A guide to DIY homeopathy might seem amusing. Actually it’s terrifying

The National Center for Homeopathy (NCH) claims to be the ‘go-to resource for all who are interested in learning about homeopathy’. Its website informs us that ‘it’s easy to get started using homeopathy at home. You don’t need to be an expert in anatomy, physiology, or pharmacology. You only need to be able to observe your and your family’s symptoms and any changes you might see in those symptoms. By using the information on this site you can quickly learn enough about homeopathy to use it at home to care for yourself and your family to address minor illnesses and injuries that don’t necessarily need a doctor’s care.’

To promote the idea of DIY homeopathy, the NCH offers the right homeopathic remedies for a vast array of conditions. Its list of several hundred conditions ranges from acne to whooping cough and covers many illnesses that are potentially life-threatening. Here is just a small selection.

Asthma attack
Asthma attacks occur for a variety of reasons. You can help treat asthma attacks with homeopathic remedies based on the type of attack that it is.

  • Arsenicum album: anxiety, restlessness, unable to lie down because of feeling of suffocation shortly after midnight.
  • Carbo vegetabilis: asthma attach occurs after long, spasmodic coughing spell with gagging or vomiting; patient feels worst after eating or talking; worse in the evening.
  • Ipecacuanha: sudden onset of wheezing and feeling of suffocation; coughs constantly, but unable to bring up mucus; feeling of weight on chest.
  • Nux vomica: attack often follows stomach upset with much belching; patient very irritable.

Bleeding

  • Arnica: injury, shock.
  • China: loss of blood.
  • Carbo vegetabilis: steady oozing of dark blood; cold breath, cold limbs; cold, clammy sweat; air hunger.
  • Ipecac: gushes of bright red blood, nausea, cold sweat.
  • Sabina: threatened abortion and uterine hemorrhage.
  • Phosphorus: profuse nosebleed, especially after vigorous blowing, or any hemorrhage; when small wounds bleed profusely.

Chicken pox
Chicken pox can be uncomfortable and painful (for both the child and the parent) and the only way to deal with it is to wait for it to run its course. However, homeopathy can help speed up the healing process – and quickly calm the itch and irritation of this childhood illness.
Let’s look at the handful of remedies that are often called for in cases of chicken pox:

  • Aconite: Early cases, with restlessness, anxiety and high fever.
  • Antimonium tart: Delayed or receding, blue or pustular eruptions. Drowsy, sweaty and relaxed; nausea. Tardy eruption, to accelerate it. Associated with bronchitis, especially in children.
  • Belladonna: Severe headache: face flushed; hot skin. Drowsiness with inability to sleep.
  • Mercurius: To be used should vesicles discharge pus.
  • Rhus toxicodendron: Intense, annoying itching. Generally the only remedy required; under its action the disease soon disappears.
  • Sulphur: like with Rhus toxicodendron, rash is extremely annoying; very thirsty and hungry but takes more than can eat.

Croup
Croup can be very scary for parents… your child awakens at night coughing and gasping for air. Homeopathy works very well for these young patients.
There are a number of great homeopathic remedies to consider first when you confront this condition late some night:

  • Aconite: This remedy should always be given at the first; it will often prove to be the only one needed, if given right, unless some other remedy is strongly indicated. Aconite will be called for if there is a high fever, skin dry, much restlessness and distress. Cough and loud breathing during inspiration. Every expiration ends with a hoarse hacking cough.
  • Arsenicum album: For croup with suffocative attacks at night; especially after midnight; croup before or after rashes or hives; patient cannot breath through nose; complaints with much restlessness and thirst, but for less quantity of water; aggravation after drinking.
  • Bromine: Spasms of the larynx, suffocative cough, horse whistling, croupy sound with great effort; rattling breathing; gasping; impeded respiration, heat of the face, much rattling in larynx when coughing.
  • Hepar sulph: If there is a rattling, choking cough, becoming worse particularly in the morning part of the night. Patient tends to be chilly. Cough can be worse from cold drafts or cold room – better warm moist air.
  • Spongia: The cough is dry and silibant; or it sounds like a saw driven through a pine board, each cough corresponding to a thrust of the saw.

Ebola
…The good news is that a small international team of experienced and heroic homeopaths have arrived in West Africa, and are currently on the ground working hard to examine patients, work out the ‘genus epidemicus’, and initiate clinical trials. This work is being done alongside the current conventional supportive measures and treatments already in place. We applaud and congratulate this team’s dedication and courage in joining the front lines in treating Ebola with homeopathy. The answer to whether homeopathic medicine has an important role in the Ebola epidemic could be forthcoming quite soon.

Flu
The flu can come on suddenly and stop you in your tracks – but there are many homeopathic remedies that can help bring relief and shorten the duration of the flu.
The following are some remedies that can bring relief during the flu:

  • Arsenicum album: great prostration with extreme chilliness and a thirst for frequent sips of warm drinks. The eyes and nose stream with watery, acrid discharges. Feels irritable and anxious.
  • Baptista: gastric flu with vomiting and diarrhea. Comes on suddenly. Feels sore and bruised all over. Profuse perspiration with a high fever and extreme thirst. Feels (and looks) dazed and sluggish.
  • Bryonia: flu comes on slowly. Aching pains in all the joints are worse for the slightest motion. Painful dry cough that makes the head hurt. Extreme thirst at infrequent intervals. Feels intensely irritable and wants to be alone.
  • Eupatorium perfoliatum: the pains are so severe it feels as if the bones are broken. The muscles ache and feel sore and bruised as well. A bursting headache with sore, aching eyeballs. The nose runs with much sneezing, and the chest feels sore and raw. Thirsty for cold water even though it brings on violent chills in the small of the back.
  • Ferrum phosphoricum: a fever develops, a flu is likely but the symptoms aren’t clearly developed yet (and Aconite didn’t help). Take 3 doses every 2-4 hours.
  • Gelsemium: flu comes on slowly especially when the weather changes from cold to warm. The muscles feel weak and achy. There’s a great feeling of heaviness everywhere-the head (which aches dully), limbs, eyelids, etc. No thirst at all. Fever alternative with chills and shivers that run up and down the spine. Feels (and looks) apathetic, dull, and drowsy.
  • Mercurius solubilis: fever with copious, extremely offensive perspiration that doesn’t provide any relief (unlike most feverish sweats). The breath smells bad, there’s more salivation than normal and an extreme thirst.
  • Nux vomica: gastric flu with vomiting and diarrhea. The limbs and back ache a great deal. The nose runs during the day and is stopped up at night. Fever with chills and shivering especially after drinking. Very chilly and sensitive to the slightest draught of air or uncovering. Feels extremely impatient and irritable.
  • Pyrogenium: serious flu with severe pains in the back and the limbs and a terrible, bursting headache. Feels beaten and bruised all over. Very restless and feels better on beginning to move. Chills in the back and the limbs with a thumping heart.
  • Rhus toxicodendron: flu in cold, damp weather. Great restlessness: aching and stiffness in the joints is worse for first motion, it eases with continued motion and then they feel weak and have to rest after which they stiffen and have to move again. Pains are better for warmth. Feels anxious and weepy.

At the first sign of a flu Oscillococcinum® can also be taken right at the very beginning of feeling ill but before any symptoms have developed.

Measles
While measles is probably best known for its full-body rash, the first symptoms of the infection are usually a hacking cough, runny nose, high fever, and red eyes that can be very sensitive to light. Characteristic markers of measles are Koplik’s spots, small red spots with blue-white centers that appear inside the mouth. The rash first appears on the face and then moves downwards and from the face downward.

  • Euphrasia: Lots of mucus; a mouthful hawked up on cough; clears the throat frequently; cough during the day only and worse in the morning; better lying down; eyes – burning, watery and sensitive to light; eyelids burning, red and swollen; wind and light aggravate; nose – bland, watery unlike the watery discharge of the eyes which burns; throat might be sore with burning pain.
  • Pulsatilla: thirstless; clinging and weepy; warm rooms and becoming warm aggravate; open air ameliorates; low fever and the itchy skin/eruptions are worse for heat; eruptions itching and worse for warmth with white or yellow discharge.
  • Apis: eruptions painful, burning, hot, stinging with swelling where the skin looks shiny/puffy; thirstless; itching better for cold applications and worse for heat, especially heat of bed; if rash is slow to develop or is suppressed; better in general for fresh air, better with cold drinks.
  • Bryonia: Rash/eruptions slow to come out or suppressed; warmth of the bed ameliorates; dryness and dislike of movement; headache has pain behind the eyeballs, bursting and violent, worse for moving; better for cold compresses and pressure; thirsty for large quantities of water all at once; motion aggravates; grumpy bear remedy – want to be left alone; throbbing/pulsating pains; dryness throughout all mucous membranes.

Readers of the above advice might first have giggled, then have felt increasingly angry and eventually slightly depressed: this glimpse into the way homeopaths think is revealing and frightening in equal measure. In the final analysis, it is anything but amusing.

Do I hear someone say ‘this is unnecessarily alarmist; homeopathic remedies are usually safe, much safer than conventional medicines’? If so, please consider the following two points.

1. Homeopathy does not normally cause harm via its remedies but through neglect: it is essentially a non-treatment, and a non-treatment of a serious condition is inevitably life-threatening.

2. Yes, real medicines do have real risks, but they also convey real benefits. Responsible healthcare practitioners use treatments the benefits of which outweigh their risks.

What follows is fairly straightforward: the promotion of homeopathy is irresponsible, and the promotion of DIY homeopathy is outright dangerous.

Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science. He blogs at edzardernst.com.


  • Tetenterre

    The mind-numbing ignorance of the author of that drivel is sufficient to ring alarm bells: it mentions observing symptoms. What one observes is signs, not symptoms. Epic fail at the first (stunningly low) hurdle.

    • sabelmouse

      seriously?

      • Tetenterre

        Yes, seriously. It is a characteristic of the touts of pseudomedicine that they are ignorant of even the most basic medical knowledge, and this sort of misuse of medical terminology is rife – and diagnostic!

        It is also somewhat amusing that two of them have up-voted my post. 🙂

        • sabelmouse

          sure , what people write in articles reflects what actual practitioners ectr know, and do. never read the guardian.

          • edzard ernst

            nor any textbooks of science, it seems!

  • BBF

    What a load of drivel! Ernst has lost all credibility when he chooses to whom he’ll sell his soul. He has no shame. Homeopathy will persist because it works. Those claiming there is no proof are hiding their heads in the sand. Flat earthers and astroturfers!

    • edzard ernst
      • BBF

        Have you heard of selling your soul? Disgraceful, open to the highest bidder.

        • edzard ernst

          please do tell! who is paying what precisely?

      • T-500

        I read your poor piece of opinion. You moved the goal posts by adding something beyond the real logic arguments. The statementes about you are not ad-hominem attacks, these are an objective description of your kinder behaviour on the mass media and “scientific papers”.

        • edzard ernst

          if you had read my piece with a minimum of attention, you would have noticed that it largely consists of extracts from homeopaths who promote ridiculous treatments for life-threatening conditions. this might be a solution for the over-population of the planet but certainly is not acceptable healthcare. are you saying you defend such nonsense? what has that to do with moving goal posts? please try to make some sense, if you can.

      • have you heard about ‘ad hominem’? http://edzardernst.com/2012/12/ad-hominem-attacks-are-signs-of-victories-of-reason-over-unreason/

        They’ve heard of it. They’ve had it explained, many times, in exquisite detail. They’ve never managed to understand it.

    • This one always amuses me. People who believe that an 18th Century German single-handedly and without any parallel discovery before or since, invented a wholly new system of healing, which uses properties of matter as yet undiscovered by science, and for which no other application has ever been identified, and which refuses to countenance even the possibility that the more parsimonious explanation for their beliefs could be anything other than an evil conspiracy, describes everyone who challenges their assertions as a “flat-earther”.

      • T-500

        You could have, instead, pointed out that the scientific reference is valid but there is a problem with it in that it didn’t include a valid reference. When I read your all comments, you repeat the same bullshit in all forums about of homeopathy.

        Asking for reliable evidence to demonstrate the validity of a claim is a reasonable response anywhere but the pseudoskeptic world move the goalpost and quote the “Wiki” biased schoolwork as reliable evidence.

        Evil conspiracy not, stupid conspiracy is the most exactly term for you and sectarian boys.

        • You could have, instead, pointed out that the scientific reference is valid but there is a problem with it in that it didn’t include a valid reference.

          You realise that this statement is literally self contradictory, right? It is literally nonsense.

          • T-500

            “You realise that this statement is literally self contradictory, right? It is literally nonsense.”

            Point the contradiction. Can’t you?

          • Point the contradiction. Can’t you?

            “…pointed out that the scientific reference is valid but there is a problem with it in that it didn’t include a valid reference…”

            How can you point out the reference is valid when no valid reference is presented? If you can’t see this as nonsense you could also see homeopathy as being valid.

            Oh… wait…

          • T-500

            “How can you point out the reference is valid when no valid reference is presented? If you can’t see this as nonsense you could also see homeopathy as being valid.”

            Valid references from trials. When I post the references you and your troll team discard any evidence as “noise of data”. When you can show the proof of the “noise in the data” in ALL paper…. Still no evidence? The case is rest.

  • Dana Ullman

    Isn’t it “convenient” that Ernst ignores the dozens of studies showing the effects of homeopathic medicines on gene expression. Isn’t it “convenient” that Ernst ignores the fact that solid research has shown that 95% of French pediatricians, dermatologists, and general practitioners have been found to prescribe homeopathic medicines based on the French government’s records of prescribing by MDs. Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25921648

    • edzard ernst

      no Ernst does not ignore these studies but my post is not about them. it is about the way some homeopaths endanger public health by advocating self-treatment of serious conditions.

      • T-500

        Correct. Your not ignore these studies, your exclude these studies! You’d know that if you’ve taken the time to read it. An unreferenced piece of opinion of laughs are not evidence of anything. Show the real objection for the in vitro studies and basic research.

        • Acleron

          What basic research? Those unrepeatable gene expression studies?

          • T-500
          • Acleron

            As I said, those unrepeatable gene expression reports.

            If you were capable of reading those studies then you might have realised that there is insufficient detail to replicate whatever they were doing.

          • T-500

            What does mean “insufficient”?

            Most homeopathic experimental trials are very rigoruos. Not is the case from the vast majority of conventional experiments in biochemistry.

          • Acleron

            The complete cobblers.

            The ‘basic’ science of homeopathy is so badly done it is difficult to find a place to start criticising it. Lack of valid controls, zero description of materials, invalid statistical methods and papers that are impossible to replicate.

            Only a homeopath would claim this was scientific. And your ludicrous claim that this is better than most biochemistry research merely demonstrates your bottomless ignorance of all science.

          • What does mean “insufficient”?

            Are you literally so dim witted that you can’t find a definition for a single word?

        • Correct. Your not ignore these studies, your exclude these studies!

          Words are hard for you. :/

          • Acleron

            Hey, that’s not fair, Eggar has lots of words and occasionally they come out in the right order.

          • I didn’t say they didn’t. Egger just finds them hard. The order, general meanings, what happens when one is used in the context of another. How to search for the meaning of words or pairs of words themselves…

          • T-500

            Thank you for confirm your biased agenda from the tiny pseudo-skeptic business!

    • sabelmouse

      i think we know why and what ernst is.

      • Yes. The most qualified and widely-cited researcher into pseudomedical bullshit in the world.

        • edzard ernst

          I see!
          diluted ad hominem attacks by homeopaths are even more powerful?!?

        • T-500

          No. Your correct sentence may be:

          The most qualified and widely-cited manipulator of data into mass media, “skeptic” forums club, friends papers, and “skeptic” blog cults.

    • Mark Mattingly

      Isn’t it “convenient” that Ullman ignores the dozens of studies showing that homeopathy has no effect. French pediatricians prescribing placebos or homeopathic remedies is not ethical. It just goes to show that there is much improvement needed in their system.

      • Dana Ullman

        What a truly serious case of denial. According to the World Health Organization, France has the BEST medical care in the world! Perhaps another countries will experience better medical care if homeopathy was practiced by a similar number of physicians as it is practiced in France!

        These skeptics embarrass themselves ALL of the time…and they make me laugh in their denial of good health care.

        • Mark Mattingly

          I’m not saying that they have a bad system, but it could be better. You seem to think that somehow prescribing placebos makes their system better. Homeopaths embarrass themselves ALL the time…and they make me laugh in their denial of good health care.

          • Dana Ullman

            This is “denial in action.” Calling homeopathy “placebo” ignores the wide body of scientific evidence (how do skeptics explain the effects on gene expression from homeopathic medicines?…they do so by ignoring the queston!)…how do skeptics ignore the body of high quality clinical research on homeopathy?…they attack the “poor” studies and ignore the good ones! And it goes on like this.

            Skeptics consistently show an unscientific attitude of ignorance and denial…and of course, they create the straw man argument all of the time.

          • Your logical fallacy is: cherry picking.

            When the data is analysed in totality, we find the following:

            1. There is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work. It is founded on the doctrine that like cures like but this is not supported by any body of fact. There is no evidence that symptomatic similarity forms any basis of cure, and no property of matter by which such a process might work.

            2. There is no way it can work. The claims of homeopathy are inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, all of quantum mechanics and human biochemistry and physiology. You cite as “proof” a series of usually unrepeatable papers published by True Believers, often (as with Chikramane, for example) riddled with schoolboy errors; these studies are analogous to weaving a carpet with aluminium threads and claiming that because aircraft are also aluminium, thus the carpet can fly.

            3. There is no proof it does work. All observed facts are fully consistent with the null hypothesis. Clinical trials cannot, by their very nature, refute this hypothesis and in any case it is repeatably shown that the more carefully bias is eliminated, the less likely a clinical trial is to produce a positive result. There is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy alone has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

            Homeopathy is a cult. It is as real as the massive crowds at Trump’s inauguration, and you are the Sean Spicer to Samuel Hahnemann’s Donald Trump.

          • Dana Ullman

            It’s again so convenient that Ernst ignores the FACT that the homeopathic company WON that court case because a ear, nose, and throat physician who was independent from the company conducted a double-blind and placebo controlled trial that proved that the homeopathic medicine worked. The judge didn’t need reference to other homeopathic research. We WON…plain and simple.

          • Wonderful news!

            Then you’ll have no problem citing this trial so that we can all see this evidence, right? You WON…plain and simple….so….kindly get on with it. You have nothing to lose.

          • Acleron
          • JGC

            Dana, why are you mistaking a legal ruling for clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy?

          • Acleron

            That court had serious reservations about the efficacy of that product. It found in the defendants favour because the law demanded the burden of proof from the plaintiff. As you appear as full of misinformation on legal matters as homeopathy, let me spell that out for you. The plaintiff has to prove the product doesn’t work. So even though they presented no evidence, the court still had reservations about the product.

            In the UK, it is the reverse. A company has to provide evidence to support their advertised claims. I’d welcome Dana as an expert witness for the defence to a prosecution of a homeopath for false claims. It would secure a conviction.

          • I read that and encountered something rather odd.

            At no point was the PMID number or title mentioned of this double-blind study – why ever not? You WON, plain and simple, remember?

          • Mike Stevens

            ^^^ This

          • edzard ernst

            DENIAL IN ACTION???
            it is you who seems to be the world leader in this – don’t take my word for it, take that of an Us judge who had you before him as an ‘expert’ witness. Here is what he stated:
            “The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.
            […]
            Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.” (Rosendez v. Green Pharmaceuticals)

          • T-500

            Attack the credibility quoting a legal sentence is a poor strategy. Scientific manipulation of the data is worst!

            chiromt.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2045-709X-20-30

            “To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst […] The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23521332

            “The article contains serious flaws. Although some of them are purely formal, they cast grave doubts on the validity of the piece as such. Some of them are factually wrong. The authors speak of 38 primary reports they analysed. However, in the result section, they mentioned 35 studies. The list of homeopathic remedies included contains misprints. For instance, ‘Pentackan Sinnabaum’ does not exist. The correct name is ‘Cinnabaris Pentarkan’. In Table 1 (p. 1182), a case study by Geukens (2001) is quoted, where causality of adverse events is attributed as ‘Almost certain’, concomitant treatment is given as ‘not mentioned’, the adverse events are said to have been ‘heart disease and bladder cancer’, as a consequence of the homeo- pathic remedies (2). Looking at the original publication one finds:”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828

            “In 2000, Ernst and Pittler [6] sought to invalidate the statistically significant superiority of homeopathy over placebo in the 10 studies with the highest Jadad score. The odds ratio, as presented by Linde et al. in 1999 [3], was 2.00 (1.37–2.91). The new argument was that the Jadad score and odds ratio in favor of homeopathy seemed to follow a straight line (in fact, it is asymptotic at both ends). Hence, Ernst and Pittler [6] claimed that the highest Jadad scores should theoretically show zero effect. This reasoning argued that the assumed data are more correct than the real data.

