Again, who mentioned anything about abolishing religion? I mean, other than you?

It will if there is evidence.

And those work great. But assuming that because it works on those it works on everything is a false generalization.

I'm not dissing the idea that some of this stuff works. Just that it goes by untested. If something really works, the scientific method will show that it works.

Communist countries have been about control of the masses, not all communism is opposed to religion.
The biblical book of Acts describes the early church existing as a communist society. They all sold their land and possessions and pooled their money together to meet their needs as a group. That's communism in a religion.

Many of the old testament laws, while not blatant communism, were socialist to an extent - for example, the law required that when harvesting a field, some be left for the poor to harvest.

That's why I don't get it when Christians get all upset about some of Obama's socialist statements. I guess they haven't read their Bible.

If you want to test homeopathy yourself - next time you have some kind of mishap where you end up with severe bruising - try Arnica montana

Do NOT take the raw plant - it can kill you. Take a prepared homeopathic remedy. Your bruises will heal considerably faster.

If you're going to have a discussion of the impact of religion on a country/society-and I think that is what the original article is about-part of that should be to look at countries that have outlawed religion. Did that stop people from killing each other? No. The countries that outlawed religion have been some of the most murderous and oppressive regimes in the 20th century.

But that is not a scientific test. That would be an inference based on anecdotal evidence.

Scientific integrity is all I ask.

First, don't be snarky. I didn't say the studies were wrong. I said check the dates and think about things. Medical practices change rapidly over 15 years. It's entirely possible whatever techniques were studied in the research are no longer used, and they've found something better by now.

As for the new source, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it's highly suspect. I see no scientific data. I see no reference to any credible scientific journal.

What I see essentially says, "This guy who used to be for ECT, well, he now has a study and it turns out he's against it."

To top it off, what's the "Citizens Commission on Human Rights?" As stated at the end of the source,

Very credible indeed.

So are you trying to imply that lack of religion turns people into murderous, oppressive dictators?

I'm saying crazy murderers will kill people with or without religion. If religion isn't around, they'll find another reason. The Son of Sam killer said he killed people because the neighbor's dog told him to.

Sorry, Hahnemann began outlining his theories, which are the basis of homeopathy, in 1796.

That same year, Jenner conducted his research on smallpox vaccination, which was the basis for Pasteur's work in the 19th century. Furthermore, we can be fairly sure that Jenner's work was independent of Hahnemann's work on homeopathy.

So, homeopathy and vaccination are, at best, contemporaneous hypotheses.

Homeopathy doesn't get to claim vaccination simply it's similar to the "law of similarity."

Again, sorry; the use of glyceryl trinitrate follows from observations that handling it causes headaches, indicating an effect on blood vessels, and Brunton's discoveries concerning amyl nitrate and the treatment of chest pain, said discovery being the result of applying it directly to the coronary arteries during open surgery.

Nowhere is there any indication of the influence of homeopathy.

Once more, similar concepts doesn't mean it was "borrowed."

Edit: Sorry, there is a nitroglycerin/homeopathy connection; its headache causing property was suggested by looking through homeopathic provings (tests of medicines), though homeopaths never used it to treat angina.

I'm saying crazy murderers will kill people with or without religion. If religion isn't around, they'll find another reason. The Son of Sam killer said he killed people because the neighbor's dog told him to.

Agreed, but why are you specifically referencing "communist" countries abolishing religion?

Because it can't be true otherwise?

Here's an article -
http://www.peacehealth.org/kbase/cam/hn-2264001.htm

Something to note from it -

I'm not an expert on homeopathy, and haven't seen a homeopath in years, but reading that reminded - before he prescribed me anything, he asked a bunch of questions about things that seemed completely unrelated. Soon he started making predictions - for example, he knew I slept on my back with my feet uncovered and my head covered.

I'm guessing he was profiling me to figure out which remedies I would respond to.

A proper scientific study would thus require such an artist as the homeopath I saw, with a double blind study where he profiles them and prescribes the remedy but neither he nor the patients know which got remedy and which got sugar pills.

A test without a homeopath who knows what he is doing may very well be worthless because different people respond in different ways.

Over in Europe, many medical doctors who have been through medical school and understand the scientific method as well as anyone incorporate homeopathy into their practice.

It's only here in the US where there is such a negative attitude from most doctors towards it.

I'll leave with a quote from a non scientist, non doctor, but one of my favorite authors of all time -

Mark Twain - Harpers Magazine - 1890

Learn to fucking read.
You even quoted what I said but clearly did not comprehend it.

I did not say vaccinations came from homeopathy, I said they were a homeopathic concept - which they are.

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH COUGH--HACK--COUGH--HACK--HACK--HACK--DID I MAKE IT CLEAR---HACK, HACK HACK HACK/// HACK HACK HACK

To use your own delicate language: Learn to fucking read.

I have never, in this thread or elsewhere, stated that something cannot be true if it has not been tested--only that there is no reason to believe that it is true without evidence.

Patients respond to different medications in different ways in traditional medicine as well, so that is a moot point.

Further, this contradicts your own suggestion that I try a particular cure for myself. If proper diagnosis requires a highly trained homeopath, why should your suggested treatment work for me?

Again, I am not and have never stated that all homeopathic remedies be discarded out of hand, but that before they are accepted as truth they be subjected to rigorous testing. To actively discourage such testing of one's methods is disingenuous at best.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.