Revision as of 03:13, 14 July 2012 editAlice1818 (talk | contribs)66 edits →In response to your feedback← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:27, 17 July 2012 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Re your behaviour at Talk:Homeopathy: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
they mean that the clinical effects of homeopathy ARE completely due to placebo ?--] (]) 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | they mean that the clinical effects of homeopathy ARE completely due to placebo ?--] (]) 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Re your behaviour at ] == | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
] (]) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:27, 17 July 2012
Welcome
|
In response to your feedback
Sorry, but I am on User:AndyTheGrumps side here; I can see no bias at all, and I read the sources as he does. Pray continue discusion on the talk-page, though.
Lectonar (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean that the authors by stating that
"The results of our meta-analysis are NOT compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. "
they mean that the clinical effects of homeopathy ARE completely due to placebo ?--Alice1818 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Re your behaviour at Talk:Homeopathy
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.