Homeopathy trials can be positive — the reason why is bad news for homeopaths

Whenever I write about the subject of homeopathy, I am sure to get a flurry of ad hominem attacks. They usually focus on well-rehearsed themes, calling me an unqualified fraud, an untrustworthy liar, an incompetent scientist and a corrupt recipient of bribes from ‘Big Pharma’.

If you don’t believe me, please read some of the comments to my last post.

All of these allegations have in common that they are untrue and potentially libellous, of course. In my view, they merely raise the suspicion that sizeable sections of homeopathy have deteriorated into a cult of irrational fanatics.

Another comment voiced in response to my previous article is that, 26 years ago, I published a positive trial of homeopathy for treating varicose veins; this allegedly renders my criticisms of homeopathy inconsistent and arguably not credible (there even is a website that makes this claim). As the first part of this argument is correct, I feel the need to provide an explanation.

I remember the trial in question well. We conducted it during my time in Vienna, and I am still proud of several innovative ideas that went into it (for instance, we developed an accurate method for measuring leg volume for it). Here is the abstract in full:

‘The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a combined homeopathic medication in primary varicosity. A well-defined population of 61 patients was randomised into active medication (Poikiven®) or placebo. Both were given for 24 days. At the start of the trial, after 12 days of medication and at the end of the study, objective and subjective parameters were recorded: venous filling time, leg volume, calf circumference, haemorheological measurements and patients’ symptoms such as cramps, itching, leg heaviness, pain during standing and the need to elevate the legs. The results show that venous filling time is changed by 44 per cent towards normal in the actively treated group. The average leg volume fell significantly more in this group, but calf circumferences did not change significantly and blood rheology was not altered in any relevant way. None of the patients reported side effects. Subjective complaints were relieved significantly more by Poikiven than by placebo. These results suggest that the oral treatment of primary varicosity using Poikiven is feasible.’

So, there you have it: the most ‘notorious’ critic of homeopathy has shown that a homeopathic remedy is clearly superior to placebo in normalising important objective signs as well as subjective symptoms of varicose veins. Does that not render me inconsistent? Does it not undermine my credibility? Are homeopaths not entitled to be triumphant? And does that not mean that homeopathic remedies work after all?

Disappointingly for homeopaths, the answer to these questions is no.

To understand why, we need to look at the nature of homeopathic remedies. Most homeopathic remedies sold today are highly diluted — most but not all. The remedy we tested in our trial contained Aesculus D1 12,5 ml, Arnica D1 2,5 ml, Carduus marianus D1 5 ml, Hamamelis D1 10 ml, Lachesis D6 5 ml, Lycopodium D4 5 ml, Melilotus officinalis D1 10 ml. Take just the first of these ingredients, Aesculus (horse chestnut). This is a herbal medicine that has been well documented, even via a Cochrane review, to be effective for the symptoms of varicose veins. The fact that our remedy contained Aesculus in the D1 potency means that it was diluted merely by a factor of 1:10. So, for all intents and purposes, it was a herbal medicine, and it is utterly unsurprising that our study found it to be effective.

Rather than proving homeopathy right, our study might even show the main principle underpinning homeopathy to be wrong. Homeopathy relies on the ‘like cures like’ principle. Therefore, if the assumptions of homeopathy were correct, a homeopathic dilution of Aesculus would have to worsen the symptoms of our patients rather than alleviating them. Seen from this perspective, our trial showed that the most fundamental axiom of homeopathy, the ‘like cures like’ principle, is incorrect.

This story tells us that some trials of homeopathy are positive because they use medications which are homeopathic only by name. To make this perfectly clear: homeopathic remedies beyond a C12 potency contain nothing (these are the ones on sale in pharmacies and other outlets), less diluted remedies contain usually not enough to be pharmacologically active, and very low potencies, like the D1 potency used in our trial, are hardy diluted at all and thus contain substantial amounts of active ingredients.

Homeopaths tend to profit from this confusion, for instance, when they rely on reviews of homeopathic trials which generate somewhat positive findings simply because they include studies of very low potency remedies. An example is the Cochrane review which found preliminary data in support of homeopathy as a treatment of adverse effects during cancer therapy. This result is due to remedies in very low dilutions. Homeopaths thrive on this complexity as it seems to negate the total uselessness of their remedies.

So, are homeopathic remedies placebos or aren’t they? As we have seen, the answer is less straightforward than anticipated. The vast majority (99.9 per cent of those sold over the counter today, I estimate) are highly diluted and therefore contain either no or far too few active molecules to have any effect whatsoever. It is this vast majority that people refer to when they rightly insist that homeopathy is a placebo therapy. But we should not forget that, in addition, there are homeopathic remedies that are not highly diluted, like Aesculus D1 or Arsenicum D1. The former might help your varicose veins and the latter can kill your grandma.

Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of A Scientist in Wonderland and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science. He blogs at edzardernst.com.


  • drazzin2373 .

    So your saying low dilution homeopathy does work, even if you called it herbal medicine it is still homeopathy. The reality for Lyin’ Eddie erst is that nobody cares what he says anymore. It is simply his religious zealotry and hatred for all things homeopathy that has long since destroyed any opinion that he has as a bigoted and biased opinion.

    It is clear homeopathy works and every month more and more is being learned.

    Lyin’ Eddie needs to crawl back under a rock with this nonsense.

    • Provide example and demonstration of one lie by Edzard Ernst. Oh, I see, you cannot; hence why you deflect by noisily attacking the critic rather than address the criticism. Which conforms to a pattern in threads like this.

      • drazzin2373 .

        Yes, these threads do have a pattern. Same people, spewing the same hater nonsense, getting their .50 pence per post.

        Of course, lil Eddie now has new benefactors so he needs to change history or at least “explain” it in a way that keeps that hater funding coming. So bad.

        • Often the same homeopathy propagandists making statements they cannot verify. What nonsense, exactly? So, you’re smearing Ernst, but have not provided one example of a demonstrable lie on his part.

      • Egger

        “but have not provided one example of a demonstrable lie on his part.”

        Again Lee Troll? The lie of Ernst was debunked here:

        http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2015/07/el-sacerdocio-de-la-ciencia-xxxiii-paja.html

  • Acleron

    Homeopaths market their sugar and water by saying it is safe. They even evade quality control and toxicity assessments of their product by claiming it doesn’t contain anything. However, as soon as any result could possibly benefit their trade then they claim anything and everything is homeopathic.

    • drazzin2373 .

      Acleron is paid by the post by the little group of religious zealots from the UK. There are like 7 total little haters all from the same place in the UK spewing their bigoted and paid hatred across the Internet. Pay him no attention he is a bad broken record sitting in the back room offices of “the good thinking society” which is code for 5 religious zealots that hate homeopathy and spew lies for fees. Sad but true.

      The U.K. Lackeys need to lighten up with their codswallop.

      • @drazzin2373:disqus, so just to be clear, you don’t have a single response to @Acleron:disqus’s claim about how homeopathy supporters act towards the research.

        Also, unless you can actually demonstrate your claim you have just fallen into the category of posters that @edzardernst:disqus describes as “a cult of irrational fanatics.”

        I would ask for you to provide such evidence but I’m well aware that there isn’t any. You will also now change the topic while not addressing any of the challenges to your claim.

        • drazzin2373 .

          Just because lil Eddie decided to once again call people names that disagree with his nonsense proves only that we all agree to disagree.

          Nobody believes him anymore as everything he writes is a biased crusade by the same little nonsense group from one city in the world. The rest of the world disagrees with this little group of zealots.

          • Just because lil Eddie decided to once again call people names that disagree with his nonsense proves only that we all agree to disagree.

            You can’t even see what you just did, can you?

          • Acleron

            You have yet to disagree with what Professor Ernst said but went into a pathetic attack on Ernst himself. It can thus be concluded that you have no answer to the facts he presented.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Did he actually present any facts? Not really, just a long story trying to explain why his new donors don’t like his old past.

            Pathetic.

            I guess he does admit that a portion of homeopathy does work, ok, I’ll adress that fact. Yep, he is right, homeopathy does work.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Gold, I see exactly what I did. You responded again, right? Lol.

        • drazzin2373 .

          I’m glad you “cleared” that up.

          I’m not acting towards research I’m acting towards you all. I’m not trying to convince or prove anything to you. No need. I use what works for me and that includes lots of things including allopathy.

          These articles and commenters are the same people over and over. It is just a bad back room pr campaign masquerading as science. (Except Maria, she is just a bad bandwagonner)

          The funny story here is where are the massive number of scientists out to dispel this issue? Not to be seen. Why? Because they are busy working on important issues. They have long since stopped caring about whether people want to use homeopathy or not. There is readily available data and info for each person to read and decide or try and decide for themselves. It is a non issue.

          The lil folks here just have to get their .50 pence per post.

          • Then why are you here?

          • A pound a post?

          • drazzin2373 .

            I’m here for fun. I’m already old and rich, I just think people should be aware that when they read negative posts here. It isn’t a consensus, but a very small group of haters based in the UK.

            The U.K. Is great at hating, just not good at producing. They hate all sorts of things under their breath, probably stil mad that they lost that war against the USA.

            You see, the overwhelming consensus of how to fight wars was used by the British and the results were, well, disastrous. The little group of haters in the UK continue to try and bash what is continuing to grow.

            You guys are probably really mad that the very smar and very successful Swiss just decided to fully pay for homeopathy in their national system after a five year trial run?

            So, let’s see. The Merry band of UK haters wants to get rid of homeopathy and the Swiss are paying for it for their people.

            Hmm, which country tends to make better decisions…lol.

          • I confess to bafflement. I really have no response to this.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Yes, you are baffled often. I would suggest that it would be helpful for you to follow the Swiss.

            Just admit you are wrong, and get on the right train. Of course, then your income from bashing homeopathy would be less.

          • What income? What makes you certain of this? Or are you just making it up for noisy effect?

          • I’m here for fun. I’m already old and rich, I just think people should be aware that when they read negative posts here. It isn’t a consensus, but a very small group of haters based in the UK.

            I wonder if drazzin realises that they are the one posting the negative posts. The lack of any ability to actually address valid concerns (or any ability to explain why the concerns aren’t as bad as they appear) just makes them look like they’re desperate (or trolls (or members of the “cult of irrational fanatics.”))

            Given the number of posts they’ve mad I’m suspecting that @AlanHenness:disqus may be right. At £1 per post.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Gold, why are you asking Alan about the Swiss? You can google it in a few seconds. Although, it seems clear that the haters here comment first and look stuff up second. It is old news. Figures that wouldn’t be on your list. Plenty of time to make 20-30 posts here, not enough time to look up the facts. LOL.

            I don’t think “they” have posted a lot but I have made a lot of posts. I’m the only one posting negative posts? You must be blind. Go read the board. Hennessy, Accelrator and even you goldilocks do the same. Like 5 people account for 90% of the posts here in my “estimation” since lil eddie has now made estimations valid to an argument – at least when it is needed to justify his entire article.

          • I was asking @AlanHenness:disqus because he tends to be much better prepared than I am and has these things on hand. He’d be able to provide me with the exact references I’m thinking of.

            So, on your advice here’s my 1 minute check (bookmarked for my own future reference). TL;DR; I was right. There are 5 comp-meds added to the list. Homeopathy is among them. They have until 2017 to prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability”.

            Good luck with that. If any of these things pan out it means we have new science to explore which means exciting times if you’re a scientist in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology. Given the vast amount of knowledge we have in these fields already and how much homeopathy has already been tested and found to be no better than similarly administered placebos, I’m not expecting it to end in a positive outcome for homeopathy.

          • drazzin2373 .

            So, you are unprepared with actual data and information, but as most sheep, you are looking to others to lead and you will follow, but nevertheless, you are fully prepared to spew your opinion at a moments notice. I see…

            TL:DR? So, 5 paragraphs was too detailed for you to review? Yet, you are here making a massive number of posts like you know something? You have spent 10x the amount of time posting as it would have taken to read a few paragraphs to be CORRECTLY informed – yet TL:DR.

            Figures… Not only a hater, but a sheep hater that just parrots from others. Sooooo bad.

            Here is the recent status as you clearly are unable to look up, AND READ, even easy and obvious information:

            http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/complementary-therapies_swiss-to-recognise-homeopathy-as-legitimate-medicine/42053830

            The comment period ends in a few weeks on June 30th for these items. The thing that is funny is if there was absolutely no validity whatsoever, why did they say they were unable to determine one way or the other?

            It is clear that homeopathy has some benefit for some people. Who knows if everything the homeopaths say about how or why it works or even the theory of like cures like is right but whatever it is – it works well for me and many others.

          • TL:DR? So, 5 paragraphs was too detailed for you to review?

            You don’t grok TL;DR; either do you?

            I did read it. The TL;DR; is the summary I provided after reading it for those that couldn’t take the time to read it themselves.

          • Egger

            “because he tends to be much better prepared than I am and has these things on hand. “

            Realle? He, Allan, never answer my questions in the other Spectator news. He was debunked.

          • drazzin2373 said:

            “Gold, why are you asking Alan about the Swiss? You can google it in a few seconds.”

            That’s the problem, isn’t it? Google something and come up with a few links that satisfies your confirmation bias rather than reading and doing a bit more digging…and understanding.

          • drazzin2373 .

            As opposed to your unbiased digging and “understanding.”

            I see.

          • Oh! If you think I got something wrong, please feel free to point it out, stating your reasoning as to why it’s wrong, of course.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Lol. You want me to say if I think your biased?

            I just wanted to make sure I was clear. You are saying your digging is better than everyone else’s.

            Got it.

          • LOL! But if you can’t spot anything wrong, that’s OK.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Did you even post anything of substance to “spot”?

            What are you even talking about.

            Do you have a lot of mirrors in your house?

          • Well, you appeared to be commenting on what I said about the situation in Switzerland. But if you think I was correct…

          • drazzin2373 .

            Can’t even find what you said with all these posts. Time to move on, looks like enough has been said about lil eddie’s terrible attempt to move on now.

            Good luck all.

          • drazzin2373 said:

            “Can’t even find what you said with all these posts. Time to move on,”

            Oh dear. Let me help you just this once…

            In the discussion directly above (or below, depending on how you’ve chosen to sort the comments) you raised the issue of the situation in Switzerland. [1] @CitizenGold:disqus asked me about it [2] and I gave a response – with references so anything I said could be checked. [3]

            You responded below that with something about my ‘bias’ and ‘understanding’ [4], yet you’ve failed to point out anything I’ve said that is biased or that I’ve understood incorrectly.

            Does that jog your memory?

            If you can’t point to anything, perhaps you could say whether or not you agree with what I said?

            __________
            1. https://health.spectator.co.uk/homeopathy-trials-can-be-positive-the-reason-why-is-bad-news-for-homeopaths/#comment-2666566559

            2. https://health.spectator.co.uk/homeopathy-trials-can-be-positive-the-reason-why-is-bad-news-for-homeopaths/#comment-2667082868

            3. https://health.spectator.co.uk/homeopathy-trials-can-be-positive-the-reason-why-is-bad-news-for-homeopaths/#comment-2667247316

            4. https://health.spectator.co.uk/homeopathy-trials-can-be-positive-the-reason-why-is-bad-news-for-homeopaths/#comment-2667407513

          • Did you even post anything of substance to “spot”?

            Actually, @AlanHenness:disqus was able to answer the question in more depth and with references that clarified the state of affairs around that quite well. Better than anything I’ve seen from the pro-homeopathy crowd and better than I manage following your suggestion.

          • You guys are probably really mad that the very smar and very successful Swiss just decided to fully pay for homeopathy in their national system after a five year trial run?

            Ah… @AlanHenness:disqus, can you speak on this? My understanding is that the Swiss thing was a 5 year trial and it is 4 years into it. Homeopathy has just been added to it which means it only has a year left to prove itself. Is this the case or am I misremembering things.

          • It’s complicated… and I doubt you’ll find one homeopath who actually understands what’s happened.

            Yes, the Swiss Government will reimburse homeopathy as of next year, even though the Swiss commission showed that it didn’t meet the criteria a few years ago [1] and even though they admit it still doesn’t [2] – but only proper doctors will be reimbursed, not lay homeopaths, or as I prefer to call them, members of the general public.

            But it’s even more complicated: there’s a consultation about whether homeopathy is suitable, for what conditions and under what circumstances. And it still has to show ‘effectiveness, appropriateness and positive cost-benefit-ratio’, which is an over-arching requirement for reimbursement of any treatment.

            So, the homeopathy fans have been flaunting the headline of an article by the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation: ‘Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine’. [3]

            But since the official Swiss Government announcement clearly states:

            “It has now been shown that this evidence of the disciplines [homeopathy, etc] as a whole will not be possible.” [2]

            …a more accurate title would be: ‘Swiss to recognise homeopathy *as if it were* legitimate medicine’. But you won’t find any homeopathy fan with the integrity to say that or anything like it.

            __________
            1. Henness A, Rudloff S. That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report | Zeno’s Blog. 2012.http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/ .

            2. Komplementärmedizin soll anderen Fachrichtungen gleichgestellt werden. https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-61140.html (accessed 9 May2016).

            3. Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine. SWI swissinfo.ch. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/complementary-therapies_swiss-to-recognise-homeopathy-as-legitimate-medicine/42053830.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Since, you sent like 5 messages asking my opinion about this, and you gave me the link, I will respond but like I said we have beat this message board to a pulp already and it is just boring and repetitive at this point.

            Thank you for the thoroughness and links. I can now see why Gold asked you for a summary.

            What does it all mean to me? Well, it means that they were unable to determine with traditional measures if it was or wasn’t working.

            I do think you are right, although the headline is great for homeopaths, it doesn’t mean it qualified with the same rigor as other things but it did qualify.

            It does probably mean that they still had incongruent data that probably showed what we have all seen — high patient satisfaction and some people improving and others not necessarily improving. I don’t believe it is some manifesto of perfect proof but I also believe it indicates there wasn’t perfect proof of lack of efficacy.

            Haters must attribute all potential benefit to placebo or, now according to Ernst, low dilutions can work, but not homeopathically (which makes no sense considering that although small amounts *could* do something,in almost no case are the amounts high enough for medicinal value from a traditional view). He has taken quite the liberty in just putting every low dilution benefit in a bucket and now labeling it “non-homeopathic” which is a huge stretch – he appears to want to argue because they have a potential mechanism, which he didn’t prove, that they can’t be homeopathic.

            For us lay people, it doesn’t really matter. My decades of migraine headaches, trying to be serviced from pain killers to anti-depression to sleep drugs all to “try” and help with no relief (and that rascally placebo just never showed up to help for decades) and then I finally caved out of desperation to try Homeopathics and it worked. It worked very quickly and almost immediately in reducing number and severity and then the headaches were gone.

            I know, a story, an anecdote, a nonsense personal experience that means and proves nothing. However, I was in the pharma world, I knew the system, I knew the issues, but it was clear and overwhelming to me that something happened.

            I don’t say that to convince anyone and I am aware of all the “scientific” holes and that it could have been spontaneously self cured of a decade chronic issue, a potential change of lifestyle maybe affected it, it just went away on its own, etc.

            After that, I tried more and homeopathy works for me with other things (but not everything). Like I said, I am still an “and” not an “or” person. If I need antibiotics, I take them AND anything else I think will help.

            So, like I always said, I know the haters think they are saving people but instead of saving me you would have been sentencing me to a further life of pain if the Homeopathics I received were not available. That is unconscionable to me and so here I am — trying to make sure people have the choice.

            I am all for informed choice. Tell people in every which way possible why it can’t work, won’t work, is a total scam, etc. THEN let them choose, as it worked for me.

            I actually enjoy the banter of these things and I don’t take it personally when I get attacked on the Internet.

            I actually have to pop over to Italy and Switzerland in a couple of weeks to check on some of my holdings (still in pharma space) so I will ask my Swiss contacts the exact details when I am over there and maybe meet with the government to get the exact scoop so I can at least, for myself, be fully aware.

            Later boys, it’s been fun.

            Acleron, try and raise your game. 😉

          • Oh dear.

          • Egger

            Again with the “Swiss” report? Why do you never cites the critical letters from the Kikom researchers?

            http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2013-13720/

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fct.12025/abstract

      • Acleron

        Paid? No, the only people I’m aware of trying to profit from commenting here are the homeopaths.

        In the same place? Not even in the same country.

        Religious. Lol, wrong.

        Good thinking society? Wrong again.

        Lies? Point them out and I’ll back my comments from statements by homeopaths.

        Only a homeopath can be as wide of the mark as you.

        • drazzin2373 .

          What you are “aware” of has nothing to do with what is — back to your religious zealotry and bashing lol fella.

          • You do realise that the comments you are posting do read as “zealotry and bashing” right? Your inability to address any points is what lets you be dismissed as just another member of the “cult of irrational fanatics” mentioned in the article. It says a lot that you can’t see that.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Yet, every little member of the band of merry men continue to respond. Why?

            .50 pence a post.

            Well, in golds case, maybe they promised him a new canteen for the long hikes.

          • Acleron

            So you have no evidence for your puerile accusations. Well we all knew that.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Ah, I see it is now morning time in the UK. The merry little band of haters have awoken!

          • It’s gone three in the afternoon here?!

          • drazzin2373 .

            *when the posts were made.

            The U.K. Hater society, maybe you guys should spend time on something more productive like growing your economy.

          • (* You posted that comment @ 1507, here.)

            But the UK economy is not the topic here, is it?

          • Pure whataboutery.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Yet, every little member of the band of merry men of haters from the UK continually respond? Why?

            .50 pence a post.

          • ‘.50 pence a post.’ Where do you get that from? News to me.

          • Like homeopathy, it’s made up. A fantasy.

          • drazzin2373 .

            It isn’t the topic, it IS a by product of the nonsense and ridiculousness of what comes out of the U.K. Just like the Merry little band of haters here that always show up together at the same time and place to bash homeopathy.

            If only they were smart enough to spend their time to actually produce something versus tearing something down. I guess gold did walk 3,000km, I’m sure that produced something?

            I guess we will have to wait for the smart people to do the productive stuff in the UK. Maybe a few hundred, err thousand more years? I do enjoy riding the eye and visiting the fellows that still live at tower point. Seems everything is about what someone did in the past, but very little about the future.

            You can see why just by reading the posts. Of the Merry little bad of religious zealot haters.

          • Well, perhaps that wouldn’t fall down if there wasn’t any sceptics based elsewhere. If you’ve some grudge against the UK, then I can’t help you – because (here) it interests me nought.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        The truth was never more clearly spoken! There is another side to the coin, and that is that homeopathy is the second most used system of medicine in the world today and growing in use at annual rates of between 10% and 30% in countries around the world because it’s safe, effective — often curative where conventional treatments fail — and inexpensive. More than 550 million satisfied patients vs. a handful of UK “skeptics” — “skeptic” case dismissed!

        The last I heard big pharma had paid $30,000,000 to people who use the internet to try to discredit the competition.

        Anyone who wants to know what homeopathy can do for them and their families, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases, will find out by googling “homeopathy cured cases”.

        • The truth was never more clearly spoken!

          Clearly wrong if you look at the numbers.

          There is another side to the coin, and that is that homeopathy is the second most used system of medicine in the world today and growing in use at annual rates of between 10% and 30% in countries around the world

          You keep claiming this on post after post and you’ve consistently failed to demonstrate this when ever challenged. This would be commonly referred to as “making shit up”.

          because it’s safe, effective — often curative where conventional treatments fail — and inexpensive. More than 550 million satisfied patients vs. a handful of UK “skeptics” — “skeptic” case dismissed!

          Except for those that rely on it for serious conditions that are not self limiting. If the body can’t handle the condition itself the victim will suffer and die if actual treatment is not sought in time.

          The last I heard big pharma had paid $30,000,000 to people who use the internet to try to discredit the competition.

          Last you “heard”? Care to provide actual irrefutable evidence that what you heard was based on facts?

          Anyone who wants to know what homeopathy can do for them and their families, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases, will find out by googling “homeopathy cured cases”.

          Following in a similar vein as earlier, check the other side of that coin by searching for “what’s the harm in homeopathy?”

        • Acleron

          LMAO. $30 millions? Who on earth made up that nonsense, you?

          • drazzin2373 .

            No need for $30 million although at .50 pence a spot for Acleron, he does post so much nonsense. Has to be able to pay for his internet connection you know.

          • @Acleron:disqus
            Any idea where this halfpenny a post comes from?

          • drazzin2373 .

            I can see why you are dismayed Acleron, even after thousands of posts, your .50 pence per just isn’t getting you enough of that $30 million?

            Just so you know, some others get paid more because they post less nonsense and are better at swaying people away from homeopathy and back to pharmaceuticals.

            If you up your game Acleron they might give you a raise, much better chance at a bigger piece of the pie for you!

          • Acleron

            Just so everyone knows, you are a lying quack.
            Some of us and it isn’t you or your co-quacks think that protecting the public from money grabbing, lying charlatans is a public service that does not require fiscal reward.

            You have no evidence that I receive this mystical 50p because none exists. The money is as imaginary as the reliable evidence of homeopathy having any effect.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Just so everyone knows, that was from the guy getting paid .50 pence per post.

            Public service? Money grabbing, lying charlatans? Wow, you are truly delusional.

            I have yet to meet a rich homeopath…

            However, the Merry band of sheep here who hate on homeopathy and try and dissuade many who could actually find relief especially with many long-term chronic issues that have been exacerbated by the massive side effects of all of the “try this” pharmaceutical medicine over the years are over zealous.

            You are a public disservice. Maybe you should follow the Swiss, they just gave final approval for payment of homeopathy in their healthcare system.

            Of course, it is Switzerland, what do they know, right? I mean, the U.K. Is in much better shape due to all of this “public service” than Switzerland?

            LOL.

          • Acleron

            You just praised one but I see you are still lying. Congenital?

          • Egger

            Hi Mr. Troll.

        • Christine! Your oft-recycled appeal to popularity, and your irresponsible advice for people to research via Google. You haven’t mentioned cancer yet…

          Pretty flamboyant use of the shill card, there. The last you ‘heard’? Don’t actually have anything more solid, do you?

      • Egger

        Yes, in every homeopathic new Acleron appear. The stange case are not the comments, are the positive points received in record time.

  • In my view, they merely raise the suspicion that sizeable sections of homeopathy have deteriorated into a cult of irrational fanatics.

    This will be demonstrated in these comments in 3… 2…

    • …who, instead of offering rational argument and good evidence to counter anything they believe is wrong in the article, simply resort to highly defamatory statements and invective, providing not a jot of evidence for their vile – but frequently hilarious – accusations!

      • drazzin2373 .

        Ok Alan, ok. But hey, at least you got another .50 pence, eh?

        Paid bashers have endless time to post their bigoted hatred.

        Sad, same 5-10 people that actively ply their hatred while millions are getting well each day.

        Homeopathy works.

        • Homeopathy works.

          Right up to the point it’s tested in a robust way that removes observer bias.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Goldilocks, still worshipping at the altar of “science can remove bias” because history shows that science as a religion for decision making has quite the checkered past. Sooo, please get off your fake high horse and recognize that many of us have come to trust ourselves for ourselves much more than science for many things.

            It is always an “and” for me not an “or” goldilocks.

          • Goldilocks,

            This from the person that calls out @edzardernst:disqus for supposedly calling people names.

            still worshipping at the altar of “science can remove bias”

            If you can provide a better process to do that it’ll be adopted.

            because history shows that science as a religion

            Science isn’t a religion. You should read a dictionary.

            for decision making has quite the checkered past.

            Agreed. But science is self correcting over time. We are better off for having it than not. That device that you’re typing into to complain about science. It was given to you by science.

            Sooo, please get off your fake high horse and recognize that many of us have come to trust ourselves for ourselves much more than science for many things.

            We do recognize that you trust yourselves more than science. We also recognize that you are wrong to do so.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Science is self correcting? So, when exactly can I be assured it is right at this moment versus waiting for a “self-correction?” Lol.

          • Science is self correcting? So, when exactly can I be assured it is right at this moment versus waiting for a “self-correction?” Lol.

            Okay, you’ve just demonstrated that you literally do not even have a basic understanding of what science is.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Nice answer. So, you are saying you have no idea? Figures…

          • drazzin2373 .

            Tick took Goldie. Please enlighten me… Oh wait, no answer so back to personal attacks… Isn’t that the thing you hate or only when others do it? Lol. Maybe some more walking would do you well.

        • Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance again. Much appreciated.

          • drazzin2373 .

            That was a cute comment. Nice to see you and Goldie on the same page. The best part is seeing no responses until it is morning time in the UK, such a merry little band of haters. UK has always been a bit backwards, of course, at one time, long long ago, it WAS a strong country. What happened for you all to be so bitter?

          • ROFL! Still no good evidence?

          • drazzin2373 .

            Alley cat, aren’t you a bit portly to be rof?

          • Well, this is an original deflection. (I think.)

    • Sozzinski

      I don’t know whether it works or not. But I do know that if you set up a huge troll like this (“cult of irrational fanatics”…) you’re going to get blowback. Seems you are upset by something other people are open to and you’re not. So who does that make irrational?

  • rosross

    Professor Ernst continues to demonstrate egregious ignorance of Homeopathy. You would think, since he has taken the position against it that he has, he would bother to do some research so he can at least sound as if he might know what he is talking about.

    But, all to the good, since his continued demonstration of ignorance and prejudice simply makes a case for Homeopathy and must make the intelligent and curious more curious.

    Homeopathy works on plants, cells, body tissue, unconscious animals and humans and months after being taken so it cannot be pure placebo.

    More to the point, the most concrete evidence that Homeopathic medicine is more than pure placebo and is effective even if science currently cannot explain how, is that it is practised by MD’s and in hospitals, taught in medical schools and universities, particularly in Europe and included by Governments in State medical systems.

    None of this could, would or should happen in conventional Allopathic medicine, academia and Government if there existed absolute irrefutable evidence that Homeopathy was pure placebo, because that would take them into the realms of fraud and deception.

    Patently, even if Professor Ernst has not read it or been able to comprehend it, there is more than adequate evidence to settle the question for many MD;s, hospitals, medical schools, universities, Governments and their legal teams.

    • For those that are new to the conversation, RosRoss is another of the “cult of irrational fanatics”.

      You can tell this from statements like “since he has taken the position against it” when it is clear that he hasn’t. He’s taken a position that is dictated by the best available data on the topic. It’s hardly @edzardernst:disqus’s fault that homeopathy doesn’t live up to the claims upon critical examination.

      Everything else is the same old claims demonstrated to be without merit time and time again. I’ll leave it to others to tackle those.

      I’ll let her take it from here to demonstrate the strength of her commitment.

      • rosross

        Great work. You weigh in with ad hominem and attack the individual instead of the argument which immediately signals to those of sound mind and intelligence that you come from a place of subjectivity and prejudice.

        I am guessing you do that because my position is grounded in common sense and reason and cannot be refuted. Keep up the good work.

        • I’m going to make an absolute claim here. It should not be taken literally…

          Every time you have accused people of making an ad hominem attack against you you have been wrong. It has been pointed out on every post why it was wrong and links to explanations of what an Ad Hominem is have been provided yet you still do not understand what it is.

          Pointing out flaws in your position is not an Ad Hominem. Saying you’re wrong and an idiot is not an ad hom. Saying your an idiot and you’re wrong is not an ad hom. Saying you’re wrong because you’re an idiot is an ad hom. It’s subtle, I know. One day you may grok it, but today is not that day.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Gold = headband wearing hiker (but the headband is clean.) Always tries to bash homeopathy over and over. He is a lonely fella, but has lots of time on his hands. He even went on a 3,000km walk – which he is very proud of.

            He is too smart for himself and fumbles over himself a bit. Mostly a quaint lil fella that still believes that worshipping at the altar of science gives the best outcomes…..well, eventually gives the best outcomes, sometimes, depending on the lifecycle of the issue and where we are in studying it. LOL.

            Oh wait, that’s not right. Don’t worry, gold will make his 10 millionth post to correct me in like one second. Go go goldilocks!

          • Acleron

            It is sad to see someone who rejects the wonders that science has exposed for us. Their inability to feel awe at the way proteins literally walk over each other, to not see the beauty of the probability shells of a quantum system, to not feel amazed that the metal atoms in one hand came from different supernova explosions than in the other hand. To be condemned forever to foggily trying to explain this amazing universe by invoking magic must be depressing.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Acl, that was amusing. People have discovered some amazing things. Science hasn’t discovered anything but it is a nice tool with flaws just like every other tool. Like I said, the Merry little band of religious zealots from the UK that worship at the Altar of science. Quaint.

          • @Acleron:disqus: It is sad to see someone who rejects the wonders that science has exposed for us.

            It’s hilarious to see them rejecting these wonders on a device that only exists because of science too.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Ah, Drazzin! Good to catch up with you so I can correct the ignorant nonsense you directed at me during our last conversation which, unfortunately, got locked before I could you put you right. You said,

            “Don’t be confused, nobody is advocating that homeopathy replaces allopathy only that it many times solves things that the other can’t and I would say it is the same the other way as well.”

            I’m not the one who is confused, sweetie, because, unlike you, I have researched the subject thoroughly and I am extra careful to check before making controversial statements. You’d do well to do the same because asserting things that are demonstrably untrue makes you look even dumber than your silly, unsupportable and repetitive insults do already.

            All over the web you can find homeopaths advocating homeopathy as a treatment for everything from autism to cancer. Go to youtube and watch Death by Homeopathy, which tells the story of how Penelope Dingle – on the advice of her husband and her homeopath – eschewed the surgery that might have prevented her slow, agonising death from rectal cancer. 9 month old Gloria Thomas’father was a homeopath who preferred to treat his daughter himself instead of taking her to hospital. She died of course. 42 year-old Podgoršek died because he believed a homeopath’s claim that homeopathy would work to prevent him getting malaria and, when it didn’t, he believed the homeopath’s claim to be able to treat the malaria he’d caught. Lady Victoria Waymouth died a few days after a doctor told her to stop taking her usual heart medication and to only take homeopathic treatment. Jacqueline Alderslade died of an asthma attack after a homeopath told her to give up her asthma medication….I could go on but I’m too used to the callous indifference of the homeopathy faithful to bother. Nice to hear it “cured” your headaches though.

            You can continue abusing those who are trying to prevent further tragedies like these until you’re blue in the face, little man, it makes no difference to us because every time you do it it flags up your complete inability to support your contention that this pre-science cult therapy actually does anything beyond whining, “But it worked for me”. LOL!

          • drazzin2373 .

            TL:DR

            You are still mad from months ago? Lol.

            Stop trying to cherry pick one off random stories as a pathetic heart string attempt at proving danger.

            You are clearly UK, but definitely not part of the Merry little band because your posts are probably embaressing them as well as they make no sense.

          • drazzin2373 said:

            “TL:DR”

            Yup.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Yep. Alan, have some tea and crumpets lil fella.

          • Acleron

            You are commenting on something you didn’t read? Hilarious.

          • kfunk937

            TL;CR. Can’t being the operative word.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Ahh, you made a funny.

          • drazzin2373 .

            You do it all the time acl. No need to read, just parrot what you are told like the sheep you are…

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Makes no difference how long ago, I will always be angry at needless deaths caused by the promotion of nonsense by callous ignoramuses like you. Those deaths give the lie to your claim that homeopathy works and pretending you didn’t read fools nobody. You did read – you have no answer and aren’t big enough to admit you’re wrong.

