The fraud of homeopathy
Aug 21st, 2008 | By Shalini Sehkar | Category: CommentaryA branch of ‘alternative’ medicine that has been gaining prominence in recent years is homeopathy. According to homeopaths, homeopathy is the second most widely used system of medicine in the world. This is indeed cause for worry as the very basic foundations that homeopathy relies on do not stand up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I personally know of skeptics who still believe that some element of homeopathy still works beyond the placebo effect. The cause of this would probably be the advent of homeopathy into mainstream pharmacies and the offices of qualified medical practitioners. Although nobody denies that there are qualified medical doctors who are also qualified as homeopaths, the very basis of homeopathy doesn’t render it suitable as a replacement or even as an ‘alternative’ to evidence-based conventional medicine.
The three main principles of homeopathy are:
- Like Cures Like
For example, if the symptoms of your cold are similar to poisoning by mercury, then mercury would be your homeopathic remedy. - Minimal Dose
The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water. - The Single Remedy
No matter how many symptoms are experienced, only one remedy is taken, and that remedy will be aimed at all those symptoms.
Let’s take a look at the first principle, the so-called like cures like theory. Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, believed that restoring the ‘vital forces’ of the body is the way to cure diseases that were incurable in his time. He also claimed that the very small doses of a medication would be enough to heal as the potency of a particular substance could be manipulated by succussion (vigorous shaking). He founded the like cures like theory after observing that quinine, which causes fever, cured malaria (in which one of the symptoms is fever).
He expounded further on the like cures like theory, by claiming (without any evidence whatsoever) that diluting the so-called cure minimizes its bad effects but maintains its full ‘curative’ power. Scientifically, this is utter nonsense. Is he speculating that some sort of metaphysical force in the water exists and diverts the harmful effects of the substance while maximizing its healing capabilities? The development of homeopathy has taken place outside science; therefore its claims still lack justification or scientific evidence despite homeopathy being around for more than 200 years.
Some modern homeopaths even go so far as to claim that similar principals form the basis of conventional allergy treatment, where the allergic substance is given in a small dose and in vaccines where an impotent form of the virus is given to bolster the immune system against that particular virus. Again, this is merely a faulty analogy and an overdose of wishful thinking. The dilution process involved in homeopathy causes no active ingredient to be left in the medication itself, making it indistinguishable from plain water or alcohol. You might as well be taking an empty pill instead of a homeopathic tablet. This immediately renders their above claim as false. Firstly, there is no active ingredient entered into the body, or rephrased: NOTHING at all enters the body that triggers an immune response. Secondly, as opposed to the case of immunization, homeopathic medications do not stimulate the body to produce substances that may protect the body from a certain disease. Immunology is a tested, proven, verified branch of medicine, whereas the evidence for homeopathy is still non-existent.
Now, we move on to the second principle of homeopathy, the ‘minimal dose’. According to the calculations done by Dr. Simon Singh, for a homeopathic dilution to have even one molecule remaining of the active ingredient, the pill has to be the size of the planet Earth. Alas, these ever-so-wise homeopaths rush to proclaim that one of the many undiscovered, unproven magical properties is that it has the ability to retain a ‘memory’ of the active ingredient.Jacques Benveniste even claims that a homeopathic solution’s biological activity can be digitally recorded, stored on a hard drive, sent over the Internet, and transferred to water at the receiving end. Some homeopaths also claim that homeopathic remedies have powers to ‘magically’ alter the molecular structure of water. (These were the same homeopaths that claim that homeopathic remedies are merely derived from natural elements around us, right?). Worse, there isn’t any evidence for the very basis of the ‘minimal dose’ theory, where it is claimed that one could minimize the negative effect of a ‘cure’ by significantly reducing the size of the dose. The least they could do is to prove that their fantastic ideas work, and be in the running for a Nobel Prize in Medicine.
The third and perhaps the most outrageous claim is the ludicrous ‘single remedy’ principle. It is a widely known fact that a disease is usually associated with a variety of symptoms. These symptoms help doctors identify the disease and subsequently prescribe a cure. The opposite seems to be the case for homeopathy. A single cure is prescribed (diluted into oblivion first, that is) that supposedly cures one of the symptoms of the disease, thus curing all the other symptoms at the same time. In the homeopaths’ on words, “Homeopathy is system of medicine that targets the symptoms of a disease (as opposed to conventional medicine where the disease itself is targeted”.
Now let’s look at a little gem of contradiction here (from a homeopathy website): Homeopathy is holistic. It treats all the symptoms as one, which in practical terms means that it addresses the cause, not the symptoms. This often means that symptoms tackled with homeopathy do not recur.
Treating all the symptoms with a ‘cure’ directed at merely one of the symptoms addresses the cause of the illness? They contradict themselves in the last line by admitting that they merely target the symptoms, not the disease. Yet this is the exact opposite of what they said in the previous line ‘addresses the cause.’ Are you willing to place your health in the hands of a bunch of people who can’t get their symptoms and causes straight?
If homeopathic remedies seem to work, it is not because of the metaphysical properties of the ‘miracle water’, but the body’s own natural curative mechanisms or the placebo effect. Although most homeopathic remedies are safe and merely ineffective, the real danger is when a patient chooses not to seek proper treatment by a conventional medical doctor in cases where the patient could be helped by such treatment.
Last 5 posts by Shalini Sehkar
- Mental abuse for Jesus - November 11th, 2008
- Stalin, Stalin, Stalin! - November 4th, 2008
- The Burial of Jesus - October 28th, 2008
- Responses to common Christian apologetic claims - October 27th, 2008
- Can it get any more pathetic? - October 22nd, 2008
It is wrong to say that Homoeopathy does not work. It is also wrong to say that it works on placebo effect because it works fine with infants and in veterinary cases. The author of the above article may be advised to
study the cases that are actually cured and then decide. I was also once doubting about the system but since last two decades I have been a staunch follower of the system. Let us not blind ourselves by our biases and try to look beyond our perceptions - then we will be able to seethe truth.This is what I did and am happy with the system and have converted lot families to that system. I am a layman as anybody else and I too care for my health. Thats why I choose right system of medicine which does not toxify my body.Here Homoeopathy fits best with its principle of minimal dose.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 am
Yes, when YOU look beyond your perception and biases, YOU will then see the truth. The truth is homeopathic remedies do not work.
Do you not understand that these homeopathic remedies do not contain any active ingredients? That they are diluted until there is nothing there?
How does this working on babies or animals disprove that it is the placebo affect on adults? Do not forget that bodies have their own healing mechanisms on their own. So, it is most likely the body healing itself in babies and animals than the homeopathic remedy.
Of course homeopathy does not toxify your body…but it does not heal you either.
[Reply]
1 The Truth is Homoeopathy works excellently.
2 Working on babies and animals is also a proof . These cases do not distinguish between a placbo and medicine.Placebos if they can cure tonsils, cysts, tumours which has been possible in Homoeopathy then even placebo is better than toxic drugs.
3 The dilution does not limit its capacity to cure- it works on energy levels .
4 Most amusing argument is if it is cured by Homoeopathy - it is the body mechanism that works.
If modern medicne is given - then where does this body mechanism go??? If body mechanism is the healing factor then why do we need to have any system at all !!
