>>26445
>like 90% of modern drugs have their roots in herbs and trad medicine
Traditional medicine is often helpful, centuries of experience are not something to be ignored. Other times it's ineffective. How to know what's valuable and what isn't? Only conventional medicine has the methods to find out.

>doctors are just scummers that do it better than homeopaths
Doctors have to put up tremendous effort to learn wide areas of human knowledge and then work under pressure knowing the government doesn't care about them, even their employers can sometimes mistreat them and their patients are clueless, hate them and anything that goes wrong may end their career. Depending on their area they have to deal with and solve gruesome injuries. The pay is good but theirs is a real, difficult job.
Homeopaths, on the other hand, just have to "learn" some made-up fantasies and then play pretend psychotherapist and hand out made-up remedies to emotionally insecure patients. Unlike physicians not a single homeopath has to deal with intense pressure and gore.

>>26450
>I talk about homeopathy. It's older thought than that dude's. It's just means treating something with something similar. Vaccination is a textbook example, using a (weakened) pathogen to activate an immune reaction, so next time when the real thing comes the body would know how to kill the (normal) pathogens, and could heal itself.
Sure, it's one way to define it. But Hahnemann's homeopathy doesn't activate any immune reaction. It doesn't do anything at all besides placebo effect. So within this definition Hahnemann isn't even a homeopath. Yet nowadays that word is almost exclusively used for his followers. Homeopathic stores don't sell vaccines and self-proclaimed homeopaths don't produce them. Real vaccines, that is, which activate immune reactions. There is such a thing as self-proclaimed homeopathic vaccines, and as you may expect they're also water and cannot activate any immune reaction.

>Yeah they talk about shit that can give you cancer but some people get, some don't. Even strong smokers have better chance to die something else than throat/lung cancer. Fuckin lottery. It ain't science, science should be reproducible, if I drop something 100 times it will fall 100 times and not sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Radiation has an empirically observed effect on cancer risks and the theoretical basis behind it has been studied. Yet it doesn't provide a 100% chance, because human biology is complex and every body is different. So all that can be said is in terms of increased percentual chances. That isn't a lottery, it's actual meaningful statistical information backed by a theoretical basis.
This isn't the only area in the hard sciences or engineering where statistics and chances are used and that doesn't make them invalid. In the previous discussion about dillutions chemists also speak of the chances of a molecule being in the final solution after several dillutions. Astronomers, too, can easily make precise predictions on the orbit of celestial bodies but when those predictions are on the far future they have to speak of chances.
Same thing with tobacco, there's plenty of empirical evidence that it increases cancer risks. It is very much reproducible, that's what empirical studies do. And behind it are several proposed mechanisms. The result isn't in 0% or 100% but it's real.