            Only a cult of pressumible “skeptic” club groupies still claim there that your papers was any validity to that joke of a “Science editors” and the way it reviewed itself.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, it’s not a “placebo”.
            …It’s an elaborate placebo.

          • This is “denial in action.”

            @danaullman:disqus, you are the personification of this…

          • JGC

            Calling homeopathy ‘placebo’ indicates that it is exactly as effective, no more and no less, as something that is known tto have no beneficial therapeutic effect at all.

          • Dana Ullman

            Skeptics of homeopathy are so unscientific and so biased that they are uninformed and ill-informed about placebo. This mis-informed skeptic actually asserts that a placebo has NO effect at all. Really?! A placebo is well-known to have many effects. That said, for those of us who follow clinical studies, there are many studies on homepathy that have shown efficacy of homeopathic medicines, including studies published in the Lancet, BMJ, Pediatrics, Cancer, Chest, Rheumatology, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, European Journal of Pediatrics, amongst many others.

            Skeptics embarrass themselves consistently…

          • JGC

            Placebos by definition are interventions which have no physiologic effects themselves, Dana.

            It’s those who receive placebos that’s exhibit a placebo effect: a false subjective perception of an improvement in their symptoms.

          • Acleron

            Dana up to his rhetorical tricks once again.

            We taught you that products with no active ingredients still produced populations with improvements, that’s why we use them as controls. To show benefit, the effects on a population have to be above the placebo.

            That MPH you proudly tout, didn’t teach you much.

        • You claim that France having the best healthcare validates homeopathy.

          One word: Benfluorex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex

          You fail again.

          • Dana Ullman

            Anyone who believes that Wikipedia is a place for “accuracy” believes in “alternative facts.” No college allows people to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Skeptics of homeopathy again FAIL (no surprise!).

          • Acleron

            Dana had an unfortunate experience on Wikipedia. His quotemine technique backfired when he tried it on the author of the original text, the result was rather amusing.

          • Mike Stevens

            I believe Dana has given up trying to edit Wikipedia like he used to do in the past. I wonder why he bothered, seeing as how he thinks it is inaccurate and unworthy of citation.

          • I believe Dana has given up trying to edit Wikipedia like he used to do in the past.

            Likely related to him being banned for editing for a year.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman_banned

            That was a while back, but it appears he learnt his lesson.

            Trying to pimp poor quality research just doesn’t fly on Wikipedia.

          • Mike Stevens

            This isn’t a “college”, Dana, but an Internet discussion.
            Wikipedia will provide citations, so you can look there for the source information.
            Try it sometime.

          • Anyone who believes that Wikipedia is a place for “accuracy” believes in “alternative facts.”

            I doubt anyone in the Trump administration would use Wikipedia as a reference. I’m surprised Trump hasn’t started attempting to scrub it the way he is doing with the various science heavy departments that he disagrees with.

            As for the “no colleges” statement, that’s been covered.

            @danaullman:disqus, you’re just losing the game.

          • T-500

            Dear Guy:

            Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Be more professional.
            In my country, if an elementary college student quote wikipedia the work is considered garbage.

          • Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Be more professional.

            You do know that the veracity of a page on wikipedia lives and dies on its cited sources, right?

            Rather than being incredibly lazy and dismissive perhaps you could take the time to invalidate the cited sources on that page, and correct it in the process making it a more useful resource for all of us.

            What’s easier?

            This:

            One word: Benfluorex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex

            …or this?

            Moulin, P.; Andre, M.; Alawi, H.; dos Santos, L. C.; Khalid, A. K.; Koev, D.; Moore, R.; Serban, V.; et al. (2006). “Efficacy of Benfluorex in Combination with Sulfonylurea in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: An 18-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind Study”. Diabetes Care. 29 (3): 515–520. doi:10.2337/diacare.29.03.06.dc05-1439. PMID 16505498.

            Roger, P.; Auclair, J.; Drain, P. (1999). “Addition of Benfluorex to Biguanide Improves Glycemic Control in Obese Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes: A Double-Blind Study versus Placebo”. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 13 (2): 62–67. doi:10.1016/S1056-8727(98)00004-X. PMID 10432168.

            Mullard, A. (2011). “Mediator Scandal Rocks French Medical Community” (pdf). Lancet. 377 (9769): 890–892. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60334-6. PMID 21409784.

            “European Medicines Agency recommends withdrawal of benfluorex from the market in European Union” (pdf). European Medicines Agency. 2009-12-18.

            Frachon, I. N.; Etienne, Y.; Jobic, Y.; Le Gal, G. G.; Humbert, M.; Leroyer, C.; Lexchin, J. (2010). Lexchin, J., ed. “Benfluorex and Unexplained Valvular Heart Disease: A Case-Control Study”. PLoS ONE. 5 (4): e10128. Bibcode:2010PLoSO…510128F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010128. PMC 2853566Freely accessible. PMID 20405030.

            Weill, A.; Païta, M.; Tuppin, P.; Fagot, J. P.; Neumann, A.; Simon, D.; Ricordeau, P.; Montastruc, J. L.; Allemand, H. (2010). “Benfluorex and Valvular Heart Disease: A Cohort Study of a Million People with Diabetes Mellitus”. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 19 (12): 1256–1262. doi:10.1002/pds.2044. PMID 20945504.

            “France braced for diabetic drug scandal report”. BBC News. 2011-01-11.

            Connolly, H. M.; Crary, J. L.; McGoon, M. D.; Hensrud, D. D.; Edwards, B. S.; Edwards, W. D.; Schaff, H. V. (1997). “Valvular Heart Disease Associated with Fenfluramine-Phentermine”. New England Journal of Medicine. 337 (9): 581–588. doi:10.1056/NEJM199708283370901. PMID 9271479.

            Weissman, N. J. (2001). “Appetite Suppressants and Valvular Heart Disease”. American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 321 (4): 285–291. doi:10.1097/00000441-200104000-00008. PMID 11307869.

            In my country, if an elementary college student quote wikipedia the work is considered garbage.

            I’m not sure how you would know that given how you post.

            As for quoting wikipedia, that’s absolutely fair enough. It doesn’t preclude wikipedia being a good starting point and exploring the cited references from there.

          • T-500

            Serious institutes do not consult Wikipedia. Quoting list of references is not warranty of bias, misinterpration or manipulation from Guy champan group of cultist. Wikipedia is the worst point.

          • Brian

            Could you stop with the deflections and answer my simple question, please?
            Do you admit that high dilutions in homeopathic remedies contain zero molecules of the active ingredient?

          • Serious institutes do not consult Wikipedia.

            Are you genetically predisposed to missing the point?

          • Acleron

            If you have access to the primary sources then sure, use those rather than wikipedia. However, the quality of the Homeopathy page is very good, it became better when Dana was stopped from introducing misinformation referenced to his own books of misinformation.

          • Hmm… What happens when a very good source is cited on Wikipedia? Does it magically become unreliable? Because that appears to be the consequence of the attitude @t_500:disqus is advocating.

            You’d think these people would think through the consequences of their claims a little better.

          • Acleron

            Homeopaths judge the quality of a source purely on the result. Thus a puff piece by Dana is higher quality than a metastudy such as Shang et al.

          • T-500

            Serious schools recomend not quote the Wikipedia. If you mantain low standards is your problem, not me.

          • Serious schools recomend not quote the Wikipedia. If you mantain low standards is your problem, not me.

            You don’t actually read the replies posted to you, do you? Or perhaps, more likely, you don’t understand them.

          • T-500

            “You don’t actually read the replies posted to you, do you? Or perhaps, more likely, you don’t understand them.”

            I’ve read ALL replies, I was unable to found any logic sentence. I found, however, the same uncritical and joke assessment from utterly biased 4 trolls (Tea head cup, Acleron, Alan Henness and Gold). Only some comments that I was seen, may be very useful for me!

          • Acleron

            Hardly surprising you didn’t find any logic, you’d have to understand the concept first.

          • I’ve read ALL replies
            Ah… It is a reading comprehension thing then.

            I understand now.

          • T-500

            No, I understand you biases.

          • Then explain how I’ve gotten good marks from a college (British meaning) using the cited sources of Wikipedia.

            Explain why some of my textbooks from the same place contain cited sources from the cites of wikipedia.

          • T-500

            In my country Wikipedia is a the worst source of information. Maybe, in some countries may exists unqualified people quoting wikipedia as true academic source. In the other hand, some books quote wikipedia sources as comparative only when the data is consistent with basic facts, for example the name of people, birthdate or when the author object the false data from wikipedia.
            The vas majority wikipedia itself is a low-quality and umbalanced source.
            Wikipedia is a not peer review.

          • I never said it was peer review.

            However, it does cite peer-reviewed sources.

          • T-500

            If Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, is a bullshit.

          • Again, it *cites* peer-reviewed sources.

          • T-500

            Yes, however any hand the source. Or distorted the sources. Wikipedia is a bullshit!

            In many colleges, or serious colleges, wikipedia is the worst source can them quote. In the pseudo-skeptic world the wikipedia is the most reliable source. Think in the differences.

          • Yeah, see, wikipedia cites the sources so you can go check and see if it quotemined sources.

          • T-500

            Yes, I saw the all quotes. The vast majority of resources were those directed from “blogs”, news papers, edzard ernst “papers”, and so.

          • You can at least see if it quotemined sources – which is far better than Natural News et al.

          • T-500

            Some peer review and cherry picked sources. WikiBullshit.

          • Evidence for this?

          • T-500

            vast

          • Vast?

          • shay simmons

            Half-vast.

          • ???

          • shay simmons

            Say it out loud, quickly 🙂

          • Anatomy reference?

          • shay simmons

            Give that lady a cigar.

          • T-500

            Majority?

          • ??

          • T-500

            ¡¡

        • Acleron

          The WHO also say that homeopathy does not work, I presume you have such faith in them that you believe that too.

          France has one of the highest spends per capita on healthcare, that in itself is adequate reason for their outcome success.

        • Wow! Imagine how France would have EVEN BETTER medical care if doctors were NOT prescribing homeopathy.

        • Mike Stevens

          Dana, I heard from you once that the majority of medical treatments used in India are homeopathic remedies.
          So how come India isn’t #1 in the world for medical care according to WHO?

          • Dana, I heard from you once that the majority of medical treatments used in India are homeopathic remedies.
            So how come India isn’t #1 in the world for medical care according to WHO?

            I’ve heard this claim from @danaullman:disqus too. It’s also demonstrably wrong.

            The National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation released their key indicators of Social Consumption in India: Health paper. It grouped Homeopathy into AYUSH which was grouped into “Other”.

            Inclination towards allopathy treatment was prevalent (around 90% in both the sectors). Only 5 to 7 percent usage of ‘other’ including AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga or Naturopathy Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy) was reported both in rural and urban area. Moreover, un-treated spell was higher in rural (both for male and female) than urban areas.

            So, in India, according to the statistics collected, Homeopathy is a fraction (part of AYUSH) of a fraction (part of “Other”) of 5-7%.

            The Analysis: http://www.thehinducentre.com/resources/article7378862.ece
            The Report it is based on: http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_pr_health_30june15.pdf

    • Mike Stevens

      One main reason for giving kids a placebo is that it often is a great choice for a completely trivial problem that mommy is desperate to get little Johnny treatment for.

    • So, Dana, on a scale of “convenience”, where would you place it? Is it comparable to claiming Darwin was saved by homeopathy despite the fact that he openly mocked it in his letters and left the homeopathist for a different doctor long before Origin was published? Is it up at the level of promoting a 1991 analysis with a conclusion you like even after being told to your face by the lead author that his own 1999 re-analysis of the same data made the conclusion you like, untenable? Is it as “convenient” as ignoring the refutation of Hahnemann’s basis for the doctrine of similars, with the discovery of the plasmodium falciparum parasite and the fact that quinine kills this parasite? Is it as “convenient” as the bait-and-switch used by the proponents of oscillococcinum, who have airbrushed out the non-existent oscillococcus bacterium from their fabulist account of their magic nostrum?

      Tell you what, why don’t you produce a single concrete example where homeopathy has tested a remedy that is in use, found it not to work as was thought, and abandoned it?

      Or is homeopathy, alone among all human endeavours, infallible?

      • Dana Ullman

        And what were the RESULTS that Charles Darwin experienced from homeopathy…and WHO was Darwin’s most favorite doctor (a homeopathic physician!). Read about it here (published in a peer-review journal): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816387/

        • T-500

          Interesting work.
          I will read these. Thanks Dana.

        • Acleron

          Published in a non peer reviewed altmed magazine, the only place apart from huffpo you can write this nonsense.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    I’ve used homeopathy for 20 years. It has been so successful, so safe and so satisfying that it’s now my primary form of medicine. I turn to it first before anything else, and it has never let me down. It’s also inexpensive. It cured my high blood pressure and high intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma, and it did it permanently, safely and inexpensively. I often choose a remedy for an acute condition and have had the same successful experiences.

    So sad to see anyone attempt to influence the public against this superb system of medicine which has save so many thousands of lives, improved quality of life for so many millions and not bankrupted them in the process.

    • edzard ernst

      “superb system of medicine…” how come then that the evidence on homeopathy is less than convincing?

      • Laurie J. Willberg

        You know repeating this “no evidence” meme has been established as a distractive con game, the underlying meaning being that chemical-based drugs have an evidence base of effectiveness. They actually don’t, and the empirical evidence shows they don’t. Long term studies show they don’t. In fact long term studies show that people have spent millions of $$ on unsafe and ineffective drugs. This is not the case with Homeopathy and trying to distract people from the drug fraud with diatribes against Homeopathy isn’t going to fix that.

        • edzard ernst

          we are not talking about ‘chemical based drugs’ but about homeopathy. I have posted the evidence on this blog. up to you to post evidence to the contrary, if you have any.

        • Tetenterre

          Ms Willberg, have you considered that all homeopathic ‘remedies’ are “chemical based”. The chemicals concerned are usually (but not limited to) water, ethanol, lactose and sucrose. And, as recent reports have indicated, methanol and atropine.

          Just wondering, do you actually know what the word “chemical” means?

        • You know repeating this “no evidence” meme has been established as a distractive con game…

          But, it’s your primary mechanism of “disproving” the science against homeopathy.

          The difference is when we use it our facts stand up to scrutiny. When you use it you have to use the “jangly keys” approach to showing the evidence for your position.

          It’s not our fault you embrace a post-truth world.

    • Just as well you have not had any illness that actually required medical intervention.

      Here’s what happens when people who are actually ill, rely on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f8eVkPJdtQ

      • T-500

        When I read the Dingle legal case, the most probably explanation of her death is the poor diet, not homeopathy. I found similar cases quoted in the media. Please, stop your selling biased propaganda. Dingle is death, she need peace.

        • Tetenterre

          Seriously, are you really blaming “poor diet”? Do you expect anyone with sufficient neurones to form a synapse to give that idiotic statement any credibility? Penelope Dingle died in the manner she did because one of the many touts for pseudomedicine who prey on the vulnerable and desperate persuaded her to pay for pseudomedicine instead of accepting either the surgery that would almost certainly have prolonged her life or the palliative care that would have made its end less unpleasant.

          If anything, this tragic case should serve as a stark reminder that homeopathy is not a “medical modality”, but a “marketing modality”. For snake oil.

          • T-500

            ” Do you expect anyone with sufficient neurones to form a synapse to give that idiotic statement any credibility? “

            Obviousluy you’re not the case with sufficient neurones. In each post about homeopathy, you apperar as the typical troll.

            “Penelope Dingle died in the manner she did because one of the many touts for pseudomedicine who prey on the vulnerable and desperate persuaded her to pay for pseudomedicine instead of accepting either the surgery that would almost certainly have prolonged her life or the palliative care that would have made its end less unpleasant.”

            Your emotive fairy tale is very convicent for angry and sectarian pseudoskeptics. The dingle case curiously appear in the mass media when the war of homeopathy begans in UK, when the Goldacre and Coulqhoun promted you “skeptickal” bussiness. Don’r forget the context! The tiny conspirators are frequently fools. Same pattern, same tactics.

            The Dingle case is not “realiable” evidence, is anecdotal case. Apply your own logic, cheat!

          • Tetenterre

            I rest my case.

          • T-500
          • The Dingle case is not “realiable” evidence, is anecdotal case. Apply your own logic, cheat!

            Actually, Penelope Dingle’s case is amazingly well documented. Your claim is incorrect.

          • T-500

            “Actually, Penelope Dingle’s case is amazingly well documented. Your claim is incorrect.”

            Is an anecdote. Not RCT.
            The case was highly publicited when Ben Goldacre and Davind Coulqhoun put your finger vs homeopathy. Your best anecdotes are: Dingle and Gloria Sam case. Two cases only when the war against homeopahy begans again!

          • “Actually, Penelope Dingle’s case is amazingly well documented. Your claim is incorrect.”
            Is an anecdote. Not RCT.

            It’s a coroner’s report.

            Your level of insensitivity to an avoidable death is pathetic and sad. You are, unfortunately, a typical example of the rabid homeopathy supporter. A horrible example of humanity.

          • T-500

            “It’s a coroner’s report.”

            Yes, but it’s anecdotal evidence.

            “Your level of insensitivity to an avoidable death is pathetic and sad. You are, unfortunately, a typical example of the rabid homeopathy supporter. A horrible example of humanity.”

            More garbage from pseudoskeptic emotive propaganda. Take you example with emotive words as “horrible”, “insensitivity” or “sad”. These are typical propaganda from mass bullshit funded by the Big Pharma and Big Agro and Big Pseudoskeptic bussiness.

          • “It’s a coroner’s report.”

            Yes, but it’s anecdotal evidence.

            #FTFY

  • Laurie J. Willberg

    “A non-treatment of a serious condition is inevitably life-threatening”. This is very amusing because mainstream medicine has NO treatment or cure for any of the conditions listed here. But in the meantime Homeopathy has reams of empirical evidence of having successfully treated ALL of these conditions.

    • edzard ernst

      ” mainstream medicine has NO treatment …” I think this can only be called an ‘alternative truth’

      • Laurie J. Willberg

        Please share with us the mainstream medical treatments (especially the cures) for the conditions listed in the article. We’re waiting…

        • shay simmons

          The fact that I can’t take a 747 to the moon does not prove that your flying carpet works.

        • Let’s start with the first listed, asthma.

          * Omalizumab (anti-IgE) helps prevent the autoimmune response to asthma triggers.
          * Inhaled corticosteroids, with or without long-acting beta2-agonists, reduce inflammatory response and prevent attacks.
          * Leukotriene modifiers help block the inflammatory pathways.
          * Inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists suppress inflammatory reactions and provide rapid relief.

          In addition, most asthma patients will have a personalised treatment plan, and will use peak flow meters and other techniques to adjust their medication to the point that they have the minimum dose consistent with preventing or controlling symptoms.

          Medicine does not have a *cure* for asthma yet (and of course neither does homeopathy). However, it is not far-fetched to think that time may not be far off, and certainly new treatments based on discoveries around the signalling pathways that cause asthma are already leading to new potential treatments.

          Here’s a list of all the insights homeopathy has provided into the causes, triggers, mechanisms, and treatment of asthma:

          I didn’t miss any.

        • The article also lists measles. There is this thing called “vaccination”. Ever heard of it? By introducing a measurable quantity of the relevant proteins, an immune response is triggered which renders most of those treated, immune to the disease.

          Measles was virtually eradicated from the UK until Wakefield committed probably the worst scientific fraud in living memory. Prevention is better than cure, isn’t it?

          Here’s a list of the insights homeopathy has provided into the causes, treatment and prevention of measles:

          I didn’t miss any.