5. We stand by our experiences and non beleivers are free to stick their ” findings” because it is our health
we care the most and not somebody’s campaign against Homoeopathy. The more the campaign the more stronger it will emerge like gold- more the hits and cuts finer the jewel.
6. Non beleivers- please dont take Homoeopathy - it has already millions supporting it . However at a future date when your own system fails dont feel shy to visit a good Homoeopath to see the results for yourselves.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
It seems you have more of a problem with toxic drugs. Do you think medicines we use today are bad?
1. The truth is that homeopathy does not work, there is no science behind it. Give me evidence that it works. Show me the tests where there is strong evidence that it works. Where is the evidence?
2. How is this proof? Again, how does it working on babies and animals disprove the placebo affect? The placebo affect does not work every time, but medicines and drugs work most of the time. And they work in ways that we understand and know.
3. What are energy levels? Do you know what energy is? Please explain to me what energy is. Because I do not think you are using the correct definition of energy. Energy is a very specific concept in physics.
4. Again, the body can cure itself in many cases. For example, if i rub water on someone’s wound…and then 3 days later it heals, did the water heal the person? No. The bodies own healing mechanisms healed it.
Now, when you give medicine to someone, the body mechanism of healing does not go away. It could work with the medicine at the same time.
The body system alone is not good sometimes. That is why we have medicine to help.
5. Homeopathy has no science behind it. It is dangerous. It prevents people from getting real medicine that can heal them.
6. Yes, I won’t take homeopathy because it does not work.
[Reply]
Mark Mattern Reply:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Homeopathy is a fraud, just like Kevin Trudeau and his ‘Natural Cures.’
[Reply]
In spite of all the arguments put forth against it by some- Homoeopathy works!
To see the proof go to any hmoeopath in your own country , visit the patients who are
cured , verify their records, if still not convinced forget it . — then it will still work !
I had , two decades ago same cynic approach till I was convinced by its results.
So till now nothing has changed bring about any change in my or those who have switched
over to Homoeopathy . We are more interested in the healing process. Regarding Science- we take
it with a pinch of caution. They said breast feeding is bad - now they say it is good, they said Yoga is
no better than aerobics- now they say it brings harmony between body and mind, they said Ayurveda is bad- now what you hear about herbal therapy everyone knows, some said coffee is bad - some say it is good, they made us believe that Pluto was a Planet and now they say it is not, and so on…
Science has not come to an end and so are Scientific inventions. If Homoeopathy is not found suitable we would not have hesitated to reject it- because as you rightly said our life is precious. But what to do? IT WORKS fine in the hand of a qualified Homoeopath who can match the remedy and the disease as per Homoeopathic principle.
So with these I honestly stand by my conviction and by my own experience of past two decades as a patient. Thank you for lively debate.
[Reply]
All I can add is this. Purushottoma, you are not looking at the statistics. Instead, you are looking to personal lived experiences and the personal lived experiences of others in a group of people who are convinced, without looking at the broader range of statistics, that Homeopathy works. You complain that Science changes its mind. It does so because it finds new facts and so thus must make changes in light of new evidence. Knowledge is a never-ending pursuit. Homeopathy is anti-scientific because it is static. To accept Homeopathy is to not progress. To have progress it is important that we realize that it is easy to fool ourselves, and we have the peer review mechanism in science to take care of this issue. If Homeopathy truly was an effective treatment it would be confirmed in peer reviewed journals of medicine. It is not.
[Reply]
I have a gallon of the finest single malt scotch, (prepared with homeopathic methods) for only $200 (compare at $400!). And I can make a LOT more when you run out. Cash or currency only please. Satisfaction guaranteed or no money back!
Seriously, Edgers, a perfect example of the impotence of rationality and debate against an irrational belief system. Purushottama is lost and won’t acknowledge it. I hope he isn’t relying on homeopathy to treat his own children. Also, great new site for my bookmarks, thanks to PZ. I’ll be baaaaack.
[Reply]
The jury is still out whether Homeopathy works or not. There really has not been enough trials to justify whether or not it works. More trials and studies are definitely needed before the arguement can be settled. Homeopathy trials are a mixed bag. There are several well designed studies of Homeopathy working. There are also well designed studies with Homeopathy not working.
[Reply]
The jury is still not trying very hard on whether prayer works or not. There really has not been enough praying . More prayers are needed. I heard a story about my neighbors friends neice and a miracle prayer cure. Also well designed studies that show no effect whatsoever from prayer. (Am I understanding this thread so far?). Let us Teach the Controversy!
[Reply]
Thanks for that article. I new Homeopathy was the “non-serious” medicine for people not trusting scientific research, but I didn’t know it actually was that stupid.
The calculation that there actually is no single molecule of the “remedy” in the water reminded me of the funny calculation that there are utterly more water molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the ocean, so if you just had a glass of water it is very probable that one of the H2O-molecules passed my bladder before
@Purushottama: You showed your blatant ignorance regarding how science works when you complained that scientists change their minds all the time. Why not say that homeopathy is true because no one believed Einstein at first, to maximize the ignorance of your claims?
Scientists change their minds because they are eager to learn and open minded. But they only change their mind in the face of evidence. Now you know stories of where homeopathy worked. Big deal. I know for sure that it does not work for me. So what now? Can you cite a study that got published in Nature, Science or the American Journal of Medicine?
[Reply]
Drinking plenty of water is key to good health. At least homeopathy encourages *something* genuinely healthy…
I completely agree that the hidden danger is in the event that someone chooses to completely forgo modern medicine in favor of homeopathy when their illness is serious (or when they’re making the choice for a child).
I also think that encouraging credulousness is harmful in any society, and I really hate the media mindset that “If there are two sides to any story, they must be given equal weight.” Even if the percentage of scientists who vouch for homeopathic medicine’s usefulness is 1% (which is probably extremely generous), any article or news story on the subject will have an equal number of “experts” for each “side” of the story. That sort of thing keeps people ignorant and it drives me crazy.
[Reply]
While the principle of extreme dilutions used in homeopathy appears to defy logic, some but not all medical reviews prestigious medical journals have concluded that effects of homeopathy cannot be attributed to placebo alone.
[Reply]
[...] the Edger post on homeopathy. It does a good job of clearly explaining the principles of homeopathic medicine and why they make [...]
I will give proofs that homoeopathy worked & it works but I wanted to know do you have courage to post those posts here in your site.
If yes then only I can provide.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Why don’t you just post it already. We are not afraid of anything. If it is true, then good! But give us proof.
Hurry up already.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Have a look :
http://avilian.co.uk
http://www.moleculardyne.com
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Don’t forget to look these videos:
Secrets of Homeopathy, Part I
by John Benneth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EoyCnNybBE&NR=1
Secrets of Homeopathy, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuBpyz5gJek&feature=related
Secrets of Homeopathy, Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJljzeA174&feature=related
Secrets of Homeopathy, Part 4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=86CSgwLAbes
Secrets of Homeopathy, Part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PGOr_1paAgM
Re: James Randi explains homeopathy
by John Benneth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJpcpubwTeo
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I can only wait with bated breath at your evidence that would undoubtedly shatter the very foundations of modern science.
Go for it, and hurry!
