Re: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science of Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

I'm not a proponent of homeopathy myself, but one thing that you said about all

the contaminents in water is not quite correct. Scientific researchers have

found medicines in the ocean and in drinking water. People take medicines and

then excrete them and flush. These things eventually end up in tap water and/or

the ocean. They have been detected, and have been blamed for several medical

conditions.

 

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science

of Homeopathy

hypothyroidism

Date: Saturday, February 5, 2011, 2:09 PM

Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

suggests do not exist.  Further, there is no other known physical method

that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

water/alcohol [or powder] mix.  It's all a complete scam.  Either he is

hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work.  The

bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

the mix what was there before it was removed.  Even if you don't know

that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

millions of different kinds of materials.  If the bs theory were correct

then the water/alcohol mix  would still contain the " electromagnetic

signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

swamped in the mix.

Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

contains some element of " redness " .  The fact is that if you remove all

of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

Not that it really matters.  Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever.  There

are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

homeopathy even at full strength.

One further note:  There is no " science of homeopathy " .  You'll sooner

find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.  Just for fun try to

find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

published.

..

..

>

>       Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>   

   <mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

>       trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

>         Sat Feb 5, 2011 12:20 am (PST)

>

>

>

> http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html

> <http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html>

>

> " ...Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research

> that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic

> medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential

> dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it

> is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the

> original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier's research (and

> other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic

> signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic

> biological effects... "

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I didn't realize that you were talking about actually removing ALL the

molecules. I was under the impression, from some practitioners of the protocol

that there were minute amounts of the molecules left in the highly diluted

solution.(hence the word diluted) I've tried it a couple of times because, as

I've mentioned before, I don't profess to know everything, and am open to new

ideas (new to me).

I did not find it effective except for a decongestant that I get at Walgreens

which, for some reason seems to work.

 

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

> Supports Science of Homeopathy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Saturday, February 5, 2011, 2:09 PM

>

> Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

> suggests do not exist.  Further, there is no other known physical method

> that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

> water/alcohol [or powder] mix.  It's all a complete scam.  Either he is

> hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

> is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>

> If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work.  The

> bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

> removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

> the mix what was there before it was removed.  Even if you don't know

> that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

> of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

> millions of different kinds of materials.  If the bs theory were correct

> then the water/alcohol mix  would still contain the " electromagnetic

> signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

> the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

> swamped in the mix.

>

> Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

> removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

> contains some element of " redness " .  The fact is that if you remove all

> of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

>

> Not that it really matters.  Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

> beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

> of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever.  There

> are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

> homeopathy even at full strength.

>

> One further note:  There is no " science of homeopathy " .  You'll sooner

> find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.  Just for fun try to

> find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

> published.

>

>

> .

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Interesting that you should bring up corpses. It is scientifically proven that a

person loses a minute amount of weight immediately after death, and that has not

been explained as to what is lost or why.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: Trish <fielddot@...>

Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science

of Homeopathy

hypothyroidism

Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 8:57 AM

i'm very well educated thanks james and i'm not dependant on anyone trying to

sell me anything.

i have a great deal of successful experience with homeopathy both personally and

more particularly in the veterinary field ...do you think animals are subject to

the placebo effect? 

personally i don't belive in magic but i accept there are many things we (yet)

don't understand. 

as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the corpse of a

dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether anything spiritual occurs

after death.   a widely held assumption by science (but by no means unanimous)

tends towards the idea that there is no soul and " dead means dead " and some

scientists promote such views as if they have been empirically tested...but

there are no facts here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved.  it is a BELIEF

in the non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that claim.

with homeopathy it is my BELIEF that it works because i have seen the EVIDENCE.

i can understand why it would be too dangerous for you to even contemplate that

homeopathy works because once one of your BELIEFS has been shown to be false,

then where does it end.  you would not be the first person to cling to

false-beliefs.

> > > I didn't realize that you were talking about actually removing ALL the

> > > molecules....