            And for pity’s sake, learn to spellcheck before “embaressing” yourself further.

          • drazzin2373 .

            It makes me chuckle that my five minutes has now bugged you for months.

            Needless deaths? That is your driving force behind you ignorant posts?

            That is just straight up ridiculous. More people are dying from almost any other action or substance in the world than homeopathy. You would save more lives crusading for a global net covering the world to save us from space junk re-entering our atmosphere or maybe a hippo horn to protect from hippo attacks.

            Your supposition is utter Codswallop.

            You are just hater. Trying to hide the hate under a fluffy pillow of nonsense of saving lives is just silliness.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens, the Maria McGangster is here! The muscle arm of Sense About Cheese is here!

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          • Egger

            DIngle dead for iatrogenic treatment. Other persons in different context has been saved and healed with homeopathy. An example:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902646

            Why do you never tell this stories?

          • Larry M

            So calling rosross an “irrational fanatic” is not ad hom? You should contract the Trump campaign to see if they need help with their hate mongering. Stick to your so-called version of science and you’ll retain just a shred of credibility.

          • Acleron

            Let us see. RosRos says that Prof Ernst should do some research when the facts are clearly that he has done a lot of research.

            She claims he demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. Again, the facts show differently.

            She then makes the claim that because somebody uses it, it must work.

            Irrationality appears to be well founded.

            Arguing without and against the evidence because you believe in something is cult like.

            Therefore to describe her as an irrational cultist is well founded.

          • Larry M

            Your valiant attempt at logic only serves to compound the ad hom. Well done.

          • No it doesn’t. If it was a random, disconnected insult, then it would be ad hom. But given her disingenuous activity, it’s a reasonable and pertinent summary.

            Got anything to contribute here?

          • drazzin2373 .

            The Merry band of sheep from the uk,are talking to each other now. This is Good. Why did lil Eddie just say homeopathy works, he has just made it way worse for his band to defend him! Oh well, at least they get their .50 pence a post from the pharma guys. Do they pay when you just talk to each other???

          • ‘Oh well, at least they get their .50 pence a post from the pharma guys.’

            You keep throwing this Pharma Shill Card around. If you’re so sure of it, share with us your evidence for it. Otherwise, how’re you to be taken seriously?

          • drazzin2373 .

            It is amazing how you get paid .50 pence a post for asking about your .50 pence a post.

            I should start a new business…

          • Acleron

            Oh please, with your lack of ethics, if you thought your dribblings were true you would be knocking on the door of Big Pharma, wherever that is supposed to be.

          • Mike Stevens
          • Acleron

            Why is impossible for quacks to learn the logical fallacies?

          • Because they don’t understand logic?

          • Larry M

            Why do champions of science like yourself need to resort to ad hom? Not very scientific

          • Egger

            You’re a logical fallacy: The Ad-Acleron liar.

          • If it is an ad hom, it’s justified, given her track record.
            So, regale us with your ‘version of science’, why don’t you?

          • @Larry M:disqus : So calling rosross an “irrational fanatic” is not ad hom?

            No, it is not. It’s an insult. These are very different things. One is a logical fallacy, the other is being a dick. And people like ros who are immune to evidence and constantly fail to back their claims with any evidence at all bring that out in me.

            Stick to your so-called version of science and you’ll retain just a shred of credibility.

            There are no “versions” of science. To say something like that demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science it.

            As for calling ros “calling rosross an “irrational fanatic”” it was @edzardernst:disqus that laid down the qualifier. I was just expressing my opinion that the sort of responses Ros has given in the past put her firmly in that camp.

        • … ‘my position is grounded in common sense and reason and cannot be refuted.’

          That’s actually quite funny.

          • @rosross:disqus : my position is grounded in common sense and reason and cannot be refuted.

            @Lee Turnpenny:disqus : That’s actualy quite funny.

            And easily refuted. Just check any comment thread on a science/health based topic with pro-science people participating in it.

    • Ah, Ros, how predictable that you arrive with your ‘ignorance and prejudice’ line; closely followed by your repeat-ignore regurgitating of your desperately-clung-on-to busted fallacy. Now, do you want to get into this again; ought we to re-direct readers to other threads where your nonsense has been trashed? Or shall we sit and wait for you to re-post some more of your exposed false statements? You are an incredibly dishonest debater. (And that is not an ad hominem; it has been demonstrated.)

  • Any homeopathy fans actually able to point to something specific they believe Prof Ernst got wrong here – and back it up with rational argument and evidence? Or will it just be more nasty and unfounded accusations and lots of hand-waving again?

    • Acleron

      Looks like the ors have it.

      • drazzin2373 .

        Acleron, I’m waiting for your data to back up your 30c is the most used claim. Along with the “no real doctor” uses homeopathy claim.

        Like I said, religious zealotry gone mad against homeopathy with the Merry little band of haters.

        It was nice of lil Eddie to agree homeopathy works, just tougher for his Merry band to explain it away. Lol.

        • Acleron

          Look in any chemist and count the bottles. You can count can you? I have to ask as after all you show so few skills.

          Belittling Ernst’s name is the action of a thwarted schoolchild but is such a common homeopathic trait.

          • drazzin2373 .

            So, you admit there is no data and lil eddie just pulled it out of his butt.

            Glad you at least admit it. You probably will get docked on your posting pay for admitting you have nothing and neither did lil eddie ernst.

            Sad – you are always so excited to “ask for data” until you have to provide some and then you tell me to go count because once again, you are left with nothing but your nonsense.

            Epic.

            What have you earned today – 9-10pounds sterling for your valiant efforts? LMAO.

          • Acleron

            Are you absolutely incapable of communication without lying and/or misrepresentation? You must have a miserable life.

          • drazzin2373 .

            If that makes you feel better to hope my life is miserable then I am fine with your delusion.

            Go get some warm milk and off to bed for you, it is late, been a rough day for you.

          • Acleron

            Again you misrepresent, lying appears to be your only form of communication.

          • Mike Stevens

            If you are too lazy to get your boots on, just browse the online stores. 30C is the main product. You can’t deny that.

          • Egger

            drazzin: I’m waiting for your data to back up your 30c is the most used claim. Along with the “no real doctor” uses homeopathy claim.

            Pseudoskeptik Acleron: Look in any chemist and count the bottles.

            LOL!

          • Mike Stevens

            I think Acleron is kindly trying to direct you lot to evidence that you will be able to understand, rather than needing to read long sciency sounding words in science publications.
            Very commendable of him.

          • Egger

            Wrong. Acleron does not understand any kind level of evidence. They never debunks nothing. I will article debunking the pseudoskeptikal “arguments”. Cooming soon.

      • drazzin2373 .

        Still waiting…

    • Egger

      Yes. Ernst piece of opinion was debunked here (the text was written in spanish):

      http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2015/07/el-sacerdocio-de-la-ciencia-xxxiii-paja.html

  • Acleron

    The most commonly sold homeopathic products are called C30 and higher. To prepare this homeopaths take some material which may or not be active and throw away 99% of it. This may seem profligate but the homeopath then throws away another 99% of what remains and repeats this 28 more times. Unless they make a mistake, there is literally nothing left.

    Without the misguided loopholes left in the regulations, homeopathy would have been thrown on the scrapheap of misguided ideas long ago.

    This has meant that among non doctors the practice is a popular source of income and we have the peculiar situation where real doctors and scientists have had to show that preparations with nothing in them do nothing at all.

    That has now been done to the satisfaction of all except those who make money from it. It is time for legislatures to close the loopholes and enforce toxicity and efficacy testing of these preparations.

    • drazzin2373 .

      Acleron, my friend.

      Where is your data? Can you post a link to a study that confirms that 30c is the most sold homeopathic?

      Are you saying there are no “real doctors” that use homeopathy? Lol. Maybe you should create a definition of a “real doctor” and we will see if anyone that uses homeopathy qualifies. Ohh, the reality of the misguided religious zealotry of the Merry little band of haters now backing themsleves nto a corner so deep where you have to make a bunch of comments that are nowhere near the truth and have Zero substantiation to “prove your point” is just sad.

      I’m glad lil Eddie finally decided to come clean and admit homeopathy works.

      • Acleron

        Try actually reading Ernst’s and my own post before commenting, just a tip to try to prevent you looking quite so stupid.

        • drazzin2373 .

          What? You mean the statistic lil Eddie openly says he is “estimating” for us?

          The only one that continually IS stupid here is self evident.

          You just accepted this guys self proclaimed estimate as a fact?

          Wow, you are far more of a sheep follower than I could have imagined.

          • Acleron

            Go check yourself, just been in my local chemist and every single bottle of sugar pills and water is labeled C30.

          • drazzin2373 .

            LOL. Well, you went to one store in one country and checked? Oh, well then, case closed. You posted that as proof? Wow, you are an idiot. Maybe I will go ask my homeopath if he thinks homeopathy works – PROOF!! You can go and check yourself too!

            You are going to get fired acleron if you keep posting nonsense.

          • Acleron

            Still cannot stop lying, must be psychological. Perhaps you should lay off all those alt meds. Keep the homeopathic ones, they won’t make the slightest difference.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Acclerate, no worries little fella. You saying it is a lie over and over wont make it a lie. But, you can keep repeating yourself.

            I noticed you didn’t defend your “one store research” project. Too comical. No wonder you just go to your panic mode of “lies, lies” because addressing the ridiculousness of your post as proving anything would expose you for what you are – a very very bad shill.

            oh wait, I’ll help you on your next post…

            Acleron: Mooooommmy, Drazzin is lying!!! Make him stop.

          • Acleron

            Just can’t be bothered any longer, I gave you the chance to check it out and you seem to have just dwindled into your lying fantasy.

          • drazzin2373 .

            LOL. Your profile says otherwise, as YOU have made FIVE THOUSAND comments on homeopathic/acupuncture articles on this profile alone. You CLEARLY have plenty of time to be bothered. 5,000 posts….what in the world. Who makes 5,000 posts on one topic? Paid haters that is who or absolute crazy people.

            You are living the fantasy my friend. I’m just your average old rich guy with nothing to win or lose.

          • Acleron

            Try reading, your stupidities have become drearily boring. You were given the chance to withdraw your lies but failed to take them. Forever more your drazzin persona will be known as a rather objectionable liar. That was your choice, no one else’s.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Ok Accelerate, thank you so much for the chance. That is very exciting. So, now I’m known to you and like two people as the guy that Acleron says is lying.

            Wow, how will I wake up and go about my day tomorrow!

            Get a grip lil fella, you are the wrong side of this argument with 5,000 HATER POSTS. You are forever known as the psycho hater that has nothing productive to do in life except make negative posts about homeopathy – over 5,000 times. Bravo!

          • Acleron

            And here we see the homeopath at full bay. Any post critical of his favourite delusion is a ‘HATER POST’. Get a grip before reality entirely escapes you.

          • Egger

            No, you are a corrupt, liar and dishonest troll. Well, this is an oxymoron.

          • Egger

            Where is Zeno, Guy Chapman, LeCanardnoir, Fermi and your small group of the homeopathaters?

          • Mike Stevens

            You’ll have to make do with a “part-timer” like me, I’m afraid.
            I don’t have a lucrative private homeopathic practice to feverishly protect, so I won’t be able to post as much as you do.

          • Egger

            Yes, Acleron is activist from James Randi Foundation. I’ve “tracked” him over years. I’m ex-member from the pseudoskeptikal organization ARP-SAPC in Spain (is another James Randi bussines). I know the pseudoskeptikal movement very well. In my country, the journalist Luis Alfonso Gámez is the official “corresponsal” from the CSICOP organization. He was debunked:

            http://hezeptikos.blogspot.com/2016/03/estafa-periodistica-2-el-informe-de.html

          • Mike Stevens

            Online stores predominantly stock 30C as well.
            http://www.nelsonsnaturalworld.com/en-gb/uk/our-brands/nelsons-homeopathy/nelsons-clikpaks

            Is your claim that lower potencies are the most commonly used?

          • drazzin2373 .

            Mikey, maybe you should actually read the article. Lil Eddie Ernst says that 99.9% of Homeopathics sold are 30c.

            That is not true not any way. Heel and Boiron, multiple billions among them, are some of the largest and mostly sell combination remedies most of which contain low dosage remedies. In the US, of the 2 billion sold, almost all would be combination remedies with low dosages.

            However, there is NO actual data that exists to my knowledge and you “browsing one online store” or one vendor just shows the same ignorance of Acleron going to ONE store and then proclaiming, “yep 100% are 30c” which is total Codswallop.

            Lil eddie’s whole article relies on his “estimate” that 99.9% are 30c, which is not true. Therefore his entire premise is nonsense.

            But, it was nice that he admits that low dosage Homeopathics do work.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, now time for you to stump up the evidence for your claim, namely: “Heel and Boiron, multiple billions among them, are some of the largest and mostly sell combination remedies most of which contain low dosage remedies. In the US, of the 2 billion sold, almost all would be combination remedies with low dosages.”

            At least we have provided some corroborating evidence that most remedies are 30C…
            Acleron’s shop survey and my internet survey.
            You called this “codswallop” and several other insults have been flung at the suggestion, while you scorn the evidence provided (although by homeopathic standards such surveys would usually comprise “strong” evidence!).

            So let’s see the evidence for your claim, drazzin.

          • drazzin2373 .

            I just walked into a store and looked and then I checked their websites. Isn’t that the level of evidence you posted? You and acleron are teaching me how to science.

            Lol.

            Do you want the address of the store or the heel.com web address?

            Lmao.

          • Mike Stevens

            Let’s see the website link then.
            And recall, it is you heaping scorn on our level of evidence, so you surely can do better.

          • drazzin2373 .

            You showed me the mud puddle you are sitting in, I’m just trying to help you wash your face.

            By the way, that is a link. Lol.

            Go look at traumeel, their number one worldwide product. Check the dilutions…

            For that matter, check their entire line…

          • Mike Stevens

            I don’t want a link to a specific low dilution line, but proof that “almost all” of the 2 billion remedies sold in the us are “combination remedies with low dosages”, like you claimed.

            Give me the link to the us Boiron store, and I’ll have a look see.

          • Egger

            Give me the link to the paper? What happen, this study does not exists?

          • Egger

            “At leat we have provided some corroboratin evidence that most remedies are 30C”

            Hey, this is not evidence. In what paper appear the statistical data of all pharmacies around the world? Is not corroborating the Ernst Poo pseudoargument.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Lil Eddie Ernst says that 99.9% of Homeopathics sold are 30c”

            You are lying again, I see.

            Ernst talked about low dilutions having potentially active ingredients in them. He said:
            “homeopathic remedies beyond a C12 potency contain nothing (these are the ones on sale in pharmacies and other outlets), less diluted remedies contain usually not enough to be pharmacologically active, and very low potencies, like the D1 potency used in our trial, are hardy diluted at all and thus contain substantial amounts of active ingredients.”

            He then said: “The vast majority (99.9 per cent of those sold over the counter today, I estimate) are highly diluted and therefore contain either no or far too few active molecules to have any effect whatsoever.

            So he is saying that he estimates 99.9% would be dilutions high enough not to have any active molecules present, ie around D4 or 5 dilution.

            He never said 99.9% were 30C.
            You are a liar, just like Acleron said.

            Next up, your evidence for your own claims about almost all homeopathic meds in the us being “low dilutions”……

          • drazzin2373 .

            You are grasping at lil straws Miley to try and save lil Eddie.

            Let’s just say you are right, that he wasn’t specifically referring to 30c, even though your boy Acleron, posted his “one store research” and 100% were 30c – he checked EVERY one he said! Can you imagine, evidence of one store – that must mean the rest of the world is the same!

            Then for lil Eddie to make the same claim just shows complete ignorance. Avagadro is around 28x so he is saying 99.9% don’t have anything leess dilute is more Codswallop nonsense.

            He has no clue what he is even talking about at all. Clearly, neither do you.

            Acleron, hmmm, Mike Stevens, Acleron, Mike Stevens, is that like John Doe? Acleron trying to get paid on two fake accounts. Lol.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, at least you admit that you were lying when you claimed Ernst said 99.9% were 30C dilution.

            I’m not Acleron, drazzin. He knows more about homeopathy than you and me put together, although adding in your name doesn’t boost the level much.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Mikey, Mikey. Did lil Eddie provide any proof of his 99.9%? Did you provide any proof of your support? You went to one online store.

            Nope. I am glad you admitted you are a liar. I gave you the link to heel, are you too stupid to type Boiron into google and look for yourself? The number one product for heel is traumeel worldwide. That single statement blows out the 99.9%. If lil Eddie wasn’t so blinded and biased he would have said like 50% or 70% especially if he had no actual data. He is so incompetent and biased that he picked 99.9% — what a dumb ass.

            Acleron knows nothing. He is literally the dumbest poster on this board always walking into himself and his terrible logic.

            There are others here, who are very anti-homeopathy, but who are quite intelligent but Acleron is by far the winner of this boards “biggest idiot” award.

            Only an idiot would pick the one person on this board that is the dumbest as an an example of a shining star.

            Lol. Sooo bad. Go back to your hole Mikey, your digging deeeeep.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m looking at Boiron as we speak.
            Seems like you are the liar, almost all preps are what Ernst would call high dilutions.
            http://www.boironusa.com/catalog/single-medicines/

          • drazzin2373 .

            Oh dear.

            You must be Acleron, nobody could be that stupid. Did you really just post the one link with only the single remedy Homeopathics?

          • Mike Stevens

            Right……

            So you are now directly contradicting your claim that “almost all” remedies are low dilutions by admitting that only 66% are lower dilutions?

            Take aim at your left foot now, drizzle, it’s feeling a bit left out of the action.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Ouch, that must have been hard for you to admit that I’m right and lil Eddie Ernst is a pathological lying troll.

            66%, 30%, 70%, it makes no difference.

            What is abundantly clear is this article, by lil Eddie, which is ENTIRELY dependent on his 99.9% claim is total nonsense.

            As is your pathetic attempt at pissing in the dribble of semantics to prove that although I’m right, you were wrong, Eddie Ernst was was out of his mind, your still concerned about the fly on the elephant.

            The homeopathy haters have a new court jester named Mike Stevens to join errrr be Acleron.

          • Mike Stevens

            So let’s see Amazon’s list. First off I note that not everything on it is homeopathic, despite the headline at top of the page. Most of the dreck is a goldmine of woo for the truly gullible, like cell salts, gas drops, candida cleansers, anal fissure ointment and bio gels. Of the truly homeopathic items down as far as page 3, fewer than half are “low dilution”.

            Wallop!
            Strike 2, drizzle.
            Once again you are shown to be a liar. Tut tut.

          • drazzin2373 .

            I’m glad that you now fully agree that lil Eddie Ernst was out of his mind with his 99.9% claim – the basis of this whole article.

            Your research above supports lil eddies position that low dilution Homeopathics can work but destroys his 99.9% claim which he tried to say means only .1% of Homeopathics – you have assisted me in destroying his premise.

            I’m glad that is settled with your good work – thanks for being my secretary.

            Now back to work noob.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m happy you’ve worked a bit of aggro out your system. It seems like you are tiring of our rather revealing little exchange, drizzle. Not that I blame you, it has merely confirmed you to be a blatant liar- once when lying about what Ernst said, and once when making an unsupportable claim of your own that even your own “evidence” failed to corroborate.

            As for the accuracy or not of Ernst’s estimate, I couldn’t really care less. It is you who has got your knickers in a real twist about this for some reason. Even if it is not accurate, that hardly invalidates the argument he puts forward in this article, and certainly doesn’t invalidate the case against homeopathy as you seem to imagine.

            So it seems we are to have a passing of our ways. I am glad to have been able to be the channel for all that poorly controlled aggression you exhibit. Far better you “lose it” on the net than IRL, huh? If that means you kick one fewer dumb animal on your way to the pub tonight, or don’t beat up your partner when you roll home steaming drunk later, then I will have achieved something positive at least.

            Ta for now. Xxxx

          • drazzin2373 .

            That was long.

            So, you’re commenting on an article you care less about???

            Why are you here? Random internet troll??

            Oh wait, your Acleron at 50 pence a post that is why you are here.

            Real life? Your real life consists of Internet posts for articles you don’t care about – that says it all.

            I have to change one position, you have surpassed Acleron as the dumbest poster here.

            Congrats lil fella, that truly was hard to do!

          • Egger

            Cell salts is a type of homeopathic dilutions. Troll.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, Boiron in not all homeopathy in around the world. Could you post the high quaility multy center unbiased study published in a peer reviewed paper without pseudoskeptikal conflicts of interests made by independent scientists?

          • Mike Stevens

            Oh dear.
            Boiron was cited by your colleague, which is why I checked their website, naturally.
            Can you post a “high quality, multi centre, unbiased, study published in a peer reviewed journal without conflicts of interest by independent scientists” of anything supportive of homeopathy?

          • Egger

            Oh dear. Typical Boiron fallacy. Drazzin debunks the fantastic claim of Ernst. Ceteris paribus:

            Could you post the high quaility multy center unbiased study published in a peer reviewed paper without pseudoskeptikal conflicts of interests made by independent scientistst?

          • Mike Stevens

            I haven’t a clue what you want me to post. Can you be specific, and not just vomit word salad?

            Oh, and can you post that study about proof of homeopathy while you are about it?

          • Egger

            If Acleron knows more about homeopathy than you. Could you explain me the non sense and muting responses of Acleron about of my questions?

          • Egger

            Oh dear pseudoskeptik. Can you show me the report of the homeopathic sells in around the world of every pharmacy? Can you show me the report of the 99.9% data? Come on.

          • Egger

            Show me the evidence with a multicenter study replicated all over the world with high quality standards and published in Nature.

      • Take That, Medicine

        Definitely, 30C or more diluted homeopathic preparations -and in Homeopathy’s alternative physics, therefore, more potent- are very common.

        • drazzin2373 .

          Although you of course had to take a jab, the rest of your comment is actually reasonable. It could be that 30c is common.

          Unfortunately, little eddie ernst decided to say 99.9% as his estimate. It just makes the whole thing look stupid. Go to Boiron and Heel which is over a billion in sales and look at their products and it is clear that combination remedies with lower potencies are also very common.

          Ernst and the haters always have to go one step to far and it utterly ruins any credibility – especially when eddie’s whole article is ONLY relevant if his 99.9% estimate holds which is ludicrous.

          The sheep here need to find a better leader.

        • Egger

          In the Ernst pseudosystematic review he found more low potency remedies:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163497

          Low potencies reported:

          1X
          D3
          D4
          7CH
          Compositum (Homeopathic complex remedy)

      • Egger

        Acleron is very funny. He creates own defintion of doctor. However, this an error. An example of comment of Acleron. If the definition of Acleron is true, I obtain this:

        1.. Homeopaths are not scientist and fails to understand the scientific method

        2. Ernst is a trained homeopath.

        3. Ernst are not scientist and do not understand the scientific method.

      • Mike Stevens

        Its pretty much a given that homeopathic pharmacies predominantly stock/sell remedies of 30C (or more dilute).
        One only has to browse any online store for this evidence.
        Here is the main range for Nelson’s – all the products are 30C in their main range.
        http://www.nelsonsnaturalworld.com/en-gb/uk/our-brands/nelsons-homeopathy/nelsons-clikpaks

        • Egger

          Oh dear, nelson is one store only in UK. Please, show me the international multicenter study that corroborates the Ernst Poo argument.

    • Egger

      In my country the low potency homeopathy are most sold in many pharmacies. Can you post the multicenter study showing that confirms that 30C is the most sold homeopathic?

      • Acleron

        So in your country, homeopathic preparations are as toxic as homeopaths.

        • Egger

          No, homeopaths are not toxic, pseudoskeptiks are fools. Only low potencies may be toxic. This are not new news.

  • Larry M

    The problem with Ernst’s argument is that there are plenty of trials that show positive benefits using higher potencies. Ernst is trying to hide his ideological opposition to homeopathy behind a veil of science but it isn’t woring.

    • Stan S. Stanman

      You say “plenty of trials” – which of the trials you have looked at do you believe is the most compelling? Can you post a link to it please?

      • I see Larry has commented below since you asked him that very simple question. I can only hope he digging out that trial as I type…

      • drazzin2373 .

        Maybe you should go look for yourself Stanley. If you can’t find them yourself, then hand holding them to you isn’t going to help you.

        • How on earth would Stan know what trial Larry finds most compelling?

          • drazzin2373 .

            That is an excellent question. 100 pence for that one Alan!

          • But still not a jot of evidence for your nasty accusations…

          • drazzin2373 .

            Similar to the majority of your posts.

          • What evidence were you expecting? Please try to think carefully before answering.

        • Stan S. Stanman

          Are you familiar with the burden of proof? Your statement would imply that you are not.

    • Ah, the arch anti-science New Ager arrives.

      ‘… here are plenty of trials that show positive benefits using higher potencies.’

      That’s a misleading statement. Something about ideological opposition

      • Larry M

        Ah, more ad hom, justified no doubt!

        • Acleron

          How can an ad hominem be justified that doesn’t exist?

          • Larry M

            I’ll leave you to puzzle over that

          • Acleron

            Inscrutably nonsensical but only to be expected from someone who has no idea of the ad hominem.

            To give you a clue, the above is an ad hominem.

          • drazzin2373 .

            I can’t believe they pay you .50 pence a post for that Codswallop Acleron.

          • Acleron

            I know you don’t believe it but it doesn’t stop you lying, does it?

          • drazzin2373 .

            What, did they raise it to .55 pence or did you get demoted and now it is .45 pence?

            I’ve been known to be off a few pence but since lil Eddie “estimated” the percentage of Homeopathics sold at certain dilutions in the world without a SINGLE reference to back up his ridiculous “estimate” (of course not one of his “science” sheep here called him out on it, OF COURSE) I will just take the liberty of saying .50 pence as my estimate based on older information, as soon as I get an update I can be more exact on the pay per post ladies from the Uk.

            Sooo bad. Big pharma should stop forcing us to only be left with them as our options.

            Just wait til trump gets in as president and he makes the pharma companies charge Americans the same price as other countries for the drugs — you will be crying for other options when you are left with a broken economy and prescription prices that are unaffirdable by anyone…

          • Acleron

            You’ve been known to just be a liar. Normal behaviour for you, isn’t it?

      • drazzin2373 .

        Ah, the U.K. Hater, his sire, mr lee turnpenny is getting feisty. Look out, he might “link a blog post” soon!

        • (I don’t hate the UK.) A blog post – like at GreenMedInfo, say?

  • Dana Ullman

    It is so typical that Ernst actually claims that homeopaths attack him “personally” rather than substantatively because I have just the opposite experience. Ernst and his ilk commonly attack homeopaths personally, and whenever I engage them in scientific studies or reviews of science, they commonly ignore or deny the science. For instance, Ernst above asserts that homeopathic medicines above 12C do not contain “any” molecules of the original medicine, and yet, Ernst is pretending to not know about research published in the American Chemistry Society’s scientific journal, called “Langmuir,” which has confirmed in controlled studies that “nanodoses” of homeopathic medicines remain in solution even after they are diluted 1:100 six times, 30 times, or even 200 times (Chikramane, Kalita, Suresh, et al, 2012). This study engaged the use of THREE different types of spectroscopy that confirmed that nanoparticles of the original medicine persisted in solutions…and in doses similar to which our hormones and cell signaling agents are known to operate (Eskinazi, 1999).

    Are skeptics of homeopathy actually asserting that our hormones act as placebo? I sincerely hope not!

    Ernst continually shows “bad faith” and questionable honesty in his reporting…and because I have now provide evidence for this, he and his ilk will start their attack on me personally. Watch…

    Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226

    Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510983

    • ‘…whenever I engage them in scientific studies or reviews of science, they commonly ignore or deny the science. ‘

      That’s a misleading statement. As are your recyced zombie example arguments. To save time, perhaps a link to Ernst’s blog post on you might be in order – and the ensuing comment thread in which you partook? Because all you’ve raised here was addressed there, wasn’t it?

      • drazzin2373 .

        Just like Dana said, right into good science by threatening to “link a blog post?”

        This is just too funny. The Merry little band of sheep are confronted and all they can do is yell, “we don’t believe that study! It isn’t real science, it can’t be!”

        Then, immediately to personal attacks and a link to a “blog” of lil Eddie.

        I think lil Eddie has been the one that is throughly “debunked” at this point.

        • Personal attacks. Hah! Of course, you’re not resorting to those at all, are you? The point of the link is to highlight the repeat-ignore tactics of Dana Ullman.

          • drazzin2373 .

            You guys are getting wrecked by Dana. Do you have a peer reviewed debunking or really just a blog post. Because, damn, that would be brutal for your position if what Dana said is true.

            Calling him names is a sad place to be if you are trying to “represent the science” here but when called out your the only one that hasn’t posted any…

          • Seriously? ‘Calling him names’? (Hark at you.) Are saying that you automatically take whatever Dana Ullman eructates uncritically?
            Actually, I’m not trying to “represent the science” (who are you quoting there?). Where and on what have I been called out on? What is it I should be posting?

          • drazzin2373 .

            Do you have a per reviewed debunking of what he posted or not?

            Didn’t you just say dana uses repeat-ignore “tactics?”

            What are you doing? Repeating your insults and ignoring his request for any peer reviewed “debunking” of his post as was stated by Acleron and supported by a lil Eddie “blog post.”

            The delusion of the homeopathy haters is astronomical.

            You have nothing. No data and no debunking. Just lil Eddie and his blog as the evidence.

            Classic.

          • Yes, indeed, Dana Ullman uses repeat-ignore tactics – a common device of homeopathy propagandists. He turns up here bleating, taking opportunity for a vindictive smear-swipe at Ernst. And dangles again one of his favoured papers, as though this is somehow meant to convince the world that homeopathy is ‘true’. But when one follows Dana, it becomes apparent when he does this cherry-picked paper-dangling thing, that he often doesn’t read them properly and/or he misrepresents them; it thus becomes doubtful whether they actually conclude what he would have the reader believe they conclude. This happened repeatedly in the comment thread below that Ernst blog post on him, which is why I provided the link: to demonstrate – and justify – the ‘insult’ I use of him – bluffer. You didn’t answer when I asked whether you automatically lap up anything Dana proffers? Do you ‘buy’ the Chikramane froth? I’m not aware of a peer-reviewed debunking of that, and I see no need to spend my time seeking one out. (Has any peer-reviewed article repeated and verified it?) I suspect there isn’t one, which is why Dana likes to keep waving this about, going, “Look, look, here is proof that homeopathy works!” Except, isn’t. It is an attempt to blindside the layman from the primary question of whether it works; and to provide ammunition for those who labour under the delusion that that question is resolved in homeopathy’s favour, and who work to convince others so. And people like you uncritically buy it. Why do you trust his word? (Ask him about how he knows homeopathy provides ‘integrity’ to the immune system; I’ve tried repeatedly – with genuine interest – how he knows this, but have never had an answer.) You who decries the sceptic ‘sheep’ following ‘lying’ Edzard Ernst; yet, when asked to provide example and demonstration of one lie, you haven’t done so.

            For these reasons, I am of the opinion that Dana Ullman is a bluffer. The primary question – whether homeopathy works – has never been affirmed. Thus, all this jumping on the in vogue scientific term ‘nano’ in reaching effort to verify the purported mechanism is a waste of time and resources. You stated: ‘It is clear homeopathy works… ‘. But until and unless you have data (not anecdotage; not nano ‘froth’), I continue to reasonably state, It doesn’t work.

            Oh, and you do know that Dana is a paid homeopath, don’t you? Yet you don’t frown when he shows up at places like this where he rather pathetically acts to justify his income source? No, what you do is turn up, immediately making hypocritical, personal, childishly insulting attacks on homeopathy critics, aggressively throwing around the shill card. You, the self-aggrandising, ‘old, rich guy’, doing this for ‘fun’. Where is the wisdom? Where did you learn to argue? (Did you take that $30 m figure from Christine ‘ReallyBadMedicine’ Jahnig? Do you have her down as a reliable authority? Eeesh!) Rather, you write like a demented, cackling, teenage troll; moreover, one so manic you come across as though you are on something. You repeatedly claim that I am in the pay of Big Pharma, but do not answer when asked where you (whose name I don’t know) come by this? Just a falsehood, repeated to saturation – in classic ‘repeat-ignore’, homeopathy propagandist style. A grossly dishonest attempt to smear in lieu of any evidence for what you hold dear.

          • Egger

            If homeopathy works or not, the presence of nanoparticles in extremely diluted remedies is a fact.

          • Err, so, if I read you right… if homeopathy works, then the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ is significant as the mechanism (though it may not be); if homeopathy does not work, then their presence is irrelevant? I presume (correct me if I’m wrong) that the silly study was conducted on the former basis – i.e. to provide a scientific explanation for homeopathy’s efficacy, which was taken as a given. But to take it as a given is erroneous. Which renders the study pseudoscience. It only appeals to believers. Do I misunderstand?

          • Acleron

            LMAO, getting wrecked by DUllman? Ha, ha, ha.

            Are you DUllman as well, he has been known to use a sock puppet to praise himself.

            Wrecked by DUllman, is that like being flogged by a dead sheep?

          • drazzin2373 .

            I know, your paymaster is going to be mad.

            I’m just an outsider looking in and from what I saw, he posted facts and you posted, well, nothing.

            At least you are consistent in your denials. Typical sheep…

          • Acleron

            Agreeing with a delusionist is what you are. And pray, tell us how you can distinguish fact from fiction being a fantasist?

          • drazzin2373 .

            Acleron, it is a good thing someone pays you to write nothing. Even your insults are bad. So sad, but at least you got another .50 pence. Well done lil fella.

          • Acleron

            You cannot stop lying, can you? You certainly cannot produce the slightest evidence to back up your lies.

    • Acleron

      Oh dear, the Langmuir again. That has been debunked so many times that even you should be able to see the flaws.

      Hormones are not only real, they have been reliably and reproducibly isolated, characterised and structured. Compare that to your single piece of rubbish whose only claim to fame is that they managed to con their way into Langmuir.

      • Acleron said:

        “Oh dear, the Langmuir again. That has been debunked so many times that even you should be able to see the flaws.”

        Woah!

      • drazzin2373 .

        Acleron likes to choose his science. It has to agree with him or it has been debunked. Lol.

        This Merry little band of haters is so quaint.

      • Dana Ullman

        Acleron, show me ONE “debunking” of the Langmuir article that was published in a peer-review journal…just one…though I bet you can only reference a “blog” (Wow! You really have low academic standards…a tad ironic, eh?!). The bottomline here is that deniers deny denial all the time. And further, whatever “debunking” that you ever reference should be in a high-impact journal. In the meantime, get real…

        • Acleron

          Lol, from memory there were two in the very reference you gave. There was also a rather illogical post by someone called DUllman, although someone later claimed that was the only logical post, that was also a guy called DUllman, a relative?

          • Egger

            Ad-Acleron fallacy: Rejects all positive corpus of evidence.

    • @Dana Ullman:disqus : It is so typical that Ernst actually claims that homeopaths attack him “personally” rather than substantatively because I have just the opposite experience.

      The claim @edzardernst:disqus makes is very well demonstrated in this very comment thread. It is also unsurprising that you have the opposite experience. You have no facts to back your case so attacking your points is easy.

