Posted: Jun 12, 2010 12:02 pm
by Dr. Nancy Malik
TMB wrote:
Actually what passed as science of the time, told us it was flat and we all wnt along with it without needing personal validation of the data. Then science told us it was a speher, and once again we went along with what we wer told because we are good at absorbing social opinions. Once again we did not rely upon personal validation of the primary data. Have a look at the other threads on this forum, and all the peole who belive in evolution (ie. science) who have no idea what it actually is in principle and certainly no direct validation of the evidence - this makes it hearsay.

My point is that scientific method might be a good system, but people stil rely upon hearsay to form opinions. Medical science (allopathy) has changed mostly because of pressure caused by ineffective or destructive remedies. We can only wait to see just what fallout there is with the use of antibiotics (we have some inkling, vaccinations because the weight of conventional wisdom is that rules us, not scientific method.


Those who knew (500 millions of people worldwide) about it are the patients of homeopathy medicine. Not everyone ask for double blind, lancet, etc. They are the ones who have personaly benefited and acknowledged homeopathy. For skeptics it is an anecdotal evidence (of 500 million people), for them homeopathy is a panacea.