Trending >

Homeopathy is a joke, says this Canadian educator

Homeopathy is a joke

Homeopathy is a joke “Homeopathy is a joke”.

Its adherents swear by its effectiveness, but one noted Canadian educator is leaving no ambiguity about what he thinks of homeopathy.

“It’s a joke, is what it is,” said Professor Joe Schwarcz, the head of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society and host of “The Dr. Joe Show” on Montreal’s CJAD. “Homeopathy has no legitimacy. It’s a scientifically bankrupt idea and it should not be promoted in any way.”

Schwarcz was responding to Health Canada’s recent order that requires certain homeopathic products to clearly label that they are not vaccines or alternatives to vaccines.

Some homeopaths use so-called “nosodes” -supposed remedies that are made from diseased tissue. A investigation from CBC’s Marketplace found homeopaths prescribing nosodes to parents as an alternative to vaccines.

“Homeopathic vaccines hurt people and hurt our society. Warning labels will help but nosodes should be banned,” says Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Chris Simpson.

Controversially, Health Canada has approved the use of nosodes, but the products must contain the warning: “This product is neither a vaccine nor an alternative to vaccination. This product has not been proven to prevent infection. Health Canada does not recommend its use in children and advises that your child receive all routine vaccinations.”

Schwarcz, however, thinks nosodes should be banned altogether. And he’s not alone.

In May, the Canadian Canadian Paediatric Society urged the government to crack down on nosodes.

“Parents need to understand that the evidence would not support the use of these to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases,” said Dr. Michael Rieder, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in pediatric clinical pharmacology.

In July, a new study showed Canada is falling short of a key level of community immunization.

Stats Canada’s “2013 Childhood National Immunization Coverage Survey” revealed that about 89% of two-year-olds had received the recommended number of immunizations against measles, mumps and rubella and about 77% of two-year-olds had received the required number of shots for diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus.

In July, a new study showed Canada is falling short of a key level of community immunization.

The 89% number falls short of a key level that scientists believe helps prevent the outbreak of disease. A vaccination level of 95% ensures what is referred to as “herd immunity” or “community immunity”. When this level of the population is vaccinated, disease has almost no chance of spreading to society at large.

The result is a return of diseases one thought to be eradicated.

In March, at outbreak of measles Quebec’s Lanaudière region affected at least 199 people. Two days ago, health officials warned of an outbreak of Whooping Cough in the Okanagan, and urged parents to get the pertussis vaccine.

While some parents will no doubt ignore the warnings and try to use nosodes to protect their children from Whopping Cough, the chorus of scientists opposing them is growing louder, and includes the head of the Canadian Medical Association

“Homeopathic vaccines hurt people and hurt our society. Warning labels will help but nosodes should be banned,” says CMA president Dr. Chris Simpson.

Below: “Vaccines: What advice do parents get? Hidden camera investigation (CBC Marketplace)”

  •  
  •  
  •  

About The Author /

Cantech Letter founder and editor Nick Waddell has lived in five Canadian provinces and is proud of his country's often overlooked contributions to the world of science and technology. Waddell takes a regular shift on the Canadian media circuit, making appearances on CTV, CBC and BNN, and contributing to publications such as Canadian Business and Business Insider.

Comment

  1. Ii the U.S the National Vaccine Compensation Program has paid out over 2 Billion dollars to parents of children killed or injured by vaccines. I would think any safer alternative would be welcomed, or at least stimulate curiosity. The author of this article speaks with the dubious authority of someone who has never taken a homeopathic remedy, nor studied it seriously, nor treated a single patient. He would probably argue that homeopathy is placebo.

    The 100,00 board certified homeopathic physicians who practice in India curing everything from Dengue fever to Leprosy would be surprised to know that they’ve been using placebos all these years. 42% of British medical doctors refer their patients to a homeopath. 39% of French physicians have prescribed the remedies and six French medical schools offer 4 year degrees in homeopathy. In Germany 20% of physicians dispense homeopathic remedies and in Holland 40% of doctors do the same. Homeopathy is used to successfully treat pneumonia, malaria, Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever, tuberculosis, epidemic fever and more. Recently Cuba administered a homeopathic remedy to 2 million people to successfully prevent an epidemic of Leptospirosis.
    What you generally hear are cliches from the uninformed, or propaganda from surrogates of the pharmaceutical industry. If you are really scientific, you will have an open mind and do some serious research of homeopathic literature ( not just criticism of
    it). You will also learn that there are homeopathic pediatricians who treat infants, and homeopathic veterinarians who treat domestic animals and livestock.

  2. There are scores, too many to cite here, of published pier reviewed studies that have shown homeopathic remedies including Ruta, Carcinosinum, Hydrastis and Thuja to be cytotoxic (poisonous) to cancer cells.

    For example this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21771822

    It notes that by several assays (tests), including microarray analysis, by morphology, DNA laddering, expression of genes related to apoptosis, and TUNEL assay, the remedies induced apoptosis (death of cancerous cells) with resultant reduction of tumor size. The study conclusion: “These data indicate that apoptosis is one of the mechanisms of tumor reduction of homeopathic drugs.”

    Of particular note, a literature search of RCTs of alternative medicine, including homeopathy, returns more positive outcomes than negative ones. Even Professor Edzard Ernst, a UK anti-homeopathy and acupuncture critic, published an RCT that was favorable to the use of (Poikiven®) a homeopathic preparation. Additionally, in a Guardian interview article 13 years ago, the Professor told the interviewer that he treated his French wife with homeopathy, noting that “we both grew up with it.” The article can be found by doing a Google search for “edzard ernst sarah boseley”.

    It is not uncommon to read an anti homeopathy article such as this which forces me to note that none of the authors, or the sources they quote, has mentioned their personal experiences with treatment by a family homeopath and/or an in depth study of the subject matter including interviews of homeopathy patients or practitioners. I therefore dismiss their biased opinions with regard to the validity, or not, dealing with this form of medicine WHICH has the support of over 500 million people and the medical societies of 80 countries worldwide.

    Enfin… I have a small graphic image which I use often which says: “Homeopathy works, whether or not you believe in it.”

  3. Not only does homeopathy work but it works beautifully and safely. It often cures after conventional treatments have failed. To see hundreds of documented cured case records of conditions from type 2 diabetes to Grave’s disease to cancer google “homeopathy cured cases”.

    Cuba’s use of a homeopathic nosode to prevent leptospirosis has all but eradicated the disease in that country. When it used its conventional vaccine there were about 2,000 infects and 100+ deaths during the hurricane season. With the nosode there were 10 or fewer infects per month and no deaths. In addition the vaccine costs so much (about $3,000,000) that it can only be given to people at high risk — the elderly, children and pregnant women. Cuba was able to treat 2,500,000 people with the nosode at a cost of $200,00.

    Cuba has had similar success with nosodes in epidemics of dengue fever, swine flu, hepatitis A and conjunctivitis. Other countries also use nosodes to control the same infectious diseases.

    Anyone who tries to claim homeopathy and nosodes don’t work is doing a great disservice to the people who may be influenced by such statements.

  4. It might seem like a joke but but when people put their faith in it for life threatening conditions, it often results in tragic, needless deaths – often of babies and young children and those with a vested interest in it couldn’t care less.

  5. What’s most notable about the study you linked to is that it makes no mention of a negative control. The authors claim that the homeopathic preparation is as effective as the extract from which it is prepared, but are absolutely silent on whether it works any better than any other homeopathic treatment, or just plain water. To me this is gaping hole.

  6. The biggest issue faced by homeopathy advocates is the overwhelming mountain of evidence demonstrating that homeopathic treatments work no better than placebo. The more study homeopathy receives, the bigger this mountain of evidence grows.

    Occasionally a “signal” pops up in the form of a positive result, which on further investigation is usually the outcome of a poorly designed study (with no positive or negative control, a tiny sample size, etc.)

    Homeopathy is an 18th-century medical theory that was disproven by 19th-century chemistry and biology. All of its fundamental tenets have been roundly discredited through experimentation. It survives in modern use largely because it receives almost no regulatory scrutiny.

    Conventional medicine certainly has its problems, sometimes big problems, but it at least as observational science (clinical studies and in-vitro experimentation) on its side part of or most of the time.

  7. Were the nosodes compared to conventional vaccines and to just plain “doing nothing” in the same season and in the same population? If not, no conclusions can be drawn.

  8. In 2007 among 8.8 million Cubans receiving the conventional vaccine there were 38 cases per week as compared to 10 or fewer with the nosode. In 2008 the incidence of infects rose by 22% among those using the vaccine. Among those receiving the nosode there was an 84% reduction in infects as there was in 2007.

  9. Well, talking about propaganda you might get some facts straight and stop misrepresenting others.

    Vaccine compensation courts over the whole world are set up to award benefit on very little evidence. Their awards cannot be used to draw conclusions about the safety of vaccines which are generally very safe.

    The many homeopaths around again do not testify to the effectiveness of homeopathy and there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy cures anything beyond a placebo result. The Cuban trial is a typical homeopathy clinical trial, insufficient controls and claims not supported by the results.

    There are a few properly run clinical trials on homeopathy. When collated they show that homeopathy is ineffective beyond placebo.

  10. That is just untrue. The authors calculated the number of cases that they thought would happen according to some formula which they failed to disclose. Hey presto, it was more than they observed.

    In reality, the number of cases of infection varies widely from season to season and while factors such as rainfall and temperature are thought to be involved, no one, including the authors, can make firm predictions.

  11. Professor Ernst started his career in medicine in a hospital that used homeopathy. It is hardly surprising that he was convinced it did something. He was still convinced when he took his professorship but on examining the data he has had to conclude that it is all a sham. That is how we find out things. Not by accepting the claims of others but by examining the evidence. We also assess just the evidence, it is unimportant what Professor Ernst gave his wife, or even that he is a respected professor, it is only the evidence he provides that is useful.
    The reliable evidence shows that homeopathy does not work.

  12. The nosode was developed by Drs. Bracho and Huergo who are both respected world wide as leading vaccine experts. They work for the WHO approved Finlay Institute.

    What I have posted are indeed the facts as reported by the Finlay Institute. Anyone who would like to verify them can do so by reading the original paper at:

    http://www.sphq.pdf/leptospirosis_epidemic.pdf

    or google “homepathy Cuba leptospirosis”

  13. I’m afraid the joke about homeopathy being a “joke” is on Professor Joe Schwarz. The spread of the use of alternative medicine, and more importantly homeopathy either alone or as integrative medicine, is on an unrelenting accelerated trajectory throughout the world. The battle of conventional medicine versus homeopathy is over. Homeopathy has won.

    Information about alternative medicine is everywhere: newspaper and magazine articles, as well as social media. Conventional medicine has failed in many ways, allowing alternative forms of health care to surface. Class action law suits with drug companies paying billions of dollars to injured patients is all over the print media. That, combined to hearing the adverts (with mention of potentially serious adverse reactions) to prescription drugs on television is enough to scare anyone away from conventional medicine. The result is that health care consumers are eager for information about their health care options.

    News of the use of homeopathy in every day medical practices is now more commonplace. A recently published news article in the United States (7/27/15), highlighted the opening of a new office of an acclaimed plastic surgeon who uses homeopathy both pre and post-operatively for his patients. He would not use homeopath, or risk a malpractice lawsuit if his patients did not improve. The article can be read in full by doing a Google search using the words “acclaimed surgeon jeffrey b wise md opens new office in manhattan”

    On a grander scale, the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation (Kolkata, India) and their protocol for the treatment of advanced cancers is spreading from India to satellite treatment centers in the United States (New Jersey), the UK (London) and a second location in Bagnan, India. It is not uncommon for the clinic in Kolkata to treat 1,000 patients (from around the world) a day. A newspaper article (11/14/2014) in the money and business section of a New Jersey paper announced the first India based homeopathic drug manufacturing facility in New Brunswick, New Jersey. This article can also be read by doing a Google search. Point of fact: the homeopathic drugs would not have worldwide market if they were not effective or the subject of class action law suits.

    I look forward to the day when the skeptics provide definitive factual evidence that homeopathy is NOT effective. Since opinions are no substitute for facts, I fear the wait will be a long one.

  14. On July 14, 2015 Professor Edzard Ernst participated in a recorded head to head discussion on the BMJ site concerning the effectiveness of homeopathy with Dr. Peter Fisher, homeopath to the British Royal Family. Based on the votes in defense of the continued use of homeopathy within the NHS and Ernst’s argument against it, Ernst failed to make a convincing argument. Anyone can listen to the entire interview, see the vote results and read all of the rapid responses by clicking on the link at the top of the page here:

    http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3735/rapid-responses

    I am comfortable knowing that the ultimate decision with regard to the use, or not, of homeopathy will remain with its informed users, not skeptics.

  15. The link I posted is to the abstract of the study. Based on your comment, can I assume you had access to the full article? If so, you should post it here.

  16. You claimed a reduction in cases in those who were given homeopathic preparations. As there is great year to year variation of cases and there were no controls, the whole of your claim is just plain wrong.

    There is no reliable evidence that homeopathy has been effective against any infective agent.

    As homeopathy is supposed to create the symptoms of disease in healthy people, a claim that is made in every proving ever made by a homeopath then millions of Cubans should have exhibited the symptoms of Leptospirosis infection. Funny that nobody noticed.

  17. Professor Ernst’s conclusions on homeopathy are so unconvincing that homeopaths are continually trying to discredit him and four European homeopathy producers formed a cartel to pay a journalist to smear him. In fact he is so unconvincing that more health providers in the UK have publicly stated that they will spend no more money on homeopathy.

    Seems like you had better pray he doesn’t become convincing when his arguments can cause such effects, there would be nothing left of homeopathy in the UK. Oh,there doesn’t seem to be much anyway.

  18. The popularity of homeopathy has nothing to do with its effectiveness, this is just one of many fallacious arguments used by homeopaths in the absence of evidence.

    But is it actually all that popular? The largest market for homeopathy is normally considered to be India. Homeopaths have managed to get a foothold in government and homeopaths love to point to the number of registered homeopaths. Unfortunately, we now have a survey of likes from India.
    http://www.asianage.com/india/90-cent-don-t-trust-indian-treatments-442

    Only 6% of Indians trust Indian treatments and homeopathy is only one of several such treatments.

