Prince Charles’s homeopathy for cows: the Royal Society cannot stay silent

The antibiotics crisis is one of the urgent issues of our time and great attention should be paid to any possible solution. Last year the Prince of Wales addressed a summit of experts on the subject — specifically, on the issue of antibiotic over-use. The meeting took place at one of our most prestigious institutions of science worldwide, the Royal Society in London.

Prince Charles told his audience that he had long been worried about the over-use of antibiotics. In fact, he said, ‘it was one of the reasons I converted my farming operation to an organic, or agro-ecological, system over 30 years ago, and why incidentally we have been successfully using homeopathic — yes, homeopathic — treatments for my cattle and sheep as part of a programme to reduce the use of antibiotics… I find it difficult to understand how we can continue to allow most of the antibiotics in farming, many of which are also used in human medicine, to be administered to healthy animals… Could we not devise more effective systems where we reserve antibiotics for treating animals where the use is fully justified by the seriousness of the illness?’

Charles seems to have a few good points here with which few would disagree. Sadly, he then spoils it all by not being able to resist his passion for quackery.

  • Yes, we have over-used antibiotics both in human and in veterinary medicine.
  • Yes, this has now gone so far that it now endangers our health.
  • Yes, it is a scandal that so little has happened in this respect, despite us knowing about the problem for many years.
  • No, homeopathy is not the solution to any of these problems.

I find it extraordinary: our heir to the throne claims he has been ‘successfully using homeopathy’, and he does so at the Royal Society. This institution has a proud history that goes back to 1660 and includes virtually all the giants of British science. The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba‘ is taken to mean ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It expresses a determination to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

And the experiments show that Charles’s highly diluted homeopathic remedies are placebos. A recent systematic review assessed the efficacy of homeopathy in cattle, pigs and poultry. Here is a summary of it:

Only peer-reviewed publications dealing with homeopathic remedies that could possibly replace or prevent the use of antibiotics in the case of infective diseases or growth promotion in livestock were included. Search results revealed a total number of 52 trials performed within 48 publications fulfilling the predefined criteria. Twenty-eight trials were in favour of homeopathy, with 26 trials showing a significantly higher efficacy in comparison to a control group, whereas 22 showed no medicinal effect. Cure rates for the treatments with antibiotics, homeopathy or placebo varied to a high degree, while the remedy used did not seem to make a big difference. No study had been repeated under comparable conditions.

Consequently, the use of homeopathy cannot claim to have sufficient prognostic validity where efficacy is concerned. When striving for high therapeutic success in treatment, the potential of homeopathy in replacing or reducing antibiotics can only be validated if evidence of efficacy is confirmed by randomised controlled trials under modified conditions.

If this is so, why did the Royal Society let Charles get away with his claim that homeopathic treatments are successful in reducing the use of homeopathy?

Nullius in verba!

The Royal Society published Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica and Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment demonstrating the electrical nature of lightning. They backed James Cook’s journey to Tahiti, reaching Australia and New Zealand, to track the transit of Venus. They published the first report in English of inoculation against disease, approved Charles Babbage’s Difference Engine, documented the eruption of Krakatoa and published Chadwick’s detection of the neutron, which would lead to the unleashing of the atom. And never did they take anyone’s word for it. They always insisted on solid evidence. But now they are confronted with Charles’s verbal claim about homeopathy being a solution to antibiotic resistance.

The problem seems obvious, but what can be done? Perhaps the Royal Society could ask Charles for the evidence to support his claim? Because, given their motto, they cannot possibly take his word for it. And given their proud history, they cannot meekly remain silent. Once the evidence is on the table, they must critically evaluate it.

If it passes muster, it would have enormous consequences; all farmers should then start using homeopathy immediately and thus save us from the current crisis of antibiotic resistance. If, however, it turns out to be inadequate or false, they must ask Charles to publicly withdraw his claim.

Nullius in verba!

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


  • Alan Schmukler

    I believe that the 224,279 board certified homeopathic physicians who practice in India curing everything from
    Dengue fever to Leprosy would be surprised to know that they have been using placebos all these years. So would
    the 42% of British medical doctors who refer their patients to a homeopath, or the 95% of French pediatricians, dermatologists, and general practitioners prescribe homeopathic medicines and the 20% of German physicians who prescribe homeopathic remedies, or the 40% of Dutch doctors who do the same. The thousands of veterinary homeopaths who cure both pets and farm animals of chronic and acute diseases would also be surprised, as
    would the farmers who pay for those services. Give it up Edzard. No one’s listening.

    • Homeopathy in India is a fringe therapy. It doesn’t surprise me at all that supporters of homeopathy misrepresent this though.

      India has a huge population. You take any tiny fringe group and you can come up with a very large sounding number. Right up until you look at that number as a percentage.

      For context: http://www.thehinducentre.com/resources/article7378862.ece

      Here, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reports on medical modality choices. The “other” category makes up about 5-7% usage. In “Other” we have AYUSH. So that’s only part of that 5-7%. The “H” in AYUSH is Homeopathy so that makes up a part of a part of the 5-7%.

      Looking at it from this angle you get a much more realistic representation of Homeopathy usage in India.

      So yeah, @Alan Schmukler, people are listening and countering your misinformation and misrepresentations with actual data.

      • Lakhwinder Momi

        Yes, Homeopathics are mere placebo; same as no one never saw superman on electric wires.
        God knows who is responsible for power …..

      • Dana Ullman

        Fringe? In that case, why has EVERY survey ever conducted on WHO uses homeopathy shown that they are MORE EDUCATED than those who don’t use homeopathy, like people such as this professional and chronic skeptic!

        • Yet you don’t link to any – and you don’t provide any good evidence homeopathy has specific effects over placebo…

          • T-500

            Share the definition of “good evidence”.

            Fallacy of move the goals posts is invalid.

          • No need for you to worry too much about it – I’ll take a look at whatever study you believe is the best… No point in limiting your options.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence. No more tricks troll.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for you than it already is by limiting your available options: just present whatever evidence you have so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. If you can’t provide any or are unwilling to, that really is OK: please just says so. No need for any further delays.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence. No more tricks.

          • As I said, I’m open to looking at whatever you think you have. I’m more than happy to wait.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence. No more tricks Alan.

          • It’s OK, T-500 – I can be patient. Just provide your evidence in your own good time.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence. No more tricks.

        • Texas Sunday Morning

          A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

        • edzard ernst

          because educated people tend to be more affluent and have more money to waste?

          • T-500

            Ad-hoc explanation. I remember the first books of pseudoskeptics, especially from the Prometeus Books firms, when I read the official explanation that was the “iletrate consumer” is the typical consumer of homeopathy. When you change your mind about of this facts?

        • Fringe?

          Yes.

          • T-500

            Pseudo skeptical movement is very fringe. When I apply the Gold/Unifex troll fallacy, I will conclude the lack of support of pseudo skeptics in the real world.

        • Mc

          Logical fallacies, the first refuge of charlattans, homeopaths and woo believers (whether they’re educated or not).

          Example: I know someone with a science PHD who believes in every conspiracy theory, alien possession & other tosh. His education does not make his beliefs true.

          • T-500

            Yes, his education does not make his beliefs true. The overwhelming experimental, clinical and observational data debunks the fallacies of pseudo skeptics.

      • T-500

        Pseudoskeptic ideology is a fringe movement. It doesn’t suprise me at all supporters of pseudo skepticism tend to believe in big mass media and pop stars of the agrobussiness and big pharma propaganda.

        • ROFL!

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence, no more tricks troll.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for you than it already is by limiting your available options: just present whatever evidence you have so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. No more delays. If you can’t provide any or are unwilling to, that really is OK: please just says so.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence.

          • As I said, I’m open to looking at whatever you think you have: I can wait.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good and compelling evidence

          • It’s OK, T-500. I can be patient – just provide your evidence in your own good time.

          • T-500

            Provide definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

      • Ron Roy

        Maybe just maybe the reason Homeopathy isn’t growing in popularity as fast as it should is because the allopathic practitioners with the help of drug company dollars have managed to suppress it. One good example is people like you denigrating it at every possible opportunity.

        • Ron Roy said:

          “Maybe just maybe the reason Homeopathy isn’t growing in popularity as fast as it should is because the allopathic practitioners with the help of drug company dollars have managed to suppress it. One good example is people like you denigrating it at every possible opportunity.”

          I don’t suppose you have any good evidence Gold is paid to post comments here? Nope, didn’t think so.

          • Ron Roy

            Evidence? Just the fact that you post things that anyone, who does a little research, with a little common sense can see are pro, pro, pro big pharm is evidence enough. However I can prove doctors are bribed:https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

          • It’s a nice diversion, but if you believe I’ve said anything that’s promoted any ‘big pharma’ treatment, please feel free to point it out. Then, perhaps, we can get back on topic?

          • T-500

            Yes, Sense About Science loves Alan Henness troll.

          • However I can prove doctors are bribed: https://link.to/irrelivant/site

            By the same argument I can “prove” all humans are male by pointing to a group of men. It’s a stupid and pointless argument that does nothing but demonstrate the weakness of your position.

            Now… If you could prove that the vast majority of doctors are bribed you may have a point.

        • Maybe just maybe the reason Homeopathy isn’t growing in popularity as fast as it should is because the allopathic practitioners

          Wait, you think there is a rate that homeopathy should be growing at? Would love to see the research that establishes that.

          Personally I think the demonstrated decline in popularity is more due to improved education of the people.

          with the help of drug company dollars have managed to suppress it.

          If you want to go down the conspiracy theorist route you can do that. The research into the nature of conspiracy theories kind of firmly points out that this scale of conspiracy couldn’t survive though.

        • Jonathan Graham

          …or the more likely fact that most people aren’t gullible enough to believe in mystical dances which create magic water which is indistinguishable from non-magic water by observational methods.

          …and the fact that it simply doesn’t work.

        • Jonathan Graham

          Maybe just maybe the reason Homeopathy isn’t growing in popularity as fast as it should is because the allopathic practitioners with the help of drug company dollars have managed to suppress it.

          Ron, you can buy homeopathic treatments at the supermarket. You can download the read the entire Materia Medica online. In what way is there any evidence that there is anything hindering homeopathy?

          One good example is people like you denigrating it at every possible opportunity.

          Oh I see, you consider a society where people are free to criticize something as evidence of a malevolent force at work behind the scenes.

          So who’s pulling your strings Ron? 🙂

    • Mark Mattingly

      Many of these doctors know they are using nothing and just take the money.

    • Alan Schmukler said:

      “So would the 42% of British medical doctors who refer their patients to a homeopath”

      I’m sure I must have asked you before about this, but since you’re still repeating it, I don’t mind asking again: please provide a source for your assertion.

      • You’ve asked. @alanschmukler:disqus, has never managed to deliver though.

    • matthayichen

      I am an Indian citizen and the popularity and state approval of homeopathy just reflect the sorry state of affairs here. A role model of scientific thinking India is not.

      I have found that most people think homeopathy is some sort of traditional medicine like Ayurveda. Forget about them knowing the all the magic involved, like how dilution increases medicinal potency.

      • T-500

        In India, more citizents think in allopathic medicine, not in “conventional” medicine.

    • Toffer99

      Got evidence for that? ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL?

      • Potty Polly

        What about 5,000 years of Indian medical history? It doesn’t fit your American big pharma view! Well that’s a surprise isn’t it.

        • Jonathan Graham

          Again…So?

          Are you saying that some group of people can’t have a false belief for thousands of years?

          • Potty Polly

            It’s not about belief as we are frequently told by your ilk. Conduct the clinical trial and find out, buddy. You pay for it if you want answers. It’s THAT simple.

          • Not even close.

            Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof. Besides, if it isn’t about belief, why did you bring up belief in the first place?

          • Potty Polly

            No, flake. You are the one screaming about evidence all the time. Evidence isn’t free. Randomised Clinical Trials aren’t free. You want evidence? Give me $35 million and I’ll conduct a staged trial with a reputable international team. My only request to you, the funder of this small project: let’s not forget to test Holsteiners too.

          • Potty Polly, what is the problem? Surely, you made sure that those clinical trials were conducted and proved you right before you made the claim so all you have to do is link to it.

          • Potty Polly

            I have not made any claim, flake. That is why you cannot get me on that. What did I state, can you not read?

          • “What about 5,000 years of Indian medical history? It doesn’t fit your American big pharma view! Well that’s a surprise isn’t it.”

            Can you seriously not remember your own claims?

          • Potty Polly

            I do. What’s the answer?

            Let me guide you to save time. The answer is, it doesn’t and, it isn’t.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I have not made any claim

            When someone like Alan Schmukler claims that homeopathy is more than just placebo and someone else asks them

            Got evidence for that? ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL?

            then you respond with

            What about 5,000 years of Indian medical history?

            What you are communicating is that 5000 years of Indian medical history is EVIDENCE of homeopathy being considerably more than just placebo.

            That is a claim.

          • $35 million sounds like a considered amount: how do you arrive at it?

          • Potty Polly

            In quarterly instalments, 25% in advance to set up a team, meetings in Mexico, Dubai, you know how this works don’t you.

          • I didn’t ask about the instalments: I asked how you arrived at the total of $35 million.

          • Potty Polly

            The figure could easily be higher and is subject to a detailed trial management plan, a signed contract and a credit check. You know how this works, don’t. you.

          • Potty Polly said:

            “The figure could easily be higher and is subject to a detailed trial management plan, a signed contract and a credit check. You know how this works, don’t. you.”

            I didn’t ask if it could be higher: I asked how you arrived at the figure of $35 million.

          • Potty Polly

            Deal or no deal Alan. I haven’t got all day to faff about with folk like you.

          • Potty Polly said:

            “Deal or no deal Alan. I haven’t got all day to faff about with folk like you.”

            It was a very simple question, but if you can’t explain why you said a trial would cost $35 million, please just admit it.

          • Potty Polly

            Admit what, why? I have a Clinical Trial Director Asia Pacific sitting right across from me and she is laughing her head off. How high do you guys jump?

          • I’ve asked you several times now and you don’t seem to be able to provide an answer: do you know how you arrived at $35 million or not? Perhaps you could ask your friend to help you out if you don’t know?

            Then perhaps you could say who you believe should fund such a trial?

          • Tekknocrates

            Do you and Jonathan Acleron Graham Merits share an office, comrade?

          • No, why do you ask?

          • Tekknocrates

            To get the answer. Why else would I ask?

          • LOL!

          • @lurvcompassion:disqus Have you or your ‘Clinical Trial Director Asia Pacific’ person been able to come up with some justification for that $35 million yet?

            And who do you believe should fund such a trial?

          • Proponent

            Potty Polly: “I have a Clinical Trial Director Asia Pacific sitting right across from me and she is laughing her head off.”

            “Clinical Trial Director Asia Pacific”.. is that how you reference your cat?

            https://akphoto3.ask.fm/625/516/892/1650003009-1r43lr6-k68hrfdt4me9500/original/file.jpg

          • Potty Polly

            Cute cat! Yours?

          • Acleron

            Lying and not very good at it, are you?

          • Potty Polly

            No sir, I am not lying.
            Why did you upvote your bigoted accusation six times?

          • Actually, no one can upvote more than once. Acleron hasn’t upvoted his accusation at all, he didn’t need to, he wrote it.

            It’s 6 other readers that upvoted it.

            You really don’t grok how voting here works, do you.

          • Potty Polly

            That’s odd, Gold. The metadata I see in front of me would suggest otherwise.

          • Take a screenshot and prove your claim. I don’t see @Acleron:disqus’s name on the list at all.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7911589bef6490e5df7445e2531cc914e6fe09ed1a6d694dc212c2fc801ef2c8.png

          • Proponent

            Yes.. “metadata”.

            Well, at least you got your power word in for the day. So, there’s that.

            (*snicker*)

          • Acleron

            Yes you are, no clinical trials director would ever agree to your delusions.

            Try up voting yourself and then admit you just lied again.

          • Acleron

            Line et al, Shang et al and the Australian NHMRC report all included trials by homeopaths. The conclusion is that it doesn’t work. Your demand that others pay you to test it again when you want to sell sugar and water is past ridicule.

          • Potty Polly

            Sugar and water are being sold to English Princes, so we are told. Do you honestly believe he is the first to be sold sugar and water?

          • Acleron

            What?

          • Tekknocrates

            Why are you upvoting your own piffle? What what, this is not the doily mail webshite. What article is published above? Did you even read it?

          • Please link to one comment where Acleron does that.

          • eat your greens

            ….this Alan Hennessy guy, he’s gifted isn’t he.

          • ….this Alan Hennessy guy, he’s gifted isn’t he.

            I can’t speak on the term “gifted” but he is very knowledgeable on the topic and really patient given the absolute drivel he has to persevere with.

          • Oh! Is ‘eat your greens’ referring to me?

          • Acleron

            A) Don’t upvote my own posts, is that something you do?

            B) Wasn’t responding to the OP but to the post above my comment.

            C) Do try to keep up.

          • Sugar and water are being sold to English Princes, so we are told. Do you honestly believe he is the first to be sold sugar and water?

            Wait… was that supposed to be an argument for something?

            With the quality of your argument and the demonstrated lack of awareness of the scientific literature…

            You’re new at this aren’t you?

          • 1)Who cares about it being sold to English Princes? Doesn’t make it any more likely to work.

            2)No, of course not. However…you just made an appeal to tradition.

          • shay simmons

            Psalm 146:3-5

            😉

          • T-500

            Shang fake trial? Please Alan, be more serious!

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371564

          • Acleron

            Eggar, get the names right, there is a clue above each post and stop assuming that because you use sockpuppets that everybody else does.

            Shang et al was not a clinical trial.

          • T-500

            Yes, Shang et al was not a clinical trial, was a biased meta-analysis.

          • Acleron

            Perhaps you’d like to point out in detail where Shang et al, used a biased procedure. It should be easy for you to produce this evidence.

          • T-500

            I like the “fake” funnel plot. Yes, it is easy produce a fake biased sub group meta-analysis.

          • Acleron

            A. A funnel plot is only fake if you invent points, are you accusing Shang of lying Eggar?

            B. The selection of trials was based on quality, a selection process that is far from being understood by a homeopath as is possible to go.

          • T-500

            A. Funnel plot? Funnel plot?

            http://datacolada.org/58

            Quote
            The funnel plot is a beloved meta-analysis tool. It is typically used to answer the question of whether a set of studies exhibits publication bias. That’s a bad question because we always know the answer: it is “obviously yes.”
            End of Quote

            Circular reasoning! Shang subgroup meta-analysis is the worst example of bad science as I’ve seen in clinical research.

            B. Yes, the selection of trials was based on quality and SE. Unlike of your stupidity:

            Quote from Shang
            Trials with SE in the lowest quartile were defined as larger trials.
            End of quote

            Acleron molusc, the oscillococinum trial was ranked as high quality trial! The trial published in a homeopathic journal (extreme hallarious!). I like the response of Rutten and Stolper:

            Quote
            The hypotheses stated by Shang et al. in their introduction were not as clear as the hypothes is posed by Sterne, Egger and Davey-Smith in 2001. 1 What other hypothesis could be proven by this comparison with a matched set of conventional trials than that quality in homeopathy trials is worse tha nine conventional trials? We showed that matching was lost if this hypothesis about quality was abandoned to compare effects. The conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo effect and that conventional medicine is not was not based on a comparative analysis of carefully matched trials, as stated by the authors.
            End of Quote

            The new meta analysis based on non individualized trial confirms the commentary of Rutten and Stolper! (extremely hillarious!)

          • Acleron

            As you have seen? Yeah, Eggar, you are an expert in misinterpretation and lying, your opinion of the quality of Shang et al is worth nothing.

            The funnel plots of the data from Shang et al and Linde et al, both show that higher quality trials demonstrate no effect for homeopathy and that lower quality trials are biased in favour of homeopathy.

          • T-500

            “As you have seen? Yeah, Eggar, you are an expert in misinterpretation and lying, your opinion of the quality of Shang et al is worth nothing.”

            My opinion?
            You are an extreme fool!
            Is the quote from the Shanfg paper!

