Re: The Acid question

Eric Bohlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
 
> I used to get really bad hay fever every late summer and early fall.  When 
> I was about 30, it started getting better, and within about 5 years, it was 
> essentially gone.  What did I do differently?  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  It 
> just improved on its own, as I understand it often does.  If I had been 
> taking "cellsalts" during that time, you'd surely have attributed the 
> improvement to them, wouldn't you?  But I wasn't.  Nor was I using any 
> conventional medical treatment to try to cure my hayfever.  Yet it still 
> stopped.  How do you explain that?
> 
> The point of my little story is that testimonials and personal experience 
> can be quite misleading as to the effectiveness of a particular therapy.  
> If I had tried *any* therapy, alternative or conventional, "natural" or Big 
> Pharma-based, for my hay fever during that time, I'd have been able to 
> offer a convincing-sounding testimonial for it.  No matter what it was.  My 
> personal experience would have been that the hay fever went away after I 
> pursued the therapy.  That's why properly evaluating a therapy requires 
> control groups, randomization, blinding, and all that other stuff.  So the 
> therapy doesn't wind up taking the credit for something that would have 
> happened all on its own.

You mean double blind tests, the type the pharmaceutical companies do
which cost millions of dollars? Where they pay for a whole heap of
random double blind studies and pick the ones that favour their drugs?

Or peer review where the chances are as good as a toss of the dice. No
thanks! I would rather trust my own experience.
You obviously don't know anything about the nature cure system and
your opinion is therefore worthless.

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm