“From your cited study: "Authors' conclusions
It is rare in PMS management that efficacy claims are substantiated by clinical trials. One of the identified trials was well designed and reported on the effectiveness of Jingqianping in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome. However, currently there is insufficient evidence to support the use of Chinese herbal medicine for PMS and further, well-controlled trials are needed before any final conclusions can be drawn."
“"Still, it is curious that today's science shows that the chain of events illustrated in the Bible for creation follow the same sequence as the Big Bang/Evolution/Call it what you will. Of course, 7 days versus X years is a contrast...but I don't think anyone was around logging the times between day 1 and 6 (took a nap on day 7, so no data needed)."
"There is proof that people, places and events illustrated in the Bible are real. So, if we provide forgiveness in accuracy of details, chalking it up to technology available, the Bible does carry significance as being historically accurate in a number of areas."
You can say the same thing for Gilgamesh, but we're not fighting over it...”
Watching rock grow on Apr 6, 2011 at 16:14:19
“The history of Gilgamesh is poorly and unwisely used. There are actually 3 bible stories within the story of Gilgamesh
1) Enoch=Utnapishtim Genesis 5:24.
2) Noah-the flood=Utnapishtim Genesis 6.
3) Gilgamesh=Nimrod Genesis 10:9-12.
Even the historical chronology Utnapishtim followed by Gilgamesh is correct. Must not forget that Sumerian King Lists give just as long, and even longer lifespans of its earliest Kings.
Gilgamesh is an abridgment of the early 4th millennium B.C.E. Semitic people legends translated (and surviving) into the dying Sumerian language (2,100-1,800 BCE). The whole bible argument changes drastically once Usher's chronology is replaced with archaeology. I agree, I don't fight about Gilgamesh the condensation of the biblical stories within it, are just to great to waste time fighting about.”
“"And about Evolution, it is not proven, it is an hypothesis. Seems to make sense but year after year older theories are discarded for newer theories. The number of tries that would be needed to make each of the proteins needed for life by chance is more that the number of stars in the Milky way galaxy. It would take trillions years of lucky tries to create the simplest forms of life. And the earth is only a few millions of years old."
You couldn't be more wrong. Evolution is a proven fact. Older incorrect information are discarded for new information as it comes in. That's the brilliance of science. It accepts new evidence. Regardless, name me one fundamental theory of evolution that has been overturned.
Also, evolution doesn't deal with the start of life, just creation and diversity of species.”
greenclove on Apr 7, 2011 at 01:39:16
“scientific laws and theories (like newton's laws of motion and gravity) don't change because they have been proven, only hypotheses change because they are guesses just like evolution.
disputed "theories" (i say hypotheses) of evolution: I am not a biologist but I read a compelling article in wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution] and I agree with it.
evolution is a pseudo-science not science because it doesn't fit the definition of science, there are no observations of the actual process, no test or experiments and not one single proven fact since the 19th century, over a hundred years.”
“There are no reported side effects because there are no real rigorous studies done on them (That I can see). Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean there aren't any. It doesn't mean there are either, but it's worth study.”
bumstead68 on Mar 8, 2011 at 04:46:18
“I can assure you that if ANYONE was affected detrimentally by e-cigs, it would be front page news all over the country, and probably the world. That kind of information is EXACTLY what the stop smoking nannies, the drug companies, the tobacco industry, and the cigarette tax grabbers are looking and waiting for!!!!!
They are all losing money, and they would jump on even the slightest HINT of a problem with them.”
“Political motivation is a sure bet, but regardless I'd like to see some rigorous studies on the potentially dangerous chemicals in the nicotine capsule. I've heard of poorly made e-cigs that have actually leaked the fluid into the user's mouth. It's purely anecdotal, sure, but I'd like to see more uniform quality control measures. There is obviously an unhealthy substance concentrated in the capsule and I'd like to know that the delivery mechanism isn't prone to delivering the liquid into the user's mouth.”
MiddleMolly on Feb 14, 2011 at 14:00:38
“Have you tried these or been close to anybody who has tried them? I do agree that we need more testing on them and probably more controls to make sure the quality is uniform.
But my husband has tried three or four kinds and his experience has been completely positive. He immediately noticed the lack of real smoke. Within a few days he was no longer coughing. He can't even tolerate the smell of a "real" cigarette now.
So, yes, some kind of testing should be done, but anybody who can knows these products well enough to make a solid comparison knows that ecigs have to much less toxic than cigarettes.... You aren't inhaling burning paper and plants!”
“I don't intend to defend e-cigs, but if someone was smoking one around you there wouldn't be any smoke. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is vapor, not actual smoke. It doesn't contain the same chemicals as actual cigarette smoke. It's only there to help complete the illusion of smoking.”
Joe3245 on Feb 14, 2011 at 14:25:44
“You can be allergic to the solvents (usually its proplyene glycol) they use for electronic cigarettes, though I really think its only an issue for the person using it, and they are alternatives as well.”
ChristianCooper on Feb 14, 2011 at 12:29:40
“I was refering to regular cigerattes with the sensitivity.”
“I've never seen a study that shows it works more than placebo. Perhaps you could cite some peer reviewed studies?”
Dyson on Dec 1, 2010 at 11:58:02
“Well there are studies showing it works better than nothing, but NOT better than "placebo" if the placebo is "sham" acupuncture.
Whether one might call sham acupuncture a variant of "acupuncture" is something worthy of further discussion....
Obviously, the concept of energy meridians and acupuncture points is nonsense, or sham acupuncture using non-penetrating needles, or needles in the "wrong" place would not work as well as acupuncture. But they do work as well. So how do the classical ancient chinese traditionalists answer that one? Simply they can't.”