> Read the other papers. How many double-blind studies in
> peer-reviewed journals do you need???
As many as would be expected for something like, say, Viagara. 5 or 10 studies, reproduced by independent laboratories or universities (or high schools for that matter), all testing a specific formulation to treat a specific malady, with consistent far-beyond-placebo results to a 95% confidence factor. Any common over-the-counter drug would pass that test easily. Not one of the many studies cited comes close (though several do show minimally positive results).
> There are research areas that I consider a waste of time, wrong-headed, or
> where I am not yet convinced of the validity of their theories or approaches.
> But I would not condemn them with the sort of offensive, inflammatory
> language that you (and some of the other posters) have used. I accept
> that men of good will can disagree, and acknowledge the possibility that
> I may be wrong in my assessments.
I can tolerate other ideas, but actions are different. If homeopaths did nothing but research, I would consider them merely silly. If they want to waste their own time, that's their business. But they don't just do research: they sell false hope and empty promises; they hurt people. They drive people away from effective medical treatment. I am less tolerant of that.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC