Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research review.

 

"John 'the Charlatan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...

 

> >> >Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me
> >> >and what I do that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious
> >> >to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a different
> >> >definition of "quack" than this:
>
> >Nobody has successfully challenged my medical knowledge here, so I hardly
> >fit the definition. You, on the other hand, certainly fit the
> >Merriam-Webster definition of "charlatan," "one making usually showy
> >pretenses to knowledge or ability."
>
> >If you want to call me a "debunker" like Jan and Dave do, that's fine. I
> >wear that label proudly.
>
> Do I have to repeat myself again, Shewmaker?
>
> Shewmaker's comments are precisely how Medical Scientism operates. :(
>
> The established theory of Medical Scientism is automatically assumed
> to be backed by science, while any competition has to show evidence to
> support their position.
>
> Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the
> calling card of all Science Geeks.  :(
>
> That is how I define Quackery, Shewmaker!   Quack, ... Quack, Quack!
>

 

So, you define quackery as "arrogance."

 

Main Entry: ar·ro·gance
Pronunciation: 'ar-&-g&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims

 

(from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

Fair enough. I admit that I feel superior to people who, like you, flaunt their ignorance. I'm also aware that that my persistent correction of your patently false assertions must seem overbearing to your childlike view of that world, but as Orac likes to state in his sigline, "A statement of fact cannot be insolent." Perhaps it can be arrogant, but so what?

> The good news is that the author of this thesis has a homepage, with a
> huge collection of other scholarly works written by Peter Morrell.
> http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm

 

It's interesting and appropriate that your "scholarly" mentor endorses astrology as well as homeopathy. After all, one popular false theory deserves another. I did enjoy his artwork, though.

 

>
> My history on Western natural healing practices is progressing quite
> nicely.  Peter Morrell has done much of the scholar footwork for
> me.  :)

 

Good history is based on original sources. Do you know how to find them, or will you plagiarize Mr. Morrell and others like him?

 

 

>
> After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Medical Scientism
> Quack like our fellow Rich Shewmaker, obviously is.

 

Perhaps I fit your personal definition of a quack, but that does not constitute "known as" by any accepted definition.

>
> Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the
> health reform movements in both Europe and America, and personal
> health in general, Shewmaker?

I thought said that you don't repeat yourself.

 

--Rich