[Reply]
Spike Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Shalini,
I was just thinking about the term ‘bated breath last night, and here you used it. And you used it 99% correctly! Many people think it’s “baited” breath, but it is in fact abated breath, with the a dropped for alliterative effect. The next time you use it, don’t forget to lead with an apostrophe to indicate the missing “a”.
[Reply]
For complete proof that homoeopathy works visit http://avilian.co.uk/
http://excalibur.110mb.com/arc.htm
http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=7796&PN=1
First let people visit these & if they need more I will provide…
[Reply]
Homeopathy is despicable snake oil.
I’m not normally one to want to whore my blog, but if you check out my most recent, you’ll see what real medicine is about… its called “hard work and science”. Not for the squeamish mind you… its inspiring though.
[Reply]
Now I have finally understand the real meaning of great Indian saying, “‘Bhains ke aage been bajaana’ . This ancient saying can be translated as: ‘It is futile to play flute to a buffalo’. The buffalo is a different species and one can’t fault her. Unfortunately it is more difficult to deal with your fellow species.
You and your company are the species of SCIENTIFIC IDIOTS” .Gud Bye
[Reply]
If you still fail to understand the meaning , click on the link given below ,
‘Bhains ke aage been bajaana” It is futile to play flute to a buffalo’
[Reply]
@ Shalini
I am not here to shatter the very foundations of modern science,but to tell the truth which you people are lying…yeah homoeopathy works n works….To prove its mechanism is different aspect but there is no doubt in its effectiveness…Now Homoeopathy is so popular that even seven Specialists in their branches are taking homoeopathy at my clinic & they are amazed by its action…We dont have unnecessary time to argue with u people…I want to say just one sentence “OPEN YOUR EYES,SENSES & BRAIN TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH that Homoeopathy works…God bless you..
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:33 am
There are no repeated experiments by independent people that water has memory.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“INSTRUMENTAL MEASURING OF DIFFERENT HOMEOPATHIC DILUTIONS OF POTASSIUM IODIDE IN WATER” Igor Jerman, M.D., Sc.D., Full Professor of Theoretical Biology, Maja Berden, M.A. Biology, Metod Škarja, M.A. Physics, BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,Celovška 264, 1000 LJUBLJANA, Slovenia (Received October 10,1998; Accepted with revisions March 10, 1999) Although more than 200 years have elapsed since the beginning of homeopathy and in spite of numerous confirmatory scientific experiments, the so-called memory of water is still a highly disputable and controversial theme in scientific circles. To make a contribution to solving this riddle, our research group tried to examine memory properties of water by the method of differential corona discharge Kirlian electrophotography of water-drop pairs. The method is based on a modified form of Kirlian photography with a subsequent thorough computer picture analysis. The potassium iodide (KI) mother solution (0.1M) was diluted in the standard way (without potentisation) or with potentisation (succussion by hand - by striking the vial 60 times against a large book as used traditionally) to 10-3M, 10-6M, 10-10M, 10-16M, 10-17M and 10-24M KI solutions. In the electrophotography method a drop of KI solution was compared with a drop of control water. To get a dependable system of results we compared homeopathic dilutions with ordinary distilled water, sham-potentised distilled water and non-potentised (standard) solutions. The results were analyzed by the Chi-square Goodness-of-fit test and the Sign test. They showed repeatable and statistically significant effects of concentration of KI dilutions as well as potentisation on the corona discharge process (from p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). This indicates that there is some physical basis of molecular (ionic) information imprinted into water.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVG-481MMWB-2&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6384e09990c3f4154c3adbc9fe629f7a
Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10-30 gcm-3) have been irradiated by X- and ?-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Permanent physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions of homeopathic medicines.
Elia V, Baiano S, Duro I, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15287434&ordinalpos=36&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Department of Chemistry, University Federico II of Naples, Complesso, Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126, Naples, Italy. elia@chemistry.unina.it
The purpose of this study was to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure. ‘Extremely diluted solutions’ (EDS) are solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: dilution in stages of 1:100 and succussion, typically used in homeopathic medicine. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached, so that the chemical composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent. Nine different preparations, were studied from the 3cH to 30cH (Hahnemannian Centesimal Dilution). Four of those were without the active principle (potentized water). Two different active principles were used: Arsenicum sulphuratum rubrum (ASR), As4S4, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4D). The solvents were: a solution of sodium bicarbonate and of silicic acid at 5 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) each, and solutions of sodium bicarbonate 5 x 10(-5), 7.5 x 10(-5) and 10 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) in double-distilled water. The containers were Pyrex glass to avoid the release of alkaline oxide and silica from the walls. Conductivity measurements of the solutions were carried out as a function of the age of the potencies. We found increases of electrical conductivity compared to untreated solvent. Successive dilution and succussion can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the aqueous solvent. But we also detected changes in physio-chemical parameters with time. This has not previously been reported. The modification of the solvent could provide an important support to the validity of homeopathic medicine, that employs ‘medicines without molecules’. The nature of the phenomena here described remains still unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
watch this recording:
http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/Events/nch/051607nch/recording-playback.html
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Metallocenyl dendrimers and their applications in molecular electronics, sensing, and catalysis.
Astruc D, Ornelas C, Ruiz J.
Institut des Sciences Moléculaires, UMR CNRS 5255, Université Bordeaux 1, 33405 Talence Cedex, France. d.astruc@ism.u-bordeaux1.fr
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624394?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
We have investigated the movement of electrons around the peripheries of dendrimers and between their redox termini and electrodes through studies of the electrochemistry of dendrimers presenting metallocenes (and other transition metal sandwich complexes) as terminal groups. Because these compounds can be stabilized in both their oxidized and their reduced forms, their electrochemical and chemical redox processes proceed without decomposition (chemical reversibility). Most interestingly, electrochemical studies reveal that electron transfer within the dendrimers and between the dendrimers and electrodes are both very fast processes when the branches are flexible (electrochemical reversibility). When the dendrimer branches are sufficiently long, the redox events at the many termini of the metallodendrimer are independent, appearing as a single wave in the cyclic voltammogram, because of very weak electrostatic effects. As a result, these metallodendrimers have applications in the molecular recognition, sensing, and titration of anions (e.g., ATP(2-)) and cations (e.g., transition metal complexes). When the recognition properties are coupled with catalysis, the metallodendrimers function in an enzyme-like manner. For example, Pd(II) can be recognized and titrated using the dendrimer’s terminal redox centers and internal coordinate ligands. Redox control over the number of Pd(II) species located within a dendrimer allows us to predetermine the number of metal atoms that end up in the form of a dendrimer-encapsulated Pd nanoparticle (PdNP). For hydrogenation of olefins, the efficiency (turnover frequency, TOF) and stability (turnover number, TON) depend on the size of the dendrimer-encapsulated PdNP catalysts, similar to the behavior of polymer-supported PdNP catalysts, suggesting a classic mechanism in which all of the steps proceed on the PdNP surface. On the other hand, Miyaura-Suzuki carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions catalyzed by dendrimer-encapsulated PdNPs proceed with TOFs and TONs that do not depend on the size of the PdNPs. Moreover these catalysts are more efficient when employed in lower (down to “homeopathic”) amounts, presumably because of a leaching mechanism whereby Pd atoms escape from the PdNP surface subsequent to oxidative addition of the aryl halide. Under these conditions, the “mother” PdNPs have greater difficulty quenching the extremely active leached Pd atoms because of their low concentration. Although dendrimers presenting catalysts at their branch termini can be recovered and reused readily, their inner-sphere components can lead to steric inhibition of substrate approach. In contrast, star-shaped catalysts do not suffer from such steric problems, as has been demonstrated for water-soluble dendrimers bearing cationic iron-sandwich termini, which are redox catalysts of cathodic nitrate and nitrite reduction in water.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I doubt you’re even a real doctor from a reputable accredited school, are you?