      I’m failing to understand what the purpose is of that first sentence. It backs the case of Edzard being attacked personally (because you can’t honestly critique his points) and it reinforces the case of Dana only having his points attacked (because they’re such easy targets.)

      Also, if it’s not been done already, I invoke Dullmans Law. Google it.

      • Dana Ullman

        So typical! I do reference a highly respected scientific journal, LANGMUIR (published by the American Chemical Society!), and “Gold” pretends that I didn’t mention it. There’s no “Gold’s Law” because no one gives a fig about what he says, and you don’t have to do a google to know that he is standing on jello, not firm ground. I’m done with replying to daft people like GOLD.

        • Hi Dana

          Since you mentioned the highly respected and prestigious American Chemical Society, here’s another one of their publications:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq29f14X1t0

          • Dana Ullman

            Is it interesting that I refer to peer-review journals published in leading scientific journals, and this clown and anti-scientific thinker, Alan Henness, refers to a YouTube video! How typical! And for the record, that video is FULL of mis-information. Obviously, not peer-reviewed!

          • What is it about that paper that has you waving it? You appear to have forgotten the primary question about homeopathy. Or rather, you just pretend to have.

          • Dana Ullman

            The LANGMUIR article has NEVER been debunked by anything more than a “blog.” Further, whenever anyone says or even suggests that there is “no way” that homeopathic medicines can work, now, such skeptics (or more accurate, such pseudo-skeptics) are either showing their ignorance or their untruthfulness. And to watch Lee Turnpenny and these other pseudo-skeptics respond to me, we ALL see their sheer intellectual and scientific bankruptcy. It is so obvious.

          • Here: There is “no way” that homeopathic medicines can work, now, or whenever.

            Because, for one thing, there is no such thing as a ‘homeopathic medicine. Unlike you, I’m happy to confess to ignorance; so why don’t you regale us with your intellect and scientific nous, and explain what it is about that particular paper that has you so excitedly waving it at the world? Because it doesn’t provide proof that homeopathy actually works, does it? You haven’t actually answered that primary question. All the rest is just froth.

          • Egger

            Come on “Tucan-head” pseudoskeptik troll. More evidence?

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215312277

            Method:

            –Acidumsalicylicum(salicylicacid)(Merck,Germany,purityN99.5%) and ethanol (DCM SriramIndustries, India, Purity N99.8%) were used as received without any further purification–

            Conclusion:

            Both the presence of acidum salicylicum as well as succussion phenomenon may be responsible for the variation of the physicochemical properties of these homoeopathic formulations.–

          • Egger

            I don’ agree with you Mr. Ullman. I think this: Alan Henness is the master of clowns.

          • Mike Stevens

            He is just sourcing something from the “American Chemical Society”, Dana.
            A moment ago you were full of it’s praises – “highly respected” indeed.
            But now when they put out something you object to you suddenly cry foul.
            Bad form.

          • LOL! You’re as predictable as you are transparent, Dana. I doubt there’s anyone here who can’t see through your bluster.

          • Egger

            LOL! You’re as predictable as typical pseudoskeptik troll. Alan. Why ACS and Daily Sucks never cites the study published in Langmuir and Journal of Molecular Liquids?

          • Why don’t you ask them?

          • Egger

            Maddox is dead.
            Randi never answer me.
            Where is Steward?

          • Egger

            Wow, the same biased debunked Randi worm “arguments”. Why ACS only consults MD and Phd in medicine? Why ACS does not consult the Indian Institute of Technology scientist?

            Why ACS does not mention the existence of the low potency homeopathy?

            Why ACS used the cherry picking evidence and omits the reference on physical chemistry?

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40031-013-0035-2

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/143307511X13109310554445?journalCode=ymri20#.VzLQ7aX-acc

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23872840

          • Egger

            Daily Mail is not prestigious, is a daily!

          • ROFL! Was my three-line comment too much for you to read?

          • Egger

            No.

          • The evidence suggests otherwise.

        • David

          Your one article against the 250 articles that nhmrc reviewed showing homeopathy is useless.

  • Dana Ullman

    The BEST news about Ernst’s article above is that he now acknowledges that ALL homeopathic medicines that are not diluted beyond 1:100 just 12 times have doses of medicinal agents in them that can provide real health benefits, as Ernst’s own research has confirmed (thank you!). However, Ernst and his kind of pseudoskeptic commonly lump ALL homeopathic medicines together and inaccurately assert that there are “no molecules” of medicinal agents in these natural medicines. Ernst cannot have it both ways, and his reporting on homeopathy is so sloppy that constantly tries to over-simplify the subject and assume that there is “nothing” in homeopathic medicines, even though there is evidence (described in my previous comment below!) that there are measurable doses in virtually ALL homeopathic medicines (except when you choose to ignore or deny research published in highly respected scientific and medical journals)…and I don’t think pretending to be ignorant about such research is a good or adequate way to show a healthy scientific understanding or attitude.

    • Stop Scrutton-ising, you bluffer. Would it suit your position to re-read – carefully – what Ernst has written above? Nah, because you would still wilfully misrepresent it, wouldn’t you?

      It’s all here: http://edzardernst.com/2015/11/dana-ullman-the-spokesperson-for-homeopathy/

      • drazzin2373 .

        We all read what lil Eddie had to say. It is clear. He agrees his original research was right and that Homeopathics at lower dilutions work.

        Little Lee is doing his steeply best to now re-define what everyone has long agreed is homeopathy in order to help cover eddies early research that he now admits it does work, but it isn’t homeopathy. That is so quaint.

        I can’t even pay for entertainment this good. The Merry little band of sheep are walking off a cliff…

        • Lee is doing no such thing. And you know full well that Ernst is not admitting such. You wouldn’t be deliberately misrepresenting, would you? Or are you making a reasonable point? Hard to tell, amongst all the frothing, saturating noise.

          • drazzin2373 .

            What? Did you just start talking in the third person all of a sudden lee or did you forget which account you were posting under?

            Lol. Better change that post quick!

            Sad to see the haters now cracking under pressure, can’t even remember which fake login alias they are posting under to hate on homeopathy.

          • No, is not an alias. Only one account.

          • drazzin2373 .

            So, the only time I have ever seen you post in the third person but it was still you? Ok, we believe you. Either way, another .50 pence, eh?

            The smell of the U.K. Hater group Codswallop gets deeper every time…

          • Acleron

            Alongg with your other ridiculous beliefs, do you think that if you continually lie that somehow it will become true?

          • drazzin2373 .

            Which other ridiculous beliefs?

            A good day for you today, eh? Lots of posts and lots of $$.

            Acleron, your feeble attempts are left wanting…

          • Acleron

            Let’s look a few.
            A belief that nothing but sugar and water cures anything and that anybody who shows you’re beliefs are wrong is a liar in the pay of some mythical beast called BigPharma.

            Telling that you agree these are ‘other’ ridiculous beliefs beyond that I or anybody else is payed per post.

    • Acleron

      He certainly did not prove your pet delusion.

      If you had comprehended what was written then he showed that actually having active materials present produces effects. A result which contradicts homeopathy.

      Medicine, biochemistry and physiology have known for a long time that real molecules have effects and that throwing them away, as in homeopathy, progressively reduces those effects.

      A homeopath claiming a scientist is ignorant is a crime against irony meters.

      • drazzin2373 .

        That made no sense Acleron. A large portion of homeopathy is done below Avogadro’s number. So, you are saying those could work. Well done. See, that wasn’t that hard to agree a large portion of homeopathy works! Even for Acleron!

        You better figure out a new way to say that acl, they are going to change your pay to .25 pence per post soon.

        • Acleron

          Lying again I see. Is that the only trick you have.

          • drazzin2373 .

            How was it a trick if you “knew” it was a lie? Are you always this incompetent?

            They should lower your pay to .25 pence per post based on today’s showing…

          • Acleron

            And still steadily lying as well as being rather stupid.

          • Egger

            Detection of the solute: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22876602

            –Homeopathic preparations were: Selenium Hommacord (ampoules), Selenium Hommacord
            (drops), Selenium (ampoules) and Selenium (drops)–

            Conclusion:

            –Based on the results of the determinations, there were established concentration levels for individual ions that occur in a randomly selected group of homeopathic products.–

          • Egger

            Again liar?

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

            –A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure as defined by the European Pharmacopoeia or recognised national homeopathic pharmacopoeias–

            –A goal in homeopathy is to prescribe the homeopathic ‘similimum’ in either a low or high potency to patients who have no impairment or blockage in their capacity to respond–

    • drazzin2373 .

      Well said Dana. The Merry little band of haters here have even tried to explain the “nuance” below. It is ok, lil Eddie just cant stand that long before he was bought and paid for, his research proved homeopathy works, or at least, at many dilutions.

      Don’t worry though, the sheep herd will soon follow on here attacking you.

      • Seriously. Come on!

      • Acleron

        Are you ignorant about everything or is it just this area?

        Ernst’s work was funded by Laing who wanted firm evidence that altmed worked. Even though that evidence did not exist, Laing funded him again.

        If Ernst was as you described he would have dishonestly produced positive data, just like the normal homeopath. That he didn’t and risked losing funding points to his high level of integrity, a level that quack charlatans are constitutionally unable to attain.

        • drazzin2373 .

          No, no little Acleron. A very robust, high quality trial would not have allowed dishonestly produced positive data. Isn’t that the point of science, remove all the potential bias?

          Or, are you saying, that Eddie could have, if he wanted to, get whatever data he wanted from “science?”

          Tick tisk acl, the more you talk, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

          You are the obvious charlatan here.

          • Acleron

            No, I said that if Ernst acted as dishonestly as you, he could have fabricated results.

            What makes your fabrication crazy is that the only way for Ernnst to have gained financially would be to have produced positive papers for alt med. He didn’t which makes your pathetic accusations not only baseless but lacking in intelligence. Well, your lack of intelligence is available from every post you make.

    • Egger

      Yes, Ernst in his trial callled homeopathic:

      http://phl.sagepub.com/content/5/3/157.abstract

  • Geetanjali Mathur

    The far few or negligible active molecules are more than enough to render the person well and evenif it is placebo it is far much safer and effective than allopathic treatments.Have been using it since long,no doubt about its efficiency. Just to earn more profits,an ugly strategy played out by haters and stupid people out there.

    • If only you could cite some good evidence, then we could all have a look at it…

      • rosross

        Oh the good evidence is there and those of scientific rigour and open mind do look at it, which is why MD’s and hospitals, particularly in Europe, around the world, use Homeopathy; some medical schools and universities teach it and Governments include it in State medical systems.

        None of that could or would happen without those involved and their legal teams, carefully studying good evidence before giving the go-ahead.

        • Do you really want someone to point out all the fallacies in that yet again, Roslyn?

          • rosross

            You can try but the result will be the same, abject failure.

            In an age of litigation and where pharmaceutical companies dominate and largely control science/medicine and where science has become god-like and in essence a religion, there are very, very few who have the courage to stand up to the power and pontificating of the profit-mongers and the ‘scientists’ and medicos.

            Therefore, logic dictates, that those who could be sued, mocked, made to look fraudulent, ridiculous, compromised etc., by their actions, will take every care not to place themselves in a vulnerable position.

            Which means, to anyone capable of applying logic, that the mere fact any, let alone many, MD’s, hospitals, medical schools, universities and Governments embrace Homeopathy, dictates it is effective, it is more than pure placebo and it is not the least fraudulent.

            No fallacies whatsoever in that.

          • Acleron

            Says somebody who doesn’t even know what a fallacy is.

          • Old ground, eh, Ros?

            Here in summary is how you irrationalise: Majority non-use is not proof it doesn’t work; yet minority use is ‘absolute proof’ that it does work. Why do you deem that your ridiculous re-assertion and hypocritical standard of ‘proof’ should be acceptable? Does not your favourite, self-contradictory fallacy actually accuse all medical doctors, and the hospitals in which they work, and the institutions wherein they are educated and trained, and the governments which mandate them, of being complicit/engaged in a mass program to keep people ill, through the practice of (what you nonsensically adjective as) ‘allopathic’ medicine?

  • Stan S. Stanman

    There are a number of comments on this article referring to homeopathy critics as “paid shills” or that we critics should just let homeopathy lie – after all, if somebody wants to use homeopathy then why shouldn’t they, what’s the harm? For me, I have seen the harm first-hand.

    I have a close friend who was diagnosed with MS some years ago and is now finding it difficult to walk because of his condition. Although he is a smart guy, he is also desperate and as a result has worked his way through a catalogue of alternative treatments including reiki, therapeutic touch and homeopathy.

    His pattern of engagement with alternative medicine practitioners is usually the same:

    1) He reads about a treatment that claims to provide some benefit for his condition.

    2) He visits the practitioner, pays his money (typically around £100, plus travel costs) and starts the treatment.

    3) The practitioner encourages multiple visits over the course of several days/weeks, which either involves him buying a block of time or visiting on a PAYG basis. Either way, he parts with more cash.

    4) Almost immediately he feels that his condition has improved and is both excited and full of hope that he has found a treatment that “actually works”. His extols the virtues of the treatment to everybody around him.

    5) As time passes, he slowly realises that his condition is the same as it was at the start. The pain levels are the same, he still can’t walk properly.

    6) At this point he either re-visits the practitioner who attempts to try a different treatment (return to step 2) or he abandons the practice in search of another (return to step 1)

    The psychological drop he experiences between points 4 and 5 is just awful. His friends and family watch on in despair as once again, his hopes are raised and then dashed. It is like a never ending merry-go-round of disappointment that takes its toll on everyone, not to mention his personal finances.

    With each new treatment he tries, I spend some time seeking out the latest results of systematic reviews, large-scale trials etc. in an attempt to forewarn him. I’ll refer him to the NHS website or we’ll have a frank discussion about how biologically implausible the treatment sounds. He accuses me of being closed-minded or that “science doesn’t have all the answers”. Sadly the result is always the same.

    I don’t believe that all alternative medicine practitioners are charlatans and are knowingly exploiting the desparate. I believe that your average homeopath is simply deluded and/or too deep into a sunken-cost fallacy to back out. Realising you’ve spent a good part of your life prescribing fake medicines to sick people is not a sugar pill anyone wants to swallow.

    The reason this is an issue to me and many others is that the homeopath is not the victim. My friend is the victim. His friends and family are the victims as they have to pick up the pieces.

    I don’t get paid by anybody to be publicly skeptical of homeopathy. I do it in the vain hope that just one person is dissuaded from visiting a homepath and having their hopes dashed.

    • drazzin2373 .

      So, do we all get to put our stories up as evidence?

      Just as the homeopathic haters wouldn’t accept a positive story, they should just as well deride your story as lacking evidence of anything.

      In addition, this exact story plays out in every doctor office across the world for many patients. Irrespective of homeopathy, many people go to a doctor that you believe practices the “right” medicine and many of his patients will not get better, will return time and again will be provided with no good answers, and will go away with no resolution and less money.

      The only difference is one side may have been injured dramatically more by the side effects of all those “let’s try this” pharmaceutical from their GP and the other side, in the view of the hates, would have just been tricked.

      You can choose to use or not use homeopathy but your story provides little with respect to the dispute.

      • Stan S. Stanman

        I offered my story to explain why I am am publicly critical of homeopathy as I have seen the harm it can cause. Irrespective of whether you (or anyone) agrees with it, I hope that it at least offers an alternative explanation to those who say “critical of homeopathy = on the pharma payroll”.

        Ultimately, the highest-quality evidence such as that recently published by the Australian NHMRC or the UK Science and Technology Committee in 2010 indicates that homeopathy does not work. Couple this with the fact that the mechanism of action is highly implausible, you end up with a treatment that science says cannot work and evidence says does not work. When I see people (i.e. my friends) harmed by this treatment modality, I feel compelled to speak up.

        As recently as last week I persuaded my local vet to stop stocking homeopathic anxiety treatments for cats and dogs. He admitted to being undecided about them but following a conversation about the evidence, he removed them from the shelf and they have not returned.

        • drazzin2373 .

          You know that the public health director for Australia did not accept the nhmrc report as anything more than a political statement? You do know that the key authors already had made their decision as to the outcome before they even started the project?

          No, you don’t know any of that because you are just a sheep. You are doing a great disservice to many people being continually harmed by pharmaceutical products as they go round and round with no relief but ever more problems.

          Homeopathy is a great option that will help many of them

          By the way, science doesn’t say what cannot work, it only says what we think cannot work based on what we currently know.

          Unfortunately, what we thought we knew at the time turned out to be wrong quite often. Science is a nice method, fraught with problems and challenges that we need to remember.

          • Stan S. Stanman

            Can you provide links for the two points you made please? Specifically:

            “The public health director for Australia did not accept the nhmrc report as anything more than a political statement”

            “The key authors already had made their decision as to the outcome before they even started the project”

            I have tried a number of different searches but cannot find quotes from either the director of public health for Australia or from the key authors which back up your statement.

          • drazzin2373 .

            I am a little confused Stan. You quoted “highest quality evidence” as nhmrc report and uk science guys. First, those are clearly not the “highest quality evidence” in any way.

            Next, you quoted them to support your position against homeopathy yet you can’t find any references that would make your supposition less likely?

            Wow, this is so shocking. You come to dissuade others, yet you have done little to research anything but your own prejudice.

            Figures.

            I will help you – the health minister’s name is sussan ley. Unfortunately, if you don’t understand Australian politics you won’t understand when she notes that the labor party instituted this review (unfortunately YOU will have to do more research about WHY that would quickly dissolve “high quality evidence”) and that she was not going to stop funding rebates for homeopathy based on this report as it was politically motivated as part of a larger economic fight that has little to do with homeopathy and everything to do with political maneuvering and getting back political power.

            The second piece of the massive debunking of that silly nhmrc report and the pages of problems with the it are is easily found. You just have to not be a sheep but of course, you didn’t look for any of that information, right?

            Since I’m nice, here is an exact quote from a newspaper article with the quote from sussan ley, if you can’t find it from this….:

            But less than three weeks before changes were expected to be made, Health Minister Sussan Ley revealed she would take into account broader considerations.

            “Taxpayers receive the private health rebate based on their ­entire policy, so it’s not as simple as turning off the tap for one type of treatment as Labor was trying to make out,” Ms Leys said.

            “It’s important to remember Labor launched this broader ­review of natural therapies as part of their multi-billion-dollar raid on private health insurance rebates in government — it was never about health outcomes for patients.

            “We therefore need to make sure Labor’s plan to cut funding for people using natural therapies doesn’t end up having a negative impact for all consumers instead.”

            The former government introduced a means test for the rebate — which the Coalition has vowed to remove if or when the budget allows — and tied it to inflation, not the rate of premium increases, meaning the impact of the subsidy will be eroded over time.

            in the end none of this matters.

            Everyone who posts here has never been persuaded against the beliefs they brought here in the first place.

            At least the banter is entertaining, although maybe the haters are smarter as at least they are getting paid to spew their hateful nonsense.

          • Acleron

            So as usual, no evidence to support the claims.

            This gets old very quickly.

          • Acleron
          • drazzin2373 .

            Do you even read what you post? Clearly not.

            They included EVERY submission from every organization that wanted to submit including hypnosis, etc. in that report. So, you can call bullshit on yourself. Her own quote, which I posted early, with a source, clearly denoted her position.

            Everything you post just contradicts yourself. Unless, maybe you flew down and asked the director today, just like you went to the store today and counted all the 30c bottles–everything you say is BS.

            So bad. You should be paying them for your bad posts. Do they charge you back for these horrendous posts?

            I have always wondered how it would feel to basically lose at everything in life but unfortunately I got lucky so it didn’t play out that way for me.

            Watching you self destruct though is almost as good.

            LOL.

          • Acleron

            Her quote which you cannot cite for some reason, yeah.
            The DH included that report and have concluded that homeopathy is a bust. You are just bullshit.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Lol. Get a grip. I put in her entire quote with the reference cited. L2read.

            I feel bad for you Acleron, trying to make a living on 50p a post.

            I’m not messing with you anymore, I feel like I’m picking on a short busser it isn’t fun or challenging.

            Good luck acl.

          • Acleron

            Where is the citation then?

            All we have so far is the word of a known liar.

          • Egger

            “The DH included that report and have concluded that homeopathy is a bust”

            Show me the page with the “bust”. Come on.

          • Mike Stevens

            So what you are basically saying is that Sussan Ley is playing party politics? Looks like it to me.
            I note she makes reassuring noises about not wanting the proposed cuts in funding of natural therapies to adversely affect consumers. That’s what any politician would say though.
            It says nothing about any supposed rejection of the science in the report.

          • rosross

            Here is your NHMRC, recognised on a number of counts for bias and a complete lack of scientific integrity. Then again, those opposing Homeopathy do fit a certain picture of prejudice, ignorance, bias and as paid shills for corporate agendas:

            Quote: Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council has long since disqualified itself as a body fit, willing, or even able to investigate and report on the known and obvious consequences to human health and well-being caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

            From the get go, it’s been infiltrated by wind industry consultants, such as Norm Broner and wind industry advocates like Liz Hanna, who continue to direct traffic at, what is supposed to be, an independent medical research body, designed to protect public health at enormous taxpayer expense (see our post here).

            A few weeks back, the NHMRC pumped out another politically inspired piece of propaganda, asserting that there was “no consistent evidence” of wind farms causing adverse health effects.

            The inclusion of the weasel word “consistent” in the NHMRC’s puffy press piece is telling; and it’s a theme we’ll return to in a moment, when we revisit the concept of basic science, in the general, and hypothesis testing, in the particular.

            https://stopthesethings.com/2015/03/08/nhmrc-fails-science-101-in-continued-wind-farm-health-cover-up/comment-page-1/

          • Acleron

            Lol, idiots who cannot do science moan about science

          • Egger

            “Lol, idiots who cannot do science moan about science”

            Again, the pseudoskeptiks offer only insults and the ad-hominem/straw man fallacies combo?

          • Mike Stevens

            It is not unexpected that every scientific committee and every study that demonstrates homeopathy is invalid is judged by the homeopaths as being flawed.
            Of course they would say that, since accepting the facts would directly undercut the principles of their homeopathic practices, constituting a very valid conflict of professional and financial interest.

          • Egger

            It is not unexpected that every scientific committe and every study that demonstrates homeopathy is a valid is judgeg by the pseudoskeptiks as beng flawed for lack of blind or if blind cleary is described, the pseudoskeptiks offer ad-hoc excuses or laughs (as Acleron).
            Of course they would say thath, since accpeting the facts would directly undercut the principles of their pseudoskeptikal militant practices and the cult of Randi, constituting a very valid conflict of professional and financial interest.

          • rosross

            Only the invalid, flawed, corrupted, distorted, prejudiced studies are judged as being flawed. And that applies on all counts, whatever the issue being studied.

          • rosross

            Hmmmm, some of the silliest people I have ever met are doctors and scientists and academics and some of the smartest left school at twelve. There is an assumption that one needs to be clever to do science or medicine. One does not. One needs merely to be able to think in a particular way, memorise and regurgitate. That is not clever and that is not thinking or intelligence.

          • Acleron

            What on earth would you know about science. You have never demonstrated the slightest understanding of the process of science, evidence or ethics.

            And for someone whose main argument is the Ros fallacy to say that you aren’t impressed by authority is incredibly funny.

            Ros, you are always going on about qualifications but even then you are inconsistent. Their owners must have the same delusion as yourself.

          • kfunk937

            You have never demonstrated the slightest understanding of the process of science, evidence or ethics.

            True. But then again ros has never demonstrated a particularly rigorous understanding of homeopathy, either.

          • Acleron

            LMAO.

          • rosross

            NHMRC Disqualified from Coalition’s Health Inquiry

            March 7, 2014 by stopthesethings 6 Comments

            John Madigan – the “Marshall” is back – this time grilling the NHMRC.

            ****

            The NRMRC has been wearing “ribbons of shame” since it rushed to print with its selective, biased and incomplete literature review back in 2010. The very, very Rapid Review was so quick off the mark that it completely missed the decade of work put together by Neil Kelley & Co during the 1980s in the US (see our post here).

            These bureaucratic nincompoops are back – this time with a loosely titled “Information Paper” – STT thinks “Mis-information Paper” would have been closer to the mark. Again, it ignored the highly detailed and comprehensive work done by Kelley and the boys from MIT and NASA – what would America’s top rocket scientists know, hey? (see our postshere and here and here).

            And it slammed the bag on submissions back in September 2012 – so it’s only 18 months out of date.

            There’s an old adage – clearly lost on the NHMRC – that goes something along the line that it’s always better to take your time and do things right the first time, than to tear off and produce a series of repeated half-baked cock ups. For cattlemen the tale about the old bull and the young bull looking down from a hill on a paddock full of willing young maidens should spring to mind – it was, of course, the old bull’s experience and reserve – rather than the young bull’s eagerness to “get amongst the action” – that led to the better strike-rate over all.

        • rosross

          The Australian NHMRC report was deeply flawed and a disgrace to anyone who supports rigour and professionalism in science, not to mention objectivity.

          If any other medical modality in Allopathy had been ‘studied’ in the same way there would have been outrage.

          If for instance it had been Oncology and not Homeopathy, every Oncologist would be up in arms at a report where not one Oncologist was on the study panel, not one Oncologist was consulted, research material on Oncology was chosen selectively with the most positive rejected, and at least one panel member, possibly two, had a clear conflict of interest and was not an impartial researcher.

          That, my friend, was the basis of the worthless study by NHMRC into Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            So says the homeopath who doesn’t like the result.

            The selection was based on quality and as usual the high quality trials showed no effect. The homeopaths want their shabbily run trials included but who other than a charlatan would choose low quality evidence over high quality?

            The baseless smears and insinuations are all they have.

          • rosross

            Oh you get so much wrong. I am not a Homeopath and the same criticisms have been levelled at NHMRC by others. No credibility on any count.

          • Acleron

            So you claim Ros, so you claim.

            All these criticisms of the NHMRC but by who? The only reference so far is a web site that is angry because their pet belief about windfarms has been contradicted by facts. Birds of a feather flock together.

          • Egger

            You need more evidence Randibot?

            http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-31942015000500005

            –An experimental study was conducted with 100 children of both sexes between one and four years old attending the Provincial Department of Neurophysiology at “Pepe Portilla” Pediatric Hospital, Pinar del Rio 2014, to undergo EEG under sedation. A randomized systematic sampling was performed to assign and form two groups of treatment (conventional and homeopathic) with 50 patients each, which was compared by the effectiveness of sedation and its duration. —

            –[Homeopathic ]passionflower is an effective and safe homeopathic medication to sedate young children; it is a therapeutic alternative to perform EEG to diagnose central nervous system diseases.–

          • Mike Stevens

            I am somewhat concerned you think this is a good trial to demonstrate the value of homeopathy. If this is a typical offering, then I am unsurprised that the vast majority of people and scientists scorn the concept.

            Firstly, there is no placebo control group. For a therapeutic end point as woolly as getting children to be sedated for an EEG test one should appreciate there are many confounders and influences that could both directly and indirectly relax the kids, so a valid placebo group would be essential.

            Secondly, the study is not blinded. Mothers were specifically given instructions about “sedation” and “sleep” and medications being given.

            Thirdly, the authors do not seem to have found anything of major relevance. They have apparently shown that homeopathic passionflower worked as well as standard anxiolytic therapy (they show no statistics to back this claim up for some reason), but there may be other valid explanations than the suggestion that passionflower is a good sedative – it could equally as well be argued that it does nothing, and that the standard sedatives are not very effective. That reinforces the relevance and importance of having a suitable placebo control arm in this study.

            In short, it’s a dismal attempt at a scientific study and I’m surprised it
            got the go ahead from an ethics committee without modification of the methodology.

            That you regard it as a great result for homeopathy speaks volumes.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens. Another ad-hoc excuses. The paper used objective measures with EEG.

            Firstly, the placebo group is not neccesary in exploratory trial.

            Secondly, the study does not need a blind protocol in exploratory trial

            Thirdly, are you kidding me? Not all study need placebo gruop.-

            In brief, your responses it’s a dismal ad-hoc attempt. I’m not surprissed.

            Well, maybe, you need EEG with double blind protocol?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15370183

          • rosross

            Are you seriously suggesting that if Homeopathy were all you and other detractors claim it to be, oncologists would continue to use it on children, as they do in Germany for instance?

            How do you see that playing out? I mean, either Homeopathy is utterly ineffective and its use is complete fraud, or it is not? If the evidence you and others claim existed then surely these paediatric oncologists would and should know about it.

            Quote: Use of homeopathy in pediatric oncology in Germany.

            Längler A1, Spix C, Edelhäuser F, Kameda G, Kaatsch P, Seifert G.

            Author information

            Abstract

            Homeopathy is a frequently used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment. We present results comparing responses of homeopathy users (HUs) and users of other forms of CAM (NHUs) in pediatric oncology (PO) in Germany. Differences between these two groups (usage, associated demographic characteristics, previous experience with CAM) are investigated. 186 (45.2%) of the 367 CAM users were exposed to homeopathy.

            The treatment duration amounted to a median of 601 days for HUs and 282 days for NHUs. Parents with p (127; 76.5%) also used homeopathy for their child’s cancer. Nonmedical practitioners played a considerably greater role as source of information than did treating physician. In the majority HUs received their prescriptions from nonmedical practitioners (56%; 29.4% of NHUs). HUs communicate more frequently with their physicians about the CAM-use (77.7% versus 65.2%) and recommend CAM more often than NHUs (94% versus 85.6%). Homeopathy is the most frequently used CAM treatment in PO in Germany. HUs sustain treatment and therapies considerably longer than NHUs. Most families who had used homeopathy before their child was diagnosed with cancer also used homeopathy for the treatment of their child’s cancer. Compared to other CAM treatments, patient satisfaction with homeopathy appears to be very high.

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

          • Mike Stevens

            Ros, In your cited study, 15% of respondents to a survey said they had used homeopathy in their children who had cancer. The uses were primarily attempts to “enhance the immune system, physical stabilization, to improve the tolerability of conventional treatment and detoxification”.
            None was using homeopathy as a means to effect a “cure” for the cancer, or to “treat” it as you imply.
            It is well known that patients with serious illnesses like cancer may try and use CAM therapies. This works in a placebo fashion, improving wellbeing and giving the cancer sufferers a sense of “control” over their own health and illness. Just because homeopathy is scientific nonsense, that doesn’t mean it cannot have a role in disease management like other placebos do where patients find it “helpful”.
            I am unsure why you think this paper illustrates the value of homeopathy in any therapeutic sense regarding real physical illness such as cancer.

          • rosross

            Homeopathy does not work in placebo fashion and I doubt any oncologist would solely use Homeopathy, even if they wished to do so, given the hysteria currently surrounding it.

            The point was that an Allopathic oncologist will use Homeopathy as well, as an adjunct, and that means it demonstrates effect and credibility.

            You and others here claim Homeopathy is pure placebo and fraud, the point of this paper is that it indicates, for whatever reason, acceptance by conventional Allopathic medicine in the case of serious disease, particularly with children, where any ‘whiff’ of fraud would have careers ruined and profits destroyed. Ergo, Homeopathy is effective and there is patently research to prove that fact.

            Many things are considered nonsense by Science simply because Science has not advanced enough to understand them. Quantum Mechanics was considered nonsense when first mooted.

            Bacteria and doctors needing to wash their hands was considered nonsense when first mooted and for long afterwards when common sense would dictate it was valid, and countless hundreds of thousands died because of it – sacrificed on the altar of science/medical ego.

            Unlike toxic and often deadly Allopathic treatments for Cancer, Homeopathy can trigger healing and cure and the body, of course, can cure anything. However, such times will not come until the vice-like grip of profit-driven pharmaceutical and mechanical science-medicine is removed from the medical industry. It will come and in time Science will evolve and advance enough to understand how Homeopathy works and yes, that will be revolutionary on many fronts…. and much less profitable financially, although vastly more profitable in terms of health and cure.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I doubt any oncologist would solely use Homeopathy, even if they wished to do so”
            Hilarious.
            Ros, the people in this survey (well, 15% of them anyhow) were using homeopathy as a complementary fashion in adjunct to their conventional oncology treatment and care. I doubt their oncologists were even aware of the fact.
            Homeopathy is purely an elaborate placebo.
            Unless you can provide evidence that it works, I will continue to regard it as such.
            And as for your claim that “it can cure anything”… sorry, I am laughing too much to respond.

          • Egger

            Acleron Troll. You need more evidence with high quality?

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

            Without conflicts of interests. From the paper:

            –This work was partly sponsored by FAPERJ and Instituto Roberto Costa, and Coordenac ao de Aperfeic ¸Foamento de Pessoal de Nıvel Superior (CAPES) granted Camila
            Monteiro Siqueira with a PhD scholarship.–

          • Mike Stevens

            I agree with the authors of this study – they suggest that further studies into this should be done.
            Perhaps you can get back to us when this finding has been independently confirmed?

          • Egger

            Read the paper. The study is a replication of another “small” RCT in Brazil.

          • Mike Stevens

            I am just agreeing with the authors of the study that this needs independent confirmation. I thought you’d be pleased.
            😉

          • rosross

            You must have had a deeply traumatic personal experience regarding non-Allopathic medicine because your visceral and irrational hatred of Homeopathy in particular and non-Allopathic medicine in general runs so deep.

            Good research and good science both require high levels of objectivity – it is worth a try!

          • Egger

            Yes, the Australian report is flawed. I found Another analysis in spanish languague (please use google translator if you don’t speak english):

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.mx/2015/04/homeopatia-xv-evidencia-clinica-i.html

          • rosross

            Thanks, this is an excerpt:

            Quote:

            A serious report must necessarily start with a serious and precise definition of the subject to analyze .

            It is therefore impossible to justify this report use a tendentious definition of homeopathy, which ignores half the field of study, or homeopathic dilutions not exceed Avogadro ‘s number.

            Another serious flaw is that the report excluded several meta – analyzes and clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria of NHRMC [7]. a third evidence of bias is that the committee formed by NHRMC to develop this incluyeda study Peter Brooks, a member of Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), a strong group negationist propaganda of homeopathy. Brooks resigned in FSM only after being appointed to the committee and thus avoid the conflict of interest in the role.

            A fourth evidence is that, while included a fierce anti-homeopathic group, the research committee ignored the offers of the Australian Homoeopathic Association to cooperate in the study, as well as signs of failures in the investigation. the list of obvious bias (to call smoothly) can be read in the open letter from the Australian Homoeopathy Association ‘s CEO NHRMC. IV – Other Reports About Homeopathy for comparison, another report [8], popularly known as “Swiss”, but has not evaluated all available evidence, analyzed and evaluated a lot of literature available putting together all levels of the hierarchy of evidence concluding homeopathy is safe and effective.

            As expected the “Swiss” report has been criticized [9] [10] [11] under the assumption that it was shoddy investigation or that the authors have made ​​a misbehaving in science. However these criticisms are based on prejudices or directly on falsehoods as the authors of the report [12] [13] demonstrated.

            David Shaw [9] of the University of Glasgow accused the authors of the report scientific misconduct because they ignored trials that did not give them reason or reinterpreted favorable to their beliefs findings, and because they had not conducted a literature search in databases online. he even invalidate the report because the authors are “homeopaths” as it considers this a conflict of interest, which is to say that no expert can make revisions of their field of study, an obvious absurdity .

