I did enjoy the tone of this most recent post of yours. In fact, most of your posts don't really rub me the wrong way at all-- but the parasite remark did.
If I were certain, I would not have asked questions (if they were rhetorical questions, I would not have included "you"). So, I would not say your post showed it, only that there was an indication within the post that this might be an issue. That particular indication was present in the questions themselves. For all I know, you could be trolling, well aware of what I mean, but pretending not to.
You presented a paper that looked at a mother tincture as if it has some value for supporting a homeopathic concoction. I wasn't sure if you understood the difference between a mother tincture and a homeopathic concoction, so I wanted to verify this, in order to better address your argument.
I did. See my response below.
That a single scientific study means there is some potential for this to be an effective use of the mother tincture, which would need to be verified with additional studies.
I linked
three studies right off of recent publications that I have read, and I'm sure if I searched I would find many more.
I have no experience in cell biology. Can you tell me how experience in cell biology gives you any knowledge of homeopathy, or how your answer was in any way relevant to my question? If not Google Scholar, how did you come across this article?
Apigenin (the compound isolated from the mother tincture) is being looked at more around the circles of oncological-research. My question was a direct response to you questioning whether I knew what I was talking about. I initially came across the first article a few months ago when we were talking about Apigenin, and homeopathy in general at a lab-meeting a few months ago-- the latter three are merely supporting articles that have cited the article that I initially referenced. Our lab deals strictly with prostate cancer, and the effects of apigenin have not been looked at in-depth in terms of prostate-cancer. It's something we've considered meddling with.
You quoted yourself on this:
From the original paper:
I still don't know if you understand why the omission of "mother" is relevant.
See below, again.
I would not disagree that 'some drugs used in traditional Western medicine are also used homeopahtically', if that's what you meant.
Not exactly.
Of course homeopaths start with things that are used as drugs.
Nope. In this case, it's a drug that was popularized
specifically by homeopathy, over years of what homeopaths considered to be "treatment"-- whether we think it's placebo or not is irrelevant; the fact that we have even considered testing this drug was due to its popularity among the circles of homeopathy.
Just to make sure to hammer my point: even if the homeopathic drops that people take are nothing but water/alcohol/whatever, the mere service of homeopaths identifying certain extracts, and pioneering their usage in medical treatment has opened the eyes of some researchers to test them out in a lab-environment. So at the absolute worst, some homeopaths are responsible for screening certain drugs and bringing them to our attention, before we can refine their treatment in methods that seem more reasonable, physiologically-helpful, and potentially less expensive. So to me, that isn't parasitic.
It's the homeopathic preparations that are worthless, and that's why the are relegated to "complementary medicine", or "integrative medicine". If homeopathy worked, it would just be "medicine".
See above.
I've noticed instantly.
Why would you bother being rude like that? I have never referred to you, nor anyone else on this forum at any point, by any handle other than one they have chosen to post by or one they have explicitly endured.
That's a good question, actually. I'm generally fairly respectful of others, and their privacy. But keep in mind my care for these things dwindles when I perceive people behaving in behaviours such as the ones I mentioned, and you noted.
I may have given you too much credit. I'm not sure, but I would still guess you basically trolling, and don't believe that the paper you linked says anything about homeopathic formulaitons.
suit yourself.
It also made sense with the word "unwillingly". Am I supposed to substitute every possible word that could make sense in place of every given adverb? It's not like I claimed your s=explanation was false.
Again, it's something that to me is fairly obvious, and if I noticed in a post of another's, I wouldn't bother bringing it up. You and I are different people, I suppose.
That's exactly what you are doing, every time you complain about my tone.
Not necessarily-- I'm just providing you some advice.
Everyone knows it so well that they don't feel any need to provide evidence, which is fortunate for them, because there is none. I'll insult ideas, systems of thinking, and bad logic. I don't insult people, because over the years I've held multitudes of inferior ideas, faulty systems, and bad logic. As I pointed out above, I'm so scrupulous in this that I don't even use dimuntives of people's names.
While this could be true (and it isn't difficult for me to take your word for it)-- understand that insulting a person's identity, his ethos, his lifestyle, and his meaning of life can be interchangeable with insulting the person period. Isolating the traits, or characteristics of people from their ideas, systems of thinking, or lifestyles is a preposterous exercise when understanding that much of who we are are direct reflections of the aforementioned characteristics that you feel no shame in insulting.
But of course, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to insult a person-- because you should. However, this is where delivery is key. Syntax makes all the difference between offering someone your solemn advice with a genuine intention of helping out-- as opposed to being blunt, condescending, and narrow-minded. This goes-back to much of my mantra that I've shared to you.
Since I've repped you in the past for doing that, I'm not impressed with your curent sarcasm.
I guess it goes to show that I
do use evidence in my claims. Sometimes, it can be more veiled than others. FWIW, I've posrepped you a handful of times as well.
Social change only happens when people become dissatisfied with the status quo.
But of course-- but this isn't the same as "letting yourself be the gadfly" and not being a conciliator.
Please go into an example. I'm genuinely curious.
I have midterms all week, so I'm sure I won't have time to entertain you with an example that will satisfy you. But, when reading that question, I tend to split comfort in different realms-- and sometimes you'll sacrifice comfort in one regard to boost comfort in another regard. So, it's hard to measure net gains, or loss in comfort per-se. So yes-- many times, I perform behaviours that seriously compromise one aspect of my comfort, and it can be argued that it isn't sufficiently made up for with comfort in another realm.
Unfortunately for you, you have nothing else left in my posts to criticize, so resorting to an auto-corrected error seems like the next logical step.