> >

> > At the time when Hahnemann developed homeopathy, no one knew that

> > atoms existed, certainly not . His most commonly recommended

> > dilution, what he called 30C [(10^-2)^30], was in principle a 10^-60

> > concentration of the original toxin that seemed to cause similar

> > symptoms to the disease being treated. In his terminology, high dilution

> > actually potentiated the medical effects, rather than reducing them, so

> > he recommended repeated dilution and vigorous shaking, which he called

> > " succussion. " The logic in picking a toxin to dilute is really

> > sympathetic magic, since there is often no mechanical connection with

> > the disease whatsoever, only a similarity of symptoms.

> >

> > On average, a 30C dilution would need to be given two billion times per

> > second to six billion people for four billion years to deliver a single

> > molecule. That makes even our national debt seem insignificant. I

> > understand that a modern homeopathic flu treatment called

> > Oscillococcinum uses a 200C dilution of duck liver [(10^-2)^200]. That

> > is one part in 10^400. At least you would be unlikely to catch H5N1

> > (bird flu) from that dilution.

> >

> > A few modern homeopaths use dilutions less than 30C, but their

> > explanation is really a poor extrapolation of pathology or

> > misunderstanding of the immune system. Those sticking to the original

> > formulations explain the effects as due to a mysterious vital force

> > based on a spirit interpretation of disease. This is shamanism disguised

> > as pseudoscience.

> >

> > Chuck

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

> Interesting that you should bring up corpses. It is scientifically

> proven that a person loses a minute amount of weight immediately after

> death, and that has not been explained as to what is lost or why.

>

A discredited study from the turn of the last century (1907) based on

two out of six corpses. He also " showed " that other mammals,

particularly dogs, did NOT have this mysterious weight loss.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I can't vouch for the soul having weight, or for the experiments that showed a

loss of some weight in those few patients. I merely stated what I had read (not

on snopes).

 

Tell me, Chuck, when Star Trek was playing on TV, did you think that there would

ever be a

ray gun like they had?

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> Interesting that you should bring up corpses. It is scientifically

> proven that a person loses a minute amount of weight immediately after

> death, and that has not been explained as to what is lost or why.

>

A discredited study from the turn of the last century (1907) based on

two out of six corpses. He also " showed " that other mammals,

particularly dogs, did NOT have this mysterious weight loss.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 2/8/2011 3:50 PM, Roni Molin wrote:

> I can't vouch for the soul having weight, or for the experiments that

> showed a loss of some weight in those few patients. I merely stated what

> I had read (not on snopes).

>

> Tell me, Chuck, when Star Trek was playing on TV, did you think that

> there would ever be a

> ray gun like they had?

>

Do you mean the phaser? That was an extrapolation of existing

technology, as was antimatter storage. The transporter, artificial

gravity, and warp drive were truly beyond what we can hope for, at least

right now.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

That's where we differ. I think that we can do whatever we really decide we are

going to do, as long as the government funds the effort, like getting to the

moon in the first place.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> I can't vouch for the soul having weight, or for the experiments that

> showed a loss of some weight in those few patients. I merely stated what

> I had read (not on snopes).

>

> Tell me, Chuck, when Star Trek was playing on TV, did you think that

> there would ever be a

> ray gun like they had?

>

Do you mean the phaser? That was an extrapolation of existing

technology, as was antimatter storage. The transporter, artificial

gravity, and warp drive were truly beyond what we can hope for, at least

right now.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

It seems the subject is still being pursued. I haven't read this yet, but

thought it might be interesting. They are always finding out new things about

our bodies. More doctors trained

and experienced in allopathic medicine from cardiologists, to gynocologists and

others in between have come to believe in the mind body connection, and that we

are more than just the sum of our parts.

 

http://www.popsci.com/sam-barrett/article/2008-10/first-few-minutes-after-death

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science

of Homeopathy

hypothyroidism , " JAMES " <res075oh@...>

Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 10:37 PM

Roni, nothing is EVER " scientifically proved " . A result either supports

a proposition, or not.

The results obtained by Dr. Duncan MacDougall over a hundred years ago

are highly suspect for a number of reasons. The most probably

justifiable reasons are IMHO discussed below:

..

