I used to think homeopathy was helpful. Now I’m a critic. So what happened?

As a young doctor, almost 40 years ago, I worked for several months in a homeopathic hospital. This experience impressed me, and I was not far from believing that homeopathy might be a valuable form of healthcare. Today, I am an outspoken critic of homeopathy. How come?

Most people who know about this change of mind assume that, at some time, there must have been some kind of Pauline conversion, ie a key event that opened my eyes and abruptly changed my view. However, this never happened. The truth is more complex, and my change of mind occurred gradually. Looking back, I recognise five distinct stages.

Homeopathy might work
As a boy, I had been treated regularly by our family doctor who happened to be a prominent homeopath. Later, as a medical student, I learnt very little about homeopathy. All I remember is that my pharmacology professor had tantrums each time the ‘h-word’ was mentioned. Therefore, I did not think all that highly of the subject when I first entered the only homeopathic hospital of Germany to work as a junior doctor. To my surprise, however, I soon took a liking to this way of treating patients. It would be wrong to deny it: I was impressed with what I saw.

The hospital was well run, the nurses were very caring, our boss was very much, almost despotically, in charge, and my colleagues were truly helpful in helping me find my feet. Ask any doctor about his or her first real exposure to patients and you are likely to hear a similar story regardless of where they happened to make their first steps in. At that stage, a novice clinician has studied for six years and is frantically excited to put all this knowledge into practice. At the same time, one is petrified about making a mistake. In this atmosphere, it is only natural to be easily impressed.

Once I had grasped the basics of homeopathy, I began to prescribe remedies which, according to my knowledge of pharmacology, could not possibly have any effect. After all, they typically contained not a single molecule of an active substance. Yet, in total defiance of pharmacology, my patients seemed to benefit from taking them. How could this be?

I gradually realised that patients and their responses were more complex than I had imagined. There were, of course, several possible explanations for the clinical improvement of our patients. I considered the placebo effect, and my boss alerted me to another factor: we regularly discontinued the useless and often harmful drugs which our patients had previously been prescribed. These factors might be contributors, I reckoned, but the notion that our homeopathic remedies were working could not be totally rejected either. In a word, I thought homeopathy might work.

Homeopathy is worthy of further study
After a few months in this hospital, I moved on and eventually became an almost entirely conventional physician. I say ‘almost’ because my time in the homeopathic hospital did convince me of the need to solve one riddle: why precisely do patients benefit from taking homeopathic remedies?

Meanwhile, I had been infected with the ‘science bug’. I had worked several years in basic research and had begun to think more critically and analyse things systematically. In medical school, we had simply no time for that; we all struggled to take in the huge amount of knowledge presented to us. Critical thinking had never been on the agenda.

Eventually, I did a PhD and, for about a decade, I conducted medical research in parallel to looking after patients. This was both enjoyable and successful. I was appointed as a professor first at Hannover and then at Vienna.

Whenever the occasion arose to rekindle my interest in alternative medicine, I took this chance. Alternative medicine had become a hobby horse of mine, and I felt that this area was a rich field for exciting research. This sideline turned out to be so successful that I decided to risk another career change and accept a post as professor of complementary medicine at Exeter.

This meant farewell to being a clinician; now I was a full-time researcher into homeopathy and other alternative therapies. I recruited a team of about 20 scientists with all sorts of professional backgrounds, and together we conducted clinical trials and systematic reviews of studies done previously on various aspects of alternative medicine, including of course homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a placebo therapy
As our investigations progressed, the possibility that homeopathy might be more than a placebo therapy became more and more remote. Initially the results were mixed but, as time went by, the most rigorous studies and reviews demonstrated more and more clearly that highly diluted homeopathic remedies had no effect beyond placebo. This is perhaps best reflected in the conclusions of the articles we published on the subject; they went from a neutral to an outspoken critical stance.

After two decades of research, it had finally become undeniably clear that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. In a way, this finding was a disappointment to me; I would have been delighted if the evidence had led me in the opposite direction. Anyone who proves the basic assumptions of homeopaths to be correct simultaneously disproves entire chapters of the textbooks of physics, chemistry and pharmacology and therefore deserves at least one Nobel prize.

Homeopathy can be dangerous
One argument that I often hear when presenting my findings is that ‘at least homeopathy cannot do any harm’. At first sight, it sounds convincing; however, on reflection one has to doubt its validity. Highly diluted homeopathic remedies certainly lack any active principle, and therefore they ought to be harmless. But can that also be said of homeopathy as a whole?

One of our investigations demonstrated quite clearly that homeopaths might be inflicting considerable harm through issuing wrong advice to their patients. We had shown that many UK homeopaths recommended to parents not to vaccinate their children. Instead, they advised them to use ‘homeopathic vaccinations’, or homeoprophylaxis, as they like to call it, for which there is not a shred of evidence. The phenomenon of homeopaths discouraging parents from vaccinating their kids is now well studied and has been confirmed in many parts of the world. It means that homeopaths endanger the herd immunity of entire populations which might bring back epidemics that we had long considered a thing of the past.

More generally, this type of research brought the realisation that homeopathy carries a real and significant risk: whenever it is used to replace an effective intervention for a serious condition, it can become a risk to life.

Consumers need to be warned
Homeopathy differs from conventional medicine in many ways. One of them is the fact that patients often use it without consulting any healthcare professionals. This means that, contrary to mainstream medicine, one ought to address consumers directly and provide them with reliable, factual information. Medical researchers tend to publish their results in learned journals which are read by professionals who, in turn, advise their patients accordingly. For many years, this is also what I did with our findings regarding homeopathy and other alternative therapies.

But such procedures fail to reach the real target. If I publish about the ineffectiveness or risks of homeopathy in the BMJ, for instance, my paper might interest some doctors but it will hardly reach the consumer, ie the person who makes the decision to use homeopathy for his or her illness. To reach the public, it is necessary to write in newspapers and blogs. I felt that not to take this last step would have meant not fulfilling my moral and ethical duty as a physician and scientist.

I took this decision several years ago. Ever since I have been busy trying to provide responsible information about alternative medicine to the general public. It is no task that brings me money or friends; in fact, it is a quick way to make plenty of (sometimes powerful) enemies. Yet it is a task that has the potential to do an immense amount of good. And that’s why I do it.

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.


  • Acleron

    Professor Ernst has benefitted medicine and society by his assiduous and creative examination of alternative medicine and specifically homeopathy. If our honour system was honestly run he would be in receipt of at least an OBE in recognition of his efforts.

    • Egger
      • dave

        Actually no he is not … you are by pretending that this one highly dubious paper is a definitive conclusion on the matter. Hahn, the author is not exactly a credible source for a viable conclusion. http://edzardernst.com/2015/09/how-much-did-big-pharma-pay-for-my-soul/

        • Egger

          Mr. Ad-hominem blog? HA HA HA

          “Linde et al stated in their re-analysis of 2000:”

          2000? The re-analysis date is 1999

          The letter from Ernst is from 2000. In this:

          ” It is based on a sufficiently large number (n= 10) of trials and clearly lies out-side the linear correlation of the four other data points.There may be several hypotheses to explain this phenomenon. Scientists who insist that homeopathic remedies are in every way identical to placebos might favour the following. The correlation provided by the four data points (Jadad score 1–4) roughly reflects the truth. Extrapolation of this correlation would lead them to expect that those trials with the least room for bias (Jadad score 5) show homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.”

          Extrapolation of correlation? Why Ernst never mentioning the Letter from Lüdtke in blog?

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11781130

          “The authors use simple linear regression models to fit the data. These models assume homogeneity of vari ances, an optimistic but unusual and probably incorrect assumption which can lead to serious bias.”

        • Egger

          Wow. Remember this, please:

          Ernst in 2000:

          “Viewed in this way, the re-analysis of Linde et al. [1] can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos.”

          Ernst in 2002:

          “RESPONSE We are thankful for Lüdtke’s comments, not least because one of our aims was to provoke reactions from “homeopathic quarters.” Pity though that he did not notice that our conclusion was deliberately “tongue in cheek.” Essentially Lüdtke challenges us for omitting two data points in our correlation. The whole aim, however, was to see what happens if one does just that… Is this then the “ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos”?”

          Wow, Ernst joking in letter to the editor. Why Ernst ommits the data from JADAD score = 5 and extrapolate false linear relation vs efficacy?

        • Egger

          An example of ad-hominem from Ernst:

          “Hahn is evidently deeply religious and there is the usual, unmistakably narcissistic aura over his writings and sayings. He is religiously confident that there is more to this world than what can be measured and sensed.”

          Why Ernst invalidates the arguments merely based on the religion of Hahn?

        • +1

      • dave

        Incidentally … if anybody is curious, Hahn’s paper is not another dubious meta-study, but is basically a rehash of the rather dubious 1997 Linde one. Hahn did nothing new and added no value at all to the actual discussion on the viability of Homeopathy. What also makes it truly weird is that his paper has an entire section entitled “Edzard Ernst”. Hahn does come clean and adds the following note at the end “The author has never practiced, received, or studied homeopathy”.

        Why exactly should a paper which is simply a rehash of other cherry-picked papers on a topic that has never been studied by the author be deemed to be credible?

        Bypass that linked abstract that crafts an illusion. The full text is here: http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/355916

        • Egger

          Obviously the Hahn’s paper is not meta-study. It’s a re-analysis.

          ” Hahn did nothing new and added no value at all to the actual discussion on the viability of Homeopathy”

          Mec! Hahn shown the lies of Ernst and 10:23 campaign.

          “Why exactly should a paper which is simply a rehash of other cherry-picked papers on a topic that has never been studied by the author be deemed to be credible?”

          Well done. Your ad-hominem attack is really good. Pseudoskeptik.

          • dave

            You did not actually answer the question … why is that?

          • Egger

            No, you only not answer the Hahn paper. You only justify the Edzard fraud.

          • dave

            From my viewpoint you have not justified your claim of fraud.

            The entire basis for your claim is that studies have been unjustifiably excluded, yet if honestly examined, then there are very good wholly justifiable reasons for such exclusions. If the proper controls are missing, if the sample size is too small, etc… then the results can and should be challenged, and if there is to be any honesty or integrity then that must happen.

            Many have sat on the fence quite open minded and have clearly been convinced that Homeopathy is not viable.

            To be quite frank you are way too emotionally invested in the idea that Homeopathy is actually credible to be able to have any form of meaningful dialogue with, so I suspect you will simply dismiss this with a few more cherry-picked snippets and ignore the full complete conversation within the wider medical community.

          • Egger

            Wow, your excuses is not amazing.

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

            Wow. Remember this, please:

            Ernst in 2000:

            “Viewed in this way, the re-analysis of Linde et al. [1] can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos.

            Ernst in 2002:

            “RESPONSE We are thankful for Lüdtke’s comments, not least because one of our aims was to provoke reactions from “homeopathic quarters.” Pity though that he did not notice that our conclusion was deliberately “tongue in cheek.” Essentially Lüdtke challenges us for omitting two data points in our correlation. The whole aim, however, was to see what happens if one does just that… Is this then the “ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos”?”

            This is a fraud. Why Ernst ommits the data from JADAD score = 5 and extrapolate false linear relation vs efficacy?

    • Egger

      More evidence Acleron JREF gangster? Get out with your pseudogish gallop fallacy!

      Ultra high dilutions are more complex from the pseudoskeptiks believe! Long time ago, Von Erwin Heinzt showing evidence from potentized homeopathic solutions in 1941[1]. Next, in 1988 Benveniste et al published a paper with independent replications from 4 laboratories around the world [2]. This paper[3] never was retracted from the Nature database. Randi, a pederastian, with Deivy Peña, the physicist and chemist John Maddox, and biochemist Walter Steward, show them the incompete in laboratory. They run seven experiments, in the first experiments the evidence was “reproducible” and the effect of high dilution was “seen”. In the fourth blind experiment the results show a wave pattern. In the three last experiments, Randi violates the protocol, Steward laughed in the back of lab, the results don’t show any evidence. In this case, Maddox never prove any type of fraud. However, unlike to Maddox, Randi defames to Benveniste in Expressor newspaper, the first attack come with “fraud” and “cheat” allegations. In the next weeks, Randi neglects the libel against Benveniste, Randi attacked with a “inconscient fraud” in the New York Times….
      In the pooled analysis. In 1994 the physicist, Michel Schift reploted the results, he shown a basic error in statistics from Maddox[4]. Now, the wave pattern is consistent whit experiments with high dilutions in plants, animals and humans[5]….

      Cooming soon…

    • Egger

      More evidence Randi bot?

    • Egger

      More Acleron the pseudoskeptik?

    • Egger

      Please, what is my “false” claim?

      • Acleron

        The question should be:-

        ‘When have you ever stopped making false accusations’

        • Egger

          Please, share with all the “false accusations”. Come on Acleron.

          • Acleron

            Egger, trying to pretend he/she doesn’t spatter the internet with baseless accusations. Pathetic.

          • Egger

            Oh no, again the AD-Acleron fallacy.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Egger could be Dullman behind a sockpuppet…

  • Dana Ullman

    Ernst’s words cannot be trusted at all. He says that homeopathic medicine do not contain a molecule of the original substance, even though he knows that good research published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, LANGMUIR, has confirmed that nanoparticles of a medicinal agent persist in homeopathic medicines (1). Further, it is widely known that hormones and numerous cell signaling agents of the human body are known to operate at similar nanodoses that the research has been found to persist in homeopathic medicines (2).

    The fact of the matter is that the World Health Organization has deemed France to have the best health care in the world, and yet, according to a recent survey, 95% of French pediatricians, general practitioners, and even dermatologists use homeopathic medicines regularly.

    (1) 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

    (2) 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

    • Take that, Avogadro

      Mr Ullman: Please provide evidence that major manufacturers use the mechanism proposed in Chikramane et al, ensuring carryover of the particles by skimming the surface while preparing their stock solutions (available videos show they do not); also please provide evidence of nanoparticles of “Light of Venus”
      https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/venus-stella-errans
      or
      “Stonehenge (Emanation)”
      https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/stonehenge-emanation

      • Dana Ullman

        The study published in LANGMUIR used a method of preparation of homeopathic medicines that is used in the manufacture of homeopathic medicines. The study published in this journal simply evaluated this long-established pharmaceutical process and discovered that it is a clever way to manufacture nanodoses of medicinal agents that are better able to penetrate cell membranes and blood brain barriers with greater ease than larger crude doses of drugs.

        For the record, there are some strange homeopathic medicines that are used by just 1 or 2 homeopaths, and not by the hundreds of thousands of homeopaths that exist today. Just as one cannot equate the practice of 1 MD as though he or she represented all MDs, you are certainly not foolish enough to do likewise to homeopaths.

        • Deb Walker

          I’m not foolish enough to think that water, or nanoparticles, can cure a thing. Homeopathy is water. W.A.T.E.R. Water. That’s all it is. Plain old water. It has NO medicinal properties whatsoever, unless you’re somewhat dehydrated. It can help that. But that’s all. Anyone who touts homeopathy is a QUACK. A CHARLATAN. A liar and a fraud.

          • Dana Ullman

            Deb, as long as you IGNORE research, what you wrote may seem true, but sadly (for you and your ilk), good science has gotten in the way of your belief and has verified, using 3 different types of spectroscopy that nanodoses persist in homeopathic medicines…and in doses that are known to have a profound physiological effect, that is, unless you believe that our body’s hormones act only as placebos.

            Your name-calling says something more about YOU than it says about anyone else. Thanx for verifying that shaky ground on which you stand.

          • Deb Walker

            Oh, that’s not name-calling. Those are well-earned titles. Anyone who pushes water on people as medicine is exactly those things: A QUACK, A CHARLATAN, A LIAR AND A FRAUD. If it hurts your feelings, drink a glass of water, and you’ll be cured. It’s WATER. It’s not medicine.

          • rosross

            You might like to explain that to the MD’s around the world who practise it; hospitals, some of the world’s best, which use it; medical schools and universities which teach it and Governments which include it in State medical systems.

            p.s. and they have all had their legal teams sign off, as is the way these days, that Homeopathy is effective, not pure placebo and not the least fraudulent. The only duck around here is you.

          • Acleron

            This is rosros’s bestest argument. It must work because someone uses it.

            With thinking like that we wouldn’t have progressed beyond the flat earth, blood letting or treating burns with heat.

          • Deb Walker

            Oh, you mean like Australia?
            http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-not-effective-for-treating-any-condition-australian-report-finds

            Homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition, Australia’s top body for medical research has concluded, after undertaking an extensive review of existing studies.

            Homeopaths believe that illness-causing substances can, in minute doses, treat people who are unwell.

            By diluting these substances in water or alcohol, homeopaths claim the resulting mixture retains a “memory” of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.

            These claims have been widely disproven by multiple studies, but the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday.

            “Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective,” the report concluded.

            You mean like that? I think they don’t need me to tell them. They’re finally figuring out it’s JUST WATER. How can you be this stupid? You know it’s just water, you fraud. You’re not having any luck changing my mind with your non-existent “evidence.”

        • Take That, Medicine

          Intentionally or not, Mr Ullman blatantly appropriates legitimate research in nanotechnology and tries to pass it as valid for the case of homeopathy. Alas, these are two completely different beasts.

          According to the laws of physics and chemistry, and following some simple maths, the vast majority of homeopathic remedies are actually devoid of any active ingredient. Any remaining one, in most cases, would be unable to cross cell membranes or the blood-brain anyway, regardless of their concentration. But if anything, according to Fick’s law of diffusion, a bigger concentration gradient will favor their diffusion, as seen with real drugs, rather than hinder it, which would be precisely the case of homeopathy.

          On the other hand, given that homeopathy has not come up with any plausible mechanisms of action or target sites, digressing about traversing cell membranes or the brain-blood barrier is rather irrelevant. Nice try, though.

          • Dana Ullman

            Thanx, Take That, Medicine, for verifying that you didn’t read the LANGMUIR article, or worse, that you didn’t understand it. I realize that your religion is science, but your “God” is pissed that you have such an unscientific attitude. You maintain your belief even when good science disproves your theories. If large doses always work more effectively than small doses, then giving people who have hypothyroid might be cured by giving REALLY large doses of thyroid…and we know that doesn’t happen. The body does not work on your silly idea that large doses work…and in fact, that assumption was debunked a long time ago…but I notice that you have a propensity to not read modern research. Please continue to embarrass yourself. Your behavior has a classic pattern to it…next, you’re supposed to attack me personally.

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear, Dana! Still trotting out that debunked nonsense from Langmuir. Your scientific illiteracy comes to the fore yet again. http://www.scilogs.com/in_scientio_veritas/homeopathy-nanoparticle-chikramane/
            Now, please explain – how do those nanoparticles you claim exist get into “remedies” such as Light of Venus and Dolphin Sonar?
            The person embarrassing himself on this comment thread goes by the name of Dana Ullman – otherwise known as Mr Uncredible.

          • Dana Ullman

            Oh my gosh! A real “blog” provided a critique of an article published in LANGMUIR (a journal published by the American Chemical Society and one of the most respected scientific journals in the world). And look who wrote this blog! Was it a scientist who is an expert in material sciences? No. Come back to me when you don’t give us the “placebo” response…give us something real…and not in a friggin’ blog! Who’s Mr Uncredible here, Paul (got a mirror nearby?)?

          • Oh you are a hoot, Dana. Perhaps you can’t actually refute anything in that demolition of that article published in LANGMUIR?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear, Dana! Once again you demonstrate that disturbing combination of scientific illiteracy, gullibility and absolute conviction in your own abilities. Dunning and Kruger may as well have written their seminal work based on you. Now, instead of merely trying to play the man (an ad hominem attack on the author of that blog), how about actually trying to refute his arguments with scientific evidence? You’ve been challenged to do this in many places on the internet, but still nothing is forthcoming. That “Langmuir” is the journal of the American Chemical Society should give the paper some kudos, but no journal is beyond the process of critical appraisal. We see that particularly clearly in the deserved criticism and eventual retraction of the MMR scare paper from Andrew Wakefield – the result was that he was exposed as a fraud and struck off the GMC medical register, no longer able to call himself “doctor” (a particular quirk of the UK medical education and registration process – he holds no doctorate degree).
            Here’s a study from the University of Saskatchewan which examined the issue of whether the prestige of a journal influences critical appraisal http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(14)00356-4/abstract
            It doesn’t! Ergo, “Langmuir” is justifiably as vulnerable to critical appraisal of its published papers as any other journal. It can even be argued that the higher the prestige of a journal (however you apply that criterion) the more robustly its papers will be critically appraised. Maybe that’s why papers published in quackery journals seem to attract so little critical appraisal?
            You clearly have no clue regarding the difference between the peer-review process and the process of critical appraisal. The overwhelming majority of critical appraisal is not peer-reviewed but published on websites dedicated to critical appraisal and on blogs of people who offer critical appraisal. I can link you to multiple examples if you wish and also to an extensive list of websites which teach critical appraisal skills. Of course, it’s not necessarily an easy topic as it’s important to understand how scientific evidence is gathered and can be assessed, but the various guides can help you.
            Here’s an excellent example of a critical appraisal website that predominantly deals with Intensive Care medicine. A typical appraisal discussing a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world) is given for your information.
            http://www.wessexics.com/The_Bottom_Line/Review/index.php?id=6479452360762884236
            Please note that there is a comments section to allow readers to post their own questions and comments regarding the appraisal.
            The critical appraisal of the Langmuir paper by Chikramane et al by Kausik Datta also has a comments section below on which you could post your own questions, comments and criticisms of the appraisal if you wished to do so. This therefore begs the question – why haven’t you posted directly to that blog? Maybe it’s for the same reason that no homeopath has posted any questions or comments on my blog regarding my critical appraisal of that paper on homeopathy in sepsis by Frass et al?

          • Egger

            Oh, dear Paul. Why Kausik Datta never explain the presence of gold nanoparticles based on the gold solute? Dust and nanobubbles are gold particles? LOL!

          • Paul Morgan

            Only if you’re scientifically illiterate and/or extremely gullible do you believe that nonsense. Now – try discussing it directly with Datta on his own site rather than throwing out inane comments for which you present no credible evidence to back the claims made.

          • Egger

            I trying discuss with Kausik. He blocked me!

            The censorship in SciLog is evident!

            Why Kausik don’t never publish my comments?

          • Paul Morgan

            It’s his blog, so ask him. However, as it’s his blog, he’s entitled not to accept comments which are abusive or patently idiotic. We’ve already seen you’re utterly clueless so maybe that’s why he’s blocked you. Now, please at least try to present credible evidence for your claims – maybe publish your own blog and invite comments?

          • Egger

            Wow! My comments are “abusive” or “patently idiotic”? Why? Please, explain me.

            “We’ve already seen you’re utterly clueless so maybe that’s why he’s blocked you.”

            Seen? How? Wow, Kausik Datta apply systematic censorship!

          • Paul Morgan

            We’ve seen you’re utterly clueless in every comment you’ve made on this discussion forum.

          • Egger

            Oh no!

          • Take That, Medicine

            Oh dear, Dana, you are wrong on so many accounts. Let’s comment some:

            I read the Langmuir article. It just doesn’t say what you want everyone to think it says. It describes that they found stuff in ultra-dilutions that shouldn’t be there, had the dilutions been done with proper technique. Interestingly, the authors did not control for the presence of substances other than the ones they were aiming for. Therefore, there is no way to know whether what they found was nothing more than contaminants.

            Anyhow, for argument sake, let’s asume they were not: the paper is still irrelevant to validate the axioms of homeopathy, i.e. similar cures similar, and potentiation by dilution and succussion. That is not surprising, as we know that, for these axioms to be true, most known science would need to be wrong. Neither the findings magically transform homeopathy in nanotechnology. Your claim that it does is simply an attempt at science appropriation.

            About the issue of large versus small doses, read my comment as many times as you need, and you will find I never said large doses worked best. Specifically I never said that large dosis of thyroid (sic) would cure (sic) hypothyroid (sic). As you almost certainly know, hypothyroidism is an incurable disease, and the purpose of the treatment with thyroxine is to replace the hormone, not to cure the condition. What I said is that real medicines (e.g. thyroxine replacement for hypothyroidism) do work (i.e. they have measurable effects), whereas sugar pills do not. One just needs to check the latest meta-analysis and recent reports that clearly conclude that homeopathy has no effect beyond placebo, although you almost certainly know this too.

            Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by focusing on the objections posed to you, instead of committing yourself to dishing out personal attacks against whoever raises them. As a suggestion, please, stay on topic.

          • Egger

            “Interestingly, the authors did not control for the presence of substances different than the ones they were aiming”

            LOL! From the Langmuir paper:

            –we performed controlled experiments closely mimicking the homeopathic manufacturing process of successive dilution with succussion and analyzed the concentration of gold in various parts of the sample–

            “the paper is still irrelevant to validate the axioms of homeopathy, i.e. similar cures similar, and potentiation by dilution and succussion”

            The papers is about of nanoparticles not for simila principle. Your idioticy is great.

          • Take That, Medicine

            It’s not that hard to understand. I said: the authors did not control for the presence of other substances, just the ones they were hoping to find. Even if that wasn’t the case, the paper is irrelevant to the axioms of Homepathy (simila and potentization).
            P.D.: you have a very hin skin for what you interpret as “ad hominems” against you, yet you are happy to dish out uncalled for personal attacks against others. Not that it bothers me much. Quite the opposite, it shows your lack of arguments.

          • Egger

            What happen with you?

            –we performed controlled experiments closely mimicking the homeopathic manufacturing process of successive dilution with succussion and analyzed the concentration of gold in various parts of the sample–

          • Egger

            “Again, even if they were not contaminants, the paper is still totally irrelevant to the axioms of Homepathy (simila and potentization), homeopathy being the topic of the article by Prof. Ernst.”

            Another ad-hoc excuse.

            “You seem to have a very thin skin for what you interpret as “ad hominems” directed towards you, yet you are happy to launch uncalled-for personal attack”

            Ad-hominem attack against me -.–> attack.

            “Quite the opposite, it shows a lack of taste, substance and arguments.”

            Really? Hear Acleron, Paul Morgan and Zeno!!! You hippocresy is big!

          • Egger

            “Neither these findings would magically transform Homeopathy in Nanotechnology. Your claim that it does is simply an attempt at science appropriation.”

            Homeopathy is not nanotechnology. Is a holistic system.

            “One just needs to check the latest meta-analysis and recent reports that clearly conclude that homeopathy has no measurable effect beyond placebo, although you almost certainly know this to”

            The lastest meta-study:

            http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142

            –Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.–

            From Shang:

            -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. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study,–

            Where is the biases in the 8 clinical trials? Shang never mentions nothing about.

