If it comes to light that a particular homeopathic journal (or any journal for that matter!) is abusing its peer-review system, than that journal should be taken to task!! It doesn't mean that the entire approach of peer-reviewing research articles being considered for publication should be eliminated altogether! Peer-review is still used by all kinds of respected medical journals, as an important step in screening potential articles.Charlie wrote:I guess what I am saying is that homeopathy has peer reviewed articles so therefore the stamp of Peer Review does not really mean much.
But what's the basis of this questioning is what I'm asking (ie. do you have any tangible proof that this particular medical journal shouldn't be trusted?).Charlie wrote:I see where your coming from but I am questioning the validity of the source making the claim.
I haven't taken any of it personally! It's been a good (& respectful!) debate. And I fully agree...the only enemy here is the condition itself!Charlie wrote:Anyway best of luck with the ART and it is nice to debate with you. I mean none of this personally.
Also, I should add...the ART did nothing for me whatsoever! But I have heard reports (the article we've been debating + strictly anecdotal accounts from Dr. Andrews & one of his patients) that it has helped some PNE sufferers. I'm not convinced, but I do think it's at least worth further investigation (which is all I've been arguing from the beginning).
