homeopathy, is it effective, research review.

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by markd, Oct 24, 2003.

  1. markd

    markd Guest

    To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is, follow the links below, hint,
    it ain't nuten to get workde up over:

    >In a recent thread two brit articles looking at existing research concluded poor research methods
    >and possible biased conclusions provide little support for homeopathy, further research using
    >accepted research standards was suggested. Here are two other web sources which look at many more
    >examples of homeopathy research:
    >
    >http://www.homeowatch.org/research/overview.html
    >
    >http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1201/homeopathy.html
     
    Tags:


  2. Once upon a time, our fellow [email protected] rambled on about "homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is, follow the links below, hint,
    >it ain't nuten to get workde up over:

    I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.

    This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages fluently in addition to being an
    experimental chemist who tested his medicines experimentally on patients.

    What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced here to date.

    There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At any rate, the thesis readings are
    a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than the crap posted on these ngs.

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
     
  3. >>To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is, follow the links below,
    >>hint, it ain't nuten to get workde up over:
    >
    >I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.
    >
    >This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages fluently in addition to being an
    >experimental chemist who tested his medicines experimentally on patients.
    >
    >What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced here to date.
    >
    >There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At any rate, the thesis readings
    >are a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than the crap posted on these ngs.

    Thesis on homeopathy submitted to Staffordshire University for the degree of Master of Philosophy
    http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm

    Here are two quotable quotes. :)

    "The orthodox physician has, in short, been so indoctrinated by a false logic, a false metaphysic,
    and a meretricious science, that his mind is inaccessible to our point of view. To understand in any
    particular sense what are our methods would call for a reorientation too drastic for the ordinary
    mortal. [Robertson, 1978, p.93]"

    "There is first disorder of government, and this proceeds from within outwards until we have
    pathological changes in the tissues. In the practice of medicine today the idea of government is not
    found, and the tissue changes only are taken into account. He who considers disease results to be
    the disease, is insane. It is an insanity in medicine, an insanity that has grown out of the milder
    forms of mental disorder in science, crazy whims. [Kent, 1900, p.22]"

    The presentation of material in this thesis has really blown my mind!!! It is very
    interesting reading.

    Here, is another interesting quote on how homeopathy was documented to be effective against the the
    London Cholera epidemic of 1854.

    "In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera treated [at the London
    Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
    16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1 died.

    cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients treated 123 died, a fatality
    rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the victims being one of the nurses."
    --
    John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
    http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
    change your life.
     
  4. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >>To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is, follow the links below,
    > >>hint, it ain't nuten to get workde up over:
    > >
    > >I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.
    > >
    > >This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages fluently in addition to being an
    > >experimental chemist who tested his medicines experimentally on patients.
    > >
    > >What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced here to date.
    > >
    > >There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At any rate, the thesis readings
    > >are a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than the crap posted on these ngs.
    >

    Isaac Asimov's Trilogy is "a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than the crap posted on
    these ngs." But it is still fiction. And so is homeopathy.

    > Thesis on homeopathy submitted to Staffordshire University for the degree of Master of Philosophy
    > http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm
    >
    > Here are two quotable quotes. :)
    >
    > "The orthodox physician has, in short, been so indoctrinated by a false logic, a false metaphysic,
    > and a meretricious science, that his mind is inaccessible to our point of view. To understand in
    > any particular sense what are our methods would call for a reorientation too drastic for the
    > ordinary mortal. [Robertson, 1978, p.93]"

    This sounds like Dave's "higher plane" bullshit.

    >
    > "There is first disorder of government, and this proceeds from within outwards until we have
    > pathological changes in the tissues. In the practice of medicine today the idea of government is
    > not found, and the tissue changes only are taken into account. He who considers disease results to
    > be the disease, is insane. It is an insanity in medicine, an insanity that has grown out of the
    > milder forms of mental disorder in science, crazy whims. [Kent, 1900, p.22]"
    >

    Crazy whims are proprietary to alternative medicine.

    > The presentation of material in this thesis has really blown my mind!!! It is very interesting
    > reading.
    >
    > Here, is another interesting quote on how homeopathy was documented to be effective against the
    > the London Cholera epidemic of 1854.
    >
    > "In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera treated [at the London
    > Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
    > 16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1 died.
    >

    > cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients treated 123 died, a fatality
    > rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the victims being one of the nurses."

