2)Phlogiston (unknown entity invented by you) and bodily humours are, as you say, part of scientific hypothesis, bu scientific hypothesis (as I say) is only part of the scientific method, unless you are saying that formulating a scientific hypothesis is in and by itself “science”, which is clearly not the case;

3) A rather consistent amount of “scientific” literature (see my paper on Medical Science Monitor) demonstrates that analgesics, anti parkinson and anti depressant drugs are, in fact, placebo, and even if they are clearly toxic, they continue to be sold without generating apparent concern in our zealous quackbuster…!

4) Please re-read the hormetic literature on my article on Medical Science Monitor. From what you say about Paracetamol is rather evident that medicine is not your field of competence. Paracetamol may be toxic for KIDNEYS first, but the hormetic claims do not concern the presumed “therapeutic” doses of drugs. What hormesis is, is clearly explained in my paper and in a bunch of scientific papers, therefore I assume that, in a democratic and unbiased management of your “discussion” you should leave out your bullshiting interpretations and let the reader know what hormesis is about!

5) In the “decimal” dilutions (largely used in Germany, among other), a rather consistent (and measurable) amount of of the original substance is still present;

6) epitaxy is another field in which you have to read a lot. Instead of simply mentioning and misinterpreting my words, you’d better read the work of Rustum Roy, a materials physicist (not a homeopathic guru!), whose words I simply transcribed in my article. Would you have any concern about epitaxy (and I guess you may well have a lot), please refer to Prof.Rustum Roy;

7) Regarding the placebo, please explain your reader (and document with scientific proof),what it is made of.

if, as you say, the placebo effect is a “psychological” effect, then, please, explain your readers what “psyche” is…but in “scientific” terms!

9)I do not “accuse” pharmaceutical companies! Other scientists, surely more qualified than me, have done it! If you don’t believe it, please look at the related references in my article;

10)The “standards” of evidence in clinical trials are those imposed by the economic power of pharmaceutical companies, which are seriously flawed (see references in my paper);

11)Matter and mind….have you ever simply doubted that the problem in understanding homeopathy might be in YOU, instead that in homeopathy itself? Again, the citations on matter and mind, dark matter and dark energy, etc. are not mine, but of course, you want your readers to understand that they are, in order to defame me and try to show that you’re right. Once more, should you integrally report my article on your blog, would be more scientifically and ethically sound…but I understand that you are not interested in these trifles;

12)I am not sure about what you have found while investigating on my paper, if not that it is regularly published on a scientific journal (Medical Science Monitor) and regularly reported on the search engine PubMed;

13) By the way; if you do not want to reveal your qualifications, it isi not said that you should attribute qualifications to others. First of all I am not a homeopath; second, I am a Hematologist, oncologist, clinical pharmacologist, molecular biologist and ophthalmologist. I had my degree in medicine the 26th of october of 1979…

14) to conclude, a simple question to you: is medicine a “science”?

Domenico Mastrangelo, MD

PS
with some corrections

2)Phlogiston (unknown entity invented by you) and bodily humours are, as you say, part of scientific hypothesis, bu scientific hypothesis (as I say) is only part of the scientific method, unless you are saying that formulating a scientific hypothesis is in and by itself “science”, which is clearly not the case;

3) A rather consisten amount of “scientific” literature (see my paper on Medical Science Monitor) demonstrates that analgesics, anti parkinson and anti depressant drugs are, in fact, placebo, and even if they are clearly toxic, they continue to be sold without generating apparent concern in our zealous quackbuster…!

4) Please re-read the hormetic literature on my article on Medical Science Monitor. From what you say about Paracetamol is rather evident that medicine is not your field of competence. Paracetamol may be toxic for KIDNEYS first, but the hormetic claims do not concern the presumed “therapeutic” doses of drugs. What hormesis is, is clearly explained in my paper and in a bunch of scientific papers, therefore I assume that, in a democratic and unbiased management of your “discussion” you should leave out your bullshiting interpratations and let the reader know what hormesis is about!

5) In the “decimal” dilutions (largely used in Germany, among other), a rather consistent (and measurable) amount of of the original substance is still present;

6) epitaxy is another field in which you have to read a lot. Instead of simply mentioning and misinterpreting my words, you’d better read the work of Rustum Roy, a materials physicist (not a homeopathic guru!), whose words I simply transcribed in my article. Would you have any concern about epitaxy (and I guess you may well have a lot), please refer to Prof.Rustum Roy;

7) Regarding the placebo, please explain your reader (and document with scientific proof),what it is made of.

if, as you say, the placebo effect is a “psychological” effect, then, please, explain your readers what “psiyche” is…but in “scientifici” terms!

9)I do not “accuse” pharmaceutical companies! Other scientists, surely more qualified than me, have done it! If you don’t believe it, please look at the related references in my article;

10)The “standards” of evidence in clinical trials are those imposed by the economic power of pharmaceutical companies, which are seriously flawed (see references in my paper);

11)Matter and mind….have you ever simply doubted that the problem in understanding homeopathy might be in YOU, instead that in homeopathy itself? Again, the citations on matter and mind, dark matter and dark energy, etc. are not mine, but of course, you want your readers to understand that they are, in order to defamate me and try to show that you’re right. Once more, should you integrally report my article on your blog, would be more scientifically and ethically sound…but I understand that you are not interested in these trifles;

12)I am not sure about what you have found while investigating on my paper, if not that it is regularly published on a scientific journal (Medical Science Monitor) and regularly reported on the search engine PubMed;

13) By the way; if you do not want to reveal your qualifications, it isi not said that you should attribute qualificans to others. First of all I am not a homeopath; second, I am a Hematologisat, oncologist, clinical pharmacologist, molecula biologist and ophthalmologist. I had my degree in medicine the 26th of october of 1979…

14) to conclude, a simple question to you: is medicine a “science”?

Domenico Mastrangelo, MD

Is the world flat – because you can’t see the curves?

Rather than run away and stick your head in the sand and say that this will not change your mind, perhaps you would like to engage in some real dialogue and tell me precisely I am going wrong in the above article?