"Judith in France" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 5:02 pm, Judith in France
wrote:
On May 21, 2:46 pm, "graham" wrote:



"Judith in France" wrote in
...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the
decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded
trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind
research
on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with
homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be,
then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the
so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and
the
EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't
science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher
of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer
reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

__________________________________________________ __

But if the "peers" are carefully chosen, junk can still be published. As
one of those peers, I once asked for considerable changes to a paper. It
was paublished a couple of years later after being sent to different,
easier-going "peers".
Graham

In my husband's field Lyndon, you don't get to choose your peers; they
are chosen for you. If his grant came from the Science Research
Council; then they will send out his paper to referees; he has no
choice in the matter, and this is the way it usually works.

Judith

Judith

Beg Pardon, that should have read Graham, how rude of me!!! slaps
myself on wrist.

Judith
__________________________________________
No worries! Did it hurt?
Graham

"Citizen Jimserac" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 6:46 pm, Martin wrote:

Perhaps it is YOU who are confused.

You claim Homeopathy has no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

Suppose the referrer is an MD or other fully qualified health
professional? Do you wish to impugn all of them. Do you accuse the
MD's who practice Homeopathy of being "quacks"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Without any doubt!!!!!
_________________________________________________


You claim that there are no double blinded placebo controlled
randomized tests for Homeopathy - but a quick search reviews numerous
ones, many with positive results - some even performing better than
standard medicines available as OTC remedies.
__________________________________________________
The well-run double-blind studies that were NOT done by homeopaths have
shown consistently that homeopathy is pure, unadulterated quackery!

Homeopaths are promoting the use of their quackery as an alternative to
immunisation against childhood and tropical diseases. THAT'S CRIMINAL!!!

Graham

On May 22, 9:23*am, "graham" wrote:
"Citizen Jimserac" wrote in message

...
On May 21, 6:46 pm, Martin wrote:

Perhaps it is YOU who are confused.

You claimHomeopathyhas no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

Suppose the referrer is an MD or other fully qualified health
professional? * Do you wish to impugn all of them. *Do you accuse the
MD's who practiceHomeopathyof being "quacks"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Without any doubt!!!!!

The illogic of such a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization is
obvious and needs no comment.

_________________________________________________

You claim that there are no double blinded placebo controlled
randomized tests forHomeopathy- but a quick search reviews numerous
ones, many with positive results - some even performing better than
standard medicines available as OTC remedies.
__________________________________________________
The well-run double-blind studies that were NOT done by homeopaths have
shown consistently that homeopathy is pure, unadulterated quackery!

Ah, NOW it is the "well-run" double blinded tests - I believe the
original author's assertion were that there were NO such tests.

The tune is changing but the fallacy is the same.

Homeopaths are promoting the use of their quackery as an alternative to
immunisation against childhood and tropical diseases. *THAT'S CRIMINAL!!!

And here we see the context changed from Homeopathy to the very real
possibility of incompetent or criminal Homeopaths which naturally
should be subsumed in the category with incompetent or criminal MD's,
surgeons...etc..

I see your entire argument is to continually repeat that Homeopathy
is "quackery" without any regard for the research mentioned, the fact
that it is ongoing, and the fact that it is being performed by very
competent genuine scientists. Do you feel the same way towards the
quantum physicists who espouse the "many worlds" theory of Quantum
Mechanics? Perhaps you want to call them charlatans because their
theories are, I can assure you, far "crazier" than anything Homeopathy
has to offer and it would appear your "standard" of judgement is that
the proposed science may violate your personal common "sense" and your
mental models of chemical molecules.

Shall they be added to the list too?

Citizen Jimserac

In

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

You claim Homeopathy has no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

He's right.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On May 21, 6:46 pm, Martin wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
wrote:
The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria
living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26]
No, it doesn't. From the cited article:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2....html(abstract)
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articl...2-005.pdf(full article)
"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract"
" ... As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not
increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that
gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."
Don't confuse Dave by quoting actual science.



Perhaps it is YOU who are confused.

You claim Homeopathy has no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

I don't need to question who refers people to homeopaths. Often it's
upper class, in-bred idiots with big ears who have never done a days
work in their lives yet seem to own places such as Cornwall.


Suppose the referrer is an MD or other fully qualified health
professional? Do you wish to impugn all of them. Do you accuse the
MD's who practice Homeopathy of being "quacks"?