          • Take That, Medicine

            Homeopathy is not nanotechnology or nanomedicine. Good. Perhaps somebody should tell “Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman” (https://www.homeopathic.com/) Mr. Dana Ullman, given that it is him who made that claim, and whom I was answering.

          • Egger

            No, homeopathy is a therapeutic system. But this would not rebut those results that demonstrated presence of nanoparticles in potentizing beyond Avogadro’s number solutions based on metal solute.

          • Acleron

            It’s quite intentional. Ullman doesn’t understand the terms he uses but they sound sciency to him so they are used as marketing tools.

          • Egger

            “would be unable to cross cell membranes or the blood-brain anyway, regardless of their concentration.”

            LOL!
            The real research: Experimental evidence with double blind protocolo. The researchers used Cocculus 30CH.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452213007094

            From the paper:
            “The ability of nano-forms of plant-derived nanoparticles to cross the blood–brain-barrier was previously suggested to be mediated by nano-silica or nano-silicon vehicles and biological amplifiers that would be augmenting the Cocculus nanoparticles”

          • Take That, Medicine

            So small molecules can cross cell membranes? Wow, stop press. While we wait for the Nobel Prize to be given to the authors of this other groundbreaking paper, we would also love to be enlightened about how Arnica Montana or perhaps Oscilococcinum (duck offal), crosses cell membranes or the blood brain barrier. Simple diffusion, ionophores, specific transporters? Or, for that matter, Sunlight (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/sunlight-purple), Venus “wandering star” rays (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/venus-stella-errans), Computer Emanations, or Berlin Wall. Sure these cross the blood-brain barrier too.

          • Egger

            The article is experimental evidence from 30CH homeopathic medicine. Where is you debunk?

            “Anyhow, we would also love to learn how Arnica Montana or perhaps Oscilococcinum (duck offal), crosses cell membranes or the blood-brain barrier.”

            Maybe…

            ” Simple diffusion, ionophores, specific transporters? Or, for that matter, Sunlight purple (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/…, Venus “wandering star” rays (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/…, computer emanations, owl feathers or Berlin Wall (I am not making any of this up either). Do they cross cell membranes and the blood-brain barrier too?. Please, enlighten us.”

            Venus remedy is imponderable. Berlin Wall is not registre in HPUS. Sorry, your on single proof fallacy is extremely funny.

        • Dana Ullman said:

          “there are some strange homeopathic medicines that are used by just 1 or 2 homeopaths,”

          Yet those two are made by one of the most well-known homeopathy manufacturers, Helios. Why do you suppose they make these ‘strange’ homeopathic products? Or perhaps you don’t believe they are homeopathic?

          • Dana Ullman

            Just because ONE good homeopathic pharmacy manufacturers a homeopathic medicine (and makes NO claims for it) doesn’t mean anything substantial. I had a patient who was prescribed X-Ray treatment for his eczema by an MD. Should we make X-ray illegal? Does this mean that ALL of conventional medicine is bunk? Your example, like most of what you say, is the bunk you’re projecting elsewhere.

          • LOL! Of course, making claims for it might be a breach of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012…

      • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

        I was feeling rather pissed off.

        Then I come here and see Dullman showing how much of a bellend he loves to be.

        The world is (almost) good now!

    • I tracked down citation #2 — it’s a twisted, illogical, and genuinely strange article with several excellent and cogent rebuttals that tear it to pieces. For those of you with access to it, reading the actual article (and followup letters to the editor, one of which was written by the author of the OP) will show you the lengths people like Ullman will go through to try to pretend homeopathy is science, or has some kind of evidence base. This single citation, from 1999, had a single author from an alternative medicine center who often relied on “personal communication” and extrapolating from charts to jump to a very strange conclusion about the concentration of molecules in biologic systems. That hardly merits Ullman’s statement that “it is widely known that hormones and numerous cell signaling agents of the human body are known to operate at similar nanodoses that the research has been found to persist in homeopathic medicines”.

      Homeopathy is magical, or (to be more accurate) supernatural. If you’d like to believe in the tooth fairy and magical potions and the like, that’s fine, but let’s not pretend this has anything to do with nature or science.

      • Roy Benaroch MD said:

        “I tracked down citation #2 — it’s a twisted, illogical, and genuinely strange article with several excellent and cogent rebuttals that tear it to pieces.”

        It’s always worth reading any paper a homeopathy fan cites in support of homeopathy.

      • rosross

        If Homeopathy were magical or fraudulent there would not be one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government in the world which would practise it, teach it or include it in State medical systems. There are many. Homeopathy is effective and proven.

        • Thanks yet again, Roslyn, for putting your lack of critical thinking skills on public display.

          • Egger

            Look your back!
            Kiss to Randi.

        • Tetenterre

          Shank’s Law.

          The end.

          • Egger

            Shank’s law are James Randi or the “Science Based Medicine” false autorithies in all disciplines. Sorry.

    • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

      Ernst is fantastic. Found that homeopathy was bollocks. Refused to use it any more. First class man.

      You, OTOH, are just sooooo deep into a life-size sunken-cost fallacy that you DAREN’T admit to yourself that what you push is bollocks. So you confabulate in order to try to justify keeping on pushing what is essentially bullshit. That shows a total disregard for science and for the evidence that science brings.

      Kinds grow out of that kind of crap before they reach puberty. I guess you didn’t.

      • Egger
        • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

          Give what homeopathy is, that’s impossible: the biological plausibility aspect of this thing is entirely missing. Something that Ernst realised later was an issue with the whole thing. Also – bear in mind that one RCT could easily be a fluke, requiring that more such studies are conducted to see if the results are replicable.

          For homeopathy … the chance that they will be replicable is miniscule. And even that’d be a fluke.

          Homeopathy is just fucking water …

          • Egger

            Bla, bla, bla…

            “Homeopathy is just fucking water ..”

            Really?

            6X potency is not only water.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Yes.
            The fact that you have to ask says a lot about your limited ability to understand science and … indeed… anything.

          • Egger

            “The fact that you have to ask says a lot about your limited ability to understand science and … indeed… anything.

            Wow, ad-hominem attack and straw man fallacy. Please Randibot ask me: Is 6X potency only water?

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            At the dilutions used in ‘clinical’ ‘practice’ in homeopathy … e. g., 30C … it’s fucking water, you dumb cunt. The likelihood of finding one molecule of active substance in the solvent is as close to zero as fuck is to swearing. Further dilutions decrease the likelihood asymptotically. I know this is too advanced for your empty head to handle, btu this will make it clear why you deserve only derision rather than peoper engagement in discussion – you don’t want to learn why you’re wrong. You’re too stupid for that.

          • Tetenterre

            “6X potency is not only water.”

            True. It probably contains several impurities to a concentration at least to that permitted in Ultrapure water. (And, which we are invited to believe, it magically forgets, whilst retaining the memory of the quack’s magic ingredient.)

            So , yes, whilst it’s not “only water”, it is like making love in a punt. (Fucking near water.)

          • Egger

            “It probably contains several impurities to a concentration at least to that permitted in Ultrapure water.”

            Only impurities? Why do you want a lie?

            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074181

            –As highlighted by our experiments, homeopathy is not a uniform medicinal system, and homeopathic remedies can be grouped into at least two major classes: remedies of high potency (extremely high dilution and low dose) and those of low potency or even mother tinctures (doses near or equal to allopathic doses).. Our results reassure and highlight that homeopathic products may contain ingredients in allopathic doses.–

          • Egger

            It’s very funny! Only water in high dilutions?

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00044-009-9219-3

            –Fluorescence spectroscopy and cyclic voltametry both can be used to identify Digitalis purpurea and its derivatives, in commercially available serially ultradiluted solutions.–

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215303585

            — Both the presence of sulphur as well as succussion phenomenon is responsible for the variation of the physicochemical properties of these homoeopathic formulations.–

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            6X potency isn’t ‘clinically’ prescribed.

            That’s the same as 3C, giving a ratio of 1ppm for the active ingredient. That is pitifully low concentration… like one drop of full-strength coffee in 50 litres of water. If you are going to try to tell me that THAT is a fucking concentration of coffee that you’ll be able to taste – you’re seriously fucking deluded. Which we already know you are since you support this fucking shite. By the time you get to 13C – which is not even close to ‘clinical’ prescribing dilution – Avogadro’s constant kicks in: your chance of finding a molecule of the stuff you think is in the solution is practically zero. At Hahneman’s recommendation (30C), you’re going to need to ‘treat’ 6 billion people with 2 billion doses PER SECOND for 4 billion years to have a chance of getting ONE MOLECULE of active ingredient to a patient.

            The fact that you cannot understand this (to the point where you have to keep opposing it without having evidence to do so!) shows that you don’t have enough scientific expertise to even be in this fucking discussion.

            So, get the fuck out of here and stop wasting people’s fucking time. You fucking cockroach.

          • Egger

            “6X potency isn’t ‘clinically’ prescribed.”

            Sure?

            http://aop.sagepub.com/content/39/4/617.short

          • Egger

            “like one drop of full-strength coffee in 50 litres of water. If you are going to try to tell me that THAT is a fucking concentration of coffee that you’ll be able to taste – you’re seriously fucking deluded.”

            Are you retard? Some “conventinal” medicines are present in picograms or nanograms. If you argument is true, when you need more than 50 liters for find any molecule of the nanomedicines.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            You really are an idiot. And no, I’m not someone with learning disabilities.

            1- anything in nanogrammes – tends to be in hundreds of nanogrammes, not single ones;
            2- it’s some number of hundreds of nanogrammes in tablet form, not in fuck-knows how much fucking solvent which is then divided up int pissing small bottles from which one or two drops are administered.;
            3- you really are the dumbest cunt on the planet.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens! The typical insult.

            1, 2, and 3.

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

            “has conclusively proved that homeopathic dilutions contain nanoparticles. “

          • Egger

            Little dumb.

            Nanogrames in homeopathic dilutions.

          • SageThinker

            Fuck you asshole

          • Egger

            “At Hahneman’s recommendation (30C), you’re going to need to ‘treat’ 6 billion people with 2 billion doses PER SECOND for 4 billion years to have a chance of getting ONE MOLECULE of active ingredient to a patient.”

            And? More homeopaths used low potency homeopathy, tuesday, monday, sunday, and so.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Word salad.

            I was right. You need locked ward care.

          • Egger

            Word sweet.
            You was’nt right. You need a Randi pill.

          • SageThinker

            Fuck you dipshit

          • Egger

            “The fact that you cannot understand this (to the point where you have to keep opposing it without having evidence to do so!) shows that you don’t have enough scientific expertise to even be in this fucking discussion.”

            HAHAHAHA

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187638201630021X

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710123/

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229915300376

          • Egger

            “Give what homeopathy is, that’s impossible: the biological plausibility aspect of this thing is entirely missing… replicable is miniscule”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864

            –A surprisingly high number of different experimental approaches have been adopted. Two thirds of the experiments with higher scores and contaminant-checking controls demonstrated specific high potency effects.–

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Wishful thinking on your part isn’t going to make homeopathy a working thing. Grow up.

          • Egger

            Wow, what a level of response!
            Poor randi’s boots, they loose.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Typical science denialist response. Devoid of any supporting evidence. As is to be expected from dim shits.

            Next!

          • Egger

            Good straw man fallacy. Where is the “science denialist”?

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            You’re it, you bellend.

          • Egger

            Sure, sure. HAHAHAHA.

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Nah. There’s no creidble scientific evidence, from studies using a very rigorous methodology, that homeopathy is even plausible, let alone effective. Ignore this as long as you like – your idea still won’t be true.

          • Egger

            Credible for what? UnCredible for to the pseudoskeptikal gangsters, sure. The scientist are not neccesary sectarian pseudoskeptiks trolls.

          • Egger

            “There’s no creidble scientific evidence, from studies using a very rigorous methodology, that homeopathy is even plausible, let alone effective”

            Again?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864

            –A surprisingly high number of different experimental approaches have been adopted. Two thirds of the experiments with higher scores and contaminant-checking controls demonstrated specific high potency effects.–

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187638201630021X

            –The experiment was conducted in duplicate as a blind, controlled, randomized-by-draw assay. To blind the experiment, the treatments were performed by a researcher who did
            not participate in the evaluation of parasitological and clinical parameters.–

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators”

            That is a major failing. As is the fact that the ‘study’ was based on IN VITRO testing, rather than IN VIVO testing.

          • Egger

            Are you kidding me with sloppy quote mining? Yes, no positive resulte was stable, this argument apply for the inexsitence of stable model to prove high dilution, not for the results.

            “As is the fact that the ‘study’ was based on IN VITRO testing, rather than IN VIVO testing.”

            Is a systematic review of in-vitro tests, not for in-vivo tests. Are you need a SR with in vivo test? Take this:

            http://www.hindawi.com/journals/thrombosis/2012/430460/
            http://www.itpac.br/arquivos/Revista/63/6.pdf

          • SageThinker

            Fuck you scum

          • Tetenterre

            ‘Homeopathy is just fucking water …’

            I beg to differ: homeopathy is a remarkably successful modality.

            Not a health-care modality, mind, but a marketing modality. For snake-oil. It is essentially the treatment of real or imagined illnesses with fuck all. For profit.

          • Egger

            Before: “Homeopathy is just fucking water …”

            After: “True. It probably contains several impurities to a concentration at least to that permitted in Ultrapure water. “

            Your contradictions are very funny!

          • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

            Fucking brilliant point! I agree!

            Selling fucking water as ‘medicine’ …

    • Tetenterre

      Also Spracht Mr Uncredible.

      • Egger

        Wow, the attack against Ullman.

  • Paul Morgan

    It should be remembered when Dana Ullman joins in any debate on homeopathy, he can be regarded as not being a credible witness and his contributions given the due they deserve, i.e. basically none. See page 5 of this transcript where Ullman appeared as a witness for the defence http://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/393/2014/12/Prop-Stat-of-Dec-11-25-14.pdf
    He also regularly posts a link to an article that was published in the journal “Langmuir” in which it was claimed that nanoparticles were found in so-called homeopathic remedies despite dilution well beyond Avogadro’s constant. (He’s given a link to it in one of his comments below). He claims that this is proof that nanoparticles exist in homeopathic remedies, yet when challenged to explain how such particles might exist in such remedies as Light of Venus or Dolphin Sonar, he remains oddly silent. Of course, the article is full of bad science, as explained here http://www.scilogs.com/in_scientio_veritas/homeopathy-nanoparticle-chikramane/
    It was for this sort of reason that the “Dullman Law” was written. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-dull-man-law/
    So it’s a safe course of action to pay Ullman the due respect he deserves and the appropriate amount of credence to his claims – none.

    • BBF

      @disqus_E9PFVRPsMi:disqus Your personal attacks and foul language are well known. Your opinion means naught.

      • Paul Morgan

        What foul language? Please provide relevant examples. As for personal attacks, you clearly haven’t got the faintest idea. Where and when I point out the flaws in the evidence put forward by homeopaths or their fans (or indeed other quacks and their fans), that is not a personal attack. When I have pointed out the flaws in someone’s credibility, I do so having examined the evidence they present out of their own keyboards and drawn the appropriate conclusion. When someone is fact-blind or immune to rational discourse, I am perfectly entitled to point that out to all and sundry, because it is based on evidence.
        I note that you post from a private account in order to hide your identity. When you throw out defamatory statements in the manner you have done on this comment thread, it suggests that you are afraid of being sued. Of course, if you had evidence that the claims you make are true, then you would have nothing to fear from legal action and you wouldn’t need to hide away like this.
        It’s therefore fair to point out that if all you offer as evidence are defamatory statements, then your opinion is as worthless as homeopathy.

        • Egger

          “As for personal attacks, you clearly haven’t got the faintest idea.”

          More examples of ad-hominem attacks from Paul Morgan:

          1) ” You really haven’t got the faintest idea of science. Did you go to school? Did you pay attention in science lessons?”

          2) “After reading that garbage, my description of “conspiracy theory idiocy” still applies.”

          3) “You really have absolutely no clue about how to assess scientific evidence using critical appraisal.”

          Paul Morgan apply censorship:

          “However, as it’s his blog, he’s entitled not to accept comments which are abusive or patently idiotic. We’ve already seen you’re utterly clueless so maybe that’s why he’s blocked you.”

          An so…

          • Paul Morgan

            My comments are based on the evidence you present in every post you make on this forum. Yes, you are utterly clueless. Yes, it can be reasonably argued that you are nothing more than a conspiracy theory believing, highly gullible fool. Yes, it’s clear that you have no clue about how to assess scientific evidence. That you continue to repeat the same errors despite having them explained to you by me and others here, it marks you out as either deliberately trolling for self-entertainment purposes or that you really are a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Egger

            Your comments are based on the book of fallacies edited by JREF. Your excuses is a tipically behaviour of pseudoskeptik Randibot. You never ask me the questions. Come on, David Gorski and Steve Novella are your heroes?

          • Paul Morgan

            The stupid burns deep in you. Your scientific illiteracy is a strange mix of hilarious and deeply worrying. Your inability to grasp reality and to understand science and evidence is likely to cause you harm and even puts your life at risk from such delusional beliefs. Belief that homeopathy can treat anything harms and kills people through avoiding getting real medical help when needed. People such as Penelope Dingle http://www.homeowatch.org/news/dingle_finding.pdf

          • Egger

            Another ad-hominem for your list:

            From Paul Morgan:

            1) ” You really haven’t got the faintest idea of science. Did you go to school? Did you pay attention in science lessons?”

            2) “After reading that garbage, my description of “conspiracy theory idiocy” still applies.”

            3) “You really have absolutely no clue about how to assess scientific evidence using critical appraisal.”

            4) “You’re still yet to provide a scrap of credible evidence. Just idiotic nonsense and name-calling, ”

            5) “The stupid burns deep in you. Your scientific illiteracy is a strange mix of hilarious and deeply worrying. Your inability to grasp reality and to understand science and evidence is likely to cause you harm and even puts your life at risk from such delusional beliefs.”

          • Paul Morgan

            My comments are based on the evidence you supply in the words of your multiple comments where you repeat daft claims and provide no evidence to support your claims, particularly when you shout “RANDI” whenever anyone shows that your posts are full of cluelessness.
            So, please provide CREDIBLE evidence to support the claims you make or stop making them. Seriously – all you’re doing with your posts is opening yourself up to ridicule and humiliation.

          • Egger

            Wait…

            “My comments are based on the evidence you supply in the words of your multiple comments where you repeat daft claims and provide no evidence to support your claims”

            Without evidence? Come on, again:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/016f711d3b87799cea7f199767f48e72c8c2bc07dc0b3a47285385dacf6e8ae7.png

          • Paul Morgan

            That’s just a graph taken from where? Reference please! You still don’t seem to understand the concepts of evidence and critical appraisal.

          • Egger

            Oh, no, search the reference please.

          • Paul Morgan

            You’re making a claim, so you provide the evidence. How many times does this have to explained to you?

          • Egger

            Show me the evidence of the “Results probably explainable by contamination” on the NMR experiments. Come on pseudoskeptik. How many times does this have to explain to you?

          • Paul Morgan

            Which bit of “probably” is too difficult for you to grasp? Where is the reference for this graph, as in which article does it come from? Which part of you providing the evidence for the claims you make still do you not understand?

          • Egger

            Oh heavens with ice cream! Can you search a papers or you’re a stupid?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh heavens with ice cream and raspberry sauce on it!!! Which part of “you make the claim, you provide the evidence” still eludes your seemingly-limited comprehension?

          • Egger

            Oh heavens with Randi paedophils and Ernst liars!!!! Which part of “can your search papers or you’r stupide?” still eludes yout maximal limited zombimaddox garbage?

          • Paul Morgan

            “Randi paedophils and Ernst liars”? Who are they? Your rambling even more incoherently than before your absence. You need professional help.

          • Egger

            Randi need young boys? Yes, Randi need stay in jail. HA HA HA HA.

          • Paul Morgan

            He’d have to be in jail in the first place. You have a vivid imagination and make wild accusations with no corroborating evidence. At this rate, you’ll be claiming that homeopathy works!

            Oh…

          • Egger

            What is the definition of “credible evidence”? Show me the paper in epistemology! Oh, no, wait… You Mario Bunge God is a cheat!

            Extracted from: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/14f2f63f8596e5b2ca71ee00f4dc6a9ba60514e221efa33722b419cc5cb01c38.png

            Where is the “fraud” on Benveniste works? Where?

            Maddox: Is delusion the same “fraud? Nooooo! Fool Bunge!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9641c6636bee5eed816609275a1a86d2c4d095aaf2ab032d288667df03380b8.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8131b09d7f38537ee7a1ee1b499257f4e36e0a080dbbb58490c05fe15b29223e.png

          • Paul Morgan

            Please provide references, not captured images, so that the text you provide can be fully assessed.

          • Egger

            I am sorry, the image from Science: Authentic and Bogus is from here:

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-015-9474-3

            Why Bunge defame to deadly Benveniste?

          • Paul Morgan

            For something to be defamatory, it has to be untrue. If someone is defamed, they have the option of pursuing legal action for libel or slander, depending on country-specific laws. Did Benveniste sue Bunge?
            The solitary mention of Benveniste in that article describes it as a case of self-deceit. To me, having read about the matter, I conclude Bunge was correct.

          • Egger

            Benveniste is dead, idiot. Show me the evidence for the “fraud” of Benveniste. Come on.

          • Paul Morgan

            Good grief, you really are incredibly stupid! I have not accused Benveniste of fraud, so there’s zero reason for me to prove anything! If you actually bother to read the article by Bunge, in the solitary paragraph mentioning Benveniste one solitary time he describes Benveniste’s claims as “self-deceit”. If you want further details, ask Bunge himself – it’s got nothing to do with me.

          • Egger

            “Belief that homeopathy can treat anything harms and kills people through avoiding getting real medical help when needed. People such as Penelope Dingle http://www.homeowatch.org/news…”

            HA HA HA. You explode in the media the Dingle Case. Please, explain me, the case is negative, is testimony. Please, show me the meta study of kills caused from homeopathy. Come on Paul, show me the “science based pseudoskepticism”!

          • Paul Morgan

            Where does Randi come into this? Please explain! Oh no, you can’t – because it’s yet another ridiculous statement by you, devoid of factual content. The link I posted is the report of the State Coroner for Western Australia! Maybe you didn’t actually bother reading that – even though that’s clearly stated within the first paragraph.
            Also, you then repeat the classical logical fallacy of asking me to prove a negative, failing once again to understand a basic principle of science. You are the one making multiple claims for homeopathy and it’s alleged benefits, so you supply the evidence.

          • Egger

            Duh!

            “Where does Randi come into this? Please explain! Oh no, you can’t – because it’s yet another ridiculous statement by you, devoid of factual content. “

            I need remeber the NCAFH fraud and ilegal organization without credibility?

            “Coroner for Western Australia! Maybe you didn’t actually bother reading that – even though that’s clearly stated within the first paragraph.”

            More anecdotes. Fun with anecdotes!

            “Also, you then repeat the classical logical fallacy of asking me to prove a negative, failing once again to understand a basic principle of science. You are the one making multiple claims for homeopathy and it’s alleged benefits, so you supply the evidence.”

            Oh no. Is it falsable. Try with this. Come on, supply the evidence!

          • Paul Morgan

            So you think a report from the State Coroner of Western Australia is an anecdote? Are you really that stupid and ignorant? I don’t think Penelope Dingle’s family find it at all funny. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/cancer-victim-penelope-dingle-in-awe-of-homeopath-husband/story-e6frg12c-1225880505623
            http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/learn-from-this-tragedy/story-e6frfhqf-1225881062712
            http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260786.htm
            Again – when YOU make a claim, it is up to YOU to supply the evidence.

          • Egger

            So you think a report from Spinal Cord is an anecdote? I don’t think the person healed find it at all funny yout insults.

            http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v52/n1s/full/sc201450a.html

            So you think a RCT double blind homeopathy vs placebo is a “utterly rubish”? I don’t think the people healed in the study find it at all funny yout insults.

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

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMOA! The article from “Spinal Cord” is a CASE REPORT and therefore, by definition, an ANECDOTE. It may be mildly interesting, but it’s certainly not evidence. So, yes, that’s worthless. As for that Brazilian study, it’s grossly underpowered to show a real difference – it’s simply not capable of showing anything of value. No power calculation shown in the methodology. No description of what would be a clinically meaningful difference. So yes, that trial can be dismissed as being of no value.
            All we see here are yet more examples of your scientific illiteracy.
            As for “insults”, they are meant for you and are not meant to be funny. If I call you an idiot, it is because your rantings show you to be one.

          • Egger

            Yes, is a Case Report. this is more important than the forensic report. The dingle report was not peer reviewed.

            ” As for that Brazilian study, it’s grossly underpowered to show a real difference – it’s simply not capable of showing anything of value. No power calculation shown in the methodology. No description of what would be a clinically meaningful difference. So yes, that trial can be dismissed as being of no value.”

            WoW. Could you understand the paper or minsunderstand? Read!

            –Analyses per protocol, at 5% level of significance, were carried out in a blind manner using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS v.17). Using boxplot
            graphics, the distribution of flu and acute r infection episodes number was described in a 12-month follow-up. Additionally, ManneWhitney test was applied to compare the intervention groups. To make all pairwise comparisons between groups (placebo versus each one of the medicines, and homeopathic medicines among themselves), ANOVA post-test (Tukey’s honest significance difference) was performed. We also assumed an intention to treat (ITT) analysis, including all missing patient according their original randomization, considering the worst scenario for each individual who presented at least 2 episodes of flu in the follow-up period–

          • Paul Morgan

            You, unsurprisingly completely miss the points. Again.
            The case report is not more important than the report by the State Coroner for Western Australia. It’s a case report. An anecdote, unsubstantiated. Here’s how levels of evidence are categorised in medicine http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
            Take note of where case reports are categorised. It’s nearly at the bottom. Only “expert opinion” is lower. Therefore that case report – like any single case report – is of no more value than to possibly arouse interest or be of mild curiosity. It doesn’t provide evidence of anything.
            On to that Brazilian study.
            If a study is underpowered, then any statistical analysis is worthless, so I don’t give two hoots what level of significance they chose or which software package they used. It’s completely irrelevant. This is a typical fault of many studies in the world of homeopathy and other forms of “alternative medicine” quackery. Poorly-designed, underpowered or “didn’t even bother to perform a power calculation” are why so many can be discounted when meta-analyses are conducted. Such studies are rightly regarded as “garbage in, garbage out”. Worthless. In order to do a power calculation in a clinical trial, the first task is to define what would be a clinically important end-point. This might be relatively simple in some trials, where the relevant end-point is a binary one (for example, alive or dead). Often it’s a bit more complicated, such as working out whether a treatment shortens an illness or reduces the occurrence of some other bad outcome. If so, there needs to be an a priori definition of what the appropriate, clinically relevant, difference would be between the different study populations. When – and only when – that has been decided can the researchers perform a power calculation to work out how many study subjects will be needed to be recruited and to complete the trial in order to give the data validity. Even then, the power calculation is performed in such a way as to minimise the risk of a false-positive result (known as a Type 1 error) to a pre-defined level. So a study of acceptable quality MUST have in its “Methods” section a full description of this power calculation and the pre-defined levels of significance. Thus, a study paper might have a description such as “We determined in order to detect a (whatever predetermined clinically relevant) difference of *x* with an 80% certainty at the 5% significance level”.
            See http://www.consort-statement.org/ for detailed information on interpretation of study design.
            All your daft comments do are further expose to the readers your lack of knowledge of what constitutes scientific evidence and that you know nothing about the necessary components required to conduct clinical trials in such a way as to make their results in any way valid.