        • Bleeding is listed. Mainstream medical treatments for that include a range of wound closure techniques including sutures, staples and glues. If the bleeding is uncontrollable, the cause may be haemophilia, which was uniformly fatal until medicine isolated the clotting factors and administered them as a treatment.

          It is now possible to conduct genetic tests for haemophilia, and prevent the disease by fertilising eggs in vitro and implanting only those which do not carry the genetic markers.

          Here’s a list of the insights homeopathy has provided into the causes, treatment and prevention of bleeding:

          I didn’t miss any.

        • The article mentions Ebola. Ebola virus was isolated by medical researchers like Peter Piot. It’s a member of a family of viruses also including Marburg virus. Its method of transmission is now well understood, its likely origin established with reasonable confidence, and a vaccine (prevention, better than cure) is now available which is 70%-100% effective. Medicine also provides effective containment and anti-infection practices.

          The untreated fatality rate is around 90% or more. Medical treatment reduces to maybe 50%, but that’s dependent on age and prior health. Some estimates put this as low as 25% for cases caught early enough.

          Here’s a list of the insights homeopathy has provided into the causes, treatment and prevention of Ebola virus disease, and a complete list of cases cured by homeopathy:

          I didn’t miss any.

        • edzard ernst

          firstly, I did not state ‘cure’, and secondly, if you want to know the best treatments for these conditions, you ought to study medicine.

          • Laurie J. Willberg

            You’re not going to wiggle out that easily. You imply that mainstream treatments exist and /are superior, so you’re on the hook to delineate which ones. You claim to be a medical expert so let’s see what you got.

          • I listed some above for you. But you could save yourself some embarrassment by simply checking Google before taking aim at your feet and letting fly with both barrels.

          • You’re not going to wiggle out that easily.

            @edzardernst:disqus isn’t wiggling out. He’s given a perfectly reasonable answer.

        • Mike Stevens

          On the list: Chickenpox.

          This disease, which used to kill 100-150 people a year in the USA, can cause encephalitis with brain damage, pneumonitis, and latent infection in the CNS leads to shingles.

          Medical science discovered the cause, a DNA virus termed Varicella zoster virus, one of the Herpes virus family.
          Medical science investigated the virus replication process, and identified a step requiring an enzyme called thymidine kinase.
          Medical science produced a group of drugs capable of inhibiting thymidine kinase which is highly effective at treating varicella infection and its complications.
          Medical science has also produced an effective vaccine to prevent the infection.

          Here’s a list of the insights homeopathy has provided into the causes, treatment and prevention of chickenpox/shingles:
          1.

          As Guy would note, I haven’t missed any.

    • I see you subscribe to the Trump administration approach of holding “alternative facts”.

      This is very amusing because mainstream medicine has NO treatment or cure for any of the conditions listed here.

      Well that’s just plain false in every case from any reasonable position. There are treatments where there aren’t cures. There are also vaccinations that will allow the body to be primed to fight off the worst of these before they become an issue for the host.

      But in the meantime Homeopathy has reams of empirical evidence of having successfully treated ALL of these conditions.

      There are many, many low powered, very poor quality studies showing homeopathy has treated the listed conditions. When it comes to homeopathy in general though, when the scientific rigour of the researchers is improved and the trial methodology improved the effect of positive outcomes goes away.

      While there are a couple of good quality studies out there that show a positive outcome for homeopathy the vast bulk do not. And when you get enough research you will start to get the occasional false positive. These are what is likely to be posted to demonstrate that homeopathy “works”. In fact they are likely to claim that the author of this post even agrees by linking to an article he wrote for CSICOP. What they won’t mention is that his conclusion was that it happened due to one of 2 things;
      1. Pure chance (actual false positive)
      2. Fraud (false positive because it made it into the literature, but still fraud)

      So while the author has conceded in the past that these papers exist he doesn’t concede his position given the number of good quality papers that have not found this to be real.

      • T-500

        CSICOP articles are not based on rigoruous peer review. CSICOP magazines are as the fake magazines sold in the streets. I check the new book of Ernst, my friend pass a full hard copy of it. In the chapter 3: “myths about homeopathy” I can see this joke statement:

        “All homeopathic remedies are highly diluted. Most have indeed undergone serial dilution, but some are not highly diluted and can, in fact, contain considerable amounts of active ingredients.”

        “There are several plausible explanations as to the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Currently, there are several theories about the mode of action, but none of them has been generally accepted outside the realm of homeopathy.

        “There are several theories which might go some way to explaining how homeopathy works. As mentioned above, these are currently just theories, and none provides a full explanation of the mechanism of action of highly diluted remedies. Yet, the claim that homeopathy is totally implausible might be an exaggeration. Moreover, not all homeopathic remedies are highly diluted and thus some can contain pharmacologically active compounds for affecting human health; they cannot therefore be classified as implausible.”

        “There Is No Credible Evidence at all that Supports Homeopathy: Several well-conducted clinical studies of homeopathy with positive results have been published. It is therefore not true to claim that there is no good trial evidence at all.

        I take a full and detailed read the book. All my impression is that I see the lack of basic research references in the Reference section. These guy (Ernst) tried a sloppy excerise of pseudo neutrality. Yes, there are several theories about of mechanisms action but some papers were published in conventional journals, outside the realm of homeopathy! An example, in the Nature-Springer journals:

        link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13237-014-0105-0

        worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500057

      • T-500

        “Fraud (false positive because it made it into the literature, but still fraud)”

        Fraud need prove, not vague speculations.

        • “Fraud (false positive because it made it into the literature, but still fraud)”

          Fraud need prove, not vague speculations.

          Indeed it does. Now apply that same attitude to Homeopathy.

          • T-500

            “Indeed it does. Now apply that same attitude to Homeopathy.”

            Nasty claims = not evidence.
            Share the links with “reliable” demonstration of fraud in all paper published with positive effects of homeopathy over placebo effect. The conditions are:

            1) Paper with references (not wikipedia)
            2) Paper published on peer review journal.
            3) Paper offering a “reliable” debunk.
            4) The authors need declare free of vested interests or pseudoskeptic “activism” or sectarian behaviour (any person with affiliation to the non-scientific marketing bussiness as American Council on Science and Health, Science 2.0, National Council on Health Against Fraud, False Memory Syndrome Foundation, Genetic Literacy CSICOP Kevin-Folta websites, “Science Based Medicine”, James Randi Foundation, European Council of PseudoSkeptics, Institute of Ideas, Sense About Science, AllTrials, Friends of Science in Medicine, Nightingale Collaboration, Meyerside Skeptics, and lot of quackery clubs with bussines or relations with “Prometus Books” or”Center for Inquiry”).

          • Nasty claims = not evidence.

            Indeed, they’re not. Please stop them.

            Share the links with “reliable” demonstration of fraud in all paper published with positive effects of homeopathy over placebo effect. The conditions are:

            They’ve been shared time and time again. You refuse to accept them.

            There is no helping you.

          • T-500

            “They’ve been shared time and time again. You refuse to accept them. There is no helping you”

            When?
            Please, post the links. I only accept peer reviewed papers, not bullshit from “skeptic” magazines or pseudoskeptic blogs. Thank you.

          • “They’ve been shared time and time again. You refuse to accept them. There is no helping you”

            When?
            Please, post the links.

            Let me rephrase that: They’ve been shared with you time and time again. You refuse to accept them. There is no helping you. If you want to check them again though just look through your own account history when you are replying to anyone that posted links refuting your position.

          • T-500

            No, share the links that prove your point.

          • No, share the links that prove your point.

            Fine, here they are. You may have to filter for the actual links yourself. But you should be familiar with the material and are likely the best person to do that efficiently.

          • T-500

            The link is not a proof. Please, share the proof ot the “noise of data” in the ALL papers that were posted in my comments. Remember, ALL papers, the “debunk” must be appear in a peer review journal.

  • rosross

    While the most effective Homeopathic treatment will come from a qualified Homeopathic doctor, the fact remains that for some acute situations, Homeopathic medicine can be helpful, although sensible people ensure they do enough research to know what is appropriate and what is not.

    I personally do not feel Homeopathic medicine should be sold over-the-counter, not because it is harmful, because it is not, but because unless one knows what they are doing, the medication is less likely to be effective and Homeopathy does not treat symptoms but individuals.

    If there is anything irresponsible about the above advice, it is that it promotes self-prescribing for Homeopathy, which is not true to the modality and not likely to be truly effective, and, if the dosage is incorrect, can confuse a symptom picture.

    Homeopathic medicine is non-toxic and will do no harm, unlike the many over-the-counter medications people can and do purchase from pharmacies, in similar circumstances.

    Homeopathy certainly has effect and another problem with self-prescribing is that unless people get the dosage right, they will achieve little or nothing. In addition, unless people dose appropriately, and that means they need to be well-informed, they can trigger a ‘proving’ situation and promote additional symptoms.

    • edzard ernst

      repeating the notion that homeopathy is ‘effective’ does not make it effective – show us the evidence!

      • BBF

        Sticking one’s head in the sand doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. You know it’s there, you just stamp your feet and demand like a child, Ernst.

        • edzard ernst

          it doesn’t get better than this!!!
          insisting on evidence is now branded by homeopathy-believers as “Sticking one’s head in the sand” COMEDY GOLD!

        • Mike Stevens

          Prof Ernst has spent his life studying the evidence.
          The petulance seems to be all on your side of the screen.

        • T-500

          Most correctly:

          Ernst = Kinder

          • edzard ernst

            you lost me – try making at least a minimum of sense!

          • T-500

            “you lost me – try making at least a minimum of sense!”

            You have confirmed my suspect!

            Ernst = Kinder.

      • Laurie J. Willberg

        How about 200 plus years of empirical evidence and an over 80% cure rate? That’s what patients are interested in. Not speculations and dithering about who agrees with which research studies. And, BTW the homeopathic research you disagree with is on par with the vaccine research studies the manufacturers like to point to as proof that vaccines work… You need to eat crow.

        • Brian

          “How about 200 plus years of empirical evidence”

          The evidence shows us that homeopathy doesn’t work.

          • T-500

            “The evidence shows us that homeopathy doesn’t work.”

            What is most rigorous peer reviewed evidence in cells?
            What is most rigorous peer reviewed evidence in animals?
            What is most rigorous peer reviewed evidence in humans?

        • edzard ernst

          yes, what about it?
          if one combines the evidence while assessing its reliability via a systematic review, the efficacy of homeopathy remains unproven.

          • T-500

            When I read your all “reviews”, I was able to confirm the Hahn evaluation. You are shown severe signs of bias, exclusion of high quality evidence based on your virtual data (not in real data) or based in the cartoon of popperian falsability. My conclusion is: your works are a big lot of unscientific ideology.

        • 2,000 years of empirical evidence showed bloodletting and purging worked.

          Then we developed the scientific method and found that they didn’t.

          The same methods show that homeopathy also doesn’t work.

          • T-500

            Guy, your argument is fallacious

            Old Bloodletting was full abandoned. Homepathy not.

          • Guy, your argument is fallacious

            Old Bloodletting was full abandoned. Homepathy not.

            Give it time… People are coming around.

          • T-500

            “Give it time… People are coming around.”

            The only thing that you (and your sectarian friends) can doing is the use of biased propaganda on mass media, not for the natural course of the personal experiences.

          • “Give it time… People are coming around.”

            The only thing that you (and your sectarian friends) can doing is the use of biased propaganda on mass media, not for the natural course of the personal experiences.

            So… no refutation that people are coming around. Got it.

            As for biased propaganda…

            We have to be biased towards something. We are. I think any of us would admit that. We’re biased towards the science and where that leads us regardless of how uncomfortable that is.

            And propaganda? I doubt that “reporting on the science” could be considered misleading. Suppressing it, as you are advocating for in a number of your posts… This is more your thing than a thing the pro-science side would resort to.

          • T-500

            More piece of opinion.. is not a valid debunk. Gold comments:

            -Lack or argument.
            -Lack of peer review references.
            -Lack of logic.

            The same pattern in ALL post!

    • shay simmons

      Homeopathic medicine is non-toxic and will do nothing harm

      FTFY.

      • Acleron
        • shay simmons
        • T-500

          The link post the concentration of solvent. Homeopaths not use “methanol” in 90%.

          • Acleron

            They are not supposed to use methanol but this particular error is a consequence of lack of quality control.

          • T-500

            These error was a consequence of the intentions of she to kill him. Not from the lack of regulation.

          • Acleron

            That is not what the report says.

          • T-500

            The report says that homeopathy kill him? No.

          • Acleron

            As you appear to wish to lie about this let us be very clear.

            The methanol laced product came from a supplier of homeopathic ‘medicines’. It is a glaring example of the lack of concern about quality control. It isn’t the only one.

          • T-500

            Homeopathy is no the criminal, is the person that kill him!
            You wan use cherry picked of any signal of provocative “dangers” of homeopathy. Obviously, these is your work from NC: the trolling. I understand your lack of understaing on science. You can need read the tiny letters:

            “the homeopathy medicine added to the deadly liquor mix that claimed six lives”

            “Usually, homeopathy medicine contains ethyl alcohol and not methanol”

          • Acleron

            So the homeopathic medicine contained methanol. Zero quality control and zero good manufacturing practice, methanol should not be anywhere near the preparation of a medicine designed for dispensing.

            What’s the matter Eggar, was it your company that made the mistake?

    • Louise Johnson

      “unless people get the dosage right”…..Again, as with all of alternative/complementary/integrative “medicine,” if it doesn’t work, its the patient’s fault.

      • Acleron

        That is one of the more reprehensible traits of the quacks.

      • The “correct” dosage, is of course, ZERO molecules of the active substance. I guess some active ingredients could be toxic enough to require that sort of dilution.

    • The only things it’ll fix is dehydration and fat wallet syndrome.

  • Acleron

    As usual, lots of incredible claims by homeopaths but no reliable evidence to support them.

    • T-500

      What does mean “reliable evidence”?

      • Brian

        You could start with peer-reviewed studies published in high quality journals, whose results are confirmed through independent replication.

        • T-500

          What does mean “high quality journals”? Are the HQ journals the bussiness of out dated “impact factor”?

          • JGC

            By what rational argument is ‘impact factor’ outdated, T-500?

          • T-500

            Impact factor is a no realible source. IF is the pseudoscience of the journal quality control.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00787.x/abstract

          • What does mean “high quality journals”? Are the HQ journals the bussiness of out dated “impact factor”?

            Could start with journals that haven’t been caught gaming any rating systems. Journals that cite research from external journals and have their published research cited in external journals.

            Mention any journal to a scientist in the field the journal covers and if they don’t look at you with a pained look on their face and go “seriously?”, you may have one that could be considered.

          • T-500

            “Could start with journals that haven’t been caught gaming any rating systems. Journals that cite research from external journals and have their published research cited in external journals.”

            These don’t aswer my question.

            “Mention any journal to a scientist in the field the journal covers and if they don’t look at you with a pained look on their face and go “seriously?”, you may have one that could be considered.”

            Personal opinions from alleged “scientist” that you can consult, is not evidence.

            Round 2:
            What does mean “high quality journals”? Are the HQ journals the bussiness of out dated “impact factor?

      • Acleron

        It must be reported in sufficient detail to define it so others can replicate it if necessary. It must be collected by those qualified to record it accurately and without bias. It should have provenance.

        And as Brian says it has to be published in journals with proper peer review.

        • T-500

          Thank you Aclaron.

          1. The sufficient detail is reported in the journals for each specialist. Not in “skeptic” magazines or “SMB blogs”.

          2. Medical homeopaths are the most quailified to record the data in RCT, not “skeptic”. These “skeptic” is valuable only when their objections are methodological valid.

          3. Not all trial can use blind assesment.

          4. Journal with “proper” peer review sounds as an ad-hoc excuse.

          Some clinical trials with high quality assesment:

          http://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115(17)30060-X/abstract

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491615000090

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229916302771

          Prove your valid objetions with proper peer review references, not with American Council Health or British Humanist or tiny lobby (NG Collaboration) or related blogs.

          • 1. The sufficient detail is reported in the journals for each specialist. Not in “skeptic” magazines or “SMB blogs”.

            So we should all stop reading commentary of the research in the fields by experts in the fields? You’re advocating for an end to Science Journalism. And the anti-science crowd accuse the pro-science crowd of suppressing the facts.

            2. Medical homeopaths are the most quailified to record the data in RCT, not “skeptic”. These “skeptic” is valuable only when their objections are methodological valid.

            How about trained and qualified scientists? That would remove the bias of the homeopath and the bias of your boogieman “skeptic”.

            And what’s with the scare quotes? The word ‘skeptic’ is a real word.

            3. Not all trial can use blind assesment.

            Homeopathy can though. Very easily.

            4. Journal with “proper” peer review sounds as an ad-hoc excuse.

            I suspect this is a reference to the former Journal “Homeopathy” being added to the Title Suppression list after having been found to have been gaming its impact factor by excessively citing itself. They weren’t even very good at that either given it’s incredibly poor score.

          • T-500

            You are not a expert in all fields or any filed of science. Ernst too.
            You are not a qualified scientist.
            Real skeptic have studied philosophy and obtained a valid grade under university. In the “pseudoskeptic” cults, only some persons are professional philosophers. The vast majority of these are engineers, software designers, some chemists, some physicist’s and some M’Ds.
            Yes, homeopathy can blind the trials but only in some diseases. In cancers is unethical (except in the biological models with cells).

            “I suspect this is a reference to the former Journal “Homeopathy” being added to the Title Suppression list after having been found to have been gaming its impact factor by excessively citing itself. They weren’t even very good at that either given it’s incredibly poor score.”

            You are incredible. One homeopathy journal versus 17 conventional journals beign added to the title suppresion!

          • You are not a expert in all fields or any filed of science.

            Neither are you, that doesn’t seem to stop you, so why should it stop anyone else?

            Ernst too.

            Demonstrably incorrect.

            …blah blah blah [snip]

            You are incredible. One homeopathy journal versus 17 conventional journals beign added to the title suppresion!

            I had no reason to include them because I had no good reason to think you would be citing anything from them.

            If you want to start citing from them I’ll include them in the list in the future though.

            Also, it’s not “one homeopathy journal”. It’s the primary source for most of the dodgy research homeopathy supporters cite.

          • T-500

            “Neither are you, that doesn’t seem to stop you, so why should it stop anyone else?”

            These an declaration from you!
            Thank you for recognize you lack of scientific skills and critical thinking.

            “Demonstrably incorrect….blah blah blah [snip]”

            “Blah blah” is not a logical response. Are you ok? Probably the side effect may affect your brain.

            “I had no reason to include them because I had no good reason to think you would be citing anything from them. If you want to start citing from them I’ll include them in the list in the future though. Also, it’s not “one homeopathy journal”. It’s the primary source for most of the dodgy research homeopathy supporters cite.”

            Homeopathy is a peer review journal managed by Elsevier. Skeptic Magazines are not peer review. The government need regulation about of the “skeptic” cults and sects. Only trained and ethical skeptics may be presented in mass media, not “journalists” with vested interests.

          • Neither are you, that doesn’t seem to stop you, so why should it stop anyone else?

            These an declaration from you!
            Thank you for recognize you lack of scientific skills and critical thinking.

            I stand by my words.

            I have evidence for your lack of scientific skills and critical thinking too. I present it here.

            Demonstrably incorrect….blah blah blah [snip]

            “Blah blah” is not a logical response. [snip]

            But a reasonable response to the nonsense you type.

            I had no reason to include them because I had no good reason to think you would be citing anything from them. If you want to start citing from them I’ll include them in the list in the future though. Also, it’s not “one homeopathy journal”. It’s the primary source for most of the dodgy research homeopathy supporters cite.

            Homeopathy is a [discraced] peer review journalwebsite managed by Elsevier. Skeptic Magazines are not sometimes peer review[ed].

            #FTFY

            The government need regulation about of the “skeptic” cults and sects. Only trained and ethical skeptics may be presented in mass media, not “journalists” with vested interests.

            You really have it in for journalists. You’ve not actually explained your blanket hatred for them yet…

          • T-500

            ” stand by my words. I have evidence for your lack of scientific skills and critical thinking too. I present it here.”>/I

            You can need a psychiatrist.