Absolutely I do, and if that were the case then unless there was a very
good reason he should be struck off. The only justifiable case would be
for the hypochondriacs who keep going in for stuff like colds who will
benefit from paying money for useless treatments for self-limiting
illnesses.

$1,000,000 says you're talking bullshit.

All you have to do is to get two samples, one distilled water one
homeopathic and be able to tell them apart. Put up or shut up.

Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On May 22, 9:23 am, "graham" wrote:

Ah, NOW it is the "well-run" double blinded tests - I believe the
original author's assertion were that there were NO such tests.

The tune is changing but the fallacy is the same.

Of course there have been small trials, and shown nothing more than placebo.

Homeopaths are promoting the use of their quackery as an alternative to
immunisation against childhood and tropical diseases. THAT'S CRIMINAL!!!

And here we see the context changed from Homeopathy to the very real
possibility of incompetent or criminal Homeopaths

They are all frigging criminals, charging a tenner for 30 drops of
distilled water is criminal by anyones standards.

In Martin
wrote:

All you have to do is to get two samples, one distilled water one
homeopathic and be able to tell them apart. Put up or shut up.

The distilled water should work just as well as that branded as
"homeopathic."

Almost all the water on earth has been here for eons, being continually
cycled through the earth, rivers, oceans and sky, and over the millions
of years coming into contact with every element and compound in
existence.

As such, every drop of water that comes out of my tap must then be a
homeopathic cure for every disease known to man.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On 22 May 2009 15:36:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

Almost all the water on earth has been here for eons, being continually
cycled through the earth, rivers, oceans and sky, and over the millions
of years coming into contact with every element and compound in
existence.

As such, every drop of water that comes out of my tap must then be a
homeopathic cure for every disease known to man.

Only if water retains its purported homeopathic qualities after
passing through both its non-liquid states *and* also retains those
qualities in the presence of contaminents. I have no idea what
homeopaths have to say on that subject, but I suspect that they would
say that the act of passing through a gasseous state and condensing
back to distilled water destroys all homeopathic properties it may
have had, and that homeopathic qualities are destroyed if the water is
contaminated by substances other than extremely low amounts of the
homeopathic material.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On 22 May 2009 15:36:51 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

Almost all the water on earth has been here for eons, being continually
cycled through the earth, rivers, oceans and sky, and over the millions
of years coming into contact with every element and compound in
existence.

As such, every drop of water that comes out of my tap must then be a
homeopathic cure for every disease known to man.

Only if water retains its purported homeopathic qualities after
passing through both its non-liquid states *and* also retains those
qualities in the presence of contaminents. I have no idea what
homeopaths have to say on that subject, but I suspect that they would
say that the act of passing through a gasseous state and condensing
back to distilled water destroys all homeopathic properties it may
have had, and that homeopathic qualities are destroyed if the water is
contaminated by substances other than extremely low amounts of the
homeopathic material.

It's not just low amounts, it's zero amounts. The quantity is well below
the Avogadro limit.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:53:13 +0100, Martin
wrote:

Only if water retains its purported homeopathic qualities after
passing through both its non-liquid states *and* also retains those
qualities in the presence of contaminents. I have no idea what
homeopaths have to say on that subject, but I suspect that they would
say that the act of passing through a gasseous state and condensing
back to distilled water destroys all homeopathic properties it may
have had, and that homeopathic qualities are destroyed if the water is
contaminated by substances other than extremely low amounts of the
homeopathic material.

It's not just low amounts, it's zero amounts. The quantity is well below
the Avogadro limit.

The homeopathic substance has not disappeared, so its molecules must
be distributed throughout at least *some* of the bottles filled from a
batch.

But *if* there is any merit at all in homeopathy - and I'm extremely
scepticle that there is - then it is probably due to some unknown and
as yet undetectable subatomic change that occurs within the water
molecules themselves as a result of their exposure to the substance
rather than the physical presence of the substance itself, so the fact
that none of the substance whatsoever is present in a particular
sample does not prove that the claim must be false.

Just as there is a change to the subatomic structure of a luminous
material that has been exposed to light in the recent past that makes
it different to the exact same material that has not had such
exposure, or a hard disk drive that contains data is different to a
hard disk drive that does not contain data in a way that cannot be
discovered by any change to its chemical makeup. In those cases the
subatomic changes create effects that are easily measurable by other
means - but a person relying only on a chemical analysis would
conclude that no change has taken place, just as a bottle of
homeopathic water appears to be no different in chemical composition
to a bottle of distilled water.

