Guest guest Posted August 20, 2005 Report Posted August 20, 2005 Very well said. On Aug 20, 2005, at 8:35 AM, acuman1 wrote: > Actually, It comes down to money, doesn't it? The way the system is > set up, > unless one can get billions of dollars (considering the numbers of > projects > involved to test every item used) to do the research, it is not > proven. That is > why there has to be a historical level of proof that has to be > acceptable. > Considering the " side " effects of modern medications that have > passed these tests, > historical proof may well be more acceptable as far as safety and > effectiveness is concerned. Just add a little historical proofing > to weed out familial > bias. > David Molony Quote
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 The problem is with who decides the benchmark. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: proof >Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:20:25 -0700 > >Very well said. > > >On Aug 20, 2005, at 8:35 AM, acuman1 wrote: > > > Actually, It comes down to money, doesn't it? The way the system is > > set up, > > unless one can get billions of dollars (considering the numbers of > > projects > > involved to test every item used) to do the research, it is not > > proven. That is > > why there has to be a historical level of proof that has to be > > acceptable. > > Considering the " side " effects of modern medications that have > > passed these tests, > > historical proof may well be more acceptable as far as safety and > > effectiveness is concerned. Just add a little historical proofing > > to weed out familial > > bias. > > David Molony > > > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.