you have no idea what you are talking about...

Not worth answering at all...
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Joe, I could take seriously your criticism of those who admit their uncertainty about a factual matter if you were not so intent yourself on filling this entire conversation with a hypothesis so incompletely thought out that you’re unprepared even to discuss its most obvious obstacles -- yet urge your audience to read a bookful of further uncertainties. Can you be serious? I don’t think so.
Why, I wonder, would you, after publishing an entire book based on an easily faulted hypothesis without factual foundations, presume that anybody else should take the time to read the very hypothesis whose flaws you remain unwilling to take the time to think about?
To put the situation bluntly: you’re the one who wanted to inject pure speculation into this conversation. You did so at first suggesting that the speculation served as an explanation of homoeopathic action and subsequently, once practical objections were raised, admitted that it does not. A sensible discussion of the scientific merit of a hypothesis to explain certain facts may or may not be possible in this forum; but scientific advance unfortunately isn’t a great respecter of precious beliefs. A reasonable approach for those unwilling to have their pet speculations’ flaws exposed may be to not waste their own and everybody else’s time by putting them forward as serious explanations or even serious hypotheses in the first place.
Kind regards,
John