    Skeptics have previously provided you with reliable evidence that homeopathy is ineffective beyond placebo. Linde et al, Shang et al and the Australian NHMRC report. This is despite the fact that as you are making the claims the burden of proof is on you. You have made several erroneous comments about medicine, if any pharmaceutical company tried to claim effectiveness with the paltry inconsequential studies used by you to bolster your claims you would have an apoplexy.

  19. I think you are confused about copyright laws and my challenge to Joe Q. Within academia, it should be obvious that the meaning of my comment was thus: If Joe Q has full access to the article in question (which is doubtful) there is nothing in international copyright laws that would prohibit him from quoting a short portion of the article which outlines the study methodology. Of course, this would be followed by a credit to the author and a link to the article for purchase.

  20. A major argument of homeopaths is their perceived faults of medicine. This is specious. The effectiveness or other of say MMR vaccine bears no relationship to the effectiveness of something else such as homeopathy. Nevertheless they make the argument and we know it is taught in their ‘schools’. This extends to making false claims about vaccines and has led to outbreaks of preventable contagious disease. This has woken up regulatory departments around the world. Now, in general, these regulatory departments are asking for homeopathy to be regulated as medicines, after all, that is what is claimed for them. So why don’t homeopaths want their preparations regulated? You might think they would look forward to having materials tested to modern standards.

  21. The link to the full article is in the link you gave.

    Still laughing at the idiot who thinks you have to know the precise position of every particle in a solution before you can say how much is present in a one in ten dilution. Obviously missed out the last two hundred years of knowledge and most of his school days.

  22. It is a fairly impressive joke having survived more than two centuries and being now the second most used medical modality after Allopathy and the fastest growing.

    It is very clear that those universities and medical schools which teach it; the MD’s who spend years training to practise it and the hospitals which utilise it, as well as the Governments which officially embrace it as part of their medical systems remain completely unaware of the joke and clearly have no fear of being sued or mocked through their acceptance of Homeopathy.

    If Homeopathy is a joke, healing and curing effectively for centuries, with little cost and no harm done then modern, Allopathic medicine is a very, very sick joke with its kill rate up with the top three – iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced – most of it from its medications.

    Those utilising Homeopathy can just smile quietly at the desperate attempts of the profit-driven pharmaceutical/science/medical industries which consistently attack Homeopathy out of fear and ignorance.

    The last laugh has been and remains, with Homeopathy.

  23. Prove your claim! The biggest killer is iatrogenic – doctor or medical induced – Allopathic and that takes out millions around the world every year.

  24. I remain in awe of the ignorance, arrogance and prejudice of those who seek to discredit Homeopathy.

    There is plenty of evidence that Homeopathy is more than placebo but you would have to do research to know that. Novel, I know, but researching something before passing an opinion on it is wise.

    Homeopathy demonstrates effect on cells, body tissue, plants, unconscious animals and humans and months after being taken – all impossible for pure placebo.

    Back to the books for you! Except you probably did not read any.

  25. Love it. Ad hominem is a sure sign of no case. Keep up the good work. The ignorance of those who seek to discredit Homeopathy actually makes a case for Homeopathy. Not that it needs a case made – cure is what counts and that is why homeopathy is the fastest growing medical methodology in the world.

  26. The major argument of homeopathic doctors is that the modality cures and does no harm.

    You do realise that their ‘schools’ as you put it, are, as often as not part of universities and medical schools?

    The rest of your statement just displays the consistent ignorance and prejudice of those who attack Homeopathy and does not warrant a reply.

  27. No, I am not at all confused about copyright law or what constitutes fair use. The only thing I am confused about is why you think any reader of these comments would be stupid enough to be taken in by your pretence that your original “…the full article? If so, you should post it here..” means “..quoting a short portion of the article…”.
    But then, this isn’t the first time that you’ve been caught out pretending that you haven’t written what you did write, is it?

  28. One way of trying not to come across as ignorant might be to make sure (a) you know what Latin terms like “ad hominem” mean *before* you use them and (b) ensuring that it does not apply to your posts more than anyone else’s in these comments.

    Just saying…

  29. p.s. you need a good sub-editor to deal not just with inaccuracies in this story but to correct spelling errors like Whopping Cough!!!!! Says it all really.

  30. Might as well respond about homeopathic ‘education’ here as elsewhere. Yes, I’m fully aware some fraudulence has taken place in the university system. In the UK, law, science and medicine departments complained that these so called courses where besmirching the good names of everyone else. When requests were made to these public universities to show the lecture course notes a surprising thing happened. The request was refused. Finally under threat of court sanction the notes were published. Yeah, whole lectures on the power of crystals, dowsing for disease, it was all there. But not one note on reading a scientific paper. It was then found that one particular course was being self certificated through the SoH. Yeah the course leader was certificating her own courses and charging at both ends. So, glad you mentioned ‘education’.

    I see you come complete with the fallacious argument from antiquity and exactly the attack on medicine that I mentioned earlier. What you haven’t arrived with and which is the most important part is any evidence that homeopathy has any effect at all.

    Medicine has, despite your attempts at scaremongering, made great advances. It has eliminated major infective diseases, cured insulin dependent diabetes, has cured many cancers. These are incontrovertible, the evidence is overwhelming. What does homeopathy have? Claims, yes that’s all, a series of claims with no evidence they are correct and plenty of evidence that they are not.

  31. And here we see the homeopath confusing reading books of other homeopaths with researching a topic.

    Joe Q is quite correct there is a plethora of poorly performed studies by homeopaths. Simple maths shows that these pathetic examples of clinical studies will have high variability and that some may erroneously be positive for homeopathy. Well designed, high quality and large studies are not.

    It is now completely obvious why homeopaths indulge in lots of poor studies rather than fewer high quality ones. They know that sugar and water has no curative effect.

  32. Oh please. Look up Penelope Dingle.

    This is an example of a painful tragic and unnecessary death because a homeopath spread the same lies you are doing.

    Yes, some injuries are caused by the potent drugs used by doctors. Not anywhere near as many as you claim. But more are saved from premature death by modern medicine. None are cured by your sugar and water.

  33. Thank you so much for again displaying egregious prejudice along with ignorance. You guys just make it so easy because you insult and abuse and never make a case. Well, you cannot because you never do any research but how can you let facts get in the way of propaganda?

  34. It really upsets you, clearly. And that explains the uninformed irrational response. Well, sorry, even if the pharmaceutical industry can pay to limit Homeopathy in the UK it will not impact its use and its growth elsewhere.

    The ever-sensible Europeans have been teaching it and using it and will continue to do so.

    There is a wealth of evidence for the efficacy of Homeopathy but the most important fact is that it has endured and grown because it works.

    Allopathic medicine has mechanical skills of course and why would it not, sourced as it is in materialist reductionist mechanical science?

    Reconstructive surgery and crisis/trauma are areas of great skill although in both less harm would be done if fewer allopathic drugs were used and more Homeopathy, Herbal, Nutritional, Acupuncture etc., were used but that will come with the growth of Integrative Medicine.

    Even doctors are concerned about their Allopathic kill rate, now third or higher in the US and fourth in many other countries.

    Allopathy did not eliminate major infectious diseases or epidemics – improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition did that and all diseases for which vaccines have been produced were in decline before vaccines arrived.

    It has not cured insulin dependent diabetes – it treats it. It has cured very few cancers and given the chemical warfare involved, one presumes those who survive would have survived anyway.

    But yes, where it can be mechanical, i.e. surgery and diagnostics, it is enormously useful.

  35. No, I see someone passing an opinion on a topic of which he or she has absolutely no knowledge. Generally one does some research before forming an opinion but clearly not you.

  36. I am now laughing out loud. You are all so predictable. Prejudice, ignorance and if in doubt haul up the tragic case of Penelope Dingle, which, for anyone who has done the research into her case knows that her death was not about Homeopathy. But never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

    If we took your view of the occasional incompetent in Allopathy we would strike off most doctors. More to the point, if we took the iatrogenic kill rate of Allopathy we would ban it as a medical modality.

    Please keep up the good work. Flinging labels like sugar and water around just entertain those who have used or who practice Homeopathy and reveal your ignorance.

  37. Ah, the pharmaceutical companies are paying to limit the growth of homeopathy are they? Any evidence for this allegation or is it just to filed under homeopathic claims as usual?

    Yeah, yeah, so much evidence for homeopathy that none is presented. It has grown because of unbased claims. When you have some evidence for any of your claims then get back to us.

    Materialist reductionist mechanical science. Very funny but I doubt you understand the joke.

    Ah, the vaccine lie, dead on schedule. No doubt the cattle in Africa which now do not suffer from rinderpest arrived at that happy state through better nutrition and the toilets provided throughout the veldt. Hygiene and nutrition standards did not change much before and after the initiation of vaccination and when vaccination rates fall through efforts of such as yourself, infection rates rise.

    If I was insulin dependent I would take insulin and call it a cure. Homeopathy, of course neither treats or cures. Your comments about cancer is a direct lie, getting desperate are you?

    And still no evidence to back up any of your claims.

  38. As previously pointed out, you fail to understand this term research. It is a method of finding out, all you do is confirm your own bias.

  39. I have yet to find a homeopath who knows more about homeopathy than the average skeptics. You certainly don’t otherwise you would be able to debate the points made rather than issue febrile insults.

  40. It is not productive to have an argument with people who have abandoned the principles of logic. You can cite any number of studies; this will have no effect on the “I just know it works” crowd. I teach a course in scientific method and thought. One of the first things we discuss is the fact that your own experience is useless in determining the efficacy of a drug or treatment. For homeopathy to work pretty much everything we know about chemistry and physics would have to be incorrect. Anecdotal “evidence” of the effectiveness of homeopathy is on the same level as “When I wear my hat backwards my team wins.”

  41. Someone is behind the campaign. Logic suggests it is unlikely to be scientists or doctors who are also involved and that leaves the pharmaceutical industry who needs the carnage inflicted by Allopathic medicine in order to make bigger profits.

    Actually, I don’t believe in conspiracies. I find human beings stupid, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent, inefficient and deluded enough to create all sorts of tragedies without any kind of plan being involved.

    Homeopathy has endured and thrived because it works.

    Bingo, rinderpest – always after dingle.

    Insulin has been invaluable but it is not a cure. Medication for life is not a cure. Having parts of your body regularly removed is not a cure. Cure is being and remaining free of disease. That is what medicine should do and that is what Homeopathy can and does do.

    No, my comments about cancer are not a lie. Sadly.

  42. Nobody ever claims that properly prepared homeopathic sugar and water is innocuous, to suggest otherwise is just a straw man. That’s not to say that the incompetence of homeopaths have led to examples of material being present and then the wheels fall off.

    The danger of homeopathy is from the homeopaths as in the Dingle case. By convincing patients to forego effective treatments you cause injury and death to them for no gain whatsoever, except of course to the homeopaths wallet.

    In Africa we have homeopaths trying to convince HIV sufferers to stop life saving anti retroviral treatments so they can make money. In Cuba, attempts through a disgraceful trial have been made to convince the government to stop using an effective vaccine.

    You yourself are scaremongering to convince readers to stop using medicine and buy your expensive water and sugar.

  43. It is not about knowing it works, it is a clear demonstration over centuries that it works.

    The only thing science can say is that it does not understand how it can work or how it might work, but work it does. Science will of course develop and in time it will know how it works and in the meantime Homeopathy will continue to cure regardless.

    And yes, Homeopathy when it is understood will cause theories and careers to come crashing down, but hey, that’s progress. And you are talking classical chemistry and physics of course.

    Materialist reductionist mechanistic science will not understand Homeopathy. Quantum Mechanics has potential as does Biophysics so science will get there but for the moment is at a stage akin to the era before bacteria was understood and seen. Doctors killed a lot of people before that understanding came as well because of their arrogant ignorance.

    When Homeopathic remedies have effect on cells that is not anecdotal. When Homeopathic medicine has an effect on plants, that is not anecdotal.

    However, nothing wrong with anecdotal because that is how a lot of Allopathic medicine works given the increasing knowledge that the ‘famed gold-standard’ and peer review are deeply flawed and that much scientific research is not worth the paper on which it might be printed.

    In The Lancet’s April 11th edition, editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton published his own perspectives on the symposium. In what amounts to an editorial, entitled “What is medicine’s 5 sigma,” he wrote:

    “A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium — on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research — touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

    The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

    http://acsh.org/2015/05/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors/

  44. So funny the sugar and water claim. I mean, honestly, if you took the time to do some research I am sure you could come up with something which sounds credible instead of flinging the silly sugar and water labels around.

    Dingle had problems and she got poor advice. Plenty of Allopathic doctors give poor advice and poor treatment which is why the kill-rate is now up in the top three and rising. It makes the Dingle case look what it is, irrelevant.

    As to Africa, after nearly two decades on the continent in various countries let’s just say that as often as not people feed HIV drugs to chickens and pigs to ‘make them grow bigger.’

    There are not that many qualified practising Homeopaths in Africa although South Africa has some of the world’s best.

    The Cuban study has integrity and you know it.

  45. It must be somebody!!!! You do make me laugh, classic conspiracy theory.

    No, your lies, obfuscations and misrepresentations are being challenged. Like all who have got away with nonsense for many a year you are feeling anxiety that someone is challenging you.

    Again, homeopathy has survived through a slick advertising campaign of lies, obfuscation and misrepresentation.

    And you immediately make my point with you baseless claim that homeopathy works.

    If it works then prove it. You should have masses of evidence, according to you. But surprise, surprise this evidence appears rather shy, why is that?

  46. ‘ as often as not people feed HIV drugs to chickens and pigs to ‘make them grow bigger.’

    Even if this ludicrous claim was true then that is no excuse for trying to stop others from taking life saving medication, except of course, if you want to make money from them.

    Yes, she had lethal advice, from a homeopath who had no other treatment that could work.

    The Cuban study was dross. It was eye candy for homeopaths who didn’t realise they were just demonstrating their lack of education concerning controlled clinical trials.

    And homeopathic preparations are only sugar and water in the vast majority of sales, are you trying to tell me that you didn’t even know that?

  47. I don’t really care who is waging the anti-Homeopathy campaign because in the face of Homeopathic efficacy it will achieve nothing except temporary inconvenience.

    Homeopathy works and does no harm and is economical which is why it is the second-most used medical modality after Allopathy and the fastest growing.

    As the Allopathic kill-rate increases it is not surprising that more people are looking elsewhere.

