"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6a1js$u1o$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue
> <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On Jul 24, 5:43?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>
> :> : And when I say people should think for themselves and question
> authority,
> :> : there are some who say they do. . .
> :> : People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they
> say.
>
> :> Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for
> himself
> :> and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? Has it ever
> :> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that
> :> thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is
> even
> :> close to be correct are very, very, very small?
>
> : The very same points have been made to you regarding acupuncture.
>
> I have come to the conclusions that the experts -- i.e. those who know how
> to design an experiment properly and to report its results accurately --
> are
> correct, and that there is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture
> beyond a placebo effect.
Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours for a
period and nothing to do with curing cancer.
>
> : If only you were capable of thinking rationally on the topic of
> : acupuncture...
>
> The one who is incapable of rational thought, alas, is you. The proof is
> quite evident to anyone who is as not as blinded with rage against those
> who disagree with him as you are. One might start with your insistence
> on responding to posts that I write that have nothing to do with
> acupuncture
> and inserting another one of your patented rants.
Have you done my silica test or my athletes foot test?
No!
>
> I have given you a long list of articles, and expressed a willingness to
> discuss with you what you think the problems with the articles are that
> their
> evidence against the efficacy of acupuncture can be dismissed. Not only
> have
> you failed to accept that offer -- you have refused in principle even to
> *read* the articles in question, not even the one that you claim
> (incorrectly)
> supports your position, and not even the one written by a professor of
> complementary medicine. I have offered to discuss with you the
> statistical
> problems with reports of clinical trials of acupuncture, and why Peter
> Moran's
> statements that negative results should probably be given more weight than
> positive ones are to be taken seriously. Not only have you refused to
> enter
> such a discussion, you have refused to acknowledge my offer. I have asked
> you
> for your comments on an article that I found that presented a conjecture
> about the origin of the belief in meridians, and asked you to comment.
> You
> certainly refused to comment, and I am sure refused to read the article
> as well.
I wouldn't read anything you recommend because there's no evidence you think
outside the conventional system that you've been trained to follow.
You're more interested in support the current system than looking for
truth -- you have so much invested in your conventional career to question
it would threaten your chosen career.
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
www.cellsalts.net