    First, who was doing the counting? Second, how well do you suppose homeopathy would do in a contest
    against MODERN medicine in treating cholera? [Hint: the fatality rate for scientifically treated
    patients would be zero, or nearly so.]

    Just thought you might want to know.

    --Rich
     
  5. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), founder of
    Homeopathy, a German physician and chemist who spoke 8 different languages fluently gave up his
    medical practice in disgust at its poor results(1782-3). He published the main body of his
    homeopathic writings between 1805-28 and moved to Paris, France in 1835 at the age of 80 and
    practiced homeopathy.

    >Second, how well do you suppose homeopathy would do in a contest against MODERN medicine in
    >treating cholera?

    The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating deadly acute diseases like cholera
    with homeopathy. :)

    If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel Hahnemann should be called a Quack
    rather than an intellectual giant who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

    The facts are that homeopathy was proven to be a clinically effective therapeutic method for
    treating deadly acute diseases like cholera.

    I will repeat my earlier comments for the benefit of the intellectually challenged science geeks on
    these ngs.

    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. :(

    Compared to the Masters thesis of Peter Morrell, http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm
    Shewmaker's comments are just plain stupid. :)

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)
    --
    John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
    http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
    change your life.
     
  6. Happy Dog

    Happy Dog Guest

    "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]>
    > >Second, how well do you suppose homeopathy would do in a contest against MODERN medicine in
    > >treating cholera?
    >
    > The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating deadly acute diseases like
    > cholera with homeopathy. :)

    Uh, no. That is not a fact. There are no controlled studies and that would be needed to call this
    claim a "fact".

    > The established theory of Medical Scientism

    There is no such theory.

    le moo
     
  7. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >
    > The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating deadly acute diseases like
    > cholera with homeopathy. :)

    No, he wasn't.

    > If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel Hahnemann should be called a Quack
    > rather than an intellectual giant who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

    Hahnemann was a quack. Those who still subscribe to his silly theories and sell water and sugar
    pills to naive believers are quacks.

    > Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the calling card of all Science
    > Geeks. :(
    >

    And Mr. Goode displays the ignorance of disease processes and human physiology which is glaringly
    obvious on his website. Cholera is characterized by violent diarrhea and kills by dehydration and
    electrolyte depletion. It is treated with intravenous electrolyte solutions. GALLONS of homeopathy
    might replace the lost fluids, but wouldn't provide electrolytes, and would actually make the
    condition worse. (Most cholera epidemics today happen in places where neither IV fluids and
    equipment nor people with the skills to use them exist, but great success has been obtained by the
    development of electrolyte salts in a packet that can be dissolved in boiled water and given to the
    patient by mouth.)

    --Rich
     
  8. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >> If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel Hahnemann should be called a Quack
    >> rather than an intellectual giant who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

    >Hahnemann was a quack. Those who still subscribe to his silly theories and sell water and sugar
    >pills to naive believers are quacks.

    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

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

    After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Quack like our fellow Rich Shewmaker,
    obviously is.
    --
    John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
    http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
    change your life.
     
  9. Once upon a time, our fellow Happy Dog rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
    review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >> The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating deadly acute diseases like
    >> cholera with homeopathy. :)

    >Uh, no. That is not a fact. There are no controlled studies and that would be needed to call this
    >claim a "fact".

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    "There are no controlled studies and that would be needed to call this claim a "fact." "

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Science geeks apparently don't believe that the facts of history are facts!!!

    "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
    --
    John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
    http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
    change your life.
     
  10. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Can you tell time and location, Shewmaker?

    "In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera treated [at the London
    Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
    16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1 died.

    cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients treated 123 died, a fatality
    rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the victims being one of the nurses."

    Just thought that you might want to know, ... again Shewmaker! :)
     
  11. This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C39ACC.7A4BCDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    "John 'the disillusioned shill for the disproven quack theory called = homeopathy'"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message = news:[email protected]...

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

    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:

    Main Entry: quack Function: noun
    1 : charlatan
    2 : a pretender to medical skill

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

    then please provide YOUR definition.