..

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr-\

macdouga-t22820.html

..

..

> TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

> Given the philosophical implications of Dr MacDougall’s experiments,

> it isn’t too surprising that they caused such a stir and that even

> today they should still be widely talked about. However, his work has

> never been repeated and its immediate dismissal by the medical

> community means that little formal attention has been paid to these

> startling results.

>

> Deducing exactly what went on in MacDougall’s laboratory after more

> than a century has passed is no easy task, but a possible insight

> comes from some written correspondence between *MacDougall* and

> Hodgson. These letters (which were later published by the

> American Society of Psychical Research) start in November 1901, after

> MacDougall’s first experiment, and continue until May 1902, when the

> entire project was halted. They contain a full description of

> MacDougall’s methods, results and the circumstances of all six

> patients which, when compared with his American Medicine paper, offer

> some clues to the solution of this mystery.

>

> MacDougall’s letters make it plain that, with the exception of the

> first patient, all the experiments were beset with problems that may

> be broadly divided into one of two categories. The first problem was

> in ascert­aining the exact time of death, an issue that appears to

> affect patients two, three and six. *MacDougall* acknowledged this

> with the second patient, where the period of uncertainty lasted for 15

> minutes, but with patient three it is only in his letters that we

> learn of “a jarring of the scales†made while trying to determine

> “whether or not the heart had ceased to beatâ€. Patient six was

> excluded for other reasons (see below), but in his letters

> *MacDougall* remarks that “I am inclined to believe that he passed

> away while I was adjusting the beamâ€, which again suggests uncertainty

> as to the exact moment of death.

>

> The second issue was a problem relating to the measuring equipment

> itself, which *MacDougall* himself cited as a reason for voiding the

> results of patients four and six. However, with the fifth patient the

> measured drop in weight at death was later followed by an evident

> malfunction, as the scales could not afterwards be made to re-balance

> themselves correctly. In any object­ive experiment this uncertainty

> would have voided the result, but at no point does *MacDougall*

> question the reliability of his set-up. Thus, of the six patients,

> just one (the first) appears to have been measured without mishap, but

> repeated troubles with the equipment and with determining the moment

> of death perhaps casts doubt on even these results. Thus, rather than

> trying to find a physical cause for the loss of weight at death, it is

> conceivable that there was no loss of weight at all, or that it might

> not have coincided with the moment of death. Only a complete retrial

> with human patients will answer these questions, and that has so far

> not been forthcoming.

>

> MacDougall’s correspondence reveals a man with an unswerving belief in

> the existence of a human soul. At every turn he sought to justify his

> results in these terms, dismissing or ignoring any evidence to the

> contrary. It is, for example, possible that he ignored the results of

> the sixth patient because, in his own words, “there was no loss of

> weight†measured at the time of death. *MacDougall* explained in a

> letter that the negative result was probably due to the patient having

> been on the scales for only a few minutes, which caused him to doubt

> “whether I had the beam accurately balanced before deathâ€. This seems

> like an afterthought used to explain an inconvenient result and one

> wonders what his react­ion would have been should the result have been

> favourable.

>

> To me, it seems that MacDougall’s human experiments were hopelessly

> beset with technical difficulties that serve to make the results

> unreliable and meaningless. It is probable that his experiments with

> dogs were carried out under more controlled conditions as it was

> possible to induce (and therefore better gauge) the time of death.

> Also, these experiments were carried out using a different set of

> scales, sensitive to 1.75 grams (as opposed to 5g with the other

> equipment), and yet no loss of weight was observed. This was also true

> for a similar experiment performed in 1915 by H Twining using 30 mice

> that were killed in a variety of situations while being continually

> weighed. No weight gain or loss could be detected, and the same was

> possibly true for a similar mouse experiment mentioned in The New York

> Times (13 March 1907), although I can find no further details of this.

> One experiment stands in partial contrast and that is by

> Hollander, who observed a vari­ation in weight of between 18 and 780g

> in the few seconds following the induced death of seven sheep. This

> weight change was, however, not permanent and could not be measured in

> either lambs or a goat.