  48. Many qualified Homeopaths are also MD’s and it takes years to train as a Homeopath.

    In my experience they work with Allopathic doctors and patients undergoing Allopathic treatment and often very successfully.

    But many people who turn to Homeopathy do so after years or decades of failed Allopathic treatment. When they are cured, not surprisingly they opt for Homeopathy as their first choice and Allopathy as their last.

  49. Research is the gathering of information which enables one to make a coherent and reasoned case in regard to an issue. Patently, you have not done any research into Homeopathy. Patently, I have.

  50. It was a statement of fact. You may call it an insult. I would call it a statement of fact.

  51. Oh dear, another homeopath muttering ignorantly on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is purely reductionist, it is hard to envisage a branch of science that could be more so. Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it a tool that you can abuse to mystify your customers.

    But at last a comment with some content. Yes, the practice of clinical trials and indeed peer review is worrying. Of course, that doesn’t mean that homeopaths will not be criticised for their quite appalling clinical trials and complete lack of peer review when they print their claims in magazines.

  52. Quantum mechanics by its nature cannot be purely materialist reductionist because it is about probability and that cannot be reduced. Logic.

    However, Quantum Physics studies at the energy level – frequency, vibration, – which is the level at which Homeopathic medicine works.

  53. As you have been neither reasoned nor coherent and not particularly knowledgeable about homeopathy, perhaps you should reconsider your ‘research’.

  54. The concept of somebody trained in nothing is quite a concept. Yes, it may take years, I’ve seen three year graduate courses in homeopathy. Sounds impressive until you read that this a 4 day a week course for ten weeks of the year. This is laughable to medical and science graduates.

    Some doctors in some countries may also be homeopaths. A list of them would be useful as people should not go near anyone who doesn’t use evidence and science based medicine. Interestingly, homeopaths in India are clamouring to use prescription medicines but they don’t want to train in their use, just sell them.

  55. Probability is not reductionist? It is exactly that. It is a precise measurement of the uncertainty inherent in the interaction of small particles. Your lack of understanding of this point is hardly surprising. Quantum electrodynamics, the interaction of electrons and light governs all the interactions of baryonic matter. To you that means everything. It has made confirmed predictions to fourteen decimals, far in excess of anything else in science. There is no space left in that theory for any of your nonsense about quantum. Feynman, a Nobel winner for his work in QED, coined a phrase for quacks like yourself, Cargo Cult Scientists. How prescient of him, it describes you exactly. You dress up in white coats to pretend to be doctors and scientists. You print claims in magazines dressed up as scientific and medical journals. You use words such as quantum and nano without the slightest understanding of their meaning. In reality, we have another name, quack.

  56. Materialist reductionist means reducing to the purely material.

    The probability factor in Quantum Mechanics means it is never absolutely reduced to the purely material.

    But I love the way you admit you cannot mount a case in response by resorting to ad hominem. Keep it up. Let me see, Dingle, rinderpest, quack…. few more to go. Do they hand out a manual to you? Reads like it.

  57. Widespread use of homeopathy in Germany for children’s cancer treatment
    A previous study in 2011, “Use of homeopathy in pediatric oncology in Germany” compared homeopathy use and other forms of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in children with cancer. A very large 45.2% of CAM use was homeopathy. Homeopathy is the most frequently used CAM treatment in children’s cancer treatment in Germany. Most families who had used homeopathy before their child was diagnosed with cancer also used homeopathy for the treatment of their child’s cancer. The survey which was published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine was not about the effectiveness of the treatment but compared to other CAM treatments, patient satisfaction with homeopathy appears to be very high.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20981319

  58. What this study adds

    Patients with allergic rhinitis who received homoeopathy had significantly better nasal air flow than those in the placebo group

    More patients in the homoeopathic group had initial symptom aggravations

    Overall, no difference was seen in subjective measurements on a visual analogue scale, with both groups showing improvement

    When the results are combined with those of three similar studies, homeopathy is different from placebo on both subjective and objective measures.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27460/

  59. Quote: Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-baseMedicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
    163 studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 74 peer-reviewed international medical journals out of which 47+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded.

    https://drprabhattandon.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/scientific-research-in-homeopathy-triple-blind-studies-double-blind-randomised-placebo-controlled-trial-systematic-reviews-meta-analysis-evidence-base/

  60. A qualified MD only requires two years training. And without it, the course is four years and not the short course you cite. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

    Perhaps you can explain why an MD would spend two years studying and training to practise Homeopathy?

  61. I have absolutely no interest in convincing you or anyone in regard to Homeopathy. No-one is ever convinced by others anyway in my experience.

    I merely post to counter the propaganda and misinformation put by those who oppose Homeopathy on the basis that closed minds can absorb and process nothing, and minds which remain open will make of it what they will.

    There is only one evidence for medicine – does it cure? And the answer is yes, Homeopathic medicine cures and has done so for more than two centuries. Anything else is irrelevant.

  62. The simple reality is that, given the terror academics, medical professionals and politicians have of looking stupid or being sued, if there were the slightest chance you were correct there would not be one respectable university or medical school in the world teaching Homeopathy and there are many; there would not be one MD or respectable hospital in the world practising Homeopathy, and there are many and there would not be one respectable Government in the world prepared to officially embrace Homeopathy as a part of their medical system, and there are many.

    Quite simply, the above realities demolish the case of the naysayers, put paid to the delusional claim Homeopathy does not work or is pure placebo or fraud, and make it very, very clear that Homeopathy is recognised and respected by many of those who should, or would utterly reject it if you were correct.

    Ergo, you are wrong.

  63. I know exactly what it means which is why I know how and when to use it. And yes, I am sure we all fail at times and verge on ad hominem but never to the degree of the naysayers who have nothing else in their armoury.

  64. Homeopathy works. It is the only form of medicine for me and my family and we have not had to visit a gp for years. My 17 year old has only been to a gp four times and those were for investigations.

  65. Your ignorance of all science becomes a wonder to behold. Your inability to understand that everything you can see and experience is provided for in QED is less so.

    Your lack of understanding of ad hominem is typical of the poorly educated. It doesn’t mean an insult. So while you may feel clever in producing a bit of Latin it makes you look foolish. But then, it probably goes with all those fake Latin labels that homeopaths produce.

    As the rinderpest example was given to rebut your contention that infective diseases were dying out because of hygiene and you have been unable to contradict that observation I’ll take that as meaning your premise is refuted, it was nonsense anyway.

    And then we have the greatest example of sheer ignorance I have seen for a long time. Science is mainly theoretical? Where do you read these stupidities, please don’t tell me you came to this on your own. Science is mainly empirical, we advance through observation. That is why science has evolved techniques for examining data and why we can draw firm conclusions and put probabilities on those conclusions of being wrong. Those techniques, used in homeopathy, show it doesn’t work. QED (Latin not the physics).

  66. Energy is not material. That is what makes Quantum Physics different to most of materialist reductionist science which seeks to reduce to the material. Energy cannot be reduced to the material.

    This is my point, Homeopathy works in the main beyond the material at an energy level and that is why any science locked into the material will never be able to understand how it works,i.e. chemistry.

    Understanding will only come from a science which can function beyond the purely material.

    Quote: What we perceive as our physical material world, is really not physical or material at all, in fact, it is far from it. This has been proven time and time again by multiple Nobel Prize (among many other scientists around the world) winning physicists, one of them being Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory.

    “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

    At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.

    “Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/this-is-the-world-of-quantum-physics-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

  67. Displaying your crass ignorance again. Scientists live to disprove current theory. That way lies fame and fortune. But to disprove current thinking rightly involves a lot of solid data. Nothing is disproved by the pathetic studies that homeopaths regularly churn out.

    Scientists and academics are also mostly scrupulously honest. To be found cheating on data is death to a career. It is hardly surprising that dishonest quacks make entry into such a system. However, they are being rooted out. But homeopaths found defrauding the public are never censured by their ‘professional’ bodies, why is that?

    For somebody who cannot even see their own logical errors, ergo what?

  68. I never said ad hominem amounted to an insult. It is a personal attack, an attack on the individual instead of an ‘attack’ on the statement, claim, theory, belief etc.

    The name-calling to which you resort, along with personal insults amounts to ad hominem.

    Your first paragraph is an ad hominem response. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself as to its meaning.

    And I never said infectious diseases were dying out because of hygiene. I said epidemics are less common because of improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition and mortality rates were also dramatically lowered when these three factors were addressed.

    You picked hygiene and left out the others. Rinderpest always comes up because there is really no counter case to be made.

    Science claims it is empirical but it less so and certainly when it comes to Allopathic medicine. Conventional medicine used to be empirically based but is less so now, to everyone’s cost.

    Observation follows theories, ergo, science is largely theoretical.

    There are things which science observes and utilises because of what it learns from observation, gravity for instance, but which is not really understood.

    Ironically, Science rejects Homeopathy which is completely empirical and where knowledge is gained and practice is given based on observation even if the how is not understood. Double standards.

    Science draws firm conclusions from its limited base – materialist reductionist and mechanical. This is enormously useful for engineering, architecture and building machinery, equipment and material things, but it is not useful and is often destructive when applied to the organic world in general or human beings in particular.

    This earth is not a machine and neither are human beings or anything which exists in it.

    Machines are things made by human beings and they can be approached materially and mechanically because that is how they have been made.

    The brilliance of Homeopathy is that it has been developed as medicine which functions beyond the purely material but on the material.

    Those techniques cannot be applied to Homeopathy and cannot show anything about Homeopathy because they are limited to the material and mechanistic. It is akin to finding a broken flower and deciding to ‘fix it’ as you would a broken vase – delusional and impossible.

  69. So you are propagandising with lurid claims that you cannot justify, I leave it to the onlookers to decide who is talking sense.

  70. A course takes four years, well I’ll assume that you know of a course that takes that long. How much actual content is there?

    Why would an MD become a purveyor of woo. Well it isn’t because they have been persuaded by the evidence because throughout all of your bluster, you know there is no convincing evidence. That’s why you indulge in the smears, insults, straight lies and misrepresentations.

  71. I have no financial incentive in Homeopathy beyond the fact that it is far more effective and cheaper than Allopathic medicine.

    I consult Homeopaths when required and as a curious person, I also study it because it is fascinating. I have a deep and abiding interest in the human body and mind and in all approaches to health. For what it is worth in past years I produced a magazine for a major hospital. The difference is I know far more about conventional medicine than you know about Homeopathy.

    And most of the Homeopaths I know are far from wealthy, unlike the Allopathic doctors I know who are very wealthy.

  72. No propaganda, just statement of facts which those of open mind can assess for themselves.

  73. Is that what you did to get the full article? If so, why not quote the methodology used. If you make a claim, you should be able to provide proof.

  74. You need a qualifier. Scientists live to disprove current theory as long as it does not threaten their profit, prestige, peer approval, professional standing and position.

    I believe most scientists and academics are well-intentioned and reasonably honest but not scrupulously honest because they function within systems and systems drive behaviour and those who value their prestige, profits etc., will act accordingly to maintain them.

    Science in particular is controlled by big money and vested agendas these days and never more so than in medicine, hence the increasingly flawed nature of research.

    Academia has also become big business and there is less integrity than there once was.

    Logical error – waiting for that one. Did we have straw man?

  75. There are many MD’s who train as Homeopaths. In France for instance, a country where Homeopathy is used frequently, it is required by law to first train as an MD before training as a Homeopath.

  76. Still haven’t grasped the concept of an ad hominem, have you. My first paragraph is a direct observation which I can prove from your comments, so it isn’t even an insult.

    Neither hygiene, nutrition nor sanitation changed before and after the rinderpest was eliminated, your proposition is a bust. What destroys your scaremongering even more is that we can see outbreaks of previously prevented disease in areas where that specific vaccine is underused. Or are you now going to claim that every time the drop in vaccination rate coincides with a reduction in hygiene, sanitation and nutrition? Really?

    And then we get the weak minded nonsense that boils down to science doesn’t know everything. Yes, we know that, it is why we do research, not to perform your cognitive bias but to learn new things. But there are things we do know with high probability. We know all matter we directly experience is baryonic and can be described in terms of QED and we know homeopathy doesn’t work, even more we know why it doesn’t work and we even have a pretty good idea why you might think it does work.

    Aww, wondered when the special pleading would make its dreary appearance. There is nothing special about homeopathy, it makes claims that have been disproved. That you don’t understand that is of little interest except to psychologists. That, from your great ignorance, you are prepared to endanger patients with your nonsense is certainly of concern .

  77. Homeopathy is nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how many times you dilute it!

  78. I think you have consistently demonstrated ad hominem and those of sound mind will have no issue seeing the validity of my claim.

    You do mix things up. I never said Rinderpest was about hygiene, sanitation or nutrition. I said, Rinderpest always comes up because it is the only case which can be made. I don’t know enough about it and don’t actually care since my interest is humans.

    Given the fact that vaccine claims for humans are in error, Rinderpest may well be also. I also never said vaccines could not work. They might in some ways although the methodology and practice are flawed.

    Largely they are not required where there is good sanitation, hygiene and nutrition because the situation in which one lives is healthy and a healthy body deals with any pathogens.

    The outbreaks are in the vaccinated. Ponder that!

    Again you misread. This was not about science not knowing everything, but about the fact that science can only know about that which can be reduced to the material and mechanistic since that is the paradigm in which science operates. And that means it can know little about the natural world.

    We know Homeopathy works – we don’t yet know how it works. But we will, one day.

    I think you had a delusional moment – there was no special pleading for Homeopathy.

  79. Gobbledygook. Energy is not material therefore homeopathy? You might get away with that nonsense when talking to your patients but it is just claptrap.

    You quote Bohr but it is obvious you don’t even understand the simple words such as ‘regarded’. We do not know how describe the quantum world in terms familiar to our scale and velocity. But we can describe many things with exquisite accuracy and precision. It doesn’t allow homeopathy and is completely indecipherable to the wooly mindedness you exhibit.

    Yes Folger is right, so what? Homeopathy still doesn’t work.

  80. That must put your knowledge of medicine into nano sized chunks as I know more about homeopathy than you do. I know your sugar and water is all that is present in your preparations, you appear to be unaware of that simple fact.

  81. Your beliefs are unreliable, you should get some facts instead. As we find out malfeasance in research and in medicine it is dealt with vigorously and harshly. Show me the homeopaths who are treated in the same way. Defrauding patients, just carry on, defrauding academic education just carry on.