    --Rich

    ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C39ACC.7A4BCDE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META
    http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML
    5.50.3825.1300" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DV><FONT size=3D2>"John 'the disillusioned shill for the disproven = quack theory=20 called
    homeopathy'" <</FONT><A = href=3D"mailto:D[email protected]"><FONT=20
    size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in = message </FONT><A=20
    href=3D"news:[email protected]"><FONT=20
    size=3D2>news:[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT =

    size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
    <DVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DVII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DVIII><FONT size=3D2>> After all, I don't want to be known as a modern = day Quack=20 like
    our<BR>> fellow Rich Shewmaker, obviously is.<BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIX><FONT size=3D2>Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know = about me=20 and what I do
    that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious to you, = you=20 should be able to do this.
    If you are using a different definition of = "quack"=20 than this:</FONT></DIV>
    <DX><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DXI><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New = Roman"><FONT=20 size=3D3>Main
    Entry: <B>quack</B><BR>Function: <I>noun</I><BR><B>1</B>=20 </FONT><B><FONT size=3D3>:
    charlatan</FONT></B></FONT><FONT = face=3D"Times New Roman"=20 size=3D3><BR><B>2</B> <B>:</B>
    a pretender to medical = skill</FONT></FONT></DIV>
    <DXII><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
    <DXIII><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><EM><FONT size=3D2>(from = </FONT></EM><A=20
    href=3D"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary"><EM><FONT=20
    size=3D2>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary</FONT></EM></A><EM><FONT=20
    size=3D2>)</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
    <DXIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" = size=3D3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
    <DXV><FONT size=3D2>then please provide YOUR definition.</FONT></DIV>
    <DXVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DXVII><FONT size=3D2>--Rich<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

    ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C39ACC.7A4BCDE0--
     
  12. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    > research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm
    >
    > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    >
    > Can you tell time and location, Shewmaker?
    >
    > "In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera treated [at the London
    > Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
    > 16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1 died.
    >

    > cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients treated 123 died, a fatality
    > rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the victims being one of the nurses."
    >

    And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you believe everything you read?
    Besides, even if the data are accurate, it's likely that in 1854, neither hospital had effective
    treatment for cholera, and the difference in survival rates reflects normal variation and the fact
    that the homeopathic hospital was treating a smaller number of patients and was thus probably able
    to provide more nursing care, i.e., more frequent oral hydration.

    --Rich
     
  13. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >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:

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?

    Just thought that you might want to know. :)

    Even more articles on homeopathy are at: http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/index.htm
     
  14. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you believe everything you read?

    Do you believe that everyone is stupid, Shewmaker?

    Are you saying that in England Master Degree theses in history don't document their sources of
    information?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?
     
  15. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    > research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >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:
    >
    > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    >
    > Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?
    >
    > Just thought that you might want to know. :)

    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.

    --Rich

    >
    > Even more articles on homeopathy are at:
    http://www.homeowatch.org/
     
  16. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    > research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you believe everything
    > >you read?
    >
    > Do you believe that everyone is stupid, Shewmaker?
    >
    > Are you saying that in England Master Degree theses in history don't document their sources of
    > information?

    Then perhaps YOU can document it.

    >
    > Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

    If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you are quite ignorant. Why
    don't you just admit that you know nothing about cholera and that you chose a bad example to support
    your pet homeopathy?

    --Rich
     
  17. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

    >If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you are quite ignorant. Why
    >don't you just admit that you know nothing about cholera and that you chose a bad example to
    >support your pet homeopathy?

    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?
     
  18. Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >> >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:
    >>
    >> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    >>
    >> Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?

    >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!

    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

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

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

    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?
    --
    John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
    http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
    change your life.
     
  19. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
    > research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?
    >
    > >If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you
    are
    > >quite ignorant. Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about
    cholera
    > >and that you chose a bad example to support your pet homeopathy?
    >
    > 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?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Actually, I've read a biography of Samuel Hahnemann, and I actually own two very old moldy volumes
    of Materia Medica that I picked up in a used-book store. While I can't claim to have actually read
    them like a novel (you'd go crazy), I spent several hours on several occasions sampling them. So
    it's entirely possible that I know more about homeopathy than you do. I'm not sure what health
    reform movements you are referring to, but I'm well versed in healthcare history. As for "personal
    health in general," it is my daily profession, and here I am SURE I know more about that than you
    do. Let's see, yesterday I saw a 24-year-old woman whose previously diagnosed gallstones had
    developed into an acute cholecystitis, a six-year-old boy with a 2 cm. laceration on his chin, an
    eighteen month-old girl with a fever who was admitted to the hospital with probable viral
    meningitis, an alcohol-intoxicated driver motor vehicle accident victim with neck and back pain who
    was treated and released, and a 74-year-old lady with severe constipation. You would not know where
    to start to help any one of these people, and homeopathy wouldn't help any of them either.

    Just thought you might want to know.

    --Rich
     
Loading...