            The authors of the Swiss report soon refute the criticism, noting that yes conducted a systematic review of the literature, accusing Shaw of defaming, misinterpret and make judgments erroneous value [12].

            Another benchmark is a recent meta – analysis [14] conducted in collaboration with the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, which assessed 494 trials, of which 32 were included in a systematic review and 22 were included in the meta – analysis. Although in general the trials were of low quality (which does not mean that there are no good quality trials), the meta – analysis showed that based on reliable evidence superior to placebo there is a small but consistent effect. More interesting it is that in trials of higher quality not necessarily the effect of homeopathy is reduced.

            This meta-analysis does not answer the question of whether a homeopathic treatment is appropriate for a given disease. His research question is whether there is a real difference detectable and the placebo response, limited to internal validity but, unlike the Australian report, presenting not only a quantitative but also qualitative livelihood. It should be noted that small responses of some phenomenon is more likely to be undetected, and to justify the testing of better quality or quali-quantitative [15] systematic reviews.

        • Egger

          http://www.australiannaturaltherapistsassociation.com.au/news/archive/2014/item_0305_ANTA-Response-to-NHMRC-Draft-Information-Paper-on-Homeopathy.php

          From the ANTA:

          –It has been suggested by some that that the draft Information Paper on Homeopathy states Homeopathy does not work. This is not the case. What the report attempts to highlight is that there is currently insufficient evidence to show Homeopathy is effective. It is important to understand this distinction within the methodology of science and not jump to conclusions.–

      • So, do we all get to put our stories up as evidence?

        That is the typical form of convincing that the pro homeopathy crowd rely on. These are anecdotes. Also known as unverified stories. Hardly a basis for forming a sound line of reasoning.

        It’s entertaining that when we resort to this level of “evidence” the pro-homeopathy crowd call us out on it while expecting us to accept it from them at the same time.

        But Stan wasn’t using the story to convince anyone it’s not a real thing. He’s only explaining why he is critical of homeopathy.

    • rosross

      Your scenario simply does not fit with the methodology of a professional Homeopathic doctor.

      • lolexplosm

        So the no true scotsman fallacy.

        There’s always an excuse for when an alternative treatment doesn’t work.

        • There’s a big list of them – the intersection of that list and a list of logical fallacies is almost total…

          • Egger

            OH, dear, you need the same example of the true scotsman fallacy? Remember the Acleron fallary (Trademark):

            1. Homeopaths are not scientist and fails to understand the scientific method

            2. Ernst is a trained homeopath.

            3. Ernst are not scientist and do not understand the scientific method.

          • Acleron

            The egger fallacy is misrepresenting what someone said and arguing poorly about a strawman.

          • Egger

            Misrepresenting? No thankx, is your fallacy.

          • Acleron

            You misrepresented what I said by stating that I said that Ernst was still a trained homeopath when he started a) having doubts and b) finding results that showed homeopathy was ineffective.

            I actually said that Ernst had been a trained homeopath and as he lost that belief his science improved.

          • Egger

            No, Ernst has never trained homeopath. Where is the diploma or degree? Where? Ernst never has been a trained homeopath. Unlike a Ernst, I’m ex-member of pseudoskeptikal movement in Spain with years of activism.

          • Egger

            “a) having doubts and b) finding results that showed homeopathy was ineffective.”

            Yes, the falwed trials of Ernst. An example:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9820349

            Conclusion of Ernst: –The claims that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials–

            New Systamic Review:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25171757

            Conclusion: –Cumulative evidence suggests that Arnica montana may represent a valid alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at least when treating some specific conditions.–

          • Egger

            Another example:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603

            –Our systematic review of various homeopathic medicines for postoperative ileus produced an overall positive result–

            In this review prove the positive effect of Low potency homeopathy:

            –“In conclusion, our analyses suggest that homeopathic treatment administered immediately after abdominal surgery may reduce the time to first flatus when compared with placebo administration. They do not provide evidence for the use of a particular homeopathic remedy or for a combination of remedies for postoperative ileus.

            Why Ernst rejects the evidence based on his irrational belief?

          • Egger

            More?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/#b10

            With the exception of postoperative ileus and influenza (see below) there is no condition for which homeopathy is convincingly effective “

            What does mena “with the exception”? Ernst said: Influenza and postoperative ileus present convingly evidence. HAHAHAHAH.

          • rosross

            Ernst was never a trained Homeopath. You got that wrong.

          • rosross

            As soon as the terms fallacy and strawman get tossed into the ring you know you have made some solid points and it now becomes ad hominem. They are predictable.

          • Egger

            Yes, the angry pseudoskeptiks need some from own chemical randi’s trickery.

          • rosross

            Many Homeopaths are also scientists, MD’s as Hahnemann was. He was also a qualified pharmacist. I am sure they understood the scientific method.

            Ernst is not a trained Homeopath. He admits himself he never trained, never qualified and his exposure to Homeopathy came from six weeks working in a German hospital after he graduated as an MD. His knowledge of Homeopathy is minimal.

            The scientific method is not difficult to understand. At its best it is exactly what Hahnemann used – at its worst it is propaganda, corruption, distortion and lies which is why it is increasingly recognised as mainly producing research which is just plain wrong.

          • Justthefacts

            Samuel Hahnemann died in 1843. The modern atom was identified until 1897.

            If Hahnemann lived 100 years later, he would tell you that homeopathy is bunk.
            You are stuck in pre-science reasoning.

          • Egger

            Justhenonefacts:

            http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Presence-of-Nanoparticles-in-Homeopathic-Medicines-Study/2015/04/07/article2751374.ece

            In the news paper:

            “has conclusively proved that homeopathic dilutions contain nanoparticle”

            HAHAHAHA

        • rosross

          No, your scenario simply does not fit with the methodology. In other words, it can’t be right because it demonstrated abject ignorance.

        • Ron Roy

          Not nearly as many excuses as when drugs or vaccines don’t work.

          • lolexplosm

            Drugs don’t ever claim to work 100%. You can take an antibiotic but unless the strain you are infected with is susceptible, it will have no effect. You can be in pain and take an aspirin, (salicylic acid, originally extracted from willow tree bark – all natural) and it won’t be effective, so if necessary you might try a stronger one.

            Vaccines don’t ever claim to work 100% which is why things like herd immunity and a high uptake are necessary to boost their effectiveness and provide protection to the vulnerable such as the immunosuppressed.

            Or did you mean I was wrong and there is no reason that professional homeopathy shouldn’t cure every disease every time? If this alleged MS sufferer had seen a real, professional homeopath, they would be cured?

          • Ron Roy

            Very few disease treating modalities work all the time but anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that our bodies operate / function on nutrients NOT drugs. I have no idea as to whether any homeopathic substance would help MS sufferers but I’m 100% convinced that ( as I said before unless a nerve is cause by a vaccine ) simply eliminating the cause will cure that disease. Exposure to paint fumes, various industrial chemicals and pesticides will cause nerve and brain damage. Nerve disease are categorized by their symptoms even though most have the same root cause. I have witnessed my friend’s healing and the healing of others who followed his advise from MS when the medical profession gave them NO hope. Drug companies will suppress anything they can’t patent and make money on. Herd immunity is an impossibility ( that’s simply a term used to try and for vaccines on everyone ) because in many instances vaccines don’t produce an antibody response in everybody. So whether a person is not vaccinated, and not contributing to herd immunity or vaccinated with no antibody response both reduce the so called herd immunity. Vaccine have cause more harm than good because aside from all the foreign DNA and the endless ingredients in vaccine that the bodies defenses also respond too creating allergies, auto immune diseases, cancers and other health problems.http://www.globalresearch.ca/casualties-in-the-war-new-research-confirms-vaccines-do-have-a-dark-side/5463770 http://www.globalresearch.ca/mitochondrial-collateral-damage-thanks-to-big-pharma/5447650 http://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-shot-hoax-admitted-no-controlled-trials-demonstrating-a-decrease-in-influenza/5427871

          • Jonathan Graham

            Herd immunity is an impossibility ( that’s simply a term used to try and force vaccines on everyone ) because in many instances vaccines don’t produce an antibody response in everybody.

            What? 🙂 So you’re saying that because most vaccines have a less than perfect rate of seroconversion. You can’t have herd immunity?

            Would you agree that herd immunity is defined as the situation where the immunity prevalent in a population reduces the average number of new cases per case to < 1?

          • Ron Roy

            Since viruses can and do mutate herd immunity ( as far as the prevention of a reemergence of any disease but caused by a mutated strain of the original virus ) is impossible.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …again you actually need to either agree on the clinically accepted definition of herd immunity (which I provided) or provide one of your own which is intelligible. So far you haven’t done either. 🙂

      • Dana Ullman

        Skeptics of homeopathy are so un-educated about the subject that they confuse it with VARIOUS alternative treatments. This type of sloppy thinking is so typical of people with an unscientific attitude…

        • Oops! There goes the irony meter again…

          • Egger

            Oh hells! Zeno coward go to home!

        • Mike Stevens

          How’s that homeopathic cure for frontal baldness coming along, Dana?

          I note that you aren’t selling one for hundreds of dollars on your online store, and the visible evidence would seem to indicate if there is one, you appreciate that it is ineffective.

          • Dana Ullman

            Just as I predicted, these pseudo-skeptics are attacking me personally rather than referencing real research! No irony here…yeah, right. Readers are not as stupid as these pseudo-skeptics think.

          • Take That, Medicine

            Perhaps, Mr Ullman, since you are so keen on enlightening us “pseudo-skeptics” on all matters science, you could explain the mechanism of action and the randomised controlled trials on “Double Helix Water”, selling on your online store at $3,147.33 per liter ($11,914.95 per US gallon).

        • Jonathan Graham

          ….or practitioners of one exceptionally difficult to believe idea like to magnify the differences between their nonsense and someone else’s.

        • Mark Mattingly

          Skeptics of homeopathy often are more educated about homepathy than so called doctors of homeopathy. Sometimes I think it is hard for you to be compared to treatments you know don’t work. Looking in the mirror gets harder as time goes by.

          • Egger

            Sure? Where is the evidence of this? Show me the paper!

          • Mark Mattingly

            Sorry, Just my view of things. Must have hit a sore spot.

          • Egger

            I’m impatient. Please, post the paper.

          • rosross

            No, just made yourself look foolish which seems to be par for the course for the naysayers.

            Do yourself a favour and do some research so you can at least sound as if you know what you are talking about and make some sort of position for yourself.

        • How did you manage to post on the internet, Dana Ullman? Computers don’t work in your universe.

      • Take That, Medicine

        You’re right, it’s very likely that he’s not a true Scotsman

    • Egger

      Anecdotes are not evidence of nothing. This is the central axiom of the pseudoskeptikal movement. Why your testimony is more credible of the anecdotes of efficacy?

      • lolexplosm

        No anecdotes are credible and no one is suggesting their anecdote is. They’re just writing what they feel like, no one has to take it at face value, like you would with any anecdote.

        • Egger

          “No anecdotes are credible and no one is suggesting their anecdote is.”

          This is a false statement Not all anecdotes are equally. Some anecdotes may reliable if this is corroborated by another person.

    • Sonja Henie

      The definition of quackery! So sad.

    • Ron Roy

      I don’t know if homeopathic substances would cure MS but unless that disease was caused by a vaccine which caused an auto immune condition MS is easily cured.

      • Eh?

        • Ron Roy

          Yes easily cured. I realize conventional / allopathic MD’s are clueless about this but when your only solutions are pharmaceutical based it’s no wonder they have no cure for MS.

          • To be clear… you are stating – shamelessly – that multiple sclerosis is ‘easily cured’?

            ‘I realize conventional / allopathic [sic] MD’s are clueless about this… ‘

            Do you now? Ought we to ask how come you are so privileged with such superior knowledge, whilst people with MS continue to suffer?

          • Ron Roy

            A good friend ( Larry Viger ) had MS and was at, what his doctor thought, his deathbed. Larry found out about a doctor in Germany whose cure rate for MS, for people who had it ten years or less was slightly over 90%. Bear in mind that Larry was bed ridden and could move enough to avoid bed sores and he had to use a magnifying glass to read. A friend of his brought him to Germany in a wheelchair. The advise he was given was stay away from foods sprayed with pesticides and fast. One cause of MS is an acid condition brought on by the toxin stored in fat cells leaning to the destruction of the myelin sheath and then the nerves. By repeatedly fasting ( fasting eliminated the fat cells where the toxins were stored ) and eating only organically grown foods within a couple years Larry was walking without assistance. A few people with MS found out about the regimen he followed and called him asking for more info those who followed his advise were totally cured. MS brought on by vaccines (an auto immune condition ) cannot be cured. Only MS that was caused by exposure to any substance that cause an acid condition. His own doctor ( a doctor Rozek ) told him ” Larry your right but no one will ever listen”. Luckily some did. I know a few.

          • Pat Taylor

            I would suggest that you have your friend contact Dr. Bergman in Huntington Beach California.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVHmm12vT_Q

            My wife went through 8 years of pain management for scoliosis (progressive 38 degree curve requiring surgery, herniated disks and arthritis)
            Dr. Bergman has adjusted my wife for 6 months and at the end of that first 6 months new MRI’s and X rays indicated 6 degree reduction in the curve, in addition this treatment got her off of 3 hard core pain killers and muscle relaxers.
            By the close of 2016 her curvature should be reduced up to another 6 degrees which becomes more tolerable physically.

            Dr. Bergman treats a large number of patients from all over the world, each having a variety of illnesses that modern medical doctors view as a sick right to only maintain the illness rather than provide real solutions.

          • The aetiology of MS is unknown; there is currently no cure.

            And you think offering up an irresponsible anecdote like that is helpful? That’s what I detest about all this: good people become deluded do-gooders: spinning tales like this; encouraging false hope; leading people down potentially dangerous paths. Unethical.

          • Ron Roy

            Wow it didn’t take long for your handlers to get to you. Like Larry’s doctor said no one will ever believe you. I’m sure that doctor meant the drug establishment. There are no profits from a non drug cure. Luckily a few people, that I know, have followed that protocol and have been CURED of MS. I’ll just keep spreading the word and try to help as many people as I can. That will please me in two different ways: 1 People will be helped and 2 It will piss off drug pushers as yourself. I love a win win situation.

          • Oh dear, oh dear.

            You’re not helping anybody. You’ve substantiated nothing.

          • Ron Roy

            I’ll tell that to the people who followed Larry’s advise who were CURED of MS. I’ll let them know it’s all in their heads they still have MS but without the symptoms.

          • The aetiology of MS is unknown; there is currently no cure.

            Unless and until you have bona fide evidence to the contrary, I maintain that you are behaving unethically.

          • Ron Roy

            The etiology of MS is well known. If it wasn’t Doctor Evers wouldn’t have been able to cure thousands of people from that disease. You mean no drug cure.

          • ‘thousands’, you say?

            You have not – and cannot – substantiate(d) a single statement you’ve made here.

          • Ron Roy
          • ‘The MegaVitamin Man’. Err…?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Deceiving people, as you’re doing is unethical but as you say…you don’t care.

          • Ron Roy

            The old adage: ” When you point the finger at someone there are three more pointing back at you” applies to you Johnny.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You just said you don’t care if you’re deceiving people. I do care if I deceive people.

          • Ron Roy

            You, and people like you, are the deceivers. People like me expose others to the truth. Is it possible for you to tell the truth Johnny or is the harm irreparable? Nevertheless I will follow you to make sure I correct your mistakes and keep you from causing too much trouble.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All I’m doing is restating what you said.

            i) You have nothing approaching even reasonably weak evidence (in terms of how a medical study would judge these things) supporting your cure for MS.
            ii) You have clearly made claims which are far beyond the evidence you have (which you admit is weak – by clinical standards).
            iii) You believe strongly in stating these claims far and wide.
            iv) You don’t care that this is unethical.

            If you can counter any one of these statements feel free. Otherwise it stands that you are unethical and you don’t care.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ll tell that to the people who followed Larry’s advise who were CURED of MS.

            Given that MS can be a disease with an erratic progression your exceptionally poor experiment doesn’t mean very much.

            But please prove us wrong. Show us a group of ten people with an independent diagnosis of PPMS and their 5 year follow up demonstrating halt of progression and return to normal function.

            I’ll just point out that what I’ve set out is an exceptionally low standard of evidence. No pharmaceutical therapy would be approved solely on what I’ve described. So your failure to meet this only means that your evidence is inferior to that supporting any pharmaceutical product.

          • Ron Roy

            I don’t have to prove anything to you because it wouldn’t do any good $$$$$ wins over a conscience. I know what I know and I’ll keep spreading the good word helping all those who want help.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t have to prove anything to you

            Nobody said you did. However if you had this evidence we would expect you to produce it – as you are happy to link to just about anything. Ergo, it’s reasonable to assume that you don’t have evidence as strong or stronger than what I requested. Hence you are deceiving people by sending them a message that is FAR stronger than the evidence you have for it. Which as I said is unethical and as you said – you don’t care if it is.

          • Take That, Medicine

            Has the good doctor possessing this wondrous MS cure published anywhere?

          • Ron Roy

            As if the drug industry would allow that! This is for anyone wanting to know more about Dr Ever’s therapy: http://www.doctoryourself.com/ms_2.html

          • Take That, Medicine

            Oh, the conspiracy, of course. Well, let us know when the truth finally comes out.

          • Ah, the miracle raw food diet. Sort of dreck peddled by Brian Clement’s Hippocrates Health Institute. Quackery.

          • Ron Roy

            You’re paid to say that but nevertheless it worked for my friend Larry and all those who followed his advise. I’m going to keep spreading the word much to the chagrin of your employers.

          • You’re paid to say’ / ‘your employers’

            You really shouldn’t go around making statements on matters you have no idea about.

          • Take That, Medicine

            So BigPharma won’t allow research on Dr Evers miraculous cure for MS (or, for that matter, about the cure of cancer “your doctor doesn’t want you to know”, or about the goodness of homeopathy), all at the same time allowing published research on the beneficial effects of diet and exercise. How does it work? Any ideas?

          • Ron Roy

            Yes many and here are a few examples of big pharma’s corruption and suppression of natural and or competing cures: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-evils-of-big-pharma-exposed/5425382

          • Take That, Medicine

            So why doesn’t this apply to the extensive research on the effects of diet and exercise?

          • Take That, Medicine

            So, according to this particular narrative of yours, research about the effects of exercise and diet is not to be suppressed by BigPharma. On the other hand, anything positive about turmeric smoothies or homeopathy is so, because the benefits of the latter are not obvious. That is fascinating. And so very likely. The conspiracy theory raises interesting questions by itself. For example, what is stopping multi-million homeopathy giant Boiron from funding or conducting good quality adequately sized Randomized Controlled Trials that show Homeopathy is not just placebo?

            Asking for evidence is a patient’s right. Producing it in a clear, honest and transparent way is the duty of the health care provider. As simple as that. I would not worry much if the gullible worried-well person wishes to fool around with a bit of woo and that was the end of it. Some charlatan will make sure he parts with his money. My push is to stop quacks who prey on a patient who is desperate, vulnerable and suffering from a serious condition, especially when they insist on asking him to give up proven treatments, which might be his only fair chance.

            Your attempt to play the shill card on me is delightful. I have to inform you that I have no conflict of interests in any pharmaceutical product whatsoever, though. Besides, as you probably know, the repertoire of effective evidence-based medical interventions is not restricted to drugs. It also includes diet, exercise, lifestyle changes as hygiene, smoking cessation, risk reduction, safe sex, etc., contraception, fertility treatments, disease prevention, public health policies, safe birth, immunisation, physical therapy, sports medicine, prosthetic devices, anesthesia, surgery, radiotherapy, ITU, respiratory assistance, implantable cardiac devices, etc. I wonder why the research on all these fields is also not being suppressed by BigPharma.

            Despite all of its shortcomings, the success of modern medicine in reducing disease, death, pain and suffering is undeniable, even though quacks want to make us think otherwise. The only way forward is improving the safety and efficacy of these interventions, and researching new ones. Abandoning the path of science, reason and critical thinking, or embracing woo instead would be disastrous.

          • Ron Roy

            Disease prevention? Right they cause more problems than they cure with their pharmaceuticals. Our bodies function on nutrients NOT drugs. I’ve brought people to their physical therapy appointments and seen what goes on the majority could just as easily do what they were doing at home.Implantable cardiac devises yeah right you mean like the 300,000 pacemakers that were implanted unnecessarily, in one year, because the company making them offered an all expense paid cruise to the doctor that ”implanted ”the most pacemakers. That by the way was reported in the Readers Digest. Immunizations? Oh yes those vaccines that create even more customers for the drug industry you know all those cases of autism, cancers, auto-immune disease, allergies and an untold number of emotional problems, You mean those immunizations?

          • Take That, Medicine

            Your post shows how much you know about real disease prevention. Most primary care physicians (GPs, Family Doctors) would recommend a healthy diet, exercise and lifestyle changes (like good posture, good sleeping habits, smoking cessation, cutting down on alcohol, skin protection from UV, safe sex, etc) to their patients before considering prescribing drugs. Of course, the Dunning-Krugger effect would make you and others think that an extremely complex body of knowledge like medicine is easy, consisting just on popping pills on patients. If you had any interest in widening your knowledge, you would find that the whole thing is a bit more complicated than that.

            But it’s in the part about vaccines where your lack of knowledge really shines true, not to speak of a tendency to lean towards bizarre conspiracy theories. There’s absolutely no evidence that immunization causes autism, cancer, allergies or emotional problems. Speaking about profits, the vaccine market in the US is worth 12.8 Bn. The Alternative Medicine market is more than twice as big.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48b81b2f9afac58c8f387575677da58501dd28140f449371cd2289e83c931dd6.jpg

          • Ron Roy

            Yes if the drug industry would deny the obvious( that exercise is beneficial although it’s overrated a good healthy diet is far more important ) it would cast doubt about whatever else they say. Their ( and your ) big push is to deny the benefit of ANYTHING that will hurt and compete with their bottom line. A small example: Vitamin and mineral supplementation is bad, homeopathy doesn’t work, herbal tincture are bad or don’t produce results etc.

          • Take That, Medicine

            So, according to this particular theory, the research about the effects of exercise and diet are not to be “supressed” by BigPharma, yet those of turmeric smoothies or homeopathy are, because the benefits of the latter are not so “obvious”. That is very interesting, and so likely!

            I am almost alright when a gullible worried-well wishes to fool around with a bit of woo. Some charlatan sure will be ready to sell it to them with gusto. My push is to stop quacks who prey on people with serious conditions, especially when they insist on asking patients to give up proven treatments, which might be their only chance.

            Asking for evidence is a patient’s right. Producing it in a clear, honest and transparent way is the duty of the health care provider. As simple as that.

    • eggman2

      Science eventually has all the answers, but only if it is not corrupted like in our present system that allows only money making schemes to be called science, while at the same time suppresses real science for the sake of all the junk industries.

    • eggman2

      There is always the placebo effect , that has worked in many cases.

  • Jonnybones

    Apologies if this has already been posted but Prof Robert Hahn’s paper severely criticises Ernst and the conclusion of the ideological homeopathy ‘skeptics’ who ignore real evidence of efficacy of homeopathy. The significance of this is that the author is a researcher and not a homeopath and is therefore coming at the evidence from an unbiased standpoint.
    https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/355916

    • Acleron

      This is the guy who authored “Clear replies from the spiritual world” and “Connections of souls”.

      He believes in homeopathy so to call him unbiased is untrue.

      • Egger

        Oh heavens. your straw man fallacy is very funy. If Hahhn believes in spiritual world, this details does not debunk his paper. Are you OK?

        • Acleron

          Are you blind, the guy believes in homeopathy. That alone debars him from commenting because it means he is not looking at negative data.

          • Egger

            If the guy believes in homeopathy, this does not debunk the paper. For the same reason Ernst and Randi are blinded. The first guy does not believe and homeopathy and rejects any evidence published on the scientific papers. The second guy only rejects and libel “CAM ” researchers.

            “That alone debars him from commenting because it means he is not looking at negative data.”

            Wow. The negative data is avaliable in Linde, Shang, and so meta-analysis.

  • Acleron

    In 2012, the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung published that a number of homeopathy companies had consorted to pay Claus Fritsche, a journalist, €43, 000 to smear critics of homeopathy and especially Edzard Ernst. Fritsche did this with gusto and the lies he told are still being copy and pasted. Since this was exposed one of the companies, Weleda, has admitted their complicity and withdrawn their support.

    This is the only evidence available for anybody being paid to comment on homeopathy and it is clearly the homeopaths who are in the wrong.

    Homeopaths however disregard evidence and will lie to all and sundry that their critics are being paid for which they have no evidence at all.

    Funny thing the facts, sooner or later it finds out the liars.

    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/homoeopathie-lobby-im-netz-schmutzige-methoden-der-sanften-medizin-1.1397617

    • Egger

      1) In 2015 New York Times published the second Pseudoskeptik Gate, In this case Simon Sigh was paided by Coca Cola. The e-mails was “hacked”:

      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4582012.ece

      Ernst is the star from SAS and colleague of physicist Simon Sigh.

      2) In 2015 one paper reveal the connections with Monsanto and Science Media Centre (Genetic Literacy web):

      http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-01732015000100008

      3) In 2016 the spanish pseudoskeptik movement was debunked and leaked the propaganda of censorship against homeopathy:

      http://hezeptikos.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-independent-julian-rodriguez-y-la.html

      4) In 2016 the video from “Randi explains homeopathy” was debunked:

      http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2015/10/el-genial-emperador-iv-lactando-lactosa.html

      • Acleron

        The NYTimes had to do so much work didn’t they? That was on their website.

        • Egger

          “The NYTimes had to do so much work didn’t they? That was on their website.”

          Oh, wow. Acleron validate the smear in the Suddeutsche Zeitung, but rejects the reports in NYT.

          • Acleron

            There is no evidence that SaS was paid by Coca Cola to falsify their conclusions about sugar. The donation by Coca Cola was clearly exposed by them on their website.

            Fritsche was directly paid for the purpose of smearing Ernst. This has been admitted by Weleda.

            So you have a tenuous link between Coca Cola and SaS from which you speculate an unfounded conclusion. However there is a direct link showing that homeopaths conspired to lie about their critics.

            After all these years of homeopaths jumping up and down with their allegations that their critics are being paid by BigPharma we find that it is actually the reverse.

          • Egger

            From Tracey Brown:

            –Coca Cola gave us two donations to our annual fund three and four years ago, one of thousands of donations and not repeated since we closed general company donations in 2013.–

            Hummm…. In SAS web page the donations of SAS by Coca Coca only appear in 2013 and 2014. Never appeared the donation of 2015. How does explain this pseudo skeptikal detail?

            http://anhinternational.org/2015/10/15/15092/

            Alexi Mostrous exposed the shadow Coke donation of 2015.

          • Acleron

            I cannot be bothered trying to trace where your logic went awry but even your post is just plain stupid.

            You have not provided any evidence that SAS received any money in 2015 and you have no proof that SAS were paid to alter any conclusions.

            Many scientists were of the opinion that a sugar tax would not work, personally I was for it. The early evidence from Mexico is that it doesn’t work. SAS appears to be right and I was wrong, I, however, will change my stance as the evidence shows. Unlike you, of course.

          • Egger

            You: ” The donation by Coca Cola was clearly exposed by them on their website.”

            Only the two donations of 2013 and 2015. You have not provided any evidence that SAS displayed any donation of Coke in 2015 in the web site . Where is the link?

          • Acleron

            You haven’t provided any evidence that SAS received money from CocaCola in 2015.

            You have not provided any evidence that SAS altered or produced conclusions because of any donation.

            It must be difficult for you to accept that not everyone is dishonest as a homeopath, probably projection.

          • Egger

            “You have not provided any evidence that SAS received any money in 2015 and you have no proof that SAS were paid to alter any conclusions.”

            Oh dear. From Alexis:

            A British charity set up to promote evidence-based science received more than£20,000fromCoca-Colaand then questioned research that was critical of sugary drinks… The charity received£20,681 from the company between 2012 and 2013, it said. It disclosed Coca Cola as a funder on its web site but made no mention of the relationship in several instances when it published criticism of research into the negative effects of sugary drinks… [Big Sugar HA HA HA ]…

            A Sense About Science tweet questioning the figure was retweeted by Rhona Applebaum, Coca- Cola’s chief science officer,who has also attended a Sense About Science event in the US. She has retweeted a number of the charity’s finding

            HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    • Egger

      “Homeopaths however disregard evidence and will lie to all and sundry that their critics are being paid for which they have no evidence at all”

      Ernst and High profile pseudoskeptiks are “paided”. Low level pseudoskeptiks are only a sectarians or fanatics.

      • Acleron

        Ernst was funded by an altmed supporter. The rest is just an egger lie.

        • Egger

          In the first era, yes, Ernst was funded by Goverment in Exeter. Now, Ernst is funded by Sense About Sence, Science Media Centre, Good Thinking Sociery and their affiliaties.

          • Mike Stevens

            I see you talk about there being “eras” of Ernst.
            How come all the stuff he produced while in his era at the University of Exeter has been dismissed by you with an airy hand wave?

          • Egger

            Dismissed? Oh dear, the some flawed reports of Ernst is very cleary.

          • Acleron

            Wrong again, Ernst’s chair was funded by Sir Maurice Laing.

            Any evidence that any skeptic is paid to criticise homeopathy? You haven’t supplied any so far.

            Weleda admitted their complicity, Fritsche was paid specifically to smear Ernst and others and you have been conned into looking like an idiot by repeating him.

          • Egger

            Wrong again? HAHAHAH
            Ernst is funded for SAS. Maybe, poor Simon Sigh (Mr. Coke).

            Fritsche showed the finance in your own web site. Ernst no.

    • Egger

      Claus was paided, he recognized the paid from Heel and so in your personal web site. Ernst was paided from SAS and Science Media Centre, he rejects this. What is the difference? The first admits conflicts of interests, the second rejects. And… What are the lies from Claus? Can you show me examples?

    • Egger

      Some independent activists exposed the Pseudoskeptik Lobby in Spain. Why this has not appeared in any newspaper?

      http://hezeptikos.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/the-independent-julian-rodriguez-y-la.html

  • Take That, Medicine

    When in doubt, always trust corporate greed: as amusing as conspiracy theories about BigPharma supressing the “truth” are, entertain no doubt that they would love to churn tons of fake sugar pills to the gullible at a huge profit if they could get away with it. Apparently, though, for some reason, those hard-nosed CEOs prefer to shed millions to us shills at 50 pence a post instead, according to the insights shared by one commenter below.

    • drazzin2373 .

      Actually, they are just starting to buy alternative medicine companies. Maybe that is cheaper…

      • Acleron

        Numbskull! The’ve always owned some, did you think that Boiron was not a pharmaceutical company?

        • drazzin2373 .

          The word “always” is probably not the right choice of words Accelerate. Lets try and be a little more precise.

          Oh wait, your the one who posted your personal visit to one pharmacy as proof that 99.9% of homeopathics are 30c or above. LOL. Yes, we should definitely listen to your opinion on “scientific validity.”

          Soo bad. The more you post, the bigger the hole you dig to throw yourself into each day.

          • Acleron

            Lying as usual, try actually reading and comprehend what others say.

            Any evidence that anybody who shows you are a fool is paid by post?

            No, of course you haven’t.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Which part is the lie?

            Your posting your “visit to one chemist” as proof that 99.9% of homeopathics are 30c? Nope, not a lie – you did that.

            Have pharmaceutical companies ALWAYS owned alternative med companies? The answer would be no. You posted that as a fact. That would be YOU lying.

            Lastly, that you are a paid shill. 5,000 posts on the same topic, 5,000!!! LOL, my information says you are a paid shill, and after 5,000 posts, I hope for your sake it is true. If it isn’t, you have much bigger troubles.

            So, the reality is the only one lying over and over is you.

            I get it though, need to get your money!

          • Acleron

            As I never said anything about 99.9% that is also a lie.

          • drazzin2373 .

            I stand corrected, lil eddie said 99.9%, your exact post was as follows:

            “Go check yourself, just been in my local chemist and every single bottle of sugar pills and water is labeled C30.”

            Your supposition was 100% or if it wasn’t, what was your point?

            All that time to go to a chemist, today, and count EVERY single bottle in order to come here and post that EVERY SINGLE bottle was labeled C30. I’m sure that is all truth. LOL.

            Such a bad liar Acleron. I almost feel like I’m picking on you but everything you say is so easily destroyed.

            I guess you can’t get top quality at 50 pence per post.

          • Acleron

            So you are incapable of checking yourself but are still willing to lie when you have zero evidence. Pretty typical of a charlatan.

            Like most liars, you believe that because you lie all the time then everyone else behaves the same way. It is called projection.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Are you talking to me? Check what? Every homeopathic store in the world? Your saying if I go to one store and look that will mean what exactly? Are you that clueless?

            What is your point? Post #4,911 and you still haven’t said anything worthwhile.

          • Acleron

            Just a few would do.

            Congratulations you eventually managed a posting without lying. Still an objectionable twerp though.

          • drazzin2373 .

            Wow, I haven’t heard the word twerp since the 70s. Is that like what a 3rd grader calls a 2nd grader or are you just saying you are fat or just generally big?

            To the sad part — you really don’t even see how bad your point is do you? Checking a few stores would prove exactly nothing. A sample of that number is almost useless in determining anything. You don’t understand that? What do you think visiting “a few” would prove exactly?

            That is why it is so funny that you posted your one store check as some sort of conclusive data as to the prevalence of 30c Homeopathics.

            So bad. Like I said, they are going to cut your pay for incompetence.

          • Acleron

            Back to lying mode again, obviously the default for you.

          • Egger

            If 30C…. Check this double blind, double dummy, randomized controled trials versus placebo in vivo trial:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452213007094

            Conclusion:

            –Taken together, the treatment with cocc 30c seems to restore the deteriorating effects of 48 h of SD on attention and motor learning abilities. Examining the long-term effects of SD, cocc 30c dramatically recovered the hormonal alterations observed.–

          • Acleron

            If the material was actually diluted to 10^60 as claimed there would be nothing there and certainly no nanobollicks.

          • Egger

            Nanoparticles, not “nanobolicks”. May be, or water mameroy of the two. Come on, show me the pseudodebunk of this paper. If you need use the stupid debunks of Gorski, Paul Morgan, Björn, Guy Chapman, Tracey Brown and so, you are welcome. HAHAHAHA.

          • Acleron

            What homeopaths can never understand is that skeptics can analyse papers and reach similar conclusions because they follow logical rules. Homeopaths either cut and paste or reach ridiculous conclusions. The authors of that tripe were talking nanobollicks, not memorybollicks.

          • Egger

            In theory yes, the fact is the presence of nanoparticles (not “pederastian nanorandis or Tracey Balls”). Could you show me the debunked paper of the langmuir facts? Oh, no, a piece of opinion and misunderstanding with ad-hominem attacks of Kausik Datta (he is not a chemist) is not evidence.

          • Egger

            Yes, ALL homeopathic store in the world. Show me the evidence!

          • Acleron

            Lying for homeopathy yet again.

          • Egger

            Before: “and every single bottle”

            After: “As I never said anything about 99.9% that is also a lie.”

            HA HA HA HA HA.

          • Acleron

            Quote mining as usual.

          • Egger

            Put my “quote mining”.