            Quote:
            Trials with SE in the lowest quartile were defined as larger trials. page 728
            End of Quote

          • Acleron

            ‘worst example of bad science as I’ve seen in clinical research.’

            Your words and your useless opinion.

          • T-500

            No, my words supports in re-analysis, not in trahs magazines as “Skeptikal Porkyrrer”

          • Acleron

            You have made no case for any work. However, if you want to do it, go ahead, do it and publish the results in a prestigious journal. Lol.

          • T-500

            Skeptikal Inquirer is not a prestigious journal.

          • Acleron

            Your disquiet over the accuracy of the Skeptical Inquiry is irrelevant. You have no idea about the statistics used or how to set up such a trial. Apart from homeopaths, the rest of the world has concluded that homeopathy is at best a sham and probably a scam.

          • T-500

            “Your disquiet over the accuracy of the Skeptical Inquiry is irrelevant.”

            Wrong, IS Skeptikal Inquirer, not “Skeptical Inquiry”. By the way, it mantains a lot og delicious “articles” for me and others.

            ” Apart from homeopaths, the rest of the world has concluded that homeopathy is at best a sham and probably a scam.”

            The rest of the world is not the CSICOP or Meyerside Skeptics. Sorry guy, you’re a deluded with delirious tremens.

          • Acleron

            Ibid

          • T-500

            Ibid.

          • Acleron

            Eggar, parroting your fellow Delusionists is bad enough but when you are reduced to repeating the words of those who expose your delusions is quite pathetic.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, blah, bored ad-hoc excuses from the troll Acleron.

            Probably You will need a bed, you all day work in Internet is very hard!

            $ense About $cience need many trolls. Maybe, I will be enrolled with us with work on internet from my house! Thats easy work, free money from SAS. I only need post and copy your non sense comments, ad-hominem attacks, repeat silly coments as

            “Edzard Ernst is my love”

            “Tracey Tommacco Brown is the most finnest lady of the world”

            “Kevin Folta and Johnt Entine are honest mens, consparationists are silly, you’re a conspiracionist”

            “Alan Henness and Maria McLachan are my best friendes, probably my unique friends”

            “Michale Marshal is my crush!”

            “RoundUP is very and extremely safe”

            “Naturodairies is the best girl”

            “Ars Technica, Genetic Literacy, American Council on Science and Hells, SciLogs are the best media over the world!”

            I can do it!

          • Acleron

            Keep going troll, you are unintentionally hilariously.

          • T-500

            Please, share the definition of “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • Acleron

            Eggar, get help, this is just verbal diarrhea.

          • T-500

            Acleron: a crazy man.

          • T-500

            Note: 8 troll guys voting up are not all the rest of world. Sorry guy’s, CSICOP will need a help, I will promise Alan!

          • Acleron

            Must be difficult when major scientific and medical organisations all over the world say it doesn’t work. By the way, they do something you cannot, understand the evidence.

            And again Eggar, because you lie and use sock puppets, don’t assume everyone else needs to be as unethical as you.

          • T-500

            Major scientific and “medical” organisations as Coca Cola or Sense About Science or “Friendes of Science in Medicine” on the NHMRC?

            Please guy, share the definition of “good and compelling evidence”. Why do yon not share? Can’t you?

          • Acleron

            Chief medical officer of the UK, the Academy of Science in the USA, the medical associations of Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden, India, Australia etc etc.
            Are you ignorant of those statements as well?

          • T-500

            Ad-bacculum fallacy, yes!

            “Chief medical officer of the UK”

            Opinion of the lady withour proof is irrelevant.

            “the Academy of Science in the USA”

            In USA is the the National Academy of Sciences, not the “Academy of Science”.

            ” the medical associations of Germany,”

            All medical associations? Please, share the evidence.

            ” Czech Republic”

            http://www.homeopathie-unio.be/news/116/214/Czech-press-release-on-homeopathy

            Quote
            The Czech Republic press secretary of the Ministry of Health released information detailing the position of homeopathy and complementary medicine within the country. Pertaining to recent discussions, law No. 372/2011 Sb., which relates to health services and the conditions under which they can be provided, remains unchanged. This means that only trained practitioners are able to make diagnoses and provide therapy. Although the Ministry for Health of the Czech Republic does not perceive the evidence base for homeopathy to be strong enough yet, this does not prevent doctors from utilising this if it is desired and appropriate. There is no intention to alter these conditions, as homeopathic treatment is moving towards standardisation at European level. The Czech Republic will await recommendations to use unified rules for the whole of Europe before taking action.
            End of Quote.

            “To be strong” is not lack of evidence.

            “Sweden”

            No.
            http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/complementary-therapies_swiss-to-recognise-homeopathy-as-legitimate-medicine/42053830

            “India”

            No. The lack of arguments of the Mumbai Rationalist Association (CSICOP headquearters in India) are not evidence. Official top boy in India

            http://www.nih.nic.in/

            “Austria”

            Did you mean “Australia”?

            I like this:

            https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Executive-Summary-to-Ombudsman-Complaint-re-NHMRC-Homeopathy-Review-FINAL.pdf

            Acleron, please provide a copy of the first draft of the NHMRC report, the early version. The burden of the proof is from you and your friends.

          • Acleron

            Sexism as well, it isn’t surprising for somebody with zero intelligence.

          • T-500

            Sexism not, the lack of evidence from Sally.

          • T-500

            No, its very relevante. SI is the major pseudo journal over the world. When I read these articles my laugh is very noisy!

          • Acleron

            Your snorting laugh is also irrelevant. SI is not the major journal for anything, the scientific literature holds that position and it overwhelmingly proves you are an idiot. Eggar, sock puppetry is not an argument, it just further proves your idiocy.

          • T-500

            https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Executive-Summary-to-Ombudsman-Complaint-re-NHMRC-Homeopathy-Review-FINAL.pdf

            Acleron, please provide a copy of the first draft of the NHMRC report, the early version. The burden of the proof is from you and your friends.

          • Acleron

            Eggar tries to divert the convo away from his unintelligent response.

          • T-500

            Share the evidence Acleron.

          • Acleron

            The burden of proof is with you. You are the one profiting from selling water and sugar pills.

            Your pathetic conspiracy claims don’t even signify. First draft lllol.

          • T-500

            “The burden of proof is with you. You are the one profiting from selling water and sugar pills.”

            Please, share the proof of the “selling water and sugar pills”. Probably you can send the case with a lawyer.

            “Your pathetic conspiracy claims don’t even signify. First draft lllol.”

            Please, share the original draft of NHMRC. The burden of the proof is in you. Your lies –> the end of the road!

          • T-500

            “The funnel plots of the data from Shang et al and Linde et al both show that higher quality trials demonstrate no effect for homeopathy and that lower quality trials are biased in favour of homeopathy.”

            The shang flawed paper?

            As Rutten said:

            Quote
            The methodology in this analysis departed from the original hypotheses about quality and made comparisons of effect based on incomparable subgroups
            End of Quote

            Original abstract from Linde paper:

            Quote
            Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes. The most plausible explanation of this finding is bias. The results are comparable to those from similar analyses in conventional medicine.
            End of Quote

            Linde show that higher quality trials demonstrate no effect? No, Linde show that higher quality trials in homeopathy and conventional medicine decrease the effect. Linde addendum:

            Quote
            However, the influence of different quality factors depends on the context.
            End Quote

            And:

            Quote
            However, the scatterplots reveal that a convincing linear relationship does not exist.
            End of Quote

            Some higher quality trials demostrate effect as you see in the internal validy score plot!

            You are biased acleron!

          • Acleron

            So Linde supports what I said. Eggar, perhaps you should read what you copy and paste.

          • T-500

            No, Linde supports what I said. Effect remains in some high quality trial. Your are just a liar.

          • Acleron

            This is your quote of Linde.
            ‘Our analyses provide clear evidence that in the study set investigated more rigorous trials tended to yield smaller effect sizes. ‘

            Try reading before making a fool of yourself.

          • T-500

            Yes, the quote applied with conventional medicine.

          • T-500

            Why Shang do not display the full list of RCT included when the meta-analysis was published?

            Shang team show the full list of RCT used before four moths!
            Shang team do not provide the OR!

            That’s smell like as Ernst, Singh, Goldacre, Coulqhoun, Kendric Frazer, Pepin Van Ep, Jan Ninehyuys, Kevin Folta and utterly skeptic-quacks works!

            -OverExtrapolation
            -Adulteration of data
            -Non declared vested interests
            -Emotional distortion
            -Karl Popper fallacy
            -Fraud.

            A pattern emerged..

          • Acleron

            So from one idiocy, Eggar lurches to another without thought.

            So are you accusing Shang of lying Eggar?

          • T-500

            Yes, Shang work was biased. Any problem?

          • Acleron

            Yet you are incapable of showing how it was biased. By the way, any reference to these barking mad quotes you keep copying and pasting?

          • T-500

            “any reference to these barking mad quotes “

            From meta-analysis of Shang and Linde. You’re fool.

          • Acleron

            No they are not.

          • T-500

            Yes, they are true quotes from Shang. You’re a coward.

          • Blindsideflanker

            Milk that cow, baby! Holsteiners deliver best return on investment by far.

          • “Give me $35 million and I’ll conduct a staged trial with a reputable international team.”
            How greedy of you. It’s not as though there isn’t reference to accumulated scientific evidence *in the article*, and much, much more in the blog linked to at the end.

          • Potty Polly

            I know! Just love watching the spastics dance – it’s all staged, naturally.

          • Jonathan Graham

            How is it not about belief? Are you saying that people in India who practice or have practiced homeopathy medicine don’t believe in it?

            You seem to be claiming that just because said belief has persisted for 5000 years there must be something to it. If that’s NOT what you’re saying then perhaps you start by talking about the thing about homeopathy in India which is compelling instead of the thing which isn’t. 🙂

            Conduct the clinical trial and find out,

            In other words you believe without any evidence at all then?

          • Potty Polly

            This isn’t about me, this is about you.
            If you want to be convinced by something , you need to study it to figure it out. There’s no point trying to speak with people who are not receptive to ideas, and I am not here to convince you of anything. However, if you’ve got $35 million spare…

          • Jonathan Graham

            This isn’t about me

            Sure it is. It’s about your claim that 5000 years of Indian medicine is compelling in some way you can’t seem to describe. Perhaps you realize that there is nothing compelling about 5000 years of Indian medicine. If so, just say so.

            There’s no point trying to speak with people who are not receptive to ideas

            I’m receptive to any rational argument. Being receptive to anything else is just right way to believe the wrong things.

          • Potty Polly

            Well that ‘s great to hear. Nothing to see hear for me and you then. Carry on caring about the important stuff, Jonathan. Thumbs up, big boy. 👍✌💪

          • Jonathan Graham

            So your claim to 5000 years of Indian medicine being compelling was just empty words?

          • Potty Polly

            No. You coming across as a mad man was the task at hand. Delivered, plated and served.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No.

            Well you did seem to make that claim. THEN you seemed to back away from it. Even when I assured you that I’m happy to accept a rational argument for whatever is compelling about homeopathy in India. So given all that it’s hardly unreasonable to think that you don’t have a rational argument for why 5000 years of Indian homeopathy is compelling. Which is well within the realm of “empty words”.

            You coming across as a mad man was the task at hand. Delivered, plated and served.

            Love, if you were projecting any harder you could point yourself at a wall and give powerpoint presentations.

          • AutismDadd

            Buzzcut Graham is a major league buttcrack

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s so cute to see that you’re still upset about having your butt handed to you so many times than you had to block me. 🙂

          • Realiτy022

            He’s right.

            You’re a flaming asshamster!!!

            And stop trying to touch my hat Jonathan!!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Awww Rene. Still bummed after being shown up so many times. 🙂

          • Ron Roy

            Call him Pasty he hates that.

          • @disqus_ruSIKtVC0i:disqus, germ theory denier, is suggesting name calling as a valid debate technique.

            This explains a lot.

          • Potty Polly

            The guy’s amazing. Unbelievably funny.

          • JoeFarmer

            But you like being the Little Engine that Couldn’t!

          • This isn’t about me, this is about you.

            It’s about neither of you. It’s about the science.

            @lurvcompassion:disqus, you appear to be unaware that there is a truck load of research already.

            This has been filtered, many times, to pull out the good quality research. When these are examined homeopathy has been found to be no better than a similarly administered placebo.

          • It’s not about belief as we are frequently told by your ilk. Conduct the clinical trial and find out, buddy. You pay for it if you want answers. It’s THAT simple.

            The research has been done. The results from good quality research is conclusive. If you don’t accept it then you continue the research. Just ensure it’s good quality though. Otherwise it’ll be discarded along with the rest of the low/poor quality studies.

            If you’re not willing to do that, then you, by definition, are falling back on belief. The belief that you’re right. Which is demonstrably not the case.

          • Swarm of Drones

            YOU’VE UPLIKED YOUR OWN JIZZ ALREADY
            5 MINUTES IN

            FOOL

          • Ron Roy

            Oh oh Pasty rears his ugly head.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Your vacuous commentary always brightens my day Ron. 🙂

          • JoeFarmer

            And Ron Roy, the Little Engine that Couldn’t, lives up to his name…

        • Acleron

          The argument from antiquity is not evidence it is a fallacy.

          One might equally say that traditional Indian medical practice is 5000 years out of date.

          • Potty Polly

            Oh dear, homo-empathy is coming to every town near you and sadly, there is nothing you can do about it.

          • Acleron

            The high street quack closed down a few years ago, only the chiroquack to go now.

          • Googlheimer

            Why do you troll here, Acleron. Does it work in your opinion?

          • TROLL – WHERE?

            Note: Troll does not mean ‘someone who disagrees with me’.

          • Acleron

            Thanks for your zero contribution.

          • Ron Roy

            He’s a paid pharm / chemical company troll.Earns his living at trying to debase anything, that’s pure, good, natural, organic etc., that would pose a threat to big pharm or chemical companies profits.

          • I do hope you have evidence for that pharm/chemical company shill gambit, Ron.

          • Don’t be silly. If they had that evidence they’d post it here as conclusive proof…

          • Tekknocrates

            But ‘organic’ is a huge earner for big pharma. We don’t live in the Eighties anymore when they resisted. It’s 2017!

        • And for thousands of years (though note: Christopher Columbus’ time did not take place during them – that argument was about the size of the earth. And if the landmass called America hadn’t been in the way, Columbus would have died along with his crew), people thought the earth was flat.

          So your point…?

          • Potty Polly

            You want answers?

            You conduct clin. trials that satisfy your desire. You pay for it.

            That’s my point. The rest of us will continue exploring the efficacy of homo-empathy, wave and frequency therapies, Reiki etc in practice. Added bonus: there is nothing you can do about it

          • Who’s making the claim that homeopathy works? Is it me? I don’t think so.

          • Potty Polly

            My point was, if I am not mistaken, that WE DON’T CARE.
            We’ll do it anyway. Your loss is our gain. And there is nothing you can do about it.

          • Why’d you bring it up then if you didn’t care?

          • Potty Polly

            Your loss is our gain. Arrivederci OIOM.

          • Acleron

            We know homeopaths don’t care about selling worthless ‘treatments’. However there are actions that can be taken against fraudsters. In the UK we have had senior scientists and doctors speaking out against it and the ASA is demanding that claims made homeopaths be proven or deleted. The squeals of the homeopaths are convincing evidence that their trade is suffering as it should do.

          • Potty Polly

            If so why worry about it?

          • Acleron

            Concern about people being defrauded and injured by non treatments. But of course concern for others just gets in the way of homeopaths plying their trade so it is easy to understand that you won’t know anything about it.

          • Potty Polly

            A noble cause. How are you reimbursed for your efforts?

          • Tekknocrates

            Silence speaks volumes…

          • Like the lack of proof from Potty Polly, you mean? I agree, her silence on that issue speaks volumes.

          • mrmrsspence

            And -3 down votes would imply the lunatics are trying to run the asylum.

            They must think it’s their lucky day…

          • A noble cause. How are you reimbursed for your efforts?

            Personally, I get reimbursed for my time in the form of;
            * Personal education (I validate my claims)
            * Sharpening my debating skills
            * Seeing the visible decline in pseudoscience being publically funded
            * That warm fuzzy feeling of knowing I’m doing some good

            How are you reimbursed for your efforts?

          • Swarm of Drones

            JIMBO, BUZZ OFF
            YOU AND ME
            OUTSIDE!

            MAGA

          • Gold said:

            “Sharpening my debating skills”

            Here? I don’t think so…

          • Fair point. I don’t *only* argue here though.

            It is a good place to stay on top of the main talking points that the anti-science crowd present though. And to gather conversation to train a markov chain.

          • Acleron

            Another characteristic of homeopaths is the inability to lift a finger without payment and their projection onto others.

          • Do you think homeopaths would accept me paying with water that has the memory of money in it?

          • Acleron

            They should. According to them it will be far more valuable after you have thrown the money down the drain.

          • Someone should actually try that for reals though.

          • Hmm..googled something like ‘homeopathy payment’

            Hmmm…

            “6. What kind of payment do you accept?

            I accept payment by cash, cheque or Interac email. At this time, no credit or debit cards are accepted.”

          • Potty Polly

            I am not a homo, sorry.

          • Acleron

            Pathetic, I didn’t even accuse you of being a homeopath. Is this denial in action?

          • T-500

            Alan Henness and tiny pseudo-skeptics was paided by some mult billonaire multinationals.

          • Acleron

            So what? Eggar, pay attention to the discussion.

          • T-500

            Yes, I like Shang analysis with ad-hoc statistical analysis, Oh, my God, the vast majority of studies was higher quality than allopathic trials, That’s so ironic!

          • Acleron

            Point to the ad hoc nature of the statistical analysis.

          • T-500

            No, the overwhelming clinical trials show effect over placebo effect. The new meta analysis confirms this!

          • Acleron

            So you can’t justify what you said. Eggar, doesn’t occur to you that as you can never prove any of your statements that you are just wrong?

          • T-500

            So you can’t justify the definition of homeopathy as pseudocience, why?

          • Acleron

            And the displacement activity instead of any reasoned debate. Eggar, you are just silly. We were not discussing the pseudoscience of homeopathy. It is clear from what you do say that you have no idea of science and are thus incapable of recognising pseudo science.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, your emotional discharges are dull.

          • Acleron

            ‘Blah, blah, ‘
            Another irrationalist fails to talk.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, another Acleron troll shit.

          • Acleron

            So lies and profanity are the staple of the irrational. Now if only they had any evidence for their delusions…

          • T-500

            Finally I’ve read all of your comments and twitter messages. I can’t any valid argument from you, you’re a professional troll.

          • Acleron

            You have amply demonstrated your inability to understand what you claim to read so I doubt anybody but the charlatans and scammers will agree with you.

          • T-500

            More on troll Acleron. Continue Acleron, continue…

          • Acleron

            Anybody strolling through your 80 comments in this sock puppet can easily see who is the troll.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, the troll Acleron can’t write any argument.

          • T-500

            You are completely wrong.
            80 comments vs your 103333 crap comments everyday!

            Probably you are the most occuped man of the internet!

            When I wan any valid debunk of homeopathy, I foun this conclusion:

            Acleron = 404 error.

          • Acleron

            Medic, medic! This guy needs treatment.

          • T-500

            You’re not a medic. You’re a fool pseudo-skeptioc with vested interests. Keep, calm and share the definition of “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • Acleron

            Lol, still trying to deflect from the original request for evidence from you. Eggar, your language, your posting times, your targets, your lack of logic and your habit of multiple posts to a single comment all show who you are, ie the deranged Eggar.

          • T-500

            Sorry Acleron, your language, your same targets, your smear, ie the quack Alan Henness!

          • Acleron

            And then the mindless repetition, do try and make some sense. Alan and live in different countries, use different language and have different views on some things but of course your tiny brain cannot get out of its conspiracy rut.

          • T-500

            No need to explain yourself Troll. I don’t think that the logic police will take action against you.
            As you, Acleron, I don’t think it is possible that you could ever produce a logical fallacy. You are therefore of course always correct about everything (sarcasm).