[Reply]
Ian Bushfield Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I love the irony of the “God bless you” to Shalini on this blog.
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
shh….sh…Don’t say like this in Shalini’s blog ….Shalini is atheist
[Reply]
Royn,
Google result: http://www.similima.com
Clearly an unbiased source.
Your pal,
Joe
[Reply]
Mehul Reply:
August 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
poor Joe !what resources you are searching ? We are all here for scientific proofs of homeopathy & you are searching similima
[Reply]
It is strange (but not wholly unexpected) that for all the huffing and puffing the homeopathy supporters are doing on this site, none of them have been able to provide peer-reviewed scientific studies that lend any credence to their claims.
[Reply]
@Roy Natian
Dont be crazy…I am what I am…you need to peer inside yourself…you people are really BLANK from all over…Can you explain me the mechanism of gravitation pull…You all are learned fools n blind also…Enough is enough…If I am providing links then whats wrong with you to attack on me…
In no way you are going to accept this truth…Keep it up..
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Do you have links to peer-reviewed studies that show the effectiveness of homeopathy beyond the placebo effect?
[Reply]
Dr. Similima Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Whatever links are given above are showing the effectiveness of homoeopathy beyond placebo effect…Visit again thoroughly…
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I have visited them but I have not seen any peer-reviewed studies that back up the claims made on those sites.
Perhaps there aren’t any? Care to show me otherwise?
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yeah, I can’t tell if they are peer reviewed.
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I did a search on PubMed in the faint hope (naive, I know) that there would be something of value from the homeopaths.
Zero, zilch, nada.
(shrug)
[Reply]
Spike Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:10 am
It’s hard to have a discussion about the “peer reviewed” status of homeopathic ideas because the papers cited in Mehul’s replies in post #17, above, are abstracts of papers that may or may not necessarily support the claims of homeopathy. Until we can read the full articles and any discussions about them, we, well, at least I, as a biologist, would have to reserve judgement regarding the quality of the science.
I haven’t done much research of my own into the published works regarding homeopathic claims, so what I’ve found has been just from looking around as a result of this discussion.
Researchers at Bastyr University conducted a study into efficacy of the adminsitration of high dilutions of growth factors and cytokines. A summary of their research and conclusions can be found here:
http://www.bastyr.edu/research/projects/abstracts/bsh.asp
Note the final sentence:
The wording is well within the realm of “good science” in that the “results suggest.” Has anyone followed up on what the results suggest? I do not know, nor do I know an easy way to find out short of contacting the researchers and asking them, and that is more than I want to do now. Perhaps Shalini would like to contact them and wirte a follow up article to this one.
Someone who wants to make the broad claim that here are no peer-reviewed papers discussing effective uses of hoemopathy would have to do more than say, “I looked in PubMed and didn’t find nothin’.” In just a few clicks I found this page of peer-reviewed articles of research into homeopathic cures:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp
I looked at the abstract of one article, “Inhibition of chemically induced carcinogenesis by drugs used in homeopathic medicine.” http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,119
The abstract says, “These studies demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, at ultra low doses, may be able to decrease tumor induction by carcinogen administration.”
Agins, the writing is well within what is considered “good science.” To be able to effectivley dispute this particular study, one would have to pull the article from the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention and explain why the researchers drew conclusions beyond what were merited by the data.
So my conclusion is that, based on my very brief survey of what is available over the internet, there are peer reviewed articles showing the effectiveness of certain homeopathic treatments.
It is a logical fallacy to make the broad claim that homeopathy is a fraud.
It is also a logical fallacy to claim that anything I wrote above is a support of homeopathy.
[Reply]
Spike Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Mark R. Tonelli, MD, MA Medical Ethics, (whose CV is here: http://depts.washington.edu/mhedept/facres/TonelliCV.pdf) has authored the following comments and articles which were published in peer-reviewed journals:
Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739043?dopt=Abstract
Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16722902?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16722902?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Perhaps Shalini would like to read the actual articles and maybe even interview Mark R. Tonelli, MD and report to us what she learns? Personally, I’m intigrued by whatcoudl be learned froman MD who would write a letter entitled, “Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based.” I hope Shalini is, too.
[Reply]
Most of these above posts are already in PubMed…How you are searching…What more you want ask me…It may take time to reply here due to my busy schedule…
Shalini you are exposed here…
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 30th, 2008 at 1:41 am
“Posts” are not in PubMed. Documentation of peer-reviewed studies are.
You just lost the game.
[Reply]
Hahahaha Good joke…I never wished to play a game with you…Just telling you the basic truth of homoeopathy that it works & works…Read above links & see the game has not yet started….
[Reply]
Shalini Sehkar Reply:
August 30th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I have asked for independent, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that homeopathy works beyond placebo and that the foundations of homeopathy have actual scientific basis. You have failed to provide even a single study that backs up your claims or the claims made in the websites you homeopaths have linked to. Is this really that hard to understand?
(Now I understand what beating a dead horse feels like.)
[Reply]
Homeopahty gives the right Information to organism so he does he´s shop..
is like a supporter… a guide to the organism…
the smallest part of the phsical material of any kind is… electron and beyond that you have quarks meson…
all that…are ENERGY PARTICULEs… so…if the phsycal stuff in their microsize are compose by ENERGY…
why are u SCEPTIC ABOUT ENERGY????? there are differente Types of Energy… the Vital Energy…is something that science does not have a Device to CALCULATE…but that doesn´t make it REAL… Just because we cant Count it…
Believe is not the Cure for ALL..is has limits Too…. but is a addional way to cure our diseases… and we have a lot of reports..that proves the efficacy…of course is not 100% garantee… but nothing in this World is 100% garantee…. nother homeopathy…or even Alopathy ( the occidental medicine)..
[Reply]
Zé Pedro Reply:
September 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
” so he does his JOB”
” i Believe”
“neither homeopathy”
corrections…sorry the bad english -.-
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
You say VITAL ENERGY.
Define this.
How do you know if it exists?
[Reply]
Zé Pedro Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 12:16 am
i cant define with more detail…cause our words/language are too poor do describe it…
but i can feel it… try to make REIKI or Qui Kong (Tai chi)..and u will FEEL the amazing power we have…but unfortunatly…almost all of us…..dennie it…
Dont try it to explain..with Science….cause there are lot of stuff that science cant PROof IT…cause Science…CAN´T manipulate ALL stuff… and if it cant manipulate…it won´t profe a “thing”… is beyond science control…
thats a pity that Science dont have any device that can detect it….so if they cant detect nothing…..they say it does not Exist… simple conclusion..