          • Egger

            Ad-Acleron fallacy as usual.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Lastly, that you are a paid shill. 5,000 posts on the same topic, 5,000!!! LOL, my information says you are a paid shill.

            I’d like to see this information about Acleron being a “paid shill”.
            According to you, having a large number of posts is a sign of shilliness.

            So then who would rosross be shilling for? BigHomeo, obviously.

            But seriously, could you reveal this “information” you have to back up your accusation? If you haven’t any, then that would make it speculation, not fact.

          • Once again – anti-vaxxers shoot themselves in the foot:

            Either:

            1)There is an epidemic of autism in which case – you would EXPECT to see an increase in the number of people with a singular focus on one topic and thus that alone is not proof of being paid. Have they never heard of special interests?

            or:

            2)The only reason they can imagine that someone would constantly comment on the same topic is because they are being paid to do so and thus there is no epidemic of autism because no increase in special interests.

            They really really need to pick one.

          • 655321

            Not true, many professional astroturfers have multiple accounts.

          • Umm…..so what if they do? That doesn’t change the point.

          • 655321

            Sure it does, did you read your own post? Another flash of honesty from you, maybe by accident?

          • I did read my own post – it isn’t my fault if you don’t know what the word ONLY means.

          • 655321

            Who knows with you….it wouldn’t surprise me if there are multiple people using your account….one paid poster clocks out, another clocks in.

          • Show one, with proof, or shut the fck up.

          • 655321

            You take anything for your temper imbalances? If not, consult with your PCP next time you booster up with your vaccines.

          • Go fck yourself. You couldn’t raise my pulse even a single bpm. Now, address my post, troll.

          • 655321

            literally laughing out loud!! Thanks for the comic relief, is that your role here?

          • So, still no proof that anyone is a paid shill or astroturfer, etc. Thanks for making my point.

          • 655321

            You have no proof there isn’t. See how that works?

          • You’re an idiot. You made the claim, you supply the proof. It is not my (or anyone else’s) job to prove a negative. See how that *really* works?

          • 655321

            Much like the vaccine pushers, yourself included, that demand proof that these products are harmful when the burden of proof is to prove them safe. My point went right over your head, no surprise there.

          • No, your point was asinine. That’s why it did not merit any acknowledgement at all. Go take a high school science class, then we can talk. Oh, and you have to pass it too.

          • 655321

            All you have is amateur insults. Par for course with your troll BFF justthefacts.

        • Egger

          Boiron is a pharmaceutial company as Randi/Sense About Science is a transnational bussiness.With the bussiness of pseudoskepticism I could obtain $$$$, only with trolling activities or with pseudodifussion of pseudoskepticism in newspapers.

          • Acleron

            If Boiron is not a pharmaceutical company, why do they sell products that they claim cures/alleviates health conditions? Are you saying that they are lying?

          • Egger

            Boiron is a pharmaceutical company.

            “Are you saying that they are lying”

            No, when I said this?

            If Randi and so are not independt charities. Why do they sell books and so that they claim “lack of any credible evidence” of homeopathy/water memory based in quotemining papers (for example the Cowan nature paper)? Are you saying that they are lying?

          • Acleron

            They claim that because the evidence is not credible. If you want to overturn great swathes of physics and chemistry you need more than some badly written papers that do not even contain enough method information for a real scientist to replicate them. You certainly need more than some homeopath spotting a phrase they like and constructing a fantasy.

          • Egger

            Why is not credible for Randi’s trolls haters? Well, show me the evidence of the homeopathy supposedly “overturn great swathes of physics and chemistry”. Oh heavens, this myth is from Robert Park book Voodoo Science. I will debunk the chapter of homeopathy and water memory. Park is the modern nucleus of the pseudoskeptikal movement against homeopathy. Cooming soon. HAHAHAHA.

          • Acleron

            Your ramblings are quite tiresome to interpret and your understanding of logic and science is obviously very poor but try to concentrate.

            Nanobollicks can be dismissed as a mechanism because the only way any material can be present in a 10^60 dilution is incompetence. So that leaves some mysterious force that acts on material. QED shows how particles react with particles and QED has been measured to be accurate to 14 decimal places. If any other energy/force was present it would have shown up. Both observation and theory are in agreement. This is the most precise measurement of a theory known to us. For something else to be present then both physics and chemistry would be broken. No uneducated homeopath playing around in the noise levels of their poorly understood equipment is going to overturn QED.

          • Egger

            Nanorandis yes not. Nanoparticles not. Did you understand the difference?

            “Both observation and theory are in agreement

            HAHAHAHAH. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500057

            –The goals of the current paper are: (a) Presenting quantum physical descriptions
            of succussion– and filtration-induced dynamics

            “No uneducated homeopath playing around in the noise levels of their poorly understood equipment is going to overturn QED.”

            Show me yout PhD!

          • Acleron

            They are examining real atoms and molecules.

            I don’t obey peremptory demands of numbskulls.

          • Egger

            Oh what a hell! You made the claim, you supply the proof. Where is the pseudodebunked article of the Langumir paper?

          • Acleron

            You supplied the paper and obviously didn’t either read it or understand it.

            No idea what you mean by a pseudodebunked article,, as usual you are sense free.

      • rosross

        I would make the point there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine, that which assists healing and curing.

        That which is referred to as alternative medicine is really non-Allopathic medicine. The term alternative is used by Allopathic science/medicine to diminish non-Allopathic medicine.

        Medicine is medicine. The approach may be an alternative to Allopathic but the medicine is still medicine
        .

        • Acleron

          This is a complete lie. The word ‘allopathic’ was made up by Hahnemann and is mostly used by homeopaths.

          One thing you did get right is that if homeopathy worked it would be medicine but as it doesn’t it is a bogus treatment used by charlatans.

          • rosross

            I have corrected you on this so many times. The term Allopath is now common and you will find it on university and medical school sites – try Johns Hopkins – differentiating between conventional, Allopathic and non-Allopathic medicine – Homeopathic, Herbal, Nutritional, Chiropractic, Naturopathic etc.

          • Acleron

            Get it straight Ros, you have lied about it several times. It is inconvenient to you that Hahnemann made up the word so you try to rewrite history.

            It is not common and is mainly used by homeopaths trying to denigrate medicine, just as Hahnemann desired.

          • rosross

            I must admit you are consistent on getting it wrong.

            Hahnemann, a brilliant doctor, ahead of his time then and still, may have coined the tem Allopathic to differentiate conventional medicine and Homeopathy but the fact is that conventional Allopathic science/medicine and academia now accept the term and use it.

            Here are three medical schools to prove the point.

            Quote:

            ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE (M.D.)

            According to MedTerms Dictionary, allopathic medicine is defined as “The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment. M.D.s practice allopathic medicine.

            http://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/preprofadvising/pre-medhealth/overview/allopathic-medicine/

            Quote: Allopathic Medical Schools with Additional Science Course Requirements 2015
            For many U.S. medical schools, the minimum required science courses for admission include one year each with laboratory of general chemistry, organic
            chemistry, physics, and introductory biology. This table lists medical schools that have additional science requirements beyond those core courses. Nearly all
            medical schools encourage applicants to take upper level courses in biology, especially biochemistry, to prepare for medical studies.

            http://www.brynmawr.edu/healthpro/documents/MedSchlAdvanScienReq_2015.pdf
            Quote:

            Allopathic and Osteopathic Medicine

            Allopathic Medicine – Overview of the Profession

            Allopathic physicians receive an MD. Their responsibilities are various and relate to the maintenance of health, including both acute care and prevention. Allopathic physicians can choose to practice in a number of different specialty areas, as well as build a career in teaching or research.

            https://www.cc-seas.columbia.edu/preprofessional/health/types/allopathic.php

          • Acleron

            O.0045% and most of those will be alt medders. It is used pejoratively by anti medders. Whenever you find anything wrong with medicine or just make it up you try to associate the ridiculous word.

          • Egger

            Ridiculous word is “Randi”.

          • Acleron

            Grammatically and logically wrong. The usual sensefree post from egger.

          • Egger

            Non sense and logically wrong. Try with more randibots.

          • drazzin2373 .

            .0045% This is about the same percentage of posts this idiot Acleron can make without using the word lie as his primary argument.

            He is literally the dumbest person I have ever read. Go read some of the 5,000 posts, it is literally a trough of Codswallop nonsense a 5th grader would write.

            The majority of the homeopathy haters here are reasonably smart, just still worshipping at the altar of science.

            Acleron is all by himself though in this area as he is literally the dumbest hater in the history of the Internet. His only response to the thousandth time someone calls him out on an obvious and laughable fail post is what?

            Liar! Liar! Liar over there! Mommy, he is lying! Daddy help me, he is lying!!

            So pathetic. Like I said, he probably got demoted after his piss poor performance yesterday and is now down to 25 pence per post, so he had to double up today with his nonsensical posts.

            Go away Acleron, you are an embaressment to those that want to banish homeopathy.

            I need to turn off that stupid discus notice thing, reading any more of Acleron’s dribble will continue to contribute to global Incompetence…

          • Acleron

            It is hardly my fault that you lie in almost every post. Every time you do, that I can see, it will be called out. Others have advocated reporting you for your aggressive lying, I rather prefer you to publicise your mendacious behaviour that others may see that homeopaths are quite fraudulent.

          • Mike Stevens

            The one who seems to be blubbing like a baby is you.
            Perhaps you could change your nym from “drazzin” to “drizzlin'”?

          • Egger

            The most stupid hater of homeopathy is James Randi.

          • rosross

            So funny, Johns Hopkins is one of the most highly respected medical schools in the world.

          • Acleron

            Any Institute which has the slightest lean towards homeopathy becomes excellent, world renowned etc etc. The Johns Hopkins was one of the best. Unfortunately it has become infested with many alt med fraudsters and its reputation is suffering. A mere homeopath praising it only makes the situation worse.

          • Egger

            “Alt med fraudsters”

            WoW! Dou you think this? Show me the evidence!

          • Egger

            Yes, we need rewrite history of Hahnemann without Gorski, Park, Holmes or shame skeptiks distortions. You only read blogs or papers of pseudohistorygraphical pseudoskepticism.

          • Acleron

            You are lying again egger, but that is the only defence you have for your trade.

          • Egger

            You are lying again Acleron, Read my posted references. Oh no, Acleron is so retarded as Zeno.

          • Egger

            You are lying again Acleron, but this is the only defence you have for your bussiness with Alan Henness, Randi, Edzard Ernst and so. Corrupt.

          • Egger

            Allopathic medicine from Cuba island:

            http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S2077-28742016000500009&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt

            –La mayoría de los homeópatas de la Atención Primaria de Salud en Villa Clara, asisten a la estandarización de la prescripción de un medicamento homeopático para cada síntoma, cuadro nosológico o enfermedad que presente el paciente, por lo que se advierte el riesgo de “alopatizarla” y de que al paciente, de esta manera, se le puedan indicar varios fármacos.–

            http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2077-28742016000500007

            –En 1871 la ciudad de Buenos Aires es abatida por la fiebre amarilla; durante esta situación los homeópatas de la época tuvieron una acertada actuación, en especial el Dr. Juan Petit de Murat, quien obtuvo con su tratamiento mejores curas que con la alopatía.

            From Brazil:

            http://rei.biblioteca.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/1000

            http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-12902016000100108&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt

            From Mexico:

            http://revistas.unla.edu.ar/saludcolectiva/article/viewFile/859/919

            -visiones supuestamente críticas de la medicina alópata convencional, y difunden
            nociones esotéricas del cuerpo y la salud en términos de “campos de energía”,–

          • Acleron

            Good grief, talk about cherry picking. But then, that is the only research tool known to homeopaths.

          • Egger

            Really? Why do you never knows this papers? Are you kidding me?

          • Mike Stevens

            These are very obscure, foreign language articles. but you presumably are very familiar with them, like the Mexico one.
            Tell me, what do you think the arguments for objectifying collective health should focus on? Which sociological tools do you think would give the best outcomes in performing an analysis of the determinants of health in the USA?

          • Egger

            Yes. I very familar with them as the Acleron Trolls. Tell me. What do you think of the fraud of Ernst and Randi? Ok, you may answer me without distractions or questions with sociological component. Are you agree?

          • Mike Stevens

            Thanks for confirming you haven’t got a clue what the articles you cited have said.

          • Egger

            No, inverse.

          • Mike Stevens
          • Egger

            Oh dear. Mr. Mike now post a image of…. what?

          • rosross

            The fact that Hahnemann coined the word just demonstrates again, his brilliance. It is not used to denigrate Allopathic medicine unless you believe the meaning of Allopathic is negative.

          • Mike Stevens

            And so I guess for logical consistency you will argue that the use of the term “N******” is not perjorative to blacks unless you think the meaning of the word has negative connotations?

          • Egger

            The negative connoations is in your imagination.

          • Acleron

            Allopathic medicine has made great strides in treating cancer, infection, metabolic disease…

            What no homeopath has ever said.

          • rosross

            Allopathic medicine has not made great strides in treating cancer and in fact is largely a failure, using barbaric treatments which kill more than cure.

            Infection became less of an issue with improved living conditions and yes, antibiotics were an advance but profit-driven Allopathic medicine and profit and power driven science have wasted them through overuse and abuse.

            The end of antibiotics is likely to boost Homeopathic medicine as the ‘last one standing.’

            The skills area of Allopathy, sourced in mechanistic materialist reductionist medicine are mechanical – surgery and crisis-trauma. Although here more healing and les harm would be the result if Acupuncture and Homeopathy were more often used.

            When it comes to curing disease, Allopathy, particularly given the costs involved, has performed poorly. And as one of he top killers now, its failure is criminal.

          • Acleron

            Thank you for showing precisely what I said.

            You have to make up the facts to denigrate medicine and you associate the word allopathy with those lies.

            Before modern medicine there was no cure for cancer.

            The sale of anything is profit driven but it was, and is, the very cheapness of antibiotics that led to their main overuse in farming.

            Despite your claims there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything at all but there is plenty of evidence that the practice of homeopathy harms people.

          • rosross

            Correct. In countries other than the US the word N….r does not and did not have the same connotations. It was often used as a nickname with no offence taken.

          • (Cult language.)

            But you apply the term ‘allopathic’ negatively, and use it to denigrate medicine.

          • rosross

            No, I use it to differentiate between conventional, modern, orthodox, Allopathic – treating the symptom – and non-Allopathic, as in Homeopathic, treating the individual, or Herbal, Nutritional etc., which are holistic modalities.

          • Acleron

            How rare is the use of allopathic in medicine?

            A search of PubMed uncovers 1181 citations and many of these are altmed/homeopathy papers but I couldn’t be bothered separating them out. PubMed is currently at 26 million citations so the incidence is 0.0045%. To a homeopath this translates to ‘common’.

          • Egger

            Serach in other data bases, books and so.

          • Acleron

            Just like the ‘trained’ homeopath. I was looking for incidence not existence. The incidence from one of the largest medical databases shows that allopathic usage is so low as to be ignored.

          • Egger
          • Mike Stevens

            WoW!
            70 citations in PubMed where the word “allopathy” is used anywhere in any context in the text of a medical article.
            And you think this is a significant number out of the 26 million citations?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7467b46997e9c2d4cc065f1d4a82c33f21ea609416429cbdc543973e4937cec5.jpg

          • Acleron

            LMAO, I answered you before I saw the latest egger.

          • Egger

            Wow. Are you stupid? Acleron said:

            “This is a complete lie. The word ‘allopathic’ was made up by Hahnemann and is mostly used by homeopaths.”

            In my search, I find the oppose. Most (not homeopathic) papers used allopathy word. In this context, Pubmed is a only data base, exists more data base.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’ll assume English is not your first language, but whichever way you look at it, 70 examples out of 26 million is not a sign something is “mostly” used.

          • rosross

            Stick with the medical schools.

          • Mike Stevens

            Heh! Sounds like the antivaxers with their characterisation of serious vaccine reactions.
            Same mentality I guess – crank magnetism at work.

          • Acleron

            I think that it is their confirmation bias. They see the word but don’t see its absence in hundreds of thousands of medical papers.

            Antivaxxers are the same.

            Incredibly, both, when shown the facts either deny them outright or just repeat their nonsense.

          • No, you have been corrected on this so many times. Just because it’s ‘common’ doesn’t make it accurate or justifiable.

          • Egger

            “Just because it’s ‘common’ doesn’t make it accurate or justifiable.”

            Four your broken heart of Randi cheat. The word It’s very common in many countries and universities around the world.

          • rosross

            You have clearly never spent much time in academic institutions. The mere fact they use the term makes it both accurate, accepted and justifiable.

          • ‘You have clearly never spent much time in academic institutions.’

            Me? Oh. Do you have memory issues? Or do you just feign them?

            Yet again, you employ not merely an appeal to popularity, but an erroneous one: that the majority does not is of no regard to you. Is it?

          • Mike Stevens

            It is unfortunate that Johns Hopkins is using the distinction for its medical courses as “allopathic” and “osteopathic”, but it does not regard the other “disciplines” such as homeopathy on the same level, as your post implies.

            Hahnemann invented the term, it is often misappropriated throughout the alt med field as a way to denigrate conventional, evidence based medical care.

          • rosross

            That is not what my post implies.

            My post states the reality that whatever the origin of the term, it now has more common usage an claims, something just used by Homeopaths and their supporters.

            It differentiates – that was the purpose. If you believe it denigrates that is your perception. It is not the word.

          • Egger

            Yes, Hahnemann used the word allopathic. He was not invented the word. The origianal word and meaning appear in Corpus Hippocraticum. This happen when a pseudoexperts called “skeptiks” invent any idiotic excuses, as like Acleron.

          • Acleron

            Have you a reference to that?

          • Egger

            Oh, the typical “I don’t know” attitude from pseudoskeptiks. LOL!

          • Acleron

            Unlike quacks, if I cannot find a reference, I ask. The fact you cannot back up your claim speaks volumes.

          • Egger

            Oh dear. Can you search?

          • Acleron

            Obviously you cannot back up your claim, that is a trend for you.

          • rosross

            If you knew your Greek and German you would know it was a
            valid term. He was ahead of his times in many ways.

            As for the rest, if you were correct not one MD or hospital in the world would touch it, let alone a medical school, university or Government. They do so you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

          • Acleron

            Aww Ros, we know how he made it up.

            I think that the ‘because someone uses it it must work’ argument should henceforth be known as the Ros fallacy.

            Actually it is the argument from authority fallacy but hey ho.

          • rosross

            🙂 You have not lost your wit, although wits might be debateable.

        • And that is a completely contradictory comment.

          • rosross

            So, make a case. Medicine is that which heals, medicine is medicine. Homeopathy heals and cures, it is medicine.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Homeopathy heals and cures, it is medicine”
            By some definitions, I agree placebos can “heal”, but that is defining the term rather loosely.

          • (Hmm, this use of ‘heals’/’healing’ is interesting; bit woolly; healing what; and… who, exactly? You?)

            Make a case for what? Your error and misrepresentation have been exposed. But you continue posting it. Please don’t pretend otherwise. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    • Egger

      Evil corporations? No, stupid militant pseudoskeptiks. They (some) only recieved some “feeds” from the some industries or the newspapers or the TV chains. In Spain is this the case. In more cases, leading militants only selling books and using campus for their activities. They are fools. With informatin is very easy debunk them.

      • Acleron

        We have previously found that the pseudoskeptic, is you.

        Your postings are just logical fallacies, misuse of words, lies and random references to websites that are as clueless as yourself.

        • Egger

          “We” or only you with ad-hominem attacks? HAHAHAHA. Come on liar, show me the “lies and random references to websites”…

          • Acleron

            Almost by definition it must be a logical fallacy to get a logical fallacy wrong.

            Ad hominem /=/ insult.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, you post ad-hominems and insults. You need take a course of basis of logic.

          • Acleron

            And still ignorant of the term ad hominem. Is it that you have never looked it up or are just incapable of understanding it?

          • Egger

            No, I know the ad-hominem. You are Ad-Acleron.

          • Acleron

            If you understand the term, why have you always misapplied it?

  • rosross

    Quote:

    The growth of a lie and the end of “conventional” medicine.

    Cosimo Loré, Domenico Mastrangelo

    Med Sci Monit 2005; 11(12): SR27-31

    ID: 434225

    Throughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer.

    However, given its low cost,homeopathy has always represented a serious challenge and a constant threat to the profits of drug companies.

    Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of funding for biomedical research worldwide, they are in a privileged position to finance detractive campaigns against homeopathy by manipulatingthe media as well as academic institutions and the medical establishment.

    The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled clinical trials (CCTs), comparison with conventional treatments shows that its effects are not superior to those of placebo.

    Against this thesis we argue that a) CCTmethodology cannot be applied to homeopathy, b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT methodology is deeply flawed, d) an accurate testing of homeopathicremedies requires more sophisticated techniques, e) the placebo effect is no more “plausible” than homeopathy,and its real nature is still unexplained, and f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a “cure” and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis.

    It is concluded that no arguments presently exist against homeopathy and that the recurrent campaigns against it represent the specific interests of the pharmaceutical industry which, in this way, strives to protect its profits from the “threat” of a safer,more effective, and much less expensive treatment modality.

    http://www.medscimonit.com/download/index/idArt/434225

    • Acleron

      One homeopath quotes another one making the same claims without evidence.

      All the same old tripe though.

      • rosross

        Um, it’s a medical site and they are both medical (Allopathic) scientists.

        • Acleron

          A criminologist arguing against the available evidence? Bet he goes down a storm in court.

          • rosross

            Read his bio – he is a surgeon also. And I bet more qualified than you are.

          • lolexplosm

            So this single expert is flawless and completely correct?

            And the thousands of experts who disagree that homeopathy is effective are all simply shills or ignorant?

          • Egger

            “And the thousands of experts who disagree that homeopathy is effective are all simply shills or ignorant?”

            Ceteris paribus: Show me the statistics with a multicenter study!

          • rosross

            Wow, you really run with balls not thrown.

        • lolexplosm

          Is there any scientific evidence you accept that proves homeopathy isn’t effective or is all that clearly big pharma propaganda and/or poor quality/limited/flawed evidence?

          Or is the only science you accept as reliable, flawless and high quality as well as being completely free from bias and Big pharma influence are the ones supporting homeopathy?

          Or are you unable to critically analyse a scientific paper and understand the limitations and weight of individual papers?

          • rosross

            There is no scientific evidence which proves Homeopathy is ineffective. The only claim science can make is that it does not know how it works.

            If there were scientific evidence which categorically proved Homeopathy was ineffective it would be fraudulent for MD’s and hospitals to use it, medical schools and universities to teach it and Governments to include it in State medical systems.

            The fact that this happens around the world, particularly in
            Europe means there is no scientific evidence proving it is ineffective and it is demonstrably effective and more than pure placebo.

            Game, set, match.

          • lolexplosm

            I can only hope I am not the only one who read that comment and doesn’t realise how delusional and ironic this sounds.

            You appeal to authority when it suits you. Homeopathy is not recommended by NICE – a government body and is rarely funded on the NHS. So MD’s use homeopathy use it because it works otherwise they wouldn’t? And they also use allopathic medicine because what? Big Pharma pays most MD’s and med schools off?

            You appeal to the science when it suits you. These governments and hospitals approve of allopathic treatments because the science usually indicates they can help. There isn’t the same level of science on homeopathy, so MD’s and governments just accept it works?

            You appeal to the bandwagon when it suits you.

            Actually forget all that. Do you honestly think if we had 1000 people with measles and we treated half with allopathic medicine and half with homoeopathic regime, the homeopathic would be more effective? Do you think homeopathic vaccines are capable of providing immunity and being effective?

          • rosross

            You miss the point, but I suppose you must. In this age of litigation, any professional must take great care to act in ways which do not lay them open to lawsuits, or even professional ridicule, and that applies particularly in medicine. Ergo, the fact that MD’s and hospitals etc., embrace Homeopathy indicates they have done their research and are convinced it is effective and neither fraudulent or pure placebo and their legal advisers agree with them.

            Logic.

            If you care to look into Government records for the 19th century and early 20th you will find Homeopathy regularly outperformed Allopathic treatment during epidemics. It is a matter of record.

            Homeopathic medicine can be prophylactic but I don’t believe vaccines are necessary. What people need is good nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and decent housing.

          • lolexplosm

            Logic isn’t using the bandwagon fallacy. In the UK, homeopathy is not embraced as you keep alleging and I’m not sure which medical schools you’ve looked at but the chances are you won’t find it taught there.

            Logic isn’t being anti-vaccine or at rather denying their benefits. Vaccines are one of the most important aspects of preventative medicine in history. You cannot achieve the same results with a good diet and sanitation. You can achieve results with sanitation, hygeine etc, don’t get me wrong, but this is too simplistic . Many people do not have access to these things and it doesn’t matter if we lived in a sterile bubble eating a flawless diet, we can still get disease. Far more simple to give a cheap and effective vaccine. Take whooping cough, a horrible disease that can frequently lead to complications such as hospitalisation and pneumonia and requires a course of antibiotics. All of which costs a lot more than a vaccine and infrastructure improvement costs in third world countries.

          • ‘There is no scientific evidence which proves Homeopathy is ineffective.’

            No, no, no! Science doesn’t need to lift a finger to prove it is ineffective. You have work to do.

            The only claim science can make is that it does not know how it works.’

            And – I put it to you – neither do you.

            (And I note, with interest, that you are capitalising Homeopathy. Further indication of your devotion to the cult?)

          • rosross

            I suggest you research the meaning of cult.

            I make use of many things which are effective without knowing exactly how they work. As I am sure do you. What matters is they work.

          • I know the meaning of cult – and used it deliberately.

            ‘What matters is they work.’

            And you can provide nothing in the way of scientific evidence that proves homeopathy works. Which is foregivable – because there isn’t any for you to draw on. Unforegivable is that you are saturating this thread with propaganda – including re-posting your busted logical fallacy ad nauseam, like some cynical political campaign director. It’s a deflection, a deception. You are on a mission, it seems.

      • Egger

        Mastrangelo is an Ophtalmologist and homeopathic doctor. Your straw man fallacy is stupid. How do you comparte with the Randi lack of qualifications?

  • Acleron

    Linde et al produced a metastudy that concluded that positive effects for homeopathy could not be excluded. Homeopaths fell on that like manna from heaven. Shang et al was then published that showed no effect for homeopathy beyond placebo. Linde then reanalyses his data and included more and found pretty much the same as Shang et al. Homeopaths don’t like Linde anymore and have whined about Shang.

    The NHMRC report is again moaned about by homeopaths, not because of its methods which they are unable to understand but purely on its result.

    All three major metastudies are quite consistent with the conclusion that the sugar and water in homeopathic preparations is no different from sugar and water despite the mumbo jumbo of homeopaths.

    • rosross

      Oh, you mean this NHMRC. I knew your standards were low….

      NHMRC Disqualified from Coalition’s Health Inquiry

      March 7, 2014 by stopthesethings 6 Comments

      John Madigan – the “Marshall” is back – this time grilling the NHMRC.

      ****

      The NRMRC has been wearing “ribbons of shame” since it rushed to print with its selective, biased and incomplete literature review back in 2010. The very, very Rapid Review was so quick off the mark that it completely missed the decade of work put together by Neil Kelley & Co during the 1980s in the US (see our post here).

      These bureaucratic nincompoops are back – this time with a loosely titled “Information Paper” – STT thinks “Mis-information Paper” would have been closer to the mark. Again, it ignored the highly detailed and comprehensive work done by Kelley and the boys from MIT and NASA – what would America’s top rocket scientists know, hey? (see our postshere and here and here).

      And it slammed the bag on submissions back in September 2012 – so it’s only 18 months out of date.

      There’s an old adage – clearly lost on the NHMRC – that goes something along the line that it’s always better to take your time and do things right the first time, than to tear off and produce a series of repeated half-baked cock ups. For cattlemen the tale about the old bull and the young bull looking down from a hill on a paddock full of willing young maidens should spring to mind – it was, of course, the old bull’s experience and reserve – rather than the young bull’s eagerness to “get amongst the action” – that led to the better strike-rate over all.

      Quote: Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council has long since disqualified itself as a body fit, willing, or even able to investigate and report on the known and obvious consequences to human health and well-being caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

      From the get go, it’s been infiltrated by wind industry consultants, such as Norm Broner and wind industry advocates like Liz Hanna, who continue to direct traffic at, what is supposed to be, an independent medical research body, designed to protect public health at enormous taxpayer expense (see our post here).

      A few weeks back, the NHMRC pumped out another politically inspired piece of propaganda, asserting that there was “no consistent evidence” of wind farms causing adverse health effects.

      The inclusion of the weasel word “consistent” in the NHMRC’s puffy press piece is telling; and it’s a theme we’ll return to in a moment, when we revisit the concept of basic science, in the general, and hypothesis testing, in the particular.

      https://stopthesethings.com/20

      • Acleron

        Madigan? The anthropogenic climate change denier? I can see why you admire him enough to cite him, he has as tenuous a grasp on reality as yourself.

        • It’s odd that many of the so-called objections of the NHMRC report seem to demand that they should have included a bunch of poor-quality studies – they never seem to explain why they want the standards lowered…

          • rosross

            I think comprehensive is a good word for carrying out such studies as opposed to the selective, limited, narrow approach NHMRC takes because it is in league with vested agendas.

            You know, real, rigorous, objective science for a change.

          • Acleron

            You didn’t answer Alan’s query. By including low quality and as previously seen biased studies, you will lower the level of quality of the evidence. Why do you want to do that!

          • rosross

            The studies rejected were not low-quality, they were the most positive and that does not discount the conflict of interest with panel members and the refusal to have anyone involved or to consult anyone who actually had knowledge of Homeopathic method, theory, practice, and history.

            As I said, if they tried that with any Allopathic medicine they would have been laughed out of town.

            The selective approach is a disgrace to pure science and academic rigour.

          • Acleron

            ‘The studies rejected were not low-quality, they were the most positive’

            Thus lying and simultaneously disclosing that it is only the result that she is interested in.

          • Mike Stevens

            Very revealing comment from Ros there.

    • Egger

      Ooooo, you again with the cherry picking. Linde 1999 re-analysis:

      –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.—

      Shang study bias:

      –For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50]) and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials.–

      From Hahn:

      –Linde et al. [3] found that the strength of a meta-analysis became gradually poorer when dealing with
      studies of higher quality, but the relationship was not linear; the 10 studies with the highest quality score.–

      From BHA:

      –Examining the details of the RCT evidence, Shang et al. (2005b) illustrated 2 of 5 higher-quality trials of individualised homeopathy that were statistically in favour of homeopathy compared with placebo. This fact is interesting to consider in view of Shang’s ultimate conclusion that ‘the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects’ (Shang et al 2005a). And it refutes the notion that no peer-reviewed and high-quality RCT of homeopathy – including any with individualised treatment – has ever obtained a positive result.–

      From the Latinamerican meta study:

      • Acleron

        You have been given the three highest quality meta-studies that are available and you quote mine statements where they discuss the individual effects they observed but leave out everything else including their conclusions.

        To justify this you quote homeopaths? Lol.

        • Egger

          Again Mr. Troll. Why do you never cites the statement of Linde of the results are comparable to those from similar analyses in conventional medicine? I had never seen full cite in any pseudoskeptik blogroll or article. Pseudoskeptiks only cites quoteming or distorst the evidence.

          • Acleron

            “Pseudoskeptiks only cites quoteming or distorst the evidence.”

            Yes we know you do.

          • Egger

            Yes, you’re a pseudoskeptik. You knows. HAHAHAHA.

          • Acleron

            School child chants are no substitute for intelligence.

  • lolexplosm

    It is depressing in this day and age that homeopathy is still as rife as it is.

    Can a homeopath explain dosage? The more dilute the preparation is, the more potent/stronger right? So why do the labels on these treatments state adults 10 drops, children under age X 5 drops?

    Shouldn’t that be the other way round? Do the children need stronger doses? Why 10? Why not just use 1 drop for adults and 2 for children?

    Has anyone tried to get homeopathic morphine when the hospital tries to give you allopathic morphine?

    • rosross

      Cure counts and Homeopathy survives and thrives because it triggers cure and does no harm. It works.

      And yes, there are Homeopathic medicines for pain, just as Acupuncture also works for pain and has now been embraced by the US military for battlefield pain and trauma. Again, effective and does no harm, unlike toxic Allopathic drugs.

      • lolexplosm

        You might be disappointed to hear that NICE no longer recommend acupuncture as a treatment because there is no evidence it works. It is likely that the limited NHS funding for it will also cease as a result. Better late than never I suppose, but you can’t blame them after initial evidence suggested it may be of help in limited situations. I have yet to hear or see of battlefield trauma being treated by some needles in the correct locations. If you mean afterwards in a hospital during rehab then yes maybe it will help. If you mean when a man is shot in the arm and is in agony then to suggest acupuncture instead of allopathic painkillers is insane and unethical.

        I propose an experiment. We each cut off our hand whereupon I will immediately be given a dose of allopathic morphine and you will immediately be given a dose of homeopathic painkiller . You can combine it with acupuncture too if you like. I would hope we can then see which is the most effective painkiller.

        Homeopathy can do harm. If I receive the correct homeopathic treatment and hollistic treatment from a team of homeopathic professionals and I die when a small course of allopathic antibiotics could have cured the disease, I would blame the homoeopathic medicine for not working.

        • Ron Roy

          I recall many years ago a special on acupuncture, on either 60 minutes of 20/20, where doctors in China were using only acupuncture as an anesthetic while performing major surgery. They showed a large tumor being removed from a woman while she was awake and she showed no sign of pain.

          • Jonathan Graham

            So you base your medical decisions on something you kinda-sorta-remember from a decade or more ago?

          • Mike Stevens

            Yup. Sounds like Ron’s MO to me.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The lopsidedness of the hypothesis testing model of the vaccine critical never ceases to amaze me.

          • Ron Roy

            No I base it on two things: 1 A local MD after practicing conventional medicine for 14 years decided to study homeopathy and found it to be more effective that the allopathic method and 2 Because your against it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            A local MD after practicing conventional medicine for 14 years decided to study homeopathy and found it to be more effective that the allopathic method

            So a local MD – so someone who’s breadth of practice is small. *Tried* homeopathy – didn’t spend 14 years studying homeopathy but tried it and was convinced that all their previous knowledge was inferior.
            Well a) even if homeopathy is twice as good as medicine – your local MD is clearly impaired in the judgement department. So relying on someone like that is equally impaired.

            Because your against it.

            b) Because spite is a great way to make rational decisions….

          • rosross

            http://www.hippocraticpost.com/integrative/nhs-homeopathy-not-less/

            The
            debate about whether homeopathy should be available on the NHS invariably
            sees the opposing sides citing numerous research papers in support of their
            argument. Both sides will claim their evidence to be the most reliable, while
            condemning that of their opponents as seriously flawed. I’m sure for many
            people this resembles two crusty old academics squabbling over some esoteric
            philosophical question that has little or no relevance to their lives.

            But
            this debate is important for the public and the health service, for I have
            experienced how homeopathy can be of huge benefit to patients suffering a wide
            range of acute and chronic conditions, and can help to reduce the NHS’s ever-spiralling
            drugs bill.

            As
            a doctor I am highly trained in medical science. From this standpoint I can
            fully understand the arguments of those who oppose NHS homeopathy,
            for I once shared their views. That is until I was persuaded by clinical
            experience how homeopathic medicine can produce a genuine beneficial treatment
            effect.

