homeopathy

[Guest guest]

List:

Leonard is a good friend, he is smart, and he is right most of the

time. I think that it would be wonderful to have a good open-minded

discussion about homeopathy. I would very much like list members to

join in with all rational opinions. I will start it by posing a

question: If you are handed a vial of water and you are told that it

is a wonderful and potent homeopathic medicine made by the world's

most clever homeopath, and you were allowed to test it any way in the

world that you would like, how would you determine if it is just

water or if it is a real medicine, and if so what it would treat

effectively -- other than thirst. This is not a trick question; it

is a very practical, common-sense question. There are practical

answers to this for all conventional and almost all alternative

medicines. I don't think that homeopathy can withstand scientific

scrutiny that would include qualitative and quantitative analysis and

a double-blinded study. I do believe that unblinded studies would

show wonderful benefits from homeopathy or anything that is presented

with authority.

I am sure that Leonard knows a great deal about homeopathy. But

there are theologians of every religion who spend decades studying

their brands of faith. They might all be " knowledgeable " but at

least some of them must be wrong. If there are more trees in the

world than there are leaves on any one tree, then at least two trees

have the same number of leaves.

At 02:18 PM 8/14/2006, you wrote:

>I won't get into a debate over any of this but wish to say that I know a

>good bit about homeopathy and disagree w/all of 's statements that

>I've listed at the bottom of this email.