..

..

Regards,

..

..

>       Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>   

   <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20\

Luc%20Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

>       matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

>         Tue Feb 8, 2011 11:02 am (PST)

>

>

>

> Interesting that you should bring up corpses. It is scientifically

> proven that a person loses a minute amount of weight immediately after

> death, and that has not been explained as to what is lost or why.

>

> <>Roni

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I have always believed that the more we learn the more we realize how little we

know.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: Trish <fielddot@...>

Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science

of Homeopathy

hypothyroidism

Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 8:21 AM

>I must admit I find it somewhat curious to find a well educated person who

doesn't use upper case letters in most of the appropriate places in public

communication. Your choice, I'm sure; but curious nonetheless.

a practical solution to an injury.

>Quite a number of years ago I was unfamiliar with homeopathy and my wife

insisted upon treating 3 cats with homeopathy. The result was 3 dead cats; but

no doubt they would have died anyway. 

that's very sad for your family and the cats. is your wife a homeopathic

veterinary, or did she take advice from a homeopathic veterinary?  skilled

remedy selection is obviously very important.

>Scientists do often not hold a personal belief in anything for which there is

no evidence but that doesn't mean none of them have spiritual beliefs.

you must have not read where i said  " BUT BY NO MEANS UNANIMOUS " (see below)

" as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the corpse of a

dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether anything spiritual occurs

after death. a widely held assumption by science (but by no means unanimous)

tends towards the idea that there is no soul and " dead means dead " and some

scientists promote such views as if they have been empirically tested...but

there are no facts here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved.  it is a BELIEF

in the non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that

claim. "

>It would be so unscientific for any scientist to attempt to prove the

none-existence of the soul that no scientist[other than a crackpot] would ever

attempt such.

please re-read ...it doesn't say or imply that a scientist was attempting to

prove the none-existence of the soul...the point is to do with ASSUMPTIONS,

BELIEFS and EVIDENCE.  i said i believed in homeopathy because (on many

occasions) i had evidence that it works ...strikes me it would be a bit odd to

say yes, well it did work but i don't believe in it!

>The nature of scientists and those with a MOL well founded basis in the

scientific method are such that they are probably the most certain of humans

that we do not know anything for certain.

i can't comment on the nature of scientists but i agree that we do not know

anything for certain but you don't have to be a scientist to believe that.

>

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I don't disagree that the soul doesn't necessarily have mass. I think that

there's a difference between mind and brain. Doctors, especially those who deal

with surgery patients and patients with life threatening illnesses pretty much

agree there is a spirit, which is not the brain, mind or body.

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

> Supports Science of Homeopathy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>, " JAMES " <res075oh@...

> <mailto:res075oh%40gte.net>>

> Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 10:37 PM

>

> Roni, nothing is EVER " scientifically proved " . A result either supports

> a proposition, or not.

>

> The results obtained by Dr. Duncan MacDougall over a hundred years ago

> are highly suspect for a number of reasons. The most probably

> justifiable reasons are IMHO discussed below:

>

> .

> .

>

>

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr-\

macdouga-t22820.html

>

<http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr\

-macdouga-t22820.html>

> .

> .

> > TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

> > Given the philosophical implications of Dr MacDougall’s experiments,

> > it isn’t too surprising that they caused such a stir and that even

> > today they should still be widely talked about. However, his work has

> > never been repeated and its immediate dismissal by the medical

> > community means that little formal attention has been paid to these

> > startling results.

> >

> > Deducing exactly what went on in MacDougall’s laboratory after more

> > than a century has passed is no easy task, but a possible insight

> > comes from some written correspondence between *MacDougall* and

> > Hodgson. These letters (which were later published by the

> > American Society of Psychical Research) start in November 1901, after

> > MacDougall’s first experiment, and continue until May 1902, when the

> > entire project was halted. They contain a full description of

> > MacDougall’s methods, results and the circumstances of all six

> > patients which, when compared with his American Medicine paper, offer

> > some clues to the solution of this mystery.

