well that argument is hard to flush away... On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> The homeopaths never do the experiment even in the face of a million >>> dollar standing prize from James Randi if someone can simply differentiate >>> a properly made homeopathic solution from it's solvent by *any* means >>> whatsoever. >>> >> >> That is incorrect. Jacques Benveniste invited Randi to review his >> homeopathic experiments. See: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste >> >> QUOTE: >> >> ". . . The team pored over the laboratory's records and oversaw seven >> attempts to replicate Benveniste's study. Three of the first four attempts >> turned out somewhat favorable to Benveniste; however the Nature team was >> not satisfied with the rigor of the methodology. Benveniste invited them to >> design a double blind procedure, which they did, and conducted three more >> attempts. Before fully revealing the results, the team asked if there were >> any complaints about the procedure, but none were brought up.[citation >> needed] These stricter attempts turned out negative for Benveniste . . ." >> >> Benveniste and others disputed that last statement. >> > > This is a bit like the story of Dr. Levi's 18 hour experiment. Why did > they not repeat the whole thing? And the same for Levi. > > I don't really want to argue homeopathy here unless you are sure it's > within guidelines to do so. Then, I'll be happy too. It's the lowest > common denominator of stupidity to claim homeopathy could possibly work > because no material is present except solvent in the final product if it's > properly prepared. You have to assume pure water has memory. If it does, > you'd better not drink it. Think about all the toilets it visited in the > past. >