          • T-500

            Amazing, you are denying that Acleron troll is not a MD or scientist. Thank you Acleron, your failed statements are inconsistent, please would you clarify, thank you.

          • Acleron

            Interesting to see the specimen homeopath squirm when asked for evidence.

          • T-500

            Interesting to see the troll Alan inventing a imaginary “homeopath”.

          • T-500

            You want invent imaginary “homeopaths” as ad-hominem. You are pathetic troll. Please, share the definition of “good evidence”, “extraordinary proof” and “robust evidence”. Remember, share the peer reviewed paper in apropiate journal, not in “Skeptikal Shit”.

          • Acleron

            Same behaviour of multiple responses to the same post as Eggar and the same denial of being a homeopath.

          • T-500

            Can’t you carry out a simple request with the uploader images?

          • T-500

            It’s very simply.
            Upload the document, prove your fucking madness!

          • T-500

            Duh!
            Acleron wrote that “Interesting to see the specimen homeopath squirm when asked for evidence”,
            . Then I requested my imaganary title in homeopathy. If you can’t upload a simply request pseudo hacker, then your lack of ability to think critically is obvious. Bad taste. Take a pretty cat!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa8d4cbb4c0b9f69b1357b043215820f7b930393cff7405ed0282f6de47e46f2.jpg

          • T-500

            Contrary to his repeated statements, Acleron is not qualified scientist, and has also not acquired the prerequisites for the additional medical training. Just keeping it nice and simple for you Alan socket puppet troll.

          • Acleron

            And when nothing else works, Eggar lies like any other homeopath. What’s it like Eggar? Do you have to keep lists of which lies you use or are you the really stupid liar that just tells everyone the same lie?

          • T-500

            I’m sorry, I can’t view the legal documents of your imaginary “homeopath”. Choose the document from your computer, upload the image. Can’t you use a simple PC Alan?

          • T-500

            Provide and upload the documents Acleron, Can’t you looser?

          • Acleron

            Eggar even loses track of which thread he is trolling.

          • T-500

            Acleron, prove your points.

          • T-500

            You can’t provide evidence of your imaginary “homeopath”. Why do you not provide this evidence in the forum Acleron? Please, share the document, you can upload my alleged diploma (?) or title (?). I’m waiting your interesting squirm response with the lack of evidence.

          • T-500

            No evidence of my “title” of “homeopath”?
            No evidence of my “diploma” of “homeopath”?
            No evidence of my “courses” as “homeopath”?

            How about you just post a study confirming the imaginary homeopath. There must be at least one real evidence that you think fits the delirant imago mundi. Then, when you have done that, I can have a look at it, and laugh in front of your face. If you fail to carry out what is a simple request, then I will just be able to see that you have absolutely no relevant evidence whatsoever, and are just fabricating it.

            Good luck Acleron.

          • Mike Stevens

            T-500, how about you just post a study confirming the clinical benefits of homeopathy.

            After all, that is what you claim, isn’t it?
            There must be at least one study that you think fits the bill.

            Then, when you have done that, we can have a look at it, and discuss how robust the evidence presented may be.
            Deal?

            If you fail to carry out what is a simple request, then everyone will just be able to see that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and are just fabricating it.

          • T-500

            You reply is amazing! You clarly said benefits:

            “how about you just post a study confirming the clinical benefits of homeopathy”

            Please, share the validate debunk of this studies

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X

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

            Note: exclude any propaganda or bill from Genetic Literacy, Skepticat – Nightingale Collaboratio lobby, Edzard Ernst piece of shit (opinion), Science 2.0, Quackwatch, CSICOP.org, Science Based Medicine or ORAC posts.

          • Mike Stevens

            I haven’t claimed there are papers debunking your claim homeopathy works.
            So let’s focus on your claim, shall we?

            Where is the evidence?

          • T-500

            No, no, you requested almost ONE paper!

            “There must be at least one study that you think fits the bill.”

            The evidence were posted in the links. Now, Can’t you debunk the papers Mike?

          • T-500

            Can you reply with your scientific knowledge without pseudo skeptical bias or vested interests of the troll patrol?

          • T-500

            Share the paper about of the specific demonstation of “Extraordinary proof” and the ultimatiley debunk of homeopathy. Why do you not share the incredible paper?

          • T-500

            Ok Mik. I have given you the evidence. Let me show your scientific evidence!

          • Mike Stevens

            “I have given you the evidence”
            Where?
            Just post a link to the paper please.

          • T-500
          • T-500

            Why do you not provide the evidence?

          • T-500

            I’m waiting your original debunk published in a peer review journal. Mike, Why do you not share the papers?

          • Mike Stevens

            Robust evidence requires replication and confirmation.
            I am waiting for those papers please.

          • T-500

            Define “robust evidence”.

            “requires replication and confirmation. I am waiting for those papers please.”

            The studies were replications (Phase IV trials)!

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X

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

            Provide your valid debunking published in a peer reviewed journal.

          • Mike Stevens

            “The studies were replications (Phase IV trials)!”

            No, you fool… Those are not Phase IV trials (which are post licensing, marketing surveillance trials), they were Phase II/III studies, and certainly not a “replication”.

            Robust evidence requires replication by an independent group of researchers.
            Please provide some, will you.
            You don’t seem to know much about trial design and methodology, do you?

          • T-500

            “No, you fool… Those are not Phase IV trials (which are post licensing, marketing surveillance trials), they were Phase II/III studies, and certainly not a “replication”.”

            Are you an idiot?

            The studies were phase IV! Phase IV trial is not only a “pos licensing”. Fool

            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02427386

            Phase 4 Randomized Controlled Trial of Dynamized Estrogen in Individualized Homeopathic Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain of Endometriosis

            Read stupid, read!

          • Mike Stevens
          • T-500

            Truly idiot.

            The two studies were phase IV.

          • Acleron

            They changed the name of the trial later. Only in homeopathy do you market before testing for effectiveness.

          • T-500

            “They changed the name of the trial later. Only in homeopathy do you market before testing for effectiveness.”

            Provide the evidence Acleron.

          • Acleron

            You idiot, it is in the reference you supplied. That’s the problem with quacks, you can’t read any further than some silly point that you can quotemine.

          • T-500

            “You idiot, it is in the reference you supplied”

            Please Alan, my comment was about of the Phase IV, not your stupid “They change the name of the trial latter”. The name of trial is different, the trial is the same (50 people enrolled). You’re a complete idiot.

          • Acleron

            Both are given in the reference you supply, we know you can’t read scientific papers but this is only a homeopathy claim, are you that deficient? I suppose you are.

          • T-500

            Please Alan, you can’t debunk the papers. It is obvious, you need attack with laugher insults.

          • Acleron

            Keep on Eggar, you are merely demonstrating that you don’t properly read your own references.

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the phase IV trials and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance studies. Thank you Alan.

          • Acleron

            As usual Eggar, I can, but I know what T1 and 2 relaxation times signify, can do the maths and actually read your references, none of which you are capable of.

          • T-500

            You don’t know nothing of physics. So can’t you debunk the Demangeat trials?

          • Acleron

            Your ignorance is kind of awesome.

          • T-500

            So can’t debunk the Demangeat trials?

          • T-500

            “can do the maths and actually read your references, none of which you are capable of.”

            Share your “maths”, share your paper. Please, Alan.

          • Acleron

            Lol, your ignorance is absolute. Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.

          • T-500

            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”

            As usually, the pseudosceptics not, they wrote garbage as the Rober Park CSICOP pseudopapers on popular magazines on the business of pseudo skepticism.

            Homework for Alan: Provie your professional debunking paper.

            a) Debunk this experiments.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19533076

            b) Debunk the theoretical framework with evidence.

            http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984909020138

            The paper of Dr. Georgios M. Kontogeorgis

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378381215003362

            c) Reviews.

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2016.1227332?journalCode=iebm20

          • Acleron

            The detail required of the preparation of the alcohol water and the alcohol water is absent. But what do you expect from a homeopath?

            Oh, and as usual, the effect is not reproducible.

          • T-500

            “The detail required of the preparation of the alcohol water and the alcohol water is absent”

            As usualy, Alan can’t read properly the papers.

          • Acleron

            I’m sure Alan Henness can read that paper as well as I can. If you are claiming a conclusion that is against known scientific theory, you have to supply very detailed methods not airily say it was done.

            But anyway, as usual when anybody is bothered to check a homeopaths’ claims, it was not found.

            The problem you have, Eggar, is that real scientists look a lot further than you.

          • T-500

            “I’m sure Alan Henness can read that paper as well as I can”

            Of course, however, so can’t you debunk.

            “If you are claiming a conclusion that is against known scientific theory, you have to supply very detailed methods not airily say it was done”

            The typical idiothic claim, what is the ALL know scientific knowledge Alan? Share the demonstration.

            “But anyway, as usual when anybody is bothered to check a homeopaths’ claims, it was not found.”

            Typical ad-hominem, the vast majority of the paper that I was posted were published by no homeopaths.

            “The problem you have, Eggar, is that real scientists look a lot further than you.”

            Alan, Randi, Ernst o Sigh are note a real scientist, they are a fakers and bougs liars.

          • Acleron

            As Mike has pointed out you are dribbling. There is a paper that shows your reference is not reproducible. Didn’t you see it? Cue more dribbling.

          • T-500

            Share the evidence and paper of the “is not reproducible”. So can’t your share your paper Alan?
            When your garbage is a full crap, you can’t repeat the lies of your friend Michael Marshall.

          • Acleron

            So either Eggar knows that his NMR nonsense has been debunked and stupidly thought no one else would find out or was too stupid to do a proper search.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/11212083/

            I see your delusions multiply, you really should see someone about them.

          • T-500

            How you can debunk the NMR 2009 study with a 2001 study publishen in a homeopathic journal?
            Are you extremely idiot?

          • T-500

            I can read the Abel study, obviously you can’t understand this Alan.

            -Sulphur D4 is homeopathic, D4 = 1/1 000. This destroy your idiothic statement abour the “false homeopathic remedies”.

            Materials: globules.

            Experiment was not blind.

            Conclusion: effece with 1H NMR was detected but not reproducible.

          • Acleron

            The false is applied to ‘remedy’. That homeopathic snakeoil is sold for great profit is rather obvious.

          • T-500

            “The false is applied to ‘remedy’

            Non sense, typically from Alan.

            ” That homeopathic snakeoil is sold for great profit is rather obvious”

            So the British Homeopathic Journal is a valid journal when the results are “negative”, but if they all positive Homeopathy is “fake journal” (your own words Alan).

          • Acleron

            My opinion is that it is non peer reviewed and prints a lot of nonsense. But let’s hear the opinion of a homeopath, Eggar. Do you think it posts real science?

          • T-500

            Your personal opinion is shit Acleron, provide evidence without pseudo sceptical vested interests.

          • Acleron

            ‘Your personal opinion is shit Acleron, provide evidence without pseudo sceptical vested interests.’

            Pretty much what I expected, verbal diarrhea when Eggar is faced with exposing his own stupidity.

          • T-500

            As usually the septic sceptic, you can’t debunk nothing Alan.

          • T-500

            Provide your evidence Alan. Can’t you?

          • T-500

            Demangeat study was standarized, double blind, and reproducible.

            http://jglobal.jst.go.jp/en/public/20090422/201102212850272058

            Quote
            The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation,and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind measurements
            End of quote

            In Becker review, Abel study was ranked as low quality vs high quality Demangeat study.

            Are you idiot Alan?

          • Acleron

            No but you are Eggar. The dilution process was not blinded. When you are scrabbling around in the background noise of a system, such subtleties are important. Demangeat had already surmised that silica was being leached from the glassware. To check that that was not the case, the replication should have been performed with the dilution stage, not afterwards. Repeatedly testing a sample size of six tells you nothing.

          • T-500

            “No but you are Eggar.”

            What does mean Eggar, is your breakfast?

          • T-500

            “The dilution process was not blinded.”

            -Alan is a big idiot. Blinded measurements were applied in the Demangeat studies. If you think in a fraud, you need provide the evidence. Share it!
            -In the Abel study nothig was blinded.

          • T-500

            “Demangeat had already surmised that silica was being leached from the glassware. To check that that was not the case, the replication should have been performed with the dilution stage, not afterwards”

            Alan, the typical pseudo-expert.

            “Repeatedly testing a sample size of six tells you nothing.”

            Good joke Alan, if you idiothic statemente is correct, then the Randi fake experiment is not credible (7 runs only).

          • T-500

            The dilution process was not blinded.

            Only a liar as you, need try with a more lies.

            From Demangeat:
            The code of the blind protocol (set 1) was only revealed when all experiments were completed
            End of quote.

            Quote
            Drastic experimental procedures were applied, especially similarly prepared controls and repeated series, and blind measurements, in order to avoid several sources of artefacts
            End of quote

            Obviously, the dilution process was blinded. Idiot Alan!

          • Acleron

            Read Demangeat again, it was blinded after the dilution. You are as wrong about what you read Eggar as you are about my identity. About average for a homeopath.

          • T-500

            “Read Demangeat again, it was blinded after the dilution.”

            Yes, I’ve read the Demangeat papers again. As usually quacks pseudo sceptics as Alan are unable to read a simply paper.

            Quote
            Random permutation of the order of preparation of dilutions and controls from one series to another
            End of quote

          • T-500

            So can’t debunk the Demangeat paper. As usually, the sceptics can only a post a red herring fallacy.

          • T-500

            Why do you can’t upload the document that prove the existence of your imaginary homeopath?

          • Acleron

            Even Eggar’s dim intellect has suddenly realised he’s made yet another error hence the dribble but doesn’t realise that he has just disclosed that T500 is a sockpuppet.

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk nothing. Thank you Alan.

          • T-500

            Share the evidence Acleron.

          • Acleron

            Eggar, multiple postings to the same comment has two effects. Neither are beneficial to you, so carry on.

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk nothing…

          • T-500

            I like your idiot statements as the lunatic Mike Marshall.

          • T-500

            As usually, the troll “Acleron” is an active member of the lobby “The meyerside Skeptics Society” an illegal group of pharma and biotech shills. What is the scientific background of Mike Marshall? Marketing? I laugh in your face!

            The most idiothic comments from Alan, withour evidence:

            “Cuba had a reasonable health system and then quacks claimed water could treat leptospirosis, an endemic disease in Cuba. Now a Cuban company is selling water to the rest of the world, what a crock”

            Provide the evidence of the evil endemic disease in Cuba.

            2. “The homeopathic preparation has to produce the same symptoms in normal people as the disease, not the disease itself”

            The same? As usually, idiots as Alan do not provide evidence of basic knowledge in homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            The Eggar is lying again but that’s normal for him.

            BTW, look up a proving, it is the basis for homeopathy. Your ignorance extends to homeopathy as well, I wonder if you have to have someone tie up your shoelaces.

            If there is not endemic Leptospirosis in Cuba then why were those quacks trying to prevent it?

          • T-500

            The most funniest comment from Alan in this week!

            “If there is not endemic Leptospirosis in Cuba then why were those quacks trying to prevent it?”

            So, can’t you share the evil Leptospirosis pandemia caused by homeopathy? Share the evidence Alan!

          • Acleron

            So you cannot answer the question.

          • T-500

            So you can’t, can´t you, cannot you…

          • T-500

            So you cannot share the evidence and proof.

          • T-500

            24 hours,

            15 hours per day for twitter, facebook, wikipedia, disqus.

            Yes, you’re the idiot Alan!

          • Acleron

            You idiot, I haven’t used Facebook for eight years. And answering your nonsense takes a few minutes. But then I don’t repeatedly answer the same post.

          • T-500

            “You idiot, I haven’t used Facebook for eight years.”

            Typical reaction of hatred pseudo skeptic.

            “And answering your nonsense takes a few minutes. But then I don’t repeatedly answer the same post.”

            More garbage. Share the evidence Fat Alan.

          • Acleron

            I’m beginning to believe your memory is so bad you genuinely don’t realise you are answering the same post over and over again.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the Demangeat studies. Thank you Alan.

          • T-500

            Hi Idiot!

            I found this piece of shit published by the septic pseudo skeptic cult:

            http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_memory_of_water

            Quote
            One such research paper concludes: “Our results highlight the efficiency of energy redistribution within the hydrogen-bonded network, and that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs” (Cowan 2005). Contrary to Roy’s claims, water does not hold memory. In fact it is characterized by being extremely efficient at not holding memory.
            End of Quote

            So your “friend” Novella can’t understand the Cowan paper. Please Alan, Cowan paper is a poorly and low quality piece of letter:

            Blinded: 0
            Randomized: 0
            Statistical analysis: 0
            Sample size: not avaliable

            Why Novell used thie poor paper as “debunk” of the memory water? Is this your masterpiece of nonsense pseudo skepticism?

            Please Alan, share your high quality paper, professional debunking, of the Konovalov research:

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

          • Acleron

            Eggar, you really have no idea about science or about me.

            Memory of water? LMAO. ‘Nanoobjects’, ‘usual conditions’? Ha, ha, ha.

            As Novella correctly pointed out, you’d like the mantle of respectability that science confers as marketing to sell your snake oil but you haven’t the faintest idea how it works.

          • T-500

            Searching Novella…

            Is the same idiot that can’t properly read the Cowan Paper?
            Is the same idiot that with vested instests from CSICOP?
            Is the same idiot that when any debunk his shit, he only cries in the SAS blog?

          • T-500

            So you cannot debunk the Konovalov experiments. As usually, pseudo septics lies in any condition.

          • T-500

            More on the Novella shit “paper”:

            Quote from idiot Novella.
            The notion of water memory was first raised by French homeopath Jacques Benveniste in 1988.
            End of quote.

            Acleron, Where is the evidence of the qualification as “homeopath” from Benveniste?

            CSICOP is the MOST shit repository and fully nonsense that was I ever seen in my life!

          • T-500

            Shit Prize for Novella:

            Only idiots, as Alan, without scientific background make a shit sentences as Novella.

          • T-500

            Tomorrow… Alan trying throw a failed fuck… again.

          • T-500

            So you cannot debunk any.

          • T-500

            As usually, idiots as Alan love his contradictions!

            First time:
            “Lol, your ignorance is absolute. Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense”

            Second time: the troll is desesperate.
            “The detail required of the preparation of the alcohol water and the alcohol water is absent. “

          • T-500

            As usually, idiots as Randi or Alan can’t read the Materials and Methods section. They prefer offer looser fake prizes or playing with card into the laboratory.

          • T-500

            Searching scientific papers of Lorreta Marron OR Alan Henness:

            Results: 0 found!

          • Acleron

            I have no idea what you are searching for, do you?

          • T-500

            I found zero evidence of papers published for the major pseudo sceptic sceptics. Uneducated trolls as Alan can’t understand the basis of peer review process.

          • Acleron

            Your logic is peerless. I mean that in the sense it is totally opaque. You don’t even know my name so your search is idiotic as well as your conclusion. But then, drawing idiotic conclusions from idiotic experiments is a staple of the homeopath.

          • T-500

            “Your logic is peerless”

            Lack of evidence.

            “.I mean that in the sense it is totally opaque

            Silly and vague claims.

            “You don’t even know my name so your search is idiotic as well as your conclusion. “

            Your name is Alan Henness. As usually, the pseudo skeptic need a liar.

            “But then, drawing idiotic conclusions from idiotic experiments is a staple of the homeopath.”

            Provide the document of your imaginary homeopath, Alan. Upload the image.

          • Acleron

            Oh Eggar, don’t your carers try to help you? Please ask them because your hallucinations only embarrass you.

          • T-500

            So you recognize your hallucinations. Thank you Alan.

          • Acleron

            Over the months, Eggar, you have accused me of being many people. You just can’t keep up with your delusions.

          • T-500

            Garbage in, garbage out.

          • T-500

            Loretta Marron
            Lorreta Maron
            LOL = Lolreta!

          • T-500

            Alan Henness = Alien Headless (zero artificial intelligence).

          • Acleron

            You are very stupid, even this nonsense discloses you are Eggar. Your displacement activity is extreme, even for a homeopath but your intelligence is about average for one.

          • T-500

            What does mean Eggar Acleron? Is your new game? The name of your wife? Proof Acleron, proof!