            Early in my career a colleague had
            been trying to convince me of the curative possibilities of homeopathy. Although
            sceptical, I agreed to go along to a number of talks on the subject given by
            medically trained homeopaths who impressed me with their clinical knowledge and
            depth of expressed compassion and concern for patient wellbeing. At one of
            these events I came away with what was described as a homeopathic First Aid
            kit.

            At the time I was working in ENT
            surgery and late one night I was called to see a patient who had arrived as an
            emergency with advanced quinsy (peritonsillar abscess), a rare and potentially serious
            complication of tonsillitis. Saliva steadily dribbled out of his mouth and
            trismus of his jaw prevented lancing. Both temperature and pulse were raised in
            a plethoric and toxic patient who had not responded to GP prescribed
            antibiotics for a week.

            Purely by chance I had the
            homeopathic First Aid kit in the pocket of my white coat. Although my knowledge
            of homeopathy was limited, I could see that the patient’s presentation
            indicated the homeopathic medicine Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade). With the consent
            of the patient and that of his partner I popped a Belladonna pill into his
            mouth, more out of curiosity than conviction, before setting off to prepare a
            drip and IV antibiotics.

            On returning 10 minutes later, I was
            astounded to see the patient sipping water and talking freely. His pulse and
            temperature had reverted to near normal, and on examination there was no quinsy
            to see, just a superficial mucosal red flush. Such an extraordinary, rapid and
            complete response was curious to say the least. The clinical team, myself
            included, all expected a relapse but none occurred.

            This
            experience changed my view of homeopathy. I am now a full-time NHS GP in a group
            practice with about 9,000 patients and continue to use homeopathy when
            appropriate. I have found homeopathic medicines to be particularly effective at
            the extremes of age. Infants respond very rapidly with the correct remedy,
            while elderly patients with chronic disease or multiple-pathology can receive
            safe, effective homeopathy alongside usual care, often resulting in a reduction
            in the amount conventional drugs they are prescribed.

            My positive experiences of using
            homeopathy in general practice are replicated by other GPs who have found it to
            be an additional and very useful clinical tool. In Europe, where homeopathy is
            more widely accepted by the medical profession, doctors who integrate the
            therapy into their practice report lower prescribing costs and fewer hospital
            referrals. These are the very things the Department of Health is constantly
            calling on GPs to deliver.

            At
            a time when the health service is under extreme financial pressure, any therapy
            which doctors see improving the health of patients and is relatively
            inexpensive, should be being supported and embraced by theNHS rather than
            investigated.

            Dr Andrew Sikorski MBBS MRCGP DFFP FFHom.

          • Acleron

            As usual you need to throw out high quality evidence and use anecdotes and testimonials. The action of a soap powder salesman.

          • rosross

            Nice try. He is an MD who used Homeopathy and found and finds it effective. That’s like someone selling soap powder which really works. No need to sell really.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I am highly trained in medical science.

            It’s worth asking: What does this mean? When you look at all of those letters he padded his name with (with the exception of FFHom which is a homeopathic designation) they are just extensions to the basic MD. None of them imply any special knowledge of medical research or statistical analysis. So pretty much a GP. While I have great respect for MD’s – they aren’t researchers and even medical researchers often have big gaps in their knowledge of statistical methods. That said I normally would assume a GP has a solid knowledge of basic science. However…

            This experience changed my view of homeopathy.

            …and it absolutely should not have. Even if this is all PERFECTLY accurately remembered and retold. Deciding that homeopathy works on a single event that you in your imperfect memory can not explain is someone who either doesn’t understand the implication (to elementary science like physics), has catastrophically impaired reasoning or was simply looking for an excuse to believe.

            In which case I’ll just say I am personally glad this guy is out there just pushing sugar pills rather than being trusted with something that actually requires judgement.

          • rosross

            He practise as a GP using both Allopathic and Homeopathic medicine.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Hopefully he’s mostly just pushing sugar pills. Since his judgement is ridiculously impaired.

          • (The link would have sufficed; but I suppose pasting the full text is a good thread saturation tactic.)

          • Ron Roy

            Actually her full statement was: ” Ive been practicing medicine for 14 years and I feel as though I’ve never helped anybody”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Perhaps they simply suck hard at being a doctor? Again, assuming your Canadian girlfriend here is real. How would that statement even be close to true? A doc has never prescribed an antibiotic and watched someone get better? They never put on a cast? Set a bone? Did some talk therapy? Removed a cyst? Even once? They didn’t even observe a self-limiting disease resolve and mistakenly attribute it to their own doing?

            Again, this is someone who’s ability and/or judgement is exceptionally poor. So again why is any rational person paying attention to this person?

          • Ron Roy

            I remember what I saw a very large tumor removed from a woman and the ONLY anesthetic used was acupuncture.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Oh, so you “saw no anesthetic”. How exactly does that work? Can your eyes see chemical compounds in the bloodstream? Perhaps you want to clarify what you actually observed.

            Protip: Making sure you don’t purjure your observation with assumptions is a tool-of-the-trade of real scientists. 🙂

          • Take That, Medicine

            There you go. You should dispense with anesthesia and analgesia should you ever need surgery. Please, do give us an update about your experience. Perhaps before making that decision, though, you would like to know that the patient in that film was given potent anesthetic drugs on top of the “effective” acupuncture. You would also like to know that acupuncture has not been found more effective than placebo (sham needles) for pain relief.

          • Ron Roy

            I know what was said and what I saw period. Now prove your case of disbelief. The pharmaceutical industry spends millions trying to make anything that will interfere with their profits whether its homeopathy, nutritional supplements, herbal remedies, acupuncture not to mention the dozens of people paid to do damage control over anything negative concerning vaccines. I will continue to fight the good fight and stand by natural cures over pharmaceuticals.

          • Take That, Medicine

            The “Natural is good” fallacy is so obviously silly that it does not merit any elaborate response. But do I really need to “prove my case of disbelief” (sigh)? The burden of proof is actually on those who claim we could painlessly operate on an awake patient without any kind of anesthetic using a prescientific therapy, acupuncture, known to be no more effective than placebo, because they have seen it in a 70’s Chinese video. Uncritically accepting claims like this at face value is the very definition of (extreme) gullibility.

            Since you ask, though, there are hundreds of pages with information about the well known acupuncture-only-anesthetic hoax. There have been several such films produced in China during (and as part of) the Cultural Revolution, at a time where the ruling regime deemed Western medicine as counter-revolutionary.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3344833/Did-we-really-witness-the-amazing-power-of-acupuncture.html
            http://www.gpposner.com/rosenfeld_sram.html
            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-anesthesia-a-proclamation-of-chairman-mao-part-i/
            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-anesthesia-a-proclamation-from-chairman-mao-part-ii/
            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-anesthesia-a-proclamation-from-chairman-mao-part-iv/

            If acupuncture was safe and effective to allow painless surgery, one may wonder why it is not routinely used. The answer is that the only needles known to work in anesthesia are the ones injecting the anesthetic.

          • Ron Roy

            It wasn’t a Chinese video it was a video made by the producers of either 20/20 or 60 Minutes. They merely recorded a few operation that were done using ONLY acupuncture as an anesthetic.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Oh it’s a FEW operations now? Funny how the myth grows and grows as you tell it. Soon they’ll have a anesthesiologist in their crew certifying that no anesthetic was used.

          • Take That, Medicine

            The operation that video clearly shows is the removal of critical thinking on the gullible

          • lolexplosm

            Numerous people have asked was it this or that to which you have said no. Why not just link some information to the program in question? Instead of simply telling people you know exactly what saw 15 years ago and you’re right regardless, just give a few more details instead of basic, vague assertions and trying to shift the burden of proof.

          • lolexplosm

            It seems you’re anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-corporation etc unless it fits in with your beliefs. I assume any scientific research on “natural” cures, homeopathy etc, is flawless and undeniable proof of their effectiveness. Any other scientist or expert in the field who disagrees or expresses criticism, even when it’s the vast majority, are shills or corrupted by Big Pharma deceit. Any other research that suggests otherwise is simply Big Pharma propaganda.

            Big Supplement, Complementary and Alternative Medicine make millions selling practically useless and sometimes dangerous products and treatments, based on poor quality and limited research yet they’re allowed to make a profit for some reason without hindrance or question because they “natural”. If they could even prove they cured things effectively I would genuinely be somewhat inclined to agree with you.

            Of course some nutritional and herbal supplements are effective but a pill of vitamin C or St John’s Wort isn’t going to be the next panacea or whatever the next miracle claim will be on the internet. Generally, herbal supplements have been tested and the actual active ingredients isolated and used in a purer and potentially a more effective and safer form. There’s the classic example of willow tree bark and aspirin.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I know what was said and what I saw period.

            Again how exactly did you SEE no anesthetic in the subject’s bloodstream.

          • If you are thinking of the programme by Kathy Sykes, then that may well be what you remember but you missed the voice-over that mentioned the powerful local anaesthetics the patient was given.

            A groundbreaking experiment … or a sensationalised TV stunt?
            http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/mar/25/science.broadcasting

            Complaints upheld against BBC over Alternative Medicine “The Evidence”
            http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/complaints-against-bbc-over-alternative-medicine-the-evidence-upheld/

            And the outcome of the complaint to the BBC:
            http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120307072312/http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/apr2007.pdf

            But just think for a moment and imagine if you really could cut someone’s chest open for heart surgery and the trauma that causes just by sticking a few needles in…

          • Ron Roy

            No that program aired around 15 years ago. And no other anesthetics were used.

          • …as far as you remember. It would be interesting if you could find more details about it, but at present, it’s hardly a basis for any conclusion about acupuncture, is it?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Because you were there? Isn’t it funny how you are the most naive person on the planet when it comes to something you want to believe?

    • Mike Stevens

      Don’t look for logic where homeopathy is concerned….

  • kfunk937

    Homeopathy rightly has come under fire by experts like Dr Ernst, pretty much since the advent of science-based medicine. A 1943 dissertation, recently translated from the Dutch, illustrates that everything old is new again, at least when it comes to homeopathy’s abject failure/inability to adjust to evidence. Homeopathy has not changed. The same criticisms still pointedly apply.

    Readers may be interested in further commentary here, at SBM’s The Incoherent Mess That Is Homeopathy: Old and New Insights.

    • Egger

      Is the same Mr. Ad-hominem Steven Novella? This person called “homeopath” to Benveniste. Is this true.

    • Egger

      “illustrates that everything old is new again, at least when it comes to homeopathy’s abject failure/inability to adjust to evidence”

      All the same? No, sorry Harriett Hall is a shame. One “paper” of Hall was debunked here:

      http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2015/06/el-sacerdocio-de-la-ciencia-xxx.html

      • Acleron

        That site makes the same mistakes as you do, are you the author?

      • kfunk937

        So you have not read the Dutch dissertation? Check.

        Sinvergüenza should be synonymous for homeopathy and its fanbois.

      • Take That, Medicine

        Debunked by yourself in your -interesting- blog?

        • Egger

          Oh dear, debunked by Randi? HAHAHA

          • Justthefacts

            Homeopaths are scared of Randi. Way too scared to try to claim one million dollars.

            Professional homeopaths know they are frauds. That’s why they fear Randi.

          • Egger

            Really? Randi “explains homeopathy” was debunked here:

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2015/10/el-genial-emperador-iv-lactando-lactosa.html

            Randi know is a liar, fraud and cheat. That’s why they fear the growth of homeopathy around the world.

          • Justthefacts

            Then go collect the millions dollars. What’s stopping you? (some much for your debuking)

            You can’t even debunk me. Give it a try:

            The “Dilution Fallacy”:
            .
            With modern scientific processes, it is practically impossible to purify water to an impurity level below one in a trillion parts. This is 10 to the power of 12. This is not only very pure, it’s ultimately, the best you can do, ever.
            http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/faqs_bottle_water-eau_embouteillee-eng.php
            .
            A Hahnemann Homeopathic dilution is classified as “30C” which is dilution factor of 10 to the 50th power. Many Homeopathic dilutions go beyond this to 200C.
            https://web.archive.org/web/20020826082134/http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm
            .
            This means that for every homeopathic molecule, there are 10 to the power of 38 more molecules of unknown impurities of all kinds including some that are at the same homeopathic dilution.
            .
            The theory of homeopathy cannot be applied in the real world. All homeopathic dilutions are frauds by the very nature that they contain countless other unknown substances at the same homeopathic levels as the original diluted substance. It’s impossible to predict the claimed homeopathic effects.
            .
            Without questioning homeopathic theory, homeopathic treatments are a fraud in practice simply due to practical limitations.

            Prove me wrong. Good luck.

    • Jonathan Graham

      Homeopathy rightly has come under fire by experts like Dr Ernst, pretty much since the advent of science-based medicine.

      …or even evidence based medicine…or just people shaking off a magical view of the world.

      • kfunk937

        True dat. I realise I’ve fallen out of the habit of using the term “evidence-based” because people generally speaking (and not excluding physicians) suck rox at evaluating evidence. I should have probably said since the advent of the scientific method, which would make valid criticisms of homeopathy nearly contemporaneous (if not yet widespread).

  • lolexplosm

    If only Big Pharma didn’t control our healthcare with their profit driven allopathic techniques, we’d clearly be a lot better off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

    • Egger

      Pseudoskeptiks debunking with a big clown in Youtube video. Take a Randi pill. In Youtube you can see the Luc Montaigner video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0

      And the recent scientific paper published:

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072

      • Mike Stevens

        Nothing quite like criticising a “YouTube” offering by countering with another one of your own, is there?

        • Egger

          Youtube clowns (Mitfuck and Webbstupid) versus Scientific documental + Scientific paper.

          • Take That, Medicine

            LOL

          • Egger

            LAL

  • Egger

    Sure Ernst liar? The legal definition of homeopathy is very clear:

    1) http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Homeopathy.pdf

    –Sometimes, a homeopathic medicine made from source material, such as a mother tincture, is administered in the most concentrated form.

    2) From historical research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338200

    :–Low potency homeopathic medications (with detectable concentrations of the starting material) and high potency homeopathic medications (with no detectable amount of the starting material in the finished product) have been available since the beginning of homeopathy.–

    https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/definition-of-homeopathy/

    3) https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/definition-of-homeopathy/
    –According to the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, a homeopathic drug does not have to involve the principle of dilution at all.³ In fact the seven criteria, recognized by the FDA and the HPUS, which selectively or collectively qualify a drug as being homeopathic are–

  • Egger

    Edzard Ernst?

    • Take That, Medicine

      Thanks for clarifying how deep you are into conspiracy theories.

      • Egger

        Oh heavens, the anticonspiracy Randifallacy. Take a Randi pill.

  • Jonnybones

    Montagnier, Nobel prize-winning co-discoverer of HIV reprises and takes forward the work of stitched-up brilliant scientist Jacques Benveniste re memory of water: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0

    • rosross

      Water has the capacity to receive, record, retain and release information, otherwise called memory.

      • Acleron

        There is a lovely BBC Radio play about someone’s persona being recorded in a bucket of water that gets spilt. Entertaining but pure fiction just like your comment.

      • Alas, you do not.

      • Ummm, no. It doesn’t. Not at all. There is no part of that statement that is true. None.

    • Acleron

      Benveniste disproved his own work. Once he stopped cherry picking his results he showed nothing at all.

      Only a homeopath would claim that a scientist who made that particularly basic error in his research was brilliant.

      Montagnier is now not taken seriously by anybody but homeopaths.

  • Egger

    Ernst, my friend. Where is your data for the pseudohomeopathic remedies? Can you post a link to a study that confirms that low potency homeopathy is not homeopathic? There are a many comments on this article referring to homeopathy only as “high dilution” or “water with sugar”.

    • Acleron

      So what makes any preparation homeopathic?

      • Egger

        Mr Acleron:

        Then how is it you come up with “what makes any preparation homeopathic” when the theme are the lies of Ernst? Most years should have taught you that’s straw man fallacy and fired from the Sense About Science.

        • Acleron

          No, your pet delusionary obsession is Ernst. I am asking a question for which appear to have no answer.

          • Egger

            Obsession no. Ernst is a clown.

            “So what makes any preparation homeopathic?

            Oh dear, Are you stupid? Again:

            –A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure as defined by the European Pharmacopoeia or recognised national homeopathic pharmacopoeias.–

          • Acleron

            So still obsessed and still no answer.

          • Egger

            So still obsessed with Ernst love, and you rejects my reponse based in historical research. Again Ad-Acleron?

            — A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic man-
            ufacturing procedure as defined by the European Pharmacopoeia or recognised national homeopathic pharmacopoeias–

            HAHAHAHA Stupid Acleron!
            You loose!

          • Acleron

            Repeating idiocies just makes them more idiotic.

          • rosross

            You should perhaps bear that in mind.

          • Acleron

            As usual Ros, anything I get wrong you are free to mention.

  • olavius

    There you have it “homeopathy works!” quote May 2016 Edzard Ernst.

    Your estimate regarding 99,9% of remedies sold OTC are high potencies lacks reference and you are clearly mistaken. You can easily check any pharmacy online (UK, Germany, France, Austria, etc.) to verify they stock all portencies low to high in varioius scales. Take for instance below example
    http://www.versandapo.de/en/10567/Single-products.htm?lastActionId=1
    were 5 of their top 10 remedies sold are in the D3 to D12 range.

    I take it in above study the remedies were chosen homeopathically, i.e. so I dont understand why your paper should disprove the principle likes cures like? Look up for instance aesculus or hamamelis in Boericke
    http://homeoint.org/books/boericmm/a/aesc.htm
    http://homeoint.org/books/boericmm/h/ham.htm

    As you can see both remedies lists variscose veins and also note the recommended dose tincture to 3/6th potency.

    • Acleron

      If you have to start with a quote mine then the rest can be discarded.

      • Egger

        “Quote mine”

        Are you a scratch disc?

        • Acleron

          Again, it is not my fault that quote mining, misrepresentation, lying and strawmanning is all you have but be assured you will be called on it when you employ such tactics.

          • Egger

            Come on. Show me the quotemining, misrepresentation and so. Why do you not show my “lies”?

          • Acleron

            Already done, many times but you keep on doing it.

          • Egger

            Keep your secrets in my mind. HAHAHAHA

          • Acleron

            Your quote mining, lying and misrepresentation are no secret, you have splattered your fraudulent accusations in many places.

    • Egger

      Yes, this is corroborated in historical reviews. Ernst is Mr. Lie.

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

      • rosross

        So Edzard Ernst no longer claims to have ANY training in alternative medicine! Read Edzard Ernst Exposed here! http://avilian.co.uk/2012/02/edzard-ernst-exposed-as-a-fraud-and-a-liar/

        In March 2010 Edzard Ernst lost all financial backing for his dubious research at Exeter University after a row with a Royal aide to Prince Charles

        Edzard Ernst has published an impressive (too many for one man in one lifetime?) list of published research papers on alternative medicine which will require independent reproduction by other researchers before any conclusions can be drawn.

        Professor Ernst claims to have studied all alternative medicine, including homeopathy, but so far, no one has discovered where he studied homeopathy, despite an extensive search of all known homeopathic training schools and colleges. No investigator has discovered any evidence of his enrollment in any alternative medicine training school or college, and Professor Ernst has not published any alternative medicine educational credentials at all, beyond his claim to have them!

        http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/about-my-controversial-qualifications/

        • You declared in a previous thread that you are not a credential-ed homeopath, did you not? So, in your (il)logical world, you have no credibility, either. Or do you not apply your own standards – base as they are – to your own arguments?

          Why is anyone trying to discover where Ernst studied homeopathy? He never said he formally studied to be a homeopath; he said he grew up with it; used to use it; and he trained, after his (proper) medical studies, for six months (not weeks – as you again, despite previous correction, falsely claim) in a homeopathic hospital, where he came to question it. He has since researched it. What he claims to be is a researcher. You just don’t happen to like what he has found.

          ’His knowledge of Homeopathy is minimal’, you state elsewhere. Yet, you, who is not a homeopath, is claiming specialist and superior knowledge based on your own experience and knowledge-gathering. Why should that be acceptable, but not another person’s route to knowledge? Particularly, an objectively more reliable one. But, of course: to you, wise people are those who view the world through your distorted prism; and you reject the wisdom, however acquired, of those who do not – particularly, it seems, scientists.

          ‘… published research papers on alternative medicine which will require independent reproduction by other researchers before any conclusions can be drawn.’

          That is actually a fair statement. Scientific findings are always provisional. Yet, again, you do not apply this caveat to any ropey old ‘research’ that finds in homeopathy’s favour. You accept it absolutely and wave it about as propaganda. But, 200+ years of homeopathy… and what has been independently reproduced and verified?

        • Egger

          Ernst only “practiced” homeopathy for six months, not more. He never obtained any legal title from homeopathic school. Ernst is a fraud and liar.

  • Jonnybones

    The debate between homeopathy and allopathy has been raging since Hahnemann’s time. All the arguments are largely the same. Allopathy has had the upper hand in recent years, but other than success in emergency medicine and a handful of allopathic drugs it has largely been ineffective in healthcare and now become the third leading cause of death in the western world. Around 80% of medical research is invalid.
    Conventional medical understanding of physiology is based on mechanistic concepts from the 19th century and before. Proper scientific understanding of the basics of life and living processes is missing. Arrogance, pomposity and lack of humility abound in those defending the dying paradigm.
    What homeopathy and related scientific enquiry allows us to do is to start filling in the blanks of our knowledge. The physics of water including coherent domains, quantum processes, electro-magnetism, resonance are all concepts that will allow the new paradigm to begin to explain, validate and provide low-cost and effective treatment for chronic issues.

    • Acleron

      All except for the small wee fact that you have no reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything at all. Plenty of pseudoscientific grandiose claims yes but reliable evidence, no.

      • Mike Stevens

        Its a bit like the old fallacy:
        “An aeroplane crashed the other day, killing 150 people…… Therefore magic carpets can fly!”

      • rosross

        If there were no reliable evidence, in this age of litigation, not one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government would touch Homeopathy, let alone embrace it as many do. That is pure logic.

        You cannot get away from that reality, as uncomfortable as it may be, and that reality brings your claims crashing to the ground.

        None of them would consider it without plenty of reliable evidence which their legal teams could consider and approve. None of them, not one, nada, zip.

        I realise you may not get out much but in this day and age, anything controversial is considered long, researched hard and given approval by legal teams. More logic.

        • The more you repeat this fallacy, the more you confirm, through your dishonest refusal to apply your ‘logic’ to its logical extension, your inability to reason; and the more you come across like a cult devotee.

          • Egger

            Wow. You need repeat the combo ad-hominem.

        • Acleron

          The Ros fallacy.

    • ‘Allopathy has… now become the third leading cause of death in the western world.’

      But that’s not true, is it? Are you Roslyn Ross, by any chance? Or her ally? She has been exposed for repeating this falsehood. So, will you withdraw it? Or will you likewise repeat the lie?

      • kfunk937

        BMJ article last week trumpets that headline (again). Alties pounce and make sure it’s recirculated by the credulous. When it showed up in my jhu.edu newsletter the same day, all I could do was sigh, knowing what was coming.

      • Jonnybones

        Make up your own mind. The evidence is out there.
        My favourite statistic: when doctors strike the death rate falls.

        • You mean it comes down to opinion?
          That’s not a statistic; it’s a crass trivialisation of an important, complex issue. One misrepresented and exploited in scare-mongering fashion by quacks and their apologists.

          • rosross

            Abstract

            A paradoxical pattern has been suggested in the literature on doctors’ strikes: when health workers go on strike, mortality stays level or decreases. We performed a review of the literature during the past forty years to assess this paradox. We used PubMed, EconLit and Jstor to locate all peer-reviewed English-language articles presenting data analysis on mortality associated with doctors’ strikes. We identified 156 articles, seven of which met our search criteria. The articles analyzed five strikes around the world, all between 1976 and 2003. The strikes lasted between nine days and seventeen weeks. All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.

          • Allow me to supply the rest of that abstract:

            ‘The paradoxical finding that physician strikes are associated with reduced mortality may be explained by several factors. Most importantly, elective surgeries are curtailed during strikes. Further, hospitals often re-assign scarce staff and emergency care was available during all of the strikes. Finally, none of the strikes may have lasted long enough to assess the effects of long-term reduced access to a physician. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.’

            It is not quite as black and white as you would like to have it, is it?

      • rosross

        It is true, do some research. Third in the US and some others and rising, most of it from prescribed medication, as iatrogenic – Allopathic doctor or medical induced – and fourth and rising in other Western and most medicalised nations. It makes the Third Word look good.

        • Acleron

          Notice how she pulls out allopathic when she thinks that she has found something denigrating about medicine.

          Anyway, any evidence for your claim?

          • rosross

            Allopathic medicine is the big killer because of its dependence on pharmaceutical drugs which are the major source of iatrogenic injury and death.

            Quote:

            Iatrogenic death has become the third leading cause of death in America, surpassing even death by stroke. Depending on the source, between 106,000 and 250,000 people die each year from adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) in hospital settings alone.

            At its most conservative estimate, death by ADR kills over five times as many people as all illegal drugs combined annually. The prescription drug Vioxx killed an estimated 55,000 people by cardiac arrest alone; this figure does not account for other fatal side effects such as internal bleeding. The present reporting system for treatment-caused death is voluntary, including those incidences involving medical error.

            As a research community, how would you deal with this growing problem? Clinical trials include relatively small samples of a much larger population. When four or five million people take a drug that caused relatively little harm to a sample of three or four thousand people, the adverse side effects, including fatalities, increase proportionately.

            https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_reporting_of_iatrogenic_illness_and_death_be_voluntary_or_mandatory

          • Acleron

            So no reference to how this figure is obtained.

          • rosross

            Research is how the figure is obtained.

            Quote: Wondering how to assess the numbers and present medical error deaths scaled to a chart, the best one can credibly do is float a proportionally sized box and footnote its limitations. In this treatment I divide 180,000 medical error deaths by 2,468,435 (the total number of US deaths in 2010) to yield a 7.3% medical error death rate, then multiply the chart’s 597 per 100,000 deaths (data source CDC.gov) by 0.073, yielding 43.6 medical error deaths—ranking medical error death fourth in the refigured chart (from which I’ve removed the former number ten entry, suicide):

            http://www.jopm.org/opinion/commentary/2013/04/24/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-account-for-medical-error-in-%E2%80%9Ctop-ten-causes-of-death-charts/

          • rosross

            In 1999, Americans learned that 98,000 people were dying every year from preventable errors in hospitals. That came from a widely touted analysis by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called To Err Is Human. This was the “Silent Spring” of the health care world, grabbing headlines for revealing a serious and deadly problem that required policy and action.

            As it turns out, those were the good old days.

            According to a new study just out from the prestigious Journal of Patient Safety, four times as many people die from preventable medical errors than we thought, as many as 440,000 a year.

            Back in the old days, the IOM experts had very little concrete information to use in estimating the extent of killer errors in hospitals. But with innovations in research techniques led by Dr. David Classen, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and others, we now have more tools to tell us where the bodies are buried.

            With these latest revelations, medical errors now claim the spot as the third leading cause of death in the United States, dwarfing auto accidents, diabetes and everything else besides Cancer and heart disease. Harvard’s Dr. Lucian Leape, the father of the patient safety movement and one of the experts behind the original IOM report, says the numbers in this new study should supplant the IOM estimates from 1999. That means hospitals are killing off the equivalent of the entire population of Atlanta one year, Miami the next, then moving to Oakland, and on and on.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/09/23/stunning-news-on-preventable-deaths-in-hospitals/

          • Acleron

            The paper that you should have read is here

            http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx

            It is a metastudy of four selected studies, other studies were rejected on the basis of quality.

            The four studies have a combined number of fatalities of 38. To extrapolate this to the rest of the US appears a little strong.

            Studies like this are valuable, doctors are continually looking for ways to improve. However the data has to be real, not sensationalised either by media outlets or homeopaths.

            Also interestingly you uncritically accept the headlines taken from a metastudy but reject Linde et al, Shang et al and the NHMRC which use exactly the same metastudy tools. I wonder why that is?

          • Egger

            Yeah, the Linde re-analysis. Again?

            The results are comparable to those from similar analyses in conventional medicine–.

          • Acleron

            The non sequitur specialist.

          • rosross

            Government data, but since reporting iatrogenic death and injury is optional, one can presume the stats are on the low side. It may well be the top killer today.

          • rosross

            An overview to how the figure is obtained.

            Quote:

            In 1949, Professor Makary said the US adopted an international form that used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes to tally causes of death.

            ‘At that time, it was under-recognized that diagnostic errors, medical mistakes and the absence of safety nets could result in someone’s death, and because of that, medical errors were unintentionally excluded from national health statistics,’ he said.

            The researchers say that since that time, national mortality statistics have been tabulated using billing codes, which don’t have a built-in way to recognize incidence rates of mortality due to medical care gone wrong.

            As part of their research, the scientists examined four separate studies that analyzed medical death rate data from 2000 to 2008, including one by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

            Then, using hospital admission rates from 2013, they extrapolated that based on a total of 35,416,020 hospitalizations, 251,454 deaths stemmed from a medical error, which the researchers say now translates to 9.5 per cent of all deaths each year in the US.

            Professor Makary said: ‘Top-ranked causes of death as reported by the CDC inform our country’s research funding and public health priorities.

            ‘Right now, cancer and heart disease get a ton of attention, but since medical errors don’t appear on the list, the problem doesn’t get the funding and attention it deserves.’

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3572126/Medical-errors-leading-cause-death-experts-warn.html#ixzz48UPx5zmM

            Quote:

            The report concluded with these statements:

            “Only 10-20% of all procedures used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial,” and “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.”

            The Nutrition Institute of America funded an independent review of “government-approved” medicine that was published in 2006. Professors Gary Null and Dorothy Smith, along with doctors Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman and Debora Rasio titled the report “Death by Medicine.”

            The researchers found that America’s leading cause of death isn’t heart disease or cancer: its conventional medicine. They found that the iatrogenic death rate in the US (death caused by doctors and/or medical treatments) is 783,936 a year. That’s 84,059 more deaths than those caused by heart disease in 2001 and 230,865 more deaths than those caused by cancer.

            Over a decade, the scientists predict that iatrogenic deaths will total about 7.8 million, “more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history,” a death rate equivalent to that caused by six jumbo jets falling out of the sky every day.

            They also believe the numbers are actually much higher because most iatrogenic deaths aren’t reported as such: only 5 to 20% of iatrogenic deaths are reported for fear of lawsuits and because codes for reporting deaths due to drug side effects and other medical errors don’t even exist in many cases. The number of deaths due to conventional medicine may be 20 times higher than the numbers depicted here.

            http://draxe.com/conventional-medicine-is-the-leading-cause-of-death/

        • And your anti-scientific medicine ‘prejudice’ (you know, that word you like to use) shines through.

          Perhaps, then, you could explain why it doesn’t make this list:

          http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index1.html

          ‘It makes the Third Word look good.’ [sic] What do you mean by that? Are you saying you have greater chance of living a longer, healthier life if you live in a third world country?

      • rosross

        p.s. I have no connection with JB. The truth is painful I know, but you can bear it. Many others know what I say is true and you can deny it but it remains true all the same. Tragically. Millions dead or hospitalised around the world, particularly the most medicalised world, every year.

      • rosross

        Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US after heart disease and cancer, a new study has today revealed.

        More than 250,000 deaths each year are caused by medical error, patient safety experts at Johns Hopkins University identified.

        That figure surpasses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) third leading cause of death, respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people each year.

        Researchers warn the CDC’s way of collection national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate.

        They called for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3572126/Medical-errors-leading-cause-death-experts-warn.html#ixzz48UPC9IX0

        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

        • Take That, Medicine

          Are you aware that the 250k deaths is a gross extrapolation based on 4 surveys totaling a staggering thirty-odd deaths, most of them in tertiary hospitals? The sad truth is that we don’t have a reliable figure yet.
          Even if we took the 250k figure at a face value, although we know we shouldn’t, it would pale in comparison to the millions of lives saved by science based medicine around the world, including vaccines, safe birth, cancer surgery, chemo, antivirals, antibiotics, disease prevention, etc. etc.

        • Interesting that you here provide a link to, and quote from, a Daily Mail report on the recent BMJ article by Makary and Daniel. I don’t know whether you missed, the day before you waved it, that it was referred to here:

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectatorhealth/homeopathy_trials_can_be_positive_the_reason_why_is_bad_news_for_homeopaths/#comment-2670195359

          and whether you took the trouble to read and ingest its detailed treatment here:

          https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/

          It is an interesting read. Interesting, also, is how, in its wake, you shift blame for this waved death statistic, from your switching between ‘allopathic’ and iatrogenic, to ‘medical error’. Interesting how you shift your goalposts to exploit any scaremongering headline that suits your purpose. May I suggest you read and re-consider?

          Interesting that you cut medicine some slack in the ‘mechanical’: surgery and crisis-trauma. Certainly, more reliable metrics are required to distinguish more accurately between preventable and unpreventable adverse events. But consider the difficulty in defining ‘medical error’, when patients are lost during surgery, factored in with whether they would have survived had they not had the necessary operation.

          Interesting, the adverse events that occur in reaction to prescribed medication. This is a recognised problem, as is the fact that, again, we need more information to determine levels more accurately. But consider, does your appeal to adverse reaction to necessarily prescribed medicines factor in whether that patient would die without them? Are you supportive of the AllTrials campaign to get pharmaceutical companies to publish all their data, a move explicitly aimed toward improving patient safety? Or do you reject it because it is scientific medicine-led? Do you recognise that one of the objectives of (e.g.) epidemiology, genomics, gene therapy, stem cell research, is alleviation of this problem through the development of more ‘personalised medicine’ (you know, that phrase akin to the ‘individualised’ that you plug as a supposed advantage of homeopathy)? Or, again, do you dismiss, because this is science?

          And interesting, also, the proportion of these claimed medical ‘errors’ or adverse events afflicting the elderly, who are hospitalised more due to being more susceptible to chronic and age-related illnesses; many of whom would likely die without medical intervention, and/or with it – whether administered erroneously or not. But consider that, in the modern western world, how many of these people have survived to be old because of the advances and benefits scientific medicine has brought. Consider whether this really ‘makes the Third World look good’, as you flippantly remarked. Are you really saying we have greater chance of living a longer, healthier life if we live in a third world country?

          And also interesting is your failure to again see the ‘Either/Or’ fallacy you commit: modern western medicine is shite; therefore (‘ergo’) homeopathy. Yet, whatever the true statistic, it advances not an iota your case for homeopathy.

          So: absolutes/truths/realities. Will you reconsider your take on this; or will you just continue parroting the same scare-mongering, misleading, quack-friendly, headline propaganda?

    • rosross

      Well said, and more to the point, Homeopathy has an invaluable case-history, record and physiology source of information on the human organism and disease. Empiricism has been and has remained the foundation of Homeopathic medicine.

      • Acleron

        If empiricism was even understood by homeopaths they would have to accept that their sugar and water is valueless.

        • rosross

          So funny, I suggest you look up the meaning of empiricism.

          • Acleron

            I think I know just a little bit more about it than you.

          • rosross

            I am sure you think you do. But as the saying goes: You know what thought, thought.

            Let’s have your credentials, although I suspect I know them.