            “But a reasonable response to the nonsense you type.”

            When I see a crazy man, the most reasonable response for he is a blah, blah.

            “#FTFY”

            Obviously, the most reasonable response from pseudo-skeptic is a silly word.

            “You really have it in for journalists. You’ve not actually explained your blanket hatred for them yet…”

            Hatred for the journalists? All journalists?

            No, I want unmask the cheat from the Whats the harm fan page!

          • T-500

            These an declaration from you!

            Thank you for recognize your lack of scientific skills and critical thinking.

          • Tetenterre

            One homeopathy journal versus 17 conventional journals beign (sic) added to the title suppresion!

            3 questions:
            #1. How many of those “conventional journals” were medical journals?
            #2. What percentage of all peer-reviewed medical journals is the answer to Q #1?
            #3. What percentage of all peer-reviewed ‘alternative and complementary’ medical journals is the trade journal Homeopathy?

            Oops.

          • Acleron

            Agreed, with one correction. The Homeopathy journal is not peer reviewed as we know it.

          • Tetenterre

            I was being generous 🙂 — the quality of peer-review does, of course, depend upon the quality of the peers doing the reviewing.

          • Acleron

            I’ve often thought of sending them a spoof to expose the lack of peer review but every time I can face reading another error strewn nonsense in it I consider they make my point anyway.

          • Tetenterre

            I’ve had similar thoughts wrt another prominent spewer of stercus tauri. 🙂

          • T-500

            That is one idea…. I like it. I’ve often thought of sending them a pseudoskeptic spoof to expose the lack of peer review on philo, however the pseudojournal was deleted (obviously). My other idea was send a fake debunking (parody) using randomized sentences of fear monger from Randi, Pinker, Dennett, Dawkins, Folta, Henness, Ernst and you. I will able to send my paper to local pseudoskeptic magazine. Thank you!

          • Acleron

            That’s about as sense free as is possible in five sentences. About average.

          • Agreed, with one correction. The Homeopathy journal is not peer reviewed as we know it.

            In all fairness, they tried to be. It’s not their fault that the magic they proposed wouldn’t be published in the scientific journals so they could cite research published in other places.

            Actually… scratch that. It is their fault. Willful ignorance is an intentional state of mind.

          • T-500

            “It’s not their fault that the magic they proposed wouldn’t be published in the scientific journals so they could cite research published in other places.”

            Mr.Gold here is basically proving his fear!

          • “It’s not their fault that the magic they proposed wouldn’t be published in the scientific journals so they could cite research published in other places.”

            Mr.Gold here is basically proving his fear!

            How?

          • T-500

            ” The Homeopathy journal is not peer reviewed as we know it”

            Your personal opinion is not based on evidence.

          • Acleron

            Oh but it is based on evidence. There are zero senior scientists who work on the magazine, just homeopaths.

          • T-500

            Homeopathy is a multidisciplinary journal, not only a medical journal.

            So, how has that the vast majority of the conventional journals that published fake and fraud papers funded by Big Pharmaa, Big Agro and Big pseudoskeptics? Look your field, feh!!! As if!

            The most prestogious “journal” published by pseudoskeptical bussiness was “Philo”. In ALL time these pseudojournal never may appear in SciMag, Thomson Reuters on Basic data bases. Is a fringe pseudojournal that not able to survive.

            http://www.philoonline.org/index.php/philo/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions

            http://www.sram.org/archive

            Four editions! LOL!

            “NOTE: Philo is no longer accepting submissions”

            It would be interesting to see if the “skeptic” magazines (pseudojournals) could be survive with the next years.

          • Acleron

            Like most homeopathy supporters you fail to know that all science is dependent on skepticism.

            Homeopaths, having a belief system which is not evidenced based, are the least capable group for recording data let alone forming conclusions.

            When trials are not properly controlled the evidence and conclusions are of low quality. While not all interventions can be blinded, many can. The number of trials run by homeopaths that could be but are not blinded is striking.

            Journals with proper peer review are essential. Alt med magazines that pretend to have peer review are useless.

            Cherry picking trials according to results is a favourite quack pursuit. But boy do they moan when unbiased selection is made, Linde et al, Shang et al and the NHMRC report of Australia.

          • T-500

            Science is dependent on skepticis, not on pseudoskepticism. Can you note the difference?

            1. Science is not a tiny lobby with connections with industrial interestes and media astroturfers.

            2. Science do not need this sectarian pseudoskeptics. Science need research.

            3. Science published in peer review journals, not in “nightingale collaboration” or “skeptic magazines”.

            4. Your lack of basic skills in philosophy are overwhelming.

            5. Alt med magazines frequently may offer some high quality papers. “Skeptic magazines” offer piece of opinion, “skeptics stars”, promotion of low quality books, pseudpapers and in extreme cases pseudojournals with tiny time of life (Philo journal or Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine).

            “Cherry picking trials according to results is a favourite quack pursuit. But boy do they moan when unbiased selection is made, Linde et al, Shang et al and the NHMRC report of Australia.”

            Linde do not discard specific effect.
            Shang trial is very flawed.
            NHMRC was not subjected to peer reviewed process. They disccarded the Pollinosis meta analysis and other studies with high quality score. They not plot the values (OR) vs placebo.

          • Acleron

            Gosh, all the silly homeopathic memes with either made up names or terms you do not know the meaning of.

            The only philosophy used by homeopaths is post modernism. The lack of evidence and self importance of it appeals to them.

            Why are these high quality trials published in magazines and not in scientific journals? Perhaps because only homeopaths could consider them high quality.

          • T-500

            “The only philosophy used by homeopaths is post modernism. The lack of evidence and self importance of it appeals to them.”

            Before you slide your bullshit, you can study the postmodern philosophies. In the pseudoskeptical circles and sects, they believe the postmodern as only the “Sokal affair” or the New Age beliefs. Your lack of understaing on basic philosophy is evident for me. The Pop and McDonald’s skepticism in that you believe is a joke for me.

            “Why are these high quality trials published in magazines and not in scientific journals? Perhaps because only homeopaths could consider them high quality.

            – Homeopathy is a scientific journal. The cries do not change these.
            -Some high quality trials was published in conventional journals, like the Jacobs meta analysis or the some in vitro research.

            Ironically, in the Shang’s meta analysis they list the Oscillocconium trial published in British Homeopathic Journal as high quality trial.

          • Acleron

            Well thanks for the laugh.

            ‘Homeopathy is a scientific journal’

            So a homeopath who knows no science and who favours post modern nonsense.

          • T-500

            I’m not a “homeopath”. In many forums, I’ve seen your comments with shame lies directed for any person who comment that homeopathy may be useful in some conditions. The same fantastic four pseudoskeptic team: “Gold, tenterre, Alan Henness and Acleron”. These guys appear in any new forum about of homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine, quiropractic, or in defense of the Monsanto guys as Geetic Literacy or Science 2.0 fan pages. Acleron, your waste of time all days, all week, may be suggested that you can’t do work in science field. You’re a troll, maybe Maria McLachlan?

          • Acleron

            Its definitely Eggar. Why the sock puppet, get banned?

            Well get this Eggar, your only defence of your pathetic trade is the smear and the insult, you have supplied nothing else because you have nothing else.

          • I’m not a “homeopath”

            So you have even less of a knowledge base than the rest of us on this topic.

          • Homeopathy is a scientific journal. The cries do not change these.

            #FTFY

            Homeopathy was a Journal. Then it got added to the Title Supressions list for gaming the system. Claiming it was a scientific journal is a bit of a stretch though.

          • Acleron

            The originators of Homeopathy may have had laudable aims of sciencing but it has long been a pretend journal with pretend science. The last vestige of any integrity went when they removed the last scientist from the editorial board, Professor Ernst.

          • T-500

            When I read of “Title supression” list many noths ago, and I cannot but laugh if this list speaks to the very same shame fear monger. The list exclude Homeopathy and the big list of conventional science from Thomson Reuters Impact Factor for one year. The Homeopathy journal continue publications on the Elsevier page.

          • The Homeopathy journal continue publications on the Elsevier page.

            Indeed. But due to the nature of the list it is considered a mockery of what peer-review stands for. It is a disgraced journal and is not really considered as such by anyone without a vested interest any more.

          • Science is dependent on skepticis, not on pseudoskepticism.

            @Acleron:disqus said Skepticism. It is true, however, that the vast bulk of scientists are skeptics.

            Can you note the difference?

            Ah… Science is real and “pseudoskepticism” is a made up word.

          • JGC

            Not all trials can use blind assessment, agreed. Trials assessing the performance of surgical interventions for example are notoriously hard to blind.
            But for homeopathic intervetnions blinding is a trivial exercise.

          • T-500

            “But for homeopathic intervetnions blinding is a trivial exercise.”

            In cancer trials, homeopathy vs placebo or synthetic drug vs placebo is unethical.

          • In cancer trials, homeopathy vs placebo or synthetic drug vs placebo is unethical.

            Given the vast absence of clinical trials for most of the homeopathy that is out there every homeopath is going to be, at some point, experimenting on their victimpatientcustomer. The vast bulk of homeopathy is unethical.

          • JGC

            In humans perhaps, but not in animal models. And though difficult it might be possible to get a combinatorial standard of care plus homeopathy versus standard of care plus vehicle control pat an IRB review.

          • Acleron

            In any serious disease state homeopathy is unethical with or without a placebo. Sugar and water do not work.

          • T-500

            Prove it the evidence.

            Please, any post from pseudo-skeptic web site is not evidence.
            Uk 28 pages report posted by Sense About Science is not evidence.
            Your personal attacks and opinions are not evidence.

            Share the most “reliable” evidente that you think debunks homeopathy.
            Share the prove of that ALL homeopathy is chemicaly “sugar and water”.

            I’m waiting.

          • Acleron

            On a forum that you infested I posted both the evidence that homeopathy doesn’t work in any tested disease state and the logic that if homeopathic preps contain anything then it is merely herbalism.

            As usual, you failed to respond to any of the points made but descended into your usual mode of invective and baseless accusations.

            Your only utility is to show how homeopaths behave and their complete lack of compassion when their income is threatened. So please keep going.

          • T-500

            “and the logic that if homeopathic preps contain anything then it is merely herbalism.”

            I like the comment. Lack of historical context… How low potency from mineral are “herbalism”?

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338200

            Quote:
            Both low and high potencies are utilized in all areas of homeopathy ranging from prescribing for acute or chronic diseases to constitutional treatment

            “Your only utility is to show how homeopaths behave and their complete lack of compassion when their income is threatened. So please keep going.”

            I’m not a homeopathy. You fail again guy!

          • Acleron

            As usual you start lying.

            Just to refresh your faulty memory. There is no difference between the methods of extraction used by herbalists or homeopaths or the methods of dilution. If you are claiming that the content is therapeutic then it is exactly the same as herbalism.

          • T-500

            Amazing irrational belief:

            “There is no difference between the methods of extraction used by herbalists or homeopaths or the methods of dilution.”

            Herbalism do not use succused and dilution. You’re a very fool

          • Acleron

            As usual, you lie freely. Everybody who dilutes anything shakes the fluids to get even distribution. Boiron, one of the largest provendors of sugar and water uses vortex mixers, a device developed by and for scientists. Lol, you think you disguise anything by giving it a weird name confuses anyone? That must be why you give your silly products faux Latin names. Eggar, you are pathetic.

          • T-500

            Boiron this, Boiron that, Boiron…. Your conspiracy belief on Boiron…
            I love your comments pharmatroll!

          • Acleron

            You want to hear about Nelson’s instead? Remember them Eggar? Apart from failing to clear the vial filling area of glass shards, they managed to miss putting anything of your magic water into one vial in six. And get this Eggar, not one homeopath noticed it.

          • T-500

            “not one homeopath noticed it.”

            Provide the evidence.

          • Acleron

            Easy enough for you to disprove, find a cited statement from any homeopath mentioning it.

          • T-500

            Provide the link with “enough” for disprove me. No more industrial pseudo skeptic blogs . Provide papers.

          • Acleron

            So no evidence as usual. Lol, you are a dope.

          • To be fair…at least you can detect the original stuff after the herbalists are finished. More than you can say for the homeopaths.

          • Acleron

            Depends which herbalists, the eastern ones boil their extractions according to a rhyme in the vain hope it makes them safe. The ones with heavy metal content are not that good.

          • Hey, I made no comment about whether it was a good idea. Only that with herbalists, this is at least one claim that you can verify that homeopaths don’t have: Namely, whatever the main thing was is there.

          • “But for homeopathic intervetnions blinding is a trivial exercise.”

            In cancer trials, homeopathy vs placebo or synthetic drug vs placebo is unethical.

            1. That doesn’t prevent blinding of homeopathic interventions being trivial.
            2. That doesn’t stop homeopaths from claiming to be able to treat and/or cure cancer today.

          • T-500

            You are amazing!

            ” That doesn’t prevent blinding of homeopathic interventions being trivial”

            Yes, I agree with you, except in some cancer trials.

            “. That doesn’t stop homeopaths from claiming to be able to treat and/or cure cancer today.”

            Some homeopaths claim’s this, the most clinical cases documented was the Banerji protocols documented not in “journalist” of pseudoskeptic blog’s. The clinical cases and in vitro research may be consulted on peer reviewed Journals.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18575720

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369009

          • Acleron

            The Banerji protocols are normal treatment with chemotherapy and surgery with added water and sugar pills.

            The second reference is the normal pabulum of homeopaths. Nano pharmacology claims with zero understanding of the term. The fallacious argument from antiquity. A bit of ‘green’ thrown in and some science terms. In short, the marketing spiel of a homeopath.

          • T-500

            More garbage from you. No evidence of nothing. Thank you.

          • Acleron

            So the usual complete lack of discussion of the points made.

          • T-500

            So the usual pharma troll response.

          • Acleron

            And still zero evidence for anything. Eggar, you may be irrepressible, but you remain the fool.

          • T-500

            Your conspiracy belief on “Eggar” is the fantasy of your life.

          • T-500

            1. That doesn’t prevent blindind of pseudoskeptics to lie.
            2. That doesn’t stop pseudoskeptics from claim the “lack of evidence”.

      • JGC

        A properly designed, blinded, controlled and statistically powered clinical trial, using objective measurements of efficacy, which demonstrates homeopathic interventions produce better outcomes than placebo’s treatments when used as a treatment for non-self limiting injuries or illnesses.

        • T-500

          “A properly designed, blinded, controlled and statistically powered clinical trial, using objective measurements of efficacy, which demonstrates homeopathic interventions produce better outcomes than placebo’s treatments when used as a treatment for non-self limiting injuries or illnesses.”

          This needs serious definitions.

          What does mean “properly” for ALL pseudoskeptics?

          • JGC

            The design needs to specify a subject pool of sufficient size to power the experiment to produce statistically significant results; the subjects must be randomly assigned to treatment and control arms while still being balanced to address potential confounders such as age, weight, gender, pre-existing conditions, etc.
            The design must also specify an objective and quantifiable readout for efficacy (for example, if the trial was designed to address asthma the readout would be forced exhalation volume rather than self-reporting of relief).
            The blinding needs to prevent those preparing the treatments, those administering the treatments, those receiving the treatments, and those evaluating the efficacy of the treatments from knowing it the subject received an actual homeopathic product or a vehicle control or other placebo.
            The study needs to be controlled adequately, using controls that patients cannot distinguish from actual treatment, and must include both a negative (vehicle alone, for example, or a homeopathic preparation for a different condition) and a positive control (e.g., albuterol if the trial addresses asthma).

          • T-500

            Your plea is not new. The points that you adressed is the basic logic only in RCT. My question was:

            What does mean “properly” for ALL pseudoskeptics?

          • What does mean “properly” for ALL pseudoskeptics?

            The same as it means for anyone else talking about a topic with a scientific context. Unlike “theory” I’m pretty sure “properly” has a common definition in this context.

            Please, stop being lazy.

          • T-500

            “The same as it means for anyone else talking about a topic with a scientific context. Unlike “theory” I’m pretty sure “properly” has a common definition in this context.”

            If it means for anyone else talking about it, then you can’t reject the papers that I was posted.

      • What does mean “reliable evidence”?

        It’s 2 words. If you have trouble extracting what is meant by that then this just adds to the evidence that you have never been near a school or educational facility of any sort.

        • T-500

          “If you have trouble extracting what is meant by that then this just adds to the evidence that you have never been near a school or educational facility of any sort.”

          Mr. Gold, you need provide defintion from academic sources, not Wikipedia kinder, not “Science Based Medicine”, not “Science 2.0”, not ad-hominem attacks. When you can post the academic sources, then you can talk with adults.

          • What ad-hominem attack?

            [here we go again… The nature of ad-hominem has been explained to @t_500:disqus time and time again on other posts. They have, to date, failed to grasp the nuance of it. This will be demonstrated shortly when they fail to answer the above question. You can look back through their own Disqus timeline to locate these if you are that much of a masochist.]

          • Acleron

            Says Eggar who put up an unpublished article from the BHS website which was full of errors as evidence.

          • T-500

            Egga or Agar? Probably you can play with biological toys.

            Mr. Acleron:

            Prove the “full of errors”!

          • Acleron

            You want to be called agar? I used to grow bacteria on it, kind of suits you?

          • T-500

            You want to be called quack pseudo skept? Or cell biologist troll?

          • Acleron

            Eggar, I don’t care what you call me. I was faintly amused by what you think you are called.

          • T-500

            Amazing lack of logical response from you.

          • And when these citations from academic sources are the citations on Wikipedia? Are tehy suddenly invalid?

            Because this is the case. If the academic source is accessible, or even just citable, it will be used in the references on the related page on wikipedia.

          • T-500

            Citations on Wikipedia are sources. Any person can contrast the information. Wikipedia source is not a valid reference when the pseudoskeptic cults as Guy Chapman are the “moderators” and bulldozers. I like your favorite bullshit!

            Examples from Wikipedia shit:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

            The most important aspect of the “review” is these:

            Quote:
            ” Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition;[2][3][4][5] large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, suggesting that any positive effects that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness.[6][7][8]”

            References?
            2 Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience”. In Pitt JC, Marcello P. Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
            3 Smith K (2012). “Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical”. Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–512
            4 Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer. pp. 19–57. d
            5 Ladyman J (2013). “Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience”. In Pigliucci M, Boudry M. Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3.
            6 Ernst, E. (2002). “A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy”. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
            7 Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005), “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy”, The Lancet, 366 (9487): 726–732,
            8 Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy – Science and Technology Committee, British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 22 February 2010, retrieved 2014-04-05

            1 to 5: chapters from poor resources. I’ve read the all references. ALL refernces disques the nature of “pseudoscience” from the point of view of the Pigliucci model. I take a some view of this fraudulent papers, the most newest!

            onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/theo.12109/pdf

            Quote from text:

            “Homeopaths and parapsychologists too often tout articles published in peer-reviewed journals as alleged evidence for their beliefs, even after these experiments have been conclusively debunked (e.g., Bem, 2011; and Montagnier et al., 2009; respectively, for the debunking, see Ritchie, Wiseman and French, 2012; Alcock, 2011). In these cases, scientific pretensions are clearly used as an explicit argument to bolster irrational beliefs, and as a tool of persuasion.”

            When I read the “respectively” debunking of the Motagnier paper, I can’t foung the debuking!

            Alcock 2011? The paper never review the Montagnier paper.
            Ritchie, Wiseman and Frence 2012? No.

            How this shit paper can pass the peer review process? Is a Theoria Journal a pseudojournal?

            In the link of the page:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1755-2567/homepage/EditorialBoard.html

            “Editor-in-chief Sven Ove Hansson”

            Sven Ove Hansson is the most famous CSCIOP philosopher for the time!

          • T-500

            Continue…

            Reference 6: The pseudo review from Erns debunked by Hahnn.

            Reference 7: UK government “report”, no peer review, the main plain text was not neutral. The current membership:

            Current membership
            Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chairman)
            Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
            Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)
            Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)
            Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
            Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)
            Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)
            Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
            Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)
            Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)
            Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)
            Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)
            Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)
            Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

            The real authors from the page 3-28 (only 28 pages, the most poorest gubernamental review that I was seen in my life!): Evan Harris, Tracey Brown, Ben Goldacre and Tracy Brown from Sense About Science industrial charity. I was surprissed me with the team of professional trolls that were publicited in the Guardian, Independent, and the bullshit mass media!