          • Acleron

            You supply it all the time Eggar. Even your inability to write is another confirming attribute.

          • T-500

            Garbage in, garbage out, said Alan.

          • T-500

            “Your displacement activity is extreme”

            The uneducated troll activy is alive 24 hours!

            10,609 comments (Acleron clon)+ 3,593 comments from Real Alan = 14,202 comments!

            Yes Alan, you are the King of the Trolls!

          • Acleron

            Dear oh dear, Eggar’s been playing with his calculator and producing nonsense.

          • T-500

            Playing with calculator, of course Alan. So can’t use a basic calculator.

          • Acleron

            Your inability to construct your own insults is characteristic of any idiot but still your style.

          • T-500

            So you can recognize your own tactics and irrational behaviour. Thank you Alan.

          • Acleron

            You are as uncreative as ever, Eggar. I wonder, are your delusions borrowed as well?

          • T-500

            Share the evidence!

          • T-500

            Where is the evidence of yout imaginary homeopath?
            Provide the document Alan!

          • T-500

            This is my favorite, your confession of nonsense:

            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”
            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”
            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”
            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”
            “Nobody needs to write a scientific paper debunking nonsense.”

          • Mike Stevens

            The lack of logic, never mind honesty, is gobsmacking.

          • T-500

            Only in homeopathy do you market before testing for effectiveness.”

            Early pharmaceuticals sold before the test in “good and compelling” evidence. James Lind, Aspirin and so.

          • Acleron

            Perhaps you hadn’t noticed but the rest of us are in the 21st century.

          • T-500

            Yes, you had not noticed this, but the skeptics now can be questioned for unethicala and fraudulent practices. Good luck Alan!

          • Acleron

            Eggar, your random sentence generation is identifiably distinct, as are your silly lies.

          • T-500

            Alan, your random stupid sentences is your digitals signal, as are your silly and desesperate lies.

          • Acleron

            Poor Eggar, nothing as pathetic as someone reduced to parroting someone who criticises them. I suppose that when your rational processes have been replaced by copy/paste, that is all you have.

          • T-500

            As usually, zero evidence from Alan.

          • T-500

            Over the time, the anti pseudo sceptics blogs growth!
            Stay next Alan, probably in the next year the pseudo sceptic bias tend to slowly dissapear of the universities. Thank you for help Alan, you are the most stupid troll that I ever seen in the UK!

          • Acleron

            The multiple replies to the same post, that’s Eggar. The lies, those are Eggar.

          • T-500

            Alan, you need a new software.

          • Acleron

            We’ve seen you are low in intelligence but can’t you distinguish the different posting styles and different expertise? Actually, obviously not, your world is just full of vague conspiracy, lack of understanding and the projection so characteristic of the Eggar.

          • T-500

            Zero evidence. Alan, your job may be very boring.

            Two twitter counts
            24 hours per day, 7 days
            All days.

          • Acleron

            Oh dear Eggar, you have sockpuppets on Twitter as well?

            I haven’t but the evidence less claim is just what we expect from Eggar.

          • T-500

            Then, Alan = Aclaron. Thank you for verify this fact!

          • Acleron
          • T-500

            As usually Alan, he can’t debunk nothing. He want play with images, not with evidence.

          • T-500

            As usual septic sceptics, they can’t debunk nothing. Since 7 year ago, when Ullman quotes the Demangeat studies, zero septic sceptic can´t debunk the studies!

            https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/closing-the-door-on-homeopathy/#comment-1942094608

            The most beatiful piece of the mental inability of septic sceptics!

          • Acleron

            Because uneducated homeopaths don’t recognise that it has been debunked is no concern to me.

          • T-500

            The theme of Alan Acleron: Grabage in, garbage out

          • Acleron

            Eggar, don’t try those big words without switching your spell checker to English.

          • T-500

            Garbage in, garbage out from Alan.

          • Acleron

            Found the English dictionary at last. Hilarious. Next you might learn adding up and finally, after many years you might learn some logic but I doubt you will.

          • T-500

            Found the Grammar dictionary Alan, you will need help with ABC.

          • T-500

            Please Alan, so can’t debunk the NMR studies.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19533076

          • Mike Stevens

            Nope.
            Define a Phase IV study, citing research sources, and explain why you think these studies qualify.

          • T-500

            Can’t you debunk the two phase studies?

          • Mike Stevens

            So you can’t define a phase IV study?

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the two phase IV studies?

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the experimental trials?

          • Mike Stevens

            I can, but I’m waiting for you to demonstrate they are what you claim they are first.

          • T-500

            Yes, the evidence:

            1. Provide the apropiate debunk published in a peer review journal.

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

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X

            2. Provide a no subjetive and independent (not from pseudo sceptic business) definition of “extraordinary claims/proofs” and “good and comeplling evidence”. I’m waiting Mike!

          • Mike Stevens

            Repeating your ridiculous nonsense doesn’t make it more believable, you know.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the phase IV studies.

          • T-500

            Mike is a very entertaining troll, but even he gets a little repetitive in this. Clinical phase IV trials evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy is arbitrarely dismissed as “unreliable”, but then Mike present anecdotal stories in support of his faith or to ‘demonstrate’ the risks of alternative therapies. Mike, you make me laugh so hard times!

          • Mike Stevens

            You are confabulating.
            I have never presented “anecdotal stories to support my faith” about the nonsense of alternative therapies.
            If you think I have, I’ll give $1000 to a charity of your choice.

            So… proof please.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the phase IV trials with a properly published scientific paper.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’ll up my offer to $10,000.
            Still unable to verify your claims?

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the phase IV trials. Your “money” is garbage, I want you properly debunk published in a peer review journal, not your idioticy of Randi games.

          • T-500

            I’ll up my offer to $ 50,000, if you wish more money, onle tell me. Are you ready Mike?

            1. Proof the “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence”.

            2. Publish the demonstration with fully agreement of scienfic planet consensus.

            3. The paper will show the firms of ALL institutions over the world. The exclusion of any institution or universiry, automatically invalidates the paper.

            4. Detail the defintion of “good and compelling evidence”. The definition will be fully objective.

            Mike:

            Why do you not show me your scientific consensus paper?

            Why do you not show the definitions?

            You can do it Mike!

          • T-500

            ‘ll up my offer to $ 50,000, if you wish more money, only tell me. Are you ready Mike?

            1. Proof of the “extraordinary claims” and “extraordinary evidence” shit.

            2. Public paper published in a top journal about the demonstration with fully agreement of scienfic world (planetary) consensus.

            3. The paper will show the firms of ALL institutions, universities and enterprises of all the world. The exclusion of any institution or universiry and so, automatically the paper will rejected.

            4. Detailed defintion of “good and compelling evidence”. The definition will be fully objective.

            5. Any pseudo skeptic of any web “activist campaign”, CSICOP, CFI, GWUP, or fake organizations will be rejected. The authors will not display conflicts of interests.

            Mike:

            Why do you not show me your scientific consensus paper?

            Why do you not show the definitions?

            You can do it Mike!

          • Mike Stevens

            You are dribbling, Eggar.

          • T-500

            No Mike, my prize is real. Why do you no take the prize?

          • T-500

            Mike, share the objective definition of “extraordinary claims/proofs” and “good and reliable evidence”.

            Share the objective pseudo debunking of the ALL list of studies posted for me.

          • T-500

            Yes, repeating your ridiculous nonsense of the FDA doen’t make it more balievable. Only a idiot pseudo skeptic septic believes in the FDA god!

            https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted

            Quote
            A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.
            End of Quote

            Idiosts sceptic (pseudo)”physicists” without the basic understanding of science and methodology try to debunk clinical trials with Edzard Clown!

          • Mike Stevens

            The Chewbacca defence, huh?

          • T-500

            Is the “Chewbacca defence” the false fallacy of PseudoRational Pseudowiki?

            Please Mike, provide the evidence of an reliable pharmaceutical agency, not the corrupted FDA.

          • T-500

            In fully agrement with you: Repeating your idiothic excuses doesn’t make true. Sorry Mike.

          • Renè
          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the phase IV study?

          • T-500

            Remember your own words

            “Robust evidence requires replication by an independent group of researchers. Please provide some, will you.”

            One more time.
            Independent Replication, phase IV studies.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X

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

          • Mike Stevens

            Neither of these studies is a replication of another similar study, and neither is a phase IV trial.
            Why do you keep lying about this? People can all see this for themselves, so you aren’t fooling anyone with your repetitive claims.

          • T-500

            “Neither of these studies is a replication of another similar study, and neither is a phase IV trial.”

            Sorry, the studies were replications.

            “Why do you keep lying about this? People can all see this for themselves, so you aren’t fooling anyone with your repetitive claims.”

            Mike can’t debunks this studies. Thank you.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Sorry, the studies were replications.”

            Can you give a link to the original studies that these studies supposedly “replicate”?

          • T-500

            Please, can’t you read the references?

          • Mike Stevens

            Links please.

          • T-500

            Can’t you debunk the phase IV studies?

            Please Mike.

          • Mike Stevens

            You have to demonstrate they are Phase IV studies on FDA approved medicine, and prove they are a replication of earlier similar studies.
            Simply parroting the same lies again and again makes you look not only ignorant, but incapable of any original thought.

          • T-500

            The studies are phase IV. Obviosuly, a phase IV study is an replication, idiot.

            Provide the paper with a valid debunking, published on peer review journal for qualified people (not idiots from Nightingale Collaboration, Edzard Blog, CSICOP, Uk pathectics…).

          • Mike Stevens

            If it is a replication, you’ll have no trouble citing or linking to an earlier, independent published study then, will you?
            Please provide it.

            Constantly whining “It’s a replication!” isnt evidence of that fact, I hope you realise?

          • T-500

            Mike, Mike, so can’t you the basis of phase IV studies? For the uneducated septic septics, the phase IV appear of the void. No Mike, Phase IV trials only run when pilot trials and phase III trials were completed.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, cite the “phase III” trials then.

            You say they exist… CAN WE SEE THEM?

          • T-500

            So can’t you read the papers.

          • Mike Stevens

            I have read the papers. But I want to know which ones are the earlier studies, which you claim have been subsequently independently replicated.

            Forgive me for asking, but I cannot see these citations anywhere in your referenced study.
            I must be getting old and feeble-minded, so please help out someone who you regard as an idiot…
            Can you post a link to the studies?

          • T-500

            “I have read the papers”

            Mike, so can’t you debunk the phase IV paper.

            “But I want to know which ones are the earlier studies, which you claim have been subsequently independently replicated.”

            All phase IV study is a replication of the pilot and phase I and II studies.

            “I must be getting old and feeble-minded, so please help out someone who you regard as an idiot… Can you post a link to the studies?”

            No Mike, debunk the phase IV studies with properly peer review paper.

          • Mike Stevens

            We see – so there are no independently replicated studies. If there were you would link to them.

            Thanks for admitting this, Eggar.

          • T-500

            Mike, so can’t debunk the two phase IV studies. Share your paper Mike, why do you not share it?

          • Mike Stevens

            Why do you insist I produce some “paper” which I never said I would or could produce?

            All I want is for you to back up your claim that these studies are independent replications of earlier studies.
            You say they are, so all I want is for you to produce a link to the earlier published studies.

            You seem totally unable to do that, despite my asking on around 10 occasions now. I think it is very plain to everyone that there are no earlier papers on the topics, and you are just bulls1tt1ng, Eggar.

            Of course, to show you are not lying, all you have to do is post a link.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the phase IV studies. Phase IV studies are replications, idiot. Provide your paper with properly debunk, Mike.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the pahse IV studies. Thank you Mike!

          • T-500

            So you can´t debunk the two phase IV studies. If there were you would link to them.

            Thakns for amditting this, Mike “Stevens” -Marsh-.

          • Mike Stevens

            “So you can´t debunk the two phase IV studies”

            Your repetitive whining is getting tedious, Eggar.
            To recap, YOU cited 2 studies which YOU claimed were independently replicated “phase IV” studies demonstrating efficacy of homeopathy.

            I then requested you back up those claims, and show us that they were indeed independently replicated (by linking to earlier studies of the same homeopathic remedies), and that they were Phase IV studies.

            You have been unable to do that, despite over a dozen requests to do so. It would be dead simple to cite the earlier studies, if there were any, and you have not been able to find any. Therefore they are not independently replicated, and your claim is demonstrably false.

            You also do not understand what a Phase IV study is, despite your linking to definitions and being shown other definitions of Phase IV study criteria. Your studies fail to match these criteria, and despite the subtitle of one of them claiming it is a “phase IV study”, again your claim is demonstrably false.

            Now, instead of backing up YOUR claims with evidence, you resort to parrotting at us that we are “unable to debunk these studies by citing published studies”, which is quite meaningless (since to debunk a study, one does not have to have the “debunking” published in a journal), and is also quite irrelevant, since neither I nor anyone else as far as I can tell claimed that we could debunk these studies. In effect, you are demanding we do something when I did not ever say I could do it. That does not mean I could not do it, it just means I am under no obligation to do so since I never made the claim I could do it.

            You, OTOH, have made specific, falsifiable claims, and have been unable to support them, demonstrating that they are indeed false.

          • T-500

            Mike, so you can’t debunk the two phase IV studies.

          • Mike Stevens

            And you can’t read.

          • T-500

            I’ve read.

          • Mike Stevens

            What did you read? Can you tell me, and if you read earlier studies then give me the link to them so we can all read them.

          • T-500

            Bibliography.

          • Mike Stevens

            It’s not there, moron. How many more times are you going to lie about this?

          • T-500

            I don’t know.

          • Mike Stevens

            I do.
            As many times as you are asked., I predict.

          • T-500

            As usually, I predict, you can’t debunk nothing.

          • Mike Stevens

            You are exactly right, “I can’t debunk nothing”!

          • T-500

            Yes, you can’n debunk nothing. Thank you Mike Marsh.

          • T-500

            “To recap, YOU cited 2 studies which YOU claimed were independently replicated “phase IV” studies demonstrating efficacy of homeopathy.”

            Yes, all phase IV studies is a replication of pilot studies.

            “I then requested you back up those claims, and show us that they were indeed independently replicated (by linking to earlier studies of the same homeopathic remedies), and that they were Phase IV studies.”

            Can you read the bibliography section? Or you’re and idiot?

            “You have been unable to do that, despite over a dozen requests to do so. It would be dead simple to cite the earlier studies, if there were any, and you have not been able to find any. Therefore they are not independently replicated, and your claim is demonstrably false.”

            Your claim is very outragenous, Mike is desesperate!

            “You also do not understand what a Phase IV study is, despite your linking to definitions and being shown other definitions of Phase IV study criteria. “

            Your link apply only in USA by the FDA. And for tretament for endometrosis, the studies typicall are small, as much double blind studies in oncology.

            “Your studies fail to match these criteria, and despite the subtitle of one of them claiming it is a “phase IV study”, again your claim is demonstrably false.”

            Sorry idiot, the studies are phase IV. Your claim show a lack of basic understaing of logic.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28187404

            My claim is supported with evidence:

            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02427386

            Read idiot, read: Phase 4

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

            https://endometriosisnews.com/2017/02/15/potentized-estrogen-as-homeopathic-treatment-shows-benefits-for-endometriosis-associated-pelvic-pain/

            Quote
            The Phase 4 trial (NCT02427386) included 50 women (ages 18 to 45) with demonstrated EAPP. Patients received either oral potentized estrogen (12cH, 18cH and 24cH homeopathic potencies) or a placebo, twice daily.
            End of Quote.

            “Now, instead of backing up YOUR claims with evidence, you resort to parrotting at us that we are “unable to debunk these studies by citing published studies”, which is quite meaningless (since to debunk a study, one does not have to have the “debunking” published in a journal), and is also quite irrelevant, since neither I nor anyone else as far as I can tell claimed that we could debunk these studies. In effect, you are demanding we do something when I did not ever say I could do it. That does not mean I could not do it, it just means I am under no obligation to do so since I never made the claim I could do it.”

            Blah, blah idiot. Suppor your claims with evidence, not with your mad words.

          • Mike Stevens

            As I said, I never made a claim, you did.
            So where is the independent replication, Eggar?
            Can’t find one?

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the papers Mike Marsh. Thank you Marsh.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, assume for arguments sake that I cannot produce a publication that debunks your studies. Happy now?

            But you are the one claiming these are independent replications of earlier studies.
            So provide a link to those studies, Eggar.

            They exist, I take it?
            THEN CITE THEM.

          • T-500

            Yes, most happy Mike. You need your debunk.

          • Mike Stevens

            You need to provide citations, which you can’t, can you?
            Again, I’ll give $10,000 to a charity of your choice if you post a link to these papers that you already claim exist, …so that should be easy!

          • T-500

            You need to provide debunk, not I. Why do you can’t provide yout flawed debunking?

          • Mike Stevens

            You are so dense I wonder if you’d be defined as a Bose Einstein condensate.

            You claimed that your studies were independent replications of earlier work.

            Your claim, your burden of proof, not mine.

          • T-500

            Your claim is the absence of proof, your burden of proof, not mine. Please, share your profesional debunk of the two phase IV studies, Mike.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Your claim is the absence of proof, your burden of proof, not mine.”

            Yup… YOU are claiming homeopathy works. But there is an absence of proof, and so the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim… namely YOU.

          • T-500

            “Yup… YOU are claiming homeopathy works. But there is an absence of proof, and so the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim… namely YOU.”

            Sorry, evidence is evidence not your personal shit of opinion. Share your professional debunking of the two phase IV studies. Mike the evidence is against you and fake and lunatic pseudo-skeptics. The burden of the debunking lies with the person making a lie or stupid “debunkings”.

            Provide the objective definition of “extraordinary evidence” and “good” and “compelling evidence”.

            Additionaly, you need debunk this.

            NMR proton relaxation is sensitive to the dynamics of the water molecule H2O, through the interaction of the spin of the proton (1H) with external magnetic and electromagnetic fields.

            This study confirms that it is possible to monitor dilution and potentization processes through measurements of 1H spin-lattice T1 and spin-spin T2 relaxation times. In order to interpret the recorded fluctuations in T1- or T2-values, experimental data have been linearized by looking how the area under a fluctuating time = f(dilution) curve (dilution integral or DI) changes with dilution. It was possible to show that such fluctuations cannot be attributed to random noise and/or experimental errors, evidencing a kind of memory effect that can be quantified by the slope of the DI = f(dilution) straight line. Two kinds of fitting procedures have been considered: chi-square fitting with a goodness-of-fit probability and least absolute deviations criterion with Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient. For all experiments, correlation coefficients were found to lie above 0.9999, against 0.999 for random noise.

            The discrimination between experimental slopes and slopes associated with random noise data was very good at a five-sigma level of confidence (i.e.probability 3×10-7). It was also found that discrimination between experimental slopes at a five-sigma level was possible in most cases, with three exceptions: gelsemium aqua pura versus gelsemium dilution (four-sigma); copper aqua pura versus gelsemium aqua pura (four-sigma) and copper simple dilution versus gelsemium simple dilution (three-sigma). All dynamized samples show very good discrimination (at least nine-sigma level) against aqua pura, lactose or simple dilution. From each slope, it was also possible to transform the associated relaxation times into a molecular rotational correlation time τc and an average spin-spin distance d. Our experiments thus points to a considerable slowing down of molecular movements (τc > 1300 ps or T = 224-225K) around water molecules up to a distance of 3.7 Å, values. It was also possible to rule out other possible mechanisms of relaxation (diffusive motion, 17O-1H relaxation or coupling with the electronic spin, S = 1, of dissolved dioxygen molecules).

            This is thus clear evidence that homeopathic solutions cannot be considered as pure water as commonly assumed. Instead, we have evidence a clear memory effect upon dilution/potentization of a substance (water, lactose, copper, gelsemium) reflected by different rotational correlation times and average H…H distances. A possible explanation for such a memory effect may lie in the formation of mesoscopic water structures around nanoparticles and/or nanobubbles mediated by zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field as suggested by quantum field theories. It follows that the existence of a putative of Avogadro’s wall for homeopathically-prepared medicines is not supported by our data. It should be rather considered that all dilutions may have a specific material configuration ruled not only by the dynamized substance but also by the chemical nature of the containers, the chemical nature of dissolved gases and even by the electromagnetic environment. This sensitivity of homeopathically-prepared medicines towards electromagnetic fields may be amplified by the highly non-linear processing routinely applied in the preparation of homeopathic medicines.