          • Acleron

            See below for my comment about such demands, it includes you.

        • Egger

          And low potency homeopathy is “sugar and water”?

          • Acleron

            So far you have been unable to point to any difference between low ‘potency’ and herbal.

  • Acleron

    What does make a preparation homeopathic?

    The initial preparations are quite standard and have been described in medieval herbalist books. Plants and other less savoury materials have been ground up in pestles and mortars with all sorts of recipients. Is homeopathy any different than that?

    Dilutions have also been used for longer than before Hahnemann. The only insignificant difference is the specification that the container be knocked against an elastic surface. It is obviously insignificant because major manufacturers use vortex mixers they have coopted from scientific research.

    The only significant difference I can see are the insane dilutions that soon lose all the material whether it was active or not.

    If there are any other differences, please inform.

    • rosross

      Try the R word, it’s a novelty I know, but research will inform you in regard to your confusion.

      • Acleron

        Thanks Ros, so you can’t come up with a difference.

        • rosross

          The difference is substantial. There is no other medical modality like Homeopathy but I understand your reluctance or inability to do research means you remain ignorant of that which you dismiss. Where oh where is that scientific research ‘rigour?’

          • Acleron

            So still cannot come up with a difference even though now you claim it is substantial.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens Acleron Troll is here.

          • Acleron

            So you cannot come up with any differences either. Can’t say I’m surprised.

          • Egger

            Oh no. Where is the evidence?

          • Acleron

            You just supplied it.

          • rosross

            The Homeopathic process is what is different even if, for some medicine, herbal ingredients are used. Herbal medicine is herbal medicine, using herbs as the basis of medicine.

            Homeopathic medicine uses herbs, but also other plants, fruits, vegetables, minerals etc., and the Homeopathic process is totally different to that of turning Herbs into medicine in liquid or pill form.

            Herbal medicine is more akin to Allopathic where the condition, disease or symptom is treated, while in Homeopathic medicine, the individual is treated via the compiling of a symptom picture which indicates which Homeopathic medicine will make the most effective remedy.

            Both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine retain an understanding of the concept of similars, ‘Like Treat Like,’ and while Allopathic, or conventional medicine may not retain an understanding, there is also an awareness that Like Treats Like, as can be seen in many pharmaceutical drugs – Ritalin for one and various heart medications for another, not forgetting Chemo and Radiotherapy where the treatment is capable of causing the condition or disease it treats.

            The Law of Similars is ancient, but, has been taken in Homeopathic medicine to exceptional ends and put to brilliant and effective use.

            Neither does Herbal medicine have a concept of potencies as Homeopathy does.

            Herbal medicine treats at the material level, as does Allopathic and Nutritional and Homeopathic medicine treats at the frequency/vibration/energy level an as such represents a highly advanced form of medicine, which was inspired and ahead of its time in its day and remains so, for the moment anyway.

            Herbal medicine, working on the material, treating symptoms and diseases, has more in common with Allopathic medicine than it does with Homeopathic medicine.

          • ‘Homeopathic medicine treats at the frequency/vibration/energy level… ‘

            Hitchens’s Razor applies: Bollocks!

          • rosross

            Now that’s a considered case you make there, redolent with rigorous, objective, considered scientific integrity – NOT.

          • Oh, I wasn’t attempting to make a case. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. And worry about your own integrity.

          • rosross

            So you don’t believe ECT’s work or that our cells are like small ‘batteries’ producing energy, frequency, vibration etc?

          • (Aside from my experiential disinclination not to believe anything from you…) I’m not impressed by your New Age-ist drivel. Nor by your habit of making absolutist ‘truth’ statements: you have no doubts, no reservations; you accept any positive claim for homeopathy unquestioningly; and countenance no criticism of it. That makes me suspicious.

          • rosross

            Oh dear, you could not be more wrong. I am a true sceptic and I do my research before forming any opinion and I question everything.

            do not make absolutist statements, I state facts and realities.

            I research across the spectrum and do not, as naysayers appear to do, confine myself to only that which fits with prejudice and subjectivity.

            I doubt everything. I question everything.

          • Acleron

            Like most alt medders you neither know what scepticism is or research and you certainly lack the tools to do either.

          • rosross

            Oh dear, Ad homming. Sad.

          • ‘[I] do not make absolutist statements, I state facts and realities.’

            Kindly re-consider that.

          • rosross

            I did, it stands because I reconsidered it before I wrote it.

          • rosross

            @ Lee Turnpenny,

            Here is a question for you. Correct me if I am wrong but your position seems to be that Homeopathy is impossible and anyone who practises it is fraudulent.

            If this were the case, what is your explanation and scenario for MD’s who opt to train for two more years in order to practise Homeopathic medicine?

            Let’s take France as an example because in that country you cannot undertake Homeopathic medical training without first qualifying as an MD.

            How do you think the ‘fraud’ is perpetrated on MD’s, within academia and the medical profession and Government? Who is organising all of this and how do they ‘deceive’ the MD’s in regard to their studies and their practice?

            And why do you think so many MD’s go along with it, knowing as you say they must, that it is pure fraud?

          • Actually, my position is that there is no such thing as homeopathy. And (again) you’re being very sneaky with the ‘fraudulent’ thing.

            ’And why do you think so many MD’s go along with it, knowing as you say they must, that it is pure fraud?’

            I never said they must know it is fraud. I presume they ‘go along with it’ because they believe it works? (At least, I kind of hope they do.) Clever people often believe stupid things. There are surely historical and political reasons. As for those who elect for homeopathy ‘training’ after their medical degree, I would predict they were already homeopathy-sympathetic. But I don’t know; neither do I know whether their medical degree includes much in the way of scientific critical thinking (and if they were homeopathy-pre-programmed, whether it would make any difference to their subsequent career choice?) I don’t know. And neither do you. Fascinating, isn’t it? I reserve the term ‘fraud’ for those who know it is bullshit, but extol its paid usage and profit from it, and resort to dishonesty to market their wares.

            Perhaps you can answer why you cannot see (or refuse to admit to) your logical fallacy? You lambast the medical establishment – which you in effect accuse of conspiring with Big Pharma to keep patients ill for profit, or of being so incompetent that it actively kills them – except when/where it accommodates homeopathy. Perhaps you could explain, if you deem this minority accommodation to be ‘proof’ that homeopathy works, why majority non-accommodation is not proof it doesn’t work? Because, by your logic, the corollary is that it doesn’t work. But, then you are left with invoking your other favoured fallacy: the Big Pharma/medical establishment conspiracy. You’re stuck.

          • rosross

            To start, the energy in our bodies exists in various forms. Most of them need some manipulation before they can be used to power an electronic device. But not all do.

            For instance, the ears of mammals contain a tiny electric voltage called the endocochlear potential (EP). Found inside the cochlea, a spiral-shaped cavity in the inner ear, the EP aids hearing by converting pressure waves into electrical impulses. It’s vanishingly weak—about a tenth of a volt—but still strong enough, in theory, to power hearing aids and other aural implants.

            Harvesting the EP had long been considered unthinkable due to the extreme sensitivity of the inner ear. But using a combination of surgical prowess and technological innovation, researchers in Massachusetts managed to do just that in 2012.

            The team developed an “energy harvester chip,” about the size of a fingernail, which was designed to extract electrical energy directly from the EP. They tested the chip in a guinea pig, implanting it into the animal’s inner ear where it generated enough electricity to power a radio transmitter. The minute electric power produced by the chip—about a nanowatt (a billionth of a watt)—is still about a million times too low to power an electronic implant. But it’s a nanowatt more than had been generated before, making this an important proof-of-concept.

            If the power output of future prototypes can be boosted, the natural voltage of the inner ear could someday be used to power hearing aids; it could even allow the development of implants to treat diseases which originate there, such as Ménière’s disease.

            http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/your-body-the-battery-powering-gadgets-from-human-biofuel/

          • Acleron

            And this has diddly squat to curing disease by mumbling incoherently about energy, vibrations or anything else.

          • Mike Stevens

            What, she hasn’t invoked “quantum” yet?

          • rosross

            Quantum physics and biophysics may well lead the way in science understanding how Homeopathic medicine works, but, until that time, people will continue to make use of it because it works.

            Every cell in our bodies produces an electrical field. Our heart and brain produce magnetic fields which can be and have been measured – the heart field is greater.

            Materialist reductionist science medicine has not yet ventured into the field of the ‘energy’ body or the frequency nature of the human organism, or any organism actually, but it will get there.

            Until then Homeopathy will continue to heal and cure with patients and doctors alike losing no sleep over the How and concerned only with the What. As makes sense.

          • Take That, Medicine

            There is electricity in the brain, the heart, the nerves, or the muscles. The electrical field is caused by the way neurons, the heart conduction system, nerves and muscles work.
            I am sorry to disappoint you, but these are known natural phenomena. Nothing to do with quantum, homeopathy or alternative realities.

            Quoting Jim Al-Khalili:
            Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP, etc., then you’d better take a proper course in QM

          • Take That, Medicine

            LOL. Brain and heart tissue are depolarized, because that’s how they work. No mystic woo here, sorry.

          • Well, as a biologist, I do find that interesting information. But I’m damned if I can see the relevance you pseudoscientifically afford it.

          • rosross

            You see no relevance in the fact that our cells produce energy – frequency, vibration, call it what you will, or that the heart and brain both have magnetic fields which can be and have been measured?

            I guess as a materialist reductionist you cannot afford to see relevance in such fascinating data.

          • Relevance to homeopathy? None whatsoever. And you’ve no basis for claiming any connection; you’re resorting to Chopra-esque waffle.

            If ‘materialist reductionist’ is supposed to insult me, I’m not concerned. But the ‘cannot afford’ bit? Why would seeing relevance here be an issue for me?

          • rosross

            Goodness, materialist reductionist is not meant to insult but by all means take it that way if it helps. It is simply a statement of fact regarding the limited belief system currently at work in science.

            ‘Cannot afford’ means that the materialist reductionist position is so crucial to your ‘comfort’ and position that you cannot afford to consider anything which challenges its absolutism and somewhat, theological position. In other words, never allow anyone to question your beliefs. All done in the best tradition of the worst of religion.

          • Oh, come off it! You intend(ed) it derogatorily, as confirmed in your second (tu quoque) paragraph. Surely, the consequences of material reductionism are discomforting; perhaps why many just cannot bring themselves to consider it. Eh, Ros?

            Science doesn’t work according to a ‘belief system’. (Or, it strives not to; imperfectly – it is conducted by humans, after all.) But if it wasn’t about questioning, then it wouldn’t exist, would it? When belief becomes the overriding motivation, then science doesn’t get done properly.

          • rosross

            Relevance in general, not to Homeopathy. Misquote, misread, misinterpret, miss the point …..

          • No, no, no, you’re not having that. I said it is interesting information. But if you’re referring to other avenues, then you’re wandering off topic. But we both know full well that you were waving it as relevant to homeopathy. That is, after all, the matter at hand here.

          • rosross

            Fortunately for the world, there are biologists who hold different views to you, even though your views might, for the moment be a majority. Bruce Lipton for instance.

            The real pseudoscience is that practised by so-called scientists who betray the key and fundamental principles of good science. Rigour, integrity, curiosity, objectivity etc.

          • Well, bully for Bruce! (Goodness, you’re appealing to Bruce Lipton as an authority, now?!)

            You mean, ‘the key and fundamental principles of good science’… which are afforded slack when it comes to homeopathy? Not a problem for you then, is it?

            You couple Bruce Lipton and ‘objectivity’ in the same comment? Quite funny.

          • rosross

            And measuring the magnetic field of the heart:

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091211131520.htm

          • rosross

            Many Allopathic doctors have become converted to Homeopathic medicine when faced with its brilliant efficacy and quite a few went on to become some of the greatest Homeopaths in the more than two centuries since the modality was developed.

            http://sueyounghistories.com/page/13/?s=Doctors+converted+to+homeopathy

          • ‘Homeopathic medicine uses herbs, but also other plants, fruits, vegetables, minerals etc.’

            And it ‘uses’:

            – Virginia Opossum
            – Venus Stella Errans
            – Computer-emanation
            – Anti Matter Positronium
            – Aqua Nova (newly formed water)
            – Exhaust fumes of a 1962 Jaguar E-Type
            – ‘Meconium Humanum’ – aka human foetal faeces
            – MP3 audio signals

            Sigh Open minds, eh?

          • rosross

            Your list is not sourced.

            And yes, Homeopathic medicine has been useful in saving the Virginia Opossum.

          • rosross

            Ah the world is a crazy place sometimes. Akin to the ingredients in vaccines…

            chick embryonic fluid
            vesicle fluid from calf skins
            monkey kidney cells
            formaldehyde…

            Injected into our bodies. Who would have thought it?????? Babies as well.

            Quote:

            hydrolized gelatin, chick embryo

            Biavax

            rubella Merck & Co., Inc.

            800-672-6372 rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

            BioThrax

            anthrax adsorbed BioPort Corporation 517.327.1500 nonencapsulated strain of

            Bacillus anthracis

            aluminum hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde

            DPT

            diphtheria – tetanus – pertussis GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900

            X 5231 diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosal washed sheep RBCs

            Dryvax

            smallpox

            (not licensed d/t expiration) Wyeth-Ayerst

            800.934.5556 live vaccinia virus, with “some microbial contaminants,” according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense polymyxcin B sulfate, streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle fluid from calf skin.

            http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

          • (And your colours shine ever brighter.)

            But, Ros, vaccines… work.

  • Egger

    1) –In science, when commenting on someone else’s work, one very specifically addresses the details of the work in question. A pseudoskeptic, however, typically doesn’t go through the hard work of really understanding the targeted work. This feature manifests itself in superficiality of the comments. —

    Example:

    “So, for all intents and purposes, it was a herbal medicine, and it is utterly unsurprising that our study found it to be effective..: there are homeopathic remedies that are not highly diluted”

    Is low potency homeopathic medicine? Yes! In the historical review of Jütter and Riley, they show the use of homeopathy and mother tinctures (potencies “below” to the Avogadro number) every day in some homeopathic practices:

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

    –In 1948, for example, the German homeopathic physician Karl Saller recorded the most frequently used homeopathic medicines in the Stuttgart Homeopathic Hospital, listing all in all 150 medicines. Many of these were administered as a mother tincture, most commonly low potencies ranging from 2X to 4X were
    prescribed.–

    Are you a kidding me Pseudoskptikal Ernst?

    2) –Another typical feature of pseudoskeptics is that they have no shame: one of the most shameless ways
    to attack someone else’s work is to put forward outright fabrications, which, if true, would imply gross incompetence of the author of the targeted work. But fabrications cannot be proven by their very nature. Consequently, absence of proof of the (usually grave) allegations in a piece is a sure tell-tale sign of pseudoskepticism at its worst, and a strong indication that the piece may contain fabricated allegations.–

    Example:

    “The vast majority (99.9 per cent of those sold over the counter today, I estimate) are highly diluted and therefore contain either no or far too few active molecules to have any effect whatsoever.”

    Ernst, where is the data in each country of the world? Can you show me the evidence?

    • Acleron

      Sorting through the gratuitous insults, you are unable to point to any difference in herbal extraction and homeopathy.

      • Egger

        Oh dear. Can you read?

        –A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure as defined by the European Pharmacopoeia or recognised national homeopathic pharmacopoeias.–

        • Acleron

          So you still cannot point out any difference between herbal and homeopathic preparations. Yes, got that.

          • Egger

            Oh no, ad-hoc excuses from Ad-Acleron again. Can you read or understand any coherent sentence?

            –In conclusion, whether a medicinal product is homeopathic or not, is determined, from a pharmaceutical perspective, by its production in accordance with a recognised homeopathic pharmacopoeia.

            You loose, again, Acleron Troll. Ernst is a liar. End of the discussion. HAHAHAHA.

          • Acleron

            Time to conclude that there is no difference between homeopathic extraction methods and herbal or indeed any aqueous, alcohol or sugar extraction. As dilution is commonly used then all the obfuscatory claims of homeopaths about low ‘potency’ products is so much bovine faecal matter. Therefore the only distinguishing characteristic of the product they sell is that it contains nothing but sugar, water or if you are lucky, some ethanol.

          • rosross

            Wow, you do make massive leaps beyond any kind of logic. Projection is powerful when sourced in the unconscious.

          • Acleron

            A simple question was asked, no difference was given although you and Egger tried to obfuscate the matter. You even doubled down and claimed there are substantial differences but we’re unable to produce any.

            The simplest conclusion is that there are no differences between herbal and homeopathic extractions. These leads to other interesting conclusions.

          • rosross

            If you bothered to do some research, radical I know, but not so hard, you would know that the Homeopathic methodology is particular to Homeopathic medicine and is not a part of Herbal medicine. They are two different modalities.

            Herbal medicine has more in common with Allopathic medicine and it uses plant-based ingredients solely, unlike Homeopathic which uses a variety including mineral and animal. Neither does Herbal medicine involve potencies in the same way that Homeopathic medicine does.

            But I know you play word-games and turn truth into sushi for the hell of it. Keep up the good work.

          • Acleron

            As you sashay from one fallacy to the next you still fail to provide any physical difference between extraction of herbals and extraction in homeopathy, or between dilution in homeopathy and dilution carried out by everyone else including herbalists, chemists, biochemists, pharmacists, biologists or even cooks.

  • rosross

    There
    are many thousands of books written on Homeopathy over the past two centuries
    and more. Until the early part of the 20th century all Homeopathic doctors were
    also Allopathic doctors and in France, still are, by the way.

    So
    these writings contain invaluable information as to the history of medicine in
    general and Homeopathic medicine in particular.

    I
    remain amused that so many are so ignorant of Homeopathy that they can believe
    a qualified MD would spend another two or more years training to become a
    Homeopathic doctor as well, as many do, if it were pure placebo. One presumes
    they could work that out quite early in the piece.

    And
    having trained as Homeopathic doctors, the view is that they then commence
    fraudulent practice, using Homeopathy, which clearly works, otherwise why
    bother, when they know it is only pure placebo?

    I
    wonder how that applies to the efficacy with babies, animals, birds,
    unconscious animals and humans, not to mention plants!

    Charles
    Darwin was impressed with demonstrated effect of Homeopathic medicine on plants
    – I wonder how that happened?

    But
    for those with serious interest and free from the sort of prejudice and
    propaganda endemic in the deniers, the following book is worth reading – oh,
    sorry, also written by MD’s.

    The
    Emerging Science of Homeopathy; Complexity, Biodynamics and Nanopharmacology,
    by Paolo Bellavite, MD and Andrea Signorini, MD.

    It
    is recognized as a medical specialty or system of medicine and/or is supported
    on national health care programs by the governments of 20 countries including
    Switzerland, the U.S., and Brazil.

    Homeopathy
    is integrated into conventional medicine in many medical practices and was
    added to the formulary of a major U.S. hospital, Shore Health Systems

    45%
    of English doctors refer patients to homeopaths

    40%
    of French people use homeopathy

    30,000
    French doctors use homeopathy

    20,000
    French pharmacies sell homeopathics

    32%
    of French family doctors use homeopathy

    25%
    of German family doctors use homeopathy

    9
    million Brazilians use homeopathy

    95%
    of French GP’s prescribe homeopathy

    15,000
    Brazilian doctors prescribe homeopathy

    162
    degree colleges in India teach homeopathy

    Over
    200,000 Indian doctors practice homeopathy

    100
    million Indians use homeopathy

    • And your point is…?

      • rosross

        The point, which you studiously ignore, is that it is effective and accepted.

        • But that listed compendium of appeals to popularity merely demonstrates popularity. Which is a fallacy – and fallacies you studiously employ. That, or you are cognitively incapable of recognising them.

          • rosross

            Hmmm, I did not think it involved such complexity of thought but perhaps it does.

            It is not appealing to popularity but I can understand you need to project that onto it.

            Why would an MD train as a Homeopathic doctor if it were just fraud? Why bother to go through the years of training?

    • Take That, Medicine

      “There are many thousands of books written on Homeopathy over the past two centuries and more”

      You are repeating the Ad Populum fallacy so much that it qualifies as Ad Nauseam too. There are also thousands of books on fairies, yet fairies, as far as we know, don’t exist.

  • Jonnybones

    What fascinates me is that the group of self styled ‘rationalist skeptics’ who hate homeopathy believe that consciousness is a by-product of increasing complexity and is an illusory phenomenon. This, of course is an assumption not based on any valid scientific understanding.
    Taking this assumption at face value it follows that rationality is illusory meaning that we can safely ignore anything they say.
    Another assumption implicit in their comments is that the ‘science is settled’ or nearly settled. The other part of the narrative is that science progresses in a smooth fashion and when truths appear they are accepted by intellectual contemporaries as being self evident. When in fact scientists, like every generation have their politics and biases that resist change and label those with better ideas as ideological heretics.
    In fact it is more likely that any current scientific paradigm is little more than a passing fashion. Conventional medicine for all it’s successes has many limitations not least the rise of chronic illness in the Western world, especially cancer and heart disease.
    In addition to this is the power of the medical and pharmaceutical companies whose sole purpose is to make money and with their vast profits have the power to control the narrative.
    Homeopathy is cheap, inexpensive and effective, and whose acceptance would threaten the profitable paradigm is a major threat hence the vitriol. Much of the criticism of homeopathy and its proponents are mere spin and projection dressed as ‘rationality’.

    • Acleron

      I see you are pretty good at erecting strawmen, lots of practice?

      • Jonnybones

        Context.

  • Acleron

    The scientific debate over homeopathy has been long concluded, there is nothing in their preps and they don’t work.

    The harm they do continues. To sell their sugar and water they have to exaggerate any deficiencies they can find or make up with medicine.

    Generally they have to try to prevent people receiving medicine either preventative or curative.

    Vaccines, probably the single most effective healthcare measure ever are heavily and wrongly criticised and when herd immunity levels drop, outbreaks of almost forgotten diseases occur.

    Individuals are encouraged to forego medicine by homeopaths leading to tragic and unnecessary deaths.

    In Africa, a charming gentleman by the name of Jeremy Sherr wants Africans to stop taking anti retrovirals so that he can sell sugar pills. HIV without ARVs is a death sentence.

    In Haiti after the earthquake, in came the homeopaths to give useless snake oil to children suffering mortal childhood diarrhoea.

    In Cuba they managed for a time to replace a perfectly acceptable vaccine against Leptospirosis with drops of water. The only thing that stopped this being a catastrophe was that when the disease broke out it was controlled by antibiotics and ring vaccination.

    In the UK homeopaths have advised travellers to forego malarial antivirals in favour of their non treatment, for which they wanted money.

    • rosross

      To respond to your claims:

      You said: The scientific debate over homeopathy has been long concluded, there is nothing in their preps and they don’t work.

      Wrong. Homeopathy is the second most used medical modality after Allopathic and the fastest growing.

      You said: The harm they do continues. To sell their sugar and water they have to exaggerate any deficiencies they can find or make up with medicine.

      Unsubstantiated. Allopathic medicine is the third biggest killer in the US, and fourth in many other Western nations, and rising. Homeopathic medicine does no harm, unlike Allopathic, where most of the millions of deaths and injuries every year, are from prescribed medications.

      You said: Generally they have to try to prevent people receiving medicine either preventative or curative.

      Unsubstantiated. Homeopathic doctors are professional and will advise Allopathic intervention where useful. In fact, many Homeopathic doctors are also qualified MD’s and utilise both modalities.

      You said: Vaccines, probably the single most effective healthcare measure ever are heavily and wrongly criticised and when herd immunity levels drop, outbreaks of almost forgotten diseases occur.

      Unsubstantiated and nothing to do with Homeopathy or the discussion.

      You said: Individuals are encouraged to forego medicine by homeopaths leading to tragic and unnecessary deaths.

      Unsubstantiated and untrue. And I have never met a Homeopath who advised foregoing Allopathic medicine where the skills were of use. Medicine is medicine.

      You said: In Africa, a charming gentleman by the name of Jeremy Sherr wants Africans to stop taking anti retrovirals so that he can sell sugar pills. HIV without ARVs is a death sentence.

      This is a digression. And having lived in Africa, four different countries for nearly two decades, I also know that most anti retrovirals get fed to the pigs…. don’t ask why, who knows? Homeopathic medicine has been in Africa a long time and was brought out in the 18th and 19th centuries by missionaries. It is easy to transport and store and does no harm which is more important where people have compromised health and inferior living conditions.

      You said: In Haiti after the earthquake, in came the homeopaths to give useless snake oil to children suffering mortal childhood diarrhoea.

      You are getting emotional. Would you like to prove this claim and make a case for your use of the term ‘snake oil’ other than mere ignorance and prejudice on your part, that is.

      You said: In Cuba they managed for a time to replace a perfectly acceptable vaccine against Leptospirosis with drops of water. The only thing that stopped this being a catastrophe was that when the disease broke out it was controlled by antibiotics and ring vaccination.

      You need to substantiate this claim of yours. Yes, Homeopathy proved highly effective against Leptospirosis. The gist of your post is pure fantasy and prejudice.

      Quote: CONCLUSIONS:

      The homeoprophylactic approach was associated with a large reduction of disease incidence and control of the epidemic. The results suggest the use of HP as a feasible tool for epidemic control, further research is warranted.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839

      Quote: Although some leptospirosis vaccines have been obtained, the vaccination is relatively unsuccessful in clinical application despite decades of research and millions of dollars spent. In this review, the recent advancements of recombinant outer membrane protein (OMP) vaccines, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) vaccines, inactivated vaccines, attenuated vaccines and DNA vaccines against leptospirosis are reviewed.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231387/

      From what I can see there is as yet no effective vaccine for leptospirosis.

      You said: In the UK homeopaths have advised travellers to forego malarial antivirals in favour of their non treatment, for which they wanted money.

      Really? Show us the money, as in the evidence for your claim as you describe it. No doubt Homeopathic doctors have a right to be paid for a consult like anyone else.

      Apart from which, having spent nearly 15 years living in serious malarial zones I have never taken a malarial antiviral and never had malaria. The drugs are very destructive to liver and kidneys, as we were advised, by our doctor, when we first went to a malarial zone. That was before I found Homeopathy although I also do not bother with Homeopathic prophylactics and believe a healthy body and sensible lifestyle is the best defence against disease.

      I certainly carried my Homeopathic kit with me, albeit a vastly smaller one than Queen Elizabeth has and sadly, without a Homeopathic doctor at my side as she and her family have. Not that it was needed over more than five years on my last stint.

      • Acleron

        I said the scientific debate not your Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.

        We have documented evidence of homeopaths advising sick people to stop taking medicine. The homeopaths advising against antimalarials and selling their worthless sugar pills were videoed. Their ‘professional’ body refused to take action against them.

        Most homeopaths are totally unqualified, anybody can and does just call themselves a homeopath but if you want a bit of paper to impress then take a course, three days a month for ten months is probably one of the more demanding. Professional? Pull the other leg Ros, that’s the one with the bells.

        Then we have the celebrity endorsement which laughably blows up because whenever the queen is ill she never attends a quack hospital.

        • rosross

          Good heavens, does that make a case, that you heard somewhere that a Homeopath advised sick people to stop taking Allopathic medicine?

          And while the UK may be generally slack, I would be very surprised to find Homeopaths as poorly trained as you claim. It takes more than four years to qualify, around two if you already have an Allopathic medical degree.

          Why do you think any MD would bother with another more than two years of study to practise Homeopathy if it is just fraud? Logic, you see. They would not.

          The Queen’s Homeopath is also a qualified Allopathic doctor and I am sure he advises whichever course makes most sense at the time.

          By the way, when was the Queen ever in hospital, other than having babies? Homeopathy keeps her well.

      • Acleron

        The leptospirosis trial with homeopathic sugar and water was performed without controls, the homeopaths made up an incidence rate and then claimed that because the actual incidence was below their fabricated one that they were successful.

        Apart from being a lesson in how not to perform a clinical trial it is interesting that for the same effort the homeopaths could have included proper controls. Perhaps you tell us why they didn’t.

        As for your ignorance of the effective vaccine

        https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1004/pdfs/Cuban%2520Medical%2520Literature_2.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj6lI_Pk9TMAhWBDsAKHYrIA0cQFggkMAE&usg=AFQjCNH_bPIvKt2ppJtX6NlNn5Zkj7g08A

        • And the most vulnerable got the already-proven conventional prophylaxis…

      • Acleron

        The efficacy and safety of vaccines is unsubstantiated? They are not heavily denigrated by homeopaths?

        Lol, you really jumped the shark with that one.

      • Jonnybones

        excellent response. Thank you.

  • rosross

    Despite the campaign, this is the future:

    Quote:

    Homeopathy and integrative medicine: keeping an open mind

    Paolo Bellavitecorresponding author

    Some physicians have incorporated some forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or related medicinal products in their clinical practices, suggesting that an unconventional treatment approach might be seen as an integration rather than as an alternative to standard medical practice. Among the various CAMs, homeopathy enjoys growing popularity with the lay population, but it is not acknowledged by academia or included in medical guidelines. The major problem is to establish the effectiveness of this clinical approach using the strict criteria of evidence-based medicine. This issue of the Journal of Medicine and the Person collects contributions from some of the most prestigious centers and research groups working in the field of homeopathy and integrative medicine. These contributions are not specialized information but are of general interest, focusing on this discipline as one of the emerging fields of personalized medical treatment.

    Keywords: Complementary medicine, Integrative medicine, Homeopathy, History of medicine, Physician—patient relationship, Evidence in medicine

    Advances in biotechnology have led to novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that have rendered medicine both safer and more efficacious. In spite of this progress (or maybe because of it) the interest in alternative and non-conventional forms of medicine is also growing (for common definitions see Box 1 in “Appendix”). Patients intimidated by the complexity and the cost of biotechnology may find these therapies more friendly and more congruent with their personal desires. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) claims to take advantage of remedies present in nature and to minimize or refuse the use of synthetic medications. These are seen as foreign substances that threaten the wholesomeness of the human body, but these thoughts can have misleading consequences.

    To be able to meet the expectations of their patients, more and more physicians are trying to understand—instead of discarding “a priori”—these alternative therapeutic methods [1]. Some physicians have even incorporated some forms of alternative medicine or products in their clinical practices. It is not rare to hear respected clinicians suggesting that an unconventional treatment approach might be seen as an “integration” rather than as an “alternative” to standard medical practice. In the opinion of these professionals the integration of conventional and unconventional medicine may lead to improved outcomes, improved patient satisfaction, and improved treatment cost/effectiveness. Oriental medical systems (Chinese medicine, ayurveda) and homeopathy, and anthroposophic medicine in the West were based on specific pathophysiological theories, semiotic methods, and pharmacopeias that may deserve re-evaluation. At the very least, the study of these methods may lead to improved communication with and trust from patients, who feel empowered in their care when the doctor examines their requests with an open mind.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363517/

    • Acleron

      The wet dream of all charlatans is to try to gain some legitimacy by association with established medicine because that is where the money is.

      This is why they spend their time trying to politic their way into hospitals and clinics rather than producing high quality evidence that their treatment works.

      • rosross

        The evidence that it works and is not at all fraudulent is the fact that it is practised by MD’s and in hospitals, some of the world’s best; taught in medical schools and universities, particularly in First World enlightened Europe, and included by Governments in State medical systems.

        None of that could or would happen if you were correct. Ergo, you are just plain wrong – still just plain wrong.

        • Acleron

          So no evidence just the Ros fallacy.

          • rosross

            Smiley face to you Anguish.

        • lolexplosm

          You say it’s taught by top universities and med schools yet from your own quote:

          “Homeopathy…not acknowledged by academia or included in medical guidelines”.

          • rosross

            I did not say ‘top universities and med schools, I said taught in medical schools and universities and it is, particularly in Europe, although I also said that.

            The ‘some of the world’s best’ referred to hospitals – again, Europe in the main although once the UK was also enlightened in regard to Homeopathy and no doubt will be again, one day.

            The general view of orthodox academia and medicine is that Homeopathy cannot work and that means the fact that it is practised by any MD’s or hospitals and taught in any medical schools or universities is even more significant. Imagine the effort which would go into establishing the efficacy of Homeopathy in the face of such general dismissal if not ridicule.

            That is the salient point. If Homeopathy were ineffective or in any way fraudulent, there would not be one MD, hospitals, medical school, university or Government which would touch it with a barge pole. There are many and the number continues to grow.

          • Acleron

            The general view of both science and medicine is that homeopathy doesn’t work because in high quality trials there is no difference between the homeopath’s sugar and water and sugar and water.

            That it is quite obvious that it cannot work is a separate matter.

          • rosross

            Quelle Horreur!!!!!!!!

            At least 90 percent of US medical schools now teach alternative medicine.

            NB: That’s non-Allopathic medicine which includes Homeopathy.

            http://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8912929/medical-school-teach-alternative-medicine

          • rosross

            Eeek.

            Homeopathy Degree Programs with Course Information

            http://study.com/homeopathy.html

          • rosross

            And the University of Maryland Medical Centre (Center) provides information on Homeopathy.

            http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/treatment/homeopathy

  • rosross

    Quote: Death by Medicine

    By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD

    Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics

    showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.

    Until now, Life Extension could cite only isolated statistics to make its case about the dangers of conventional medicine.

    No one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by

    government-protected medicine. That has now changed.

    A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking.4 These

    researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system

    frequently causes more harm than good.

    This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be

    2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year.

    The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of

    people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.

    The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an

    astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and

    injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number

    of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5)

    We had intended to publish the entire text of “Death By Medicine” in this month’s issue. The article uncovered so many

    problems with conventional medicine however, that it became too long to fit within these pages. We have instead put it

    on our website (www.lef.org).

    We placed this article on our website to memorialize the failure of the American medical system. By exposing these

    gruesome statistics in painstaking detail, we provide a basis for competent and compassionate medical professionals to

    recognize the inadequacies of today’s system and at least attempt to institute meaningful reforms.

    http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

    • Acleron

      When all you have is a quote by Null, you have lost all credibility.

      Nobody pretends that vitamins are dangerous we have toxicity data that shows that they are toxic. So why would Null deny this fact? Oh, of course, he sells them.

      Why would Null exxagerate the dangers of medicine? Of course, he has quack cures he wants to sell.

      • rosross

        I don’t subscribe to supplement theory. This is another version of Allopathic materialist reductionism and supplements are very costly and either do very little, particularly self-prescribed, or are agents of harm. However, the most harmful medical agents remain Allopathic drugs.

        • Acleron

          Null lied in that document and its only virtue for you is to attempt to downgrade medicine.

          The supplement industry has parallels with the homeopathy trade, you both lie about efficacy of your product and you both lie about modern medicine.

          • rosross

            The supplement industry is an offshoot from the mechanical allopathic medical industry. It has nothing in common with Homeopathic medicine. But I understand your refusal to do even basic research means you do not know that.

            And since former editors of two of the world’s most noted medical journals, Dr Richard Horton, The Lancet and Dr Marcia Angell, The New England Journal of Medicine, have both said much research is just plain wrong and condemned the corruption, distortions, inefficiencies and lies of science/medical research, you are hardly in a position to point the finger at others.

            The ‘snake oil’ industry of lies, damned lies and distortions, is Allopathic medicine.

          • Acleron

            Nobody in medical research is denying anything. That we do disclose the deficiencies gives us the right to demand that things change and that includes the bias found in low quality homeopathy trials.