          • Egger

            HAHAHAHA, Can you read your own text of links?

            Levels of evidence. Yes, I agree.

            “The case report is not more important than the report by the State Coroner for Western Australia. It’s a case report. An anecdote, unsubstantiated. Here’s how levels of evidence are categorised in medicine”

            Oh, no dear. Why The “Coroner report” does not appear in the levels of evidence? Why?

          • Paul Morgan

            Are you being intentionally stupid or is it a natural talent? The Coroner’s report is a factual description of the events surrounding the death of Penelope Dingle. That’s it. It carries the same weight in terms of scientific evidence as any of the case reports you have posted. The plural of anecdote is not data. Data is the foundation of scientific evidence, a concept you still fail to grasp.

          • Egger

            Why the Corner’s reports does not appear in any levels of clinical evidence?

            “. It carries the same weight in terms of scientific evidence as any of the case reports you have posted.”

            If this is true, then the Coroner report is too low quality. In your own proper defintion of all pseudoskeptikal thefts, is not evidence of nothing. Thanks for confirm this.

            “The plural of anecdote is not data. Data is the foundation of scientific evidence, a concept you still fail to grasp”

            Oh dear, the Coroner’s reports is an isolate anecdote about of one persona. You are a very fool.

          • Paul Morgan

            I see you continue your efforts to be as daft as possible (you’re succeeding BTW). You really have no clue as to what’s involved in a Coroner’s investigation. It involves collecting and collating evidence from witnesses. So while it’s not scientific evidence to match a clinical trial, as anecdotes go it carries far more weight than a homeopath’s case report.

          • Egger

            >”If a study is underpowered, then any statistical analysis is worthless, so I don’t give two hoots what level of significance they chose or which software package they used. It’s completely irrelevant.”

            Really? Are you need invent any idioticy?

            ” This is a typical fault of many studies in the world of homeopathy and other forms of “alternative medicine” quackery. Poorly-designed, underpowered or “didn’t even bother to perform a power calculation” are why so many can be discounted when meta-analyses are conducted. Such studies are rightly regarded as “garbage in, garbage out”.”

            Rally? Show me the evidence for the specific case. Oh, dear, you need the lie.

            “Worthless. In order to do a power calculation in a clinical trial, the first task is to define what would be a clinically important end-point. This might be relatively simple in some trials, where the relevant end-point is a binary one (for example, alive or dead). Often it’s a bit more complicated, such as working out whether a treatment shortens an illness or reduces the occurrence of some other bad outcome. If so, there needs to be an a priori definition of what the appropriate, clinically relevant, difference would be between the different study populations. When – and only when – that has been decided can the researchers perform a power calculation to work out how many study subjects will be needed to be recruited and to complete the trial in order to give the data validity. Even then, the power calculation is performed in such a way as to minimise the risk of a false-positive result (known as a Type 1 error) to a pre-defined level. So a study of acceptable quality MUST have in its “Methods” section a full description of this power calculation and the pre-defined levels of significance. Thus, a study paper might have a description such as “We determined in order to detect a (whatever predetermined clinically relevant) difference of *x* with an 80% certainty at the 5% significance level”.”

            And? Where is the pseudodebunked evidence from pseudoskeptik of the Brazilian double blind randomized controlled trial? Where?

            “All your daft comments do are further expose to the readers your lack of knowledge of what constitutes scientific evidence and that you know nothing about the necessary components required to conduct clinical trials in such a way as to make their results in any way valid.”

            Oh, is a gift.

          • Paul Morgan

            I see you’re still determined to prove to readers of this article your scientific illiteracy. That you fail to grasp the most fundamental concepts of scientific experimentation and clinical trials research is to your shame, not mine. Garbage in, garbage out.

          • Egger

            “you fail to grasp the most fundamental concepts of scientific experimentation and clinical trials research “

            Typical straw man fallacy. Really? Why do you not show this?

          • Paul Morgan

            Err, no. You’ve displayed through multiple idiotic comments on this comments page that you have zero clue about science and research. A textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You don’t even have a clue as to what a “straw man fallacy”. I’ll help you – again. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
            Now – who’s argument do you think I have fabricated?

          • Egger

            Are you idiot and liar?

            “so I don’t give two hoots what level of significance they chose or which software package they used

            In the paper from page 3:

            -using Epi Info software

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! Which statistical tests did they use? What was the power calculation? What did they consider would be a meaningful clinically-important difference in outcomes to enable them to perform a power calculation?
            Oh look – they did none of that. Another critical appraisal failure by you.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, you failed read basic paragraphs of paper.

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! You still fail to address the fundamental flaws of the study. The stream of cluelessness from you has become a torrent.

          • Egger

            “If a study is underpowered, then any statistical analysis is worthless, so I don’t give two hoots what level of significance they chose or which software package they used”

            Obviously, the p level is standard: p<0.05. In the results:

            –This difference reached statistical significance (p < 0.001), when the groups of homeopathic medicine and placebowere compared–

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! The p < 0.05 is meaningless when the study has no power to it. Do try reading and learning for once. http://www.dcscience.net/2014/03/24/on-the-hazards-of-significance-testing-part-2-the-false-discovery-rate-or-how-not-to-make-a-fool-of-yourself-with-p-values/

          • Egger

            Oh dear, for the same:

            Why Maddox paper does not include the power factor or values of raw data?

          • Paul Morgan

            What “Maddox paper”? You really have no clue! Did Maddox run a clinical trial? Cluelessness upon cluelessness from you. Why do you embarrass yourself like this?

          • Egger

            “Again – when YOU make a claim, it is up to YOU to supply the evidence”

            Yes, I agree. Come one:

            1) Why Maddox rejects the avaliable data from Israeli laboratories?

            2) Where is the evidence from “fraud” in the Davenas paper?

            3) Where is the strongest evidence of “non-reproducibility” anti IgE histamine dilution experiments?

            4) Why Martin Bland lie in the letter of New Scientist and contradict your own statement in Signfiicance paper?

          • Paul Morgan

            1) As explained by Maddox, they asked for ORIGINAL data, not what may have been filtered by Benveniste’s team. It’s a key part of science to keep original data and supply it when requested.
            2) What “fraud” are you on about now? By the Davenas paper, I presume you mean the original basophil degranulation study. The only thing remotely resembling an accusation of fraud is from Bunge – he actually describes it as “self-deceit”
            3. How many more times do I have to re-post links to the articles which didn’t confirm Benveniste’s findings?
            4. Where is the evidence Martin Bland lied in “New Scientist”? Please supply the reference/link

            Your continuing persistence is not admirable, it’s incredibly stupid. Your points have been refuted on multiple occasions, yet you seem too stupid to grasp them. Dunning and Kruger could write a whole new paper based purely on your comments on this article.

          • Egger

            Bunge said “fraud” not “self-deceit”. Idiot.

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMAO! And you have the audacity to accuse me of not reading! This is why you get called an idiot. Do try reading that article – that quotation is on the first page.

          • Egger

            Yes, you are a idiot. Why not?

            Bunge said “Fraud”. Can you read basic words?

          • Paul Morgan

            A single word comment, which he qualified with the subsequent words “self-deceit”. Who is it that cannot read basic words? Still an irrelevance to the subject under discussion. Your absence hasn’t improved your comprehension or critical thinking skills, I see.

          • Egger

            HA HA HA HA You are a pseudoskeptik. HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            A term you are still yet to define. Describing you as “daft” is being far too kind to you. Your inability to read and comprehend is really quite pitiful.

          • Egger

            ” Where is the evidence Martin Bland lied in “New Scientist”? Please supply the reference/link”

            Can you search the letters of Bland?

          • Paul Morgan

            You’re the one making the claim, so you provide the evidence! How many more times do you have to be told that basic tenet of science?

          • Egger

            Oh dear. Can you search the paper or letters or you are a donkey?

          • Paul Morgan

            Still failing to grasp the point that if you make the claims, then you provide the evidence. Such a typical tactic by a quack or a quackery supporter. To quote Carl Sagan – that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You keep making assertions without evidence, so they are hereby dismissed without evidence.

          • Egger

            ” that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. “

            Sagan said this? Really? No, Sagan said this:

            Sagan original quote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

            Well. In fact, homeopathy is a evidence based practice. In this case, the phrase of Sagan does not apply in all cases.

          • Paul Morgan

            It’s a quote actually from Christopher Hitchens
            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed
            Often taken to be based on the words of Carl Sagan
            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/50379-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence
            However, more likely to be based on the Latin proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”
            Also, attributing that quote to Sagan may be incorrect – it may be the words of Marcello Truzzi – On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

            Quite ironic, given how you continually argue from a position of ignorance.
            https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
            The evidence is clear – homeopathy is not an evidence-based practice and has been conclusively shown not to work in several meta-analyses.

          • Egger

            P.D. You are a stupid pseudoskeptik.

          • Paul Morgan

            Please define “pseudoskeptic”. As for stupid – look in the mirror.

          • Egger

            “Your points have been refuted on multiple occasions”

            When? Who? Where is the debunk for my comments? I will write a paper of each point and the fraud of Randi team. HAHAHAHAH.

          • Paul Morgan
          • Egger

            HAHAHA The rational Wippies! Where is homeopathy section in the garbage page?

          • Paul Morgan

            More incoherent rambling by you. Sad, pathetic and embarrassing.

          • Egger

            Oh, really?

            Paul Morgue: “To quote Carl Sagan – that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

            Sagan original quote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

            HA HA HA HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            See my reply to another comment of yours.

          • Egger

            Homeowatch = ex-National Council Against Health Fraud = James Randi “Educational” Foundation = CSICOP ….. is not credible

            —On April 22, 2003, the California Court of Appeals handed down a far reaching landmark decision in favor of homeopathy and against the National Council Against Health Fraud.” In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF “presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, AND WHO WERE FOUND TO BE BIASED AND UNWORTHY OF CREDIBILITY

            LOL!

          • Horus Reloaded

            Can you link where did you copy that?
            http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1040435.html

          • Egger

            Thanks for the link. Now, this is more funny!

          • Horus Reloaded

            And I want to link.
            There is some links(http://www.whale.to/a/barrett.html) writes same thing but much longer.
            Or did you cut the other parts?

          • Egger

            Oh dear… 404 Not found. Try on more!

          • Horus Reloaded

            Ok, my bad. True link is this: http://www.whale.to/a/barrett.html
            I wrote it in () and it search for “barrett.html)”.

          • Paul Morgan

            Again – which part of that report being that of the State Coroner for Western Australia escapes your comprehension? The rest of your comment is also idiotic. You are making random connections between organisations with no evidence presented to support your claims. NCAHF ceased to be in 2002 – run by Stephen Barrett, who also runs Quackwatch and affiliated sites such as Homeowatch. However, there’s no connection between Randi, the JREF and any of the Quackwatch sites. Unsurprisingly, not popular with quacks, charlatans and their supporters – must be worrying to have your business model and your delusions challenged with evidence. You also fail to understand matters of legal process as much as you fail to understand science. One for the US lawyers, but maybe read the actual court ruling to understand the legal technicalities rather than relying on Whale.to as a site of information. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1040435.html
            Maybe also look at the numerous other cases involving Quackwatch et al – many they have won, some they’ve lost. Not that it particularly matters either way, as science isn’t decided in law courts
            You need to familiarise yourself with Scopie’s Law – because you’re getting yourself laughed out of the room. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html

          • Egger

            The anecdote report? Show me the double blind studies!

            ” NCAHF ceased to be in 2002 – run by Stephen Barrett, who also runs Quackwatch and affiliated sites such as Homeowatch. However, there’s no connection between Randi, the JREF and any of the Quackwatch sites.

            Really? Really? Really? Look at the picture:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/766529f6df2d8e66a70db4cf33918cf4ccd88b1587860eeadce94bb0de845134.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/038ec1696f6746751dba77711acd71acf5d57b43d7f3e041d728d51455af3358.png

            Why in ALL news of NCAFH appear Randi? This is a marketing enterprise of what?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! That they reported something the JREF did is not evidence of a link!!! If a newspaper in, say, Spain, reports on sports results from the USA, does that automatically create a link between the newspaper and whatever sports teams or players they reported on? Err, no.
            Comprehension and understanding appear to be skills you lack.

          • Horus Reloaded

            Does he try to show Randi connection with homeowatch-NCAHF connection?
            He thinks you said there is no connection between NCAHF -and- Randi, JREF, Quackwatch sites.

          • Egger

            Oh dear! Another typical distraction technique from pseudoskeptiks.

            Why NCAFH published the Randi statements?
            Why Stephen Barrett published in CSICOP magazine?

            From CSICOP transnational bussiness webpage:

            CSI Fellows and Staff

            Stephen Barrett MD, psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, PA

            Why CSICOP show the finantiation of Pensar Spanish Magazine (the spanish skeptikal inquirer magazine)?

            http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WsGH-voIvWgJ:www.csicop.org/si/show/spanish_skeptics_magazine_pensar_suspends_publication+&cd=2&hl=es-419&ct=clnk&gl=mx

            –Pensar, the Spanish-language skeptics magazine launched in 2004, has suspended publication as of 2009. The magazine covered many topics, including global warming, AIDS denial, miracles, and ghosts, as well as lesser-known regional topics specific to Latin America… According to Editor Alejandro Borgo, though Pensar was well-received during its five-year run, the magazine was unable to achieve the subscription and distribution levels needed to maintain publication.–

            Who is Alexander Borgo? Is the same person from JREF Spain (ARP-SAPC). Need more?

          • Horus Reloaded

            that means nothing. what is you aim? Showing connection? Just saying stupid random things?

          • Egger

            Oh dear! Randi had your own CSICOP journalist in Spain, Example:

            http://www.csicop.org/author/luisalfonsogamez

            Oh dear, Luis Alfonso Gámez is the same hater of homeopathy in Spain and newspapers. Err, yes, this is direct evidence of corrupted Randi. HAHAHAHA.

          • Horus Reloaded

            “Oh, thay are against homeopathy! Why, Why they don’t let alone stupid things?”

          • Paul Morgan

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Taking “stupid” to Mariana Trench depths of stupid! Where does Gamez even come into this discussion? Random red herrings now.
            Try to get a grip on reality!

          • Egger

            Your idioticy is great. Gamez is a fraud and liar. I’m sorry for the funeral of pseudoskepticism in Spain.

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

          • Paul Morgan

            I’ve no idea who Gamez is, or the relevance to this discussion. Totally irrelevant.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, are you a donkey? From CSICOP Gang-sect:

            http://www.csicop.org/author/luisalfonsogamez

          • Paul Morgan

            So what? Where’s your evidence that Gamez is a fraud and liar – apart from your own state of delusion, that is. Evidence, not wild baseless accusations.

          • Egger
          • Paul Morgan

            I see you’re still confusing allegations something written in a blog post with evidence. You won’t get anywhere in science or in a court of law with such a daft claim.

          • Egger
          • Paul Morgan

            Nope! Still not evidence. Just another blog written without any corroboration.

          • Horus Reloaded

            He said NCAHF and homeowatch runs by Barrett and you show connection between homeowatch an NCAHF to show Randi connection. You don’t understand what you read I think.

            Randi, the JREF – quackwatch sites. he says there is no connectin between them, not NCAHF – Randi, the JREF, quackwatch sites.

      • Egger

        Yes, Paul Morgan is another pseudoskeptik. Randi is a fraud, liar, cheat and theft. In 2002 he smear against Benveniste in the pseudoreplication “BBC Horizon experiment”. John Martin Bland, an statesman, is a fraud and liar.

        • Paul Morgan

          ROFLMAO! Another anonymous commenter throwing out wild accusations with no evidence to support claims made. Credibility rating – zero.
          Present evidence to support your claims.

        • Deb Walker

          Please. You aren’t fit to lick Randi’s boots.

          • Egger

            Duh the ad-hominem attack.

          • Deb Walker

            Horus is right, You have no idea what an ad hom is. Your homework is to go to Nizkor.org and READ the FALLACIES. You may not use the term ad hom again until you know what it is.

          • Egger

            Yeah, come on Mr. Troll.

            “Please. You aren’t fit to lick Randi’s boots.”

            What is this? Your fixation with Randi as authority narcisit figure?

        • Horus Reloaded

          Egger, I read some of your comments and I saw like saying “ad-hominem attack” to everyone.
          There is 2 thing: 1 you don’t really knowwhat is ad-hominem and 2 we can see there is too much ad-hominem attack in your stupid comments.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens, another pseudoskeptik. Please… LOL an example of ad-hominem attack!

            Egger: There is positive evidence for homeopathy.

            Horus Reloaded: “you don’t really knowwhat is ad-hominem and 2 we can see there is too much ad-hominem attack in your stupid comments

          • Horus Reloaded

            Yes, that is one of your stupid and wrong comments.
            And just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

            If I say “you are so stupid/bald/young/old and that’s why your idea is wrong”, that is ad hominem.
            But if I say “your ideas are stupid and wrong, that’s why I think you are stupid”, that is not.

            And you are doing that more then others. All your comments about Randi is example of adhominem.
            And I don’t have a big fallacy knowledge but I can say most of your comments have more than 1 fallacy.

            There is a skeptic blog in Turkey, yalansavar.org (telling truth against most common lies such as we use %10 of brain), I saw some comments of homeopathy/anti vaccine bloggers. They are usualy says “you lie because bigpharma pays you or your friends works at bigpharma, you dn’t talk about chemotherapy just for you have friends in sector! They are against “C” because of money and researches are lie, that science magazines are with big companies don’t believe them!” and somethings like that. That is adhominem.
            There was a comment said she wrote articles with foundation that uses swastika-like logo(he talks about bay area sceptics logo 😀 ). Also he says she founded thebay area skeptics and they are all over the USA and World.

            They are really nice people. Some of them just talk about big pharma, some talks about chemotherapy, some talks about illuminati… You just talk about pseudeskeptiks and randibots… All nice people.
            Why did I tell these all? I just wanted to tell you things make me laugh, that’s all.

            Oh, and if you are planing to say pseudeskeptik or randibot, don’t. I don’t identify myself as skeptic and I don’t know who Randi is, I just know he is retired skeptic with foundation offers 1 million dollars.

          • Egger

            From Wikipedia:
            –which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

            An example of Ad hominem by “Horus”

            1. “Yes, that is one of your stupid and wrong comments.

            2. “If I say “you are so stupid/bald/young/old and that’s why your idea is wrong”, that is ad hominem.”

            3. “But if I say “your ideas are stupid and wrong, that’s why I think you are stupid”, that is not.”

            Compare 1 and 2 with 3. HA HA HA.

            “And you are doing that more then others. All your comments about Randi is example of adhominem.”

            No, is a fact.

            “And I don’t have a big fallacy knowledge but I can say most of your comments have more than 1 fallacy.”

            Please, show me!

            “There is a skeptic blog in Turkey, yalansavar.org (telling truth against most common lies such as we use %10 of brain), I saw some comments of homeopathy/anti vaccine bloggers. They are usualy says “you lie because bigpharma pays you or your friends works at bigpharma, you dn’t talk about chemotherapy just for you have friends in sector! They are against “C” because of money and researches are lie, that science magazines are with big companies don’t believe them!” and somethings like that. That is adhominem.”

            And? What is the point with your distraction? What is the relation with the vaccine?

            “There was a comment said she wrote articles with foundation that uses swastika-like logo(he talks about bay area sceptics logo 😀 ). Also he says she founded thebay area skeptics and they are all over the USA and World.”

            Again, What is the point with your distraction? What is the relation with the vaccine?

            “They are really nice people. Some of them just talk about big pharma, some talks about chemotherapy, some talks about illuminati… You just talk about pseudeskeptiks and randibots… All nice people.”

            And? Some is ALL?

            “Why did I tell these all? I just wanted to tell you things make me laugh, that’s all.”

            This is funny. Randi is my pet!

            “Oh, and if you are planing to say pseudeskeptik or randibot, don’t. I don’t identify myself as skeptic and I don’t know who Randi is,”

            Oh heavens! Your behaviour is exactly the pseudoskeptikal rethoric.

            ” I just know he is retired skeptic with foundation offers 1 million dollars.”

            Prize without any validation. Randi is a fraud, I’m sorry:

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2012/04/la-religion-de-la-ciencia-homeopatia-vi.html

          • Horus Reloaded

            You read the description of ad-hominem and you still don’t understand.
            “Oh they are not adhominem they are fact” Yeah, sure they are.

            And there is no relation with the vaccine. That is the point, these people comment on the articles about homeopathy “C vitamin” anti vaccine and they just blaming and making adhominem attacks.

            All of them who commented to yalansavar.org and this article. Some of them saying te some of them saying this, but I love them all.

            Skeptic identify themself as skeptic and they usualy love Randi. I really no interest in him.

            And you think I know Espanol. Why don’t I send you yalansavar.com links about homeopahty… Eh…

          • Horus Reloaded

            I think if I say “you said stupid to him in this comment and that is adhominem attack”(as you did) you can say 3 things: 1: they also doing this 2: yes they are 3 no!

            What will yu do if I say that? I really want to learn that.
            Oh, number 1 is a type of adhominem and I think you would choose that, but not sure.

          • Egger

            “I think if I say “you said stupid to him in this comment and that is adhominem attack”(as you did) you can say 3 things: 1: they also doing this 2: yes they are 3 no!”

            Can you repeat a coherent sentence?

            “What will yu do if I say that? I really want to learn that. Oh, number 1 is a type of adhominem and I think you would choose that, but not sure.”

            Oh heavens! Can you read a basic book of logic?

          • Egger

            Well, sure your childshild accusations is bored.

            “And there is no relation with the vaccine. That is the point, these people comment on the articles about homeopathy “C vitamin” anti vaccine and they just blaming and making adhominem attacks.”

            It is my problem? No! Good fallacy of extrapolation.

            “All of them who commented to yalansavar.org and this article. Some of them saying te some of them saying this, but I love them all.”

            Again, and?

            “Skeptic identify themself as skeptic and they usualy love Randi. I really no interest in him.”

            Ohhhh, Why exists a JREF forum?

            “And you think I know Espanol. Why don’t I send you yalansavar.com links about homeopahty… Eh…”

            Why don not send you? Answer me:

            Why Randi rejects the Israel data?

          • Horus Reloaded

            Is it your problem? I don’t know, and I don’t care too. I just wrote about some people who I think stupid. And you are in the list. And your position rised with your last question.

            I said I don’t know about him(and his works) much thing. So what the fuck are you talking about?

            Why exists that forum? I don’t know again, but I can say “not for me”.

          • Egger

            “Is it your problem? I don’t know, and I don’t care too. I just wrote about some people who I think stupid. And you are in the list. And your position rised with your last question.”

            That’s all folks pseudoskeptik! HAHAHAHA

            “I said I don’t know about him(and his works) much thing. So what the fuck are you talking about?”

            HAHAHA

            “Why exists that forum? I don’t know again, but I can say “not for me”.”

            Master Troll!

          • Horus Reloaded

            Ok then, now I figured out wht yu always say pseudoskeptik, randibot and adhominem attack. For protecting yourself from they say these thinks to you.

            That is a good tactic, you know them, they know nothing and thay say “you know nothing” to people to block people say that to them; if people say that too, it will look like just copying what they said… That is just an example to tell what I am talking about

            You always do adhominem but you blame people with adhominem. Do you care about adhominem? No, you don’t, we can see you have no problem with doing adhminem.

            And you don’t know what adhominem really. is(and other fallacies).
            You pretend like skeptic sometimes but you are not, and you can’t do it too.

            And about randibot thing, allways you talk about randi, people didn’t mention but talked about him, you are reverse randibot.

            I won’t talk about trolling, everyone can see who is troll.

            And this is not a adhominem attack, this is just an argument.

          • Egger

            Oh heaves!

            “wht yu”

            What?

            “For protecting yourself from they say these thinks to you.”

            I’m scared pseudoskeptik.

          • Horus Reloaded

            why you*
            these things*
            Fuck, I should check twice my comments. Sorry for that.

          • Egger

            Yes, you need check twice yout comments.

          • Horus Reloaded

            And, I won’t connect to internet until monday. Miss me.

          • Egger

            Saddly world…

          • Egger

            “That is a good tactic, you know them, they know nothing and thay say “you know nothing” to people to block people say that to them; if people say that too, it will look like just copying what they said… That is just an example to tell what I am talking about”

            Try with coherent sentence.

            “You always do adhominem but you blame people with adhominem. Do you care about adhominem? No, you don’t, we can see you have no problem with doing adhminem.”

            Show me the ad-hominem!

            “And you don’t know what adhominem really. is(and other fallacies)”

            That’s all of your capabilities?

            “You pretend like skeptic sometimes but you are not, and you can’t do it too.

            Oh, I’m scared. HAHAHAHA.

            “And about randibot thing, allways you talk about randi, people didn’t mention but talked about him, you are reverse randibot.”

            Randi fraud?

            “I won’t talk about trolling, everyone can see who is troll.

            You are a flamewar,

            “And this is not a adhominem attack, this is just an argument.”

            Insults and incoherent arguments are no arguments. Sorry, try one!

          • Horus Reloaded

            Incohorent? No, it’s not. Ok, maybe there is some language problems make hard to understand, but it is cohorent(it will look like just copying what they said/ it is wrong, cahnge it to “what you said).

            That’s is easy: you are blaming people with things you did. Why? Because you want to block them saying things you did.
            Really you call this insult? I tried to explain why did you insult people.

