On 19 Apr 2011 at 1:03pm I'm Not an Expert, But.. wrote:
It is one thing to argue against something that I have stated as fact, but to extract part of a sentence that I have written, and to argue against it completely out of context, well, pretty silly really. What is the point? For instance, I was not accusing you of writing ‚??reams and reams of scientific jargon‚??, I actually said that you ‚??POST LINKS TO reams and reams of scientific jargon‚?? ‚?? completely different. Do you ignore bits of evidence in scientific analysis that do not fit your argument in the same way maybe?
You also denied having listed names that mean nothing to anyone outside the scientific community. Well, in your last post you wrote ‚??M Cucherat, M C Haugh, M Gooch, J P Boissel, "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials", European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol 56 (2000), pp 27‚??33; K Linde, N Clausius,G Ramirez, D Melchart, F Eitel, L V Hedges et al., "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials", Lancet 1997, vol 350, pp 834‚??84‚?Ě. I am sure that these names are not those of homeopaths as surely they would not present evidence against themselves, and I have my doubts that any of these names are familiar to anyone else on this forum!
You then have the nerve to say that ‚??providing evidence that what one is saying is correct, however long and boring it may be is a much more honest way to approach discussion of a subject than your chosen tactics‚?Ě. The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.
I have not been trying to wind you up, far from it. I have merely been trying to make you understand exactly what it is that I said in the first place. I have not made any statements about the validity of homeopathy, other than that I am not a believer in it. It seems that you still feel the need to jump to conclusions that I am actually claiming the contrary, or why continue to ram evidence (however correct it may be) down my throat. I have consistently tried to explain that there is nothing to argue about, but to no avail. You obviously have some kind of personal quest going on here, and as unnecessary as your rantings might be, nothing that anyone else says is going to stop you.
Just one last word on this subject from me, and that is that if you reach your conclusions on everything using the same style of argument and logic that you have done in his arguments against me, then I would say that these conclusions are likely to be just as flawed.
So, one last time then for the sake of clarity,
I do not believe in homeopathy and share your concerns about its claims.
I do not need to read countless details of clinical trials to re-enforce this
I did read something about homeopathy which I am quite willing to accept was not true, but I will certainly NOT accept that I did not read it just because you say I didn‚??t
I do not want to waste any more of my time talking to you, because each time I do, it starts you off on another long and frankly tedious outpouring consisting, as I have previously said, of lists of names and links to scientific studies.
Come back with whatever you like, I am fed up now so won‚??t bother reading any more of your diatribe.
Oh yes, and why not try and get out a bit more!
On 20 Apr 2011 at 1:06am bloke wrote:
@I am Not an Expert
Wow. You choose re-open the subject here on a new thread and once more demonstrate an apparent inability to read for comprehension but oddly enough accuse me of not reading your posts properly. Have you heard of the psychological term "projection"?
It seems that in virtually every post in the WHAW thread you launched into a ranting attack, making claims about what I'm supposed to have said when I hadn't or what I'm supposed to be thinking when I wasn't thinking that at all. When I made general points you have, several times now, taken them as if I'm talking about you and gone on the defensive. You're a bit self-obsessed.
In my first reply to you all I wanted to do was point out that any implication that meta-analysis supports of the contention that homeopathy acts better than a placebo is false and that its not a benign (harmless) treatment that does no-one any harm. You've not addressed the evidence-base at all up till now and now you show ignorance and contempt for it describing what's I've posted as it as just a list of names no-one's heard of and what I've linked to as a bunch of scientific jargon.
Here's a demonstration of your reading comprehension failure:
"I was not accusing you of writing ‚??reams and reams of scientific jargon‚??"
Er.. did I claim you were? What makes you think I thought this? Nothing in my response infers that. How the heck do you get this from what I wrote?
"You also denied having listed names that mean nothing to anyone outside the scientific community. "
No. I didn't deny it. Good grief. You really are a silly goose. I specifically mentioned TWO sets of "lists of names" and explained what they were. Firstly there was the list of representatives from homeopathic organisations and the organisations and secondly the authors of the meta-analysis papers. This is within the text you posted above. This is not a list of names per se but the part of the identification for two published journal articles.
You called my use of there these references as "Just listing names that mean nothing to anyone outside the scientific community" - are you not able to differentiate between a list of names and a reference to a published paper that includes the authors orf the paper? It seems that you're not. These published meta-analysis studies contradict what you say you apparently read. I included the citations using the convention of listing them by author; article name and publication because that's how it's is done. But I was not even addressing you with this post anyway I was replying to 'Grr' who asked me why how I could verify the position I took on the HoC report. How was I supposed to reply to this properly without providing the references? That you have a problem with this is really quite bizarre.
"I have my doubts that any of these names are familiar to anyone else on this forum!"
Of course they won't be familiar to people! The names of the authors are largely immaterial in themselves but they are important as part of the reference the the journal articles.
"you still feel the need to jump to conclusions that I am actually claiming the contrary"
What conclusions am I supposed to be jumping to? I have explicitly stated I understand that you're not a supporter of homeopathy several times now.
"I did read something about homeopathy which I am quite willing to accept was not true"
Well that sounds like progress from your earlier position of agreeing to disagree with documented fact.
"but I will certainly NOT accept that I did not read it just because you say I didn‚??t"
This is yet another reading comprehension failure on your part. I haven't said you did not read whatever it is you say you have read. I have only stated that you haven't been able to substantiate whatever you say you read.