    Recently, a lecturer in Toronto University was found with the same wrong headed and dangerous agenda as yourself. She was sacked, not for being a delusionists but because the dean of her college was her husband. But hey ho, one less charlatan to deal with.

  82. You either do not read or do not process. I said, I have no financial gain from Homeopathy except as a patient.

    Homeopathy works. All you can say is science cannot explain how it works.

    Repeating a lie does not make it true.

  83. Keep up the good work. The lack of any substantive case against Homeopathy makes the case for Homeopathy. 🙂

  84. You clearly demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to distinguish your baseless claims from reality

  85. You still have not explained to me if Homeopathy is fraud why it is practised by MD’s and respectable hospitals; taught in respectable universities and medical schools and embraced by Governments around the world.

    Those facts alone shred any case you might make.

  86. You are quite correct. In my experience attempting to COMMUNICATE, let alone have a discussion with “Acleron”, he (or she) will creatively “reinterpret” what I said and then attack the “reinterpretation” !

    Ad hominems and other innuendo from this anonymous individual are typical, I’m afraid.

    No real discussion is possible with the closed mind.

  87. Oh wow, the largest producer of sugar and water in the world is in France, do you think they are dim enough to neglect their own market?

    I know of doctors in France who avoid people who practice homeopathy, so what?

  88. I never claimed to even want to read it, merely pointed out what you would have seen if you had properly read your own reference.

  89. Actually I did.

    Fraud, misrepresentation, lying, cognitive and confirmation bias have all contributed. Missing from all that after 200 years is any reliable evidence it works.

  90. “It doesn’t mean insult?” Please, read your comments before posting. Extremely insulting is more like it. Ridicule and criticism are your tools, and not very good ones, at that.

  91. Your so-called evidence is opinion based. If you don’t have a family homeopath and have never been treated by one, just say so.

  92. That is an extremely well documented and investigated case. It happened just the way it was reported. Stop misrepresenting the casual note of an untrained observer such as a homeopath with what we know about Dingle.

  93. Manipulated studies by big pharma are the norm, Joe Q. Homeopathic provings have nothing to conceal, no profit motive. You do not understand your subject because you are too emotional.

  94. Eh? You lost the plot or something?

    I don’t need to go a car mechanic for health advice, why on earth would I want to go to someone who is equally clueless?

  95. Joe Q made the original claim, as if he had read the entire article, which I still doubt. Joe Q said there was “no positive control” used in the study. I asked him to prove his claim. He disappeared and you took over as his lackey I presume. Won’t work. Still need Joe Q to answer. I assume he is resourceful enough that he can back up his statement.

  96. Actually no. You are making the extraordinary claims that sugar and water cure disease, it is up to you to supply the extraordinary evidence for that claim. So far nothing, which neatly matche’s the amount of active material in one of your preparations.

  97. I chose not to make a comment on your claim of no financial gain, I’ve seen it too often.

    If homeopathy works you can show us all, the data leading to that conclusion. Go on, start composing your Nobel prize speech because that is the least you will get for disproving several major theories.

    Strange how that data keep appearing and disappearing isn’t it?

    It isn’t I that has misrepresented data,made schoolboy logical errors and failed to understand simple Latin phrases, that was you, but projection is quite common in the deluded.

  98. Still haven’t quite understood the concept of the ad hominem have you?

    Lol, now you are claiming that rinderpest still exists? Really? Any straw to a drowning man I suppose.

    Rinderpest is not the only case, and I have given you one more already, you are a liar.

    Name one fact about the natural world that we have established without science.

    Ignorance about special pleading as well, figures.

  99. Jimmy boy has been proven to be wrong so many times he is discouraged. But Jimmy, you have never taken part in a debate, merely stated an opinion and repeated ad nauseam, run or lately started deleting your posts.

  100. Ridicule? Lol, I hold my hat out to the homeopaths they ridicule themselves far better than I could do it.

    Criticism? Yes, without a doubt and until you either stop making dangerous claims or produce convincing evidence I will continue to do so.

  101. Many thanks for a prompt demonstration of what I was saying.

    Enjoy your other “discussions”….or whatever they are.

  102. I quite realise you will not be able to understand the following but it has to be said.

    In the last 20 years there has been three major metastudies on homeopathy where all the relevant trials are collated according to strict, well described rules. That is not every trial they have to be of sufficient quality before being included. All three, Linde et al, Shang et al and the recent Australian report from the NHMRC have concluded that homeopathy is no better than placebo.

    To overcome this edifice of evidence then more than that, all being positive to homeopathy, is required. Lists of piddling little trials with glaring inadequacies will not do.

  103. Answer her question:

    If it is a “FRAUD” how can MDs still be practicing it ?

    Has the skeptic lost ALL objectivity and ability to respond ?

  104. Oh dear oh dear oh dear !! The anonymous spokesperson appears and Joe “Q” disappears !

    Apparently Joe is unable to back up his claim about “no positive or negative control”.

    As for other skeptics who think its all a “fraud”, I’d say they were OUT OF CONTROL !!!!

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!

  105. Alas, so true. The skeptics’ mindset revolves around media constructs, there’s “NO” evidence, it’s ALL “placebo” and the like.

    This is a pseudo-fabrication, an image, a delusion, to be shattered only by those who can read and THINK.

    The modern skeptic is part of an army of unknowing dupe zombies, making wild accusations and charges and denunciations and mutually reinforcing each others stupidity and ego gratifying pseudo-scientific “knowledge”.

  106. As before, so true.

    It is not clear if they are unwilling, OR unable to do their own reading and research to decide.

    Perhaps both.

  107. Only one Evidence ??? !!!

    How DARE you mention the obvious ? Don’t you know that logical positivism, pseudo-science and that ersatz “scientific” substitute known as “Scientism” do not allow such statements, do NOT allow the word “cure”.

    Don’t you know, for example, that in the middle ages, they had the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth wrong because Aristotle, the “Authority” had it wrong. If anyone dared attempted to count the teeth in a number of horses to come up with the correct number, that person would have been unscholarly and wrong !

    Oh….wait a moment…..IT’S NOT THE MIDDLE AGES ANYMORE !!!

    Someone tell Friar Ack.

  108. Over a century ago, technicians would do blood counts by peering down a microscope and counting the different types of cells. A problem was seen in this method, the results were too good. No deliberate chicanery was taking place, it was just a natural desire to get the ‘right’ result that caused technicians to allocate cells to the wrong type if they felt they had accumulated enough of that type. Scientists recognised the problem of confirmation bias. People are more likely to accept a result if it confirms what they are expecting. Scientists go to great lengths to avoid this problem. A distinct but related bias is cognitive bias where someone is unable to ascribe any mechanism but one to an observation. This is why the anecdotes of homeopaths are disregarded. Until homeopaths understand and appreciate their own bias they will stay at the level of Hahnemann and continue to sell a discredited modality.

  109. This is true !

    That one INEPT SKEPTIC is unable to deal with it is of no consequence.

  110. I notice smart Alecron does not comment often on the Allopathic kill rate.

    Understandable.

  111. That is correct.

    In addition, I suspect the person you are addressing is incapable of doing that research.

  112. This is such a patently ridiculous thing to say, I’m beginning to wonder if you’re just a wind-up merchant. Acleron knows enough about homeopathy to know that it is worthless and nothing you have said in any of your posts contradicts this.

  113. Since you mentioned “Professor” Ernst, who is also anti acupuncture, did you see his paper that was positive for acupuncture? Enjoy.

    “It is concluded that acupuncture can alleviate dental pain and that future investigations should define the optimal acupuncture technique and its relative efficacy compared with conventional methods of analgesia.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ernst+e%2C+dental+pain

  114. Well, Ernst is full of surprises !

    I’m starting to wonder if there was a connection between Ernst’s “conclusions” and whichever way the funding winds were blowing!!

  115. Deal with what? The effectiveness of medicine and the complete ineffectiveness of homeopathy?

  116. As you had obviously forgotten, the topic is homeopathy, not nuclear engineering, the CRISPR gene insertion method, rate kinetics of noble gases or of modern medicine but quackery.

  117. You really are quite ignorant aren’t you. Ernst was funded by Sir Maurice Laing who was pro alternative methods. Fortunately both Ernst and Laing were of the opinion that the results should lead the conclusions as in all good science. This is of course quite inexplicable to homeopaths who are so close minded they know the conclusion they want and cherry pick the evidence to match.

  118. I’m curious if that was before or after you made your comment about “published pier reviewed studies”, Sandra? Are those the ones where you throw it in the water and see if it floats? If it floats, it must weigh the same as a duck, you see, and we know what that means…

  119. Rubbish! The whole history of medicine involves doctors giving worthless treatments but plenty of doctors have been struck off for prescribing homeopathy.

    And no respectable university in the UK teaches it any more.

    As for governments around the world – they make decisions on the basis of economics not on good science.

  120. A little early for you to descend into your pomo nonsense isn’t it?

    How about some reliable, well reported evidence to support your claims?

  121. Actually I use my brain. You should try it Jimbo, I’m sure you will enjoy the novelty.

  122. Acleron = model of condescending behavior; e.g. having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority, patronizing, supercilious, superior, snobbish, snobby, disdaintul, lofty, haughty, etc.

  123. Once again Acleron = model of condescending behavior; e.g. having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority, patronizing, supercilious, superior, snobbish, snobby, disdaintul, lofty, haughty, etc.

  124. Aww, Sandra has found a few new words. They will be repeated over and over again.

    This is common among homeopaths, it is displacement activity to direct the attention away from their complete inability to produce the reliable evidence necessary to prove their extravagant claims.

  125. If Acleron is superior then that’s hardly his fault, is it?

    What should he do…pretend to be stupid, and agree homeopathy works?

  126. The numbers in each arm (homeopathy=24, placebo=27) are insufficient for anything more than a pilot study and they are light even for that. The specific allergies described are very unusual, 51 atopic individuals and none of them being allergic to grass pollen? Did they fail to test for this or did they fail to report it.

    The other objective test of quantitative sensitivity would be the specific IgE and skin test results. Both these tests are log dose response effects. The responses are scores, non linear with respect to dose. Taking an arithmetic mean across a group will just disguise any differences. This is just another poor study, the conclusion, weak as it is, is insufficiently justified.

  127. The comments here are hilarious. I never get tired of watching fools try to argue that their magical water “cures” things other than dehydration.

  128. What an incredibly stupid line of reasoning. By that logic we would never have stopped trepanning since all the respectable hospitals were doing it, and all the respectable schools were teaching it. What kind of twit do you have to be in order to suggest that public health policy should be based on popularity rather than evidence?

  129. Wait, so you admit you attempted to cite an article which you haven’t actually read?

    … and you expect to be taken seriously?

  130. The cause of her death WAS iatrogenic. The fact that it was caused by a quack “healer” rather than a real doctor doesn’t remove it from that category.

  131. “I would think any safer alternative would be welcomed, or at least stimulate curiosity”

    Of course; which is why we studied homeopathy. Then we found out that it’s complete bunk. Since it doesn’t work, it can’t be a safer alternative, any more than a magic carpet could be a safer alternative to an airplane. For something to be an alternative, it has to actually work.

  132. Ah! I see “Acleron” got himself in some hot water after being called out on that “Fraud” statement,
    so low and behold (yes “low”) “Jem” and “Alex” appear to “help” him.

    Speaking of that army of unknowing dupe zombies…..

  133. Help? No, he doesn’t need any help given that he’s arguing with microcephalics. We’re just here to poke you with a stick and watch the stupid pour out.

  134. “… but compared to other CAM treatments, patient satisfaction with homeopathy appears to be very high.”

    That’s a pretty sad indictment of CAM as a whole. When the most popular form of “treatment” is magic water, that right there tells you how useful the whole field is.

  135. We’ve been through this before, have you forgotten so quickly or is it selective amnesia?

    Ernst qualified in medicine and went to work in a hospital that used homeopathy. His experience qualified him as a homeopath just as it did the other doctors. This was in the days before ‘degrees’ in homeopathy were handed out.

    Despite your bletherings, the claims of homeopaths can be tested by the scientific method. Ernst has demonstrated beyond question that he is an expert in that testing.

    The hypocrisy of quacks such as yourself is well demonstrated by their attitude to Ernst. When he was appointed to the Laing chair he was welcomed with open arms by your fraternity. At last, you all thought, you have respectability. But Ernst kept producing incontrovertible data and being the rigorous scientist that he is it drove him to the inescapable conclusion that homeopathy is bogus. Suddenly, the homeopaths turned on him, even paying a journalist to smear him. The underhand attempts to oust him from his chair were quite disgraceful but only an extension of the tactics used by homeopaths to extend their grubby little trade.

  136. Yes, objectivity is good, why don’t you use it.

    Alliterative nonsense is still just nonsense.

  137. So like all homeopaths and ardent supporters, you don’t care in the least bit to know if it actually works. You just believe and assert that it does. And then you have the gal to call others “closed minded”.

  138. Magical water memory that only remembers what you want it to remember, not everything else it has contacted over eons.

  139. As Jean-Pierre in a comment below alludes, it is a faith based system. It requires an evermore complex network of delusions to sustain it. Any vaguely supportive statement is grabbed and trotted out.

    The lack of any self awareness becomes apparent when a statement is disproven. There is no embarrassment over being wrong. The argument ad Populum will be trotted out by these particular homeopaths in the future when they think there is a fresh audience.

  140. Meticulously recorded case histories with disease/symptom data and ongoing healing and cure, over more than two centuries where empiricism is paramount does not allow confirmation bias.

  141. The NHMRC report was deeply flawed and rejected as such.

    It amounted to a study into the efficacy of oncology for example, where no oncologist is on the study panel, no oncologists are consulted and data was selectively admitted which made a comprehensive and representative information source impossible.

  142. Neither water, nor magic. And of course your dismissive comment does not make a case against Homeopathy.

  143. Acleron, people who resort to misinformation find it necessary to regard others as liars and difficult to recognise the truth.

    Why on earth would I not admit to being a qualified and practising Homeopath if that was indeed my profession?

    If I keep appearing and disappearing, and just applying a little common sense and logic here, radical I know, it might just be because you and I are in different time zones!!!!!!

    Homeopathy works and has done for more than two centuries. The only proof patients require is efficacy. They have that.

    Homeopaths and others are curious about how it works but until that knowledge is gained, they will just make use of it.

  144. If you were on a pier you might throw something in the water. More difficult if you were using the correct word – peer.

  145. I have never claimed sugar and water cure disease and I never would.

    In truth, as every Homeopath would attest, the body cures disease and all medicine is merely an aid to that process.

    Homeopathy is a highly effective aid to that process and it has nothing to do with sugar and water anymore than an Allopathic drug is about its ‘carrier,’ the soluble capsule in which the medicine is contained.

  146. Hardly stupid. Hospitals, academia, Governments are renowned for fearing looking foolish or being sued. If they embrace Homeopathy it is because they fear neither being sued or looking foolish,. Ergo, it works and it has integrity.

    I think your prejudice prevented you from processing my comment with any logic or reason.

  147. No doctor has been struck off for practising Homeopathy. And respectable universities do teach it, even if the Brits have been compromised by vested agendas and ignorance. Although UK universities still validate Homeopathic degrees.

    And many universities around the world continue to teach it. The UK is hardly the centre of the universe and with Scotland, Ireland and Europe so close it matters not a whit if every UK university stops their Homeopathic courses.

  148. No faith required. Homeopathy is equally effective on those who believe, those who do not believe, those who are not sure and those who are absolutely, utterly convinced it cannot work!!!!

    The last are the ones who tend to become committed converts when cured. Not surprising.

  149. I absolutely care about something working. Why would we utilise something which does not work?

    Homeopathy works and I know that without a shadow of a doubt.

    I don’t know how it works but there are some interesting theories and I am curious and will be very interested when science advances enough to understand how it works, but until then, all I care about is that it does work and it does no harm.

  150. I know the full story of Penelope Dingle. I suspect I have researched her tragic case more than you have done. Her death did not reflect on Homeopathy and one inadequate Homeopathic practitioner does not reflect on Homeopathic medicine any more than does one inadequate Allopathic practitioner discredit all of conventional medicine.

  151. You do become increasingly incoherent. I know it is difficult having people who can make intelligent, informed, substantiated posts regarding Homeopathy when all you can do is insult, abuse and rail, but try to remain calm.

  152. Quote:

    The Medical Mafia’s Real Objections to Homeopathy

    This is too subtle for average materialistic practitioners and research scientists. So the AMA mainstream medicos maintain that they’re too weak to work. But that’s the cover story for the real reasons why “orthodox” medicine is against homeopathy, even as more from their ranks slip away and choose to use it.

    Big Pharma runs Allopathic medicine from top to bottom. They are in the faces of medical students before they graduate and continue haunting them after they get their licenses. The AMA, FDA, and regional licensing agencies are Big Pharma’s Medical Mafia “enforcers”.

    Big Pharma and medical equipment manufacturers would be ruined financially if enough discovered that very inexpensive homeopathic diluted solutions can be used to actually heal without side effects from a homeopathic practitioner who requires practically no expensive medical equipment.

    Homeopathy requires dialogue between practitioner and patient. It is patient specific. That takes time and patience, something MDs don’t have time for. Practicing homeopathy is more subtle and demanding than cookie-cutter “here’s your prescription” medical practice.

    But this is also the one downside of homeopathy. It’s important to consult a good classical homeopathic practitioner to get optimum results.

    But it’s hard to go too wrong with homeopathy because homeopathic solutions are without side effects and are much less expensive than pharmaceuticals. Treating an autistic child often comes to a couple of hundred dollars worth of homeopathic remedies over a year’s treatments.

    Meanwhile, orthodox oncologists make up to a half-million or more dollars per year off the chemo drugs they drip into their visiting patients. Yes, they get a cut of the action from those hideously expensive chemo drugs that often kill patients before cancer can.

    In summary, allopathic medicine condemns homeopathy because it is more effective but less profitable than the Medical Mafia’s racket.

    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/what-homeopathy-controversy-is-really-all-about/#ixzz3iUlNvySY

  153. Thank you so much for yet again demonstrating absolute ignorance of Homeopathic methodology. You guys just do so much good work for Homeopathic medicine because you demonstrate, time and time again, you have never done any research and you know absolutely nothing about Homeopathy. Please keep up the good work.

  154. Homeopathy has been demonstrated to work for more than two centuries.

    That it works is a given. The only question is how it works and that is irrelevant in face of the reality that it does work and it works extremely well.

    Nothing needs to be demonstrated to anyone but patients and they ‘speak with their feet,’ in turning to Homeopathy by the millions.

  155. Medical Mafia, oncologists get a cut from the cost of the drugs they use and the source of this delirious delusion? Aah, natural news LMAO. You are seriously citing a delusionary web site to back up your own delusion, just wow!

    Of course, you have as much evidence for all this nonsense as you have for the claim that homeopathy does anything at all, ie zero.

  156. Meticulous? Lol, homeopaths prove they are unable to process data every time they try to put forward data as evidence, why would they be meti ulous about anything?

    It’s tiresome, I know, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes. The claims of homeopaths are just anecdotes. I’ll discuss how that part of the scam works further up.

  157. Sadly in the US, doctors do make money from using chemo.

    Quote: NEW YORK — It is a unique situation in medicine: Unlike other kinds of doctors, cancer doctors are allowed to profit from the sale of chemotherapy drugs.

    “The significant amount of our revenue comes from the profit, if you will, that we make from selling the drugs,” says Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a private physician who specializes in cancer treatment.

    Doctors in other specialties simply write prescriptions. But oncologists make most of their income by buying drugs wholesale and selling them to patients at a marked up prices.

    “So the pressure is frankly on to make money by selling medications,” says Eisenberg.

    Ethicists see a potential for conflict of interest.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14944098/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/cancer-docs-profit-chemotherapy-drugs/

  158. DETROIT — In a crowded courtroom in downtown Detroit, the onetime prominent cancer doctor stood before the judge.

    With his hands cuffed and his head lowered, the man in the bright red jail suit made a surprise move.

    Dr. Farid Fata, who was charged with intentionally misdiagnosing healthy people with cancer and pumping dying patients with chemo to make money, pleaded guilty.

    “It is my choice,” Fata said on Tuesday of his surprise guilty plea, which included rattling off the names of numerous drugs he prescribed for his patients over the years. In each admission, he uttered these words:

    “I knew that it was medically unnecessary.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/16/cancer-doc-admits-scam-giving-patients-unneeded-chemo/15754535/

  159. The NHMRC protocol was approved by the Cochrane foundation. You don’t get a higher approval in this field. Who claimed it was flawed? Ah, that would be homeopaths.

    Let us see how homeopaths approach the negative results of meta studies.

    First there was Linde et al. Now when Linde first published a notable quack was one of the authors. Although there was a slight benefit towards homeopathy the conclusion was the startling ‘homeopathy proved to work’. Homeopaths welcomed this study effusively. Then Linde obtained more data, reanalysis and in the absence of the quack concluded that it could not be proven that homeopathy was anymore effective than placebo. Suddenly, homeopaths were claiming that Linde was flawed. You see quacks such as yourself are not interested in the quality of the analysis or the data, only in a positive result.

    You have put forward the most terrible dross as proof for homeopathy and then reject far higher quality results because it doesn’t match your belief system.

  160. And there we see the full blooded belief system of a closed mind.

    ‘We know you are wrong’

    Classic.

  161. I said ‘data’ not you.

    You claim that homeopathy works but when it comes to backing this claim with evidence, the evidence is never forthcoming.

    Yeah, we know all about claims with no evidence, they are usually fraudulent but homeopathy has been proven to be no different than placebo, no maybe, it is definitely fraudulent.

  162. Well, let’s just say if the same thing was done to oncologists it would not be surprising if oncologists were seeking to set the record straight.

    This is from the Complementary Medicine body in Australia.

    Media Release
    For Media Interviews or Further Information Contact:
    CMA, Chief Executive: Carl Gibson +61 457 028 974
    15 December 2014

    The Five Fundamental Flaws of the NHMRC Homeopathy Review
    Complementary Medicines Australia (CMA) today pre-empted the publication of a formal position
    statement by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on homeopathy, calling
    into question the NHMRC’s methods used to review the evidence of effectiveness on homeopathy.
    Mr Carl Gibson, Chief Executive of CMA said “A number of independent experts in the sector have
    expressed strong concerns with the methodology of the review, according to information obtained
    from NHMRC under Freedom of Information laws.”
    “We are today calling out the NHMRC Review as fatally flawed by outlining Five Fundamental Flaws:
    1. Shoddy Methodology: NHMRC provides no adequate explanation of why randomised
    controlled trials (RTC) were excluded from the Review.

    The NHMRC decision not to
    adhere to a search of all Level 1 evidence, as per International standards, should
    certainly be justified.

    2. Selective Research: The choice of databases searched was not broad enough to capture
    the balance of complementary medicine specific content, and excluded non-English
    studies.

    3. Lack of Expertise: NHMRC did not appoint a homeopathic expert to the Review Panel.

    4. Flawed evidence: NHMRC did not provide an adequate explanation of why only
    systematic reviews were used where systematic reviews have inherent weakness as a
    reliable source of evidence.

    5. Ignoring Opinion of Experts: Two out of three Experts who NHMRC consulted prior to
    publication expressed numerous concerns over the methodology and selective use of the
    data and recommended the NHMRC could not come to the very definitive conclusion that
    it came to.

    The NHMRC then chose to ignore these Expert Opinions.
    Mr Gibson added; “The papers released under Freedom of Information show that the NHMRC failed
    to appoint a homeopathic expert to the Review Panel, left out randomised controlled trials, excluded
    all studies not published in English, and limited the choice of databases searched, which basically
    meant that the balance of complementary medicines specific content was omitted.”

    “No valid conclusions can be drawn from this Review, except that the NHMRC has failed to uphold
    its own standards of ethics and quality research in this instance,” said Mr Gibson.

    Mr Gibson went on to say “As the first in a series of investigations into the evidence on
    complementary medicines, CMA questions how future reviews will be underpinned by best practice principles and conducted in a transparent manner.”

    http://www.cmaustralia.org.au/Resources/Documents/16%2012%2014_Fundamental_Flaws_of_the_NHMRC_Homeopathy_Review.pdf

    p.s. I offer this not to your closed mind but to others who are more rational and less prejudiced and who may require balanced information.

  163. Projection is a wonderful thing. I appreciate the boost you give to Homeopathy through demonstrating ignorance and prejudice. You just make our case over and over again.

  164. Keep on thinking the events in the UK do not matter. While you are doing that the doctors in India are fighting back against the homeopaths, the FDA is considering regulation, as are the appropriate authorities in Canada and Australia.

  165. Thanks again. Every time you post foolish claims you support Homeopathy.

    Anyone of reason knows that no university, medical school, hospital, MD, Government would touch Homeopathy with a barge-pole if you were even half right so the fact that so many do simply blows you ‘out of the water.’

    You will never get around the facts above and you will never get around the fact that millions around the world use Homeopathy and are healed with Homeopathy.

    p.s. I suggest you look up the Oxford Dictionary to fully understand the term fraudulent.

  166. Yeah, that must be why when it is tested under high quality conditions by professionals it somehow fails to work.

    Your own words coupled with your inability to produce robust, reliable evidence clearly shows that it is a faith based system.

  167. Intelligent? You have failed to understand why the rinderpest vaccination destroyed your argument that it was hygiene etc that reduced disease incidence not vaccination. When even you realised that you had lost the argument you tried to deny that rinderpest was extinct. Intelligent?

    Informed? You have been completely unable to produce evidence that homeopathy works but just keep repeating the mantra ‘it works, it works, it works. Informed?

    Substantiated? Oh that’s the ‘it works’ mantra again, isn’t it? Substantiated?

    You owe one of my colleagues a new keyboard, I showed him that comment and he spilt his coffee laughing so much.

  168. Are you seriously suggesting that people who have used Homeopathy for many years and remained well and not in need of other medical treatment, are deluding themselves and their experience is anecdotal?

    I suppose you are. Now that is delusion.

  169. So a homeopath fraudulently misrepresents their course and the certification for a degree to establish a graduate course in a university and that validates homeopathy? Lol, only a homeopath could come up with that.

    Millions are healed by homeopathy are they? Any evidence for that?

    You see, without evidence to back up that claim and with evidence that refutes it you are obtaining goods or specie by misrepresentation. That’s fraud.

  170. By pointing out that you have no evidence and just have a belief, I am supporting homeopathy? May I just point out you have no logic either.

  171. Nice affirmation there. What would change your mind about whether homeopathy works?
    People who care about whether something works actually test that proposition, in a real way, and try to improve their understanding of it in a real way. I have never seen any of that happening in homeopathy. Only exercises to affirm belief.

    For instance, does it bother you at all that no proving ever has a negative outcome? If you cared about whether “proving” had any value at all, as opposed to being absurd confirmation-bias theatre, then it would.

    Lots of people have lots of beliefs. Ken Ham firmly believes the world is at most 6000 years old. Come back when you care about the actual truth, and are prepared to do what people do who actually care to know the truth. Until then, you’re just reciting affirmations.

  172. Yeah, as I said, claims by quacks. Just a few of the lies and misrepresentations you have listed.

    One of the authors was a homeopath.
    Full descriptions of the selection process were given.
    No FOI was necessary, the bloody thing was fully published.

    It is obvious that the quacks have no substantiated criticism, as always, they just don’t like the result and are prepared to lie to denigrate it.

  173. Exactly! Magic water with selective memory. And the nimrods who believe in that nonsense have the nerve to pretend they’re being “scientific” 😀

  174. Amazing ineptitude. I have remained fit and healthy for the whole of my life without homeopathy. According to your silly logic that disproves homeopathy.

    Of course, both are anecdotes, they prove nothing. That’s why we do clinical trials and then we know homeopathy fails.

  175. Do you not understand the meaning of “quotation marks”? Or did you mean to direct your comment at Sandra Courtney?

  176. I don’t need to make a case against your magic water; all I have t do is explain to people how it supposedly “works”. As soon as I do that, anyone who isn’t a complete idiot immediately stops believing in it.

  177. No, it’s incredibly stupid. They embraced Trepanning too, Einstein. Are you even reading what I’m writing, or are you just randomly flailing about?

  178. Hmm, water memory has fallen out of favour with the high priest of homeopathy, Ullman. He toyed with Ros’s nonsense of energy, quantum and frequency but now claims that it is nanopharmacology that gets around Avogadro’s constant. Apparently the atoms are broken into less than subatomic particles. I know some physicists who want a word with him about this.

  179. Quelle Horreur! Fancy that. A Homeopath responding to inaccuracies regarding Homeopathy. Who would have thought of that?

    It must be why pharmacists respond to inaccuracies regarding psychiatry and lawyers respond to inaccuracies regarding oncology.??

  180. Sigh. You don’t read do you? She said she used Homeopathy and had no recourse to a GP including for her seventeen year old son.

    Of course she was not saying only Homeopathy can keep you well.

  181. Oh, I realize they’re calling it different things now, and trying to “explain” it with a new type of hand-waving, but it works out to the same thing. Whether the water has a “memory” or is being selectively changed at the sub-atomic level, they’re still claiming that magical shaking can turn water into magic water.

  182. Water memory was a media term and it drew on only one theory for Homeopathy.

    Material science, of which Avogadro’s measurement is a part will never be able to explain Homeopathy. We know that.

    Meanwhile the science of Homeopathy continued to do what true science does – theorise and question.

  183. Every time you use terms like water and sugar you just push the case for Homeopathy because you make those who attack Homeopathy look like the ill-informed, unable to mount a coherent intelligent case, individuals that you all appear to be.

    What astonishes me is that at least a few of you don’t do some research so you can sound like you have some idea of what you are talking about.

  184. So you’re complaining about one specific type of doctor making money from the drugs they prescribe … while ignoring the fact that EVERY homeopath makes money from the magical potions they prescribe?

    Good one!

  185. lol. No, numbnuts, the fact of the matter is that homeopathy is just water. If you don’t know that, you’re misinformed. If you do know it and are pretending otherwise, you’re a liar. Either way you’re wrong, and aren’t helping your case one bit.

  186. Give me an immediate, no time for searching, basic rundown of the proving process to show that you have a modicum of understanding of Homeopathy. I will count to ten.

  187. No. Full comprehension requires complete reading of the exchange.

    Perhaps a tall order at the best of times.

  188. lol. Sure, it goes like this:

    1. Find a problem that people are having.
    2. Find out what normally causes that problem, or a problem like it.
    3. Take some of that substance, dilute the hell out of it.
    4. Bilk people out of money with your magical water. Don’t mention the fact that they could make your “cure” even stronger by diluting it 10 times more and reselling it to other gullible cretins.

  189. Oh yeah, I hit a nerve there 🙂 Go ahead, water-boy, explain to me why it’s ok for homeo-quacks to sell their own magic potions, but wrong for real doctors to do it!

  190. Quote: Introduction

    Homoeopathy is currently used in over 80 countries. It has legal recognition as an individual system of medicine in 42 countries and is recognized as a part of complementary and alternative medicine in 28 countries .

    Ref:Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A worldwide review. Geneva: World Health organization; 2001

    “Homeopathy has now spread its wings globally, with currently 450 million patients”

    Reference: Christian Boiron, Waarom ik vertrouwen heb in homeopathie, 1st ed. Standaard Uitgeverij (Antwerpen, 2007), backcover

    Homeopathy: One Vision, One Voice

    International Council for Homeopathy (2007)

    Group on very low dose and high dilution effects(1986)

    Homeopaths World Wide (HWW): HWW-Swiss,,,,,,,,,Homeopaths Without Borders (HWB)

    OCH Armenia http://www.homeopathy.am/en/index.php

    HWB: HWB-North America,,,,HWB-France,,,,,HWB-Netherlands.,,,,,HWB-Germany

    International Guidelines for Homeopathy Education http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/images/stories/pdf/international%20guidelines%20for%20homeopathy%20education.pdf

    Snezana M Cupara, “Homeopathy Today – Education and Status” Acta Medica Medianae 2007,Vol.46 http://publisher.medfak.ni.ac.rs/2007-html/1-broj/HOMEOPATHY%20TODAY%20-%20EDUCATION%20AND%20STATUS.pdf

    World Health Organisation supports homeopathy

    1999: The WHO called for closer incorporation of homoeopathy into “western medical systems” “The development of research and evaluation structures, combined with a critical education in the discipline, would help to improve practices and define homoeopathy’s potential role in relation to the other therapies, conventional and unconventional, used in Western health systems.” Ref: Poitevin B, Integrating Homoeopathy in Health Systems, WHO Bulletin, 1999, 77, 2, 160-166., FULL TEXT

    2003-2004: WHO issued a 40-page draft on homoeopathy, entitled Homoeopathy: review and analysis of reports on controlled clinical trials, claimed that the “majority” of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years “have demonstrated that homoeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials and is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, in both humans and animals.”

    In addition, the WHO stated in their Journal “The World Health Forum” that “Homeopathy seems well suited for use in rural areas where the Infrastructure, Equipment, and Drugs needed for Conventional Medicine cannot be provided.”

    Ref: Homeopathy is more than medicinehttps://web.archive.org/web/20080418113102/http://www.health-e.org.za/news/article.php?uid=20031878

    The WHO states that Homeopathy is the second most used medical system internationally, with over $1 Billon in expenditures for such therapy. In the United states, there are more than 500 physicians and 5000 non-physicians using Homoeopathy in clinical practice, and 2.5 million Americans currently use Homeopathic medicines – of which two-thirds are self-prescribed spending more than $250 million annually.

    Ref: Lawrence M.Tierney, Jr. et al, “Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment”, USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2004 (1701-03; 4th ed.)

    According to World health Organisation, Homeopathic medicine is the most popular Traditional. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (TCAM) in countries with a GDP > $15,000, and the second most (after Herbal) in countries with GDP < $15,000. Ref: WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Map Volume, 2005, page 63, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43108/1/9241562862_map.pdf?ua=1

    According to World health Organisation, Homeopathy is the fastest-growing and second-most widely-used system of medicine in the world

    Ref:World Health Report, WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Map Volume, 2005http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43108/1/9241562862_map.pdf?ua=1

    Feb 2010: WHO initiates steps towards standardisation in preparation of homeopathic medicines

    Dr. Peter Fischer on WHO Report

    “The same issue of The Lancet featured a leak of the WHO draft report on homeopathy. The WHO document was apparently leaked to The Lancet by Dutch and Belgian doctors hostile to homeopathy; their comments and the (hostile) comments of Prof. Edzard Ernst of the University of Exeter were published. Dr Xiaorui Zhang, Traditional Medicine Coordinator of WHO, who is responsible for the report, was also interviewed, but declined to comment on a leaked, confidential draft.

    This leak came only 2 days after The Times of London published, as its front page lead, a remarkably similar story: a leak of the Smallwood Enquiry on The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS commissioned by The Prince of Wales’ Foundation for Integrated Health. It is ironic that the editor of The Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, wrote to The Times accusing “Dr.” Ernst of having ‘broken every code of scientific behaviour’ for leaking the draft report of the Smallwood Enquiry (and incidentally describing complementary medicine as ‘a largely pernicious influence… preying on the fears and uncertainties of the sick’), while simultaneously doing the same to the WHO report in his own journal

    Ref: Homeopathy and the Lancet (2006) FULL TEXT

    WikiLeaks: Big Pharma caught spying on WHOhttp://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Big_Pharma_caught_spying_on_the_WHO/

    Status of homeopathy in Europe

    Three Europeans out of four know about homeopathy and of these 29 % use it for their health care.

    Ref: Homeopathic medicinal products. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directives 92/73 and 92/74.

    https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/status-of-homeopathy/

  191. Thankyou for demonstrating what was evident – total ignorance.

    You have no idea what the proving process is. You have given your interpretation of a Homeopathic consultation.

    That is not what Homeopathic proving is.

  192. lol. When you have no reply, just ignore the question and post unrelated links! Well done. You’ve now effectively turned into a spam-bot.

  193. Stupid question. We have now established you know nothing about Homeopathy. I was simply trying to help you learn something so you can sound credible instead of cretinous on the topic. And yes, I realise that last para was ad hominem. Mea Culpa.

  194. It’s a stupid question to ask why you support a double standard? Really?

    Were you born this dishonest, or did it happen after you became a homeopath?

  195. Benveniste popularised the term after falsifying his basophil experiments. The ‘journal’ Homeopathy, reserved a complete edition for papers on water memory. So hardly just a media term.

    The reason it has fallen into disfavour is that the buying public became aware that homeopathy preparations contain precisely nothing but water and sugar and that water memory is a joke. Hence Milgrom’s foray into the fiction of quantum mechanics, a field that both you and he is totally ignorant. But again the buying public can see through this nonsense so the latest shiny marketing tool is nanopharmaceuticals. What is obvious though is that you are selling vastly overpriced vials of sugar and water. Ha, if you are lucky, you might get some brandy in it but anything that could possibly be active has been long gone.

  196. She? What she? Here is what you typed.

    ‘Are you seriously suggesting that people who have used Homeopathy for many years and remained well and not in need of other medical treatment, are deluding themselves and their experience is anecdotal?’

    So the answer is yes, their experience is anecdotal and they are deluding themselves if they think the drops of water or sugar pills are doing anything but enriching a quack.

  197. So they do issue you with a propaganda manual? It must really peeve you that millions of people don’t listen to your propaganda and make use of Homeopathy and are healed through it.

    And I am not surprised that Milgrom is attacked – he does make far more sense than you do.

  198. If you have to lie and misrepresent facts then your complaints can be disregarded. Homeopaths have a long history of this mendacious behaviour.

  199. What evidence? You haven’t presented any. Good grief, do actually understand the meaning of evidence?

  200. Well, you actually managed to get something right for a change! Yes, most of us are quite peeved that millions of people are being tricked by frauds such as yourself. That’s rather the point. The good news is we’ve had great success in tightening up regulations and closing loopholes, greatly reducing the amount of harm that can be done by quacks and charlatans. We’ll never completely eliminate all forms or fraud – nor the human condition which allows it to flourish – but that’s ok as long as we continue to make progress.

  201. In a series of postings, RosRoss has summarized the allopathic package deal, sanctified by the prevailing and corporatist infested Science “Magisterium” and enforced by a legion of self deluded unwitting dupes who think they are supporting “reason” and “science” while, in fact, they have been coopted by “Scientism”, that clever substitute provided by corporatism for decades to cover up their GMO’s, chemo “therapies”, vaccinations, poisoning of the environment and other nefarious misdeeds for profit…and their snarling hatred and demonization of Homeopathy.

    Nine Doctors out of Ten Recommend Camels, eh ?

  202. You keep making this claim, and keep failing to produce the slightest amount of evidence for it. I wonder why that is?

    As for Milgrom, he tried to show that homeopathic dilutions of some irrelevant material contained something by uv spectroscopy. He published the spectra in your homeopathy magazine. It was shown that he was actually looking at impurities in an alcohol diluent. Having been made to look a complete fool in a discipline he should be an expert in he moved onto making an even bigger fool of himself by mumbling about quantum entanglement, much as you do.

  203. Neither “Alex” nor “Jem” can save ACLERON on that one. He was completely wrong in his assertion that cancer doctors do not profit from the chemotherapy drugs.

  204. No it is not homeopathy but the fraud carried out by the homeopaths by pretending to be doctors and scientists.

    The harm that homeopaths do reflects on us doctors and scientists because it is us that you frauds are impersonating.

    But mostly it is the deliberate and uncaring harm you cause in pursuit of the victims money. They lose twice, first their money and if they have a serious condition they are prevented from getting adequate treatment.

  205. Acleron was wrong. Acleron was wrong, Acleron was wrong….

    Your distraction failed.

  206. Ah, that one. Well no. Finding a fraudulent oncologist does not make all oncologists frauds. So, what are the figures for how many oncologists do this.

    Also I was questioning the ‘medical mafia’, that has yet to be answered.

  207. Oh dear! This is what you could have found out if you’d done two minute’s research:

    (1). Dr Marisa Viegas was struck off for advising Lady Victoria Waymouth to stop taking her usual heart medication and to only take homeopathic treatment. (She died of course!)

    (2). Since abandoning the provision of homeopathy degree courses, UK universities are no longer compromised by vested agendas and ignorance. Actually it was by exposing the vested interests and nonsensical pseudo science being taught on such courses that campaigning scientists won the battle to get such courses closed, though the fact that increasing public awareness of the nonsense that is homeopathy had led to falling applications no doubt helped a lot. This is particularly true of Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, which is in (3) Scotland which, by the way, is part of the UK!

    (4) No Irish university runs courses in homeopathy and if you think most people can afford to just hop over to live in France and study it there instead, you’re even more ignorant than you sound.

  208. Hey dude, change that “YOU” to “THEY”.

    “But mostly it is the deliberate and uncaring harm you cause in pursuit of the victims money. ”

    I never practiced Homeopathy.

  209. The last time I checked, some UK unis were still completing degree courses started before the exposure. I wonder how those students felt with one or two years left of a course that was deemed quackery by their own university.

    But there are still plenty of homeopathic colleges around offering ‘graduate’ courses. I asked one if that was a degree course and was told that it was of degree level. Not much honesty there then.

  210. You’re opening yourself and cantechletter to a lawsuit.

    You’d have to prove it’s a scam !

    I’m not in pursuit of any “victims” money. I’m retired.

    You gotta be more reasonable or you’re going to get yourself, and possibly the company where you work, if you’re posting this from work, in a WORLD of trouble.

  211. “I wonder how those students felt with one or two years left of a course that was deemed quackery by their own university”

    Ouch. Never thought of it that way. Damn that sucks.

  212. How does the homeopathy scam work? It is a multilayered fraud but the quintessential part is the interaction between the homeopath and the victim.

    A ‘case history’ is taken, people have recorded and reported these, the most ludicrous questions are asked with a pretension to deep complex knowledge. If the victim has presented with vague, non specific symptoms, the homeopath just invents a disease state and continues.There are various on line homeopathy sites that will do this. If you need a good laugh then try one. The irrelevant symptoms are compared against a list of equal irrelevance and a label is selected. The label is the most important part the vial and its contents will always be the same. The homeopath then extracts an exorbitant amount of money for this tomfoolery and then charges for the label. Stage one is thus completed.

    If the victim fails to return at this or any further point then the homeopath will mark that down as a success, after all, they didn’t need any further treatment.

    If the victim returns with a different complaint the previous visit is again marked down as a success and stage one is repeated.

    If the symptoms have persisted then the homeopath will select a different label and charge for the visit and label as before. Stage two is completed. Stage two may be treated several times. Usually the trivial complaints seen by homeopaths are self resolving so sooner or later the symptoms will recede. Homeopaths love chronic conditions such as an allergy which is likely to resolve itself.