As for the reasoning that such a tiny amount of a substance could not
possibly make any significant changes - consider how less than a
1/1000th second exposure to quite dim light will make changes to a
photographic film that are undetectable until it is made to undergo
specific chemical reactions.

--
Cynic

On May 22, 11:25*am, Martin wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
On May 21, 6:46 pm, Martin wrote:
Bert Hyman wrote:
Da...@nos pam.thanks wrote:
The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria
living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26]
No, it doesn't. From the cited article:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2....html(abstract)
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articl...df(fullarticle)
"Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human
gastrointestinal tract"
" ... As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not
increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that
gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."
Don't confuse Dave by quoting actual science.

Perhaps it is YOU who are confused.

You claim Homeopathy has no science behind it and that you have to
"question" those who refer people to Homeopaths.

I don't need to question who refers people to homeopaths. Often it's
upper class, in-bred idiots with big ears who have never done a days
work in their lives yet seem to own places such as Cornwall.



Suppose the referrer is an MD or other fully qualified health
professional? * Do you wish to impugn all of them. *Do you accuse the
MD's who practice Homeopathy of being "quacks"?

Absolutely I do, and if that were the case then unless there was a very
good reason he should be struck off. The only justifiable case would be
for the hypochondriacs who keep going in for stuff like colds who will
benefit from paying money for useless treatments for self-limiting
illnesses.

$1,000,000 says you're talking bullshit.

Aha!!! JUNK SCIENCE is needed to "support" the witch hunt!!!

Perhaps your referring to the "Amazing" Randi, the one that Homeopath
George Vitoulkas spent 5 YEARS "negotiating" with to satisfy Randi's
every demand for the "challenge". After Vitoulkas had met every
requirement and "Amazing" Randi seemed ready to give the final go
ahead, Randi became ill, for several months, and was (surprise!!!)
the ONLY person with whom the "negotiations" could be made. Suddenly
Vitoulkas, while waiting for a response, Vitoulkas was stunned to read
on Randi's web site that he, Vitoulkas had withdrawn(!!!!) from the
negotiations and later Randi contacted Vitoulkas and quietly informed
him that all negotiations were DISCARDED and the whole process should
be begun again.

All you have to do is to get two samples, one distilled water one
homeopathic and be able to tell them apart. Put up or shut up.

If this is your idea of science then you have surpassed mere bullshit
by orders of magnitude.

What are the rules, the conditions, who holds the money in escrow,
which scientists will you appoint to decide the results - would a
Nobel prize be sufficient? What are the experimental conditions
should the test prove successful - will you then argue that the
Homeopaths results are invalid because they could not rule out the
influence of Cosmic Rays??
It is obvious to everyone, except, apparently, YOU, what farcical
nonsense such a challenge could be, and in the case of Randi, IS.

Which is why we have peer reviewed science and journals and a
community of experts.

Shut up or put up.

Citizen Jimserac

On May 22, 11:28*am, Martin wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
On May 22, 9:23 am, "graham" wrote:
Ah, NOW it is the "well-run" double blinded tests - I believe the
original author's assertion were that there were NO such tests.

The tune is changing but the fallacy is the same.

Of course there have been small trials, and shown nothing more than placebo.

Homeopaths are promoting the use of their quackery as an alternative to
immunisation against childhood and tropical diseases. *THAT'S CRIMINAL!!!

And here we see the context changed from Homeopathy to the very real
possibility of incompetent or criminal Homeopaths

They are all frigging criminals, charging a tenner for 30 drops of
distilled water is criminal by anyones standards.

All criminals??

Well, you are indeed entitled to your opinion ....

DISCUSSION WITH THIS POSTER IS TERMINATED.

Citizen Jimserac

On May 22, 11:36*am, Bert Hyman wrote:
tin

wrote:
All you have to do is to get two samples, one distilled water one
homeopathic and be able to tell them apart. Put up or shut up.

The distilled water should work just as well as that branded as
"homeopathic."

Almost all the water on earth has been here for eons, being continually
cycled through the earth, rivers, oceans and sky, and over the millions
of years coming into contact with every element and compound in
existence.

As such, every drop of water that comes out of my tap must then be a
homeopathic cure for every disease known to man.

--
Bert Hyman * * *St. Paul, MN *

But, as Dr. Rustum Roy, Professor Emeritus of Material Science might
respond (watch out, innuendo against Roy will come flying back in the
response, guaranteed)....

Graphite and Diamond exhibit VERY different properties, one is very
soft and the other VERY VERY HARD!!!!