            Take a critical look of the “UK” report!

            Objectives:

            “Government policy on licensing of homeopathic products;
            Government policy on the funding of homeopathy through the NHS; and
            the evidence base on homeopathic products and services.

            In the 28 pages, the “expert” that appear is E. Ernst.

            The death note:

            ” Shang et al very clearly arrived at a devastatingly negative overall conclusion”

            Is the most wrong comparative meta analysis the truth?

          • Oh Egger… You still don’t understand what an ad hom is yet do you? It’s been explained again and again. how do you not get something like this yet?

            in short; there’s no ad hom in my comment. If you disagree, please quote the bit that is an ad hom and explain why.

          • T-500

            You are a crazy man. Probably you will need take the elementary school. Don’t forget the opportunity to get a diploma in basis on science and philosophy!

  • Catherine MacEwan

    Dr Ernst,
    I lived, from the age of three, with severe
    eczema and was advised to try a homoeopath. I did this, and my eczema cleared in a few months, after suffering years of steroid creams and pills, doing nothing! I think listening to folk like me and giving people the option of using homoeopathy as a complimentary medicine as opposed to an alternative is important. Dr Ernst to be so against something, you don’t understand scientifically, is understandable, but please don’t dismiss it, as it does help! Would you not rather people can have the opportunity to try it, to help their health, than not at all! Please be more open minded, thank you.

    • edzard ernst

      well, where to start?
      I had homeopathy as a patient too. I practised it and I researched it. people benefit from it for all sorts of reasons unrelated to the actual remedies taken. the evidence clearly fails to show that highly diluted remedies are more than placebos. and anecdotes like yours are not evidence, I am afraid.

      • Laurie J. Willberg

        Her evidence is called empirical evidence. It’s based on the scientific principle of cause and effect and observation. Trying to explain away empirical evidence with absurd conjectures that deny cause and effect is called cognitive dissonance. You seem to have a bad case of that.

        • Mark Mattingly

          The problem is that it is perceived cause and effect. It is very weak evidence. This is why you need to do some sort of test. Cognitive dissonance is believing the results of the tests.

          • T-500

            “Weak evidence” is not nothing evidence. Weak evidence may be a powerful indicator of the real phenomena.

          • edzard ernst

            weak evidence can be helpful in guiding our steps towards stronger evidence. by itself, weak evidence is no good and can even be harmful in misguiding us.

          • T-500

            What’s the harm fan page include anecdotal evidence.

            Your paper about of “adverse reactions” include anecdotal evidence.

            Thank you, Ernst.

          • What’s the harm fan page include anecdotal evidence.

            I’m not sure what “fan page” you’re referring to but the actual site links to news articles that are often reporting on coroners reports and other verifiable sources. Focusing on what others present in other places as a way of disparaging the actual content of the site is misleading and dishonest.

          • T-500

            WT harm page is a fan page.

            1. The moderador is an enginneer not a M.D.
            2. The guy apperar in CSICOP web page and all links about “skeptic” bussiness. This present severe conflicts of comercial interests http://www.csicop.org/author/timfarley
            3. The modertaor clearly said:

            “Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy.”

            If not all information is a “reliable” source, the vast majority of “cases” in WT page is lot of full crazy and poor resources. The vast majority cases are obtainded from newspapers!

          • WT harm page is a fan page.

            What’s the Harm is a website. I’m not entirely convinced that you know how the web works.

            1. The moderador is an enginneer not a M.D.
            2. The guy apperar in CSICOP web page and all links about “skeptic” bussiness. This present severe conflicts of comercial interests http://www.csicop.org/author/timfarle...
            3. The modertaor clearly said:

            “Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy.”

            If not all information is a “reliable” source, the vast majority of “cases” in WT page is lot of full crazy and poor resources.

            So… in your world “Some” is equivalent to “vast majority”.

            That explains a lot about you.

            The vast majority cases are obtainded from newspapers!

            Yes, I was the one that pointed that out. “…links to news articles that are often reporting on coroners reports and other verifiable sources“.

            Again, you advocate against journalism. What do you have against Journalists?

          • T-500

            Vast majority of reports about homeopathy are pseudoanecdotes, when the journalist take a biased version of the facts and sensationalized titles, it is not a credible source of oral information (one cases mention psychic healer and naturopath!). The most credible evidence is the Zicam case, the use of low potency homeopathic zinc, not deaths only lost of smell.

            The few reports listed on the WT harm, yes, some appear in peer review journals… only four, satan homeopahy killed the world! ψ(`∇´)ψ

            I have seen all original full papers and references, the vast majority of the dangers caused by homeopathy is the irresponsable use of mother tinctures and some low potencies.

            1. 2000 BMJ case:

            -Ledum Palustre (5CH) and Malaria Oficinalisf (4CH)

            -Evil detailed:

            “She took homoeopathic drugs with vitamins, and a few days later antibiotic treatment was started… his case confirms the inefficacy of homoeopathic drugs for malaria prevention and treatment. Travellers to tropical countries should use recognised prophylactic drug ”

            How a poor single case may confirm the “inefficacy” of all homeopathic drugs in malaria prevention? The author’s appear use the Popperian cartoon logic.

            2. 1996 Travel med cases:

            “The two other women used Spenglersan M only.They all fell ill with I? ovule malaria despite ongoing intake. Spenglersan M is said to contain both antigen from Iufukiparum and antibodies against the parasite diluted to 1:1,000,000,000 concentration.”

            1:1 000 000 000 = 9 Decimal potency, low potency.

            “The fifth case was a 34-year-old woman admitted to hospital because of Pjulcipurttm malaria after a visit to Guinea Conacry in January 1995. She had taken a homeopathc drug, Charaka comp 11 8, as prophylaxis.The drug is said to contain different extracts from herbs diluted 30
            times.””

            “The fourth case was a 26-year-old man who visited Ghana and Burkina Faso in October and November 1994. He used China D-6 for prophylaxis. This is a homeopathic preparation of the bark from the cinchona tree. Not even trace amounts of quinine were found in the tablets with a very sensitive high-performance liquid chromatographic method”

            Wait, HPLCM with pellets, solution? None detail.

            3. “Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer.”

            Poor study and fails in confirm the Farley thesis.

            4. “Giant melanoma of the inner thigh: a homeopathic life-threatening negligence.”

            Poor detalied study.

          • Brian

            You never answered my simple question-
            Do you admit that high dilutions contain zero molecules of the “active ingredient”?

          • T-500

            You never answered my other simply question-

            “Do you admit that high dilutions contain zero molecules of the “active ingredient”?”

            In some cases, yes. In the vast majority I have seen the sold of low potencies. You can read the experimental evidence from some highly diluted and controlled homeopathic potencies may contain small particles of the initial solute:

            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la303477s

          • Brian

            Wow! You guys have no clue, do you? Your paper contradicts the fundamentals of small-scale physics, chemistry, and common sense.

          • T-500

            ” Your paper contradicts the fundamentals of small-scale physics, chemistry, and common sense.”

            My paper?
            If overwhelming results contradicts some aspects of the sciences, the facts are most importan that the “theories”. When I read the papers, they contradicts only small beliefs, as the “Avogadro constant” and “Law of mass action”, not more. Common sense change with facts, not with dogmas.

          • Acleron

            I guess you really think your anecdotes are going to overturn vast swathes of science. Dream on.

          • If overwhelming results contradicts some aspects of the sciences…

            I don’t think you understand the nature of the science here. This doesn’t qualify at “overwhelming results”. It barely counts as noise in the data.

            Homeopaths have a very long way to go before they’ll be able to move the consensus on any of the fundamental sciences that would need to be rewritten for homeopathy to be plausible.

          • T-500

            “I don’t think you understand the nature of the science here.”

            Philosophers of science (the real philosophers, not fake fanatic pseudoskeptics) today can’t understand the nature of ALL sciences. If you can understand the nature of ALL science, you can try publish your overwhleming results in any epistemological journal. Don’t forget the oportunity!

            ” This doesn’t qualify at “overwhelming results”. It barely counts as noise in the data”

            “Noise data” is a vague term in this context. Please, support your shame axiom with real data, not with piece of opinion. I’m waiting.

            “Homeopaths have a very long way to go before they’ll be able to move the consensus .”

            Consensus from pressure of tiny pseudoskeptical organizations? You’re are crazy, man. Probably, you can need visit a psychiatrist.

            “on any of the fundamental sciences that would need to be rewritten for homeopathy to be plausible”

            Science rewrite the science, all over time. Probably you live in another dimension. In my dimension, in the real life, the real scientists and philosophers rewrite the facts. If you don’t like is your problem, not me.

          • Vast majority of reports about homeopathy are pseudoanecdotes,

            Well we agree on that I think. “Pseudoanecdotes” though? False anecdotes?

            I understand you now. You think that “Vast majority of reports about homeopathy are…” not only unverified and unverifiable stories, but false stories too.

            This is generally accepted. I’m surprised that you’ve taken so long to come out and say it though.

            when the journalist take a biased version of the facts and sensationalized titles, it is not a credible source of oral information

            The takeaway message here is that things you don’t like are “biased” and “sensationalized”.

            I’m assuming the “not a credible source of oral information” means you place oral information above recorded information? That’s a bizarre position to hold.

            (one cases mention psychic healer and naturopath!).

            Well… Homeopathy is that crazy. Also, where was the outcry from the homeopathic community against these people?

            The most credible evidence is the Zicam case, the use of low potency homeopathic zinc, not deaths only lost of smell.

            The takeaway here is that shit has an effect if shit is present.

            This is what happened with the Hylands case too.

            The few reports listed on the WT harm, yes, some appear in peer review journals… only four, satan homeopahy killed the world! ψ(`∇´)ψ

            Ah… whut?

            I have seen all original full papers and references,

            I doubt anyone will believe you. You have not demonstrated yourself to be able to make reliable claims.

            the vast majority of the dangers caused by homeopathy is the irresponsable use of mother tinctures and some low potencies.

            So you concede homeopathy can be harmful. Got it.

          • T-500

            “Well we agree on that I think. “Pseudoanecdotes” though? False anecdotes?
            I understand you now. You think that “Vast majority of reports about homeopathy are…” not only unverified and unverifiable stories, but false stories too.”

            Not, I think that the vast majority “Whats the harm” anecdotes are poor source of “reliable” information. My early comment was supporte from the analysis of each case, only four cases were based on peer reviewed literature. Thesel cases, however, are only short piece of information based on low potency homeopathy (3) and one case with high potency (1). Extrapolation of these poor data as evil deaths from homeopathy is the typical trickery and bias from pseudoskeptics.

            “The takeaway message here is that things you don’t like are “biased” and “sensationalized”.
            I’m assuming the “not a credible source of oral information” means you place oral information above recorded information? That’s a bizarre position to hold.”

            Not, the bizarre position is the unethcial pseudoskeptics journalists.

            “Well… Homeopathy is that crazy. Also, where was the outcry from the homeopathic community against these people?”

            Homeopathy is not a crazy. Pseudoskeptics are a sectarian cult, I think these.

            “The takeaway here is that shit has an effect if shit is present. This is what happened with the Hylands case too.”

            Waveform!
            All pseudoskeptics repeat this “homeopathy is only extremely dilutios” (Alan Henness too). Your bizarre move of goalposts is incredibly.

            Homeopathy is based in low and high potency. Obviously some low potencies can be toxic when these ingested for long time. The problem with pseudoskeptics was when the 10:12 “suicides” the pseudoskeptics retract suicide with low potencies for his adoption of the belief as “homeopathy as only high dilutions”. Now, if Hyland’s and Zicam may be slightly toxic, what happenned with the massive fraud campaign from 10:23? If the pseudoskeptics of 10:23 are true, then zicam and hyland’s teeth baby are not homeopathy. They contradictions are the best example of bias, unethical junk journalism and fraud.

            “Ah… whut?”

            Evil homeopathy is behind you!

            “I doubt anyone will believe you. You have not demonstrated yourself to be able to make reliable claims.”

            That’s so funny. What are “reliable claims”?

            “So you concede homeopathy can be harmful. Got it.”

            Can be harmful only in mother tinctures and low potency. You can try a 10:23 suicide with this. Your prediction was “all homeopathy is only placebo effect” (10:23 slogan). You can upload your video experience on youtube, in the video you will show ingesting massive doses of Belladona Mother tincture or Hyland’s Tetth belladona tablets. If your no effect hypothesis is very true in all homeopathy, adverse effects do not appear.

          • Not, I think that the vast majority “Whats the harm” anecdotes are poor source of “reliable” information.

            Right…. Unqualified assumption.

            My early comment was supporte from the analysis of each case, only four cases were based on peer reviewed literature.

            So you do dismiss the sum total of journalism. What did Journalists ever do to you? You certainly seem to have it in for them. This kind of makes you a biased and unreliable source for an opinion of Journalism as a whole.

            blah blah [snip]

            Not, the bizarre position is the unethcial pseudoskeptics journalists.

            Okay. These are words. Well… mostly. “pseudoskeptics” isn’t a word. You made that up. But the rest are words. Well done. Now, was there a sentence in there? Would you like to try them in a different order?

            “Well… Homeopathy is that crazy. Also, where was the outcry from the homeopathic community against these people?”

            Homeopathy is not a crazy.

            Yes, it is.

            Waveform!

            Cats!

            [word salad snipped]

            Homeopathy is based in low and high potency.

            “Potency”, as used in homeopathy, isn’t real. It’s pseudo-science.

            Obviously some low potencies can be toxic when these ingested for long time.

            Ah… that would be “dilutions”, not “potencies”. You don’t even understand homeopathy, do you?

          • Tetenterre

            “…pellts,solution? None detail.”

            Which bit of the word ‘tablets’ are you struggling to understand?

          • T-500

            Tablets may embebed with low potency solution. Fool.

          • Tablets may embebed with low potency solution. Fool.

            How?

            Also, “fool”? Stop being a dick.

          • T-500

            I’m not a homeopath or “homeopathist”. But I can read with critical thinking (not the fake critical thinking sold in the mass media by pseudoskeptics) the homeopathy web sites. The detail of low potencies embebed in tables is a basic process.

            Yes, the pseudoskeptic is a fool.

          • Acleron

            ‘may’ is the critical word.

            To start with the sugar sweets are first put in a vial and then one drop of the magic water is dripped in. The magic force/energy/quantum ignorance then magically diffuses to all the sweets.

            This is problematic on it’s own but Nelson’s a purveyor of sweets and water took it one stage further. Their machinery was missing one in six vials, no homeopath ever noticed that their magic ingredient was missing.

          • T-500

            1. Magic water not. Highly diluted substances is the correct term.

            2. Quantum theories are not literally magic, are mathematical models and axioms.

            3. More of the same history from Nelson’s company. Not all homeopathic laboratories are Nelson, What is it like to understand basic logic? In my country, no MD ever noticed that their pills (conventional drugs) was a placebo pills!

            One experiment found this: no pseudoskeptic ever noticed that their overestimated personality is biased. Further research may able shown the supersticious belief in every pseudoskeptic. That I notice, the pseudoskeptics are a cult based on charismatic and unquestionable leaders. Obviously, the primitive mans as Acleron no ever take as “reliable” source of information. Thank you Acleron!

          • Acleron

            1) zero concentration, provided of course you homeopaths are competent enough to do dilutions. Obviously, you aren’t.
            2) Homeopathic QM is nonsense. Find me a homeopath who has even postulated a quarternion let alone understand it.
            3) ‘What is it like to understand basic logic?’ Glorious, you should try it.
            And then the obligatory Eggar puerile insults. I keep calling you average for a homeopath, that may be insulting the average homeopath.

          • T-500

            1. You can provide “competent” details*. I like this**:
            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la303477s

            *Yes, I’ve read the bullshit from In Scientio Veritas. Probably you know this no peer reviered propaganda ense http://inscientioveritas.org/homeopathy-nanoparticle-chikramane/

            **See the image. Probably, you can explain,with proofs, the “incompetence”:

            2. I don’t talk about of the quarternon. I find me a pseudo-skeptic who think that all homeopathy is not falsable, he is a silly boy.

            3. “Egger”, “homeopath”, “insulting”.

            This is non-sense. Probably you are a crazy man or a psychopath.

          • Acleron

            The Langmuir paper merely shows yet again the incompetence of homeopaths in making simple dilutions, as well as complete ignorance in how homeopaths make their dilutions.

            Of course you don’t know what a quarternion is, that’s why you babble incoherently about QM.

            Eggar, you are ignorant, full of false accusations and lacking in intellect, you fit all the characteristics of a homeopath.

          • T-500

            Your lack of logic is extreme. You’re not a expert chemist. I found 6 independent trials from 2013 – 2017, researchers have found nanoparticles in extremely doses.

            Egger? Egg and Er?

          • Acleron

            Six independent trials published in reputable journals? Where are they?

            The Langmuir paper is touted by Ullman because he thinks the ACS is good marketing. The ACS disagree.
            https://youtu.be/Lq29f14X1t0

          • T-500

            Yes, six independent trials.
            Youtube videos are not evidence. Amazing, the Molecules in reaction team do not quote the Langmuir paper. Why?

          • Acleron

            It wasn’t put forward as the proof that you are talking nonsense, you supply all that yourself, merely that real chemists such as the ACS agree that you talk nonsense.

            So no links to these six papers published in reputable journals. How was that unexpected.

          • T-500

            Acleon Noise.

          • T-500

            No more links for quack pseudo skeptics. Scientists works with ethics not with pharma trolls.

          • Acleron

            Multiple answers to the same post. Eggar, you are so easy to spot.

            So are your bleats when you cannot produce any supporting evidence.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah. Shut up and take my money!

          • Acleron

            You’ll need that money to pay your libel lawyers Eggar.

          • T-500

            Eggar is your imaginary friend?

            Typical coward pseudo skeptic, he need legal threats. You’ll need big money from SAS to pay your criminal acts. See you later industry troll!

          • Acleron

            Talks like an Eggar, libels like an Eggar, smells like an Eggar and makes as much sense as an Eggar, yeah, its an Eggar.

          • I admit that I kind of like eggy man/ovum dude – he’s kind of a fun chew toy.

          • curiosofsigns

            I had cancer the other day and was cured when I sacrificed a live chicken. Does that count as “anecdotal evidence” for chicken sacrifice?

          • T-500

            The example is fool. Sacrificed Chickens is not related with intention of cure.

            Homeopathy: If the anecdote is validated whith a diagnostic lab test and only when the patient take a homeopathic treatment for cancer, and if the patient then feel best when the conventional drug can’t help, then the evidence may suggest a cure.

          • curiosofsigns

            But I sacrificed a chicken in lab conditions to cure somebody’s cancer. He said it helped. Surely that suggests it may be a cure. The mainstream media don’t report on any of that because chickens are cheap. Peer-reviewed articles always sacrifice the wrong type of chicken. The only ones that work are the ones from my farm – they cost $1000 each. Cheap for a cure to cancer huh? May as well give it a try.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah troll.

          • T-500

            “But I sacrificed a chicken in lab conditions to cure somebody’s cancer. He said it helped. Surely that suggests it may be a cure. The mainstream media don’t report on any of that because chickens are cheap. Peer-reviewed articles always sacrifice the wrong type of chicken. The only ones that work are the ones from my farm – they cost $1000 each. Cheap for a cure to cancer huh? May as well give it a try.”

            Your logicall falacy is…. The fault analogy.

            Can you provide peer review documents for the use Chicken deaths for cure?

          • curiosofsigns

            No.; The peer-reviewed articles are all corrupted by big pharma. I can refer you to “Chicken Sacrifice Monthly” – a widely supported journal full of similar stories proving my claim that specially diluted chickens cure cancer. As everybody sensible knows, tribespeople have used chicken sacrifice to cure illness and bad harvests for thousands of years. If you believe in homeopathy, what extra proof do you need?

          • T-500

            You can play with more straw man fallacies. I’m waiting you objective prove that chicken death practice is exactly like as homeopathy.

            PD. Obviously, you can’t offer any real question. Your function is the trolling.

          • curiosofsigns

            Don’t be stupid. Chicken death practice is nothing like homeopathy. Chicken death practice works. Try it. Buy my chickens. $1000 each.