            So when are homeopaths going to stop making claims based on biased trials?

          • rosross

            Ye of so much little deserved faith in science/medicine. And you mock those who look beyond this little honey/snake oil pot?

            Quote:

            Recently, more and more studies of the reproducibility of modern scientific studies — that is, their ability to be recreated by scientists that weren’t involved in the original work — have been making news. A study by biotech giant Amgen failed to reproduce 47 of 53 landmark cancer studies. That’s 88 per cent of the studies.

            Retractions are also rising. Multiple cases of large numbers of fraudulent studies have made the news recently because they have had to be retracted from the journals they were published in, either because of faulty figures, made-up data or just accidental mix-ups.

            Today, a company called Science Exchange announced a new program — called the Reproducibility Initiative — that pairs researchers with companies to reproduce their findings. The initiative is led by Elizabeth Irons, a professor at the University of Miami.

            http://www.businessinsider.com.au/reproducibility-initiative-study-replication-2012-8

            Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

            John P. A. Ioannidis

            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

            Quote:

            Something is rotten in the state of biomedical research. Everyone who works in the field knows this on some level. We applaud presentations by colleagues at conferences, hoping that they will extend the same courtesy to us, but we know in our hearts that the majority or even the vast majority of our research claims are false.

            http://qz.com/603356/why-scientific-studies-cant-be-reproduced/

          • Acleron

            Agreed, some branches of science have great problems and we have both exposed those problems, publicised them and are taking steps to improve matters.

            How can we be capable of doing that? By being open minded. We continually question our own and others work.

            In the area of clinical trials, the AllTrials Initiative is designed to prevent publication bias by selective reporting.

            Unlike homeopathy, we welcome criticism, it is uncomfortable but we see the necessity.

            However, the methods of clinical trial analysis are completely open and well established. They show that in high quality trials homeopathy is ineffective and that many low quality trials, the results are biased.

            Could we see a similar discussion taking place among homeopaths?
            After sixteen years when the bias in homeopathy trials was uncovered, nothing, absolutely nothing has been done.

      • rosross

        Priceless. Attack the ‘man’ not the argument. At least you are consistent.

      • rosross

        If you bothered to read the article, radical I know, you would see it was not just Null but three MD’s involved and another academic and you can track the basic premise of the article and cited sources.

    • Mike Stevens

      Does this mean homeopathy works, Ros?
      Because a plane crashes, does that mean magic carpets can fly?

      • rosross

        What a strange question. Homeopathy works or it would not have survived for more than two centuries and continued to thrive and neither would it be practised by MD’s and in hospitals, taught in any medical schools and universities, or ever included in State medical systems. Logic.

        I know from personal experience how effective it is and I no more care that science cannot explain how it works and therefore decides it cannot work than I care about what science says about how I live my life or tend my garden.

        • Justthefacts

          How long did smoking last?

          I don;t think public ignorance is an argument for effectiveness.

    • Null points.

  • Acleron

    What do you do to determine dice are fair?

    Obviously you throw them a number of times and examine the frequency with which each face appears.

    But what happens if the die is loaded but you want to sell it as a fair die? Most would be ethical and not sell it. The homeopath just throws the die, excludes any data that shows it is loaded and proceeds with the sale.

    Ridiculous? Well no. Benveniste was found doing exactly this at the lab bench. DeWitt has even stated that negative results can be ignored. Mathie in a ‘metastudy’ of homeopathy trials included trials that did not fit his own specification and excluded one that did. Why? Well the excluded trial’s result did not fit his own perception.

    It is called cherry picking. If there are good grounds for excluding results such as poor quality then fair enough but homeopaths continually cherry pick their data on the basis of result.

  • rosross

    Quote:

    The American Journal of Public Health has recently published a survey article out of Harvard that shows that homeopathic medicine, while still only used by a small fraction of the U.S. population, has jumped 15% in use. In addition, most users put homeopathy among the top 3 complementary and integrative strategies they use in their health care.

    Use of homeopathy in the US is lower than in many European countries. The authors note, for instance, that surveys have found rates at 8.2% in Italy and nearly 15% in Germany. A recent Italian wire-service story reported findings of a 2012 survey by a homeopathic manufacturer that found much higher use, at close to one-in-six adult Italians.

    The Harvard team reported that positive views of homeopathy were much higher among those who saw a professional homeopath compared to those who simply purchased the pills from the store and self-prescribed. Those who consulted professionals were more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being.” The sense of the importance of the remedies was also stronger. More of those who’d consulted a homeopathic practitioner thought that homeopathy helped their health condition “a great deal” than did the self-prescribers.

    http://www.integrativepractitioner.com/whats-new/integrative-insights/harvard-study-has-good-news-for-homeopathic-medicine/

    • Chris Preston

      Argumentum ad populum.

      The fact that people use homeopathic treatments does not magically make the treatments effective.

      The reality is that well-conducted trials comparing homeopathic treatments to placebo treatments consistently fail to identify a difference.

      It is probably also worth pointing out that the overwhelming number of trials publicised as showing homeopathy works are for time-limited conditions, such as the common cold, and have subjective end-point measurements. This in and of itself is evidence that homeopathy as a system of medicine is complete bunk.

      Added to that, the mechanisms proposed whereby homeopathy might work are a complete load of nonsense. For homeopathy to work, all of the laws of chemistry and physics that allowed computers to be constructed would have to be completely and utterly wrong. So wrong in fact that it would be impossible for homeopathy that worked and computers to exist in the same universe.

      • rosross

        Hmmm, that is not what I said. But I understand why you feel a need to misread, misquote and misinterpret.

        And for Homeopathy to work, as it does, some of the so-called laws and the materialist reductionist belief system of science at this point in history would be overturned along with profits, power, prestige, professions, ego’s etc.

        So what? The only constant in life is change.

        And no, it would not be impossible for Homeopathy to work and for computers to exist because computers are machines and Homeopathy does not work on machines, it works on living creatures, humans, animals, birds etc., and plants. And the world does not come crashing down.

        The biggest delusion of modern science/medicine and no doubt why Allopathic medicine has such a high kill and injure rate, is the belief that a human body is no different to a manmade machine or piece of equipment.

        So funny, you don’t take medicine for a common cold, Homeopathic, Allopathic or anything. You can take Homeopathic medicine to alleviate severity and underlying immune weakness, but a cold is finite…. everyone knows that.

        I remain amused and bemused at the egregious ignorance of those who condemn Homeopathy. Surely you could have done a little research so you can pretend you know what you are talking about.

        And since what you call ‘bunk’ is practised by MD’s and in hospitals around the world, taught in some medical schools and universities and included by Governments in State medical systems, there are a lot of people who don’t agree with you. If Homeopathy were ineffective or fraudulent this could and would never happen. But you know that.

        • Chris Preston

          Hmmm, that is not what I said. But I understand why you feel a need to misread, misquote and misinterpret.

          Your argument as you have made elsewhere on the thread was that people were using homeopathy. This in response to an article that argues that homeopathy does not work.

          You did have a subsidiary argument about homeopathy being too complicated for amateurs to practice, but I chose not to address that, but rather the central point. The popularity or otherwise of homeopathy provides absolutely no evidence that it has any efficacy and is therefore a logical fallacy.

          And for Homeopathy to work, as it does, some of the so-called laws and the materialist reductionist belief system of science at this point in history would be overturned along with profits, power, prestige, professions, ego’s etc.

          Evidence required.

          You cannot hand wave away the laws of physics and chemistry because they are inconvenient to your belief system.

          And no, it would not be impossible for Homeopathy to work and for computers to exist because computers are machines and Homeopathy does not work on machines, it works on living creatures, humans, animals, birds etc., and plants. And the world does not come crashing down.

          This is another logical fallacy. Affirming the consequent. The reality is that homeopathy is completely ineffective as a system of medicine.

          The biggest delusion of modern science/medicine and no doubt why Allopathic medicine has such a high kill and injure rate, is the belief that a human body is no different to a manmade machine or piece of equipment.

          This is an example of the straw man fallacy. Practitioners of modern medicine and medical researchers do not consider the human body to be no different to a machine.

          And since what you call ‘bunk’ is practised by MD’s and in hospitals around the world, taught in some medical schools and universities and included by Governments in State medical systems, there are a lot of people who don’t agree with you. If Homeopathy were ineffective or fraudulent this could and would never happen. But you know that.

          Another argument from popularity fallacy.

          What you have not done is present any evidence that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any non-limited condition. What you have provided instead is a post full of logical fallacies.

          • rosross

            No, my argument was not that people were using Homeopathy, my argument was that Homeopathy was being used, taught, embraced by organisations, people, who would not and could not do so if they had irrevocable evidence it was ineffective or fraudulent.

            My point was, in a world of litigation, medical professionals, academics, Governments, politicians would not touch Homeopathy unless they felt secure in terms of its effectiveness and legality. Ergo, it works and claims that it is useless or fraudulent are just plain wrong.

            And no, I did not have a subsidiary argument that Homeopathy was too complicated for amateurs to practice. What I said was that it is a highly complex modality and not the sort of thing one could effectively do ‘on the side’ as happens with Naturopathic medicine, at least in the US.

            Neither can Herbal or Nutritional medicine be practised as a sideline but Homeopathy is more complex than either of those as well, in terms of finding the correct remedy.

            I have never argued that the popularity of Homeopathy makes a case. That is your projection.

            I have argued that for it to be used by MD’s and in hospitals, particularly in the First World, taught in some medical schools and universities and included by some Governments in State medical systems, then patently there is solid evidence available, should one be looking and open to to it, which makes the case that Homeopathy is effective, is not pure placebo and is not fraudulent, or none of the above could happen. Logic. Simple, logic.

            In this day and age there would be legal advisors consulted before embarking on such a path and their sign-off would be required. Ergo, there is evidence for efficacy even if others deny it. And it is not fraudulent, even if some claim it is. Logic. Simple, logic.

          • Chris Preston

            No, my argument was not that people were using Homeopathy, my argument was that Homeopathy was being used, taught, embraced by organisations, people, who would not and could not do so if they had irrevocable evidence it was ineffective or fraudulent.

            You posted a section of a blog post.

            I don’t think this qualifies as an argument that “Homeopathy was being used, taught, embraced by organisations, people, who would not and could not do so if they had irrevocable evidence it was ineffective or fraudulent.” I suspect that my interpretation of what you were posting was more accurate.

            It doesn’t really matter, because this is still a logical fallacy. You don’t actually know why people choose to use and teach homeopathy. The evidence that it doesn’t work is available, but people may choose to ignore the evidence.

            My point was, in a world of litigation, medical professionals, academics, Governments, politicians would not touch Homeopathy unless they felt secure in terms of its effectiveness and legality. Ergo, it works and claims that it is useless or fraudulent are just plain wrong.

            I am not sure how many logical fallacies are involved in this paragraph. Homeopathy is permitted under laws in many countries, because it was grandfathered in, not because there was any evidence it was effective. As it is allowed, there would be no point launching a lawsuit against it, unless it is used in an inappropriate way. In which case there will be a prosecution.

            And no, I did not have a subsidiary argument that Homeopathy was too complicated for amateurs to practice. What I said was that it is a highly complex modality and not the sort of thing one could effectively do ‘on the side’ as happens with Naturopathic medicine, at least in the US.

            Which is effectively an argument that it is too complicated for amateurs (or naturopaths whichever comes first) to practice.

            I have argued that for it to be used by MD’s and in hospitals, particularly in the First World, taught in some medical schools and universities and included by some Governments in State medical systems, then patently there is solid evidence available, should one be looking and open to to it, which makes the case that Homeopathy is effective, is not pure placebo and is not fraudulent, or none of the above could happen.

            This is an argument from authority. If there is evidence that homeopathy is effective, you should be able to produce that evidence, rather than hand-waving that because MD’s use it, that is evidence that it works.

            So where is the evidence that it is effective for any non-limited medical condition?

          • rosross

            Posting links does not mean that one is in total agreement with everything said. Posting links to material is simply a guide to different views, data, information etc.

            There is comprehensive research data on the Homeopathic Research Institute site. Off you go.

            I know you have to keep missing the point but it makes you look incapable of processing information. Keep up the good work.

          • Acleron

            Ros has obviously not read the papers in the HRI list but she is in good company, neither did whoever constructed the list.

          • rosross

            Very droll. We have established I at least know what I am talking about in regard to Homeopathy even if you do not. You, I suspect, have never read anything except from quacko sites.

          • Acleron

            That I have read the HRI papers and that you have not is quite evident.

            Many of those references the HRI lists as supporting homeopathy conclude no difference between placebo and homeopathy. It is a list to impress the ignorant with its length.

          • rosross

            The world is a wonderful place when the mind remains open and in fact, an open mind is key to pure and useful science.

            Quote: “There is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works”

            This is probably the most frequently quoted, completely inaccurate statement about homeopathy. Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, so it’s true to say that there are not a huge number of studies, but some evidence is very different from no evidence.

            By the end of 2014, 189 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals1. Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for detailed review:

            41% were positive (43 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective

            5% were negative (5 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective

            54% were inconclusive (56 trials)

            How does this compare with evidence for conventional medicine?

            Slide2

            An analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine had strikingly similar findings2:

            44% were positive – the treatments were likely to be beneficial

            7% were negative – the treatments were likely to be harmful

            49% were inconclusive – the evidence did not support either benefit or harm.

            Although the percentages of positive, negative and inconclusive results are similar in homeopathy and conventional medicine, it is important to recognise a vast difference in the quantity of research carried out; chart A represents 188 individual trials on homeopathy, whereas chart B represents 1016 reviews on conventional medicine, each analysing multiple trials.

            https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-faqs/there-is-no-scientific-evidence-homeopathy-works/

            The difference in quantity is also not surprising when one considers the tiny amounts of funding made available for research into ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM). For example, in the UK only 0.0085% of the total medical research 
budget is spent on CAM, of which homeopathy is only one example3.

          • Ah. The usual homeopathy fans’ misunderstanding of the null hypothesis…so here’s a corrected chart for comparison. Even then, this does not take into account the quality of the trials.

          • Roslyn said:

            “The difference in quantity is also not surprising when one considers the tiny amounts of funding made available for research into ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM).”

            What do you mean ‘funding made available’?

          • When you post a link, all you need to do is post the link. But you don’t; you post huge swathes of text, as part of your saturate-the-thread strategy. Am I wrong?

          • rosross

            You fling the term logical fallacy around frequently and clearly fail to see it in yourself. What is that line about ‘the mote in one’s own eye,’ or ‘pot, kettle, black?’ Keep up the good work.

          • Chris Preston

            Still no evidence that homeopathy is an effective medical treatment.

            I am wondering why you continue to argue semantics, but fail to provide any evidence – despite your claims that such evidence is available. Why would that be?

          • rosross

            The prejudiced reject all evidence so posting is a waste of time. The evidence that it is effective is that it is accepted by many who should do what science tells them, but they do not, ergo, they have sound reasons for risking mockery, villification and humiliation.

            The rejectors are useful because they encourage and allow the dissemination of information for the curious and open-minded who will follow through and access evidence themselves, if required.

            Quote: INTRODUCTION

            In the context of the History of Science, the scientists who challenge the dominant paradigm are ignored or attacked by the scientific mainstream. Modern science is totally devoted to the mechanistic paradigm and biology is totally linked to a physico-chemical reductionism: in this context, scientists are very resistant to new discoveries which like homeopathy or high dilution effects chip away the molecular dogma. But “considering that major changes in Science have never been brought about by isolated findings, but by collective evidence”, it is fitting that such a text should introduce this book of “anomalies” at the frontier of science . MB

            B. RUBIK.

            The Perennial Challenge of Anomalies at the Frontiers of Science.

            CHAPTER I

            HORMESIS

            The modern notion of hormesis originated with the observations of Southam and Erlich (Phytopathology, 33, pp 515-524, 1948) and was developped by Stebbing (Aquatic Tox., 1, pp 227-238, 1981). Hormesis is a very well known phenomenon which demonstrates the reverse toxic action of a substance which becomes a stimulating agent at a lower concentration. This was demonstrated with ponderal doses, the reversion of the effect being obtained only by a small decrease of the concentration (10-100 times lower). Models have been created with various poisons and on all possible organisms whatever their level in evolution, from procaryotic cells to plants, from eucaryotic cells to mammals This reverse effect is studied here by Luckey who observed that cancer mortality rates were lowered by exposure to low doses of ionizing radiations.

            Conversely, the administration of low doses of a poison to an organism increases the resistance towards that poison. The famous king Mithridate, using small daily doses of various poisons, could not be killed by poison and eventually died by a sword-thrust.

            http://giriweb.com/index1.htm

          • Mike Stevens

            I think Ros has written the reference manual on argumental fallacies. She probably makes a bit on the side selling it to other homeopaths.

          • Acleron

            There is quite an industry of homeopaths making money from homeopaths. Schools, conferences, books and software comes to mind but selling logical fallacies is rather sweet. 🙂

          • rosross

            Ad homming reflects on you, not me.

          • Acleron

            You, not understanding the words you use, reflects entirely on you.

          • rosross

            Nice try, but ridicule, mockery, misquoting reflects on those who do it.

          • rosross

            No, that was not my argument, that was merely one statement of fact amongst many.

            I have never argued that Homeopathy works because people use it. I have argued that demonstrably it is effective and not fraudulent because medical professionals, academics and Governments embrace it and that could not happen if there were absolute proof it was fraudulent, or that it was ineffective. Logic.

            As to the upheaval in science as it stands, others have made this claim and I merely agreed.

          • ‘I have never argued that Homeopathy works because people use it.’

            Err… right… you have repeated the non-argument that people use it, therefore (‘ergo’) it works. Whilst ignoring the problem of those who don’t use it, and the ramifications for your argument.

          • Mike Stevens

            ” I have argued that demonstrably it is effective and not fraudulent because medical professionals, academics and Governments embrace it.”

            So, you are arguing that all conventional, “allopathic” medicine is effective and not fraudulent.
            Thank you so much, Ros.

          • …including vaccines… they must be safe and effective too and not fraudulent because medical professionals, academics and Governments embrace them.

    • Acleron

      “NB: Homeopathy is much too complex for self-prescribing or to be practised ‘on the side’ as often happens in Naturopathic medicine.”

      However Vithoulkas and others have simplistic computer programs that do the diagnosis.

      How difficult is it to learn homeopathy? The UK school of homeopathy offers a four year course to becoming a practitioner. Wow that sounds impressive. Well it would be if it were a higher learning institute but the course is one weekend a month for ten months of the year.

      That is 80 days training over four years and that is if you attend, correspondence and elearning can substitute, there are no examinations.

      http://www.homeopathyschool.com/courses/study-options/#attendance

      Complexity appears to mean something different to a homeopath.

      • Take That, Medicine

        Come to think of it, what’s the point in investing 80 long days and, very likely, a handsome amount of cash? After all, anyone, regardless of their background and training (or lack thereof) can call themselves a “homeopath”. I know of someone whose dog obtained a certificate of training in Homeopathy from Boiron USA!
        http://i0.wp.com/papaesceptico.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/cert-boiron-3.jpg
        Mi Perro Muller, in Spanish translates as My Dog Muller

    • Justthefacts

      Unfortunately many fall victim to the fraud of homeopathy.

  • Acleron

    Earlier, while trying to avoid admitting that low ‘potency’ homeopathic preparations are just herbal extracts some homeopaths tried to divert attention with nonsense about how these are used are important.

    This is the famous or actually infamous individualisation that homeopaths claim they do and certainly use the idea to ignore the many quality clinical trials that show that their water and sugar is, well, water and sugar.

    But do homeopaths actually care a lot about individualisation?
    Actually no!

    Any single label clinical trial is offered as proof but only if it is positive for homeopathy.

    Websites advertising the direct sale of homeopathy products advertise them for disease states, although a few offer software for diagnosis, the majority do not. Probably the greatest selling single label, certainly the most heavily advertised is for flu, no individualisation there then.

    Combined with the denigration of vaccines, homeopaths sell their own version that they call nosodes, these are sold to anybody, again no individualisation.

    So homeopathy starts off with herbal type extraction and has no distinguishing characteristics except their insane dilutions so that nothing is left. To call it bogus treatment is being too kind.

    • Mike Stevens

      Perverting their own ideology and rejecting Hahnemann’s principles comes “naturally” to them when there is a bit of money is to be made.

      • rosross

        You guys do such a good job making a case for Homeopathy because you demonstrate such subjectivity and prejudice. Keep up the good work.

        • A prejudiced non-reply. Advances nothing. Worthless.

    • rosross

      Your visceral responses demonstrate deep subjectivity and egregious prejudice. Hardly rigorous or scientific in any true sense.

      • Acleron

        Can you point to anything I have wrong?

  • Justthefacts

    The “Dilution Fallacy”:
    .
    With modern scientific processes, it is practically impossible to purify water to an impurity level below one in a trillion parts. This is 10 to the power of 12. This is not only very pure, it’s ultimately, the best you can do, ever.
    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/faqs_bottle_water-eau_embouteillee-eng.php
    .
    A Hahnemann Homeopathic dilution is classified as “30C” which is dilution factor of 10 to the 50th power. Many Homeopathic dilutions go beyond this to 200C.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20020826082134/http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm
    .
    This means that for every homeopathic molecule, there are 10 to the power of 38 more molecules of unknown impurities of all kinds include some that are at the same homeopathic dilution.
    .
    The theory of homeopathy cannot be applied in the real world. All homeopathic dilutions are frauds by the very nature that they contain countless other unknown substances at the same homeopathic levels as the original diluted substance. It’s impossible to predict the claimed homeopathic effects.
    .
    Without questioning homeopathic theory, homeopathic treatments are a fraud in practice simply due to practical limitations.

    The glass that we use for everything, including packaging Homeopathic remedies, sheds silica in the water in it. The Amorphous silica dissolution rate into distilled water is approximately 10 mol/Sq m/s.

    http://www.geochem.geos.vt.edu/bgep/pubs/00%20icenhower%20and%20dove_geochimica%20cosmochimica%20acta.pdf

    • Some may have difficulty grasping the extreme levels of dilutions homeopaths frequently use. An analogy that might be useful is to compare some time periods with the age if the Universe. (It won’t work so well for young earth creationists, but they are a lost cause anyway.) The age of the Universe is approximately 13.8 billion years, so:

      One year is only a 10X or 5C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One month is only a 11X or 6C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One week is only a 12X or 6C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One day is only a 13X or 6C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One hour is only a 14X or 7C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One minute is only a 16X or 8C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One second is only a 17X or 9C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One milli second is only a 20X or 10C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One micro second is only a 23X or 12C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One nano second is only a 26X or 13C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One pico second is only a 29X or 15C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One femto second is only a 32X or 16C dilution of the age of the Universe
      One atto second is only a 35X or 18C dilution of the age of the Universe

      Most registered or authorised homeopathic products on sale in the UK are 30C but, of course, Boiron’s Oscillococcinum comes in at a purported 200C…

      • Chris Preston

        I always thought the official newspaper unit of volume was the Olympic Swimming Pool (OSP).

        So for context:

        A 6C dilution is the equivalent of 1 drop of liquid in 20 Olympic Swimming Pools
        A 10C dilution is equivalent to 1 drop of liquid in 2 billion OSP
        A 30X dilution is equivalent to 1 drop of liquid in 2 x 10^19 OSP.
        A 30C dilution is equivalent to 1 drop of liquid in 2 x 10^49 OSP – or if you like 3 x 10^28 Pacific Oceans.

        It gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

        • rosross

          Many things become ridiculous to the ignorant.

          • Did you spot an error, Roslyn?

          • Justthefacts

            Many things are ignorant to the victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect, Like you.

    • rosross

      It is pefectly understandable that trapped in the materialist reductionist paradigm you cannot think ‘outside of the box’ in regard to Homeopathic methodology. But that does not make your reasoning or conclusions correct or sensible, let alone absolute.

      Have you studied the methodology in any substantial way? It does not sound as if you even begin to understand it. More projections of prejudice and opinion than anything else. Hardly rigorous or even scientific in any pure sense.

      • Acleron

        As you are unable to identify anything substantially wrong with what was posted it only strengthens Justthefacts comment.

      • Justthefacts

        Nope, I’m trapped in the real world. You have gone back to “methodology” because you can’t address the raw facts. All water is impure and has substances in it at the same, lesser, and greater levels than the dilution. That is a fact.

        If there is a secret in the “methodology” as you understand it, please explain it to us all how there is a method, that separates the effects of the dilution from the effects of the equal concentration contaminates at every level of dilution.

        The floor is yours. Enlighten us all.

      • You mean the ‘outside the box’ methodology that involves serial dilution and ‘succussion’ (aka, whacking on a leather-bound book, or similar surface)?

        You’ve just had it explained to you mathematically. How much more rigorous and scientific can it be?! Or must we invoke magic?

        • Justthefacts

          Give him a break. Lee. The magic may work. The real question is how does the magic not work on the other substances at the same concentration in the impure water.

          You can’t convince anyone the “theory” is wrong so I just stick the piratical problem, that has been noted as the result of the discovery of the “atom”, that homeopathic solutions cannot be controlled at all.

          I like to stick with the fact that a homeopathic solution simply cannot be made as required by the “theory”. With this argument, homeopathic authors just come back with insults.

          The simple fact is that the highest level homeopaths are con men. They know it doesn’t work. In all the years of the million dollar challenge, not one homeopath tried. No once, Not ever. Every other kind of woo tried for the money because they were true believers. Not one homeopathic manufacturer tried because they know it is a con job. That is just another fact.

        • rosross

          Look, if magic works for you, go for it. It is not required for Homeopathy.

    • Jonnybones

      Thanks for posting this. You make some very good points.
      My starting point is as someone who has used homeopathy effectively for decades in dilutions ranging from lower X potencies to M potencies,
      I have seen them work sometimes extremely quickly on small children and animals.
      Therefore my perspective suggests a phenomenon that works and is not adequately explained by the currently accepted paradigm.
      I suspect the way it works is by the formation of stable coherent domains in water that resonate with the diseased state.
      This requires disease to be modelled in a different way than in the current paradigm which to fails to explain many aspects of living physiology.
      Unless you accept the oxymoron of ‘settled science’ then you would surely acknowledge that there are many surprises to come in our unraveling of the many puzzles in nature.

      • Acleron

        There is a difference between observed fact and the theories we use to explain those facts. Einstein’s theory of gravity may be incorrect, indeed at extremes we know that to be the case, that will never change the observation that objects near the surface of the earth fall towards the centre at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s.

        Similarly the observation that when tested in high quality trials, homeopathy fails to act differently to placebo will be unaffected by any mechanism.

      • Justthefacts

        Your whole argument is that you have anecdotal experience with Homeopathy. What you fail to notice is that everyone else has the same anecdotal experience with the success of extremely quick cures on small children and animals by doing nothing. Nothing at all. You forget that the vast majority of illness is cured quickly by the body. Your experience is meaningless.

        The only way to know if something works is to scientifically separate actual cures from the normal curing process of the body. When that is done, it has been proven over and over again that homeopathy is no better than doing nothing. Sorry, but that is the fact.

        There are no paradigm issues. There is nothing to investigate until there is actual evidence that it works and there is zero such evidence. Please reconsider my post and stop trying to rationalize away the simple fact that it is impossible for a homeopathic solution to ever work.

      • ‘I suspect the way it works is by the formation of stable coherent domains in water that resonate with the diseased state.’

        Waffle!

      • Take That, Medicine

        I know it works, right? Well, not quite. Wellcome to cognitive bias. Don’t worry, everyone has them, and that’s why humans invented the scientific method.

  • rosross

    Quote:

    CHAPTER IV

    EPISTEMOLOGIC APPROACH

    The three principles of homeopathy (the similia law, totality and the pharmacological effect of succussed high dilutions) are nonsense for mainstream science which is based upon the logic of objects according to the mechanistic paradigm. This paradigm has been so fruitful that we think it is the only law of rationality. However, other facts necessitate the creation of a rational new way of thinking whose roots can be found in previous centuries (Lagache). The functionning of the living body is one of these facts. The living organism cannot be considered as an object. It is continuously modified as a function of time. It is in a continual and irreversible learning process. As Lagache proposes, the living organism (body and mind) is a complex structure able to exchange information with the external world. Information also circulates in the internal world allowing exchanges at every level: the living organism is an informed-informing structure. Just as the mechanistic paradigm seizes the material interactions between objects and the symbolic paradigm assumes linguistic facts, we need a paradigm that allows the understanding of living structures: living beings communicate with their world in a non verbal way, whether on a somatic or psychological level. This paradigm takes place within the framework of the logic of analogy. Communication will be mediated by “semantic objects”. Their application can be used to interprete the therapeutic effects of homeopathy as well as succussed high dilutions (infinitesimal). The dilutions will play the role of semantic objects bringing information to the body.

    So, “what is information” (Lagache) ? The semantic object makes sense for the living organism: the circulation of this type of signifier has its own original laws. Each piece of information is not an object even if it has a carrier. For example, the information of the remedy is carried by the potentized dilution (the transmission of the information being due to the electromagnetic carrier obtained by the succussion of the solvent of the remedy as shown by Endler). The sense is non-local; it concerns the whole organism designated as the receiver. This receiver then creates the meaning and is able to modify its behaviour. The simplest mode of representation for living structures is a passive mimesis. But when the living organism receives this information brought by the semantic object (the succussed high dilution) , it receives it not as a material object but as information about this object which calls for a processing and active regulation by the whole organism. This is an operation of active mimesis. In order to be treated, this semantic object must fulfill certain conditions. It has to be alleviated, diluted, so as not to worsen the symptoms through too strong a presence. It has to be related to the receiver’s referent.

    The allopathic therapy will consider the body as an object and the pathology has a causality. The therapeutics must cancel the main symptoms by an opposite effect and treat the cause. The homeopathic therapy will consider the body as an informed-informing structure, and the symptoms in an complex organisation: it will transmit an artificial and alleviated information on the whole symptoms given by the remedy. Then, the body is able to recognize and treat the “semantic object” which allows the negation of the symptoms recognized as an erroneous adaptation. The more similar the symptoms of the patient and the remedy, the more effective the remedy. The medical device has to re-inform the patient and makes his symptoms move on towards a higher level of integration. The action of the remedies consists of a dynamic analogy between pieces of information as proposed by Lagache .

    One can rationally propose that homeopathy belongs to the world of communication. Starting from this point, scientific experimentations have to be based upon the possibility for the receiver to understand and treat information. In each model, the question of the receiver’s referent has to be asked. When the potentized dilution is used, ones must define the framework of information. For example, high dilutions of a poison are able to induce a learning process in a living system but only to fight specifically against this poison (law of identity) as an “expected danger”. The endogenous molecules such as bursin, thyroxin, etc.. are automatically recognized according to the genoma. The similia law gives the framework of information by analogical communication when homeopathic remedies are used in animals or in humans.

    M.B.

    http://giriweb.com/index1.htm

    • Acleron

      If someone found a new way of finding out how our universe works it would be wonderful. Word salads to disguise the paucity of intelligence are not it.

  • Acleron

    The open mind fallacy.

    Sooner or later the accusation is made that scientists who by their nature are skeptical are not open minded. Really?

    If science was not open minded then we would still be of the opinion that thunder was an argument between gods.

    Are the quacks open minded? Lol no. When asked what evidence Ros would accept that homeopathy does not work, she replied, ‘I know it works’.

    Being open minded means being open to new ideas, it doesn’t mean uncritically accepting every single silly idea that is produced.

    Homeopathy has had 200 years to produce evidence that it is effective, as we have seen here and in many other places we get denial of scientific fact, pseudo philosophical ramblings, smear attacks against critics and master classes in logical fallacies.

  • Why are people who reject conventional science so in love with its trappings? – Martin Robbins

    http://littleatoms.com/why-are-people-who-reject-conventional-science-so-love-its-trappings

  • eggman2

    Homeopathy is as old as vaccines. Yet the pseudoscience of vaccines is accepted as science. That’s because for the ” junk medicine robber barons ” ( the makers of vaccines and other junk medicines ), if there is no profit in something, it cannot be classified as science. They make profit by scaring people into taking their poisons. They probably found out a long time ago that they couldn’t scare people into taking homeopathic remedies.

    • Jonathan Graham

      f there is no profit in something, it cannot be classified as science.

      There are lots of branches of science for which there is little or no profit in. There are also companies making huge amounts of money off homeopathy e.g. Boiron. and of course the gullibility of people like yourself.

      • eggman2

        I never said that I believed in homeopathy . You assume too much.

        Yet , no natural or homeopathic remedy industry can ever make as much money as the industry of stupid junk allopathic medical pseudoscience that is supported by prostituted politicians and academicians. The academicians figure out the pseudoscience and corrupt the data, while the prostituted politicians make possible the big profits by imposing the dictatorship of the junk medicine robber barons on everyone.

        Watch , ” In Defense of Food ” on PBS. LOOK AT THE HADZA TRIBE.

        • Jonathan Graham

          I never said that I believed in homeopathy .

          Why not?

          Yet , no natural or homeopathic remedy industry can ever make as much money

          You can’t blame people for wanting something that works.

          Watch , ” In Defense of Food ” on PBS.

          I read Polan’s book – as usual he has some interesting things to say – like his ideas about nutritionism which I tend to agree is out of control.

    • Acleron

      You’ve obviously never seen an epidemic of these diseases otherwise you would have known that the vaccine makers do not need to scare you, the diseases do that all on their own.

      Hopefully you never have to read a notice on a swimming pool ‘closed due to polio’, never have to see people walking with calipers,, visit a polio ward filled with iron lungs or lose loved ones and children to easily preventable diseases.

      Go learn some science and stop spreading your ignorance in public or you will have to experience these events, worse you will cause others to suffer.

      • eggman2

        Polio , like any other infectious disease, is only as strong as the stupidity of the person that doesn’t know how to feed itself. Anyone can die from a cold , if they are as stupid as to keep eating fried food and breathing internal combustion engine’s fumes while lying in the snow. It is the same way with all those common infectious diseases.

        During the time that people were dying and becoming disabled from polio, there was no nutritional science. FDR was extremely ignorant , like all the people of his time , about nutrition. The scientists were barely experimenting with nutrition in his day.

        Watch ” In Defense of Food ” on PBS . AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE HADZA TRIBE OF AFRICA , WHO EAT A RAW MOSTLY VEGETARIAN DIET WITH THEIR DIRTY HANDS AND HAVE THE INTESTINAL BACTERIA OF A BREASTFED BABY. THAT BACTERIA PROTECT THEM FROM THE STUPID LITTLE DISEASES OF WHICH YOU ARE SO FOND OF — POLIO INCLUDED.

        • Acleron

          As polio and other diseases are eliminated in country after country, their diet is unchanged, if anything, because they become more affluent due to increased health their diet becomes worse.

          Try thinking, it may hurt for a while but it sure beats regurgitating nonsense.

        • Ohh… SHOUTING!!!

          I’m convinced.

  • Neha Tulsyan

    No one cares about the statistics. If I get well eating something I’ll eat that, if it’s Homeopathy medicine or Ayurvedic or allopathic or whatever.
    Life is short. No need to be so grumpy

    • Acleron

      From your attitude to statistics, your life may be short.

      • Neha Tulsyan

        And once again, I’ll ignore your useless comment. Thanks a lot for unnecessary advice!…lol