            “Show me the ad-hominem!”

            Oh dear, don’t stall.

            “That’s all of your capabilities?”

            Yep. Again, sorry for language mistakes(oh, straw-man, yes but there is really nothing to talk about. Just a sentence with no explanation.)

          • Egger

            Yes, incoherent responses from your mouth. No, Kaussik Datta block me when I post a paper with replication of the Langmuir paper. Why?

    • Egger

      ” Dana Ullman joins in any debate on homeopathy, he can be regarded as not being a credible witness and his contributions given the due they deserve, i.e. basically none.”

      LOL the ad-hominem attack. If this true, for the same reason Randi is not credible. In 1988 he recognized stronger positive evidence to effect of high dilution on basophil. Well, Randi neglects review the independent experiment of Israel:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChuGRe4XAAAhvXV.jpg

      • Paul Morgan

        Oh dear!!!! Where is that article published? Actually, it doesn’t really matter too much as the evidence overwhelmingly shows that homeopathy is no more than placebo. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02_nhmrc_statement_homeopathy.pdf
        Look – no mention of Randi!
        Also, you miss a key sentence in that picture of an extract you posted – “Data from the latter are unfortunately not available”. That’s a major obstacle to the credibility of that article – and, by association, you. No data???? Really??? Essentially it’s an unsubstantiatable anecdote – a story. In this case, a fairy story.
        So – who am I’m to believe? Someone who posts a picture of some text, with no reference to the original source and which admits it has no data? Or the results of the most comprehensive examination of the scientific literature ever conducted?
        The phrase “conspiracy theory idiocy” comes to mind. So, please present credible evidence to support the claims you’re making or withdraw from the discussion until you have that evidence. Please also note that any evidence you present will be subjected to rigorous critical appraisal. As Carl Sagan once said – that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

        • Egger

          O h dear. Benveniste said:

          “For two yeard, I asked Nature to check our data”

          Well, Randi neglects review the independent experiment of Israel?

          • Paul Morgan

            The study for which the data you said was unavailable? What data? Any evidence to substantiate that claim?

          • Egger

            What data? Your fool questions are really good example of pseudoskepticism. Try read the Maddox excuses in fraud paper. Why Maddox reject publish the independent replications from other countries?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04e796d72cac769cf9f09f0f8ccfb104b6d4b7c566ccea608fb2afae2bf98516.jpg

          • Paul Morgan

            I see you’re still incapable of reading and understanding. The text in the picture you posted clearly said there was no data available to analyse, therefore any submission was pointless. Frankly, it seems that Maddox was being extremely polite.

          • Egger

            Your reading skills are poor. In the Maddox paper the “no data avaliable” is from France, not from Israel. Sorry, Randi is the biggest fraud and liar in the history of science. In Benveniste letter…

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! Where is that extract from? Which scientific article is it from? It’s not from that Maddox letter you posted above, is it? Is it from the same unreferenced article you took that first extract from? Why won’t you simply post a link to where that article is published? I know you can post links, as you’ve done so elsewhere – so why not for this/these extracts. Let’s see the whole text(s)!
            The irony of you accusing someone else of poor reading skills is priceless.

          • Egger

            Yes, is the Benveniste response in Nature!

            “It’s clear from this that the author (whoever it might be) is talking about data it claims comes from experiments that were not conducted in Benveniste’s laboratory. I’m not quite sure how this escapes you.”

            And? Please ask me: Why Randi rejects evaluate the Israeli data? Why? Why? Why?

          • Paul Morgan

            Your fixation with Randi is deeply disturbing, as it appears to be distorting any capability you may have once had for assessing evidence.
            You’ve been asked to provide the link(s) to where those clips you cite are posted. “Nature” has a large online presence, so surely you can provide the links? Maybe you should try reading this article from “Nature” in which the reasons for the retraction of Benveniste’s original paper are explained in great detail. In particular, you should note that while Randi was involved in the process and what – precisely – his role in the investigation was. You should note that the decision to reject any data or to retract Benveniste’s paper was never solely down to Randi. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6180/pdf/334287a0.pdf
            This appears to be the source of your first image of text, clearly cherry-picked.
            You should also note that it discusses the matter of data from Israel, Toronto and Milan. The investigating team were not allowed to see the Toronto data – why could that be? The Milan data provided grossly inadequate detail to assess its validity. With regard to the Israeli data, the authors clearly state – and it’s in the image you posted – that they did not have the information needed to assess them. Surely that information should have been made available, as should the Toronto data? Ultimately, this was a case of bad science.
            Do yourself a favour – read and learn something about science, particularly about critical appraisal. There are multiple websites full of excellent resources to help you.

          • Egger

            More garbage comment by Paul Morgan.

            ” Maybe you should try reading this article from “Nature” in which the reasons for the retraction of Benveniste’s original paper are explained in great detail. I”

            Retracted from Nature? HA HA HA HA!

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6176/abs/333816a0.html

            “you should note that while Randi was involved in the process and what – precisely – his role in the investigation was. “

            Yes, the fraud from Randi with “playing tricks” in the process of experiments! This is a misconduct.

            “This appears to be the source of your first image of text, clearly cherry-picked. “

            Images are not cherry picking.

            “With regard to the Israeli data, the authors clearly state – and it’s in the image you posted – that they did not have the information needed to assess them”

            The Randi liar. Yes, sure, sure…. Are you afraid?

            http://s32.postimg.org/ej3xe14n9/image.png

          • Paul Morgan

            And there’s your obsession with Randi once again. Pitiful and pathetic. I still cannot understand which part of Randi being part of the investigation team with very specific roles escapes you. So Benveniste claims Randi was “playing tricks” – on what basis? He was invited to be a part of the investigation process as he brought a very specific skill set from his many years of practising as a stage magician and illusionist, making him capable of working out how particular effects were achieved and how other illusionists such as Houdini fooled the general public. There are plenty of examples of how people claiming to have certain powers or skills have fooled investigators who did not have the appropriate skills to see how they were being duped. Randi came to this particular investigation with a pedigree in helping expose such fakery, for example Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. I don’t necessarily think that Benveniste was being intentionally dishonest, but if the experimental procedures were not sufficiently tight enough, then the potential for the introduction of bias – albeit unintentional – persist. This appears to be what led to the problems in Benveniste’s studies. When the possibility of such bias was removed by better, tighter experimental design, the results could not be reproduced.
            This second image is taken from this article http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v335/n6193/pdf/335759a0.pdf
            Was it too difficult for you to provide the link?
            Sadly, much of what Benveniste writes here is little more than an angry rant. I cannot find a link to where Benveniste says Randi “admits” it was a fraud. Without being able to see that text, it’s simply not possible to assess this claim any further. I’ve searched for any such text but cannot find it. If it’s a newspaper or magazine, it doesn’t appear to have an online archive.
            You also fail to grasp another fundamental problem – no-one has been able to reproduce Benveniste’s results, which is a key issue in science. Here’s an obituary article published in the News section of “Nature” (this is not peer-reviewed, despite what Dana Ullman has tried to claim when misquoting something published in this part of the journal). http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/news041004-19.html
            Several other groups attempted to reproduce Benveniste’s findings and failed to do so:-
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1376282?dopt=Abstract
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8255290
            An attempt to reproduce Benveniste’s results on the BBC programme “Horizon” failed to do so. The broadcast version was necessarily simplified for public consumption, but one of the researchers involved gives more details here.
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2005.00109.x/full#sign109-sec-0030
            Even Madeleine Ennis, who initially thought there was something of value in Benveniste’s results https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105967
            later concluded after further research that it was not possible to confirm his findings, suggesting that further research be carried out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129176
            Ultimately, we’re left with a lot of ifs, buts and maybes but no clear answers. Your repeated allegations about Randi’s role hold no water.

          • Egger

            “So Benveniste claims Randi was “playing tricks” – on what basis? He was invited to be a part of the investigation process as he brought a very specific skill set from his many years of practising as a stage magician and illusionist, making him capable of working out how particular effects were achieved and how other illusionists such as Houdini fooled the general public.”

            He was invited by Randi, not for Benveniste. Why Randi playing tricks when the three last blinde experiments run? Why not in the first experiments? Why in the paper Maddox never includes the name of Devy Peña (the personal asistant and husband from Randi)? Why Maddox never declares conflicts from interests to the CSICOP? Why?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! Another example of you failing to read and comprehend. Randi was invited to be part of the special investiagtion by John Maddox, the editor of “Nature” at that time. John Maddox was a CSISOP Fellow, as were/are a great deal many other people who defend the highest standards in science. This does not constitute a conflict of interest – what evidence do you have to support such an allegation? Or is it just another part of your ludicrous conspiracy theory? Where is your evidence that Deyvi Pena (aka Jose Alvarez) was involved in any way with the investigation in Benveniste? If he was Randi’s personal assistant, so what? Did he have any influence on the investigation? Seems unlikely as he’s a performance artist and painter (once playing the role of “Carlos” on Australian TV programme “60 minutes”).
            It seems your calculating 2 + 2 and coming up with an answer of “Unicorns”. i.e. you’re being utterly ridiculous.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens! Now, you recognized the link with Randi, Nature and CISCOP? Yes or No?

            “This does not constitute a conflict of interest – what evidence do you have to support such an allegation?”
            No? Explain me! Why GWUP member declares this as conflicts of interests?

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-B4NVZJo9fAY/Vk5C1kyR4JI/AAAAAAAAABw/BgdGMpXEy7M/s1600/Aust.png

          • Paul Morgan

            What – precisely – dose this have to do with Randi, Maddox or “Nature”? Who is this quotation from?

          • Egger

            And there’s your obsession without answer my question. Again. Why Maddox rejects the data from Israeli laboratory?

            “He was invited to be a part of the investigation process as he brought a very specific skill set from his many years of practising as a stage magician and illusionist, making him capable of working out how particular effects were achieved and how other illusionists such as Houdini fooled the general public.”

            Yes, but Randi is not a inmunologist. The Clamart experiments are not “parapsychological” experiments. Randi is very funny, he is a only chemistry techinican without Science or BS degree. Nothing of this.

            “There are plenty of examples of how people claiming to have certain powers or skills have fooled investigators who did not have the appropriate skills to see how they were being duped.

            And? Randi never proves “fraud” in Benveniste experiments.

            “Randi came to this particular investigation with a pedigree in helping expose such fakery, for example Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. I don’t necessarily think that Benveniste was being intentionally dishonest, but if the experimental procedures were not sufficiently tight enough, then the potential for the introduction of bias – albeit unintentional – persist. This appears to be what led to the problems in Benveniste’s studies. When the possibility of such bias was removed by better, tighter experimental design, the results could not be reproduced.”

            And the fourth blinded experiment, what it is?

            “This second image is taken from this article http://www.nature.com/nature/j…”

            Yes, you win a point.

            “Sadly, much of what Benveniste writes here is little more than an angry rant. I cannot find a link to where Benveniste says Randi “admits” it was a fraud. Without being able to see that text, it’s simply not possible to assess this claim any further. I’ve searched for any such text but cannot find it. If it’s a newspaper or magazine, it doesn’t appear to have an online archive.”

            Can you obtain a second point? Please, search the text.

          • Paul Morgan

            You really are being incredibly stupid – is it deliberate or are you really that dim? Randi isn’t an immunologist and has never claimed to be – DUH! Nor is he a chemistry technician! Considering the level of obsession you seem to have with him, I would have thought it blindingly obvious that he’s made no such claims, but makes it clear as to why he became involved in skepticism and what his background in stage magic, escapology and illusion meant he could bring to bear to the investigation. That you fail to grasp this fundamental issue is your failure, not anyone elses. Randi did not accuse Benveniste, or any of his team, of fraud. One member of the investigating team was Walter W. Stewart – a fraud investigator, predominantly investigating research misconduct. You might like to read this interview with him, in which the investigation into Benveniste is described. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B88DH9qxrie-bjhtXzFkekJaR1k/view
            You clearly confuse saying that errors were made in a scientific investigation with an accusation of fraud. Not having accused anyone of fraud, there was no need for Randi, Maddox or Stewart to prove fraud. Even that text extract you repost makes no accusation of fraud! Is that clear enough for you?
            I’m beginning to wonder if you even know what the definition of fraud is

            As for reading the text – I did. Benveniste claimed that Randi “admits” it was a fraud in a Portuguese newspaper, for which no archive appears to exist. If you have the text of that Portuguese newspaper, perhaps you could supply it? Maybe get a scanned copy of the article and post the image – you seem fond of such imagery.
            Basically, this is just another example of your scientific illiteracy and display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Egger

            Randi obtained the chemistry technician degree in high school. He is not professional chemist.

            “Randi did not accuse Benveniste, or any of his team, of fraud.”

            No? Really? Read the Espressor and the other newspaper. So need more?

            I’ve reading the Steward interview. He is a biologist or a chemist? Is a biologist, not chemist. Why Steward manipulate the tubes in a sensible experiment?

          • Paul Morgan

            Where is the “Espressor” article? I’ve asked you for a copy as there’s no online archive available. Which part of Stewart being an expert in the detection of research methodology flaws did you not grasp? Which part of Benveniste’s experimental methodology being fundamentally and fatally flawed escapes you? Which part of the need for every possible precaution being taken to eliminate bias (albeit inadvertant) do you fail to grasp?
            I can only presume you’re suffering severe cogntive dissonance as you continually block out the high-quality evidence that debunks the claims you make based on poor-quality attempts at science that are so typical of the literature on homeopathy.

          • Egger

            You need a definition of pseudoskepticism? Ok, read, read!

            http://hezeptikos.blogspot.com/2015/11/la-razon-las-formas-y-los-escepticos.html

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear!!!! What a shame there’s no definition of the word “pseudoskeptic” in either of those opinion pieces!!! Is the author you, by any chance? The (?sexual) obsession with Randi would suggest that it may well be you. LOL!
            Now – how about a definition of the term from a proper dictionary or encyclopedia?

          • Egger

            “You also fail to grasp another fundamental problem – no-one has been able to reproduce Benveniste’s results, which is a key issue in science. Here’s an obituary article published in the News section of “Nature” (this is not peer-reviewed, despite what Dana Ullman has tried to claim when misquoting something published in this part of the journal). http://www.nature.com/news/200… Several other groups attempted to reproduce Benveniste’s findings and failed to do so:-

            HAHAHAHAHA Really? Why Phillip Ball never cites the Ennis multicenter experiments? Fail!

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8598980_Histamine_dilutions_modulate_basophil_activation_Inflamm_Res

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear!!! That news article by Phillip Ball was published on … 8th October 2004. DOH! Which part of even Madeleine Ennis concluded that there was no convincing evidence for the claim made? The link you posted was to a 2004 article by Belon, Cumps, Ennis et al. The last article on the subject by Ennis was published in 2010. I posted the link to the PubMed abstract in reply to another comment, but here’s the abstract from the journal’s own website. http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(09)00130-1/abstract
            The only subsequent publication on the subject by Ennis is in the journal “Inflammation Research” in July 2015 in a supplement where a collection of abstracts from the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Histamine Research Society in Malaga, Spain. The very nature of such conference abstracts is that they are not peer-reviewed and at best the level of evidence in such abstracts is regarded as being very low, but may show some interesting ideas. This is standard for such conference abstracts. In that collection of abstracts, Ennis was one of the editors and only had one abstract in the collection, entitled “MODULATION OF THE IMMUNE RESPONSE IN ASTHMA BY THERAPEUTIC ANTIBODIES”. Nowhere is basophil degranulation mentioned in that abstract. Nowhere in the entire text is homeopathy mentioned, which is hardly surprising! The link to the supplement is http://goo.gl/kKc1an but you need subscriber access, personal or via an institution.
            If there are any of the trials running that Ennis suggested should be conducted, then none have been published. Therefore how could Phillip Ball cite something which hasn’t been published?
            So – let’s revisit who the “Fail!” is here. Clue number 1 – it isn’t me. Clue number 2 – look in the mirror.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, your idioticy is great.

            “That news article by Phillip Ball was published on … 8th October 2004.”

            Well. Why Ball not refernece the Ennis paper published in 1999? Why Ball does no retracted your defamation against Benveniste in a Nature letter?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! You really are incredibly stupid. In order for a statement to be defamatory, it has to be untrue – which part of that basic tenet of law escapes you?

          • Egger

            Oh dear! You really are incredible pseudoskeptic.

            “which part of that basic tenet of law escapes you?”

            I’m scared behind the bed!!!!!!!!!

          • Paul Morgan

            If you’re scared, then it must be the cognitive dissonance of having the foundations of your beliefs destroyed. Whether that relates to simply exposing your beliefs as being delusional or the fear of having the foundations of your business model taken away, that’s for you to know.

          • Egger

            Garbage response from pseudoskeptik Paul Morgues.

          • Paul Morgan

            You would say that, wouldn’t you? Resorting to pathetic name-calling is so very sad.

          • Egger

            Still no definition. Still no clue. Still no evidence.

          • Paul Morgan

            I see you finally admit your problem. Think of it like being an alcoholic or a gambler – accepting that you have a problem to yourself is the first step on the road to recovery.

          • Egger

            On the Ennis paper. Again:

            –Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies.–

            “The very nature of such conference abstracts is that they are not peer-reviewed and at best the level of evidence in such abstracts is regarded as being very low, but may show some interesting ideas.”

            The Ennis paper published in 2004 was peer reviewed, is about of chornic asthma. The paper published by Ennis in 2015 is not about of high dilutions, Idiot.

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMAO! You really are comedy gold with your continuing ridiculous claims! Where did I ever say that the 2015 Ennis paper had anything to do with high dilutions? Once again you fail to grasp the fundamentals of what’s being explained to you, even though I’m making so simple that even most idiots could understand.
            I will recap for you in the simplest possible terms compatible with the issues. Firstly, after many years of research, Ennis eventually conceded in her 2010 paper in “Homeopathy” that there was no definite evidence to show an effect of homeopathic solutions. You fail to finish the quotation from the abstract, from this
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129176
            I will provide the FULL quote so that even you might be able to understand it and not try to deceive people by selective quotation (i.e. cherry-picking) – see the included image. In case anyone is unable to see the image and read its text, I will also quote it here:-
            “After over 20 years research trying to find out if high dilutions of histamine have a negative feedback effect on the activation of basophils by anti-IgE, what do we know? The methods are poorly standardized between laboratories – although the same is true for conventional studies. Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies. After standardization of a number of parameters, it is recommended that a multi-centre trial be performed to hopefully put an end to this “never-ending story”.”
            Now, continuing to make the explanation simple for you, I’ll explain the next bit. The multi-centre trial that Ennis felt was necessary does not appear to have taken place or, if it has, no results have EVER been published! If you think this is wrong, then please provide me with a link to the published results.
            Finally, to finish this very basic explanation for you, which would not be necessary if you’d actually read and understood the earlier comment, Ennis has published NOTHING on homeopathy since. The ONLY publication by Ennis – the 2015 reference in the “Inflammation Research” supplement – involving anything even remotely related to basophils is that conference abstract on modulation of the immune response in asthma that I referenced in the previous comment.
            So – there is no credible evidence that homeopathic solutions have any effect on basophil degranulation. There is evidence that one of the people (Ennis) who once thought that there was an effect subsequently saying that – due to poor and inconsistent methodologies – that although there appeared to be some effect, what was needed to provide a definitive answer to this question was a multi-centre study using standardised methodology. That study does not appear to have taken place, or at the very least no results have ever been published. As for Ennis herself, she has published nothing else related to homeopathy or basophil degranulation by homeopathic solutions, despite many other published scientific articles on the topic of inflammation. “Ennis M” is a relatively common name, but a PubMed search yields a total of 387 hits. Since the publication of her 2010 article in “Homeopathy” there have been just 73 papers authored by anyone named “Ennis M” (not all will be her). While several of them are about topics related to inflammation (in particular, histamine) etc, the number of papers about homeopathy amounts to a grand total of ZERO. Nil. None. Not even one.
            All your continued commenting is doing here is making yourself look ever more idiotic, if that were possible.

          • Egger

            1) Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. In the Hirst experiment, they combined the results from the each experiment. When observes the each experiment plot, the succused buffer (control group) show poor effect. However, the effects from the succussed group and the experimental control show the similar effects from the Davenas group.

          • Paul Morgan

            Once again you show that you’ve failed to grasp the fundamental issue of the errors made in the experiments conducted in Benveniste’s laboratory. Are those graphs from the Hirst 1993 paper in Nature. 1993 Dec 9;366(6455):525-7. ? The paper is titled “Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE.”
            What we have here is another example of your scientific illiteracy.

          • Egger

            Yes, te graphs are from Hirst paper. Is your request. Well, Why Hirst pooled all control groups in one graph? Why reviewrs admits this?

          • Paul Morgan

            Why not ask the authors of the paper? You should find contact details in the paper. However, you still fail to grasp the fundamental issues of the errors made in the experiments conducted in Benveniste’s laboratory.

          • Egger

            Maddox is dead. Cry, cry for your patriotic hero.

          • Paul Morgan

            Even by your appallingly low standard, that comment is incredibly idiotic.
            So you’re not prepared to ask the question of someone who wrote the paper. We’re not talking about Maddox, we’re talking about Hirst. So, go on, find his contact details and ask him.

          • Egger

            Zombier Maddox reloaded! HAHAHAHA

          • Paul Morgan

            Were you looking for the plot in your lengthy absence? Clearly you failed to find it so to you it remains lost. LOL!

          • Egger

            Oh, still no evidence. Please, show me the phone number of Maddox. He wans answer some questions from the death. HA HA HA HA…

          • Paul Morgan

            You’re fantasising yet again. Look maybe for a postal address or an email address in the Hirst article.

          • Egger

            2) Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties.

            Sorry, the subsecuent experiment is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10350142

            Results: –We confirmed here that high dilution of histamine were capable of inhibiting anti-IgE induced basophil activation–

            3) BBC/ABC Horizon experiment is a pseudoreplication. The Bland letter is debunked in this website:

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2013/08/homeopatia-xiv-horizon-ii.html

            One question. Why Bland evaluates the protocolo of experiment? Is Bland a inmunologist? In a letter in NewScientis Bland said:

            –I was asked to review the Horizon protocol and concluded that the study had high statistical power to detect a difference of one standard deviation. In my opinion this was adequate. I had not at that time seen the paper by Ennis

            However in the Significance letter:

            –They [BBC] decided to carry out the first scientific experiment ever initiated by the BBC, an attempt to replicate the work of Brown and Ennis under rigorous blinding. by Ennis on which the Horizon protocol was based.–

            However, Ennis said: https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Media_reports/The_Protocol_Used_by_the_BBCs_Horizon_Progra.html

            –Please note that the BBC’s program asserted that their study was a “replication” of Ennis’ work, and we are now verifying that this was not true.

            Why Bland lie?

          • Paul Morgan

            So once again you fail to grasp that in 2010, Ennis herself claimed that these findings could not be substantiated. That’s the thing with science. Unlike homeopathy it challenges itself to seek evidence to refute previous claim. Do you want me to repost – yet again – the link to the 2010 paper by Ennis? BTW you do realise, don’t you, that Dana Ullman can official be described as “not a credible witness”, so quoting his website or any articles by him is likely to get you laughed out of the room?
            Martin Bland was ONE member of the team involved in making the “Horizon” programme, a statistician from the Royal Statistical Society – I think that makes him amply qualified to discuss statistics! That he’s not an immunologist is completely irrelevant so that’s just another red herring from you in your continuing demonstration of your Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Egger

            “Ennis herself claimed that these findings could not be substantiated.”

            False.

            –Measuring basophil activation using CD63 or CD203c examines different parts of the activation pathways, the recent paper by Chirumbolo and colleagues would suggest
            that employing the CD203c markers could prove useful. Sainte-Laudy and Belon examined 4 different protocols for basophil activation. Depending on the protocol used, the inhibition observed with 16c histamine (10 ?32 M) varied between non-significant (12.4%) to 63% (19.4%, 39%, 63%). The greatest inhibition was observed using the CD203c protocol with basophils labelled with anti-IgE.–

          • Paul Morgan

            Once again, all this cherry-picked quote is show your scientific illiteracy. You fail to grasp what is meant by the variable results you choose here, particularly the part where it clearly explains that the results depended on the protocol used and were sometimes NON-SIGNIFICANT! Despite mentioning lots of papers, there was no formal meta-analysis – no consideration of the quality of the papers and no attempt to analyse the data using, for example, a Forrest plot.
            You’re only succeeding in embarrassing yourself. The Dunning-Kruger effect continues uanabated.

          • Egger

            “, that Dana Ullman can official be described as “not a credible witness”, so quoting his website or any articles by him is likely to get you laughed out of the room?”

            Wow, original Paul Morgan ad-Acleron fallacy. For the same, NCAFH-Randi Is not credible HAHAHAHA.

          • Paul Morgan

            The stupidity continues to flow from you. Page 5 of this infamous court case. http://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/393/2014/12/Prop-Stat-of-Dec-11-25-14.pdf
            Sadly, your accusation against Randi (I see you’re still obsessed about him – maybe some sort of sexual fantasy) is not supported by any evidence.

          • Egger

            “That he’s not an immunologist is completely irrelevant so that’s just another red herring from you in your continuing demonstration of your Dunning-Kruger effect. Do you have a reference to the letter in “New Scientist”?”

            Yeah, Bland review a protocol in inmunology. This is your excuse? Why Bland lies about of the Ennis papers? Why exclude in your Significance test the 2004 paper with blinded counting of activated basophils? The letter of Significance was published in 2005. The Ennis paper in 2003 (preprint).

            “He reviewed the protocol for statistical validity”

            No, he review the immunological protocol.

          • Paul Morgan

            Again, it appears you’re incapable of reading and comprehending. Utterly daft!

          • Egger

            4) “Even Madeleine Ennis, who initially thought there was something of value in Benveniste’s results… later concluded after further research that it was not possible to confirm his findings, suggesting that further research be carried out”

            Read,

            –Certainly there appears to be some evidence for an effect – albeit small in some cases – with the high dilutions in several different laboratories using the flow cytometric methodologies… The greatest inhibition was observed using the CD203c protocol with basophils labelled with anti-IgE.–

            Experiment from Bellavite and coworkers:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418203

            Conclusion: –Using a strictly standardized flow cytometry protocol and a new dilution/succussion procedure, we have shown that low and high dilutions of histamine inhibit CD203c up-regulation in anti-IgE stimulated basophils.

