permaculture

["georg parlow" <georg@websuxxess.com>]

> According to theses, double blind studies on a lot of
homeopathic
> preparations have indeed been done (decades ago) and all of
them have shown
> that these preparations do not have any effect exceeding a
placebo's. This
> means that homeopathy has been scientifically refuted long ago.

> This is a good example of the unscientific stuff that we have
to get rid of!

> It is totally irrational to stick to homeopathy when it has
been refuted
> long ago.

good example of the limitations of one-size-fits-all science.
homeopathy produces fine results (proper diagnosis provided - so
i should rephrase this to: good homeopaths produce fine results)
with nearly 100% of highly sensitive persons (hsp). of course,
these comprise only around 15 to 20% of any given population. for
the rest it is a placebo.

not taking into account the diversity of people or situations
makes it easy to discredit a system that is cheap, shows a
minimum of sideeffects, and can help around 1 billion of people
on this planet with a lot of minor to medium health problems.
this is not scientific but ignorant.

admittedly it is a problem, that only a very limited number of
researchers so far have fucused on hsps - many people havent even
heard of their existence, including most hsps themselves, who
often think that something is wrong with them or with the
less-sensitive majority.

what do we learn from that? long, intense, protracted and even
some more observation, before we go into action or judgement.



> advantages of the herb spiral, fine.
> If it shows no advantage, fine, why stick to it?

maybe because it certain patterns in our surrounds have different
effects on us directly though subtely? i do not have a herbspiral
in my garden but spirals made from rocks - they serve no purpose
whatsoever but pleasing me and maybe the lizards. and for such
subjective advantages i need no quantifiable experiments.

georg