In scientific journals, yes, because the replicability of an experiment is the basis for its reliability. If a scientific study is reliable, it should generate the same results over and over again, regardless of who does the study and how well-controlled it is. So, an individual study in a scientific journal can be very[/] good and generates amazing results, but if 90% of all re-attempts at the same study, or similar studies, results in a different result, then reliability of the original study is brought into question. Sometimes, this can result in the author of the original study claiming that his work was improperly replicated, recommending methods of controlling the conditions more effectively and, with time, many studies confirm his results. Or, as in the case of homeopathy, study after study continues to undermine it and so, it's regarded as a dubious result.Annabel wrote: Indi, does quantity equal qualiiy?
Annabel wrote: Also: the overwhelming majority of doctors have to pay off expensive high tech machines, and so they have to make as much money as possible. This is only possible if you wave a new patient in every 10 minutes, or sooner, and write out a quick prescription for : antibiotic, antidepressant, cortison, betablocker, painkiller, hallu-killer,etc.
The reason doctors spend a little amount of time with the patient is because of the shortage of doctors, being a very small ratio to the number of patients. Because of the high cost (mental and financial) to go to medical school. So, he has nurses and others that assist doing the minor work for him. He doesn't spend hours investigating because he doesn't need to go: A diagnosis for a known disease is not the same thing as researching a new disease. If the disease or problem is a known one, it's simply a matter of examining the symptoms and looking it up in a book. This can be done in minutes, in many cases, unless there's need for additional tests, like radiology work, biopsies, endoscopy, etc..
Annabel wrote: "Patient gets skin irritations of all sorts only in winter,is completely free of it in summer."
That's a pretty ambiguous description! What's the cause? What type of rash? Where does the rash occur? "In winter," in cold weather or just in winter? What's the prognosis of not getting treatment?
Annabel wrote: My father had tuberculosis as a boy, but completely healed from it.
However, I had Tuberculosis symptoms often , without having the infection...
Is it possible that you could be creating a fictitious sense of illness, or misinterpreting common cold symptoms as "tuberculosis" symptoms?
[/quote]Annabel wrote: Samul Hahnemann concluded,that people must somehow pass on toxins of past infections to their offsprings, children, and in thisway, certain tendencies run in a family. They get "inherited".
What is a "toxin," physically? Where is it and what does it look like? And what is its mechanism for transmission?
Again, all of this is just pseudoscience...