Yet.....IT'S JUST CARBON!!

The properties exhibited come from the structural arrangement of the
Carbon - it is structure, NOT JUST composition, which determines the
properties.

So this bullshit that Homeopathy can't work because its remedies are
"just water" has been refuted right at the outset just by basic
science. Does that mean Homeopathy is therefore proven or that the
scientific basis is certain to be found or that there is one? NOPE.
It just means that the attacks against Homeopathy are, so far, without
substance and represent mere biased opinions and it will remain that
way until the real scientists have done their research, which the anti-
Homeopaths are doing a pretty good job of interdicting, blocking funds
and creating a climate of hysteria which is, in and of itself, ANTI-
SCIENCE. T

Citizen Jimserac

Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On May 22, 11:28 am, Martin wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
On May 22, 9:23 am, "graham" wrote:
Ah, NOW it is the "well-run" double blinded tests - I believe the
original author's assertion were that there were NO such tests.
The tune is changing but the fallacy is the same.
Of course there have been small trials, and shown nothing more than placebo.

Homeopaths are promoting the use of their quackery as an alternative to
immunisation against childhood and tropical diseases. THAT'S CRIMINAL!!!
And here we see the context changed from Homeopathy to the very real
possibility of incompetent or criminal Homeopaths
They are all frigging criminals, charging a tenner for 30 drops of
distilled water is criminal by anyones standards.

All criminals??

Well, you are indeed entitled to your opinion ....

DISCUSSION WITH THIS POSTER IS TERMINATED.

Too ****ing easy. Come up with science and the kooks run away.


Citizen Jimserac

On May 22, 1:31*pm, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:53:13 +0100, Martin
wrote:

Only if water retains its purported homeopathic qualities after
passing through both its non-liquid states *and* also retains those
qualities in the presence of contaminents. *I have no idea what
homeopaths have to say on that subject, but I suspect that they would
say that the act of passing through a gasseous state and condensing
back to distilled water destroys all homeopathic properties it may
have had, and that homeopathic qualities are destroyed if the water is
contaminated by substances other than extremely low amounts of the
homeopathic material.
It's not just low amounts, it's zero amounts. The quantity is well below
the Avogadro limit.

The homeopathic substance has not disappeared, so its molecules must
be distributed throughout at least *some* of the bottles filled from a
batch.

But *if* there is any merit at all in homeopathy - and I'm extremely
scepticle that there is - then it is probably due to some unknown and
as yet undetectable subatomic change that occurs within the water
molecules themselves as a result of their exposure to the substance
rather than the physical presence of the substance itself, so the fact
that none of the substance whatsoever is present in a particular
sample does not prove that the claim must be false.

Just as there is a change to the subatomic structure of a luminous
material that has been exposed to light in the recent past that makes
it different to the exact same material that has not had such
exposure, or a hard disk drive that contains data is different to a
hard disk drive that does not contain data in a way that cannot be
discovered by any change to its chemical makeup. *In those cases the
subatomic changes create effects that are easily measurable by other
means - but a person relying only on a chemical analysis would
conclude that no change has taken place, just as a bottle of
homeopathic water appears to be no different in chemical composition
to a bottle of distilled water.

As for the reasoning that such a tiny amount of a substance could not
possibly make any significant changes - consider how less than a
1/1000th second exposure to quite dim light will make changes to a
photographic film that are undetectable until it is made to undergo
specific chemical reactions.

--
Cynic

There is ongoing research, much of it controversial, in chemistry and
physics too, which is supportive of Ennis' observations that something
in the high dilution solutions with "NO" molecules of the stimulant
remaining, were somehow still causing something to happen.

For example, Swiss Chemist L. Rey:

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
Volume 323, 15 May 2003, Pages 67-74

Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride

Louis Rey
Received 10 December 2002.
Available online 28 February 2003.

"Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride (10-30 gcm-3) have been
irradiated by X- and ã-rays at 77 K, then
progressively rewarmed to room temperature.
During that phase, their thermoluminescence
has been studied and it was found that,
despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
number, the emitted light was specific of
the original salts dissolved initially."

Conclusion will be repeated here
for emphasis.

"IT WAS FOUND THAT DESPITE THEIR DILUTION
BEYOND THE AVOGADRO NUMBER, THE EMITTED
LIGHT WAS SPECIFIC OF THE ORIGINAL SALTS
DISOLVED INITIALLY".

Citizen Jimserac