            Future work is obviously needed in such directions, and we think that time is now ripe for a complete demystification of the principles involved in the preparation of homeopathic remedies.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Those papers pretty much debunk homeopathy themselves. If we are really to believe that homeopathy is broadly applicable and powerful as adherents claim. Why is your PRIZE evidence a 50 person study for a rare condition ( 2% of women) for a subjective outcome.

            < 100 people, subjective outcome = Yawn

          • T-500

            So you can’t debunk the paper. Your rethoric and blah, blah is useless.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’m pointing out that if this is the very best evidence then the likelihood there’s anything to homeopathy is low. That’s really all you need to debunk homeopathy. Thanks.

          • T-500

            As usually, Graham can’t debunk nothing. For objective purposes, Shang famous meta-study never define sample size of high quality, the cut valor were arbitrary. My point is this, if the pseudo-skeptics can’t debunk nothing, if your best “debunking” was the Randi princenton show, the Robert Park-Frazier-Barrett-Goldacre-Shermer low quality books, the Edzard Ernst “reviews” (debunked by Robert Hahn and Klaus Linde), the David Shaw piece of opinion, the garbage epistemology of Massimo Pigliucci and Sven Ove Hansson, the tiny graphics of Nightingshit Collaboration, the Alan Henness laughly “debunk” of the Swiss-German report. Then, the likelihood there’s a BIG fraud from pseudo-skeptics is very high!

          • Jonathan Graham

            As usually, Graham can’t debunk nothing

            Look I don’t have time to teach you all the math but given the way homoepathy nuts, like yourself describe homeopathy. One would strongly expect the evidence to be much better than a single fifty person study for some disease with a subjective outcome. That, like it or not constitutes evidence against homeopathy.

            Which is why your post is debunking homeopathy.

            Now perhaps homeopathy is actually very weak, or hardly works on anything or maybe there’s some study you have hidden somewhere but as it stands you are doing a pretty good job refuting homeopathy all on your own.

          • Mike Stevens

            Another Eggar double negative special.
            Pity he misses the irony.

          • T-500

            As usually, you can’t debunk nothing. A “small size” sample is not a debunking, not constitutes evidence against.

            “Now perhaps homeopathy is actually very weak, or hardly works on anything or maybe nobody is looking for evidence or there’s some study you have hidden somewhere but as it stands you are doing a pretty good job refuting homeopathy all on your own.”

            Provide the evidence of the “hidden” studies.

          • Jonathan Graham

            A “small size” sample is not a debunking

            It sure is, if that’s the most statistically strong evidence you have after looking really hard.

          • T-500

            If your argument is true, then the pseudoskeptical debunkings are the most amazing fraud in the history of sciences. It’s easy, if the vast majority of pseudoskeptic paper begin to “work” on popular books, blogs and unreliable magazines, then the “skeptic” magazines are not evidence against or the debunking is of very low standards.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, that’s not how it works. Also if you you attempt actually cogent English I’d appreciate it.

          • T-500

            No, the amazing fraud of pseudo-sceptics is outragenous:

            Henness trolls:

            https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/monsanto-caught-paying-army-of-internet-trolls

          • Jonathan Graham

            Please, cogent English. 🙂

          • T-500

            Plase, share the evidence of your high quality debunking.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve already pointed out that it was your evidence that made the point that homeopathy is unlikely to be true. 🙂

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, more garbaga.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No it’s really and application of Bayes.

          • T-500

            Please, explain the Bayes argument in homeopathy.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You implicitly claim that people spent considerable time and effort attempting to validate homeopathy, that it is a strong remedy and that you have provided the best evidence here.

            Now if you don’t claim ALL of those things then your argument is moot. If you do then homeopathy is unlikely to be true.

          • T1-R

            Blah, blah, as usually, pseudo skeptic troll can’t debunk nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well actually I did. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Yes, you can’t debunkin nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve provided the argument against homeopathy, which only requires the evidence you’ve posted to consider either your argument moot or homeopathy to be incorrect. If there’s some part you don’t understand please indicate the specific part. I’ll try and explain. 🙂

          • T1-R

            What is your “argument” against? Your piece of opinions?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Bayes rule is not an opinion. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Bayes rule is not an opinion, the Graham speculations is a opinion. I like the Bayes theorem, when I add evidence of basic research the probability of homeopathy works is very high. Thank you stupid!

          • Jonathan Graham

            the Graham speculations is a opinion.

            Nothing I’ve provided is speculation. Sorry. 🙂

            I like the Bayes theorem,

            Shhh….until you know what you’re saying.

          • T1-R

            “Nothing I’ve provided is speculation. Sorry. :-)”

            The problem is that you can’t provide the “argument”.

            “Shhh….until you know what you’re saying.”

            Provide your argument. Still nothing?

          • Jonathan Graham

            My argument is provided and you, in your posts have clearly admitted this. So again why all the problems responding.

          • T1-R

            Your “argument” is speculation, provide the proof. Where is the proof?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope. It’s a logical argument. It only depends on three assumptions. If any of my assumptions are incorrect than your argument is moot, if all three are correct then homeopathy is unlikely to be correct. I’m happy with either outcome.

          • T1-R

            “It only depends on three assumptions. If any of my assumptions are incorrect than your argument is moot, if all three are correct then homeopathy is unlikely to be correct. I’m happy with either outcome.”

            Yaw, so your “argument” consist in a “logical” classic argument. Please, share your structure of “logic” argument.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve already shared the argument, you’ve admitted to having seen it. What exactly is your question here?

          • T1-R

            Sorry, you can’t post the paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All I need to post to make my point is an argument. Which, as you agree I’ve provided. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Where is your blog?

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s linked to in my profile.

          • T1-R

            “which only requires the evidence you’ve posted to consider either your argument moot or homeopathy to be incorrect”

            LOL!

          • Jonathan Graham

            “LOL” is not a refutation. So my argument still stands.

          • T1-R

            Yes, LOL is not a refutation, your argument is nothing. Post your “argument”

          • T1-R

            “Still stands” is not a debukning. The experimental evidence still stands. Sorry guy.

          • Jonathan Graham

            If you can not refute my argument. Then “still stands” is all I need to say.

            The experimental evidence still stands.

            and since the experimental evidence as you’ve presented it is, according to my argument evidence against homeopathy. You have to refute my argument.

            Sorry.

          • T1-R

            “and since the experimental evidence as you’ve presented it is, according to my argument evidence against homeopathy. You have to refute my argument.”

            Share the evidence of this, Graham,.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The only evidence required is what you have already shared. I’ve already presented my argument as you have already admitted. Perhaps you need to refine your question?

          • T1-R

            “The only evidence required is what you have already shared”

            Yes, you need debunk this evidence and the lot of papers, no with stupid games. You need experimental evidence. Ready liar?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need to debunk the evidence you’ve posted. It just makes an argument against homeopathy (or makes your argument moot).

          • T1-R

            Provide more comments.
            No lething go CSICOP program, as Alan Sucks (Acleron).

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yawn. English.

          • T1-R

            Yawn. Japanese.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Asked and answered.

          • T1-R

            Sorry, try again!

          • Jonathan Graham

            It has been answered several times. Unless your question is so poorly phrased that you can’t explain what you want.

          • T1-R

            Provide the evidence of “good and compelling” evidence, and the “extraordinary proof”. Provide your paper.

          • T1-R

            I need you “debunking” published in a peer review journal. Do not post garbage from No Lething Go troll programs or trash pseudosceptical magazines. Can you post anywhere?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I need you to stop deliberately poorly phrasing your posts. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Try it!

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’m pretty sure it’s not hard.

          • T1-R

            Yes, it’s no hard, provide your paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Unnecessary. Thanks.

          • T1-R

            No, is necessary. Provide your paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope, not necessary. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Yes, is necessary.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Apparently not.

          • T1-R

            Yes, is necessary.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Evidence says no.

          • T1-R

            No, you need post the argument, your stupid child play is very simply.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that you’ve read my argument. Ergo you admit I’ve posted it.

          • T1-R

            Graham can’t share the experimental evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’re the one who posted it. Why would I need to share it?

          • T1-R

            Share the argument and the post.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sorry, it was your post. You can read your own history at your leisure. The argument you claim to have read.

          • T1-R

            Only if a real argument exists.

          • T1-R

            Provide your claims Graham. It’s simply.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Already provided.

          • T1-R

            No, post your argument and paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that I have posted an argument and you have already admitted that you have posted no rebuttal. So we’re kind of waiting on you.

          • T1-R

            Yawn, I like your comment!

          • Jonathan Graham

            So do I, it makes clear that English is required to discuss things here.

          • T1-R

            As usually, you can’t debunk nothing. Thank you.

          • T1-R

            I will write a post with your “argument” and Bayes. Thank you, Graham troll.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well considering you don’t understand either that might be difficult.

          • T1-R

            Well, so can’t you post the debunk. Thank you.

          • T1-R

            10107 in your profile, and zero comments and you can’t post the “argument”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’ve already admitted that I have. QED

          • T1-R

            Post the arguments Graham, Can’t you?

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that I have!

          • T1-R

            No, you can’t post the “argument”

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’ve already admitted that I have posted an argument.

          • T1-R

            Not, I wrote “argument”, not argument.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Great, so you admit that I have posted an argument and you’ve read it.

          • T1-R

            Where is your post and your paper?

          • T1-R

            LOL!, this guy works everyday for the pseudo sceptical lobby:

            https://disqus.com/by/skeptistics/

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope, I work in the IT Security field as stated.

          • T1-R

            Yes, you work a “engineer”. In concidence with the No Lething Go program of CFI.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, I work as a IT security professional. I have no idea what “No Lething Go” is .

          • T1-R

            “No, I work as a IT security professional. I have no idea what “No Lething Go” is .”

            Yes, you have and idea of your trolling activities with the CFI and “bastard skeptics”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope, I simply post based on reason and rationality.

          • Acleron

            And that was your mistake 😉

          • T1-R

            Where is your “post” liar? Where is the blog?

          • Jonathan Graham

            English please. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Experimental evidence, please.

          • T1-R

            This guy comments to the AMCS lobby and SBM socketpuppets. LOL

          • Jonathan Graham

            Are you talking about yourself? Clearly you can’t be talking about me. 🙂

          • T1-R

            No, is about of your troll activies. Remember: No Lething GO comments! Reply the last comment forever, is your work!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nothing wrong with replying politely…try it sometime. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Try again, share the “debunking”. I will read.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’ve already claimed to have read my argument.

          • T1-R

            Sorry, you can’t.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’ve claimed to have read my argument.

          • T1-R

            I claim read your “argument” = pseudoargument, not your real argument. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Bayes rule contradicts the idiothic rethoric of “Extraordinary evidence”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All I’ve talked about is your posted evidence refuting the idea that homeopathy works. Any other argument you have with any other person is perhaps best had with them.

          • T1-R

            As usually, Graham post vague replies.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, it’s pretty specific. 🙂

          • T1-R

            As usually, more vague replies from Graham.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s not vague, it’s specific. 🙂

          • T1-R

            It’s not specific.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It sure is.

          • T1-R

            No, try again. You can do it!

          • T1-R

            Reply my comments, remember the No Leting Go program pseudo skeptic!

          • Jonathan Graham

            I have no idea what you are referring to. Sorry.

          • T1-R

            As usually, the pseudo skeptic diverge in the “lose of memory”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No see, you have to establish your points clearly. That’s your responsibility in a discussion. Which is why cogent English would be appreciated.

          • T1-R

            No see, you have to establish your points clearly. That’s your responsibility in a discussion. Which is why cogent English would be appreciated.”

            Share the argument of “debunking”. It’s very simply, and post your paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve shared the argument which I’ve been making from the beginning. You’ve claimed to have read it, since you’ve said things about it.

          • T1-R

            The paper, please.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Only and argument is necessary to make my point.

          • T1-R

            Sorry, in science pseudoarguments are a bullshit.

          • T1-R

            Reply my last comment troll!

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve replied to all your comments in chronological order.

          • T1-R

            You can’t reply nothing. Let’s try again!

          • Jonathan Graham

            …and yet my replies are all there.

          • T1-R

            Yes, your resplies is a non sense. Provide the “debunking”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve provided an argument. If you wouldn’t mind responding to it instead of just constantly saying nothing.

          • T1-R

            No, you have not provide nothing, where is the paper?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need to provide a paper.

          • T1-R

            Yes, you need provide a paper. What is journal? the pseudoskeptic bullshit journal?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope. Sorry, just an argument makes my point. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Only pseudoargument? Yawnm that is more easy for me!

          • T1-R

            This is meme:

            “Look I don’t have time to teach you all the math but given the way homoepathy nuts, like yourself describe homeopathy..”

            Yeah, you can’t explain the math behind, but you cant waste the time in any stupid comment, all day, all week, in defense of Monsanto, ACSH, and all “skeptics” blogs.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yeah, you can’t explain the math behind,

            I don’t have the time to explain it to you. Different thing. Responding to you takes mere seconds since virtually all your posts are vacuous.

          • Could you explain the maths behind this to me then?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Suppose you have two large bowls of smarties one, bowl A contains equal proportions of red and brown smarties. The other, bowl B contains equal proportions of red, blue and yellow smarties. Each bowl is covered and entirely identical. You flip a coin to choose a bowl and draw a single candy out.

            Which bowl did we draw from? Well obviously if we drew a brown we drew from bowl A and if we drew a blue or yellow we drew from bowl B. But what if we drew a red? Clearly we can not conclusively say that we drew from bowl A or B but do we have any information at all? Can we make any statement about the likelihood.

            Yes! Since it is more likely to draw a red candy from Bowl A it must also be more likely that we drew from A.

            What this tells us is that our meeting or failing to meet clear expectations tells us something about the likelihood of a hypothesis. If you want I can show you how to quantify this.

            Getting back to our example.

            If we take it as given that T1-R believes that homeopathy has a very strong effect and it has been well studied and he is presenting the best evidence. Then the clear expectation is that the best evidence would be strong evidence. However what he presented was a single study which has a small sample size and subjective outcomes.

            If the above assumptions are true then we did not meet expectations which reduces the likelihood of our hypothesis.

            Now clearly not all of these assumptions are necessarily true.

            T1-R could not believe that homeopathy is strong. In which case why are we even talking about it? Weak effects are more likely to be no-effects anyway.

            T1-R could not believe that homeopathy has been well studied. In which case that pulls the rug out from under him in terms of confidence.

            T1-R could believe that he hasn’t presented the best evidence. Which is good reason for him to go and find that evidence and present it.

            Does that help?

          • T1-R

            “I don’t have the time to explain it to you.”

            In your thousand lot of comments you can explain…

          • Jonathan Graham

            Actually I have explained this in a reply to someone else. You can check my history. I just don’t think you are capable. Sorry. 🙂

          • T1-R

            I check your all comments about of homeopathy. Sorry, I can’t found nothing rational response. based on experiments of logical arguments.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Then you lied when you said that my argument was “opinion”.

          • T1-R

            Graham can’t provide the debunking.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All I need to provide is an argument, which I have and you agree that I have.

          • T1-R

            Share your argument.

          • T1-R

            “One would strongly expect the evidence to be much better than a single fifty person study for some disease with a subjective outcome. That, like it or not constitutes evidence against homeopathy”

            Is your amazing LOL debunking?
            If your argument is true, then all negative outcomes in small trials (as the Maddox pseudoreplication of N = 7) constitutes evidence in favour. Thank you troll!

          • Jonathan Graham

            If your argument

            Well thanks for admitting, yet again that I have provided an argument and your claims that I haven’t were incorrect. 🙂

            all negative outcomes in small trials …constitutes evidence in favour.

            No, a negative outcome for homeopathy is expected.

          • T1-R

            As usually, Grahman don’t care in you “debuking”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You admitted I provided an argument. That made your prior posts incorrect. Thanks.

          • T1-R

            Simply, provide the argument. Call to Alan for help.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s already been provided, perhaps you shouldn’t have claimed that you read it?

          • T1-R

            As usually, Graham can’t provide the debunking.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve provided an argument, that you’ve read. It only requires the evidence you’ve provided. So there’s nothing more needed to make my point.

          • T1-R

            Share the argument.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Already done and you’ve admitted to having read it.

          • T1-R

            I’ve read your pseudoargument, not any logical debunk.

          • Jonathan Graham

            So you are unable to refute my argument.

          • T1-R

            Where is your argument?

          • T1-R

            As usually, Graham can’t share his “argument”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You keep claiming that you’ve read it and you keep being unable to produce a refutation. So what else do I need to say.

          • T1-R

            Yes, I’ve read your all “arguments”, I can’t found a really rational argument. Share the probabilities with Bayesian statistics.

          • T1-R

            More circular replies, I need your responses!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Look you claim I’ve provided an argument and so do I. You consider my argument a “pseudo argument” however that’s not a refutation. So my argument remains unrefuted.

          • T1-R

            Your “argument” is pseudo.

          • T1-R

            So you are unable to share the debunking. Thank you.

          • T1-R

            Continue Jonny, continue with your trickery. It is a pleassure read your bunk of troll comments (¡10930 in 3 years!)! Probably, your a solitaire old person and is very likely that you work for the any busted pseudoskeptic Canadian campaing. Continue please. You’re a really funny!

          • Jonathan Graham

            No trickery. You just can’t refute the argument you claimed you read so now we are knee deep in your posts.

          • T1-R

            And the paper?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Already posted, a pretty good picture of her.

          • T1-R

            The paper, please.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve already posted a picture of her.

          • T1-R

            What is her? your wife?

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, see that was a cartoon. Cartoons aren’t real.

          • T1-R

            Yes, as your ghost “argument”.

          • T1-R

            Pseudoarguments aren’t real. Share your argument.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve provided an argument, you agree I’ve provided one. We only have your opinion that it’s a pseudo argument. So you need to provide a refutation. QED

          • T1-R

            You need to provide the full argument with a paper. Post it, please.

          • T1-R

            Thank you Graham, you can’t provide nothing more. Is the rest.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You want more pictures of Yomiko?

          • T1-R

            No, thanks.

          • T1-R

            yes, your imaginary wife.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, my real wife is more my type but thanks for that look into your psyche.

          • T1-R

            Wifu is your wife? LOL!

          • Jonathan Graham

            No my wife is my wife.

          • T1-R

            As usually, you can’t share your magic of paper with Bayesian statistics.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need a paper to make my point.

          • T1-R
          • T1-R

            Your imaginary wife, sure, sure.

          • T1-R

            Wore more Graham, you need your tiny paid from CFI Canda. LOL!

          • Jonathan Graham

            English please.

          • T1-R

            German please.

          • T1-R

            Work, work more…

          • Jonathan Graham

            If you think posting to you is work then you probably are spending more time on your replies than I am.

          • T1-R

            My comments are few compared with yout trolling activity.

          • duplicat

            That anime character that Jon says is his wife? LOL! I remember when he posted that. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/w4R5nNU1-LGnH59R2Yu_pkkSWWrS-vOD1ZL43QHIXNFiPYLHLMv6h399IvNO9HQSCGE=h900

          • T1-R

            As usually, the randi posers upload images with little girls.

          • T1-R

            Pedobear is your friend?

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Is that his real name?

          • T1-R

            The cowards of “proponent” and the cat in the bicycle need your help.

          • Jonathan Graham

            English please.

          • T1-R

            The paper, please.

          • Jonathan Graham
          • T1-R

            Yaw, your image is not a paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You asked for “The Paper” and that is an image of 読子・リードマン AKA “The Paper”.

          • T1-R

            So, you can’t upload the paper?

          • Jonathan Graham

            There is no paper to upload only an argument which makes my point.

          • T1-R

            The paper, please.

          • T1-R

            Yaw, you can’t load the paper. Bye!

