Guest guest Posted August 20, 2005 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2005 Report Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.