            This results are consistent with the NMR experiments whit histamine:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732208001724

            2009:
            –In conclusion, coming back to the controversy of homeopathy, this study reports physical modifications in the solvent of ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine. It is, of course, an intriguing result, but it is worth claiming, until proof to the contrary, that it might merely reflect a trivial air-dependent phenomenon, or an unsuspected bias, and should not be extrapolated to the so-called “memory of water”, often alleged to explain the effectiveness of homeopathy.–

            2013:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622259

            –Proton NMR relaxation managed to demonstrate physical modifications of the solvent through out the low to ultramolecular range of dilution.–

            More? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250913000948

            –The water containing NBs displayed statistically longer T 2 values than the control water indicating that the mobility of the water molecules increased and consequently a longer period was required to reach equilibrium of the spin-spin relaxation process.–

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19758548

            More?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12817648

            –The supramolecular structure could be a macromolecule typical of a living organism (plant or animal), which as we know is approximately 80% water, with a complex conformation induced initially by an active principle and which remains, organising itself as a result of an input of energy (dynamisation, electromagnetic wave or other).–

          • Paul Morgan

            Further evidence of your scientific illiteracy. Bellavite – Ennis work published later. The proton NMR study is based on fundamentally flawed principles, such as nanobubbles. Results probably explainable by contamination, in the same manner as Chikramane’s nonsense, but why not ask a chemist/physicist who understands magnetic resonance ( I don’t and you don’t either). Your 3rd reference has no connection to homeopathy bar from single mention in the reference list – utterly irrelevant. The next reference also has zero to do with homeopathy – not even a solitary mention. As for the final reference, water can form various structures, but their duration is evanescent. The so-called “memory” of water at most, lasts for just picoseconds, as explained in this article from the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150918083121.htm

            Here’s a link to the actual paper
            http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150918/ncomms9384/full/ncomms9384.html

            It seems you’re becoming increasingly desperate to find something to support your claims, no matter how tenuous and vague. It’s really rather sad and pathetic as ultimately homeopathy has been shown not to work for any disease or condition.

          • Egger

            “The proton NMR study is based on fundamentally flawed principles, such as nanobubbles”

            Show me the evidence of “flaws”!

            “Results probably explainable by contamination, in the same manner as Chikramane’s nonsense, but why not ask a chemist/physicist who understands magnetic resonance “

            Nonsense? Alberto Luis D’Andrea is the leading nanotechnologist in Argentina. He coments the paper of Chickramane:

            –. La investigación demostró que pequeñas partículas de oro, de alrededor cincuenta nanómetros de ancho, pueden invadir los macrófagos, un tipo de glóbulo blanco, e impedir que la inflamación crezca alrededor de las articulaciones, sin matarlos.–

            http://infobiotecnologia.blogspot.com/2015/02/la-nanotecnologia-de-la-homeopatia.html

            You can view the degrees of D’Andrea:

            http://albertodandrea.blogspot.com/

          • Egger

            “Your 3rd reference has no connection to homeopathy bar from single mention in the reference list – utterly irrelevant.”

            Read, read the tiezzi papers on high dilution effect showed with the NMR!

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12817648

          • Paul Morgan

            I see you still fail to grasp the fundamental issues. Water “structure” durations are measurable on – at best – a picosecond scale, so this is irrelevant to homeopathy as there is no possible means by which any such “structure” could be formed and then administered to a person. It’s also been conclusively proven that homeopathy has no benefit beyond placebo.
            You’re going around in circles in your desperation and daftness, like a dog chasing its own tail. Laughable.

          • Egger

            Yes, I agree with this: water structure time durations are measurable on a picosecond scale. But, it is on a individual level of each hydrogen link. Interpretations of the behaviour of water in the liquid state are generally formulated in terms of short-range interactions, not in large-range interactions. As Martin Chaplin says:

            –the behaviour of a large population of water molecules may be retained even if that of individual molecules is constantly changing.–

            In recent review from brazilian physicist Walmir Ronald Guimarães Silva, he wrote:

            –After analyzing a hundred of experimental projects seeking for resources that could throw some light on the subject, we have reached the conclusion that Quantic Mechanics could be elected as the most appropriate tool for this task.–

            More? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264700000770

            –Our model explains well the origin of homeopathy. In fact, by a homeopathic treatment it is possible to change the information potential V(q 1 , …, q N ) of the organism.–

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.22140/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+14th+May+11%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2F+06%3A00-09%3A00+EDT+%2F+18%3A00-21%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

            –The ordering of water via coherent domains yields sufficient structure for significant memory capacity. Statistical thermodynamics and thereby information theory supports this view.–

          • Paul Morgan

            You really are clutching at straws now. I suggest you read the entirety of Chaplin’s work and stop cherry-picking quotations.
            http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html
            Read what he said about homeopathy, particularly the section where he asks “Does homeopathy work”.
            http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeopathy.html
            Oh dear!
            You provide no reference for whoever that Brazilian physicist is. Try again.

            Your first reference doesn’t even mention water. It’s a paper proposing mathematical models, it’s not a research paper of any sort of investigation.
            Your second reference from 2009 starts from the basis that Benveniste’s work was valid. A fundamental error that immediately disqualifies it from having any relevance, particularly when subsequent work shows it to be wrong.
            Another series of epic fails.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, cherry picked citations? Really? The citations come from Homeopathy journal.

            “You provide no reference for whoever that Brazilian physicist is. Try again.”

            Sorry littel donkey. The paper is authored by the Sweden physicist Andrei Khrennikov, he said:

            “Our model explains well the origin of homeopathy. In fact, by a homeopathic treatment it is possible to change the information potential”

            “You provide no reference for whoever that Brazilian physicist is. Try again.”

            Brazilian physicist Walmir Ronald Guimarães Silva, he wrote:

            –After analyzing a hundred of experimental projects seeking for resources that could throw some light on the subject, we have reached the conclusion that Quantic Mechanics could be elected as the most appropriate tool for this task.–

            https://jorgestorace.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/fisica-e-homeopatia-1-quantica-e-uhds/

          • Paul Morgan

            Where have you been the past few weeks. It’s almost as if people were missing your particular brand of stupid. Not.
            A link to a WordPress blog written by a homeopath in Portuguese ≠ evidence. It’s not a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
            Krennikov – so what? The paper has just a single paragraph where he theorises about homeopathy. That’s it. A very brief discussion but no evidence given.
            As for Walmir Silva – who is he? Can’t find anything by him. PubMed listings – zero. Nil. Nada.
            I see you haven’t improved your state of knowledge or ability to provide evidence in your time away. Don’t let me stop you from getting back to trying to at least learn some science basics. I suspect it’ll still be challenging.

          • Egger

            “A link to a WordPress blog written by a homeopath in Portuguese ≠ evidence. It’s not a peer-reviewed scientific publication.”

            Oh, yeah, you show the David Coulqouhn blog. Why this blog is true? O

          • Paul Morgan

            David Colquhoun is Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at UCL. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/npp/research/dc Rather more highly qualified and published than any homeopath. Credibility rating several orders of magnitude higher and therefore substantially more believable.

          • Egger

            The “homeopath” is physician and PhD. You can understand this?

            “Krennikov – so what? The paper has just a single paragraph where he theorises about homeopath”

            Are you stupid? Is a peer review paper from a real physicist, not a paedophile Randi or a Edzard Ernst MD (he is not a physicist).

            “As for Walmir Silva – who is he? Can’t find anything by him. PubMed listings – zero. Nil. Nada.”

            Really? Oh dear, your search skill are poor. Please, show me your high quality works in PubMed.
            Oh no…

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Morgan+Paul%5BAuthor%5D

            Zero Paul Morgan papers. HA HA HA HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            Err, try searching “Morgan P” – I see your PubMed basic search skills are fundamentally lacking. Not that it’s relevant to you still showing no evidence of who Silva is or your inability to actually read and comprehend the words or Krennikov. You also fail to grasp the fact that physicists and medical doctors possess very different skill sets, such that physicists know very little about medicine and vice versa. However, they do share a common understanding of science and its methodologies, something which you’ve made abundantly clear that you don’t possess.

            I see once again you make the wild accusation of Randi being a paedophile with no evidence.

          • Egger

            Yeah! Are you a fool?

            http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html

            Read! Read!

            —There are numerous examples of the slow equilibration in aqueous solution. Thus, it can take several days for the effects of the addition of salts to water to finally stop oscillating [4] and such solutions are still changing after several months showing a large-scale (~100 nm) domain structure [1148]. Also, water restructuring after infrared radiation persists for more than a day [730], and water photoluminescence changes over a period of days

            HAHAHAHA

          • Paul Morgan

            Unlike you, I read rather a lot of the water articles from that entire piece of work. Read this from the same website at http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeopathy.html

            Does homeopathy work?

            Many ridicule homeopathy out of serious consideration as a clinical practice, sometimes resorting to unscientific, unbalanced and unrefereed editorial diatribe. One of the main reasons concerning this disbelief in the efficacy of homeopathy lies in the difficulty in understanding how it might work [2065]. If an acceptable theory was available then more people would consider it more seriously. However, it is difficult at present to sustain a theory as to why a truly infinitely diluted aqueous solution, consisting of just H2O molecules, should retain any difference from any other such solution. It is even more difficult to put forward a working hypothesis as to how small quantities of such ‘solutions’ can act to elicit a specific response when confronted with large amounts of complex solution in a subject. A major problem in this area is that, without a testable hypothesis for the generally acknowledged potency of homeopathy (except, perhaps, flawed dilution assumptions [2375]) , there is a growing possibility of others making fraudulent claims in related areas, as perhaps evidenced by the increasing use of the internet to advertise ‘healthy’ water concentrates using dubious (sometimes published but irreproducible) scientific and spiritual evidence. [Back to Top to top of page]

            Another example of you cherry-picking and failing to read and understand all the relevant information. You’ve been shown repeatedly the evidence that any water “memory” lasts – at most – for a matter of picoseconds. If you’re too stupid to grasp this or so blinded by cognitive dissonance that you refuse to see the evidence, then it’s you that has the problem.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, Can you note the difference in basic science and clinical evidence?

          • Paul Morgan

            Yes, I can. Which is rather more than you seem to be capable of. Not understanding the differences between what can be shown in a variety of experimental conditions and the difference between in vitro and in vivo effects is such a typical problem for homeopaths and other charlatans.
            https://xkcd.com/1217/

          • Egger

            From the Chaplin text. Homeopathy and Chikramane paper. Yes, thanks for validates the references:

            References:

            #2065 P. Bellavite, M. Marzotto, D. Olioso, E. Moratti and A. Conforti, High-dilution effects revisited. 1. Physicochemical aspects, Homeopathy 103 (2014) 4-21; P. Bellavite, M. Marzotto, D. Olioso, E. Moratti and A. Conforti, High-dilution effects revisited. 2. Pharmacodynamic mechanisms, Homeopathy 103 (2014) 22-43

            #2375 P. S. Chikramane, D. Kalita, A. K. Suresh, S. G. Kane and J. R. Bellare, Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: A nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation, Langmuir 28 (2012) 15864-15875

          • Paul Morgan

            The Chikramane “Langmuir” paper!!! ROFLMAO!!! About as scientifically poor as it’s possible to get! http://www.scilogs.com/in_scientio_veritas/homeopathy-nanoparticle-chikramane/
            As for the Bellavite paper, it simply rehashes the same nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked on multiple occasions while offering no new evidence.
            Oh dear!

          • Egger

            HA HA HA HA HA

            “You’ve been shown repeatedly the evidence that any water “memory” lasts – at most – for a matter of picoseconds.”

            Can you read the quotes from physicists?

          • Paul Morgan

            I’ve already provided you with the article from the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research but here’s a link to the full paper. I think you’ll find the authors are highly published in the science of water.

          • Egger

            “The so-called “memory” of water at most, lasts for just picoseconds, as explained in this article from the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research ”

            Are you chemist? No! You are a fanatic and sectarian pseudoskeptik without basis od water dynamics. In the experiments of Nature, no dilution, no shaking, not centesimal dilution of any kind of solute. Are you kidding me? This is a real experiment of homeopathic dilutions:

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

          • Paul Morgan

            You are not a chemist and it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you haven’t even got a high-school level of chemistry knowledge. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!
            So no, I’m not kidding you. Which part of that extremely high quality research is too difficult for you to grasp? They state it as plainly as possible that water structures last – at best – for picoseconds. You do know what a picosecond is?
            How would the putative behaviour of the solutions have any effect on the typical lactose pillules used in homeopathy?
            Where is the statistical analysis in that paper? Non-existent! The results are therefore useless as it’s simply not possible to ascertain whether there is any actual difference in the solutions beyond the range of experimental error. With such a fundamental flaw, it is incredible that the article made it through the peer review process.
            Of course, this still leaves the fundamental issues of applicability to a biological system such as a human being. There is none. It’s gibberish. And still not evidence of efficacy for homeopathy.

          • Egger

            “The proton NMR study is based on fundamentally flawed principles, such as nanobubbles. ”

            Principles of nanobubles? HAHAHAHAHA Really? LOOOOOL!

            http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nanobubble.html

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! Quoting that article shows yet more scientific illiteracy from you. No-one disputes that nanobubbles can be created, but they have absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy! How many times is homeopathy mentioned in that article? ZERO. Nil. Never. Not ever.
            You also fail to understand yet another issue – there is no possible way for nanobubbles to be created during the manufacturing processes for homeopathic “remedies” – the conditions required are actually briefly described in the article you quote. The manufacturing process of homeopathy, using serial dilution and succusion cannot create those condition. Even if you still want (despite this) to consider nanobubbles as an integral part of the homeopathy “remedy” manufacture process, you then need to explain what happens when the “remedy” solution is dripped onto the lactose pillules.

          • Deb Walker

            I think you’re that one doofus who kept having his backside handed to him on JREF. For pages and pages. Right? Doronshadmi? The “Deeper than primes” thread? It explains your freakish fixation on Mr. Randi. Well, he doesn’t run the forums anymore. The JREF divested it. Cry me a river.

          • Egger

            Pseudosketpik Troll:
            Please, explain me the reasons for the dishonest response from Randi et al about the “lack” of Israeli data showing in the original paper.

          • Deb Walker

            Die in a fire. It’s not my job to explain other people to you. Why the hell don’t you ask him? He’s not in hiding. Besides, I see you can’t even keep up with a simple conversation. We’re talking about water being sold as medicine by QUACKS AND FRAUDS, or had you forgotten? So try to keep up.

          • Egger

            Randi never answer me. Why?

            ” We’re talking about water being sold as medicine by QUACKS AND FRAUDS, or had you forgotten? So try to keep up.”

            Randi is a fraud and liar. I’m sorry for you pseudoskeptikal misconduct.

          • Deb Walker

            i TOLD YOU, YOU FUCKING CRETIN, TO ASK HIM. And I’m sorry you’ve latched onto a single word and think it makes your argument. It doesn’t. You don’t even know Mr. Randi, but you’re hardly the first insignificant speck of a nobody to be annoyed by his superior intellect and ability to cut right through frauds. Do not speak to me again., You are revolting. You disgust me, Water “Doctor.”

          • Egger

            What? Can you show any coherent sentence?

          • Deb Walker

            From you? Nope. Not one coherent sentence. Do you even know what that word means? It doesn’t appear so. Now, be gone with you QUACK and FRAUD. Go kill some people. It’s what you do, isn’t it?

          • Egger

            “Do you even know what that word means?”

            Sure.

            “. Now, be gone with you QUACK and FRAUD. Go kill some people. It’s what you do, isn’t it?”

            I’m not a homeopathy. I’m ex-militant of the CSICOP Spain (Alternativa Racional a las Pseudociencias) What is your problem?

          • Deb Walker

            You can’t BE a “homeopathy.” The term, Csicop, is “Homeopath.” I’d think you’d know that.

          • Egger

            Dumb.

          • Deb Walker

            Unsubscribe. NOW.

          • Egger

            “Unsubscribe. NOW”

            No. Try with me.

        • Egger

          Oh hells! The NHRMC:

          http://www.australiannaturaltherapistsassociation.com.au/news/archive/2015/item_0315_NHMRC-Paper-on-Homeopathy-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers.php

          –NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. What the NHMRC 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.

          Paul Morgan jumps to conclusions.

          https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/the-australian-report-on-homeopathy/australian-nhmrc-report-in-detail/

          –Specific examples of how the NHMRCs approach distorted the results: The larger and more heterogeneous the set of primary studies for a given medical condition, the more the final conclusions were distorted by the NHMRC’s method of combining all trials; the smaller and more homogeneous the evidence base, the less effect this will have had on the outcome.–

          • Paul Morgan

            Your continuing cluelessness and gullibility is apparent. You really have absolutely no clue about how to assess scientific evidence using critical appraisal. Neither do the homeopaths who wrote that rant. Their cherry-picking of parts of the NHMRC article simply serve to expose their own unwillingness/inability to use science.

          • Egger

            “. You really have absolutely no clue about how to assess scientific evidence using critical appraisal. “

            You are fool! Take a Randi Pill!

          • Paul Morgan

            Another irony meter just exploded! Seriously – is that the level of rational argument you have left? Do yourself a favour – give it up. You’re just continuing to make yourself look daft.

        • Egger

          “The phrase “conspiracy theory idiocy” comes to mind.”

          Oh dear, let’s go to read this post:

          http://hezeptikos.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-independent-julian-rodriguez-y-la.html

          • Paul Morgan

            After reading that garbage, my description of “conspiracy theory idiocy” still applies.

          • Egger

            Ok, the “garbage” papers are listed in the whatstherharm NET. HA HA HA HA. Your idioticy is BIG.

          • Paul Morgan

            I’m shocked, I tell you! NOT! Another daft comment made with no evidence to support your position. Oh dear! You really are terrible at debating matters of science. LOL!

    • Egger

      “He also regularly posts a link to an article that was published in the journal “Langmuir” in which it was claimed that nanoparticles were found in so-called homeopathic remedies despite dilution well beyond Avogadro’s constant. (He’s given a link to it in one of his comments below). He claims that this is proof that nanoparticles exist in homeopathic remedies, yet when challenged to explain how such particles might exist in such remedies as Light of Venus or Dolphin Sonar, he remains oddly silent. Of course, the article is full of bad science, as explained here “

      Good goalpost fallacy.
      Obviously, Light of venus and dolphin sonar are impoderable remedies. This are not recognized in Official HPUS. In another homeopathic remedies based on metal, vegetable and salts in extreme dilution may be present in nanoparticles. Kausik Datta never explains the presence of the gold nanoparticles in dilutions based with gold solute. Therefore, contamination hypothesis does not explain this.

      Independent replications with another techniques:

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

      • Paul Morgan

        You really seem determined to demonstrate your Dunning-Kruger effect to the readers of this comments section. I would say top marks for persistency, but really when you’re in a hole, it’s best to stop digging. Gold nanoparticles in the gold homeopathy remedy? Oooh – let’s think about for a nanosecond. It’s contamination DUH! I really don’t care what “remedies” are listed in the HPUS or not. Let’s simply look at what’s sold by purveyors of homeopathy. How about Berlin Wall? Homeopathic Owl? Colours?
        If you want to discuss Datta’s article, why not post comments in the comments section of his article? With regard to the article you link to in the “Journal of Molecular Liquids”. Homeopathic “remedies” are generally diluted to AT LEAST 6C and the most common dilution is 30C. With insufficient data in the abstract it’s impossible to ascertain whether any claimed differences found are merely in the realms of experimental error. Given the complexity of the measurements described in the full paper, it would require a chemist with the appropriate knowledge base to comment on the validity of the experimental techniques and findings. Nevertheless, the paper is one of physical properties and bears no relevance to whether homeopathy has any clinical benefits or not. On that the evidence is clear – it has no benefit beyond a placebo effect.

        • Egger

          Blagh!

          “I really don’t care what “remedies” are listed in the HPUS or not. “

          Wait… HA HA HA HA HA Your ignoracy in homeopathy is terribly!

          “How about Berlin Wall? Homeopathic Owl? Colours?”

          I don’t know, Berlin Wall is only saled by Helios Pharmacy. Not registred in HPUS. This fact never debunks the fact from the presence of gold synth nanoparticles in 200CH.

          ” Homeopathic “remedies” are generally diluted to AT LEAST 6C and the most common dilution is 30C”

          LOL! If you recognized the existence of 6C, this is a low potency. Obviously this a not only “water or sugar”.

          “. Nevertheless, the paper is one of physical properties and bears no relevance to whether homeopathy has any clinical benefits or not. On that the evidence is clear – it has no benefit beyond a placebo effect.”

          Obviously stupid. This study show physicochemical changes in homeopathis potencies, not more.

          “Given the complexity of the measurements described in the full paper, it would require a chemist with the appropriate knowledge base to comment on the validity of the experimental techniques and findings.”

          Wow, wait… Why you comment the Langmuir study?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! You really haven’t got the faintest idea of science. Did you go to school? Did you pay attention in science lessons? Unlike you, I’m not prepared to comment without studying the evidence and I know my limitations. As I’ve said elsewhere, the Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in you. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
            Unlike you, it seems, I do know a reasonable amount of chemistry, physics and biology (not to mention pharmacology, microbiology, biochemistry). Therefore I can comment on aspects of science I know about and can defend my position with evidence. If I don’t have the necessary knowledge, I can often find someone who does. Pity the same can’t be said of you.

          • Egger

            ” Unlike you, I’m not prepared to comment without studying the evidence and I know my limitations”

            Oh heavens! Paul Morgan try explain a physical chemistry paper on Langmuir. James Randi, a magician without science degree, tried explain a complex themes in inmunology. Come on Paul, show me the list of Berlin Wall in HPUS.

          • Paul Morgan

            Irrelevant. Also please note that I showed the work of others who have debunked the Chikramane “Langmuir” paper for the garbage it is. A fundamental failure to conduct their experiments and control for contamination. You do realise, don’t you, that even if that paper had any value, no manufacturer of homeopathy skims the surface of the liquid to make the next serial dilution? Then again, given the level of ignorance you’ve shown so far, you don’t seem to realise very much at all.

          • Egger

            When show this? Oh dear, the post of ad-hominem attack from Kausik Datta is very funny, but this is not a debunk. Datta is a MD, not chemist.

            http://johnshopkins.academia.edu/KausikDatta

            The “hypothesis” of Datta is the contamination, impure solvents and metal contaminations from nitric acid. Not more. From Datta:

            “the most parsimonious explanation for which would be that the dilution process was inadequate or incomplete or horribly inefficient, or that the people who make up these dilutions have zero understanding of analytical chemistry ”

            This is a straw man fallacy. Datta only speculates. This is your definitive debunk to the Langmuir paper?

          • Paul Morgan

            Err, you don’t seem to understand that you have to study chemistry to a pretty high standard as a pre-requisite to studying medicine. Why am I not surprised about that. Other people have also reached the same conclusion about the Chikramane study – the particles seen are contaminants.
            https://pubpeer.com/publications/CE13826E87AF879C14B47D7C612D29
            That you appear to be incapable of grasping the basic faults exposed in the Chikramane study is your problem. If you have any other actual credible explanations, feel free to post them. You’ve spectacularly failed so far – merely repeating what was written in the papers is not evidence of anything other than your lack of knowledge.

          • Egger

            “Err, you don’t seem to understand that you have to study chemistry to a pretty high standard as a pre-requisite to studying medicine. “

            Are you a chemist? Noooooo!

            The pubpeer response is LOL!:

            “The alternative is to change the laws of thermodynamics and mass action. I am happy for this to happen in the face of evidence and a coherent theory, that must, of course, encompass the predictions of current theory and such new observations that challenge the latter.”

            Evidence please!

            An example of Fallacy of adverse consecuences: “Beyond the fact that homeopathy to be true would invalidate most of what we know of physics “

            There is not any kind of debunk the Langmuir paper, only rethorical fallacies and ad-hominem attacks. LOL!

          • Paul Morgan

            Why is the PubPeer response “LOL”? Your scientific illiteracy clearly displayed once again as you openly show that you simply have zero clue about how science works. That you cherry-pick quotes from that page but seem incapable of reading and understanding it is a matter of your ignorance, not mine.

          • Egger

            Oh no, the bad Paul Morgan revenge… HA HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            Another comment born out of ignorance.

          • Egger

            Whitout arguments from the Pseudoskeptik Paul.

          • Paul Morgan

            Please define “pseudoskeptic”. Your lack of knowledge of the value of PubPeer and other sites where post-publication peer reviews are published is not surprising, given the ignorance you’ve displayed so far.

          • Egger

            Oh, the ad-hominem + strawman fallacy by Paul Morgan:

            ” Your lack of knowledge of the value of PubPeer and other sites where post-publication peer reviews are published is not surprising, given the ignorance you’ve displayed so far.”

            Come on, Try with another ad-hoc excuse!

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMAO! The inability to grasp reality and understand rational scientific discussion still evades you. And still you fail to define “pseudoskeptic”.

          • Egger

            RUPOLMAO! The inability to grasp reality and understand rational scientific discussion sitll evades your fans. And still you fail to understand the pseudoskeptik term. I’m sorry for you.

          • Paul Morgan

            PMSL!!!! Please define the term “pseudoskeptic” – you’ve spectacularly failed to do so up to now, just as you’ve failed to provide any credible evidence to support any of the claims you’ve made.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, you are a pseudoskeptik.

            ” failed to provide any credible evidence to support any of the claims you’ve made”

            Oh, really? When? Why? HAHAHA

          • Paul Morgan

            Still no definition. Still no clue. Still no evidence. Plot remains lost to you.

          • Egger

            Oh dear, definition is not evidence. You are a fool.

          • Paul Morgan

            You have repeatedly called me a “pseudoskeptic” but you repeatedly refuse to define the word. The evidence shows that you don’t know what you’re saying. Daft.

          • Egger

            ” You do realise, don’t you, that even if that paper had any value, no manufacturer of homeopathy skims the surface of the liquid to make the next serial dilution?”

            Like as your idioticy of the Berlin Wall “registred” in HPUS? Or the inexistent medical homeopathic schools? Try me!

          • Paul Morgan

            I have never claimed that Berlin Wall is a HPUS registered “remedy” – it’s irrelevant as to whether it is or not. The fact is that someone has made a Berlin Wall homeopathic “remedy” and sells it as such. https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/berlin-wall
            I’m sure you know that Helios are one the world’s biggest suppliers of so-called homeopathic “remedies”? Do you even have the first clue as to how these “remedies” are made? Doesn’t look like when you make such a daft comment.
            I have never claimed that there are colleges of homeopathy – they are a shameful blot on academia. You also clearly fail to grasp the key points that schools/colleges of homeopathy are not medical schools and that real medical schools that lead to qualifications in real medicine do not teach homeopathy.