          • T1-R

            As usually, Graham can’t post the “argument”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            ….you’ve already admitted that I have.

          • T1-R

            No.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yep, you can not claim that my argument depends on opinion if you have not seen my argument. Since you have claimed this you are claiming that you have seen my argument. Let me know if you were lying. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Yaw, as usually, you can’t post the experimental evidence, the logical argument or any debunk. Thank you Graham.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need to post any other experimental evidence for this particular argument than what you posted.

          • T1-R

            Yes, you need post experimental evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            My argument uses your experimental evidence to make my point.

          • T1-R

            Your argument can’t use the experimental evidence. Where is the reference section?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I definitely can use that evidence. Thanks.

          • T1-R

            Share your magic paper.

          • T1-R

            Your sentence is idiothic. Provide the debunking.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sorry “your sentence is idiothic” is not a refutation. My argument stands. 🙂

          • T1-R

            As usually, pseudosceptic can’t debunk nothing. Thank you.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve used your evidence to refute either the utility of what you’ve presented or homeopathy. I’ve explained it several times now. Sorry if you can’t understand.

          • T1-R

            “I’ve used your evidence to refute either the utility of what you’ve presented or homeopathy. I’ve explained it several times now. Sorry if you can’t understand.”

            I read your comment, you can’t provide nothing. Please, provide your paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need to provide a paper. Only an argument, one you are unable to refute.

          • T1-R

            No, you need provide a paper. Provide your “argument”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that I have provided an argument. So you are just kind of admitting here that you are trying to avoid rebutting in.

          • T1-R

            No, you can’t provide the debunk.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that I’ve provided an argument, and you can’t refute it. What more do I need to provide.

          • T1-R

            Still no evidence of your “debunk”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve provided an argument from your evidence. Which is all that is required to either refute your argument or the idea that homeopathy works. 🙂

          • T1-R

            One month and Graham pseudoskeptic can’t share the “debunk”.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve shared the argument that makes my point. 🙂

          • T1-R

            You don’t have share nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve definitely shared my argument.

          • T1-R

            Where is?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Miles back now.

          • T1-R

            Share the paper.

          • T1-R

            No, you can’t share nothing.

          • T1-R

            Yes, the idiothic of Graham is not a refutation, your “argument” is nothing. The refutation is overwhelming evidence against Randi fakers. Sorry.

          • Jonathan Graham

            your “argument” is nothing.

            Saying something is “nothing” is also not a refutation. Which is why I have correctly stated that you can’t refute my argument.

            The refutation is

            Not provided here. When you can provide one, please do so in formal argument form.

          • T1-R

            “Saying something is “nothing” is also not a refutation. Which is why I have correctly stated that you can’t refute my argument.”

            Yes, the refutation of your argument is the overwhelming evidence against yout.

            “Not provided here. When you can provide one, please do so in formal argument form.”

            Provide your argument, troll.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Already provided and you have admitted as much. So please actually refute it or let me know when you can.

          • T1-R

            I can’t refute a garbage from you.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Are you admitting that you are unable to refute my argument. Well glad that’s settled.

          • T1-R

            Void argument?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Glad you can admit that you can’t refute my argument.

          • T1-R

            It is imposible debunk the lack of arguments. You need post the argument, if this exists.

          • Jonathan Graham

            However you’ve already admitted that I’ve posted an argument.

          • T1-R

            Where is your paper and your experimental evidence?

          • Jonathan Graham

            No paper is required, and since it’s your evidence there’s no need to repost it right?

          • T1-R

            Yes, the paper is required.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Not to make my point. Sorry.

          • T1-R

            I like this guy, the can share the comment every week! Continue, continue!

          • T-500

            Please, No Leting Go comments Graham.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Cogent English please.

          • T-500

            Please, CSICOPshill.

          • Jonathan Graham

            English if you don’t mind.

          • T1-R

            Japanese if you don’t mind.

          • Jonathan Graham

            何故? 私は日本語が少し分かります!

          • T1-R

            Speak in Korean!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sorry, I don’t really know any.

          • T-500

            Sorry, I like this

            http://www.cienciahomeopatia.com/programa/#ponencia-0

            NMR proton relaxation is sensitive to the dynamics of the water molecule H2O, through the interaction of the spin of the proton (1H) with external magnetic and electromagnetic fields.

            This study confirms that it is possible to monitor dilution and potentization processes through measurements of 1H spin-lattice T1 and spin-spin T2 relaxation times. In order to interpret the recorded fluctuations in T1- or T2-values, experimental data have been linearized by looking how the area under a fluctuating time = f(dilution) curve (dilution integral or DI) changes with dilution. It was possible to show that such fluctuations cannot be attributed to random noise and/or experimental errors, evidencing a kind of memory effect that can be quantified by the slope of the DI = f(dilution) straight line. Two kinds of fitting procedures have been considered: chi-square fitting with a goodness-of-fit probability and least absolute deviations criterion with Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient. For all experiments, correlation coefficients were found to lie above 0.9999, against 0.999 for random noise.

            The discrimination between experimental slopes and slopes associated with random noise data was very good at a five-sigma level of confidence (i.e.probability 3×10-7). It was also found that discrimination between experimental slopes at a five-sigma level was possible in most cases, with three exceptions: gelsemium aqua pura versus gelsemium dilution (four-sigma); copper aqua pura versus gelsemium aqua pura (four-sigma) and copper simple dilution versus gelsemium simple dilution (three-sigma). All dynamized samples show very good discrimination (at least nine-sigma level) against aqua pura, lactose or simple dilution. From each slope, it was also possible to transform the associated relaxation times into a molecular rotational correlation time τc and an average spin-spin distance d. Our experiments thus points to a considerable slowing down of molecular movements (τc > 1300 ps or T = 224-225K) around water molecules up to a distance of 3.7 Å, values. It was also possible to rule out other possible mechanisms of relaxation (diffusive motion, 17O-1H relaxation or coupling with the electronic spin, S = 1, of dissolved dioxygen molecules).

            This is thus clear evidence that homeopathic solutions cannot be considered as pure water as commonly assumed. Instead, we have evidence a clear memory effect upon dilution/potentization of a substance (water, lactose, copper, gelsemium) reflected by different rotational correlation times and average H…H distances. A possible explanation for such a memory effect may lie in the formation of mesoscopic water structures around nanoparticles and/or nanobubbles mediated by zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field as suggested by quantum field theories. It follows that the existence of a putative of Avogadro’s wall for homeopathically-prepared medicines is not supported by our data. It should be rather considered that all dilutions may have a specific material configuration ruled not only by the dynamized substance but also by the chemical nature of the containers, the chemical nature of dissolved gases and even by the electromagnetic environment. This sensitivity of homeopathically-prepared medicines towards electromagnetic fields may be amplified by the highly non-linear processing routinely applied in the preparation of homeopathic medicines.

            Future work is obviously needed in such directions, and we think that time is now ripe for a complete demystification of the principles involved in the preparation of homeopathic remedies.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Except that the ability to observe potentization is sort of rendered moot by the fact that it is incredibly unlikely to happen.

          • T-500

            Except that the proof is already, your ad-hoc excuses are very silly.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope, as you have pointed out the evidence points in the other direction. 🙂

          • T-500

            Nope, the overwhelming evidence point to positive trend. Sorry guy.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The evidence you have provided has clearly stated the exact opposite. That’s simply what you are saying. If you want to change that you need to provide better evidence.

          • T-500

            Nope, you can’t post the valid debunking. Why Graham?

          • Jonathan Graham

            The evidence you provided makes my point. Sorry.

          • T-500

            Are you bored Graham? Or the pseudo-skeptic pharma biotech paedophile shill’s can’t pay your labour this week? Continue with your No Leting Go comments.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Are you bored Graham?

            You should get an award for a close-to-cogent sentence. If your best evidence is a single small-scale subjective outcome study. I’d say homeopathy is pretty underwhelming. It’s the crazy folk who believe in it which make it boring or interesting.

          • T-500

            As usually, the pharmatrolls and Graham can’t post the evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            As stated, you posted the evidence against homeopathy.

          • T1-R

            As stated you, you can’t post debunk of the evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The evidence you posted is a debunk of homeopathy. 🙂 Why would I need to post anything else?

          • T1-R

            As usually, you can’t post the evidence. Why do you can’t debunk the evidence?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Why do you insist on deliberately making your English poor? Anyway there is nothing else I need to post to make my argument.

          • T1-R

            I like this!

          • Jonathan Graham

            So do I. Let me know when you understand the argument.

          • T1-R

            I understand your “argument”, is garbage.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …and yet you can not refute it.

          • T1-R

            I want debunk your “argument”, only if this exists.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You said:

            I understand your “argument”, is garbage.

            Clearly you are admitting to having read my argument. Therefore either you didn’t understand it or you can’t rebut it. Thanks.

          • T1-R

            I read your argument. You can’t post any debunk.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The argument refutes either your position or your argument.

          • T1-R

            “The argument refutes either your position or your argument.”

            Still no experimental or logical evidence. Share again the argument.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The experimental evidence is the same evidence you’ve presented. The argument is logical. You’ve admitted to reading it and provided no refutation.

          • T1-R

            Sorry, your opinion is not experimental evidence. Your opinion is not based on logic.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve not presented my opinion as experimental evidence. Sorry.

          • T1-R

            You had presented your opinion as experimental evidence.

          • T1-R

            The evidence is evidence, your personal valoration is not a “debunking”. Provide your paper Graham.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The evidence is evidence,

            More correctly, evidence is part of a series of conditional probabilities which establish or refute a hypothesis. You provided evidence and unless you admit it’s not even close to the top tier evidence for homeopathy or that homeopaths aren’t really trying to find evidence. Then you have provided against the hypothesis that homeopathy works. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Provide the debunking with logical evidence, not with speculations.

          • Acleron

            Along with an enormous list of other things Eggar fails to understand ‘debunk’.

          • Jonathan Graham

            This is one of the reasons that I always ask for the best evidence. Putting aside we should always deal with the strongest evidence first just to avoid strawmen. If we refute the strongest evidence then the likelihood for the hypothesis drops quickly which is what we always want regardless of what “side” of the issue we are talking about. The quicker we can devalue our own ideas the better.

            It also creates the happy situation that if the best evidence is weak and there has been significant effort into investigation the likelihood our hypothesis is true is at least as low or lower than our weak evidence. Since the expectation is that we, over time would see strong evidence IF there is a strong effect.

          • T-500

            “I’m pointing out that if this is the very best evidence then the likelihood there’s anything to homeopathy is low”

            Provide the evidence

          • Jonathan Graham

            You provided the evidence that the likelihood of homeopathy being true is low. You appear not to understand why. But that doesn’t stop your ideas from being evidence against homeopathy. 🙂

          • Renè
          • Jonathan Graham

            Rene, am I not giving you enough attention? I mean you seem to be jumping up and down and saying “Notice me!”.

          • T-500

            Yaw,

            “You provided the evidence that the likelihood of homeopathy being true is low. “

            What is the probability?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Low.

          • Miκe Stevens

            Yeah. Totally. Totes. Totes magotes man!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Impersonation will get your account suspended. Rene.

          • Realiτy022

            “The display name and avatar of the ‘fake’ and ‘genuine’ accounts must match exactly to be considered impersonation. We use several strategies to judge authenticity.”

            ~Disqus

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s amazing how poor your English comprehension is Rene. A homoglyph may well fall within what they mean by “exactly the same”. It certainly meets the criteria of

            a manner that does or is intended to mislead or deceive others.

          • Realiτy022

            It’s amazing how you cannot comprehend the meaning of the word “exactly”.

            Moreover, the picture is different. As you can see, I have a penis growing off my hat.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s amazing how you cannot comprehend the meaning of the word “exactly”.

            Rene, as usual I’m called on to help you with a language you claim to actually understand.

            The question is if they mean “It reads as exactly the same word” or “It contains the exact string of unicode values”. See while someone without much of a brain might be tempted to think they mean the later. It would almost never be the case, humans, in fact rarely talk about unicode values. When you take away that you have a string that reads exactly like Reality022’s name.

            Not only that but someone who understands English could easily see the intent behind such a rule and see that a name such as the ones you’ve been using could easily be considered impersonation. Whether Disqus acts on this is, of course another matter altogether.

            I have a penis growing off my hat.

            Whatever you do with your spare time is probably best kept behind closed doors.

          • T-500

            High.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You asked for a value. I told you. Just claiming the value is different doesn’t make it so. 🙂

          • T-500

            Yes, post the proof of high quality debukings.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You provided the evidence that homeopathy is unlikely to be true. 🙂

          • T-500

            Where is the evidence that homeopathy is unlikely?

          • Jonathan Graham

            You posted it. Having your best evidence be some small scale subjective outcome trial. Now if you’re admitting this is not the best evidence then maybe you should supply that best evidence so we can avoid your constant deflecting from the point?

          • T-500

            You need post the last comment, as the Monsanto trolls.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All I need is you to make cogent sentences. 🙂

          • T1-R

            All I need your pseudo evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You provided the evidence remember?

          • Sprague–Dawley

            Don’t waste your time. This is tantamount to telling a kid that The Easter Bunny is not real.

            Homeopathy is fairly innocuous woo.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Hey Rene/Travis. Why all the name switching?

          • duplicat

            Why all the racist comments?

          • Jonathan Graham

            No racist comments from me. You might be thinking of yourself. 🙂

          • duplicat

            Or was it Mike Stevens? [scroll down]

          • Jonathan Graham

            Reported for linking to racist site.

          • duplicat

            You should report Mike Stevens!!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Travis, when you rationalize you behavior what excuse do you use?

          • duplicat

            What do you think about the Moon Landing Jon?

          • Jonathan Graham

            That’s not really an excuse.

          • duplicat

            Hey Jon! I think people need to know about Mike “WhitePower” Stevens!!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Again, when you rationalize your behavior. What excuse do you use?

          • duplicat

            Just helping people avoid the crazies…

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well I doubt anyone believes that’s the way you rationalize your behavior.

          • duplicat

            Don’t gaslight me Jon.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’m just pointing out what you already know. You rationalize your behavior here, your homophobia, your attempts to impersonate other, your lying, your attempts to scam people.

            So I’m asking a simple honest question: What do you tell yourself? Is it something as banal as “I’m only joking”?

          • T1-R

            I don’t remember you magic debunk. Please, post it!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Your evidence is all that’s required to refute the idea that homeopathy is correct.

          • T1-R

            Your piece of opinion is not evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            What I’ve provided is a logical argument, not merely an opinion sorry.

          • T1-R

            No, you can’t provide nothing. Let us dancing with your idioticy!

          • Jonathan Graham

            You can whine all you like but a logical argument I have presented.

          • T1-R

            What is the “logical” argument? Post it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Already provided. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Please, share your ultimate debunk.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I only have an argument. Which makes either your argument moot or homeopathy weak. You’ve already read it and you can’t refute it. So I guess that means you’re done. 🙂

          • T1-R

            “I only have an argument. Which makes either your argument moot or homeopathy weak.”

            Share the full argument, so do you can’t?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I’ve already shared it, you’ve already admitted to having read it.

          • T1-R

            Share the “argument” and paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You’ve already claimed to have read my argument.

          • T1-R

            Sorry, the “argument” in “” is a sarcasm.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You claimed that I presented opinion as an argument so clearly you’ve read an argument of mine.

          • T1-R

            Where is your argument?

          • T1-R

            Evidence is emperical and experimental, your idiothic opinions are not evidence. Sorry, you need call to Acleron.

          • Jonathan Graham

            your idiothic opinions are not evidence

            Nothing in my argument is purely opinion. Ergo your comment is irrelevant.

          • T1-R

            Please, post your “argument” with the proof.

          • T1-R

            Yes, your “argument” is a opinion. Share the security of CFI troll program!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope, my argument does not depend on opinion. Sorry.

          • T1-R

            Yes, your “argument” depend of your opinion. Sorry

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope. I’ve stated the argument, you can’t point out which part is purely opinion ergo your argument is not compelling. QED.

          • T1-R

            No, you had not share the argument. Share this, please.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You have already admitted that you’ve read my argument.

          • T1-R

            You can’t share nothing again?

          • Jonathan Graham

            There is nothing else required to make my point. 🙂

          • T1-R

            Yes, you need provide the paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Not to make my point I don’t

          • T1-R

            Provide the paper, its very simply!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Didn’t you like her picture?

          • T1-R

            I prefer see your paper.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t need one to make my point. So no.

          • T1-R

            Yes, you need.

          • T1-R

            I like play with pseudoskeptics as you, in all moments, all stupids will try distract with stupid games as you.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I don’t mind posting to people who take very little time to reply to. Since you generally say nothing, you qualify.

          • T-500

            Continue with yout No Leting GO program from CSICOP Trolls.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I need you to use clear English. Sorry.

          • T-500

            I need you to post a evidence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sufficient evidence to consider homeopathy not very likely has been posted by you.

          • T1-R

            Where is your “evidence”? Please troll, post it!

          • T-500

            You can try with this triple blind study:

            Out of the 600 children recruited, 445 (74.17%) completed the study (149: Homeopathic complex; 151: Placebo; 145: InfluBio).

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

          • T-500

            “You, OTOH, have made specific, falsifiable claims, and have been unable to support them, demonstrating that they are indeed false.”

            Yes they are falsifiable Mike, the charge of debunk lies on you. Please, provide your paper with debunk of the next list of papers. Proof your point with evidence, looser!

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

            http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.24717/abstract

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

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

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466616304690

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01448765.2014.960451?src=recsys&journalCode=tbah

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19371564

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466617300236

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

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0344033816306239

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26988436

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27515878

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28163953

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26210222

            http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v26/n1/full/ijir201312a.html

            http://www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1559325815626685

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16889990

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030446

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

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599845

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16293983

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

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20558607

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

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

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

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

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1036072

          • Mike Stevens

            None of those are the independent replication studies you said existed for the paper you originally cited.
            What’s wrong… can’t find one?

          • T-500

            And you can’t read two simply papers.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’ve read them and the references.
            They do not mention any earlier studies that they replicate.
            Your claim, you provide the evidence.

          • T-500

            Phase IV is evidence of replication. Provide your proof of debunk Mike.

          • Mike Stevens

            Not Phase IV though, Eggar.
            Here is the definition again, which you provided:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad71fce39d2a6059f3690a2bb397068f9699507622443dfd4dfb068ddbffc316.jpg
            Or, if you prefer, this alternative:
            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/phase_desc

          • T-500

            So you can’t the two phase IV studies Mike.. again.

          • T-500

            Post date:

            Claims from Scene Based Shit or Genetic Liters are not valid.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Claims from Scene Based Shit or Genetic Liters are not valid.”

            So why do you keep making the them?

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk nothing.

          • Mike Stevens

            “So can’t you debunk nothing.”
            Exactly.
            Double negative duly noted.

          • T-500

            As usually Mike Marsh never debunk nothing.

          • Mike Stevens

            You are right….double negatives again!

          • T-500

            As usually Mike Marsh can’t debunk nothing.

          • T-500

            As usually ,Mike quote the biased and flawed “science webs”.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yeah, science citations are so last year…

          • Acleron

            At last a piece of consistency from Eggar. For his beliefs to be correct, the whole of science and medicine has to be wrong.

          • T-500

            As usually, Mike can’t understand his own references.

          • T-500

            So that the six troll pharma shills workers can´t debunk the two phase IV trials?

            Six trolls workind 24 hours per day:

            Acleron (Alan Henness).
            FallsAngel.
            Kfunk913.
            Mike “Marsh” Stevens,
            Proponent.
            Reality022.

          • T-500

            Your iditiocy is big

            https://www.nccn.org/patients/resources/clinical_trials/phases.aspx

            Phase IV

            Quote
            ‘Phase IV trials test new drugs approved by the FDA. The drug is tested in several hundreds or thousands of patients. This allows for better research on short-lived and long-lasting side effects and safety. For instance, some rare side effects may only be found in large groups of people. Doctors can also learn more about how well the drug works and if it’s helpful when used with other treatments.’
            End of Quote

            FDA approved in USA, idiot. The other studies are from Brazil.

          • Mike Stevens

            As I said, do you think homeopathic oestrogen is now FDA approved?
            😹😹😹

          • T-500

            was a phase IV study, idiot.

          • T-500

            The studies were phase IV with few people for endometrosis, idiot.

          • T-500

            An example for some diseases. Phase IV study from Northwestern University

            Estimated Enrollment: 25

            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02213081

            Another example big idiot?

            https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/20708s5_medr.pdf

            Phase IV with only forty females!

          • Mike Stevens

            From your link:
            https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/phase_desc

            Can you provide evidence your homeopathic snakeoil has had FDA approval?

          • T-500

            If FDA do not approve a homeopahy is not true?
            A ridiculous fallacy.

            From your own link, idiot:

            Quote
            IMPORTANT: Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health. Talk with a trusted healthcare professional before volunteering for a stud
            Another example.
            End Qouote.

            Are you a trusted healthcare professional, Mike?

          • Mike Stevens

            You aren’t even making sense now.

            Don’t call people idiots when you clearly have a single figure IQ yourself.

          • T-500

            So can’t you debunk the phase IV trials.

          • T-500

            Thank you for the comment:

            “Robust evidence requires replication by an independent group of researchers. Please provide some, will you.”

            Replication is here, effect was reproducible!

            https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cartwright-pH-studies-2017.pdf

            Quote
            Spectral changes observed with this dye in the presence of potencies are both substantial and reproducible.
            End of quote

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19533076

            Quote
            Recent investigations of Anick (2004) and Aabel et al. (2001) with high-field 1 H NMR spectroscopy did not yield any evidence for stable water clusters (life span > ms) within liquid homeopathic remedies. These results do not contradict the hypothesis of a decrease in translational or rotational correlation time because the latter characterize water molecule dynamics. They are also not in conflict with the leaching hypothesis or presumed density changes.

            Our observation of increased T 1 relaxation times for homeopathic sulfur preparations corresponds approximately to the result of the study of Demangeat et al. (1992), who investigated homeopathic preparations of SiO 2 and analogously potentized dilution medium and observed elevated T 1 relaxation times at 4 MHz for the preparations SiO 2 6c, 9c, 12c, and 15c in a similar order of magnitude (1–2%).

            This interpretation may remind of the original idea of Hahnemann (1921) who suggested that homeopathic procedures lead to a “dynamization” of the remedy.
            End of Quote

          • Acleron

            What are T1 relaxation times?

          • T-500

            You can’t understand the NMR physics!

          • T-500

            Acleron, provide your adequate peer review debunk of the NMR studies. Not “Sceptical” very low quality magazines.

          • Acleron

            LMAO, you don’t know.

          • Mike Stevens

            Still waiting for you to provide clinical studies demonstrating efficacy of homeopathy which were independently replicated….
            I won’t hold my breath.

          • T-500
          • T-500
          • T-500

            “Then, when you have done that, we can have a look at it, and discuss how robust the evidence presented may be.”

            Then, share the defintion of “robust evidence”. In your comment, you talk about of “There must be at least one study that you think fits the bill.” Did you see? ONE study! You continue:

            “If you fail to carry out what is a simple request, then everyone will just be able to see that you have absolutely no relevant evidence whatsoever, and are just fabricating it.”

            Seven trolls are not “everyone”. You fail in your pathetic game. Share the definitions:

            1. Extraordinary claim/proof
            2. Good and compelling evidence
            3. Robust evidence.

            I’m waiting four your scientific papers, not for shit from Nigtingale Collaboration.

          • T-500

            My turn!

            Mike, how about you just post a skeptical study debunkin the effect of homeopathy.

            After all, that is what you claim (and all trolls)!

            There muste be at least one properly peer review study that you think fits the pseudo skeptical $$$. I can’ft found any. Remember this, pseudo papers as “skeptikal inquirer” or Skeptic Magazine cries are not valid. Pseudo journals (as Philo isn’t no valid), blog posts, comments from Alan Henness or piece of opinion from Acleron sockett pupet or Genetic Literacy.

            Then, when you have post the study, we can have a look at it, and discuss how pseudo-skeptical arguments are valid! Deal?

            If you fail to carry out what is a simple request, then many people that I know will just be able to see that you have absolutely no relevant debunk whatsoever, and are just fabricating it and fraud. Then, pseudo skeptical movement need denounced in many webs. I want your “evidence” in the next 24 hours. Time is gold!

          • T-500

            Additional notes

            Paper requisites:

            1. The author listed not to be associated for any pseudo skeptic fake “science” web as “Orac”, ACSH, $keptic, Nightingale Collaboration, Genetic Literacy.
            2. The paper need post the demonstration of a clear definition about of the extraordinary claim and proof, and clear difference without references of a old anacronic and invalid books (as Hume with a lack of logic demonstration) or Wendell Holmes (fraudulent content).
            3. Quotes from James Randi are not valid. Randi is not a truly expert of nothing, this a quack man.
            4. Show a clear difference between “evidence” versus “good evidence” and “robust evidence” based on international standards listed in all sections over the National Health Institutes and National Technology Institutes around the world. Any exception of this rule invalidates the paper. I need the world consensus without exception.
            5. Existence of any contradiction in the paper is not tolerated.

            Share the paper!

          • T-500

            Share the paper NOW, Mike!

          • T-500

            What the hell! Share the paper NOW! Are you stupid men? NOW!

          • Acleron

            Apparently you don’t understand the difference between total and rate. Thanks for highlighting how truly clueless you are. Idiot.

          • T-500

            Your all comments are simply plain crap. Share the definition of “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • T-500

            Acleron said:

            Translated

            “Awybody stolling trouhgggggg your 80 letters in these shock poppet can’t easilly see whoooo is the trall..”

          • Acleron

            When all else fails, Eggar starts dribbling ^.

          • T-500

            Loonely response!

          • T-500

            You are obsessed. Not surprising that you keep your active profile in all days. Every hour!

            Only the pseudoskeptics and sock puppets from SAS claim that something came from nothing so where is your evidence. James Randi has nothing to do with science or evidence. Your strawmen are multiplying. Typical clueless statement that very long list of things of which you are ignorant. Without a doubt, Acleron is the biggest troll of the world. In another discussion he accused me of being silly, the silly little fool thought it was an insult.

            Shang “study” and Ernst “review” were scientifically flawed. I notice that you cannot argue about the scientific facts but use argument from authority, argumentum ad populum and tu quoque from Sally Davies, all failed and false logic. Perhaps you might think about why your argument is so awful but I doubt it.

            The pseudo-skeptics competing amongst themselves for who is the most offensive and silly!

          • Acleron

            First paragraph is your usually provable lie. The rest is a usual piece of Eggar nonsense.

          • T-500

            Obsessed Acleron, Why i’m not surprissed?

          • Acleron

            Just the normal copy and paste of your unintelligent Eggar. Thrashing about, flinging about lies.

            Do you behave like this in RL, Eggar? Just lying as a form of communication? Must be a lonely existence.

          • T-500

            What does mean Eggar? Is your boyfriend?

          • Acleron

            Amazing, you are denying that T500 is a sockpuppet of Eggar. Lol, you are so transparent.

          • T-500

            Please, share the definition of “compelling evidence”, “good evidence” and “extraordinary proof”

          • Acleron

            You are so predictable Eggar, when cornered you copy paste another lie. Yet again both here and elsewhere you have been schooled in evidence, that you failed to be taught surprises no one. It also surprises no one that you have no evidence of any kind, just babbling nonsense.

          • T-500

            What does mean “Eggar”? Is your boyfriend Acleron?

            Amazing, you are denying that Acleron is a clon of Alan Henness. United Kingdom.

          • T-500

            ¡Zero evidence of the definition for “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”! Is Randi the most quack in the world?

          • T-500

            I like this: https://septicskeptics.com/2017/01/01/pseudoskeptics-strange-csicop-connections-to-pedophilia/

            Quote:
            The original “Human Sexuality” section of Prometheus Books catalog was edited CSICOP/CSI Fellow and International Academy of Humanism Secretariat Dr Vera Bullough who according to Wikipedia was a “member of the editorial board” of Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia

            How are we to explain these titles? Remember that metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists, and materialistic atheists ( militant atheists) don’t believe in objective values (bear in mind this point because it’s absolutely essential to understand the psychological and ideological motivation behind such titles) They have a purely negative philosophy (ie a philosophy based on the negation of traditional relgion and its values) If they are consistent, they have to embrace relativism and subjectivism in moral topics. According to Richard Dawkins–
            End of Quote

            Dawkins, Randi, Gorski, Alan, Tracey Tommacco Brown, Simon Sugar Sigh, Darth Edzard, you.

          • Acleron

            Somebody let Eggar out again.

          • T-500

            Please, share the definition of “compelling evidence”, “good evidence” and “extraordinary proof”.

          • T-500

            Thank you for your advice Acleron. Like many I may well benefit from revisiting your all failed comments. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa8d4cbb4c0b9f69b1357b043215820f7b930393cff7405ed0282f6de47e46f2.jpg

          • Acleron

            Don’t you know the difference between an observation? Not surprising in someone who cannot tell the difference between claims and evidence.

          • T-500

            Please Acleron, share the document of the “diploma”, “title” of any kind of paper about of the imaginary “homeopath”. I no need your biased observations, I need the document. Post the document. Can’t you carry out a simple request with the uploader images?

          • T-500

            Can’t you carry out a simple request with the uploader images?

          • T-500

            2. Can’t you carry out a simple request with the uploader images?

          • T-500

            3. Can’t you carry out a simple request with the uploader images?

          • T-500

            Why do you not upload and share the magic document (diploma, title, course document) of the imaginary “homeopath”? Why do you not share the evidence?

          • T-500

            Yeah, yeah. your “observation” is invalid. Provide the evidence. Upload the image with legal documents.

          • T-500

            Please, tell me the definition of “good and compelling evidence” and “extraordinary evidence”. Probably, your crackpots and lonely friends need a some money from the Skeptikal Inquirer pseudojournal, or SAS lobby can’t pay at time!

          • Acleron

            Eggar, everybody here can read apart from you. They all know by now you have no evidence and are just a liar. You see, this is provable by what you post whereas your silly accusations are groundless.

          • T-500

            “Eggar, everybody here can read apart from you.”

            Yes, you and eight trolls.

            “. They all know by now you have no evidence and are just a liar. You see, this is provable by what you post whereas your silly accusations are groundless.”

            Dear, please share the evidence of my liars and silly accusations. Provide the evidence, try with me!

          • Acleron

            Proof: your groundless accusations, your rather silly comments and your sock puppetry Eggar.

          • T-500

            More trash. Share the definition of “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • Acleron

            Lol Eggar, trying to use a sockpuppet is lying.

          • T-500

            Eggar probably is your boyfriend.

          • My point was, if I am not mistaken, that WE DON’T CARE. We’ll do it anyway. Your loss is our gain.

            We get that. You don’t care that the science doesn’t back you. You don’t care that homeopathy doesn’t work.

            This demonstrates that you also don’t care about doing the best by your customers.

            So you’re in it for the money. The exact same thing you accuse Big Pharma of being driven by. I think you’re just jealous of them.

            I can’t speak for others on the pro-science side of things, but I do care. I care about informed patient choice and I care about taxpayer money spent on healthcare being spent wisely because it’s a limited resource.

            And there is nothing you can do about it.

            Then… why bother posting on threads like this? You actually demonstrate a concern that we are actually managing to do something about it if you have to come here to argue your case.

          • Swarm of Drones

            SHUT THE F UP, GOLD
            YOU ARE A SPAMHEAD
            ARGUE WITH YOUR PALS AT THE KMART
            YOU HAVE NO PALS?
            THAT FIGURES

          • Now, now…

          • After seeing the first pointless post in SUPERCAPS I blocked them. No need to give them any airtime. I’m suspecting they’re T-500 (who I also think may be Polly)

          • You could be right. All talk and no evidence.

          • T-500

            Gold is a troll from a tiny pseudo-skeptic activist trolls. You can find him with the alter ego “Unifex”.

          • Gold is a troll from a tiny pseudo-skeptic activist trolls. You can find him with the alter ego “Unifex”.

            “Gold” is my full legal name. I don’t hide that. I also use “Citizen Gold” when a first name is required by a form on a computer. Unifex is a nick that I use on social media sites like Twitter, github, etc. I’ve used that since 1996. When I post on these sites my real name is linked to the accounts. Not that it matters, but I’m also from Wellington, New Zealand.

            Before you bother suck a lame attempt at doxxing someone you should probably work out if, like yourself, they are hiding behind an alias, or already living in full view of the public.

            In the immortal words of someone I suspect you respect: SAD!

          • T-500

            Gold is asoftware pseudo scientist troll, is a fact.

          • Gold is asoftware pseudo scientist troll, is a fact.

            …and that’s the best we can expect to see from this anonymous account.

            Just because I disagree with your position does not mean I’m a Troll.

            The fact you don’t get that, refuse to acknowledge that, constantly fail to adjust your position in spite of very clear, irrefutable evidence and your constant attempts to attack the poster rather than challenge a point… These make you a Troll.

          • Proponent

            Potty Polly: “We’ll do it anyway. Your loss is our gain. And there is nothing you can do about it.”

            Feel free to play in your basements if you wish.. however.. not true that “there is nothing you can do about it”.

            To wit..

            “The regulator said it will no longer allow companies to make specific health claims on homeopathic products for cough, cold, and flu for children 12 and under, unless those claims are supported by scientific evidence.

            An investigation by CBC’s Marketplace revealed how little scientific evidence is required by Health Canada to license homeopathic remedies.

            Marketplace created a children’s fever and pain remedy called Nighton, which claimed to provide “effective relief from fever, pain, and inflammation” for children and infants, based on photocopies
            of a few pages from a homeopathic reference book. There was no research, clinical trial or actual pills.”

            (Source: CBC | “Health Canada’s new rules for homeopathic products for kids should apply to adults, expert says” )

            I am wondering what your reaction would be, Polly Potty.. if pharmaceutical manufacturers were given the same carte blanche dispensation to market whatever their lil’ money grubbing fingers desired?

            Don’t care still?

            You should.. as exemplified by those opposing your drivel in this discussion.

          • You want answers?

            You conduct clin. trials that satisfy your desire. You pay for it.

            These have been done. A lot. As it happens the better the methodology the less likely an effect from homeopathy appears to be a thing.

            We can’t help it that the best research doesn’t meet your prefered outcome. Science doesn’t always work out how you want, but you have to accept the results.

          • Swarm of Drones

            BIG JIMBO! SHUT THE F UP AND READ THE ARTICLE

            MAGA TRUMP

          • Ron Roy

            The ancient Greeks knew and believed the earth was round and not flat.Just looking at the earths shadow on the moon was proof of that.

          • Indeed. As the world did not begin in Ancient Greek times though…the point stands.

          • Googlheimer

            The point that you will be shouting down and observing what third parties deliver? I think we all understand that.

          • Hey, if the third parties make the claim…

            You’ll notice that I can link to evidence of my claims all of the time. You know why that is? It’s not because I’m perfect. It’s because firstly, I don’t make claims prior to establishing that they’re correct and secondly, when I don’t know jackshit about a subject…I shut up and let the grown-ups talk.

          • Ron Roy

            No it doesn’t.

          • Read. Think. Post. Permutation, not combination.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The term you’re looking for is classical Greece. Ancient Greece is 1200 BC to about 600 AD. For most of that period the flat earth model was prevalent.

          • Ron Roy

            There goes Pasty showing his swollen head again.Tell me Johnny in what time period did Herodotus live?”There were only a few historians in the time of Ancient Greece. Three
            major ancient historians, were able to record their time of Ancient
            Greek history, that include Herodotus, known as the ‘Father of History’ who traveled to many ancient historic sites at the time, Thucydides and Xenophon.”Notice” their time of Ancient
            Greek history/”

          • Jonathan Graham

            Tell me Johnny in what time period did Herodotus

            People say around 450. Did you ever read “The Histories”? Didn’t think so. I did. So I know the passage where Herodotus appears to consider the earth flat.

            Now Thucydides, Xenophon and Herodotus are all considered “classical Greek historians” but as we move more into the classical era we see the popularity of Aristotle’s works – which advocate a spherical earth. Move backward and look at the pre-socratics (with the exception of Pythogoras) and you see people advocating a flat Earth.

            So the ancient period is likely mostly populated with flat-earthers.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I blame the damned golden ants.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You got to watch out for those. They can take your leg clean off.

          • shay simmons

            Jaysus, Ron really blows a gasket when he notices that someone is better educated than he is.

          • He must have many, many, many gaskets.

          • shay simmons

            Ron? Hell, he works for Big Gasket!

          • I’d never have picked @disqus_ruSIKtVC0i:disqus as a shill for Big Gasket. But there you go! I read it on the internet. It must be true.

          • shay simmons

            It’s self-evident, to use his phrase.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It always reminds me of that bit from the opening of first episode of The Newsroom where Jeff Daniels is talking about why America isn’t the greatest country in the world anymore.

            We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence, we didn’t belittle it, it didn’t make us feel inferior.

            Ron’s anti-intellectualism is part of what’s wrong with the world (singling out the US on this one really isn’t fair).

          • Is that the scene on the stage? I only recently saw that clip. I actually thought the show was happening *right now* given the current mess the US is in.

            It’s on the top of my To Watch list at the moment.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yep, the first season is quite good. I only started watching the second.

          • Ron Roy

            Pasty showing an example of his swollen head again.LOL

          • Jonathan Graham

            So we need to dial things back to the 4th grade level then Ron?

          • Proponent

            Just “someone”?

            😉

        • India prefers the results big pharma has given to modern medicine.

          http://www.thehinducentre.com/multimedia/archive/02460/nss_71st_ki_health_2460766a.pdf

          Nice table in Chapter 3 (page 18) that makes it very clear.

          Also, Homeopathy has a 200 year history.

        • UK Homeopathy Regs

          Homeopathy was invented at the end of the 18th Century in Germany.

      • Ron Roy

        Do you have any evidence that what he said was false? NO. Ok. I didn’t think so.

        • Shifting the burden of proof…

          • Potty Polly

            $35 million please…..

          • Why? You’re the one making the claim; your job to prove it. Just link to the trial that already proved you right.

          • Potty Polly

            Okay pal, I need to be blunt with you as you don’t seem to understand English.

          • Get on with it then.

          • Potty Polly

            This one is of a particular calibre isn’t he.

          • Ron Roy

            Learned that from you. Thanks.

          • The term, perhaps.

        • Jonathan Graham

          Do you have any evidence that what he said was false? NO.

          Everyone does Ron. The fundamental premise of homeopathy: a substance diluted in water beyond the molar limit is going to have an effect correlated with the substance. Constantly has evidence heaped against it every single day, by every single person on this planet.

          It’s only a strong desire to believe which allows anyone to consider homeopathy. 🙂

          • Not even that. This conversation that we’re having RIGHT NOW is evidence:

            To wit:

            P1: It is not possible to have, in the same universe, physics and chemistry that allows homeopathy and computers to work.

            P2: We are having this conversation over a bunch of linked computers

            Therefore:

            C1: Computers work.
            C2: Homeopathy doesn’t work.

          • Tekknocrates

            Says who?

          • Why would it matter? Claims stand or fall on their own merit or didn’t you know that?

          • T-500

            Physi cochemical Evidence contradcits your assertion.

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

          • Show me the full paper.

          • T-500

            Buy the full paper.

          • But COIs! 😉

          • T-500

            No, with AcleronCoins!

          • Ron Roy

            ”a substance diluted in water beyond the molar limit”There’s a lot more to that dilution so constant evidence is NOT heaped against it every day:Homeopathic remedies are made by diluting the active substance in a
            volume of liquid. This is done several times according to the dilution
            required. Between each dilution, the mixture is shaken or succussed a
            hundred times; this is potentiation.

          • How many times does it have to be shaken?

          • Jonathan Graham

            There’s a lot more to that dilution

            Really? Shaking? That qualifies as “a lot more” in your mind? So you believe that doing a magical hokey-pokey makes all the difference? Right?