          • T-500

            Don’t be fool.

          • T-500
          • Acleron

            So your profound ignorance extends as far as criminal law.

          • T-500

            Government need jail the Criminal pseudo skeptic as Alan or you.

          • Acleron

            Any evidence that Alan or myself are criminals. I ask purely out of interest because nobody would take your ravings seriously Eggar.

          • T-500

            Egg + aggar? A new languague de your paranoid thinking.

          • Acleron

            So no evidence at all Eggar.

            If you are wondering how I knew your previous nym, you just aren’t intelligent to hide it.

          • T-500

            Blu, blu, blu,

          • T-500

            “If you believe in homeopathy, what extra proof do you need?”

            What does mean extra proof? Is an Goebbels word as the “extraordinary claim” conjecture?

          • curiosofsigns

            I believe you’re referring to Goebbels saying that truth is a lie repeated over and over again. I would like to add at this point that the Nazis were also fans of homeopathy.

          • T-500

            Yes, Nazis were also fans of Physics and conventional medicine!

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, blah troll.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah more troll languague for distract the point.

          • Vast majority of reports about homeopathy are pseudoanecdotes

            So… lies?

            1. how do you know?
            2. see 1.

          • Mike Stevens

            “The vast majority cases are obtainded [sic] from newspapers.”

            You mean like… Anecdotes?

          • @disqus_0bT5QNRHDf:disqus, he has an irrational fear of Journalists and journalism. Almost anything fact based.

          • T-500

            Where is the fact based when a journlist publish bulishit?

          • T-500

            “You mean like… Anecdotes?”

            The vast majority of “reports” that were published in WTH fan page are unverified anecdotes. Sorry.

          • Mike Stevens

            But you seem to think unverified anecdotes are the bee’s knees, for some reason, so I thought you’d approve.

          • T-500

            Wrong!
            Some anecdotes may beusefull.

            PD: Pseudo-skeptic cults disccard any anecdote as “false”.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yes, I find the “anecdotes” on WTH useful.

          • T-500

            Only four anecdotes from WTH. Those was published in peer review journals.

            Only three offer some support at the “dangers” of homeopathy, however the reports are very poor in the details.

            The data are incredible, if the cases are true, only 4 reports were detected in WTH fan page! Homeopathy is very safest!

          • Mike Stevens

            You’ll have to say that again in English.

          • T-500

            With the kindly collaboration from Acleron troll?

          • Mark Mattingly

            I don’t think you read the comment. You use weak evidence to design tests. There is weak evidence both for and against homeopathy. The best unbiased tests show that homeopathy doesn’t work for any condition.

        • edzard ernst

          I think you need to try to understand the nature of evidence; please read this article: http://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/

          • Laurie J. Willberg

            I’ve done one better — Dr. David Sackett is the originator of the term Evidence Based Medicine. You have perverted the good intentions of this concept into scientistic propaganda. Clinical experience informs good medical practise. And Homeopathy is based on 200 years of outstanding clinical experience.

          • edzard ernst

            right!
            Sackett told you that experience = evidence!
            dream on!!!

          • Laurie, bloodletting and purging were used for millennia with results that their proponents thought equally outstanding. Hahnemann hated both. That’s why he invented homeopathy.

            Science tested the claims of bloodletting and purging, and found them false, so it discarded them. It did the same with homeopathy. Science doesn’t give a monkey how popular something is, only whether there is objective proof it works. And with homeopathy, there is no such proof.

            That’s not a surprise. Virtually nothing that doctors “knew” before the mid 19th Century was actually worth knowing, and the reason people now live twice as long is that science was used to discard those things that are based on delusion, and test new things objectively.

            Science gets it wrong sometimes, but that is allowed for. When science finds evidence that it’s wrong, it self-corrects. Not as fast as it should always, but it does.

            Homeopathy, like all religions, lacks this ability. There are profound disagreements between homeopaths on the combination vs. classical, the validity of Korsakovian dilution and imponderables, whether over the counter homeopathy is valid or whether it must be individualised.

            These disputes are never settled. As with religious disputes, they lead to schism. If you ask: does a remedy have to be succussed on a leather cushion or does Korsakovian dilution also work? The answer comes back: both are equally wrong. And the answer, being ideologically unacceptable, is ignored, and both schools go on as if nothing happened.

            A great many things have been discovered in the two centuries since Hahnemann plucked homeopathy out of his organon, and in every case where they bear on the claims of homeopathy, they contradict them.

          • T-500

            I found profound disagreements between pseudoskeptics. Based on your “rational logic”, the pseudoskeptics are a cult.

          • I’ve done one better…

            No, you haven’t.

        • No, her “evidence” is called anecdote. We have no idea what actually caused the improvement in her eczema, other than that it is exceptionally unlikely to have been the specific “remedy”. There is absolutely no connection between most “remedies” and the symptoms they purport to cure, and no evidence that dilution and twerking confers any kind of potency.

          When you collect together large numbers of patients and study them methodically, you ifnd that the effects observed, are all nonspecific – bias, expectation, regression to the mean, natural course of disease and so on.

          Eczema waxes and wanes naturally. If it’s getting bad, it will soon be better. But it is human nature to ascribe this improvement to whatever nostrum was taken last.

          • T-500

            Not all anecdotal evidence are false.

          • Mark Mattingly

            Let use the anecdotal evidence to design tests so we can see.

          • T-500

            Anecdotal evidence can be analized with detalied methdological framework. If the anecdotes correlated with clincal, observational and best series cases, the anecdotes may be a valid tool for the researchers.

          • Anecdotal evidence can be analized with detalied methdological framework.

            So like a meta analysis of anecdotes?

          • Mark Mattingly

            It still goes back to testing. All those things have value, but can tell you little about the true nature of what you are studying. At best they might tell you that something is worth a test.

          • Acleron

            And every time we get enough quality evidence to form a valid conclusion on homeopathy, it fails.

          • Mark Mattingly

            It only fails because the quality evidence is faked by a world wide conspiracy by psuedoskeptics. Researchers are bought and paid for by big pharma along with the media’s alternative facts.

          • Acleron

            The idea of suede clad skeptics is appealing. 😊

          • Mark Mattingly

            I just need to apply for the big money from big pharma. I can always use some extra money in my retirement.
            .

          • T-500

            Your objection is not valid. High quality anecdotes may be and indicator of the real phenomena.

          • Your objection is not valid. High quality anecdotes may be and indicator of the real phenomena.

            So… A high quality unverified and unverifiable story is better than a low quality unverified and unverifiable story.

            Good quality bovine feces is still bull crap.

          • Let use the anecdotal evidence to design tests so we can see.

            They can be used to guide what should be tested. but not used to design the tests. By definition they are not up to the task. Otherwise we would just collect them and make up crappy hypothesis around them and not actually learn anything.

          • Mark Mattingly

            I agree very much. What I was trying to say was that one anecdote or a hundred is worthless without testing.

          • Not all anecdotal evidence are false.

            Correct. Kind of. “Anecdotal evidence” is an oxymoron.

          • Acleron

            It is amazing how many homeopathy anecdotes are untrue.

            How often, when probed, it is found that the individual is undergoing well proven conventional treatment as well as just plain false medical records.

            However, true anecdotes are still not sufficient evidence to prove the efficacy of a product.

          • T-500

            “Correct. Kind of. “Anecdotal evidence” is an oxymoron.”

            You can’t understand the basis of logic. I’ve seen the typical pseudo skeptics wrote “Oxymoron”, however, Oxymoron need special conditions. Anecdotes are evidence, the problem with anecdotes are the quality from the point view of some medical scientist. When you can write a one logic argument, probably the world would be a best place.

          • You can’t understand the basis of logic.

            …and you demonstrate with most of your posts that you can’t understand the basics of it.

            I’ve seen the typical pseudo skeptics wrote “Oxymoron”, however,

            … you don’t know what it means.

            Oxymoron need special conditions.

            See. Point in case.

            Anecdotes are evidence,

            …of the lowest possible quality. So low they should never be used. Regardless of the quality, they are not data.

            the problem with anecdotes are the quality from the point view of some medical scientist.

            #FTFY

            When you can write a one logic argument, probably the world would be a best place.

            Ling!

          • T-500

            In all cases, you can’ t offer any proof of nothing. Get back to the elementary school!

          • T-500

            “No, her “evidence” is called anecdote. We have no idea what actually caused the improvement in her eczema, other than that it is exceptionally unlikely to have been the specific “remedy”.

            Yes, her evidence is anecdote. We have no idea what actually cause her health, that it’s correct. Proabably her physician have idea what actually cause her eczama.

          • Yes, her evidence is anecdote. We have no idea what actually cause her health, that it’s correct. Proabably her physician have idea what actually cause her eczama.

            So you concede that we have no idea “what actually cause her health” yet you are willing to accept a statistically implausible suggestion. Not only accept it, but fight for it.

            Why is “we don’t know” not a good enough answer for you?

            It is the only honest answer given the lack of any reliable evidence.

          • T-500

            “So you concede that we have no idea “what actually cause her health” yet you are willing to accept a statistically implausible suggestion. Not only accept it, but fight for it. Why is “we don’t know” not a good enough answer for you?””

            Yes, I don’t know the case in detail. You too. If you can tell the details of the case with facts, then you can write a logic sentence. Remember the adagio: the piece of pseudoskeptical opinions are not nothing evidence.

            “It is the only honest answer given the lack of any reliable evidence.”

            Your comments are not evidence. Are troll noise.

        • Tetenterre

          No, Ms Willberg, Ms MacEwen’s anecdote is not “empirical evidence”. Evidence, empirical or otherwise, is verifiable. Ms MacEwen’s assertion is both unverified and unverifiable.

        • Mike Stevens

          Her evidence is anecdotal, and most likely due to chance.
          Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
          Childhood eczema usually spontaneously improves. It’s why old wives ‘ remedies like rubbing a toad on your warts seems to make them disappear… Because 90% of them disappear on their own within a short time frame anyway.

          • T-500

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be excluded when the basic research (in vitro test) demonstrate specific effects with double blind and randomized studies. You can view some new high quality studies:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466617300042

          • Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be excluded when the basic research (in vitro test) demonstrate specific effects with double blind and randomized studies.

            That’s not what happened in this case. Therefore it’s not basic research and no more than an anecdote.

          • T-500

            “That’s not what happened in this case. Therefore it’s not basic research and no more than an anecdote”

            Your piece of opinion or failed reasoning are not valid debunks. I want really debunks, not cries.

          • Brian

            Hi T-500
            Here’s a softball question for you. How many times would one liter of an “active ingredient” undergo a 100x dilution before you are 99% confident that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains in the solution?

          • T-500

            Your question is irrelevant in the case of high dilutions. Your basic dogma is “not molecule not effect = placebo effect”.

          • Brian

            Are you admitting that high dilutions contain zero molecules of the “active ingredient”?

            Did you take middle school chemistry?

          • T-500

            “Are you admitting that high dilutions contain zero molecules of the “active ingredient”?

            Some dilutions, not all.

            “Did you take middle school chemistry?”

            Yes. Overwhelming evidence from basic research debunks your kinder belief!

            nature.com/ijir/journal/v26/n1/full/ijir201312a.html

            journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1559325815626685

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16889990

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030446

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622259

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599845

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16293983

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369009

            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20558607

            journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118440

            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491615000090

            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229916302771

            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215312277

            tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072

            link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40031-013-0035-2

            onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.24717/abstract

            journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166340

            journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2001/02120/Neuroprotection_from_glutamate_toxicity_with.31.aspx

            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466616304690

            tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01448765.2014.960451?src=recsys&journalCode=tbah2

          • “Did you take middle school chemistry?”

            Yes.

            You should take it again.

          • T-500

            “You should take it again.”

            You should take the elementary school for first time. Don’t forget the oportunity!

          • Your… I’m having trouble parsing what you are actually saying there so if this isn’t addressing your actual point, please learn a little grammar.

            Asserting it’s not a valid debunking of your point is, itself, an invalid position.

            Explain why my point doesn’t debunk yours. Then I will have something to actually consider, contemplate, assess and potentially change my position on.

            Until then, my point stands.

          • T-500

            Not, explain why the studies (the studies that I have post) doesn’t debunk your pseudoskeptic beleifes.

          • Not, explain why the studies (the studies that I have post) doesn’t debunk your pseudoskeptic beleifes.

            Again, you’ve still not explained why my point is incorrect. Or if you have the grammar is so poor I can’t figure it out. Please feel free to revisit and rewrite your claim.

          • T-500

            Your poin is incorrect,

            Wikipedia is not a valid resource.
            Gold opinions based on opinons… are not valid arguments.

          • Your poin is incorrect,

            Wikipedia is not a valid resource.

            Asserting something does not make it real.

            Gold opinions based on opinons… are not valid arguments.

            You have yet to provide an argument at all. You have still not explained why my point is incorrect.

          • T-500

            “Asserting something does not make it real.”

            When you can go to the kinder, may be understand the difference between Wikipedia source as biased propaganda.

            “You have yet to provide an argument at all. You have still not explained why my point is incorrect.”

            Your ALL points are incorrects. After I was seen the all comments, I can see the religious devotion to Wikipedia as most complete source. Maybe, I would try debunk the all state of art document of Wikipedia. That’s a funny work!

          • Mike Stevens

            We are talking about Catherine’s anecdote.

          • T-500

            Ok, Can you show “reliable debunk” of the Catherine’s anecdote?

          • Ok, Can you show “reliable debunk” of the Catherine’s anecdote?

            Catherine gave an anecdote.
            Others comment
            Mike Stevens makes the post hoc ergo propter hoc claim
            T-500 claims it can be dismissed and gives a reason why

            The reason is a valid reason to dismiss a claim of
            Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

            However, the reason does not explain Catherine’s scenario.

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc still stands as a reasonable explanation for Catherine’s unverified story.

          • T-500

            No. Catherine anecdote may be flawed, I don’t know. But if the pseudoskeptic claims the “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, the “skeptic” need show the documental evidence of this. Pseudoskeptics frequently suffer of memory bias, cognitive bias, abuse of logical fallacies and they think as the sectarian cult. When I consult the “most impressive evidence”against homeopathy, I’m shocked when the high grade of cultism in the ALL books. In ALL books they repeat the same bullshit as you: imaginary evil return to the Middle ages, imaginary evil kills caused from homeopathy, imaginary destruction of the moral of science (maddox effect) and the belief in charismatic and unquestionable leader as James Randi, Robert Park.

            Pseudoskeptic = Catholic church (only replace the God for the Randi)

          • No. Catherine anecdote may be flawed, I don’t know.

            That is the nature of an anecdote. They are unverified and unverifiable stories. You’ve just added more cause to not consider it as data.

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc still stands as a reasonable explanation for Catherine’s unverified story and by your own admission of not knowing if it is flawed or not you ought to be moving towards this position even more now.

            But if the pseudoskeptic claims the “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, the “skeptic” need show the documental evidence of this.

            Ah. I see that you don’t understand the nature of the burden of proof. It is the person making that claim that needs to provide the evidence you are now requesting. Depending on the quality and veracity of that evidence it may even be considered data.

            [incoherent religious rambling snipped]

            You really have a thing against Randi don’t you? You clearly don’t understand the nature of scientific scepticism or the Scientific Method.

            What do you have against rational thinking?

            Are you aware that it is human nature to have the biases that you describe and that the application of the Scientific Method aims to remove as much of that bias as possible to get at what is real?

          • T-500

            “That is the nature of an anecdote. They are unverified and unverifiable stories. You’ve just added more cause to not consider it as data.”

            Correct, however if the web anecdote is unveriefed source you can’t prove if the history is true or false. The same thing with vas majority propaganda from what’s the harm “journalist’s” pseudo news. Dingle case is the example of low quality verified source, not more.

            “Post hoc ergo propter hoc still stands as a reasonable explanation for Catherine’s unverified story and by your own admission of not knowing if it is flawed or not you ought to be moving towards this position even more now.”

            Prove the post hor ergo propter hoc with facts not with a sophism!

            “Ah. I see that you don’t understand the nature of the burden of proof. It is the person making that claim that needs to provide the evidence you are now requesting. Depending on the quality and veracity of that evidence it may even be considered data.”

            I understand the Burden of the proof. I was able to post peer reviewed experiments, you response was based in a stupid excuse word: “noise”. Your lack of basic skills in logic and science is evident. You can try post zero evidence from What’s the harm scream monger unverified web sites, you can try quote every thing that you read in the pseudoskeptic world, however, the pseudoskeptics was unable offer a real debunk. I’ve read the vast majority of books, articles and blogs from these guys, the same pattern emerges since 30 years of data reviewed: biased ad-hoc excuses, move to goal poasts, ad-hominem attacks to the researchers, false data, basic historical and logical mistakes, poor understanding of the history of sciences… I like ths history of this guys, is analogous for the excuses offered by the Spanish Inquisition when they guil the “witches”, well only in the web and mass media.

            “You really have a thing against Randi don’t you? You clearly don’t understand the nature of scientific scepticism or the Scientific Method.”

            That’s a joke! I will read all books from Randi and edited by Prometheus Books.

            “What do you have against rational thinking?”

            Another joke,. I don’t fight against the rational thinking. Pseudoskepticis is not a rational thinkingin, the nature and role of this cult is very important for the post apocayptic world.

            “Are you aware that it is human nature to have the biases that you describe and that the application of the Scientific Method aims to remove as much of that bias as possible to get at what is real?”

            Yes, homeopaths and pseudoskeptics are human. They can fall in biased mind. In my view, the pseudoskeptics are more prone to biased mind that homeopaths (researchers). It’s a fantastic event!

          • “That is the nature of an anecdote. They are unverified and unverifiable stories. You’ve just added more cause to not consider it as data.”
            Correct, however if the web anecdote is unveriefed source you can’t prove if the history is true or false. The same thing with vas majority propaganda from what’s the harm “journalist’s” pseudo news. Dingle case is the example of low quality verified source, not more.

            #FTFY

            Also, please stop using the Dingle case.

            * It’s a very poor example of the point you are making.
            * It shows you as a horrible person for using a tragic death to push your agenda. Especially given that using homeopathy directly lead to her death.

          • T-500

            ‘Im a devil!

            Please stop using any poor pseudocase from What’s the harm. It’s a ver poor example of your unethical and dangerous behaviour and you lack of logical coherence in any debate. Your emotional sentences reveal your personal agenda.

          • T-500

            “Post hoc ergo propter hoc still stands as a reasonable explanation for Catherine’s unverified story.”

            “Reasonable explanation” based on your negation is not explanation. The Catherine case need investigation, not your speculations. More reasonable and limited explanation is the correlation with evidence of basic research studies.

          • “Reasonable explanation” based on your negation is not explanation.

            The “who” of the matter shouldn’t be relevant. Is the point sound? Apart from citing the source of the negation you have provided no reason to accept your point.

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc still stands as a reasonable explanation for Catherine’s unverified story.

            The Catherine case need investigation, not your speculations. More reasonable and limited explanation is the correlation with evidence of basic research studies.

            Indeed it does. But with it being an unverified and unverifiable story how would you suggest we proceed given that this is just a comment thread on a website?

          • Mike Stevens

            I think you misunderstand exactly how anecdotes fit into the scientific method as applied to gathering evidence.

            They are stories of personal experience or observation. These can be used for hypothesis generation, and then one can experimentally test whether that hypothesis can be validated through experiment and analysis of the results.

            An anecdote cannot be “reliably debunked”, since it is just one person’s account, which may not even be true. Even if one could independently verify Catherine’s account that she had eczema, that it didn’t respond to conventional therapy, that she tried homeopathy, and that it did indeed get better “a few months later”, that does not preclude the probability that other factors led to the improvement in her condition.

            One could look up the natural history of childhood eczema, and find that it is usually a time-limited condition which improves through childhood and usually spontaneously resolves. That is likely to be the case here, just based on the grounds of probability.
            But it does not definitively rule out the possibility something else made her eczema better though.

            One could also do trials of homeopathy for eczema in childhood. Most of these show little real benefit, and the only studies showing benefit are methodologically unsound and of dubious quality. Even the homeopaths themselves (who have a very low threshold for labelling any trial which seems to show positive effects as “high quality”) admit that:
            “As yet, no high-quality trials of homeopathy for childhood eczema have been carried out”
            [See: The Use of Homeopathic Products in Childhood: Data
            Generated over 8.5 Years from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children]

            Even then, the same problem arises – even if homeopathy was shown to be of benefit, one could never be certain that in Catherine’s case it was homeopathy which helped, rather than it being coincidence, or something else entirely.

            So the personal anecdote must stand alone, without in itself being able to contribute much useful information towards the evidence base, other than as I say of providing a means for devising hypotheses requiring testing. Multiple anecdotes of the same nature provide a stronger basis for presuming that one hypothesis might be more likely to be valid than another one, but even then they do not provide the required confirmatory scientific evidence.

          • Acleron
          • T-500

            Thank you Mike, your response is very usefull for me.
            Kudos!

  • Hacawick

    Love homeopathy, it has helped beyond the so called ‘placebo effect’ so many times for my animals my children and myself. Homeopathy is here to stay and as I’ve been told many times by others wise individuals, ‘these people who constantly persists in attempting to discredit homeopathy are simply helping the course because there is no such thing as bad publicly’ they are only bringing homeopathy to the forefront and making the public more aware of it and that is great!!! 👍

    • edzard ernst

      “homeopathy, it has helped beyond the so called ‘placebo effect’ so many times for my animals my children and myself.” HOW DO YOU KNOW? How have you managed the impossible: to differentiate between specific and non-specific therapeutic effects on the basis on anecdotes?

      • BBF

        Did you know you have TWO hemispheres of the brain? Try using them both, Ernst.

        • Non-answer, personal attack. You fail. Try again.

          • T-500

            Where is the “personal attack”?

          • I think the actual question here is how do you consider not answering a direct, straightforward question and instead making a thinly veiled insult at the posters intelligence to not be a personal attack?

          • T-500

            However, where is the “personal attack”?

          • However, where is the “personal attack”?

            The fact that you can’t see the description of the actual attack in my reply above leads me to the following question:

            From a verbal/written context, what you you consider a “personal attack”? Examples of blatant and subtle attacks would be good.

            I, and others here, considered BBFs comment to be blatant.

        • Understood. You can’t answer Edzard’s perfectly reasonable question. And replying with a personal attack too. Sad.

    • demandsafedentalfillings

      I agree with you!

    • sabelmouse

      it saved my cat’s live. and i am talking fl, and fip.

      • Hacawick

        My cat had a really bad case of worms and it was the only thing that worked..

        • edzard ernst

          the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!

          • T-500

            “the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!”

            Citation please. From the promiment pseudoskeptic Robert Todd Carroll:

            Anecdotes Revisited
            For many years I’ve repeated the skeptical mantras: ‘the plural of anecdote is not data,’ ‘anecdotal evidence is unreliable,’ and ‘anecdotes are useful as a guide to what to study scientifically.’ My recent diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer has motivated me to reexamine my view on the value of anecdotal evidence or testimonials
            Source: http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

          • Acleron

            Perhaps you might read that whole article and not just quotemine the phrase that pleased you.

            The author clearly states that anecdotes are only useful in the absence of robust evidence and for tailoring treatment on an individual level. Homeopathy has been tested in many clinical trials, this is far better evidence and the highest quality trials show homeopathy does not work.

          • T-500

            I have read the full document. You can try!

            From Robert C:

            1. “Stories of personal experiences with paranormal or supernatural eventes have littel scientific value. Ir others cannnot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience” (Note: homeopathy is not “supernatural”).

            2. “Testmonials regarding paranormal experiences are of little use to because selective thinking and self-deception must be controlled for in scientific observations.” (Note: Self deception can be deluded in RCT trials if prejudice is introduced, I am think in the “Australian report” and the Warwick declaration on 2012, before that release the real data, not virtual data).

            3. “Testimonials are often vivid and detalied, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive use” (Note: not all anecdotal evidence is untrusted).

            4. “Testmonials are often usde in many areas of life, including medical science, and that giving due consideration to such testimonials is considered wise, not foolish

            5. Listeing only to those claims that fit his or her own prejudices. To do so is to risk harming one’s patient’s” (Note: I am agree whit Caroll but if the “skeptic” listening only to those “negative” claims based in popperian cartoon that fit his or her own prejudices, is criminal and unethical act).

            Carroll admits the failure in the conventional FDA framework with conventional medicines. At the began, his bias were an impediment for accept the preliminary data from the no “reliable data”. He was not able to neglect his own experience:

            “We don’t expect to have our cancers cured, we aim to controlling the growth of the tumors and maintaining a decent quality of life…. The drugs I am taking for my cancer were not approved by the FDa or any other formal organization for pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer… Neither of us coluld point to large RCT studies… despite its beign small and and having no control group. In a away, the Fine study was a like a bunch of anecdotes… All my symptoms are gone…”

            Homeopathy has full experience of cures, paliation overwhelming 200 years.

          • Are you intentionally missing the point Todd was making? Context is important. The anecdotes around homeopathy are missing soooo much of that.

            Homeopathy has full experience of cures, paliation or over 200 years.

            No it doesn’t*.

            * Note: I’ve supplied just as much robust evidence in my claim as you have in yours. Before demanding I present it (which has been done time and time again) please present your robust evidence to back your position.

          • T-500

            Yes, the context is important. An “No it doesn’t” is your best response?

            “: I’ve supplied just as much robust evidence in my claim as you have in yours. “

            Where is your “robust evidence”?
            What does mean “robuts evidence” in in vitro, in vivo, basic and clinical research?

            Note. Please, posts from “CSICOP” , “SBM medicine”, “Orac blogs” or any related biased propaganda or unreferenced “blogs” are not valid debunks.

          • An “No it doesn’t” is your best response?

            No.

          • T-500

            Don’t say “no”! Your comments exhibit lack of basic skill in methdology and science. Whe I read your comments, I suspected your lack of critical thinking.

          • Don’t say “no”!

            But “No” was my full and accurate answer. Not every response needs a Thesis level defence.

            And where do you get off demanding responses from people when you regularly dodge them yourself?

            Your comments exhibit lack of basic skill in methdology and science. Whe I read your comments, I suspected your lack of critical thinking.

            And when I read your comments I’m thinking you either have no schooling at all or English is a second language for you. Your spelling, sentence structure and grammar are so bad there are times when I literally cannot make any sense out of what you are saying.

          • Acleron

            You don’t even understand the bits you cite.

            Anecdotes are one of the lowest quality pieces of evidence that exist, anecdotes by homeopaths probably rank the lowest.

            That’s why we rely on high quality trials and meta studies.

            By the way, for homeopathy to work, it would definitely have a supernatural mechanism, as shown by the claims of some special energy or force.

          • T-500

            If you agree with me that anecdotes are one of the lowest quality pieces of evidence that exist, they are not lack of evidence. Anecdotes from homeopathy may be of low to high quality when their cases are published in journal. The cases of some medical homeopaths are very detalied.

            The high quality studies and meta studies only serves for internal validity. Of course, this trials are very useful when take in count with all levels of evidence.

            Homeopathy don’t need a “supernatural mechanism”, not need a “special energy force”. Only physics and new theoretical models.

          • If you agree with me that anecdotes are one of the lowest quality pieces of evidence that exist, they are not lack of evidence.

            “Low” or “High” makes no difference. They’re still so poor, from the point of view of being data, that they are not worth considering. I know you disagree, but you do so at the risk of demonstrating that you are willing to accept poor quality research over the good quality research out there.

          • T-500

            “Low” or “High” makes no difference.They’re still so poor, from the point of view of being data, that they are not worth considering. I know you disagree, but you do so at the risk of demonstrating that you are willing to accept poor quality research over the good quality research out there./i>

            Personal opinions are not valid.

          • Acleron

            Anecdotes are never high quality evidence, especially when reported by homeopaths. Clinical trials have clearly shown that homeopathy doesn’t work, why should anybody then even want to look at much lower quality evidence?

          • T-500

            Anecdotes may be high quality evidence, not all anecdotes are the same!
            Obviously RCT is best quality evidence only in the internal context, not in the real life context.

            If clinical trials have clearly shown that homeopahy doesn’t work, 10 years ago the homeopathy papers may gone to the science data bases. Some high quality trials show specific effects, if you don´t like the facts is your problem, not me.

            Low quality evidence frequently is published in no peer review magazines as “skeptikal inquirer”. These pseudojournals are only serve as personal bussiness for the cheerleaders of pseudoskepticism.

          • Acleron

            Cherry picking trials on result is your only forte. Childish use of ‘pseudo’ is merely laughable. It just shows that you cannot debate any of the science.

          • Anecdotes may be high quality evidence, not all anecdotes are the same!

            Agree to disagree.

            Regardless, it doesn’t prevent all anecdotes being extremely poor data. So poor they should never be relied on or used.

          • T-500

            “Regardless, it doesn’t prevent all anecdotes being extremely poor data. So poor they should never be relied on or used.”

            As Dingle case?

          • “Regardless, it doesn’t prevent all anecdotes being extremely poor data. So poor they should never be relied on or used.”

            As Dingle case?

            No. Pushing the Dingle case the way you are demonstrates that you;
            * are a horrible person for continuing to use a persons death to push your agenda. Sadly, a common thing among the anti-science crowd.
            * demonstrate that you don’t understand the nature of anecdotes.

          • T-500

            “are a horrible person for continuing to use a persons death to push your agenda. Sadly, a common thing among the anti-science crowd.

            *Dingle anecdote is not evidence of all cases from the world. The case fail in adress the real cause of death.
            *Dingle anecdote was pushed in bullshit mass media when the 10:23 campaign and Ben Goldacre appear as porn stars of pseudoskepticism.
            *Dingle anecdote was posted in all pseudoskeptic shit blog as “proof” of the evil plans of homeopathy.
            *Dingle anecdote was a marketing strategy for the promotion of pseudoskeptics cults in the mass media.

            “* demonstrate that you don’t understand the nature of anecdotes.”

            You can show your own PhD thesis about of the nature of anecdotes, or papers published in peer review journals. Don’t forget!:

            1. Pseudopapers from pseudomagazines or pseudojournals affiliated to the CSICOP companies are not valid.
            2. Any person affiliated to illegal charities and pro RounUp/Monsanto/Syngenta killers as Sense About Science, Nightingale Collaboration, Center for Inquiry are not valid.
            3. Wikipedia is not reliable source.
            4. Zenos blog’s, “science based medicine” blog, Quackometer, Edzard Ernsrt blog are not valid “evidence”.

          • Homeopathy don’t need a “supernatural mechanism”, not need a “special energy force”. Only physics and new theoretical models.

            1. Given so many homeopaths push for the vitalism approach it literally needs a supernatural mechanism. Vitalism has never been established as a real thing.
            2. Before we bother trying to figure out how it works let’s establish, beyond a doubt, that it works.

            We’re not at point 2 yet. We can ignore point 1.

          • T-500

            1. Not all homeopathas dopt the “vitalism”. If your logic is valid, then all physicists are “vitalists”. A basic lesson of history: Newton was a vitalist!
            2. What does mean “beyound a doubt” for you? When you can show you Phd thesis about the unquestionable definition of extraordinary evidence, then yuo can talk with wisdom.

          • T-500

            “Homeopathy has been tested in many clinical trials, this is far better evidence and the highest quality trials show homeopathy does not work.”

            Yes, your are right! Your statement contradicts the cartoon of the typical label of “infalsability and pseudoscience” applied to all homeopathy principles. But some high quality trials show specific effect over placebo effect. An example:

            karger.com/Article/Pdf/210233

            These meta analysis was not included in the “Australian report”. The Ernst “reanalysis” was not able to debunk the studies.

            onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2011.01084.x/full

            Quote from Ernst review:

            ” Even though findings of the review seem to suggest efficacy, important caveats prevent any firm conclusions being made; it also casts doubt on the reliability of the conclusion of the published
            meta-analysis.”

            What does mean the “doubts”?

            “All studies were of high methodological quality (Jadad score = 4 or 5, of a maximum score of 5), were conducted by the same German research group, and all followed a similar design: multicentre”

            ” The homeopathic potentiations applied were D 4 , D 6 and C 21″

            Da and D6 were low potency. This homeoapthics potencies do not contradict the Avogadro number.

            Fails?

            “The 1997 meta-analysis 3 had numerous flaws and inconsistencies that need to be noted. For instance, the analysis included retrospective studies and unpublished trials. One of the authors was also an author on all four primary studies of GG, 10–13 and another author of the analysis was co-author of one of the studies. 13 Thus, the results of the meta-analysis are neither free of bias nor can they be replicated. Not least for these reasons, it was felt that a critical reanalysis was necessary”

            Include retrospective studies in the meta analysis was not a fail.
            Include unpublished trials.. wait, the Shang meta study include unpublished trials!

            The only valid point of Ernst is wait for more independent replications.

          • Acleron

            You don’t actually think we haven’t seen the homeopathic moans about high quality meta studies? Perhaps you do.

            All they demonstrate is the inability of homeopaths to distinguish quality and result.

          • T-500

            “You don’t actually think we haven’t seen the homeopathic moans about high quality meta studies? Perhaps you do. All they demonstrate is the inability of homeopaths to distinguish quality and result.”

            Emotive words from a person with high vested interests. Clap, clap, clap.
            When I review the all paper (meta analysis, systematic reviews and narrative reviews), the most frequently bias for exclude a “conclusive” effect is the supposedly lack of mechanism of action or the alleged “bias in reporting”. Only these, ad-hoc excuses.

            1. Kleijnen:

            Bias:

            “Also, there is no plausible explanation of the mechanisms through which homoeopathy would act. Substances that contain only the solvent can have no pharmacological actions according to our present knowledge of physics and chemistry.”

            “Based on this evidence we would readily accept that homeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”

            Recomendations:
            “The weight of the presented evidence will probably not be sufficient for most people to decide definitely one way or the other. The question arises, What further evidence would be needed? Investigations in animal or plant models may increase the belief of sceptical people before they have read the evidence from clinical trials, but if no positive results are found homoeopaths may claim that homoeopathy only works in humans.”

            2. Linde 1997

            “One approach is to develop laboratory models that explore possible mechanisms or attempt independent replication of the simpler clinical models that already exist, such as the studies by Reilly et al or Wiesenauer et al on seasonal allergies. If the results of these attempts are positive, one might conclude that homoeopathy is not always placebo and that it might have some clinical relevance.

            3. Ernst 1998

            In the small meta analysis, Ernst found: “Only one of the trials yields a significant result” What is this trial? The Jacobs trial!

            And:

            “The debate as to whether or not homeopathic remedies have an effect pertains only to those remedies are so dilute that they are unlike to have material. No-one would argue that a homeopathic mother tincture can be effective

            3. Linde: 1999

            “Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes. The most plausible explanation of this finding is bias. The results are comparable to those from similar analyses in conventional medicine

            “However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome”

            4. Ernst 2005

            “Recently this notion was confirmed through a metaanalytic comparison of 110 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy with matched studies of conventional medicine. The authors found that the apparently positive results of homoeopathy were due to bias… If one accepts this evidence (and I think it is suffi-
            ciently compelling to do so
            )”

            Shang trial was sufficnetly compellig for Ernst!
            The Shang trial is fatally flawed!

            5. Cucherat 2000

            “The meta-analysis method used does not allow any conclusion on what homeopathic treatment is effective in which diagnosis or against which symptoms

            These meta analysis only serves as internal validy without external applicability in the real world.

            6. X Meta study 2007

            This meta study debunks the Shang study. The study include high quality studies and show some specific effect over the placebo effect.

            7. Meta study 2014

            This meta study debunks for second time the Shang study. The study including 10 RCT with individualized homeoathy. The results confirm some specific effect over the placebo. The meta study is very consistent with the X meta study and Mathie meta study.

          • Acleron

            And when all else fails, the accusation of vested interest arises. Of course, this is deflection because every homeopath knows by now that homeopathy companies conspired to smear certain critics including the author of the above article. Pathetic.

            As is your continual quote mining.

            I’ll pick just one. Shang et al produced a rigorously applied test of quality to avoid selection based on the result. What did the homeopaths do? Yeah, they selected on result.

            Get some real scientists to validly criticise Linde et al, Shang et al and the Australian NHMRC report and then we can discuss it. Nonsense claims by homeopaths in alt med magazines and comment sections are not enough.

          • T-500

            “Of course, this is deflection because every homeopath knows by now that homeopathy companies conspired to smear certain critics including the author of the above article. Pathetic.”

            That’s no true. The tiny conspirators as you and his wife are fool conspirators. The tactics are the same propaganda used by some CIA people years ago. I like this:

            lynnemctaggart.com/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-a-cyber-lynch-mob/

            Quote:

            “Maria and her husband Alan Henness are effectively the Nightingale Collaboration, a tiny organization that was given seed money by Sense About Science in order to spend a prodigious amount of time reporting advertisers and practitioners of alternative medicine to the UK’s The Advertising Standards Authority.”

            the Uk ASA is the same bullshit, like the NCAFH quackwatch.

            I like them:

            gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17417-kevin-folta-s-problem-with-ethics

            “Dr Kevin Folta of the University of Florida is one of the most prominent GMO and pesticide promoters in the United States, who as well as giving talks and writing articles has been very active on social media. He has even been given awards for his science communication. But he appears to have a serious problem with ethics, which has led to him making the front page of the New York Times, as well as prompting articles in a number of other publications. Here are some examples of the problem”

            ” Although Folta has no known medical or toxicology background, he regularly pontificates on food and chemical safety as if he were an expert, often quite inaccurately”

            My god! The Folta pseudoexpert is vastly like the pseudoexperts from Nightingalle Collaboration. Folta was seen in the list of CSICOP elite group:

            http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/the_challenges_of_science_communication_an_interview_with_kevin_folta

            When you want the trolls, the people may see the tiny organization created around the world and their specific purposes. All pseudoskeptic EVER reject this links. Obviously, the “activists” want behind their link with big industries, as you Alan.

          • Acleron

            Anybody who thinks McTaggert doesn’t lie is worthy of either compassion or scorn.

            Lol, you think I am Alan Henness, you’ve just given yourself away.

          • Tetenterre

            I am Alan Henness!

          • LOL! That’s hilarious nonsense. Is that the best you can do, T-500?

          • T-500

            “‘ll pick just one. Shang et al produced a rigorously applied test of quality to avoid selection based on the result. What did the homeopaths do? Yeah, they selected on result.”

            Rigorously test of quaility on Shang, yes. The problem with Shang is the cherry picking and ad-hoc excuses in the sub set on trials. I like the sixth independent debunk:

            http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Shang-re-analysis.pdf

          • Acleron

            The projection is awesome. So selecting on quality is cherry picking but cherry picking based on result is fine.

            The BHS article is quite funny. They tried to pretend it was a scientific paper but it wasn’t by any means. Their funnel plots are labelled as odds ratio below unity favours homeopathy and above favours placebo. Either they are clueless or lying, possibly both. Unity means no difference between placebo and verum, the result they found even after trying out a different statistical method.

            Yet another failed attempt by homeopaths to edit facts.

          • T-500

            Something rather intersteing happende in pseudoskeptic world, and curiosuly the Acleron pseudoskeptic tried debunk the BHA re-analysis with mere rethorical sentences.

            ” Their funnel plots are labelled as odds ratio below unity favours homeopathy and above favours placebo. Either they are clueless or lying, possibly both”

            They use a valid statistical method. Your cries are pathetic.

          • Acleron

            A homeopath who doesn’t understand statistics, hardly a rarity.

            Even after they massaged the numbers, they confirmed Shang’s main points. Weak evidence favours homeopathy and strong evidence doesn’t.

            This is exactly why homeopaths do poor quality trials and want anecdotes to replace high quality trials.

          • Tetenterre

            The HRI (https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/essentialevidence/clinical-trials-overview/#) touts five out of six meta-analyses as being positive. Let’s look at the parts of the conclusions of those five so-called “positive” meta-analyses that you chose to edit out from your post above:

            Kleijnen et al. 1991: ‘… not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias’

            Linde et al. 1997: ‘…we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.’

            Linde et al. 1999: ‘We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.’

            Cucherat et al. 2000: ‘… the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies…’

            Mathie et al. 2014: ‘The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.’

            NB: these are the ones of which the HRI stated: “five were positive”. I wonder how negative something had to be to be relegated to the quack-invented “inconclusive” category (which, of course, honest researchers call by its correct name: “negative”)!

      • Proponent

        Now there’s a rousing endorsement..

        Homeopathy: “It saved my cat’s life!”

    • Brian

      Homeopathy – the practice of pretending that water is medicine.

      My toddler is an expert in homeopathy, and has group homeopathy sessions with her toy dolls and stuffed animals.

    • JGC

      Can you explain exactly how you determined homeopathy generated results greater than can be attributable to placebo effect for your animals, children, etc.? Describe your methodology.

  • Jonnybones

    The real danger is those who use conventional medicine, one off the leading causes of death in the Western world.

    • Acleron

      Reference please.

      • Karyse Day

        Reference Dr Peter Gotzsche, as below. If you require more evidence go to https://rxisk.org/

        Dr Peter Gotzsche, a leading researcher and a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence, arrives in Australia on Monday for a whirlwind speaking tour warning Australians about their use of prescription medications. Many of our most commonly used drugs, from painkillers to antidepressants, are dangerous and are killing us off in large numbers, he says.

        He estimates that 100,000 people in the United States alone die each year from the side-effects of correctly used drugs. Similar figures are not available in Australia, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that 3000 people died after complications with medical and surgical care in 2012.
        “It’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs,” Professor Gotzsche, who heads the Nordic Cochrane Centre, told Fairfax Media ahead of his visit.
        Two of Professor Gotzsche’s biggest targets are antidepressants and the painkillers described as “non-steroidal anti-inflammatories”, such as ibuprofen, diclofenac and celecoxib. Another, sold under the brand name Vioxx, was withdrawn after it emerged it had caused up to 140,000 cases of serious heart disease in the US alone in the five years it was on the market – during which time its manufacturer, Merck was withholding information about its risks. About half the cases were thought to be fatal.
        Professor Gotzsche says those deaths are only the tip of the iceberg and are representative of a system of drug regulation that simply does not protect patients.
        Even the name for these drugs, “anti-inflammatory”, is not supported by evidence, he says. He has conducted a clinical trial and review of the evidence that has found there is no proof they reduce inflammation.
        “These terms for our drugs are invented by the drug industry,” he said. “They had a huge financial interest in calling these things anti-inflammatory. It lured doctors into believing that these drugs somehow also had an effect on the disease process and reduced the joint damage.”
        In a paper last year in the Lancet Psychiatry journal, Professor Gotzsche argued our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good.
        He said as the evidence against drugs such as Valium and Xanax emerged, they have been replaced with antidepressants that are equally as addictive and their side-effects just as dangerous.
        Furthermore, he says research that showed small benefits over placebos was biased, as it did not properly hide whether patients were in the active or placebo group.
        Professor Gotzsche said the biggest victims of over-prescription are the elderly. For every 28 elderly people treated for a year with an antidepressant, one will die who would have lived otherwise, from causes including heart attacks, stroke and falls.
        “Those who use arthritis drugs are mostly the elderly who are most at risk of dying of a heart attack caused by the drug or a bleeding ulcer,” he said. “We have a high use of psychiatric drugs by the elderly and we kill an enormous amount of them.”
        Freedom-of-information requests lodged by Fairfax Media have shown more than 4 million antidepressant prescriptions a year are recorded for people aged over 67 – twice the rate for young Australians.
        “These people get shoved in a nursing home and they get aggravated, so they’re knocked out with an antipsychotic drug – it’s very inhumane,” Professor Gotzsche said.

        • Acleron

          I am well aware of the opinions of Gotzsche. I was asking for a reference to the evidence for your claims.

        • Pro tip: don’t ask Peter Gøtzsche if his work in any way validates the bullshit that is homeopathy, because you won’t like the answer. I’ve had dinner with him and David Colquhoun.

          Problems with medicine validate homeopathy in exactly the same way that plane crashes validate magic carpets.

          • edzard ernst

            I can confirm this fully

          • T-500

            Obviously, Peter G any way validates the homeopathy. The Peter G invalidates some Big Pharma data and tiny lobbies (Nightingale Collaboration or AllTrials pseudotransparency Glaxo Smith Kline fake campaign).

        • If you require more evidence go to https://rxisk.org/

          So you have no unbiased source that doesn’t scream “Yes, we have an agenda that subscribes to Trump-like ‘Alternative Facts'”?

          • T-500

            Alternative facts?
            You’re a crazy man!

            Karise Day source is most reliable than “Wikipedia”. The list of some drugs:

            https://rxisk.org/drugs-a-z/

            The case reports are amazing! (no the same bullshit from Whats the harm!)

    • Mike Stevens

      Regardless of the truth or not of this claim, could you try and not divert the discussion away from the topic, which is homeopathy?

      Or perhaps I am being rather unkind to you, and you also spend your time interrupting discussions on the effectiveness of conventional medicine with comments on how useless homeopathy is.

  • edzard ernst

    in case anyone wonders why there are so many strange comments from believers here, this might explain it – this call to defend homeopathy published here (https://www.facebook.com/HomeopathyWorldCommunity/posts/10154923054983744):
    There has been an attack to the National Center for Homeopathy National Center for Homeopathy How will homeopaths and advocates respond? Please post response on link below. If you wish to copy and paste as a comment here, that’s fine too…

    • edzard ernst

      “There has been an attack…”
      THIS IS PRICELESS!!!
      I disclose that one of the top organisations in homeopathy is publishing advice that has the potential to kill millions – and they call this an ‘attack’.
      not dissimilar to a factory polluting a river and, when found, out brands the disclosure as an ‘attack’.
      I think this is a significant insight into the weird mind-set of ardent homeopaths; they seem to have lost any sense of reality.

      • Ah, Debby Bruck, I remember her. Delusional, but not as malevolent as the likes of @BrownBagPantry.

    • “If you wish to copy and paste as a comment here, that’s fine too…” – the FB post

      They can’t even take the time to write their own comments any more?

  • Jesus Christ, magic water for EBOLA? What do they recommend for VX exposure or rabies?

    • Acleron

      It was a rather nasty tale. The homeopaths claimed they had experience in this type of epidemic. When the local doctors realised what they were, they were told they could only treat by conventional means. They again tried to use sugar and water and were thrown out. Of course, they claimed that they were ejected because of their ‘success’.

      • It’s a malignant cult and should be treated as such.

        • T-500

          I’m evil!

    • shay simmons

      From what I’ve seen, they recommend the rabies vaccine accompanied by a detox program using extract of arborvitae.

  • So irresponsible. Some of the conditions they are “advising” on can kill you if left untreated (asthma attack, for starters).

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Seems like the “skeptics” commenting below are making much ado about nothing. The very first paragraph in Ernst’s article above states that the National Center for Homeopathy has said that homeopathic medicines can be used by lay people at home “…….to address minor illnesses and injuries that don’t necessarily need a doctor’s care.” Clearly, the list of medicines that could be used to treat serious conditions is for information only. The NCH recommends that people with serious conditions consult with a homeopath for treatment.

    • UK Homeopathy Regs

      In many US states, practising medicine without a license is a criminal matter. Indeed, Dana Ullman found this out back in the 1970s.

      Recommending that people with serious conditions consult with a homeopath is a bad idea on that basis alone. The idea that a US “homeopath” is somehow a “professional” is laughable given their training.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        Most homeopaths in the U.S. are M.D.’s or D.O.’s. If they aren’t, they have credentials which are equivalent and have been licensed in other modalities and certified. The U.S. government considers them to be credentialed medical doctors. I am quite certain that the UK government accepts the credentials of M.D. and D.O.

        • Mark Mattingly

          “Most .in the U.S. are M.D.’s or D.O.’s”
          Where did you get that? I thought there was not educational requirement. The chemistry requirement must be their hardest class.

        • edzard ernst

          really ‘most’? are you sure? can you provide evidence for this statement?

        • UK Homeopathy Regs

          UK regulations do recognise osteopathy but training is different and osteopaths do not have prescribing rights. Because of the way that medicines regulation work in the UK re homeopathic medicines, an osteopath practicing homeopathy would likely be in breach of multiple laws and regulations. Naturopaths are certified in some US states but that’s it really.

          http://homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board/board-certified-physicians.html shows a list of MDs who use homeopathy. Oops.

          • T-500

            What is the regulation for “skeptics”?
            What is the professional training of the “skeptics”?

            No regulation exists about of this problema. Any person can be presented as professional “skeptic” without philosophy training.

        • Most homeopaths in the U.S. are M.D.’s or D.O.’s.

          Can you cite your source for this assumption? Backing your regularly debunked claims with reliable, unbiased and trustworthy sources would go a long way towards making your posts believable.

    • edzard ernst

      “… treat simple conditions safely …”
      yes, except the listed conditions are not SIMPLE and the recommended treatments are not SAFE!

      • T-500

        You bored me.

        • Mark Mattingly

          I’m sure there is a remedy for that.

        • You bored me.

          Awesome response to having a fact that counters your position pointed out to you. You are really bad at this.

          Also, that’s the past tense. You just said “You have ceased to bore me”

          I know that’s not what you meant. But hey, learn some grammar.

          • T-500

            “Awesome response to having a fact that counters your position pointed out to you. “

            No. Noise is your most awesome “logical” response.

            “You are really bad at this”

            I’m evil, remember! LOL!

          • “Awesome response to having a fact that counters your position pointed out to you. ”
            No. Noise is your most awesome “logical” response.

            …and you don’t understand the term “noise in the data”. Or what “logical” means.

            “You are really bad at this”
            I’m evil, remember! LOL!

            I’m pretty sure you are the only one that has accused anyone of being evil.

            Also, I wouldn’t attribute malice where ignorance and stupidity are clearly a better explanation.

          • T-500

            “…and you don’t understand the term “noise in the data”. Or what “logical” means.

            Onus probandi. Please, provide the proof of “noise in the data” in all papers that I was paste in the comments.

            “I’m pretty sure you are the only one that has accused anyone of being evil.”

            No, you did this!

            “t shows you as a horrible person for using a tragic death to push your agenda. Especially given that using homeopathy directly lead to her death.”

            Yes, I’m the evil, and demon and evil person. Lol!

          • I’m pretty sure you are the only one that has accused anyone of being evil.
            No, you did this!

            Prove it. Provide the link to the comment where I did that. I’ve just checked myself and confirmed it for myself. You are making the claim. Prove it.

          • T-500

            “Prove it. Provide the link to the comment where I did that. I’ve just checked myself and confirmed it for myself. You are making the claim. Prove it.”

            Silly boy….. Prove it the “noise of data” for the ALL papers thart I was posted!

            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466617300042
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0344033816306239
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X
            nature.com/ijir/journal/v26/n1/full/ijir201312a.html
            journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1559325815626685
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16889990
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030446
            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10454438.2016.1274705?journalCode=wjaa20
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622259
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599845
            revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/veterinaria/article/view/12561
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16293983
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369009
            link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00436-016-5366-x
            ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20558607
            journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118440
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491615000090
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229916302771
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215312277
            tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072
            link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40031-013-0035-2
            onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.24717/abstract
            journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166340
            journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2001/02120/Neuroprotection_from_glutamate_toxicity_with.31.aspx
            sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466616304690
            tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01448765.2014.960451?src=recsys&journalCode=tbah2

          • T-500

            “Prove it. Provide the link to the comment where I did that. I’ve just checked myself and confirmed it for myself. You are making the claim. Prove it.”+

            Gold:

            ” are a horrible person for continuing to use a persons death to push your agenda. Sadly, a common thing among the anti-science crowd.”

            I’m devil and aboniable and horrible person! The russians are evils and eat their children!*

            *You can change the russians for homeopaths, homeopathists and any person that you can believe as “pseudoscientist”.

          • [I]t shows you as a horrible person for using a tragic death to push your agenda. Especially given that using homeopathy directly lead to her death.
            Yes, I’m the evil, and demon and evil person. Lol!

            No, Egger, it shows that you are a disingenuous commenter here. This, in addition to everything else you’ve posted… You’re not worth the time.

            You constantly fail to establish your point.
            You constantly dodge simple questions.
            You fail to grasp even the most basic concepts of science.
            You regularly demonstrate that you have no compassion for the victims of homeopathy.
            etc…

            The purpose of engaging with you has been reached. Your own words clearly demonstrate that you are ignorant of the science and even ignorant of what and how homeopathy supposedly works. You have also shown your true colours when it comes to honesty and integrity.

            I see no point in continuing to engage you here.

          • T-500

            No Alan or Ernst?
            You’re a crazy man.

            You constantly fail to understand the most basic logic
            You constantly fail to prove it the allegations
            You constantly fail to grasp even the most basic knowledge in sciences.

            “You regularly demonstrate that you have no compassion for the victims of homeopathy.
            etc…”

            I’m evil! The “victims” from the fan page Whats the harm? Lol!
            You can provide reliable evidence of the “victims, not bullishit journalists pages. Prove it!

            “The purpose of engaging with you has been reached. Your own words clearly demonstrate that you are ignorant of the science and even ignorant of what and how homeopathy supposedly works. You have also shown your true colours when it comes to honesty and integrity.I see no point in continuing to engage you here.”

            Blah, blah, more emotive trolling. When you can post the prove of the “noise of data”, with the clearly stated conditions, you can talk with education. In the time, you can take a course in elementary school.

            Take a course:

            Apple, Bees, Threes, Street
            The alphabet: A, B, C
            Consonants
            Verbs
            Vocals
            Countable nouns

            An much more in the elementary school!

          • T-500

            Thank you for all responses!

            I can understand the pseudoskeptic efficacy in these forums.

            1. Any illegal and criminal charity will need some trolls, the disqus may apply the same biased propoganda. Vote up and create your personal consesus!
            2. The Goebbels quote.
            3. The emotive discourse as “evil cult”, “bad person”, “pseudoscientists”, “quackery”, “you can´’t understand the scientific method”, “Avogadro is alive”.
            4. Devotion and cult for special leaders, pseudojournalist and the same plea of pseudoskeptics (Kevin Folta, Edzard Ernst, Alan Henness,
            5. Play with the lawyer card, send collective legal threats against only with alt med collectives
            6. Disccard the dangers from the conventional drugs, and view the dangers as the “progress of the science”.
            7. Build your own “neutral” charity, as Alltrials and send emotive threats to Cochrane, ELSevier, and all medical of the pussy, evil, bad, crazy total dangers of the alt med. Do not display the Glaxo Smith Collaboration, for “neutral” purposes.
            8. Mount a tiny lobby groups around the world with little offices in park avenues. The groups can be start manage multiple twitter accounts, facebook ghost groups, diqus profiles and they can try threat the “enemy”.
            9. Pay journalists!
            10. Creat the youtube videos! (take account the early points).
            11. Use the “victim” word in any comment. This word is very potent!

          • T-500

            Sorry, the last point:

            12. Use the CIA card: Call “conspiracist” and “illuminati believer” or “antivaccine” to all person that question the pseudo skeptic propaganda.

    • I can treat all sorts of things using this magic pixie dust. It doesn’t *work*, any more than homeopathy works, but it’s perfectly safe, as long as the condition itself is minor and will get better on its own.

      • Does the national body for Pixie Dust(R)(TM)(Patent pending) also recommend that for non-self limiting, potentially lethal conditions that you see and actual registered Pixie or a real doctor?

  • edzard ernst

    normally I abstain from commenting on comments to my posts. this is an exception.
    why?
    because it became clear that this is a fairly good opportunity to tease out the mind-set of those who defend homeopathy.

    • @edzardernst:disqus, that’s a rabbit hole you don’t want to go down. These people aren’t arguing from robust intellectual or honest position. They are driven by faith and conspiracy theory.

      But I suspect you’ll be finding that out already…

  • Lenny

    Because Of course homeopaths and fans of homeopathy live extra-long lives and never get ill or, when they do, are always treated successfully with homeopathy. And never die early. Especially not high-profile homeopaths like, ooh, Jan De Vries (78). Or Kaviraj (66) Or Tinus Smits (63). And if they have insulin-dependant diabetes, they use homeopathy, not insulin. Like homeopath Chris Wilkinson doesn’t.

  • JGC

    T-500, I have a question for you. If you were given three different and blinded 100C homeopathic preparations along with one preparation containing only the vehicle used for succussion (one labeled A, one labeled B, one labeled C and one labeled D) what objective tests could you perform to identify what preparations they were and to distinguish the preparations from active ingredients and the vehicle alone?

    There is a way, right? The preparations are somehow distinguishable from each other and plain water/vehicle, right?

    • T-500 isn’t a homeopath, is it?

      • JGC

        maybe I misaddressed my request? Probably should have directed it to Dana.

        • To Dana? But even the courts have determined can’t provide a credible opinion on this either. 😉

        • According to at least one Judge, Dana isn’t a credible homeopath either.

          • JGC

            ‘Credible homeopath’ just pinged my oxymoron detector.

    • T-500

      I save your comment for future references, thus when any pseudoskeptic that would try move the goalpost, then I post your full comment and the six trolls. Your comment clearly suggest this:

      1. Three homeopathic dilutions with 100C potencies.
      2. Blind and randomized trial (A, B, C, D).
      3. Control group (plain water).

      Thank you JGC!

      • JGC

        Plain water, or whatever other vehicle used to success the preparations.

        • T-500

          Ok, the case is rest. Your comments was saved for future questions.
          Thank you JGC!

      • I save your comment for future references

        It was a question, not a comment.

        You didn’t answer it either.

        • T-500

          1. All questions and answers are comments in the disqus section. Fool.

          2. I can answer the question. The challenge of the user can be used against any future pseudoskeptics. Thank you Gold!

          • 1. All questions and answers are comments in the disqus section. Fool.

            [sigh] Reading comprehension fail.

            2. I can answer the question. The challenge of the user can be used against any future pseudoskeptics. Thank you Gold!

            So you can answer the question, but don’t. You are acknowledging that you are intentionally not answering the question.

            One can only assume it’s because you don’t like the answer, so you avoid it.

          • T-500

            “Reading comprehension fail.”

            Comments can include questions, answers or bullshit.

            “So you can answer the question, but don’t. You are acknowledging that you are intentionally not answering the question.”

            I can answer the question!

            You can’t answer my question:

            Where is the proof that all paper’s that I was posted are “noise”?

            My answer need these:

            1. Evidence from peer reviewed paper.
            2. Comments or piece of opinion from pseudoskeptics websites are not valid.
            3. Comments from pseudoexperts as bioethicists (David Shaw, Alan Henness, Harriett Hall)or industry dogs (Tracey Brown) are not valied as real debunking.
            4. Comments from any person linked to CSICOP, Center For Inquiry of The guardian are not valid.

            You can post the evidence. While I’m waiting, I can see the funny Wikipedia!

          • T-500

            Yes, I can answer the question. So you can’t debunk the evidence… thank you Gold.

  • JGC

    Do it yourself homeopathy for asthma? Well, why not–it’s not as if anyone has actually died as the result of experiencing an asthma attack…
    Oh, wait.

  • Acleron

    The FDA has determined that varying levels of Belladonna have been found in homeopathic baby teething products. One company and it’s trade promoter has responded that it thinks that’s just fine.

    The lack of any quality control on products destined for consumption is worrying let alone for consumption by babies. The lack of concern for 400 babies that have shown symptoms and the ten that have died is staggering but what we expect from homeopaths.

    It still may be the case that the products are not to blame but the irresponsibility of companies selling a known toxin which they do not monitor in attacking the FDA rather than investigating their own products is very clear.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/fda-confirms-toxicity-of-homeopathic-baby-products-maker-refuses-to-recall/

    • Mark Mattingly

      I had often wondered if the makers of homeopathic remedies went through the dilution process. I thought all they needed to do is put different labels on the bottles. No one would know the difference.

      • Indeed. This was confirmed by a homeopathy expert, MS KATE CHATFIELD, Research Ethics Committee, Society of Homeopaths in front of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Science and Technology for their Sixth Report:

        “Q538 Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

        Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.”

        http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldsctech/166/7022105.htm

  • flipant

    Home happy dilutes the brain

  • Acleron

    I note that Ullman has a new article in HuffPo, it’s a classic of misinformation, bait and switch and stupendous ignorance of science.