I love Science…but come on…. Science is only a part of the reality…it cant proof all…
there are a lot of things..we cant detect…and we cant see…but they exist…cause we might feel it…. that think is vital energy…
is only my opinion…i dont want to proof nothing. neither manipulate ppls mind…
i respect all the opinions…even if they are against mine…
Peace
[Reply]
Tyler Handley Reply:
September 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Poe’s Law anyone?
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Nope, he’s for real.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Hi Zé Pedro,
First, I would like to correct your notions about science. You said science can’t prove anything to be true. The way science works (and the reason why it’s so useful) is that first, based on evidence, we make a conclusion. That conclusion is the best idea at the moment. However, once some new evidence comes, we then change our minds and improve our original conclusion.
Now, you say science cannot measure or detect the “vital energy.” My first question for you is: How do you know this vital energy exists?
My next question is: Do you know what energy is? Energy has a very specific definition in physics. Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. That is all. There are different ways to store energy, but energy is just energy, just how I defined it.
So again, how do you know the vital energy exists? Because I have not seen evidence for it, I have to conclude, based on reason, that it does not exist. But of course, I will believe in this “vital energy” if you give me evidence for it.
Please show me the evidence.
[Reply]
Zé Pedro Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Hi Roy,
as i said before…i cant prove nothing or detect somethig to show u… i dont need to prove nothing.
because its not job or my ittetion… all of us have an opinion, and this is only mine.
i´m showing my opinion based on my little experience… one thing that make me believe on Vital energy is some oriental pratics.. like Reiki Or Tchi Kong ( Tai chi)…
at those praticas, u cannot detect vital energy, u cannot prove…but u can FEEl it….
try to make it…
and besides…as a i told u..the smallest particule of material stuff…are energy particules…like electron, quark mesons…. so is not is not so hard to think that any materia has a commun point…. the energy essence..
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Hey Zé Pedro,
You made a claim that something existed. Right?
You made a claim that Vital Energy exists. Right?
You cannot go around and say something exists, then not demonstrate it to be so. You cannot go and say Vital Energy exists and not give evidence for it. It is irresponsible.
Next time, don’t even talk if you are not willing to prove.
The reason why your way of thinking is wrong is that anyone can say anything and then not have to prove it.
For example, I will use your words: I cannot prove this but I don’t need to prove it to you. It is just my opinion that Vital Energy does not exist. Vital Energy does not exist because I feel it doesn’t, it is my opinion and my opinion only. I can FEEL it does not exist. I cannot prove it does not exist, but I feel it does not exist.
There, I used your method against you.
Now do you see what is wrong with how you spoke?
If you are not willing to give evidence, then please, do not talk next time.
[Reply]
Dear Ze Pedro
You make the claim that science has limitations - well done, the first people to say that are scientists. But if science can not answer something, what makes you think anything else can or do a better job?
Also, with regards to this VITAL energy which can’t be measured - you are plainly wrong. As soon as something has an effect on the material/phenomenal world we are able to test it. Science must go back and test something. And in actual fact, scientists are actually hoping that they find scientific claims for psychics, astrology, homeopathy and so on. That would be beautiful, expand our knowledge and get people a few Nobel prizes. In our deepest hearts, we would love to know that there is another aspect of reality we can discern. We dont go in with preconceived notions (bias) but the point is: we attempt to be open-minded about our hypothesis. Our conclusions regarding life-force and other aspects of homeopathy have yielded the same results, time and time again - either placebo or nothing. It must go BEYOND the placebo, it must yield beyond hearsay but, like astrology and other supernatural claims, it does not.
At THIS MOMENT we have not seen these supernatural claims or life-forces. But you have spoken about science not being able to detect life-force YET you say you’ve felt it. If you’ve felt it, we can test it. Its occuring in the material world. In the same way that you can make large, out-of-this world theories at some point they must have an impact on testable “reality” (thanks to Nabokov for pointing out this word must be written with ivnerted commas). And when it does, well we can test it.
Show us something tangible, something we can measure. We’re sceptical only because we have encountered people making the same claims you have and NEVER showing anything beyond hearsay. Even your evidence and links are hearsay - which is not good enough to stand up to the METHOD called science. Its quite beautiful, you should try it out.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Don’t waste your time on him. He is lost.
[Reply]
Zé Pedro Reply:
September 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
okey is true… i cant put things like that roy…sorry
Dear Mossa
Science loves to control…and there are stuff that we dont know how to control it…
if u cant control..u cant create a cause effect experiment…
there are some stuff that cannot be meausre in a Scientif Method…cause The scitifc Method is very lmited… IT has some proposes….
that propose of scientfic method is that we control the variable and we can mesure the results…
[#quote]If you’ve felt it, we can test it. Its occuring in the material world[#quote]
Feel it….is not synonim of Control it..
IN a scientifc method u want to rationalize the feelings…. and feeling is not a quantitative Number… no matter how many scales u make…
[#qoute] You make the claim that science has limitations - well done, the first people to say that are scientists. But if science can not answer something, what makes you think anything else can or do a better job? [#qoute]
Science has limits….and is only a part of reality… i see life..as a result of half Science half spiritism… one is not better then other…and one does not exist withtout other… the 2 has reason to exist…and the synergy of the 2 matters explain all questions…
the thing is…. science is rulled by head and we have a great tool for that… that is MATHS…
but Spiritism is rulled by Feelings and heart…. and that is much more subjectiv….and unfortunnatly we dont have the MATHS tool for that… cause feelings dont obbey to any formula or any cause effect law…
but maybe spiritism a a way to strong word for some ppl…i might hurt some feelings…
feel it is not synom of control it…
Dear Roy…
i advice u to make some oriental praticals..and then try to explain the results with your scientifc knowlege..
i made reiki in 2003…and i feel it… the energy flowing on my body…
but if u go there scpetic about all that…u creat a barrage, that rejects all the energy treatment u recieve…. as u see…. faith is a very strong force…
[Reply]
Dear Pedro
Well done for not answering a single question or articulating anything that even conveys a sense of knowledge. You have not said why science’s limitations means we should alternative methods of explanation (I dont discount them I am only sceptical of their applications and their use. Telling me there’s a spirit realm without any corroborative evidence means nothing. What am I supposed to do with this spirit realm?)
How is science DEPENDENT on the spirit realm? You have given no answers, answered no questions and once again referred to hearsay as evidence. Not good enough.
[Reply]
I think that vital energy is a summatory of
the body energy the mind energy and the soul energy..
the body is whetever or not u have a wound or a mecanical disease..
the mind energy is about the way u deal with your emotions…cause some emotions are rude to our mental sanity..
and the soul energy…i think is relationate with our very high moral principle.. is if we vibrate acording to the hightest energy on world…. witch is …LOVE ( the incoddionnal Love)
u see many people doing things imaginable by LOVE…. where do u think they cant such energy?… the are vibrating as the same frequency of LOVE…so they have a mass energy to spent it… even if u are phycical disable…your Soul energy is way to strong..to overwhelming your handicap..
[Reply]
i´m young ..i need to study more about the stuff..
i dont have a knowloge and webbed knowlege about that matters..so good that i can argue with others..
cause is stuff….that is not so objectiv..and dependes..on each life course …
in my life, i deal with situations that apparent…they didnt have a logical explanation..so i went trying to find answers…
maybe is all about in how sensible u are…how your sensitvive can detect things that other ppl cant… for example i was sensible to the flowing on reiki treatment..i felt it… but some ppl might have that sensitive..
so is hard..to argue….or to have a opinion that rules to a law…cause that is not perceptive to many people…
sorry if i dont dispose my text on logic and correct terms… i´m very bad on writting..specially in english..
i dont want to enter in spirits matter…cause is way to exausted… when i talk about spirit..i talk about the soul wich is on each one of us… we are not only a body and a brain… we have soul…and that´s the key of knowloge for all of us..
but…that is other matter… witch i dont want to enter on this forum
i appoligy again, my child way of writing..-.-
[Reply]
i make many mistakes…
“u see many people doing things imaginable by LOVE “– “Inimaginable”
” but some ppl might have that sensitive..” - might NOT have
[Reply]
Dear Pedro
Please don’t apologise for your writing - the fact you’re trying is very awesome. But I would like you to actually engage with what we’ve said here, instead of relying on hearsay and presenting no evidence. There is little to doubt you felt the things you felt, but we must question whether there is anything to THOSE feelings. Feelings coupled with hearsay makes for bad testing.
[Reply]
I guess I’ll have to repost and see if you all will still calim there is “no” research that points to the efficacy of homeopathy in a peer-reviewed journal:
Thanks!
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
But, was it replicated?
[Reply]
Spike Reply:
September 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I don’t know.
Do you? Does Shalini? Does Tariq?
If you-all did not know about this research before I posted it, or any of the other papers you listed on the link I posted above, and you do not know the outcome of any follow-up research that was done, then your claim that there is no peer reviewed research showing the effectiveness of homeopathy is false.
I’ve provided a paper that shows an instance where one of the claims of homeopathy (ultra low doses) may have an effect on cancer. Now the onus is on you to rebut the claim That’s how logical debate works when people really want to find out what is “true” or not.
You telling Mehul, “I doubt you’re even a real doctor from a reputable accredited school, are you?” is a triple-whammy of logical fallacy:
1. Non sequitur: Who cares about Mehul’s credentials? They are irrelevant to the discussion. As are yours or those of anyone else posting on this thread.
2. Ad hominem: Your “doubt” about how he/she come by his/her knowledge, stated as you did, denigrates the person delivering the information, rather than dealing with the information.
3. Moving the goalposts: No part of the original claim of “no peer reviewed research” says that such information must be provided to you by a medical professional.
This one is just embrassing:
What game? You-all wanted information about peer reviewed researche, Mehul provided posts with links to articles abstracted in PubMed, you -all followed the links, and you, Roy, admitted that you could not tell if the abstracted articles were peer reviewed or not.
Since you can’t even tell if an article mentioned in an abstract has been peer reviewed, how can you maintain the claim that there is no peer reviewed research with any rational integrity at all?
Yeah, I’m wagging my finger at you. I expect fellow free thinkers to actually use rational arguments.
If that is not your intent, you should let your readers know with a disclaimer such as, “I’m going to make unsupported claims and overgeneralizations about things I don’t like and if you call me on it, I’m going to talk about you, personally, rather than dealing with the issues you raise. Thanks and have a nice day.”
[Reply]
Dear Spike
“I don’t know.
Do you? Does Shalini? Does Tariq?
If you-all did not know about this research before I posted it, or any of the other papers you listed on the link I posted above, and you do not know the outcome of any follow-up research that was done, then your claim that there is no peer reviewed research showing the effectiveness of homeopathy is false.”
- I can not speak for everyone, but as a sceptic I am certainly obliged to keep up-to-date with various testings. I can not afford to read all homeopathic/nutrional/medical journals. I do however regurarly read science magazines that DO have experts who have done meta-analysis and testing ON the tests themselves. I hope you will forgive me for devoting my time to reading EVERY DAMN TEST THEY MAKE.
But i had a look at your links and went to the websites. Quite impressive. A list of over a 100 peer-reviewed papers that apparently support homeopathy. Of course, i cant access any of them but anyways.
Here’s the problem though: to quote from a BBC interview with the Amazing Randi
“How has homeopathy performed in clinical trials?
There have been over 200 trials published that have examined the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines. The majority of these have found some positive effect of homeopathy. However, in such a comparison you have to take into account publication bias: a positive study is more likely to get published than a negative study. Opinions differ as to whether analysing all these studies together is useful and whether the overall evidence comes out significantly in favour of homeopathy.
The critics point to the lack of strong repetitions of studies. For instance David Reilly’s work on allergy is often regarded as the best clinical evidence for homeopathy. However, in a recent attempt to investigate the same condition the results came out negative. Dr Reilly believes this is down to differences in the experimental method. Until a result can be reliably replicated in favour of homeopathy in independent laboratories the scientific community will remain sceptical.”
Its not really the number then and also Roy’s point is a legitimate one - you responded quite brassenly for someone who wants rational debate.
“I’ve provided a paper that shows an instance where one of the claims of homeopathy (ultra low doses) may have an effect on cancer. Now the onus is on you to rebut the claim”
No its not. It’s up to people who are in a better position than us to focus on this ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE (remember the hundreds of others) - since we are not medical researchers we can not give you a better answer. It is unfair on you to say this, since we dont have access to the relevant material, the patients, the techniques, etc. etc. Come on. This is as bad as pointing to an instance where a psychic finds a child and then telling your sceptical friend “well its up to you now to rebut that claim.” Your sceptical friend (those of us here at Edger) were not there at the crimescene, etc.
“Since you can’t even tell if an article mentioned in an abstract has been peer reviewed, how can you maintain the claim that there is no peer reviewed research with any rational integrity at all?”
- how about the constant stream of information regarding homeopathy in the science books and journals we do read? As ive stated elsewhere, its not like we are against these tests. We are genuinely interested in acquiring knowledge. Even pointing out fallacies is a good reason to read an antagonists’ claims: it makes you more refined in argument and holds you up in better light to reason. Therefore, it’s not like we are avoiding or can’t tell what a peer-reviewed paper is, we rely on those whose jobs it is to give meta-analysis (a very powerful tool espcially in psychology testing which I’ve been dealing with for years - and where homeopathy and placebo studies have featured prominently) - and those we rely on tell us nothing positive.
I hope you find this a “reasonable” rebuttal to your claims (reasonable doesn’t mean likable as we both agree).
[Reply]
To Tauriq @ 31,
I’m sure nobody expects you to have read every damn test available, however, Shalini above asserted that no one had provided any peer-reviewed articles. Spike provided one. Accordingly, in that situation, yes, the onus is on you to now come up with a rebuttal. I’m certainly not reading Spike’s responses as an endorsement of homeopathy, but rather as a lesson in debate. Your last response comes across as very emotional - precisely what we find frustrating when arguing with our woo-believing adversaries.
Back to the topic at hand, though, I know some very (otherwise) logical people who believe in homeopathy, and I can’t account for it. If someone is ill, and takes a homeopathic remedy, and is cured, it’s nearly impossible to convince them that a) they may have been misdiagnosed in the first place or b) there might be any number of other more plausible reasons they got better. It’s unfortunate that there are some medical doctors out there who do support this nonsense. When you have MDs hawking it, it’s a little harder to fault the sheeple for believing it.
[Reply]
I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that people will espouse a belief and cite either personal, biased experiences, or will submit websites that are not scientifically peer reviewed, and the effects have not been replicated in a study.
I will say that there are some benefits to homeopathic therapy- it can generate stress relief through means. However, can it cure the measles ? According to the evidence, no.
As for MDs believing it, having faith in an idea that is not provable by science, and using your knowledge in a scientifically proven field are two separate things. As long as my surgeon does not decide that leeches will cure me, I think as long as they keep it separate, things will be good.
[Reply]
Optimus Prime
I thank you for not reading anything I wrote in response and claiming “Your last response comes across as very emotional - precisely what we find frustrating when arguing with our woo-believing adversaries.”
Excuse me? I found my response to be focussing on the points he made, as you can tell from the quotes I focussed on. I made points against him and now the argument continues. It is quite telling that you did not read my post by saying”the onus is on you to now come up with a rebuttal”. I did - to the greatest extent I could as I had no access to any of the references. And further elucidated in my following points. What point is your comment making other than to miss entirely my claims against him?
to make it clear to you, here are some of the so-called “emotional” points I made - which for some reason you have not read or even spoken about against me other than calling me emotional. You see how annoying it is to just keep saying emotional, it leads no where. its just emotion. emotionally.
WHAT I SAID:
1. our reliance on science journals which we do read, which claim nothing for homeopathy - though they are investigating
2. putting the onus on us - then I went to the website, investigated and found only a list - I then quoted Randi to show that number is good enough. It must be repeatable, etc.
3. what meta-studies say
4. how we are genuinely interested in acquiring new information, thus attempting to keep track of information regarding homeopathy
those are the points i made against him. Please try reading it again. I’m not quite sure what you meant be emotional - my capital letters? I think you can do better than that.
[Reply]
A homeopath friend sent me a link here. Just a quick note while blowing in and out of this bar rather than brawling!
No point playing music for the deaf cattle as noted, but I shall stand on my quack soap box and rail at the crowd for a moment. Some thoughts for the skeptics in here:
1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.
2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.
3) The world’s wicked and treacherous always propagandize, but they all rot away as forgotten corpses over time. See, men always appreciate the Truth; for even the wicked hear it deep in their souls, and it makes them rile around with a kind of burning inside. And, it has always been the way of prophets to speak Truth — regardless of what stones the world tosses. To lead things (and good conspiracies), however, a leader must also carefully balance Truth with man’s receptivity to it, and so we homeopaths should remember that it can be also a shooting of ourselves in the foot to give away all our magician tricks and trade secrets. It is good to give away our work in the sciences on it, but not all. Let the world beg for that over time. Things peddled directly tend to be rejected while things retained as guarded secret (even if for entertainment’s sake) tend to sell the truth best by the indirect approach. It’s all a selling of ideas. The fight here is about competing ideas and medical philosophies at the core.
3) A wise professor on military history and strategy once taught that evil (and lies — or vile Establishments of all kinds) have a way of sewing widespread resentment and hatred as a direct function of their growth. They become corrupt and tyrannical over time no matter how noble the earlier cause. With growth, the monster moves more slowly. It tramples upon the innocent and creates so much hatred for it that it is easily toppled under its own weight. And homeopathy is just as vulnerable to that as Allopathy’s world has been. Both require a change of way in order to be something better than they presently are and to avoid being that ugly beast of Hell.
4) Now, the below comment (noted in the top of this page) is a rather tyrannical, know-it-all statement and no true scientist or even sane M.D. would ever dare make such a tar-brushing, god-like, pronouncement of what is and isn’t Medical Law:
“The very basis of homeopathy doesn’t render it suitable as a replacement or even as an ‘alternative’ to evidence-based conventional medicine.”
….It’s a repetition of lie and propaganda, but that’s okay; for nobody will remember it just a couple decades down the road. If you want to keep echoing it like one of history’s fools, go right ahead and take your destiny. Doesn’t make me mad. Makes me laugh, but is also very sad.
The Truth that is behind and in homeopathy can never be stopped. It can never be conquered. It will always continue to grow and prosper all the more as a direct function of the tenacity and lies tossed at it. Actually, ignoring the truth is the best strategy our enemies can take. Trying to align with and corrupt it again (as was once done by AMA) is a more effective attack on homeopathy. But, you can’t do that so well a second time around.
We do now have the real world of medical science no longer wanting to stake their credibility on whether or not homeopathy works. You’ll see the claims of Placebo Effect, nonsense, and invalidity as microdoses fading out over time as the sheep continue to smarten up. Allopathy — for all its hatred — cannot fight the truth.
And so where will that allopathic dragon fight and protect next as we raid her nest and smash her eggs?
The issue of “Efficacy” is your only safe ground left, but we’ll eventually burn you atop that defensive postion, too!
Oh, she’ll claim:
“Well, it may be working and there may be something mysterious and fundamental to it that science just doesn’t yet understand. That part is exciting. But, it remains to be proven and documented as a serious medical science. It lacks standardization of practice (of course so does Allopathy). It lacks hardcore, research presentation, archiving, and penetration of technical journals into the common medical community, and so we really can’t properly gauge or understand it. It’s remains as elusive to we in the West as does Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda’s way. We know it often works well — and probably outside of placebo for many cases — but we’re just not yet ready to buy into it. We don’t fully understand it. It needs further study and integration over the years. If it is working, then there would have to be fundamental and exciting new things awaiting to be found in it, so wisdom ought not fully reject it. We, as Conventional Medicine M.D.’s, just are more comfortable in our own backyard. Those people are often fanatical in their way like a medical cult! We can’t fight the reality and reported efficacy of homeopathy anymore, but we can still resist fully accepting it as a replacement or alternative to the things we reliably know within our own scientific framework. Its exploration is best for the more advanced medical research institutions, and maybe they will flow improved practice down to us someday. In the end, we are too humbled as scientists by its continuing evolution to really properly comment, and so choose to wait and see. “
…And that line, if Allopathy had the smarts to take it up, is the truthful propaganda which most homeopaths wouldn’t disagree with terribly or bitterly resent. It’ll eventually be the last hill any credible M.D. or scientist can stand upon when facing his patients. The future common sense accepted after the radical heresy has conquered.
…Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! There was truly a time when I mocked homeopathy, too, you know.
“Homo pathy what?!!! The hell you say?!!! Isn’t that some hokus pokus of those hippie flakes — no good, stinkin’ commies and pot smokers — with all their wellness jive. Those stinkin’ be well and be centered fruit loops?! Those organic yoga sissies! ”
No, I wouldn’t spend a dime on the snake oil even when sick, but one day did and I oddly felt better. It tickled my interest from there. A whole, exciting new world opened up to my eyes. Old questions resolved. New mysteries and questions to answer. Vast new medical powers possible for self and country. Overlapping science and technical realms just waiting to be discovered among that mysterious reason it DOES work. Billions to trillions of dollars there just waiting to be harvested like a great gold mine — for the nation which has the stones to explore the materials science & pharmacology mystery. Real, affordable, health care and contributions to genuine cancer R&D which can stand-alone or compliment nicely Allopathy (and, so far, India leads the way there!).
