My money is on Jurati being the Borg queen seen in the first episode.

That link has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve seen in years. I think I actually became dumber from reading it. And unfortunately it’s completely unmockable for the sheerest lack of any type of coherence and reason. One could almost say that your run-of-the-mill defender of homeopathic crackpottery at least tries to…

“[...] in homeopathy potency is directly proportional to the degree of dilution because a smaller and smaller concentration of the original substance is required to produce an effect. Thus when homeopaths speak of “high potency” remedies they are referring to solutions that have undergone a…

If you’re a pharmacist, then your scientific training should tell you that anecdotes are not evidence.

Sure, sure. Except the article you referenced (and of which you are the author) is originally from homeopathic.com, not from The HuffPost (bias much?). And even if it were published in a respectable publication, that wouldn’t increase its credibility.

Weird, isn’t it? The quack brigade is usually out in force. Maybe they all overdosed on some of their highly diluted...errr...extremely potent “medicine”. After all, water, like the North, remembers...

Its conceptual basis is pseudoscience. As such, it cannot do what it claims to do. Many in the field try to distance themselves from its esoteric claims, but even those who do cannot show its effectiveness.

Its conceptual basis is pseudoscience. As such, it cannot do what it claims to do. Many in the field try to distance themselves from its esoteric claims, but even those who do cannot shot its effectiveness.

While you are correct in this case (a D4 dilution actually contains enough compound to induce toxicity), you are forgetting that homeopathy in general is considered pseudoscience because it is based on unscientific principles and concepts. Studies show time and again there’s nothing more to it than…

“It does not work on all, but it works.”

Nope. Brand them with an iron that says “BIDEN” across their forehead. Then send them back home to their MAGA bros.

And yet you did. And yet I googled...again. Seems I’m like a cat. Stop dangling shiny objects in front of me, dammit!

And now you made me look up pole lathe. Thanks...I guess?

Not far enough if they are armed. And quite a few of these idiots are. Heavily.

Hence why I put “trophy” in brackets. I’m talking about hunting in general. At least in the US, there are few subsistence hunters. Industrial food production made it possible for people to no longer forage and hunt. Most who still do, do it “recreationally”. And just because you eat your kill does not make you a…

“but if you eat meat, consider the following [...]”

Impossible. I’m unparalleled.

No. This is precisely not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, for the third time, a claim is reasonably said to be false when there is a distinct lack of evidence for the claim and, possibly, evidence against the claim. When the evidence presented for the claim is found to be wanting, flawed, or downright wrong when…

Let me reiterate: Without evidence for a claim, especially if there should be evidence, I can reasonably say that the claim is false, even if I cannot be sure 100%. Even more so if there’s lots of evidence against the claim.

“[...] now you tend to find that a vocal number of atheists would believe, state and actively advocate, within reasonable certainty (as that’s all we’ve got), that no God exists. By doing so, they’re attempting to provide an answer to a question that they’re not qualified or informed to answer,…