    Sometimes the symptoms will get worse. ‘Aha’ cries the homeopath ‘Aggravation, that shows the treatment is working’. So it is heads I win, tails you lose, a great scam. And every single one is marked down as a success, this is why the homeopaths case histories are worthless junk.

    Occasionally, a victim will realise that the treatment(s) are not improving matters. At this stage, the victim is blamed, they didn’t take the remedy properly, they had a coffee, visit to the dentist, the excuses are endless but the homeopath will blame the victim at every turn.

    A well worked scam that has the benefit of convincing the victim that they got better because of the sugar and water.

  213. Oh the fact that homeopathy is a scam is amply documented. You quacks have tried suing over it before, and have lost every time.

  214. There’s no threat. I understand you believe in this strongly.

    I’m not doing anything.

    But someone else, sooner or later going to run into and that will give your a world of trouble.

    Me, I like freedom of expression so I can give my ideas too.

    Happy skepticizing.

  215. If the uni felt any responsibility they would be switched to another course. I never found out if they were given that option.

  216. Oh the Big Pharma conspiracy nonsense.

    First, if you think that pharmaceutical companies which are highly competitive would suddenly conspire against homeopathy then think again, they don’t.

    Second, large as BigHomeo is, it is a fraction of a percent of the turnover of a large pharmaceutical company. If any of the top three thought that homeopathy was encroaching on their profits, they would simply buy out Boiron. Even simpler would be to just start production using Korsakov dilutions.

    So why don’t they? Well some have but I’d guess the overall market just isn’t large enough for the large companies.

  217. P1: Governments are afraid of looking foolish/being sued.
    P2: Governments “embrace” homeopathy
    C: Therefore homeopathy works and has integrity.

    If you can’t see the flaws in your reasoning, I suggest you sign up for a logic class. Where on earth do you get the idea that governments “are renowned for fearing looking foolish or being sued” from? And what exactly do you mean by “embrace” homeopathy?

    By the way, I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim that “The biggest killer is iatrogenic – doctor or medical induced – Allopathic and that takes out millions around the world every year.” Let’s see the evidence – that’s if you know what the word even means.

  218. “Sometimes the symptoms will get worse. ‘Aha’ cries the homeopath ‘Aggravation, that shows the treatment is working’. So it is heads I win, tails you lose, a great scam. And every single one is marked down as a success, this is why the homeopaths case histories are worthless junk.”

    Priceless ! You’ve missed the point but I can see how someone could see this as a “scam”.

    Now do some research on the work Hahnemann himself did, to create the CM potencies which avoided the “aggravation”.

    And….HOW could there possibly be ANY “aggravation”, an immediate, almost immune system like response to the introduction of the Homeopathic remedy.

    If you made it this far, go all the way. HINT: This will take some reading and research, you can’t just fit it all to your “scam” theory and hope to succeed in understanding.

  219. Since pro homeopathy comments in forums like this are always posted by people who have themselves (or family members) been helped by homeopathic treatment, I would like to pose the following question:

    Have any of the anti homeopathy people posting here ever consulted a conventionally trained medical doctor who has included homeopathy in his/her practice?

  220. YES, I’m familiar with it.

    it’s not enough to read just the Organon. One must read the entire corpus of Hahnemann, including the incorrect and obsoleted misasm theories of chronic disease. Unfortunately, skeptics probably have neither the time nor the inclination to do this, and therefore form some imagined conception of what it’s all about, as Ack’s hilarious posting indicates. It takes years, not days or weeks, to assimilate this stuff.

  221. Nope. Have you ever consulted a conventionally trained medical doctor who included voodoo in his/her practice?

  222. “And….HOW could there possibly be ANY ‘aggravation’, an immediate, almost immune system like response to the introduction of the Homeopathic remedy if there’s nothing but water and sugar in them ??”

    Lmao. It’s amazing how you manage to so completely miss the point again and again, yet remain smug and arrogant. Dunning-Kruger effect in action!

    The point, genius, is that there IS no “aggravation” just like there is no “healing”. It’s all nonsense. The homeoquack just uses “aggravation” as a handy excuse for why his magic potion didn’t work, and then charges the patient for another bottle of water with a different label.

  223. Alex, do you know ANYTHING about Homeopathy ?

    The problem of the “Aggravation” was so strong that Hahnemann spent the last part of his life working to ameliorate this effect.

    Homeopaths have reported this phenomenon for over a century.
    And patients.

    Where have you been ? Ya gotta read the cases !

    Now if you want to tell us that top MD’s for two centuries have been “fooling” themselves, then go ahead. And the patients too ?

    Go ahead ! We’ll laugh…we promise. The phenomenon is REAL.

    Period. The end.

  224. Lol. A quack spent years trying to address a “problem” which he made up, therefore the problem is real. That is incredibly funny 🙂 it’s no wonder you believe that magical water cures people; you clearly don’t have even a basic understanding of how logic actually works.

  225. Oh God I love this ! So you think Hahnemann made up a phony system of medicine, practiced it for decades then made up an “imaginary” problem with the “phony” system, worked for more decades to solve the “problem”, then did the 6 th edition of the Organon describing the fix to the problem and Hahnemann’s wife held on to that as a deep secret for decades known only to a few insiders ?

    HOW INCREDIBLE, CLEVER AND SINISTER THIS HAHNEMANN DUDE WAS ? Maybe he was in with the “illuminati” or freemasons or something ?

    HA HA HAHA HA HA !!

    SO …. you think 200 years worth of case studies, clinical reports, doctor reports, patient reports describing in detail this aggravation effect were all…. imagined ? fantasy ? part of of a world wide conspiracy to “fool” people ???

    And you think this can all be explained away by knowing how (ha ha ha ha pardon me, couldn’t hold it back ….) how “logic” works?

    Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha !!

    I’m really curious now, you think Hahnemann thought this up “on purpose as a trick” or something to convince people, and then the other homeopaths picked up on it as a “scam” or were they just convinced because of H’s stature? And the patients reporting the “aggravation” effect, were they responding to auto suggestion, coming back and telling their Homeopath that things just got noticeably worse ? How do you write all this off and disregard all these documented experiences ??

    So you’re absolutely sure that this could not in any way be an actual effect with the body reacting to the homeopath remedy ?

    I’m intrigued !

  226. Thought you would be. About the skeptics, they are spoon fed what to think about homeopathy from other skeptics.

  227. Lol. We know exactly what 200 years of research show: that homeopathy is complete nonsense, has no plausible method of action, relies on a complete misunderstanding of how both the human body and the universe as a whole work, and does absolutely nothing to cure or harm anyone. It is utterly indefensible. To even try and claim it actually does something you pretty much have to be stuck in the 1800s.

    The really ironic part, though? You’re on here pretending that 200 years of anecdotes is proof of efficacy, despite the fact that Hahnemann himself first made up homeopathy because the doctors of his time had been using ineffective and dangerous “treatments” for hundreds of years. When people of his time proposed that maybe blood-letting didn’t actually work, they were met with the same idiotic response which you are relying on now: “hurr, we have hundreds of years of research which shows it works!”. If we were to listen to morons like you we would never have abandoned bloodletting, trepanning, urine therapy, or mercury tinctures. If we ignored evidence the way you do we’d still be ignorant of germs and the true causes of disease, and would imagine that magical water can cure anything.

  228. Thank you for your “no” I have never consulted a medical doctor who is also a trained and licensed homeopath. My conclusion, which should be the conclusion of the readers here is that you are not qualified to speak to the validity, or not, of homeopathy.

    To answer your question. My doctor is not only a “conventionally trained medical doctor”, licensed to practice both in two States. I have the best of both worlds.

  229. “It’s obvious that skeptics are not qualified to speak to the validity, or not, of homeopathy.”

    lol. Sorry, what? Which orifice did you pull that conclusion out of?

    “To answer your question. My doctor is both a ‘conventionally trained
    medical doctor’, and a homeopath (an additional four years of study and
    pass the rigorous licensing examinations). He is licensed to practice
    both forms of medicine in two States. I have the best of both worlds.”

    That doesn’t answer my question at all. Are you sure you actually understand what an answer is?

  230. Theorizing and questioning are part of modern science. Careful, detailed, and controlled experimentation is the bit you are missing in your list. It is this last bit that homeopathy falls short on.

  231. Thus neatly proving that Sandra neither understands nor appreciates either cognitive or confirmation bias.

    Richard Feynman, possibly the greatest scientist of the 20th century expressed it thus:-

    ‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.’

    In the past, Sandra has been shown exactly how she can fool herself. Yet she insists that the only way to appreciate the truth about homeopathy is to put oneself in exactly the conditions where one would be easiest to fool.

    The UK Guardian newspaper claimed that to call such people as Sandra, idiots, was counter productive. I think it is obvious that some people are just that, all that is left to do is to hope they do not suffer an easily treatable serious disease and rely on witchcraft to recover. A sentiment, incidentally that Sandra does not reciprocate.

    In the meantime, a record must be left countering their idiocies so that others do not fall into the clutches of this plausible scam.

  232. I read through some of her past comments, purely out of morbid curiosity. She’s not just an idiot, she’s a dangerous idiot. She goes around claiming that she has successfully used homeopathy to cure food poisoning and anaphylactic shock. She’s exactly the kind of credulous cretin who ends up in jail for allowing her children to die from an easily treatable disease.

  233. I notice the homeopaths are constructing a delusion about the origins of homeopathy.

    Hahnemann noticed that he exhibited some symptoms of malaria when he took high doses of quinine. It was an idiosyncratic response not seen in everyone. History does not record if he failed to notice that others did not respond or was the first to use the only research tool available to homeopaths, the cherry picker.

    So from that rather shaky foundation he invented the similars theory. Or rather he just repackaged beliefs seen throughout history. For something to cure a disease it must reproduce the symptoms of that disease. The only problem was that the doses of some of these weird materials were toxic. He managed to convince himself that diluting the materials would reduce the toxicity and somehow increase the therapeutic response. Unfortunately he was ignorant of the atomicity of matter or of Avogadro’s number.

    Since then homeopaths have tried to justify this ridiculous system with evermore bizarre fabrications including the amazing get out clause of aggravation. James had better tell his co-quacks they have got it all wrong because contrary to his view, aggravation is to be welcomed as it shows the treatment is working.

    Here is Dr Charles Forsythe saying they are a good sign.

    http://www.dr-forsyth.com/Dr_Charles_Forsyth/Homeopathy_-_FAQ.html

    And here is Homeopathy Plus a site that many quacks hold up as giving real information saying that aggravation heralds a healing response.

    http://homeopathyplus.com.au/tutorial-15-what-to-expect-part-a/

  234. Personal testimonials from a homeopathic patient trumps unqualified opinions. You have never been treated by a homeopath. Therefore, your comments can be easily dismissed.

  235. Honey, when you’re going around telling people that magic water can cure them off all their ills, you have absolutely no business calling anyone else childish. Magic isn’t real. Grow the hell up.

  236. All well and good….BUT….there’s that last paragraph of my previous post that you’re ignoring.

    Let’s try again – so all that talk about “aggravation” was what…imagination ? conspiracy?, doctors AND patients “fooled” themselves?, mass hypnosis ?

    You have no answer to that do you ?

    How can you possibly deny the stated experience of thousands of people ? A few, maybe. Even 50..maybe. But THOUSANDS of them of which a good number are well trained medical professionals !!

    You see that that doesn’t jive with what your claiming – that we disregard these recorded experiences ? You see that…right ?

  237. Ah ! But the discussion was about “aggravation”, the supposed effect that sometimes happens on taking a homeopathic remedy !!

    Little distraction there, eh ? Understandable.

  238. So having shown you that homeopath anecdotes are worthless you produce …drum roll … anecdotes.

    By the way Sandra, did you ever work out why we knew the case histories you obtained from the Banerji’s had been falsified?

  239. “Let’s try again – so all that talk about ‘aggravation’ was what…imagination ? conspiracy?, doctors AND patients ‘fooled’ themselves?, mass hypnosis ?

    Yes.

    “How can you possibly deny the stated experience of thousands of people ?”

    Easily.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_windshield_pitting_epidemic

    “You see that that doesn’t jive with what your claiming – that we disregard these recorded experiences ? ”

    Not at all; you don’t disregard stories, you LOVE stories. You disregard evidence.

  240. *shrug* OK, I’ll rephrase:

    How else do you refer to a person who is arguing that magical water can agrivate illness?

    Either way, you’re a moron.

  241. I’m sorry that the above is out of context. I was responding to a Sandra comment that included a reference to the Banerji’s, favourite homeopaths of hers. The comment then disappeared and mine has been orphaned. 🙁

  242. OK ! Fine ! I can buy that….

    But…here’s the problem. The mass delusion of which you speak involved the general population. Another one was the Mars invasion panic of 1938 based on a radio program.

    But the evidence I’m speaking of involves medically trained observers who have recorded their experiences, mutually confirmed each others’ observations and like. Many of these guys are MDs…..USING this stuff in their practice !!! Some of them in practice for 40 or 50 years !!! seeing THOUSANDS of patients !!

    Still want to go for the mass delusion theory with this quality of observers ?

    Or ….would you just like to admit that you’ve fallen into a logical positivist sinkhole which automatically disavows human experience ….AS A PREMISE and then proceeds to implement a corporatist approved quasi-evidence based medical fascism, in my opinion, based on a quasi-evidence base often reinterpreted by the corporate manufacturers, for example that “immunization” story line given by the vaccine makers.

    Isn’t that really what this is about ? It’s OK to admit it.

  243. That’s a wonderful argument from authority you’ve got going on there. Just like when creationists trot out their list of 200 biologists who believe that evolution isn’t real. Unfortunately you fail for the same reason they do; because testimony is never as good as evidence, and because every field of human endeavor has some percentage of cranks within it.

    The evidence unambiguously shows that homeopathy does not – and can not – work. If the best argument you can make in response to that is “well, like, some doctors think it does” then you clearly do not understand how we go about determining what’s true and what’s not.

  244. Then you think some of the most famous and respected MDs of their day, for example Joslin, founder of a diabetes center are morons ?

    Intriguing, but I see the problem – you’re fixated on a failed premise. As long as you adhere to that, nothing can get you to look up at the world around you. Almost a solipsism. Curious, very curious.

