Re: have you passed the standard you apply to others?

Why don't you read the Liver Debate from pages 25 to 32, starting with the Lancet article titled, "Could these be gallstones?" There you will read arguments put forth by someone of your persuation who believes in the scientific integrity of those double blind experiments most of your fellow believers are so fond of quoting. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary you see honesty where there isn't any. (Unless of course you don't know the definition of a true scientific experiment--that wouldn't be you would it?) When you don't have integrity and honesty in double bind experiments, you do not have anything of value.

Face it the only reason you are mentioning double-blind is because you don't believe any alternative treatment can stand up to it. Not because you are willing to see the outcome. If you wanted to wait and see the experimental outcome, you would have read this website and become informed and you would not have asked the questions you did.

Just to pick out one small item of many in your post, you said doctors don't mention herbs because there isn't anything scientific to say about them (laugh, laugh). What classes in the scientific method do doctors have? They are not scientists. Which is why they believe junk Science like that article I mentioned printed in the oh, so, prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, The Lancet.

Do you really belive in your scientific standards? Where is the control group in the Lancet article? Without a control group you don't have a scientific experiment.
Look at the experimental studies of chemotherapy drugs or many other drugs. They do not use control groups. These studies are not scientific. Yet these pepetrators are not sued. Why? And doctors quote those studies and recommend their results.

What wonder drug have they (doctors) recommended lately that was alledgedly scientifically proven? How about Vioxx? Merck just lost something like $240 million in a lawsuit over deaths caused by this "proven drug that is safe, efficacious, etc, and this has been borne out by years of close scrutiny." (lol) According to you Vioxx is safe and you want everyone to believe you. This is a drug like the ones you recommend. This example would make one wonder if you now what you are talking about when it comes to scientific standards and who passes them and who really does not pass them.

Years of close scrutiny would somehow miss hundreds of deaths and heart attacks? Or does the scientist who lacks integrity see the deaths and write up them as something else? Is there honesty in this action?

And why would someone want to use only a pure extract when it has been proven that it won't work as well as when the extract is supported by its surrounding bio/chemicals in the herb? Only someone who is familiar with his field and hasn't done any reading in the field of Alternative Medicine, but is trying to act like an expert by making fun of something he doesn't know.