> >

> > MacDougall’s letters make it plain that, with the exception of the

> > first patient, all the experiments were beset with problems that may

> > be broadly divided into one of two categories. The first problem was

> > in ascert­aining the exact time of death, an issue that appears to

> > affect patients two, three and six. *MacDougall* acknowledged this

> > with the second patient, where the period of uncertainty lasted for 15

> > minutes, but with patient three it is only in his letters that we

> > learn of “a jarring of the scales� made while trying to

determine

> > “whether or not the heart had ceased to beat�. Patient six was

> > excluded for other reasons (see below), but in his letters

> > *MacDougall* remarks that “I am inclined to believe that he passed

> > away while I was adjusting the beam�, which again suggests

> uncertainty

> > as to the exact moment of death.

> >

> > The second issue was a problem relating to the measuring equipment

> > itself, which *MacDougall* himself cited as a reason for voiding the

> > results of patients four and six. However, with the fifth patient the

> > measured drop in weight at death was later followed by an evident

> > malfunction, as the scales could not afterwards be made to re-balance

> > themselves correctly. In any object­ive experiment this uncertainty

> > would have voided the result, but at no point does *MacDougall*

> > question the reliability of his set-up. Thus, of the six patients,

> > just one (the first) appears to have been measured without mishap, but

> > repeated troubles with the equipment and with determining the moment

> > of death perhaps casts doubt on even these results. Thus, rather than

> > trying to find a physical cause for the loss of weight at death, it is

> > conceivable that there was no loss of weight at all, or that it might

> > not have coincided with the moment of death. Only a complete retrial

> > with human patients will answer these questions, and that has so far

> > not been forthcoming.

> >

> > MacDougall’s correspondence reveals a man with an unswerving

> belief in

> > the existence of a human soul. At every turn he sought to justify his

> > results in these terms, dismissing or ignoring any evidence to the

> > contrary. It is, for example, possible that he ignored the results of

> > the sixth patient because, in his own words, “there was no loss of

> > weight� measured at the time of death. *MacDougall* explained in a

> > letter that the negative result was probably due to the patient having

> > been on the scales for only a few minutes, which caused him to doubt

> > “whether I had the beam accurately balanced before death�. This

> seems

> > like an afterthought used to explain an inconvenient result and one

> > wonders what his react­ion would have been should the result have been

> > favourable.

> >

> > To me, it seems that MacDougall’s human experiments were hopelessly

> > beset with technical difficulties that serve to make the results

> > unreliable and meaningless. It is probable that his experiments with

> > dogs were carried out under more controlled conditions as it was

> > possible to induce (and therefore better gauge) the time of death.

> > Also, these experiments were carried out using a different set of

> > scales, sensitive to 1.75 grams (as opposed to 5g with the other

> > equipment), and yet no loss of weight was observed. This was also true

> > for a similar experiment performed in 1915 by H Twining using 30 mice

> > that were killed in a variety of situations while being continually

> > weighed. No weight gain or loss could be detected, and the same was

> > possibly true for a similar mouse experiment mentioned in The New York

> > Times (13 March 1907), although I can find no further details of this.

> > One experiment stands in partial contrast and that is by

> > Hollander, who observed a vari­ation in weight of between 18 and 780g

> > in the few seconds following the induced death of seven sheep. This

> > weight change was, however, not permanent and could not be measured in

> > either lambs or a goat.

> .

> .

> Regards,

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I wasn't expecting the government to actually DO anything scientific, just

funding it would be nice.

I was noticing how they seem to have money for every country outside of this

country and it's citizens. It really ticks me off. No social security increase

for two years, but they give something like $8 billion dollars to Egypt and to

most of the countries in that region, including oil producing countrys. 

 

 

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

> > I can't vouch for the soul having weight, or for the experiments that

> > showed a loss of some weight in those few patients. I merely stated what

> > I had read (not on snopes).

> >

> > Tell me, Chuck, when Star Trek was playing on TV, did you think that

> > there would ever be a

> > ray gun like they had?