        • Egger

          More evidence Paul?

  • Oh! While you’re here, Dana, perhaps you missed this question to you under your recent article in the Huff Po? I’m sure we’d all like to hear what you have to say on the matter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/when-getting-arrested-for_b_9780342.html?fb_comment_id=1022574414499380_1023565257733629

    • Egger

      LOL! The straw man fallacy. Man, smells the JREF = $$$

      • LOL! Dana was asked a question – he hasn’t answered and I though he might like to…

        • Egger

          The “arguments” of Alan Shit: LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

          • Oh you are a hoot!

          • Egger

            Oh dear Alan, that’s all folks!

          • Thanks for your ‘contributions’ here Egger – very helpful indeed…

          • Egger

            Thanks for your master show of lack of any critial thinking habilities. More tools from me.

          • @Egger If you ever come across this lack of ‘critial thinking habilities’ [sic] please feel free to point them out – with reasoned argument and evidence, of course.

          • Egger

            Of course. You are a simply lawyer withour any science degree. You are a boss of lobby to the service of JREF, Science Media Centre, CSICOP and mediatic marketing of the bussines in pseudoskepticism. In Spain I know of this! HA HA HA

          • LOL! You’re even more amusing when you get things sooooo wrong! Which is very often, of course.

          • Egger

            LOL! You’re never aske me. Why? CSICOP and Acleron loves them!

          • Tetenterre

            Hey, Egger, I’ve just figured out who you are:

            You are one of those infamous “paid shills of BigPharma” we keep hearing about, deposited here to make homeoquacks look utterly ridiculous.

            Cracking job, mate!

          • Egger

            “You are one of those infamous “paid shills of BigPharma” we keep hearing about, deposited here to make homeoquacks look utterly ridiculous.”

            Who are you? I never said any “paid shills of BigPharma”. I love you straw man fallacy!

          • Tetenterre

            . < The point

            O < Your head

          • Egger

            My head is a zero? LOOOL!!!!

          • Tetenterre

            , <- The point

            O <- Your head

          • Egger

            My head is a zero? LOOOOL!!!!!

          • Tetenterre

            Actually, it was an upper-case ‘o’ but, now you mention it, a zero (which is this shape: 0, not this shape: O) would have been more appropriate. Thanks for the correction.

          • Egger

            “to make homeoquacks look utterly ridiculous”

            HA HA HA, another simplistic attack without arguments!

          • Egger

            NO, You’re never aske me. Why?

  • rosross

    Edzard was never trained in Homeopathy, never qualified, never practised as he admits. He changed his mind, no doubt for his own reasons which may be varied or singular and profitable.

    However, as one voice, with no deep understanding of Homeopathy, no qualifications in Homeopathy, no training in Homeopathy, he lacks substance and credibility.

    Then again, as yet another naysayer without any substance to back his claims, he provides a useful vehicle to disseminate credible and substantiated information about Homeopathy. All to the good really.

    No medical modality survives for more than two centuries without being effective. In fact nothing survives for so long if it lacks efficacy. In addition, not one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government in the world would touch Homeopathy if it were not effective, or if it were proven to be pure placebo and many do, ergo, it is effective and it most certainly is not pure placebo.

    Ernst’s opinions are simply his opinions.

    • Roslyn said:

      “He changed his mind, no doubt for his own reasons…”

      Maybe you haven’t got round to reading the article yet…

      • rosross

        Oh, I read the article. He repeats what he has said before. It remains as insubstantial as it has ever been and the reality at work in the world brings it crumbling to a heap still.

        If Ernst were correct not one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government would touch it – many do, ergo, he is wrong. Or biased, or corrupt, or confused, or bought, or misled, or misguided etc. etc. etc.

        • Well, if you know Prof Ernst is lying about his reasons for changing your mind, I’m sure we’d all like to hear the real truth from you…

          • rosross

            Oh heavens, I never said he was lying. I am sure he is sincere. One can be wrong, misguided, deluded and still believe in it. When it is worthwhile taking a certain position many people are quite capable of dismissing any evidence to the contrary and being selective about what they choose to believe.

            Professor Ernst is ready to dismiss the clear realities of MD’s and hospitals, particularly in Europe and some of the world’s best; medical schools and universities which teach it and Governments which include it in State medical systems, which is impressive but which makes his position look even more flimsy.

            If he was right, none of this would happen. It does happen and therefore he is wrong, no doubt sincere, but wrong.

            Doctors were sincere when they dismissed appeals to wash their hands before attending women in labour and tens of thousands more mothers and babies died before they were convinced to see reason. Doctors were sincere when they prescribed Thalidomide and yet hundreds of thousands more babies were born deformed because they refused to listen to the warning cries from a doctor who could see reason and reality before others did. Scientists and builders were sincere in recommending asbestos as a building material. Scientists and agriculturalists were sincere recommending DDT as a pesticide. Etc. etc. etc. There is a long list of that which science and medicine have gotten wrong so Professor Ernst and his acolytes is no orphan.

          • Acleron

            A homeopath accusing others of being selective is quite delicious.

          • I spotted the irony as well…

          • Egger

            “A homeopath accusing others of being selective is quite delicious.”

            Hey man, wait. In another discussion you said:

            http://i.imgur.com/mDkeaCR.png

            If this true: Ernst is a homeopath, yet?

            1. Homeopaths cannot be scientist.
            2. Ernst is a trained homeopath.
            3. Ernst cannot be scientist..

            Bravo!

          • Paul Morgan

            There are no medical schools in the UK or USA that teach homeopathy. The reason being the lack of evidence of efficacy. The regulations of testing for drugs has changed out of all recognition since the thalidomide scandal, showing that – unlike homeopathy – science and medicine change as evidence comes to light. To put this into context, blood-letting used to be about the only “remedy” once used by doctors – it was responsible for the deaths of many including, most notably, George Washington. In that context, homeopathy may have been seen as beneficial as it didn’t involve making people hypovolaemic and anaemic. However, the subsequent advances in science and medicine means homeopathy should now be consigned to its rightful place in medicine – the history book.
            Your arguments are fallacious and will be accorded the appropriate amount of credence, i.e. zero.

          • Egger

            “There are no medical schools in the UK or USA that teach homeopathy. ”

            In the other countries? LOL!

          • Paul Morgan

            No real medical schools anywhere teach homeopathy. The only references to homeopathy being taught in medical schools in Germany are on homeopathy websites, so not credible sources of evidence. I can find no medical school anywhere in the world that teaches homeopathy. That it is taught in various colleges of homeopathy is irrelevant.

          • Egger

            “No real medical schools anywhere teach homeopathy.”

            HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Your idioticy is awful!

            From Mexico:

            http://www.enmh.ipn.mx/Oferta_Educativa/Paginas/MCYH.aspx

            From Argentina:

            http://maimonides.edu/es/departamentos_detalle.php?id=2

            From India:

            http://www.cchindia.com/colleges.htm

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear again!!! Mexico – not a medical school, but a technical college.
            Argentina – a department of homeopathy, not a medical school.
            India – a list of schools of homeopathy, none of which are real medical schools.
            Your cluelessness continues unabated.

          • Egger

            “Oh dear again!!! Mexico – not a medical school, but a technical college.”

            Idiot. National Polytechnic Institute is a recognized university, not a “technical college”. Offer MD grade.

            “Argentina – a department of homeopathy, not a medical school.”

            Idiot. Maimones University had a medical departament.

            “India – a list of schools of homeopathy, none of which are real medical schools.”

            Triple idiot.

          • Acleron

            They are closing down, see Spain.

          • Egger

            Acleron you admit the conspiracy from APEPT gangsters. Bravo!

          • Egger

            “There are no medical schools in the UK or USA that teach homeopathy. ”

            Yes, in UK and USA the teach of homeopathy in Harvard was common. When Sense About Science and corrupt Randi plans yout idioticy, magically the Harvard teach close!

            http://web.archive.org/web/20020811061723/http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/356/356/308755.html?d=dmtContent

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMOA! In your determination to prove to the world that you’re no more than a deluded conspiracy theorist, you’re doing incredibly well!
            No mention of homeopathy on that page. Try again. Harvard has had links with PROMOTING homeopathy via its former links with Aetna, but there’s no evidence that it’s ever actually TAUGHT homeopathy.

          • Egger

            “Conspiracy theorists”.

            Oh dear, is only facts. You are pseudoskeptik and liar. Try again.

            “Try again. Harvard has had links with PROMOTING homeopathy via its former links with Aetna, but there’s no evidence that it’s ever actually TAUGHT homeopathy.”

            Obviously. JREF lobby against this.

          • Paul Morgan

            Another claim made without evidence.

          • Egger

            “Another claim made without evidence.”

            HA HA HA! The agenda of the Randi lobby is real! http://safeandsecular.org/

            –“The harmful influence of religion and pseudoscience on our health care is manifested in many different areas, affecting individuals in every age group. Commonplace–

            What does mean “commonplace”? Universities and hospitals around the world, of course!

          • Paul Morgan

            Another random shout of “RANDI”!!! Oh dear! Fixated, much? That quote is a very sensible one. Homeopathy and other forms of quackery have much in common, as both rely on ignoring evidence and reality in favour of a state of delusion. Now, rather than link to the whole website, how about a link to where that quote comes from. Or is it just another example of your cherry-picking?
            I’ve no idea what you mean in asking what “commonplace” is and the subsequent “Universities and hospitals” remark. Just because something has been taught and is used in some hospitals, doesn’t make it so. I presume you’re pleased enough (as am I) when science shows that a treatment has no value or may even be postively harmful, leading to a stopping of its use (Vioxx, thalidomide, EUSOL, Xigris just to give a few examples). Why, then, are you so unwilling to apply the same standard to homeopathy? Is the cognitive dissonance of having your beliefs challenged too painful to deal with or is it a case of having a business model based on a scam destroyed?

          • Egger

            Garbage response by Paul Morgan. Again, Why Randi rejects review the laborary data from Israel? Why?

          • Paul Morgan

            Firstly, which part of Randi only one member of the investigating team escapes you? Are you really that incapable of reading or is your fixation with Randi so all-consuming that it prevents you from seeing anything else?
            Secondly, which part of the data not being made available with sufficient detail did you also fail to grasp?
            I think you need help.

          • Egger

            Maddox et al paper:

            “Data from the latter are unfortunately not avaliable

            Benveniste letter:

            –A section called “Collaboration” was also added at the last minute which is filled with “mistruths”: data from Israel, twice described as not avaliable, can be found… in our Nature paper..

            Secondly, wich part of Benveniste letter escapes you?

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! Once again you miss the point entirely. The Maddox team asked for the original data. Benveniste was able to supply all the original data from his own laboratory, but said that the Toronto data was not going to be made available and the original Israeli data was not made available, only the data that ended up in the paper. You clearly fail to grasp the problem, again exhibiting scientific illiteracy. It was Benveniste’s original data (from notebooks etc.) that cast serious doubts on the experimental findings and therefore their validity in terms of what was being reported. It is a standard of scientific research that all original data is kept so that it can be made available for further scrutiny if so required. That the origina data from the other sites was not made available, was – and remains – a problem of such significance that it could not be ignored.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens!

            “the original Israeli data was not made available, only the data that ended up in the paper

            Once again you miss answer my simple question. Why Nature reject evaluate them the Israeli data? Watch the table 2 from the original paper of Benveniste. In my opinion Randi is very stupid men.

            “It was Benveniste’s original data (from notebooks etc.) that cast serious doubts on the experimental findings and therefore their validity in terms of what was being reported. I”

            Oh dear, the same data reanalysied by the physicist Michel Schiff? Ok,

          • Paul Morgan

            LOL! Where are those graphs published? Who is Michel Schiff? The same Michel Schiff who has apparently co-authored articles with…. Jacques Benveniste! Oh dear! How about something from an independent source? I can find very little about his work beyond a few books and articles on homeopathy. Where does/did he work, for example? Where are his papers listed on homeopathy on PubMed?
            You accusing Randi of being “very stupid men” is – as you say – your opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. As for asking me why the Israeli data was rejected by the investigating team, I have explained to you in the simplest possible terms the reasons I can ascertain from what has been written. Anything beyond that would be pure speculation, as I do not possess a time machine to go back to ask them what their thought processes were – these have been described ad nauseum.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens the Hirst experiment re-analysis:

            http://www.weirdtech.com/sci/Hirstdata1.gif

          • Paul Morgan

            Reference please!

          • Egger

            “That the origina data from the other sites was not made available, was – and remains – a problem of such significance that it could not be ignored.2”

            No more lies Paul The Fraudster.

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear!! Which part of the concept of ORIGINAL data – as in the logbooks, data collection etc. – still escapes you? Benveniste provided his original data, as has been described. Why not the original Israeli data? Why not the Toronto data?
            You’re clutching at straws as this is all now irrelevant as further scientific investigations have shown that homeopathic solutions do not cause basophil degranulation and that homeopathy has no benefit beyond a placebo.
            Please try connecting with the real world and leave your fantasies and obsessions behind.

          • Egger

            “Your arguments are fallacious and will be accorded the appropriate amount of credence, i.e. zero”

            Come on pseudoskeptik. Come on!

          • Paul Morgan

            Another claim made without evidence. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in you. You’re really not very good at this, are you?

          • Egger

            “The regulations of testing for drugs has changed out of all recognition since the thalidomide scandal, showing that – unlike homeopathy – science and medicine change as evidence comes to ligh”

            HA HA HA Homeopathy never change? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA… Try read basic lessons of history:

            http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/294/29404205.pdf
            http://www.pacarinadelsur.com/home/utopias/837-homeopatia-y-cambio-climatico
            http://bvs.sld.cu/revistas/rst/vol11_1_10/rst08110.htm

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh the irony! Those are not scientific papers. They’re works of history and historical fiction. Try again. How many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for homeopathy? Precisely zero! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

          • Egger

            More patetic excuses from Randi bot.

            “Those are not scientific papers”

            Sorry, the papers appear in peer review journals.

            “They’re works of history and historical fiction.”

            LOL! More ad-hominem and straw man fallacies.

            “How many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for homeopathy? Precisely zero! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!”

            None. However, Randi or Robert L. Park or Sagan or Mario Bunge or Massimo P, they do not have any Prize. Why Randi do not have the Nobel Prize in Physics or Physiology?

            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMAO! Your utter cluelessness continues apace.

          • Egger

            LOL, Paul never ask me! Your lies and patetic responses are very funny!

          • Paul Morgan

            Another irony meter just exploded. You’re still yet to provide a scrap of credible evidence. Just idiotic nonsense and name-calling, while having the audacity to accuse others of ad hominem attacks while making multiple such attacks with zero evidence.

          • Egger

            “You’re still yet to provide a scrap of credible evidence.”

            I provide evidence. If is “credible” for you, is independt from the results.

            “Just idiotic nonsense and name-calling, “

            That’s all Paul?

            “while having the audacity to accuse others of ad hominem attacks while making multiple such attacks with zero evidence”

            Zero evidence and ad-hominem attack? Please see your ad-hominem attacks and insults:

            From Paul Morgan:

            1) ” You really haven’t got the faintest idea of science. Did you go to school? Did you pay attention in science lessons?”

            2) “After reading that garbage, my description of “conspiracy theory idiocy” still applies.”

            3) “You really have absolutely no clue about how to assess scientific evidence using critical appraisal.”

            4) “You’re still yet to provide a scrap of credible evidence. Just idiotic nonsense and name-calling, “

          • Paul Morgan

            Oh dear! The scientific illiteracy continues unabated. Yes – the “evidence” you provided is not credible, the reasons why it lacks credibility have been explained to you. If you’re unwilling or unable to understand, then that’s your problem, not mine.
            Any attacks I’ve made on you are based on the clear evidence of your cluelessness, the evidence being your own words.

          • Egger

            Why not “credible”? For the Randi pseudoskeptiks? HA HA HA HA!

          • Paul Morgan

            There’s your obsession with Randi on show again. Beginning to think you have some sort of crush on him.
            Please define “pseudoskeptic”.

          • Leon E Lewis

            The only “clear realities” you reference are that there are homeopathic practitioners. That is on no way proof of its efficacy.

            As is often the case with those who cannot support their position with verifiable evidence, you resort to irrelevant analogies. The fact that asbestos was once widely used has absolutely no bearing on homeopathy, which has been extendively studied…and found wanting.

          • Egger

            Really?

            A homeopath accusing others of being selective is quite delicious.”

            Hey man, wait. In another discussion you said:

            http://i.imgur.com/mDkeaCR.png

            If this true: Ernst is a homeopath, yet?

            1. Homeopaths cannot be scientist.
            2. Ernst is a trained homeopath.
            3. Ernst cannot be scientist.

            Bravo!

          • Acleron

            Do you actually have a point because these ramblings are nonsense.

            Again, Ernst realised he was wrong in believing that homeopathy works. He deserves great credit as being one of the very few who has managed to climb out of the almost bottomless pit of stupidity known as homeopathy and become an excellent scientist.

          • Egger

            “nonsense” “LOl!” “homeopaths are not scientist”

            Acleron resembles the same marketing from pseudoskeptiks.

            “Ernst realised he was wrong in believing that homeopathy work”

            Yet, for this reason he lies. In example:

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

            “The recent observation of solute clusters in highly diluted water has been interpreted by several homeopaths as increasing the plausibility of homeopathy [28]. This novel finding requires independent replication. Furthermore, this observation (if confirmed) does not lend itself to explaining how solute clusters could have any effects on human health. Thus both the clinical evidence and the basic research underpinning homeopathy remain unconvincing.”

            HA HA HA. Ernst is not physicist. Is a MD. Independet Replications with relation with biological response? Here stupid Acleron, here:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098526

            “Consider the obtained results… one can see that in ‘‘usual’’ conditions in all solutions of the studied interval of dilutions, there are nanoobjects, the dimensions of which change with dilution nonlinearly and non-monotonously, but, as shown… these changes have definite scientific meaning.”

            Cry Acleron cry, your Ronald Lindsay gangster is the next!
            HA HA HA HA HA HA

        • Sean

          ‘If Ernst were correct not one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government would touch it – many do, ergo, he is wrong’

          No. Many governments restrict freedom of speech – by your logic supporters of such a right must be wrong. Look up argumentum ad populum.

          ‘Then again, as yet another naysayer without any substance to back his claims’

          And where is the substance to back up your claims that it does work? The burden of proof is on homeopathy to demonstrate its effectiveness beyond placebo, something which it has consistently failed to do. That is how science works. We start with a default position of ‘new claim X is false’, which is held until such time as there is conclusive evidence to support the claim. Making an assertion and then saying ‘prove me wrong’ is not valid.

          • Egger

            “That is how science works”

            No. Double blind is a protocol, not the how of science works.

          • Acleron

            Stop showing your ignorance of science, it is embarrassing to see.

          • Egger

            Oh heavens! Acleron is not a physicist. What is your profession? Come on men, show your google scholar publications!

          • Acleron

            I’ve never claimed to be a physicist, what a silly thing to say.

          • Egger

            “Stop showing your ignorance of science, it is embarrassing to see”

            Wow, Acleron try censorship in discurss. Very well response from pseudoskeptik. Zero logical arguments.

          • Sean

            But I wasn’t talking about double blind trials?

          • Egger

            And?

          • Sean

            And you’ve tried to argue against me by talking about something completely unrelated to what I was saying, so I don’t really know what you’re trying to achieve.

          • Egger

            ???

          • Sean

            Am I free to assume, then, that you are just a troll who is going to waste time rather than provide a counterpoint to my original statement?

    • Acleron

      You have no evidence or logic so you just try the smear tactic. Ernst has greater understanding of homeopathy than any homeopath because he has demonstrated that it doesn’t do anything, a fact that will probably be eternally beyond your understanding.

    • Egger

      Yes, Ernst is a liar. In Sistematic Review he declares:

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

      “Conflict of interest: The author is a trained homeopath; he has no financial interests in this area”

      If Ernst was never trained in Homeopathy (not more in Münich Hospital), Why lie in the British Journal Clinical Pharmacology?

      • Acleron

        In the era when Ernst qualified, his training was common. Of course, these days any conman can call themselves a homeopath and start selling sugar pills!LS for high profit.

        • Egger

          “In the era when Ernst qualified, his training was common”

          Wow, the ad-hoc excuses come here. Ernst only “practised” in six moths. Not more, he never obtain anything qualification. In my country any homeopath need some minimal qualifycation. Please, feel to free share the qualitification of Ernst. But….. If Ernst is homeopath remember this:

          Acleron fallacy:
          1. Homeopaths does not understand the scientific method.
          2. Ernst is a homeopath.
          3. Ernst does not understand the scientific method.

          Fool Acleron!

        • Egger

          More ad-hoc excuses and lies. Thank you Acleron!

    • Tetenterre

      “No medical modality survives for more than two centuries without being effective.”

      That is quite simply not true. (But then, you already knew that, didn’t you?)

      How many counter-examples will it take before you admit you were bullshitting (again). To a person of intellectual integrity, one would be sufficient, but here’s two anyway.
      Bleeding.
      Purging.

      I have many more.

  • rosross

    And then there are MD’s who do know what they are talking about.

    Quote: 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 the NHS rather than investigated.

    http://www.hippocraticpost.com/integrative/nhs-homeopathy-not-less/

    • Acleron

      You believe that anybody who is received in an emergency department when as ill as stated is not receiving any other treatment than a sugar pill?

      Such illogical anecdotes are all the homeopaths can call on.

      It is very strange that when these treatments are investigated by high quality clinical trials, these effects totally disappear. Presumably the energy/quantum fruitloopery/nanowotsits/ gravity waves get upset in the presence of logic.

      • Egger

        Some countries include homeopathy in hospitals.

        “Such illogical anecdotes are all the homeopaths can call on.”

        If this true, the anecdotes from whatstheharm.com are illogical. Your idioticy is genuine.

        • Acleron

          Get references to these publications, your quote mining has already proved unreliable.

          The incidents found in whatstheharm are recorded and publicised by non homeopaths.

          Good grief, we can see the level of denial of homeopaths spattered all over articles such as this.

          • Egger

            “The incidents found in whatstheharm are recorded and publicised by non homeopaths.”

            HA HA HA from newspaper (non reliable evidence) and inexistent news. Section “Scientific studies”:
            http://whatstheharm.net/scientificstudies.html

            Only four cases!

            Gian melanoma patient
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1793246

            Results: unclear.

            Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12974558

            Cheat Farley: “This study found that many breast cancer patients in Pakistan delayed medical treatment in favor of homeopathic remedies.”

            The paper: “Commonest reason associated with delay was practice of CAM. Others included lack of perception of lump as a significant health problem, conflicting personal commitments, reluctance to visit a physician, or financial problems… Our study also suggests that the resultant delay in diagnosis is associated with presentation at a more advanced stage of the diseas… In conclusion, this study recognizes an important medical problem in Pakistani patients with breast cancer.

            Wow, the delay was CAM and the lack of results for “conventional” health and advanced stage of disease. Acleron, the data is from Pakistan, this is not extrapolable to the other countries. Where is the harm in this study different from the use of ineffective conventional chemical chemistry remedies?

          • Egger

            Third case: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1708-8305.1996.tb00700.x

            The remedy is: 1:1,000,000,000 concentration = 9 X.

            Acleron definition of homeopathy is: “just water” In the case report the remedy is low potency of antigen in solution. Yey, this is not only “water”.

            Is homeopathy or “herbal remedy”?

            Come on, your idioticy is the maximum!

          • Egger

            The third case is on homeoprophylaxis, not for treatment. Not for delayed cancer treatment.

            “Homoeopathy may not be effective in preventing malaria”

            May?
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119022/

            Ledum palustre 5 CH = 1 E-10. Not “pass” Avogadro number!
            Malariaofficinalis 4 CH = 1 E-8. Not “pass” Avogadro number!

            Hey, there is a low potency remedies. Look this detail: the definition of Qauckbunker is this:

            “Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed”

            What is the evidence for the 30C are more marketed than the low potencies? Please, share the study. Why Barrett never mentions the low potency? (not more as 6X marketed).

      • Egger

        “It is very strange that when these treatments are investigated by high quality clinical trials, these effects totally disappear.”

        Linde 1999:

        “Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes…The results are comparable to those from similar analyses in conventional medicine.

        Shocking pseudoskeptiks!

        Acleron: the sentence of Linde is a general tendency, not absolute. In the graph show higher quaility with JADAD Score = 5:

        Linde: “it becomes obvious that there is no clear linear relationship between these two parameters”

        http://i.imgur.com/195z0tH.png

        The same tendency in Ernst re-analysis:

        http://i.imgur.com/4M2Xy9l.png

        How does explain this?

    • Tetenterre

      Shank’s Law. Again.

      The end.

  • BBF

    Ernst has obviously once again blown to whichever side pays most. In this case, against alternative medicine. Those of us that use it daily, without financial incentive, disagree with his position. Obviously, if people can fake the drug trials that abound around the developed world, it’s a small thing for someone like Ernst to change his mind. The preponderance of evidence says otherwise, and that’s why homeopathy is, and shall remain, popular and useful.

    • Acleron

      The lies here are easy to uncover.

      While Professor Ernst was accumulating evidence that showed these quack treatments did nothing his department was funded by an alt med believer.

      Those trials which are dodgy or even fraudulent include all non evidence you are promoting.

      Finally, it is not a small effort for a scientist to change their mind, it comes with a great deal of effort and accumulation of evidence. It is completely unlike the quacks who just make it up as they go.

  • rosross

    And Queen Elizabeth and her family, along in fact with many rich and notable people, who could afford any and every medical modality available, without question, relies first and foremost on Homeopathic medicine, as her family has done for more than a century. Her Homeopathic doctor is also a qualified MD, goodness gracious me, fancy that.

    Oh, and at 90 she is in robust health and has been so for much of her life. Her mother also relied on Homeopathic medicine and had generally good health, dying at 103.

    For all those who like to believe that wealth brings good health, the fact remains, that those who have money can afford the best that modern Allopathic medicine has to offer and when they opt for Homeopathic medicine, not for days, but decades and lifetimes, you can bet it is because it is effective.

    • VJ

      That would be an exceptionally foolish bet. Correlation… still not causation. No matter how hard you wish and hold your breath and stamp your feet. This is what’s wrong. Your assertion is what is broken.

      The actual scientific hypothesis would have to be that the family has good genes and is extremely privileged to have the best diet and living environments on the planet.

      But that doesn’t sell worthless crap at massive prices, does it?

      • rosross

        Nope, logic. You have the money to buy all the bells, whistles and horns of Allopathic medicine and you do not, you use Homeopathy as your first choice.