That’s about all I’ll warn to the skeptics. Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts. History and good in the world never takes the side of those who arrogantly opposed anything which greatly aided and cured ailing human life. It never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the end, in this world and the next. The people of the future — and in Eternity, especially — don’t even care to remember your name. Your life in this world becomes as trivial over time as it deserves to be. Nothing but forgotten dust in the wind is your way when your hearts are so darkened and your minds so cemented. To be on the wrong side of history is nothing at all to keep as a vanity, and you’re welcome to it all you like!
It’s really ashame to be a slave to one’s emotions rather than reason, though. Before allowing oneself to be enslaved like that, ask yourself:
“What do I fear most here? Why am I so threatened at the possibility that homeopathy may be real? Is it because I have invested too much in being a proud skeptic? Am I afraid to be humbled? Do I have personal insecurities which compel me to be a know-it-all? Have I lost touch with my earlier love of mystery and being humbled? Being amazed? What has so killed my soul caused by my own corruptions and the world’s tainting of me? If this thing makes me angry and jealous, then I fear it for some reason. What is that reason? How did it come to enslave and threaten me among my own surrender of Free Will? Why does it so offend my own VANITY?!! I want to believe in it deep down. I can feel it and hear the truths and sincerity they speak, but something just stirs my divided and burning soul. I have a compulsion to attack at it for reasons I can’t explain. It is as if my mind and actions are not really even my own, and so how did it get that way?!!”
Next:
“Hmmmm….perhaps there is something to what Dr. Quack said about ample time spent in the sin of Vanity leading to partial possession? I am defending Ego/ Power and Property issues here at the core of my resistance to homeopathy’s truth. In these sins I have perhaps invested too much and given myself over to temptation too long, and so I am now a slave of them to the point that my lies, hostility, arrogance, and resistance to Truth is a compulsion? Is he right? On this issue and on many others in life, have I become a compulsive liar to even myself while not really being so; for I see those lies as truth? Am I really that blind? I am not stupid or an idiot, but have I really flowed down that path among the course he outlined? And why should Truth be offensive to my soul? I act so arrogant, and yet, in my behavior, it is I who fears them. Why?”
Fear not, lost sheep. We here at the Church of Homeopathic Scientoquackology shall save your almost damned soul with our quack voodoo!
Vade Retro Satana!! Nunquan Suade Mihi Vana!! Sunt Mala Que Libas. Ipse Venana Bibas!!
Take care and may you find the peace of Revelation and Reason someday! Attention to the truth really is one’s salvation, but first one has to have the humility to get there and the eyes to see. Skeptics are never the enemy of homeopathy; Just the stubborn, malicious, and foolish ones. Skeptics who value truth are very easy to convert whenever they feel like waking up, and their presence as the nemesis of our craft is what sharpens us for the present and future as the effective medical science and art we are.
– Doc Quack
[Reply]
Dear Dr Quack
I am uncertain on your stance: do you like us sceptics or loathe us? Are those threats or are they playfully sarcastic over-indulgent, pseudo-passionate talk about “dust” and “enemies of history” and so on?
You made some terrible statements.
“1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.
2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.”
You begin with the Schopenhauer 3 stages: ridicule, opposition and acceptance. You think that because its “hated” because its “radical and shaking to establishments” that somehow there is some truth in it. Consider this: consider the billions of ideas that were mocked and have no passed into “dust”, as you like to say. Do you know about them? Of course not because they were mocked, opposed and so on. That holds nothing to its validiity. They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Copernicus but they also laughed at Bugs Bunny.
Also you speak of truth as though you know what it is. Well sir/ma’am we are attempting to get to the truth, using scientifically verifiable and objective means. It is as Einstein called it “the most precious thing we have”. And though as I’ve said we remain open to what results and evidence tells us, so far it has said nothing about homeopathy to “shake the grounds of establishments”. It might shake it in that it is annoying and, worse, that people can die unnecessarily from CAM, but otherwise nothing that shakes the medical establishment - except only a good way if they find anything.
“3) The world’s wicked and treacherous always propagandize, “
- which is not at all what you are doing … but regardless we look at what you have to say regarding evidence and good reasoning. so far i have seen no example of it.
“3) A wise professor on military history and strategy once taught that evil (and lies — or vile Establishments of all kinds) have a way of sewing widespread resentment and hatred as a direct function of their growth. They become corrupt and tyrannical over time no matter how noble the earlier cause.”
two number 3’s? very impressive. but what are you alluding to here? the medical establishment? the sceptic movement?
“If you want to keep echoing it like one of history’s fools, go right ahead and take your destiny. Doesn’t make me mad.”
- no, but some of your views certainly do. you have said nothing that can actually contribute to this discussion so far.
“Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! “
- its actually quite nice thank you.
“No, I wouldn’t spend a dime on the snake oil even when sick, but one day did and I oddly felt better. It tickled my interest from there. A whole, exciting new world opened up to my eyes”
- anecdotes are not evidence and do nothing to show its efficacy. once again people keep bringing up anecdotes as evidence and it just won’t stand.
“Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts. “
- says who? I certainly won’t keep that in mind. There is no reason at all to accept this sentence.
“History and good in the world never takes the side of those who arrogantly opposed anything which greatly aided and cured ailing human life. It never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the end, in this world and the next.”
- this world and the next? whoa whoa, who said anything about an afterlife? and “greatly aided and cured ailing human life” - i assume you mean the medical establishment? why would we oppose the medical establishment? and if you are referring to CAM or homeopathy, that’s not true. if it was, the beauty of it is that it would then simply ALSO be part of the medical establishment. we want to help people, save them, why would we reject something which heals great numbers of people - but it does not do it repeatably and does not stand up to the rigorous medical trials (which any form of medicine undergoes why should there be special case for homeopathy? we do it this way to save people which you don’t seem to understand).
it makes no sense for us to oppose the medical establishment so this point does not make sense. you are fighting strawmen.
“It’s really ashame to be a slave to one’s emotions rather than reason,”
- the first time we agree. exactly.
“Your life in this world becomes as trivial over time as it deserves to be. Nothing but forgotten dust in the wind is your way when your hearts are so darkened and your minds so cemented. To be on the wrong side of history is nothing at all to keep as a vanity, and you’re welcome to it all you like!”
- this is the kind of talk i was asking you about. seems to be more emotional than dealing with reason. hypocrisy i say.
“Skeptics who value truth are very easy to convert “
- tell you what, you convert the medical field. then you have a higher chance of convincing me (and us as sceptics i think). but for now, im going to go with what the medical establishment says.
[Reply]
Quack:
“1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.”
- You’re implying that there is a god and that there is some kind of merit in a Hebrew saying. Evidence or GTFO. Pointless point by you.
“2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.”
- Wrong. Some theories which turn out to be correct are ridiculed at first. Some theories which turn out to be incorrect are also ridiculed at first. Some heretics of previous decades are eventually vindicated. Some heretics of previous decades are not. This “truth” we know - please provide a definition, because I’m pretty sure the truth I know is very different from what you perceive truth to be. Another pointless point by you.
[blah blah blah...too many retarded, meaningless comments not worth remarking on individually...]
“…Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! There was truly a time when I mocked homeopathy, too, you know.”
- And then what, did you receive a brain injury?
“That’s about all I’ll warn to the skeptics. Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts…”
- O rly? Again, evidence?
“History … never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the en