> >

>

> Do you mean the phaser? That was an extrapolation of existing

> technology, as was antimatter storage. The transporter, artificial

> gravity, and warp drive were truly beyond what we can hope for, at least

> right now.

>

> Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Trish,

Although I am actually paid to be professionally pedantic, I would

consider it abusive to be called a pedant in casual conversation.

At the very least your calling a pedant constitutes an ad hominem

argument.

Chuck

> ... name calling implies *abuse* and i do not believe any of the three

> definitions are abusive. had i included a derogatory adjective of some

> sort then that could be called abuse.

[Guest guest]

has strong opinions and knowledge. He tries very hard to keep people from

being harmed by medicines and preparations, as we all do, that don't have hard

evidence of their

efficacy. I don't think he should be berated for this. EVERYONE, is entitled to

their opinions,

and no one should be personally attacked for them.

 

Differences of opinion are what this country is all about, and especially on

forums such as this.

The difference is that some people present their opinions with factual

information to back it

up, and the ones that can't back up their statements tend to become defensive,

and abusive, and

sometimes resort to name calling when they don't have sufficient resourses to

support their positions. There is a huge difference in debating a subject and

attacking the other

person. Some people just don't seem to understand this.

 

<>Roni

Immortality exists!

It's called knowledge!

 

Just because something isn't seen

doesn't mean it's not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science

of Homeopathy

hypothyroidism

Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 3:48 PM

Please see responses below...

..

..

>       Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>   

   <mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

>       trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

>         Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:44 am (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> i think it is pedantic to demand/expect me to use the phrase

> " anecdotal evidence " when i describe my direct personal experience of

> homeopathy.

..

..

???  I don't " demand " or " expect " you to do anything.   IIRC you asked

me  for a " ...more correct word that would describe the situation " .  I

provided a phrase, as I don't know a single word description.  You can

use it or not totally at your own discretion.

..

..

>

> here are three definitions of the word pedant:

>

> 1. one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules

> 2. one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.

> 3. a person who relies too much on academic learning or who is

> concerned chiefly with insignificant detail

>

> name calling implies *abuse* and i do not believe any of the three

> definitions are abusive. had i included a derogatory adjective of some

> sort then that could be called abuse.

..

..

IMHO it's name calling no matter how you try to package it.  I really

don't give a hoot; it's not going to hurt my tender feelings.  In the

first case you imply that I'm " one who pays undue attention to book

learning and formal rules " .  If you had just said that I pay a lot of

attention to rules [especially in scientific matters] I would say you

are correct.  Raising it to " undue attention " is a slam [although I have

precious little formal 'book learning'].  Two:  " One who exhibits one's

learning or scholarship ostentatiously " .  First of all I have no

advanced formal learning or scholarship.  Secondly, applying the adverb

" ostentatiously " to someone's action is applying a strong negative

description to ones purported behavior.  Thirdly:  I have exceedingly

little in the way of formal academic learning; the negative part is

where you accuse me of being " concerned chiefly with insignificant

detail " .  What I have addressed is massive levels of lack of

understanding and gullibility; NOT insignificant levels.  People have

died from following the advice of quacks who at best do no direct harm

but also don't do anything that heals.  If I had gone for treatment to

such a person 11 years ago when the biopsy showed cancer it's unlikely

I'd be here now.  I want to offer everyone a chance to avoid that fate. 

Once I've provided the information what you do with it is your business.

In case you're wondering:  I don't have hurt feelings because you or

anyone chooses to engage in name calling toward me.  I'm just pointing

out that it really makes your argument look silly and unsupported. 

Better to present facts or supporting evidence [if you can].  Attack the

position, not the person.

Luck,

..

..

>

>

> > > what can i say ...perhaps you could suggest a better and more

> > > appropraite word that would describe the situation.

> > .

> > .

> > Yes. What you're presenting is " anecdotal evidence " .

>

> > > apart from anything else, you come across as a pedant james.

>

> > I note the name calling but I will not respond.

> >

> >

> >

------------------------------------