        Of course the scientific hypothesis would be that the family has good genes but it would be wrong. Prince Phillip has different genes. And the Queen’s father and sister died much younger.

        How humorous, the worthless crap which Allopathic medicine sells at hugely massive prices is now the third biggest killer ….

        Homeopathy is not only worthwhile it is incredibly cheap and ridiculously cheap by comparison.

        • Acleron

          The royals of Europe of the queen’s generation are inbred. Not once when requiring hospital treatment have any of them attended an homeopathy centre.

          We know that wealth is associated with longevity and we know that homeopathy does not work. To conclude that the queen’s age is associated with pure water and sugar which you do not even know was administered is perverse to say the least.

          • Egger

            Trollnness where are you?

        • Sean

          It’s so cheap I had a shower in it this morning.

        • Tetenterre

          “the worthless crap which Allopathic medicine sells at hugely massive prices is now the third biggest killer”

          As you already know, because I have outed you on this point elsewhere (I’ll post the links if you like) that claim is simply not true. Do you think that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become true? Or do you just not give a damn about whether something is true, as long as it helps you to tout pseudomedicine?

        • Tetenterre

          Actually, why don’t I just repeat here what I have responded to you before, so that everyone here can see how you just ignore inconvenient refutations tobthe drivel with which you infest threads llike this.

          Yer tiz:

          Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

          Let’s deconstruct this, shall we?

          #1. You initially claimed: “Allopathic medicine is the third biggest killer”

          I challenged you to back this up with evidence. You then claimed before you cited your ‘evidence’:
          “Iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, is the third biggest killer…”

          Can you see the difference?
          (Clue: Penelope Dingle’s death was iatrogenic; but it was caused by a homeopath – nothing to do with so-called ‘allopathic’ medicine.

          #2. I asked you for *evidence*. You responded by citing two opinion-pieces (the clue is in the disclaimer in the byline) from a business magazine.

          Can you see the difference?

          Why did you choose to cite an opinion piece in a business magazine instead of proper scientific/statistical evidence? Is it because the latter doesn’t actually exist?

          #3. You claimed (again, without evidence): “Patently this refers to Allopathic medicine and not other medical modalities like Homeopathy.”

          No it does not. The statistics for iatrogenic harm misrepresented in those opinion pieces also include things like prescribing the wrong medicine or no medicine instead of the correct medicine (or, in your terms “allopathic” medicine). In other words, giving someone homeoquackery instead of the correct real medicine boosts the “iatrogenic harm” statistics.

          Do you see the problem with what you claimed here?

          #4. Let’s take a shufti at that dire Leah Binder opinion piece. Binder makes exactly the same fallacious misrepresentations as you did (were you just parotting her without thinking?).

          * First off, the “Journal of Patient Safety” is not, as Binder pretends, a ‘prestigious’ journal. (Unless this is some curious new use of ‘prestigious’ of which I was previously unaware.)
          * Secondly, the methodology of that so-called ‘study’ has been justifiably criticised.
          * Thirdly, the torturing of extremely limited data to reach such definitive conclusions is, I confess, a tremendous feat!

          Why do you think she did that?

          #5. Let’s look at the WHO fact sheet on this (I assume that, when it comes to health issues, reasonable people will give more weight to a WHO factsheet than to an opinion piece in a business rag). Oh look, iatrogenic harm doesn’t even make the top ten.

          http://www.who.int/mediacentre

          Why do you think that is?

          #6. By the way, homeopathy is not, as you pretend, a “medical modality”. It is a “marketing modality”. For snake-oil.

          Lastly, nobody is pretending that there is not too much iatrogenic harm (which is why real doctors try to reduce it), but blowing its extent out of all proportion to reality does nobody any good (apart from the touts of worthless snake oil, of course).

          • Egger

            Deconstruction = postmodernist!

            Randibot: http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139

            If this is true: “Penelope Dingle’s death was iatrogenic; but it was caused by a homeopath – nothing to do with so-called ‘allopathic’ medicine.”

            Why Randi heaters attacks homeopathic products? Why if the Dingle’s case was iatrogenic?

            “…also include things like prescribing the wrong medicine or no medicine instead of the correct medicine (or, in your terms “allopathic” medicine). In other words, giving someone homeoquackery instead of the correct real medicine boosts the “iatrogenic harm” statistics.”

            Remember, if your argument is valid. Why Randi heaters attacks homeopathic products? Why if the Dingle’s case was iatrogenic? Do you see the fraud with what you defense of corrupted gangster as Randi?

    • Acleron

      Any lie will rosros tell in her pursuit of money for sugar and water.

      The royals go straight to the best hospitals and doctors whenever ill.

      • I still remember the Queen Mum and her homeopathic hip replacements

  • Acleron

    Religions reserve their most venomous attacks for those who were co-believers but saw through the nonsense, the apostates. Belief systems in other areas such as homeopathy are just the same. A common rhetorical ploy by homeopaths is to accuse any critic of not knowing the field, an accusation that cannot be made against the author. Coupled with the constitutional inability of homeopaths to argue with either evidence or logic they resort to smears and lies.

    Each commented article such as this is an example of the lack of substance in homeopathy and in homeopaths.

    • Egger

      “Coupled with the constitutional inability of homeopaths to argue with either evidence or logic they resort to smears and lies.”

      What is the lies? Ernst is a fraud:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChuJ3heWUAINEHt.jpg:large

      • Paul Morgan

        Oh dear again! Maybe look at the date of that publication and then read about Professor Ernst’s subsequent research into so-called “complementary and alternative medicine”. Such cherry-picking only serves to show a level of scientific illiteracy that is so typical of the “alt-med” fanatics.

        • Egger

          Subsequent research from Ernst liar does not include any clinical trial from the combined homoeopathic medication. Cherry picking is your water mark.

          • Paul Morgan

            Another claim made without evidence from an anonymous account. Credibilty – zero.

          • Egger

            With evidence! Try with another cheat.

          • Acleron

            Is calling anyone who shows you are wrong a cheat and a liar the way you behave in real life?

          • Egger

            No, I call them. You are a fraud, liar and cheat, the same way as you behave in web. LOL!

          • Acleron

            So you reserve your misbehaviour to people who demonstrate you are a fool only when on line. Cowardly.

          • Egger

            Are you call me “cowardly? The Acleron ad-hominem troll in the web? HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            What evidence? Do you even understand what evidence is? You seem to lack a grasp on reality.

          • Egger

            Please, show me the inequivocally evidence definition from any pseudoskepti!!!!

          • Paul Morgan

            Err, as far as I can tell, “Science Based Medicine” is a website, not a book publisher. Also, I have no idea what you mean by a “pseudoskeptic” – please provide a definition so your claims can be assessed.

          • Egger

            “Science Based Medicine” is a website, not a book publisher. “

            Your lack of basic skill in reading is not amazing. HA HA HA Your I-d-i-o-t-i-c-y is very BIG! Science Garbage Medicine is the project from JREF-NCAFH-CSCIOP-SAS. SAS published a serires of books:

            https://www.amazon.com/Science-Based-Medicine-Guide-Critical-Thinking-ebook/dp/B00C82FO4U?ie=UTF8&keywords=science%20based%20medicine%20novella&qid=1462767758&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=1-1

            HA HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            Well done! *slow hand clap*. Yes, there’s a series of book, published by the JREF, not by “Science Based Medicine”. Ergo, my statement was correct.
            If you actually bought them, did you read them? If you read them, you clearly failed to understand them. As for those multiple links you still claim, any evidence yet? Maybe it shouldn’t be that surprising if people with particular interests in a subject write books and attend meetings to discuss common interests. Hardly unique to the authors of these books and various organisations, is it? Maybe I should suggest that there’s a conspiracy between various organisations and individuals who like to write positively about homeopathy and attend meetings hosted by various pro-homeopathy societies?
            Basically, all you’re doing here is making yourself look ever more ridiculous.

          • Egger

            HA HA HA your positive votes is from the two major Randibots in the web: Acleron and “zeno”.

          • Paul Morgan

            What bearing does that have on whether you are supplying evidence to back the claims you’ve made or not? That’s really quite pathetic.

          • Egger

            HA HA HA. You never debunks any piece of evidence. You only “offer” insults, children laughins and ad-hoc excuses.

          • Paul Morgan

            ROFLMAO! Everything you’ve posted as evidence has been thoroughly debunked for the nonsense it is. The inability to grasp that is your issue, not mine. When you persist in repeating your ridiculous claims, despite being shown repeatedly that they’re ridiculous, then you invite open mockery.

          • Egger

            Debunking with your ass? HA HA HA

          • Paul Morgan

            Is that the best you can do?

      • Acleron

        Where is the fraud? A quote mining and then producing a picture to make checking the original paper difficult is the fraud here.

        Even from that you can see the publication was over a quarter of a century ago. Good scientists, unlike yourself, take the totality of evidence, not the cherry picked examples.

        • Egger

          Quote mining is the another pseudofallacy marketed from PseudoRational Wiki. Please, share the book of logic (reference) with mentioning this “fallacy”. From Pseudoratinal Wiki:

          “Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don’t in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize”

          Out of context? HA HA HA HA HA HA LOL!

          • Acleron

            The NHMRC took over one hundred studies. It is hardly their fault that the majority, performed by quacks, were so poor that they were useless.

          • Egger

            Cherry pickied “Over hundred studies”. Please, explain me this detail:

            In NHRMC list of excluded evidence. Section: “Overview report: Considered but excluded evidence” if paper appear in another language different form the English. NHRCM exclude this meta-analysis:

            Schneider B, Klein P, Weiser M (2005) Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared with usual treatments: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Arzneim -Forsch Drug Res 55(1):23-9.

            http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/15727161

            Why? The paper appear in english. This is the first example of the bias of NHRMC

          • Acleron

            Lol, you don’t know why? Try looking for a little seven letter word missing from their abstract.

          • Egger

            “Lol”

            Lola’s? HA HA HA

            “Try looking for a little seven letter word missing from their abstract.”

            Classical tactic from any kind form of pseudoskeptik. Please, ask me:

            Why NHRMC exclude this? The paper appear in english. This is the first example of the bias of NHRMC

          • Egger

            “The NHMRC took over one hundred studies. It is hardly their fault that the majority, performed by quacks, were so poor that they were useless.”

            HA HA HA Why NHMRC excluded the Ernst papers?

          • Acleron

            You are completely clueless, aren’t you? It didn’t pass their criteria.

          • Acleron

            “Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint

            Yeah, quote mining.

        • Egger

          “Good scientists, unlike yourself, take the totality of evidence, not the cherry picked examples.”

          Wow.Why NHRMC only takes few RCT? Why exclude the observational and some meta studies? Why? It’s obviously for any critical thinker: NHRMC selection is biased.

          1. Good scientist take the all evidence on medicine.
          2. All evidence includes RCT, observational studies, clinical cases and so.
          3. NHRMC don’t take all evidence, NHRMC never adopt any good practice of evidence based medicine.

          The Nothing Health Report Mc Donalds Evidence (NHRMC) is poor compared with the
          “Swizz” report.

          • Acleron

            LMAO. The infamous Swiss report basically said that homeopaths don’t need evidence. Their thinking doesn’t even belong in the 18th century but back before humans existed.

            The NHMRC committee consulted the Cochrane foundation, the acknowledged experts in examining meta studies. Their conclusions agree with Linde et al and Shang et al. The Swiss report was fabricated by homeopaths who failed to disclose that they financially gain by selling sugar and water.

            Taking all data into account does not mean you accept the worst evidence and reject the best, only homeopaths do that.

      • Acleron

        So you smear and lie yet again.

        Are you aware that you are just repeating the lies and smears of a German journalist who was employed for the specific purpose of discrediting Ernst?

        At first glance, one would expect that scam merchants would be more sensitive to being conned than normal but it appears they are just as gullible as their target market.

        • Egger

          “So you smear and lie yet again.”

          Oh hell! The Acleron puppetmaster lies again.

          “Are you aware that you are just repeating the lies and smears of a German journalist who was employed for the specific purpose of discrediting Ernst?”

          Oh no, a conspirancy from the bad homeopaths. LOL!

          “At first glance, one would expect that scam merchants would be more sensitive to being conned than normal but it appears they are just as gullible as their target market.”

          Oh heaves! Acleron, take a Randi Pill!

  • dave

    I have an old bottle that used to contain a Homeopathy remedy. I’ve been trying to clean it so that I can reuse it and have been washing it each day now for over a month, but each time the remedy just gets stronger, can anybody advise me on what I should do?

    • Forget the bottle! Any homeopathy should be extremely concerned about the highly potentised waste water you’ve thrown down the drain… Have you contacted the Environmental protection Agency? Surely this is a national emergency…

      • Deb Walker

        I had a raging bout of the runs the other day, and I’m concerned all the water in the area will remember it…HAHHAHAHAHAAAA..with what? Water doesn’t have a brain! 🙂

        • Egger

          ” Water doesn’t have a brain! :)”

          Good straw man fallacy, Troll.

          • Take That, Medicine

            So, can you ever clean a bottle of homeopathic remedies?

          • Egger

            Oh heavens, this is an argument? HAHAHAHA.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Edzard Ernst is welcome to his personal opinion. The people who use homeopathy — now more than 550 million — and the people who practice it are the people with the experiences and opinions that count. To see hundreds of case records documented with CT scans, x-rays, histopathological reports, blood work and more google “homeopathy cured cases”. You will also see comments by attending physicians and patients.

    • Stan S. Stanman

      Do you have a link to back up your assertion that “more than 550 million” people use homeopathy please? I assume you haven’t just plucked that figure from thin air…

    • Acleron

      There is an enormous difference between the considered opinion of a professor of science based on high level scientific evidence and a biased homeopath making claims from selected anecdotes. Especially when those anecdotes are often shown to be false.

      • Egger

        “There is an enormous difference between the considered opinion of a professor of science based on high level scientific evidence”

        http://i.imgur.com/mDkeaCR.png

        If this true: Ernst is a homeopath, yet?

        1. Homeopaths cannot be scientist.

        2. Ernst is a trained homeopath.

        3. Ernst cannot be scientist.

        Bravo!

        • Acleron

          Try reading the article, when Professor Ernst discovered to his own satisfaction that homeopathy was a fraud, he stopped supporting it. That is more than you are capable of.

          • Egger

            I’ve read the paper.

            “when Professor Ernst discovered to his own satisfaction that homeopathy was a fraud, he stopped supporting it.”

            Well, show me the evidence!

          • Acleron

            Shifting the burden of proof fails. You show convincing evidence that homeopathy does anything beyond placebo.

          • Egger

            “Shifting the burden of proof fails. You show convincing evidence that homeopathy does anything beyond placebo.”

            What happened with the physicochemical and in vitro evidence? Why do you jump to the clinical evidence? Why? This a cherry picking evidence from the Acleron ganster. Your lies not are amazing.

          • Acleron

            Random claims made without replication is not reliable evidence.

            Try arguing without silly insults, although that is the only entertainment you are providing.

          • Egger

            “Random claims made without replication is not reliable evidence.”

            HA HA HA ….

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864

            –The reviewed in vitro experiments with high homeopathic potencies were inhomogenous in design and quality. A surprisingly high number of different experimental approaches have been adopted. Two thirds of the experiments with higher scores and contaminant-checking controls demonstrated specific high potency effects.

          • Acleron

            Lol, a homeopath cherry picking results now is it?

          • Egger

            “Lol”

            Lola? LOL!

            ” a homeopath cherry picking results now is it?”

            Cherry picking? HA HA HA HA…

            –But the existence of more negative studies would not rebut those high-scoring works that demonstrated an effect of potentizing beyond Avogadro’s number.

            Hear, hear!

          • Acleron

            That is the exact definition of cherry picking.

            If you only accept the data that fits your hypothesis then you can prove any hypothesis you like. That neither you nor the author understand this point is representative of the loww intelligence of quacks.

          • Egger

            Really? And yout ad-hominem attacks + insult is yout evidence? ROFL!
            Read! Read! Where is the “cherry picked” evidence?

          • Acleron

            I have never delivered an ad hominem in your direction. Your incomprehension of the term is becoming legendary.

          • Egger

            Liar!

          • Egger
          • Egger

            More?

            –Fierz argued that the standard error (mean 2.6%) for four of the blinded experiments was
            lower than was predicted by the Poisson distribution and thus indicative of flawed experi-
            mental results (Fierz, 1988). As Maddox reiterated, “he [Benveniste] will avoid error only if he . .. controls sampling errors by the standard procedure of replicating measurements, and if he eliminates observer bias by arranging that everything is counted blind” (Maddox, 1988b, p. 1586). However, in the four experiments above, counts were replicated and the study was conducted blind—the dilutions were randomly coded twice by independent observers. Admittedly counting between replicates was not conducted blind, but this would not explain the differences between test and control result

            “It was reported by the investigative team that three further blinded experiments yielded negative results, but data was not clearly shown. O n the basis of these results, Benveniste’s experiments were branded as a “delusion.” Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in the protocol and scientific approach used by Maddox et al. (1988). Negative results were only obtained once Maddox had intervened in the experimental protocol.”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9553836

          • Acleron

            Yes, Benveniste was discarding results that showed no effect. Maddox stopped him doing that and the effects disappeared.

            That one simple error demonstrates the difference between a quack and a scientist. Benveniste was incapable of performing the experiment correctly.

            By the way, I’d rather accept the evidence of Maddox than some random author in an alt med magazine who just mmakesd baseless assertions.

          • Egger

            “Yes, Benveniste was discarding results that showed no effect. Maddox stopped him doing that and the effects disappeared.”

            Reallly? Fourth experiment with double blind show effect. Your liar is big.

            “That one simple error demonstrates the difference between a quack and a scientist. Benveniste was incapable of performing the experiment correctly.”

            What simple error? Really? The three experiments was realized by incompetent Steward. Fool.

            “By the way, I’d rather accept the evidence of Maddox than some random author in an alt med magazine who just mmakesd baseless assertions.”

            Alt med magazine? No, peer reviewed journals. Oh dear, you not publish nothing in any journal? I’m sorry. HA HA HA HA:…

          • Acleron

            It isn’t a journal, it merely prints rubbish.

            Benveniste claimed that a technician made the mistakes but then why did he try to defend these fallacious results?

          • Egger

            “It isn’t a journal, it merely prints rubbish.”

            Read, read!

            http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=38012&tip=sid&clean=0

            Publication type: Journals.

          • Acleron

            It is an anti-science magazine. Their own claims are much like yours.

          • Acleron

            Try spelling your insults correctly, at least they will look better but of course be equally meaningless.

            Nobody was talking about physicochemical analysis in this sub topic. You have just used homeopathic rhetoric number 4, the diversionary comment thus demonstrating you have nothing to bring to the conversation which is pretty much the description of the homeopath.

          • Egger

            “Try spelling your insults correctly, at least they will look better but of course be equally meaningless.”

            Yes Sir: Mr. Fallacy Ad-Acleron! HA HA HA HA.

            “Nobody was talking about physicochemical analysis in this sub topic. You have just used homeopathic rhetoric number 4, the diversionary comment thus demonstrating you have nothing to bring to the conversation which is pretty much the description of the homeopath.”

            Why not cheat? Why exclude the psycichochemical evidence?

          • Egger

            Define me “convincing evidence”.

          • Acleron

            Go learn some science.

        • Acleron

          Wow, what a load of nonsense in two postings.

          Scientists and doctors already know an awful lot about preparations that contain active material. Homeopaths have nothing to contribute to that process. However, homeopaths mainly sell pure sugar and water which has no specific activity whatsoever.

          Rather than ignorantly spouting insults and libels about Ernst you might try to learn how he moved from a belief in homeopathy to accepting it doesn’t do anything beyond placebo. Of course, getting real knowledge is almost impossible for someone with no idea of either logic or science.

          • Egger

            “Wow, what a load of nonsense in two postings.”

            Wow, your without sense responses are typically

            “Scientists and doctors already know an awful lot about preparations that contain active material.”

            What scientist and doctors? No, please, no Gorski, Hall or Morgan. Show me the real study!
            Example:

            –We observed a high rate of Mexican health professionals that had ever used CAM, and they had mainly used homeopathy, massage therapy, and herbal medicine.–

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27084337

          • Acleron

            The real study?
            Crying out loud, the whole of biochemistry, chemistry, physiology and physics deal with substances that are present. They all contradict your quackery.

          • Egger

            Crying out loud

            HA HA HA Typical behaviour from the bully troll pseudoskeptik!

            “, the whole of biochemistry, chemistry, physiology and physics deal with substances that are present”

            Feel free to share the evidence!

          • Acleron

            You are just a complete ignoramus and rather silly. Incredibly silly.

          • Egger

            “Crying out loud, the whole of biochemistry, chemistry, physiology and physics deal with substances that are present.”

            Low potency is homeopathy, your ad-hoc excuses are very funny!

          • Acleron

            Low potencies are homeopathy? Big claim there. All of science thinks that active molecules behave according to well workered out rules which tell us that magical wrist actions and inverse dose responses are nonsense.

          • Egger

            Randi conjeture: “However, homeopaths mainly sell pure sugar and water which has no specific activity whatsoever.”

            In the image: Homeopathic Arnica D6

            D6 = 3X = 0.00000001 parts per solvent.

            D6 is a low potency.

            In conclusión: Homeopaths sell low and high potency homeopathic remedies. The conjeture of “mainly sell pure sugar and water” in false. If you refer a mainly sell highly diluted remedies, please share the study in ALL countries. Come on Randibot.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Arnica_montana_hom%C3%A9opathie_zoom.jpg/100px-Arnica_montana_hom%C3%A9opathie_zoom.jpg

          • Acleron

            Complete cobblers. Homeopaths sell Reiki, does that make Reiki homeopathic?

          • Egger

            “Complete cobblers. Homeopaths sell Reiki, does that make Reiki homeopathic?”

            HA HA HA you don’t answer me.

        • Acleron

          Hah, the second time you have pasted this nonsense and you still cannot understand why you are a fool.

          • Egger

            “Hah, the second time you have pasted this nonsense and you still cannot understand why you are a fool.”

            Please Mr. Ad-Acleron, explain me!

          • Acleron

            I couldn’t possibly explain you. However posting stupidities repeatedly is the action of a fool.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        The results achieved by homeopaths are not mere “claims” as you would like the public to believe. The assessments of those results are based on the findings of the very same objective tests conventional doctors use to decide whether or not their own treatments have or have not worked. Those tests include blood work, CT scans, x-rays and much, much more.

        Anyone who would like to verify what homeopathy can achieve in chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, gangrene, Grave’s disease and addiction to prescription drugs will find case records and the test results by googling “homeopathy cured cases”.

        People around the world are turning to natural systems of medicine including homeopathy because they find it works, because the find it’s safe, because the find it’s inexpensive. When they use conventional treatments they find all to often that the treatment doesn’t work, that it produces diseases they didn’t have before they took the treatment and that it quite often bankrupts them in the process.

        • Acleron

          Yeah, yeah. Most practicising homeopaths have little knowledge and less understanding. Much as you cherry pick a few misguided MDs, it requires zero knowledge or real qualification top become an homeopath. The claim that they can take even proper records of anecdotes is betrayed by such anecdotes showing inconsistencies such as patients aging ten years in less than ten days.

          Yeah, they are claims and those ridiculous claims are disproved every time that high quality clinical trials are performed.

          You have been asked for evidence that homeopathy cures anything and for your claims that large numbers are turning to it. It is quite entertaining to see you ignore such requests or disappear down some diversion.

          • Egger

            “The claim that they can take even proper records of anecdotes is betrayed by such anecdotes showing inconsistencies such as patients aging ten years in less than ten days.”

            HA Ha HA Did you remember the fraud of Theft Farley? In brief:

            The third case is on homeoprophylaxis, not for treatment. Not for delayed cancer treatment.

            “Homoeopathy may not be effective in preventing malaria”

            May?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

            Ledum palustre 5 CH = 1 E-10. Not “pass” Avogadro number!

            Malariaofficinalis 4 CH = 1 E-8. Not “pass” Avogadro number!

            Hey, there is a low potency remedies. Look this detail: the definition of Qauckbunker is this:

            “Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed”

            What is the evidence for the 30C are more marketed than the low potencies? Please, share the study. Why Barrett never mentions the low potency? (not more as 6X marketed).

            Third case: http://www.blackwell-synergy.c

            The remedy is: 1:1,000,000,000 concentration = 9 X.

            Acleron definition of homeopathy is: “just water” In the case report the remedy is low potency of antigen in solution. Yey, this is not only “water”.

            Is homeopathy or “herbal remedy”?

            Come on, your idioticy is the maximum!

            “The incidents found in whatstheharm are recorded and publicised by non homeopaths.”

            HA HA HA from newspaper (non reliable evidence) and inexistent news. Section “Scientific studies”:

            http://whatstheharm.net/scient

            Only four cases!

            Gian melanoma patient

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

            Results: unclear.

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

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

            Cheat Farley: “This study found that many breast cancer patients in Pakistan delayed medical treatment in favor of homeopathic remedies.”

            The paper: “Commonest reason associated with delay was practice of CAM. Others included lack of perception of lump as a significant health problem, conflicting personal commitments, reluctance to visit a physician, or financial problems… Our study also suggests that the resultant delay in diagnosis is associated with presentation at a more advanced stage of the diseas… In conclusion, this study recognizes an important medical problem in Pakistani patients with breast cancer.”

            Wow, the delay was CAM and the lack of results for “conventional” health and advanced stage of disease. Acleron, the data is from Pakistan, this is not extrapolable to the other countries. Where is the harm in this study different from the use of ineffective conventional chemical chemistry remedies?

  • Alan Schmukler

    Something doesn’t ring true here. It’s a clever way make an argument….but the reality is that 100 million
    people in India alone depend on homeopathy for everything from Dengue Fever to Leprosy. If it didn’t work people would stop coming to homeopaths and the government would have stopped funding research into it. Hundreds of thousands of of board certified medical doctors from all over the world practice homeopathy. The 42% of British medical doctors who refer their patients to a homeopath and the 39% of French physicians who prescribe the remedies, the 20% of German physicians who prescribe homeopathic remedies, or the 40% of Dutch doctors who do the same would be surprised to know they have been using placebos. So would all the babies and animals cured by homeopathy and the plants treated for parasites and diseases. All those people, plants and animals would have to be misled and only Ernst is right. You decide.

    • Acleron

      Yes, your figures do not ring true.

      The 42% of UK doctors was a number derived from a small survey from GPs close to a homeopathic hospital.

      Less than 6% of Indians trust homeopathy.