  245. Does “Joslin” believe that magical water cures disease? If yes, he’s a moron. End of story.

  246. Of ‘their’ day? Did you mean this Joslin?

    http://blog.joslin.org/2011/07/diabetes-and-complementary-medicine-is-there-more-than-what-western-medicine-has-to-offer/

    This charlatan freely admits that there is no convincing evidence that herbs can control diabetes then goes on to advise how best to choose them.

    Or perhaps you meant this one.

    http://www.homeoint.org/history/bio/j/joslinbfj.htm

    This one practised before the discovery of insulin but had the heretical, to James and Ros, belief that smallpox could be eliminated by vaccination.

    The elder Joslin is an interesting examples. In those days, doctors had few tools and even less knowledge of the kind we have at our disposal today. They just used what they had. Homeopathy? Try it. Oh well let’s try some bleeding. They didn’t appear to be the rabid believers we see today. But any of them that mentioned homeopathy, no matter how fleetingly, is instantly enrolled as a supporter of homeopathy by present day faith holders. The same technique is applied to present day doctors. Ridiculous statistics have been produced by so called professional bodies of homeopaths as to the number of UK doctors who believe in homeopathy. After much investigation it was found that not only were they including any doctor who had prescribed homeopathy but often including them two or three times. The same dishonest techniques were applied to the members of the public who had bought some worthless sugar or water.

  247. Yeah, after a quick look around I found zero evidence that Joslin has ever endorsed homeopathy. That article you linked to is interesting, but even that doesn’t seem to actually endorse naturopathy/supplements, let alone homeopathy; it seems to be a damge-control type of approach, saying “this stuff doesn’t work, but IF you REALLY want to take it, here’s what to look for to keep yourself safe”.

    Certainly the fact that Dr Joslin developed insulin-based treatments which have helped millions speaks well to his credentials as a doctor; the fact that he didn’t prescribe dilute quantities of a sugar instead certainly doesn’t suggest that he placed much value in homeoquackery.

  248. GOOD ! Now you’re showing some evidence of historical research, though your conclusions are premature.

    Keep doing this. Excellent !

  249. So you are saying that the proper application of homeopathy would have cured Dingle’s cancer? Or that the ‘bad advice’ consisted of her homeopath *not* telling her to go see a real doctor? Which is it? If the first, what makes you think that any other homeopath would have cured her with the same “system of medicine”? Remember, he fully believed, just like you, that homeopathy would cure her. So belief isn’t enough, and that’s all you lot have.

  250. Sandra, I have a new “system of medicine” where I treat illness by acting out Monty Python sketches while wearing a parrot suit. All of my patients swear by it, and you’ve never tried it. So by your own standard it’s at least as good as homeopathy and I can easily dismiss you or anyone who tells me otherwise.

  251. Today I learned something fascinating and quite beautiful. Sharks and rays detect prey and predators through sensing electrical fields. The electrical fields were thought to be generated by the myoelectric activity of fish muscles while they breathed. But researchers have found that the electric field change occurs by the transfer of ions from the sea water to mucopolysaccharides when the fish opens its mouth to breathe.

    Not an earth shaking discovery but a good example of how scientists work. They don’t make up stories and then only select those results that fit the story. Neither do they avoid reporting their results because it goes against received wisdom. This is how we slowly and painstakingly advance our knowledge of reality, by accumulating data, comparing it against previous hypotheses and producing new ones.

    Homeopathy has not moved one iota in 200 years despite good evidence that it fails to do anything. Evermore complex stories are created to justify the original story. We get conspiracy stories that medics and doctors are in competition with homeopaths, stories that pharmaceutical companies pay skeptics to smear homeopathy, exotic stories about mechanisms etc.

    What is never produced is any decent evidence.

  252. They are not trained observers. They were no more ‘trained’ than the medics that Alex refers to that believed in blood letting. We see that while doctors are now trained in the scientific method, homeopaths receive no training at all.

    A good example is the infamous Bristol study that concluded that homeopathy worked because victims felkt better after treatment. Of course they did. Colds, coughs and minor infections get better all on their own.

    This is why we demand high quality controlled clinical trials to remove the effects of self resolving cases, it is why homeopaths keep churning out low quality uncontrolled dross, they know it doesn’t work but they have a strong financial interest in not finding out.

    The authors of the Swiss report that wasn’t a Swiss report had realised all this which is why they wanted to reject the scientific method and turn the clock back 200 years.

    So no, they were not trained observers in the past and are certainly not trained in the present.

  253. You mean the word homeopaths use when the victim presented too early and hadn’t yet experienced the worst of their condition.

    Interestingly, medicines can have such an effect attributable to the medicine, not the disease. Antibiotics can cause an inflammation response when treating severe infection because of the release of endotoxins from dead bacteria. But these are real measurable effects not made up stories to explain why the treatment failed.

  254. Homeopathy is beyond a joke, it is nonsense on stilts. Its adherents – at least the ones who post about it online – are among the most frighteningly stupid people I’ve ever seen. They can’t even put a coherent argument together and consistently avoid the inconvenient truth that when it is tested in a manner designed to eliminate bias it is shown to be useless. So invested are they in their cultish belief and so full of hatred and anger at anyone who criticises their pet therapy that they resort to ludicrous personal attacks, not realising that this makes them sound no better than petulant adolescents and does nothing to persuade anyone with intelligence and an open mind. Of course, if homeopathy had any merit whatsoever, it would stand up for itself regardless of what critics say. But it doesn’t so they have to come here and try to browbeat critics with taunts and empty insults.

    It would be easy to laugh at homeopathy were it not for the lives needlessly lost thanks to those who promote it.

    Now, take a deep breath and see if you can come up with some more original insults…:-)

  255. Sure ! You bet ! I’ll just condense 8 years of research involving thousands of pages and hundreds of cases into a few short sentences and fit it all in these little comment boxes !

    Dream on Horatio.

  256. After reading the weak anti homeopathy skeptics’ arguments posted here, including the childish name-calling, I would like to suggest that there be a post scripted addendum to this article. Perfect title would be: “Homeopathy Skeptics Are a Joke”

  257. What a pathetic excuse for a man you are. He asks you which “Joselin” you’re referring to, and your answer is that you can’t answer him because you spent 8 years reading nonsense? Are you kidding me?

    You’ve just completely given up on even pretending to be a thinking human being, haven’t you?

  258. It was his last paragraph that got me.

    I’m sorry you’re disappointed !

    Wait for the book ?

  259. Ad hominem attacks indicate a lack of reasoned argument which seems par for the course in those who attack Homeopathy.

    What astonishes me is how none of them seem to have the faintest clue about the topic and regurgitate ignorance and prejudice in a stew of abuse.

  260. Ignorance and prejudice are best ignored. Just keep posting facts to counter propaganda and ignore the game-playing I am beginning to think is the way to go.

  261. Like Alex I suspect you have not the faintest notion how Homeopathic Proving works and the fact that it puts paid to any placebo propaganda. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda, hey? Never do the research so you never know how wrong you really are.

    As I have said, you and the rest make a case for Homeopathy because your comments make you look ignorant and foolish.

  262. I wonder if they recruit 13 year olds to attack Homeopathy. Hang on, most 13 year olds I know are more intelligent than the naysayers appear to be. Perhaps it is just an indication of how prejudice lowers intellectual capacity. 🙂

  263. So funny, Hahnemman ‘made up’ Homeopathy! The man was a qualified pharmacist and doctor who devoted his life to developing and improving Homeopathy and to treating patients.

    His fame spread far and wide because, go on, guess?????? Because of his ability to cure with Homeopathic medicine. He treated the rich and powerful and he made time to treat the poor for nothing!

    Homeopathy survived and thrived because it works. The pharmacists and doctors of his day hated him because of his success, i.e. Homeopathic medicine worked so effectively it hurt their business.

  264. Wikipedia is not accepted as a source by any respectable university in the world.

    I am not surprised it is your source.

  265. Um, along with everything else you do not know, up until the early 20th century all Homeopathic Doctors were also qualified MD’s and many still are.

    The American Medical Association and pharmaceutical industry began a campaign in the early decades of the 20th century to discredit and push out Homeopaths because they were too successful.

    Your claim, like so many others, just makes you look completely ridiculous.

    By all means reject Homeopathy but for your sake if nothing else, do some research – read the history at least so you stop making a fool of yourself.

  266. Wikipedia is not accepted as a source by any respectable university in the world.

    If it is your source then your comment has no credibility. But that is not hard to see anyway.

  267. You did not answer the question. Thankyou yet again for working for Homeopathy. The more ridiculous naysayers look, the more likely people with open minds will be to enquire into Homeopathy for themselves.

  268. You did not deal with aggravation! You cannot explain ‘proving.’

    It’s all a conspiracy you say!!! That my friend does not make a case and never will.

  269. Have you read the David Lilley book? The first section is a biography of Hahnemann and it is very well done.

    Healing The SoulPlease select shipping destination UK inc p&p = £45.00 GBP Europe inc p&p = £49.00 GBP USA/Canada inc p&p = £54.00 GBP Rest of World inc p&p = £56.00 GBP **South Africa inc tracked p&p = £60.00 GBP Vol 1. The Lives of Samuel Hahnemann and William Lilley
    ISBN: 9781908127051 – Jan 2014 – 574 pages hardback
    Special Price (direct sales only, limited time) £39.99

    Vol 2. The Science of the Archetype
    ISBN: 97819081127099 – forthcoming 2015

    Vol 3. The Science of Disease
    ISBN: 9781908127105 – forthcoming 2016

  270. Good heavens, if you are a doctor or a scientist you gave up rigorous, objective reasoning long ago.

  271. Please feel free to write to the many MD’s and hospitals around the world which practice Homeopathy; the medical schools and universities which teach it and the Governments which officially embrace it as part of their medical systems.

    You continue to repeat the ridiculous delusion that it is a scam when anyone with any intelligence knows that none of the above would touch it with a barge-pole if there were any chance of them being sued or looking like idiots because it was fraud.

    Your entire position is ridiculous.

  272. You either do not read or have trouble processing.

    These oncologists are not fraudulent – what they are doing is completely legal!!!! Immoral, yes, but legal!

  273. Lol, and you still haven’t worked out the concept of the ad hominem while calling others ignorant.

  274. I did not call others ignorant. I point out they are ignorant of Homeopathic methodology. Different thing and not ad hominem, just fact.

  275. Lol, just when are you going to publish a fact? Perhaps you have a double blind placebo controlled trial of sufficient power that has been adequately reported in a real medical journal that allows logical and evidence based conclusions hidden away. More probably not, just more claims.

  276. Ah, the ‘proving’. Of course, it doesn’t prove anything, even the word is a mistranslation of the German.

    Very quickly, the homeopath searches for something that hasn’t been used before. Weird and wonderful nonsenses have been used, plutonium, polonium, dolphin song, light of Venus, vacuum, water. Yes, even water!

    The material is mixed with sugar and ground up and then thrown away. Vials of water or perhaps sugar pills are given to a susceptible group of people and told what symptoms to expect. They keep a diary which is then ‘interpreted’ by the resident wizard, sorry homeopath. As expected, the diary entries are similar to the comments required. These become the symptoms which the witch doctor looks for to sell the vial with this label.

    Ah, the label, a fake Latin name is made, originally to prevent the victim knowing what was used but now to put a marketing gloss on the water or sugar.

    No material has ever failed in this process, none whatsoever. And when used by the homeopath, no label has ever been withdrawn. A perfect scam.

  277. Incorrect as usual, it is not accepted as the only source. However, if you are interested in a topic then it is a useful starting point, every single claim should be referenced by a primary source and usually is.

    Homeopaths have and are still trying to subvert the Wikipedia article on homeopathy and insert much the same baseless claims you have made here. They have continuously failed to provide any evidence, I wonder why that is? Any ideas?

  278. Oh please learn something about the scam you support. Start by reading the post you are referring to, you then have a chance of not looking quite so silly.

    Hahnemann coined the word allopathy to try to indicate he had the only cure and that real medicine was useless. He was selling g a bill of goods from the start and knew it.

    Like most snake oil, homeopathy had nearly died out, medicine had advanced and water and sugar just don’t work.

    Then came an unfortunate combination of circumstances. The bill in the US to approve the formation of the FDA passed through the hands of a believer and he gave a free pass to homeopathy in return for passing on the bill. Well, just what is your dishonest huckster going to do when he can claim, wrongly, he has the approval of the FDA? Well he dives in with both hands to scoop up all that cash from the unsuspecting public.

    Yes, a few MDs have been sucked into the scam but the vast majority in the US, UK, India and Australia are not.Well now the regulatory authorities are waking up to the dangers of this scam and are tightening the regulations, the squeals from homeopaths is a wonder to behold.

    In the UK, the Advertising Standards Agency has made a simple request to those advertising snake oil, back up any claims with evidence. Don’t you find that is a reasonable request?

  279. Lol, I didn’t say it was an ad hominem, because I can see it isn’t. But your words are :-
    ‘What astonishes me is how none of them seem to have the faintest clue about the topic and regurgitate ignorance and prejudice in a stew of abuse.’

    Rich stuff from someone who fails to be able to properly read the posts of others and now it seems, even her own.

  280. A consistent belief among members of the public is that there is something in those homeopathic preparations. When told they contain nothing but water or sugar they react with incredulity. They point to the fake Latin and the ‘dose’, ‘there’ they say ‘that is what is in it’. Alternatively, one hears the comment that the pharmacist would not be selling it if it was useless, unfortunately, they do. However, I have found that showing them the production process is convincing.

    Homeopaths are well aware that if the public become fully aware of the absence of any activity their trade will suffer.

    This is why Sandra will bang on about freedom of choice but is nowhere near as keen for freedom of information.

    It also led to an amusing event in the early days of the Wikipedia article on homeopathy, Ullman, a well known seller of this scam tried to prevent details of the absence of any material. His efforts were herculean and evermore frenetic as he failed, leading to his banning for just being disruptive.

  281. Trust me, I read carefully all that others say, it is generally so insubstantial that it does not take much time.

  282. If you read what I said and were able to process, I said it was not accepted as a source – that means one to quote as you do.

    Yes, some university lecturers say you can start with Wiki, but that is changing as the system becomes increasingly corrupt, but none will accept it as a source, as you use it.

  283. Your comment is so ridiculous I shall leave it to others to do a quick bit of research and know it is delusion.