      No-one has ever reliably published robust, high quality evidence that any homeopathy preparation has cured anybody so the rest of your comment is pure fabrication.

      Ernst uses evidence to argue, homeopaths use evidenceless claims and cherry picked numbers. Again, yes, you decide.

      • Egger

        “Ernst uses evidence to argue, homeopaths use evidenceless claims and cherry picked numbers. Again, yes, you decide.”

        LOL! If this is true. Why Ernst excludes the evidence from high quality trials?

        • Egger said:

          “high quality trials”

          Which one do you believe is the best of these’ high quality’ trials?

          • Egger

            Are you blinded? 10 trials JADAD Score = 5. Come on Gangster.

            http://i.imgur.com/4M2Xy9l.png

          • Acleron

            Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality. Alt med education is obviously deficient in just about everything.

          • Egger

            JADAD = old quality criteria. JREF pseudoeducation is your watermark.

          • Acleron

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694951/

            Only for those who can hold more that half an idea in their heads at one time which obviously excludes egger.

          • Egger

            HA HA HA…,. in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron!

            “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials. “

          • Acleron

            And when faced with facts the poor deluded fool falls into cherry picking mode.

            What else does it say about that assessment egger?

          • Egger

            Egger vs argumentum Ad-Acleron:

            You before: “Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality”

            Egger: in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron! “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials. ”

            You last: “And when faced with facts the poor deluded fool falls into cherry picking mode.”

            You LOOOOSE! Perfect!

          • Acleron

            What else did my reference say about that scoring system? Come on Egger, you claim you can read these papers.

          • Egger

            I’ve read papers. Oh no, you lie is very fuuny! Please, explain your non sense:

            You before: “Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality”

            Egger: in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron! “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials. ”

            You last: “And when faced with facts the poor deluded fool falls into cherry picking mode.”

            Post You: “What else did my reference say about that scoring system?”

            You LOOOOSE! Perfect!

          • Acleron

            So you cannot bring yourself to admit what else the author said about your scoring system. Not surprising.

          • Egger

            Not suprising your negation of your false claim. Again?

            You before: “Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality”

            Egger: in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron! “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials. ”

            Cheat Acleron.

          • Acleron

            I showed you a considered and detailed paper criticising your scoring system and all you have been able to do is quote mine a favourable phrase, out of context, and talk gibberish.

            You whine that experienced and senior scientists ignore you, perhaps it is because you cannot intelligently debate anything at all.

          • Egger

            Sure, sure. Your friend called the JADAD score as only “based on results” not in quality. Your shame acussations are really funny!

            “You whine that experienced and senior scientists ignore you”

            Reallly? Kausik Datta or James Randi?

            You need a senior scientist?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisur_Khuda-Bukhsh

          • Acleron

            Oh dear, you are quite a confused fellow aren’t you? It was me that said that, no one else and it is true.

            You are the one who whined and lied about being censured, not me.

          • Egger

            Sadly Acleron goes to the Randi house and obtain some $$$ for troling activities.

    • Stan S. Stanman

      Something doesn’t ring true here, 2 billion people pray to the Christian god. If prayer didn’t work, why would people continue to do it?

      Something doesn’t ring true here, hundreds of thousands of people read horoscopes. As horoscopes are bunkum, why do people continue to read them?

      Something doesn’t ring true here, thousands of people perform ear candling. As ear candling is demonstrably ineffective, why do people continue to use ear candles?

      Do you see where I’m going with this..?

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      100 million Indian people, more than another 450 million people around the world, 42% of British doctors, 39% of French doctors, 20% of German doctors, 40% of Dutch doctors and the governments of 20 countries that recognize homeopathy as a system of medicine or medical specialty and/or include it in their national health care programs vs. Stan S. Stanman…………….Stan’s Case Dismissed!

      • Acleron

        Apart from the fact that the numbers are cherry picked or just made up, the majority of people and doctors do not use homeopathy. By your ‘logic’, homeopathy fails.

        • Egger

          “cherry picked”

          HA HA Ha

          “the majority of people and doctors do not use homeopathy. By your ‘logic’, homeopathy fails.”

          If this is true, the use for homeopathy around the world is growing. You need close classrooms for homeopathy in Spanish Universities for support your ideological bias and obtain $$$ and publicity in the The Independent or The Guardian.

          • Acleron

            I had presupposed that you don’t know what cherry picking refers to, thanks for confirming that.

          • Egger

            Cherry picking? No.
            Acleron using cherry picking? NO, he neglects all evidence. :v

          • Acleron

            When evidence is provided I have examined it and commented on it.

            You have never done this, on the contrary you have made up some imaginary concept to argue (the strawman), changed what you said to suit (goalpost moving), changed the topic completely (the diversionary tactic) or resorts to false accusations (poisoning the well). All the while exhibiting your abysmal ignorance of science and logic.

          • Egger

            “When evidence is provided I have examined it and commented on it.”

            You, a lawyer paided from JREF? HA HA HA HA

            “You have never done this, on the contrary you have made up some imaginary concept to argue (the strawman),”

            No? Come on cheat!

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

            http://link.springer.com/artic

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/s

            http://link.springer.com/artic

            http://link.springer.com/artic

            • Edit• Reply•Share ›

          • Acleron

            Over the last few days you have accused me of being Alan Henness, Randi, a lawyer and various other random people. You cannot even keep your false accusations straight.

          • Egger

            You cannot even keep your false accusations straight.

            Of course, my accusations are right. Sorry for you. Try catch me with the Randi hunters!

            3…2..1…

            1. Ad-hennesium loose.
            2. Kausik Datta and Edzard Ernst applies selective censorship.
            3. Randi never answer my questions.
            4. Paul Morgan show the attacks in this “discussion”

            And… the star of pseudoskeptikal activisim in the web as an astroturfer: the Acleron fallacy men!

            Who is the next? Yes, Randi!

            .

          • Acleron

            Why should anybody bother about you, you make silly accusations with no evidence. You are like the proverbial pigeon playing chess.

          • Egger

            With no evidence?

            You before: “Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality”

            Egger: in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron! “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials. ”

            You last: “And when faced with facts the poor deluded fool falls into cherry picking mode.”

            Post You: “What else did my reference say about that scoring system?”

            You LOOOOSE! Perfect!

          • Acleron

            Reposting the same idiocies is a symptom of quacks with no argument and no thinking skills.

          • Egger

            “Reposting the same idiocies is a symptom of quacks with no argument and no thinking skills.”

            I agree. PseudoRational Wiki is an example:

            http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&action=history

          • Egger

            “or resorts to false accusations (poisoning the well). All the while exhibiting your abysmal ignorance of science and logic.”

            You are a funny! 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.

            HA HA HA Poor Ernst poo.

          • Acleron

            Already responded, you betray your inability to argue the point by childishly repeating nonsense.

          • Egger

            Oh, hell’s, the Randibot show yout insane insults. I’m scared!
            LOOOL!

          • Acleron

            You are the one flinging silly, baseless accusations around. I am pointing out facts about you and your posts from the evidence that you supply.

            You appear incapable of posting anything without some silly, evidenceless insult. You admit you only exhibit this behaviour while on-line.. This makes you a childish, cowardly fool.

          • Egger

            I have posted evidence. I see…. you can’t even keep up with a simple debunk. Where is your debunk papers about the papers? Come on theft, show me yout pseudo-debunkid analysis.

            “.You admit you only exhibit this behaviour while on-line.. This makes you a childish, cowardly fool.”

            I’m scared with Sense About Fools!

          • Acleron

            You exhibit a behaviour I have seen among only a few quacks, when faced with the facts you descend into pure gibberish.

    • Take That, Medicine

      The popularity argument? There are more indians smoking cigarettes (120 million) than using homeopathy (100 million). Does that mean that smoking is good?

  • Egger

    Ernst poo:

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

    “In conclusion, this experiment points towards the existence of real differences between the measured impedance of highly diluted LiCl solutions and the corresponding reference waters”

    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/cp/c2cp22858k

    “Microscopic and submicroscopic heterogeneities created by shaking of ultrapure aqueous solutions of LiCl and NaCl with dilution ratios covering sixteen decades were studied through Rayleigh–Brillouin scattering.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622259

    “Proton NMR relaxation managed to demonstrate physical modifications of the solvent throughout the low to ultramolecular range of dilution. The findings suggested the existence of nanosized ($4-nm) superstructures which originate stereospecifically around the solute after an initial destructuring of the solvent, then develop more upon dilution and persist beyond 12c.”

    Studies in highly diluted systems

    “Moreover, it could also separate different materials at the same CH level, measured at distinct days, and also at a quite high CH level (30CH).”

    • Acleron

      Ref 1 No data, no statistics and never replicated. Fail
      Ref 2 2^-17M is nowhere near the quacks usual C30 dilution. Fail
      Ref 3 Not even published, just a claim in homeopathy magazine. Fail

      Below you show your ignorance of the meaning of ‘Gish’. Just to help you, you have just produced a Gish Gallop and failed as usual.

      • Egger

        No more lies Acleron:

        • Acleron

          Good grief, pretty pictures are not convincing evidence or indeed data. To justify those you need detailed explanations of all methods of making those solutions, the real differences between the containers, and the variance of different preparations of the C15 and the reference.

          That rubbish like this gets into a science journal brings into question the journal.

          • Egger

            The lies of Acleron:

            Before: “Ref 1 No data, no statistics and never replicated. Fail”

            After: “Good grief, pretty pictures are not convincing evidence or indeed data.”

            Your contradictions are no suprised me.

          • Acleron

            Your lack of understanding of convincing evidence is unsurprising.

          • Egger

            Well done. Excelent ad-hominem attack by Acleron the Ultra Troll:

            “Your lack of understanding of convincing evidence is unsurprising.”

            Please, define me “convincing evidence” in a scientific paper. Come on Randibot.

          • Acleron

            Thus demonstrating for the nth time Eggers ignorance of the ad hominem.

          • Egger

            “Thus demonstrating for the nth time Eggers ignorance of the ad hominem.”

            Come one, show me the evidence of “extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidencie”. Or corrupted pseudoskeptiks requires extraordinary psychiatric help

          • Egger

            Please, God of pseudoskeptiks, show me the specific “lack of undestranding”. Come on.

          • Egger

            Another example of ad-hominem attack by Acleron:

            “That rubbish like this gets into a science journal brings into question the journal.”

      • Egger

        “Ref 2 2^-17M is nowhere near the quacks usual C30 dilution. Fail”

        Wow, you neglects the existence and use for this homeopathic potency. Your non sense is awful. This potencies is over the Avogadro constant. Well, please, share more funny lies.

        “Ref 3 Not even published, just a claim in homeopathy magazine. Fail”

        This is a straw man fallacy. Why Novella and Wilson publish them in Homeopathy?

        http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(07)00172-5/abstract

        http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(09)00006-X/abstract

        • Acleron

          Ah, you don’t know what the M means in science. Lol. Don’t you think that you might try to learn something before you comment on it?

          • Egger

            M = Molar, idiot.

            LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

          • Acleron

            Lol, you have just to look it up otherwise you would have realised that your arithmetic was pathetic.

          • Egger

            This a perfect example of ad-hominem attack withour argument:

            “Lol, you have just to look it up otherwise you would have realised that your arithmetic was pathetic.”

      • Egger

        “Ref 3 Not even published, just a claim in homeopathy magazine. Fail” Below you show your ignorance of the meaning of ‘Gish’. Just to help you, you have just produced a Gish Gallop and failed as usual.”

        Epic fail from the Acleron gangster! Sorry Randibot swindler. Demangeat works:

        Applied Magnetic Resonance
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03166577

        Journal of Molecular Liquids
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732210001637

        • Acleron

          ‘Homeopathy’ is just a house magazine for homeopaths, there is nothing resembling peer review and it prints nonsensical claims.

          • Egger

            “Homeopathy’ is just a house magazine for homeopaths, there is nothing resembling peer review and it prints nonsensical claims.”

            Classic straw fallacy from the Acleron maniac. If your fallacy is true, the papers of Ernst published in Homeopathy are utterly rubbish. HA HA HA HA

            http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(03)00007-9/abstract

          • Acleron

            Yet again displaying ignorance of the strawman fallacy.

          • Egger

            Come on Acleron, what happened with the other non-homeopathic journals? HA HA HA, your logic is a garbage!

          • Acleron

            As they were commented on I conclude either that you are lying or your comprehension skills hover around zero.

          • Egger

            “As they were commented on I conclude either that you are lying or your comprehension skills hover around zero.”

            Really? An example of your lies:

            Egger vs argumentum Ad-Acleron:

            You before: “Your definition of high quality is purely on the basis of result, not quality”

            Egger: in the paper the author recognized the JADAD Score as an quality score! Poor idiot Acleron! “The Jadad score [5] is often used to assess the methodological quality of controlled trials.

            You last: “And when faced with facts the poor deluded fool falls into cherry picking mode.”

            You LOOOOSE! Perfect!

            • Edit• Reply•Share ›

        • Acleron

          So you reject the observation that you and no skeptic produces Gish gallops by producing Gish gallops. Lol.

          Plus more random accusations that you cannot back up.

          • Egger

            HA HA HA The “gish gallop” pseudofallacy. Thats all Randi bot?

      • Egger

        Need more evidence cheat?

        http://www.scientific.net/AMM.607.61

        –Coherent domains generate natural electromagnetic waves, while water clusters have special hydrogen bonds that continuously break apart and then reconnect to relay information. These two features match the homeopathic concepts of energy waves and information transmission.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19735252

        –Jacques Benveniste described how he could also transfer his “memory in water” to a computer chip that allowed his results to be replicated in laboratories on other continents

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22178245

        –All subsequent dilutions consisted of one part of the previous dilution to 99 parts of solvent (ethanol–water solution for intermediate dilutions and distilled water for preparation of the final dilution), with succession between each dilution–

        Replications:

        http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01448765.2014.960451?journalCode=tbah20

        –High dilution preparations of Arsenicum album, Nitricum acidum and Staphysagria at 6, 12, 25, 30, 50, 60, 80 and 100CH (centesimal Hahnemannian dilution scale) were applied either over the media or mixed in with it. Results showed that high dilution preparations have different effects on A. solani mycelium growth, according to the dynamization level… The homeopathic treatments and demineralized water (demi water)were prepared by a technician who labelled them by code, assuring a double-blind procedure for all treatments. The identity of the treatments was known only after statistical analysis–

        • Acleron

          Lol, Benveniste, the guy who couldn’t do science so ended up selling cures down a telephone line.

          Learn some science mate and you might, just might start making some sense, up to now you sound just like ignorant alt medder.

          • Egger

            “Lol, Benveniste, the guy who couldn’t do science so ended up selling cures down a telephone line.”

            Lola?, LOL! the replicated experiment is here. Sorry Randibot!

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072

          • Acleron

            You just don’t understand science, logic or evidence. When Benveniste himself was forced to do the experiments correctly and stopped from cherry picking his results, the effects disappeared.

            The most scrutinised replication of his experiment, performed in front of representatives of the Royal Institute and cameras, there was no effect. That is the level of quality required before you make ludicrous claims, not oddballs making claims with suspicious datasets.

          • Egger

            “When Benveniste himself was forced to do the experiments correctly and stopped from cherry picking his results, the effects disappeared.”

            If this is true, Why the fourth experiment showed effect in very dilute anti IgE? Why Randi admits some evidence from the Israeli laboratory?

          • Egger

            “The most scrutinised replication of his experiment, performed in front of representatives of the Royal Institute and cameras, there was no effect.”

            Yeah, the pseudoreplication from the BBC debunked here,

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2012/04/la-religion-de-la-ciencia-homeopatia-vi.html

            http://explicandoalexplicador.blogspot.com/2013/08/homeopatia-xiv-horizon-ii.html

          • Egger

            In the Bland letter:

            –There was no mention of blinding or randomisation in Ennis’s paper. Was this how the positive results were found?–

            What? Why Bland used the cherry picked process? Why Bland omits the another experiment published in 1999?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10350142

            –Stained basophils (non-activated) were counted blind in the microtiter plate wells using a hemocytometer–

            Or the Sainte Laudy experiments?

            Or the Benveniste post papers? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1378421

            –In previous papers we clearly demonstrated in blind experiments the reliability and reproducibility of human basophil counting using the toluidine blue method

          • Egger

            Another classic ad-hominem attack by Acleron:

            “Learn some science mate and you might, just might start making some sense, up to now you sound just like ignorant alt medder”

            That’s all corrupted Acleron?

          • Acleron

            Egger demonstrating ignorance of the ad hominem.

            Benveniste was incapable of performing the experiments that he claimed showed effects beyond Avogadro.

            As far as I know, he is the only homeopath supporter investigated in this depth but the quality presented by others is pretty much the same.

      • Egger
        • Acleron

          Another Gish gallop of nonsense as usual. Ibid.

          • Egger

            Hear, the Acleron idioticy! From Rational Wiki:

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

            —The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debating tactic of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly rebut each one in real time. It is similar to the on the spot fallacy.–“

            Why arguments? The links straight to the experimental and replicated evidence!

            –And if even one argument in the Gish Gallop is untouched or insufficiently rebutted, the Galloper will claim victory — an abuse of the one single proof fallacy.–

            Simple proof fallacy? Sorry, I’ve posted seven papers, not one. Run Acleron, run behind the Randi shadows!

          • Acleron

            You posted two references that not only proved nothing but one of them stated that any structures would only last femtoseconds. Rather than admit your mistakes you then posted a third that did not use the silly dilutions that the vast majority of homeopaths use. Again, rather than admit your mistake and act like an adult you sprayed out a Gish Gallop.

            As you don’t read your own references I see no reason to read them for you.

          • Egger

            “You posted two references that not only proved nothing but one of them stated that any structures would only last femtoseconds.”

            Gish Gallop? ROFL! Come on child, read!, read!

            –We identified and obtained 75 publications that fulfilled inclusion criteria, among them one sufficiently detailed correspondence.–

            Would you like a more evidence, Pseudoskeptik?

          • Acleron

            I’d like to see any evidence, so far you supplied nothing,

          • Egger

            Oh, sure, sure, I have show evidence. Show me your evidence!

          • Egger

            –“One single proof” is a deceptive rhetorical flourish used primarily by denialists designed to apparently negate a preponderance of circumstantial evidence by claiming that without a specific key proof, the whole argument is invalid.

            Argument: Some homeopathic remedies show presence nanoparticles in extreme dilutions.

            Pseudoskeptik: “How about Berlin Wall? Homeopathic Owl? Colours?”

            An example from Aclero or the Morgan, when he cites the examples of Berlin Wall or the imponderable remedies in the context of Langmuir paper. Wow, this is very funny for me!

          • Acleron

            Quack claims something so ludicrous it appears to break many scientific laws and theories. Scientist asks for convincing evidence. Quack resorts to childish name calling, lies and gibberish.

          • Egger

            “Quack claims something so ludicrous it appears to break many scientific laws and theories”

            Come on theft. List the “many” laws and theories. An example:

            1. Homeopathy breaks the evolution theory?
            2. Homeopathy breaks the newton laws?
            3. Homeopathy breaks the all geological laws?
            4. Homeoapthy breaks the all chemistry laws?

            Show me the evidence!

          • Acleron

            The theory of evolution is directionless except for the environment. For homeopathy to work then some agency would have to have driven all the systems in an organism to respond to shaken water, no such driving force is known. In fact, without organisms having different survival rates, evolution would not occur. Just for a laugh, tell us when the ‘curative’ effects of nothing first appeared in evolutionary theory.

            The chemical law of mass action would obviously be broken as homeopathic products contain nothing.

            Quantum mechanics show us that any structures in water break up in femtoseconds.

            There are only four major forces, your memory gibberish would require something that has never been observed.

      • Egger

        What is the evidence against the memory of water?

        Only two papers without high dilutions, HA HA HA HA HA

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/474168a.html

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7030/full/nature03383.html

        In other words: the overwhelming evidence in physical chemistry confirms the water memory phenomena. Sorry Randi gangsters.

        • Acleron

          Where is the evidence for memory of water, neither of your references remotely suggest such a thing exists. The second one actually precludes anything lasting in water beyond femtoseconds.

          Are you actually reading your refs or understanding them?

          • Egger

            Where is the evidence from the water memory?

            http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979211101624

            Come on pseudoskeptik!

            “The second one actually precludes anything lasting in water beyond femtoseconds.”

            Cowan never diluted any type of solute. Not extrapolable. Your lies not surprissed me.

            “Are you actually reading your refs or understanding them?”

            Yes.

          • Acleron

            You gave those two references, again neither of them supports your claim. You now push a paper that doesn’t use your insane dilutions. You are nonsensical.

          • Egger

            “You now push a paper that doesn’t use your insane dilutions.”

            HAHAHAHAH….Read the title

            ELECTRIC DIPOLE AGGREGATES IN VERY DILUTE POLAR LIQUIDS: THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

            What is very dilute Acleron? Is of the order of 10-4 M or below. In the paper:

            –Recent experiments showed that the properties of water and its solutions may be affected by repetition of the following processes: vigorous succussing the liquid and adding some nonsuccussed water to the succussed liquid. For example, 100 cc of distilled water or an aqueous “mother” solution composed of 1% wt/v solute is poured into a glass vessel–

            Wait.. is the homeopathic dilution process!

  • Acleron

    One of the greatest barriers to increasing our knowledge of reality is the substitution of belief before evidence. Homeopaths have a belief system with tremendous similarities to religion. Their belief that sugar and water has some magical effect beyond placebo prevents them from scientifically examining all the negative evidence that demonstrates that throwing away anything that could be active leads to zero activity.

    It is interesting that Ernst became a high powered scientist and lost his faith in homeopathy, he is to be applauded for his strength in doing this.

  • Egger

    Edzard Ernst: when have you ever stopped making false accusations against homeopaths and researchers?

    • Acleron

      Point to one, just one. You are full of these baseless assertions so it is time you put up or shut up.

      • Egger

        Oh heavens, the gangster Acleron again. Why Maddox rejects the Israeli data? Why?

        • Acleron

          What on earth are you burbling about now? Produce one instance of Ernst making false accusations against homeopaths.

  • Egger

    Ernst: “I began to prescribe remedies which, according to my knowledge of pharmacology, could not possibly have any effect. After all, they typically contained not a single molecule of an active substance.”

    Peer reviewed works:
    1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20603119

    –In conclusion, our in vitro study suggests that water samples that are electronically-transferred with vibrational information of metronidazole are capable of inhibiting trophozoite growth of axenically cultured E. histolytica and T. vaginalis–

    2) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610710000660

    –There is no doubt that biosystems can be affected by EMFs at several levels. There is also little doubt that biosystems can be the source of EMFs–

    3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25707238

    –In the present review it is shown that a series of BAS in experiments in vitro in a broad range of concentrations, including ultralittle ones (10 –^13 to 10 -^20 M), essentially modify the physicochemical properties of biological membranes and liposome prepared from their lipid extracts.–

    4) http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8418

    –Prominent water research chemist Martin Chaplin at London South Bank University described many examples in conventional chemistry where, indeed, water appears to have a memory–

    • Acleron

      None of those claims have been verified by experienced experts in the field.

      If any of those authors actually understood the import of their claims they would realise that an enormous amount of work would need to be done under the most stringent of conditions.

      The gulf between real science and this is extremely large, some unrelated papers that only appear to have emf in common is not going to bridge it.

  • Acleron

    Professor Ernst was funded by a believer in alt med and was heartily welcomed by all the quacks. Whether they saw the appointment of a high level scientist as good marketing material or really believed that their quackery worked is unknown.

    Unfortunately, Ernst produced results that rather conclusively showed that little or nothing at all worked. He immediately became a hate figure to the quacks.

    His story demonstrates that the quacks are only interested in the results when it favours them.

  • Egger

    “Homopathists”

    1. Egger = 8
    2. Ullman = 5
    3. Ross = 3

    vs Pseudoskeptik team (Haters, trolls or flamewars):

    Ernst = Ausent
    Horus reloaded = Zero
    Deb Walker = Zero
    Tenterre = Zero
    dave = 1
    Acleron = -15
    mrf = -30
    Paul Morgan = -50
    Alan Henness = -500 —-> LOL!

  • Egger

    Show!

  • Shank

    There is a little known (but useful) internet law which, if observed, might save many commenters here a good deal of time. Shank’s Law:

    “The imaginative powers of the human mind have yet to rise to the challenge of concocting a pseudoscientific theory so batshit insane that one cannot find at least one PhD holding scientist to support it”.

    In other words, just because you have a PhD, it doesn’t mean you’re not crazy, and if a PhD holding scientist supports homeopathy, the balance of probability suggests that he is, in fact, just an overqualified lunatic.

    P.S. – I wish I could take credit for this but I didn’t come up with Shank’s Law. There’s clearly another Shank somewhere on the internet who is much cleverer than I am.

  • Jeff

    Gated Communities

    Gated communities are taking on an important role in modern politics. Donald Trump grew up in a gated community, and made his fortune building gated communities that illegally exclude African-Americans. Trump’s approach is not based on ideology, but on consumer demand, and in particular, the demand of the working class to live in a place where there are no minority groups, criminals, wierdos or politically correct (Catholic educated) people.

    A gated community has a number of characteristics. There is ideally a six metre high concrete wall to keep out intruders. When the wall surrounds a very large number of houses, the average cost of the wall becomes insignificant. Getting past the security guards is like going through customs. Hence there is no crime in a gated community, and children can roam unsupervised in complete safety. Parents can be sure their daughters will not encounter males that would be unsuitable sons-in-law.

    Allotments are typically quarter-acre or five acres (one-tenth or two hectares). Houses are fireproof and of a similar appearance. Services are provided by underground ducts, including pneumatic mail delivery. Television and internet are unobtrusively censored.

    There is a shopping centre with a supermarket and other key shops. Prices are controlled to prevent gouging. There is a club for men and older boys from which women are excluded. On the top of the shopping centre is a hospital and old people’s home overlooking a race track and playing fields.

    There is a non-denomination church, which has leather sofas instead of pews, and wallpaper with pictures of saints like in an eastern orthodox church. The priest is a family man employed by the management committee. There is a co-educational school, so that if children conceive a passionate desire for a classmate, it will be someone of the opposite gender. The school has international baccalaureate and no homework.

    Once people move into a gated community, it occurs to them that, instead of their having to move into a gated community, it would be better if the “undesirables” were forced to live in ghettos, or were kicked out of the country altogether. No doubt this is what Donald Trump has in mind. The Conservative Party should take on board this trend in modern living and become the party for people who live or would like to live in gated communities. eq