          • Ron Roy

            It has to be shaken violently. Pasty your bias is showing again. Merck must pay you a substantial amount.

          • How violently?

          • Oh! Did you know Merck used to make homeopathic products?

          • It has to be shaken violently.

            You say this without any hint of irony. You are astounding.

            I’d like to see the RDBPC studies that compare shaking vs violent shaking vs stiring vs nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It has to be shaken violently

            Except that shaking is just moving the molecules around. Nothing more. Just about everything from tap water to bottled water has been shaken violently at some point in it’s history. Every day, every person, everywhere drinks water that is experimentally indistinguishable from homeopathic water.

            your bias is showing again

            Says the person who believes in the magical hokey-pokey.

          • Ron Roy

            It has to be shaken violentlyExcept that
            shaking is just moving the molecules around. Nothing more. Just
            about everything from tap water to bottled water has been shaken
            violently at some point in it’s history. Not as VIOLENTLY as require for homeopathic medicines. FTFY Pasty

          • Jonathan Graham

            Not as VIOLENTLY as require for homeopathic medicines

            Oh? How do you know?

          • Believe me, if I’m carrying the water, it *will* get shaken violently enough.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Or what about water in someone’s stomach? Isn’t every person who’s exercising creating homeopathic remedies?

          • I was just making a joke at my own expense about how much of a klutz I am.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I got it. 🙂 But in truth it’s hard to look at homeopathic claims as anything but a joke.

          • Ron Roy

            You truly are an idiot.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I think I’m likely smarter than people who believe in that the mystical hokey pokey…excuse me the…violent mystical hokey-pokey can imbue water with magic powers. 🙂

          • shay simmons

            Same here – I have three cats.

          • FallsAngel

            I/we had two until quite recently. Had to put the one down. Looking for a kitten now.

          • shay simmons

            Be careful. I went to the animal shelter for one kitten and came away with two.

          • AutismDadd

            More crap to clean up

          • Acleron

            Ah, that extra special shaking of the homeopaths. The one that uses vortex mixers just like every wet laboratory in the world.

          • Proponent

            Erhm.. Ronald P.?

            ‘In the Organon, however, he stated that trituration and succussion release the ‘spirit-like power’ of the medicine – which is compatible with his assumption that medicines act through their spiritual (geistlich) or dynamic impact upon the organism [321, d].’ [Coulter, vol. 2, p.403]

            d. For this reason Hahnemann warned against shipping the liquid remedies over long distances, since they receive ‘an enormous number of additional succussions during the transport, and they are so highly potentized during a long journey that on their arrival they are scarcely fit for use, at least not for susceptible patients, on account of their excessive strength, as many observations go to prove’ (Lesser Writings, 736 *) Fortunately for suffering humanity, the dry pills were not affected in this way (ibid., 766 **)

            Note 321. Hahnemann, Organon, Sec. 269, 270.”

            … …

            Ronald P. Roy.. posting tripe since Jun 20, 2013.

          • your bias is showing again.

            A bias towards rational and critical thinking, science and good quality research (regardless of where it leads)…

            I have that bias too. Not all biases are bad.

            Perhaps you should adopt it as well.

          • Ron Roy

            You’re biased toward pharmaceuticals and our bodies were not meant to consume in any shape manner or form pharmaceuticals. Our bodies were designed to function on food / nutrients not drugs or vaccines. Speaking of drugs methinks you’ve taken one too many.

          • There’s a lot more to that dilution so constant evidence is NOT heaped against it every day:Homeopathic remedies are made by diluting the active substance in a
            volume of liquid.

            This we know. When I say “we know”, we know that this is how homeopathy is prepared. We also know that it doesn’t work, so…

            This is done several times according to the dilution required.

            How do you determine the “required” dilution? What empirical, evidence based system comes up with the specific number of time dilution has to happen? Is it a set number based on the body weight of the customer? A potency based on how long it was since their last meal?

            There must be some formula for working this out.

            Between each dilution, the mixture is shaken or succussed a hundred times; this is potentiation.

            Does stirring work?

          • Proponent

            Still copying and pasting and not arsed to fix your mess, Ronald P. Roy?

            Any -ways..

            You forgot the most important piece of equipment used during succussion.. that of a leather bound bible.

            You see.. Hahnemann liked to whack it to his Bible.

          • Heh… 🙂 Originally the device was referred to as a “firm but pliable surface”. The original device was a paddle wrapped in leather and stuffed with horse hair.

            The use of the Bible was added later. I have no context on Hahnemann’s opinion on the use of the Bible though. If anyone has a reliable source I’d be interested in linkage.

          • Proponent

            Although the following doesn’t directly address your question, Gold.. you might find the read interesting..

            “Hahnemann would have thought modern homeopaths were barmy”

            … as it does address Hahenmann’s thoughts on the limits of the dilution/potentiation process.

            “This passage shows quite clearly that Hahnemann did not believe that his medicines would work if they were diluted so much that that there were no molecules left. That he believed this is confirmed by a letter that Hahnemann wrote in a letter to a Dr Schreter dated September 13th, 1829. This letter reprimanded Schreter for advocating extremely high dilutions.

            “there must be some limit to the thing. It cannot go on to infinity”

            The original German version was

            “Es muss ein Ende geben, es kann nicht bis ins Unendliche weitergehen”

            This confirms that Hahnemann was aware of, and accepted, that matter was not infinitely divisible and his medicines would not work if they contained nothing of the original material.”

            (Just an f.y.i., in case you were unawares.)

          • Pretty sure I’ve read that before. 🙂 Thanks for the linkage though. Have added it to my Narro list. It should be in my podcast feed in about 15 minutes to relisten to it on the way home.

    • lolexplosm

      Several countries ban or punish homosexuality. This is clearly proof it is wrong and we should follow their example right?

    • edzard ernst

      your belief turns out to be a fallacy; look up appeal to popularity!

      • T-500

        No, your belief turns out to be a real fallacy; appeal to the Pop Star fallacy!

    • UK Homeopathy Regs

      Veterinary homeopaths? Very rare creatures indeed.

      • Planet Vague

        Not so rare where I live.

        • nouveaulite

          Homeopathic vets exist all over the UK. What is this fuss all about?

          • Well… If “Homeopathic vets exist all over the UK” is a fair statement I think that would be a fair thing to make a fuss about.

            Animal cruelty and all that…

          • nouveaulite

            Sure, vets are cruel, you’re the expert and my stupidity knows no bounds.

    • Ieva Zagante

      As to the India- inevitable consequences of substandard healthcare+substandard education.
      As to Europe- nobody has said doctors (human) prescribe homeopathy all the time alone. There are e.g. lazy doctors who just want to get rid off patient demanding antibiotics for common cold (instead of going home, drinking substantial liquid and staying in bed for a couple of days), there are fat people, who don’t want to believe that they have perfectly functioning endocrine systems (for now) and just need to drop weight etc.

    • Jonathan Graham

      224,279 board certified homeopathic physicians who practice in India curing everything from Dengue fever to Leprosy would be surprised to know that they have been using placebos all these years.

      So people can’t be wrong and think they’re right? Or do you simply believe that there is some magic number that if that many people think they’re right they must be.

      • Well… In all fairness @alanschmukler:disqus does believe in magic, so why not magic numbers too?

        • Jonathan Graham

          It does give one many more interesting albeit incorrect things to believe in.

    • Please show your evidence for all these statistics, including evidence of cures.

      I know for a fact that your 95% for French medics is more than misleading.

    • JGC

      Alan, can you point me to the studies and clinical trial results which demonstrate homeopathic interventions are effective treatments for leprosy and Dengue fever?

  • Larry M

    Edzard is looking a little desperate, don’t you think? Yet another futile, overwrought article attacking homeopathy. He’s clearly fighting his own demons here, trying to expunge every last hint that his own past embrace of homeopathy meant anything to him. Truly odd how a guy who claims to be an expert on alternative medicine knows literally nothing about it and opposes it on all counts. Although homeopathy might be able to cure him of his split personality, karma will probably dictate otherwise. It’s one thing to carry on a crusade in favor of something positive to benefit humanity. It’s just plain sad to wage a war against a therapy that millions swear by. Get a life, buddy.

    • Heh… Larry, you’re comment addresses literally nothing in the article. Do you have anything to add apart from attacks on the author?

      It speaks volumes about your indefensible position.

      It must irk you that Edzard is has the respect of this site that they give him this platform while you’re relegated to the comment section.

      • T-500

        The position of Ernst do not make his beliefs and pseudo debunks true. Your logical fallacy is the apellation of authority.

  • Dana Ullman

    The author of this article, E. Ernst, is a known hyper-antagonist to homeopathy. His writings have no place in a section on “News and Analysis,” but would be more appropriate for the section on “Fiction” or “Opinion.”

    If homeopathic medicines are placebo, then, why are there now around two dozen studies showing that homeopathic medicines have an effect on genetic expression, unless Ernst and his ilk believe that one’s mind can influence genes…and being given a placebo can’t. This article, published in NATURE INDIA (one of the most respected scientific journals in the world) reports on just one of the many such studies: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

    It is always “convenient” that Ernst ignores this and the many other studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathy. Typical…and sad.

    • lolexplosm

      The author of this comment shares the same name as a known hyper-advocate to homeopathy.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman

      Opening with an ad hominem is always the strongest and most logical argument. The few studies that “verify” homeopathy tend to be limited and poor quality studies. Advocates of homeopathy “conveniently” ignore the wealth of high quality studies verifying homeopathy as at best no better than placebo.

      • Dana Ullman

        Wow…it seems that this person “loleplosm,” has a misunderstanding of what an ad hom is. An accurate description of Ernst as a hyper-antagonist to homeopathy is not an ad hom; it is something that Ernst himself would acknowledge. I’ll file this one under “DUH,” and under the tendeny for skeptics of homeopathy to see boogeymen when none exist…and simply seek to attack people who are knowledgeable about the evidence base for homeopathy. In actual fact, high quality research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in many of the most respected medical journals in the world, including The Lancet, BMJ (British Medical Journal), Chest (the publication of the American College of Chest Physicians), Rheumatology (the publication of the British Society for Rheumatology), Pediatrics (publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics), Cancer (journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases), European Journal of Pediatrics (publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics), and numerous others.

        That said, perhaps this person is asserting that ALL of the above journals are “pro-homepathy” (which is not true). Skeptics of homeopathy cannot accept the fact that homeopathy is often shown to work!

        • Mark Mattingly

          You fail to accept that homeopathy is often shown not to work. There have been enough studies that some of them are sure to be positive.

          • Ullman does like his prestigious journals, doesn’t he, yet fails to link to any of the studies he finds compelling…

          • Dana Ullman

            Wow…so, have you ever heard of this new thing called GOOGLE? Are you really really saying that you can’t find that NATURE INDIA article on homeopathy and gene expression? And you are unable to find the two dozen or so other studies on homeopathic medicines and gene expression? Ever heard of PubMed?

            These skeptics of homeopathy are either pretending to be ignorant…or perhaps they are simply admitting to be ignorant. Typical…and embarrassing.

          • Wow…so have you ever heard of the burden of proof, Dana. Or have you just forgotten?

          • edzard ernst

            Speaking of Google, this is what anyone can find about Ullman via Google; a US judge stated about him the following:
            The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.
            […]
            Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.
            — Rosendez v. Green Pharmaceuticals

          • Dana Ullman

            Yeah “Darth Ernst,” why didn’t you report on who WON that court case? The homeopathic company won the case because they reported on an independent study conducted by an ear, nose, and throat specialist and got it published in a peer-review medical journals. The judge didn’t need my testimony because the evidence FOR homeopathy was already solid.
            “How convenient” it was for you to ignore this part of the story. Indeed.

          • As the court deemed you a failure as an expert on homeopathy, it would seem they won despite your non-expert testimony.

          • Mc

            It may be useful to independently verify Ullman’s claims about the case outcome and the case’s objective, before swallowing his claims about it.

          • edzard ernst

            perhaps because it is irrelevant?

          • T-500

            Select the character:

            Darth Vader = Edzard Ernst

            Jabb the Hut = Alan Henness

            Darth Maul = Andy Lewis

            Jar Jar Bings = Tenterre

            Cad Bane = Simon Sigh

            Greedo = Gold/Unifex (Or Unisex?)

            The Inquisitor = David Gorski

            Darth Traya = Tracey Brown

            Nute Gunray = Mario Bunge

            Count Doku = Richard Rawlings

            General Grievous = Acleron

          • T-500

            A really bad response of you. You don’t want see the lack of credibility in the National PseudoCouncil Agains Health Fraud and Stephen Barrett.

            http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/NCAHFVsKINGBIOAppeal.pdf

            “We conclude there is no basis in California law to shift the burden of proof to a defendant in a representative false advertising and unlawful competition action. We conclude further that the Legislature has indicated an intent to place the burden of proof on the plaintiff in such cases”

            Or the Randis magic mixing hands!

            A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’

            “These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event… Other errors included incorrectly.”

            Alteration = FRAUD!

          • Mike Stevens

            I think it is a very appropriate response from Ernst.
            If you recall, a poster above stated Dana “shared the same name as a known hyper-advocate to homeopathy.”
            At which point, Dana got very shirty about “ad hominem” accusations.

            Ernst has now provided evidence submitted in court that Dana himself admits he “was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy”

            Point proven, I’d say.

          • T-500

            I provide evidence of the fake NCAFH – Stephen Barrett. Why do you no comment about this topic?

          • Mark Mattingly

            Embarrassing for you to ignore the negative information or is it just lack of enough good studies. You don’t seem get it. Find a homeopathic remedy that could be shown effective then you really have something. Google homeopathy fraud.

          • I’m reminded of the quote from Upton Sinclair:

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

          • T-500

            Ad-authoritas quoute. No more tricks, provide the definition of good evidence and compelling evidence.

          • I’ll take a look at whatever study you believe is compelling… No point in limiting your options.

          • T-500

            Provide the definition of good evidence.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for you than it already is by limiting your available options: just present whatever evidence you have so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. No more delays. If you can’t provide any or are unwilling to, that’s OK – please just says so.

          • T-500

            Ullman provide negative and positive information, Ernst and Alan Hennes only provide “negative” information, this is a bias.

          • Still waiting for Ullman to provide something other than a list of journals…

          • T-500

            Still waitinf for you to provide a rational response. Provide the definition of objcetive good evidence, not subjective views of Ernst.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Ullman provide negative and positive information”
            Can you provide an example where Dana has provided “negative” information about homeopathy?

          • T-500
          • Mike Stevens

            He says nothing negative about homeopathy there at all.
            Try again.

          • Wow…so, have you ever heard of this new thing called GOOGLE?

            Wow .. So, have you ever heard of this thing called “don’t be a dick”?

            Providing links is a polite thing to do for your supporters and those that would challenge you. Unless… do you actually want your supporters too read these things?

            PS: I am aware my reply is a bit dickish, but Dana deserves it. Just read how he reacts to his challengers.

          • T-500

            Pseudo skeptics can’t debunk the high quality research of post doc and Emeritus Professor Dr. Anisur.

            Alas, Pseudo skeptics want to believe in the old “Randi” tricks. They want repeat the “Benveniste affair” in their minds.

          • Ever heard of this new thing called LOGIC?

            https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to-google-it-thats-your-job-not-theirs/

            But you want proof that homeopathy doesn’t work? Sure. We’re having this conversation over a bunch of linked COMPUTERS.

          • T-500

            Prove the definition of “compelling”.

          • It’s a common enough scientific term but I’ll take a look at whatever study you believe is the best… No point in limiting your options.

          • T-500

            No Alan, provide the precise definition of good evidence. No more tricks.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for you than it already is by limiting your available options: just present whatever evidence you have so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. No more delays. If you can’t provide any or are unwilling to, that’s OK: please just says so.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of “good” and “compelling” evidence.

          • As I said, I’m open to looking at whatever you believe you have. I can wait.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence.

          • T-500

            Provide the “enough studies” that confirm your belief.

        • edzard ernst

          “An accurate description of Ernst as a hyper-antagonist to homeopathy is not an ad hom; it is something that Ernst himself would acknowledge.”
          No, he doesn’t!
          I am merely reporting what is considered to be the most reliable evidence on the subject

      • T-500

        Wisss….. the fan page of Rational Milky
        Each sentence of the page contains ad-hominem, ad authoritas, insults and underground languague (sexual applation, double standars, defamation, straw man fallacies).

    • edzard ernst

      you are priceless Dana!
      please carry on, we need cheering up these days.

      • T-500

        No Ernst, the campaign against homeopathy is dead.

        • Why do you claim that?

          • T-500

            Homeopathic industry growth the sales
            More high quality research on homeopathy is avaliable
            More people think about of pseudo skeptics.
            The garbage journals as “Independent” of Telegraph shares the lack of credibility.
            Scandals of Mosanto, Genetic Literacy, Coca Cola, “UK regulation” fake legal firms, Sense About Science and the dead of the “Randi Prize”. Look the inside of the death of pseudo skepticism!

          • edzard ernst

            how about citing some of the ‘high quality research on homeopathy’?

          • T-500

            Share the definition of “rigourous and compelling evidence”, Ernst.

    • Mike Stevens

      This is merely an alternative version of the Magic Carpet fallacy, Dana.
      In this case, it is: “I once saw a silk thread floating in the breeze, ….therefore Magic Carpets can fly!”

  • Suprajit Biswas

    The efficacy of Homoeopathy, in my opinion, is beyond doubt. There are many who have undergone its treatment may confirm it. The research should be undertaken how this happens. How does the diluted solution that, according to Avogadro’s hypothesis,contains hardly any particle of the remedial substance work so miraculously? One who is sceptical may use some remedies such as Sulphur, Nuxvomica, Arsenicum album, arnica or Lycopodium etc in higher potency and experience whether these are placebos. Not everyone of the billions of users is gullible and critiquesare that rational. Sometimes “silence speaks louder”.

    • It’s easy, really: just provide good evidence…

      • T-500

        Share the definitive and testable definition of good evidence. No more tricks, no more fallacies of move the goal posts.

        • Not necessary – more than happy to look at whatever evidence you believe is the most compelling.

          • T-500

            Provide the exactly, precise and objective definition of “most compelling evidence”.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for you than it already is by limiting your available options: just present the evidence so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. No more delays. If you can’t provide any or are unwilling to, that’s OK: please just says so.

          • T-500

            Share the objective definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

          • As I said, I’m open to looking at whatever you think you have. I can wait.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence. No more tricks Alan.

          • Mike Stevens

            How about you just come up with evidence that is the most convincing to you?
            I would say that for me, the most compelling evidence would be that which is based upon a rational hypothesis, examined using appropriate methodology and statistical analysis, which comes up with robust conclusions that accurately reflect the findings of the study, and that the evidence should be published in a scientific journal that uses appropriate peer review, and that the evidence has ideally been replicated, confirming its validity. It helps if relevant conflicts of interest among the researchers is absent.
            Go for it.

          • Renè

            Still beating your boyfriend Mike?

          • Mike Stevens

            Those gerbils still gnawing at your rectal polyp, Rene?

          • Renè

            No. I moved-up to small bunnies.

            So Mike, what is your undergrad degree in?

          • Mike Stevens

            “…undergrad degree” is a contradiction in terms.
            In the UK, we do A levels at the end of our secondary school education, then go to University to do a degree.

            PS: For someone so reluctant to answer questions yourself (on any topic), you seem pathologically inquisitive about my background. Haven’t your Navy pals filled you in?

          • Renè

            Because I know you’re a fraud.

            In the US, people get a degree before they go to medical school. It’s usually in biology or chemistry.

          • Because I know you’re a fraud.

            Prove it.

            In the US, people get a degree before they go to medical school. It’s usually in biology or chemistry.

            @disqus_0bT5QNRHDf:disqus has already pointed out that he’s not from the US. Your argument appears to be “we do things different here”. Pointless.

            Also, you have a blatant axe to grind against Mike. The only thing you are demonstrating by having this discussion in public is how much of a dick you are. You may want to rethink your approach there.

          • Renè

            Mike is a faker, and I know it.

          • Mike is a faker, and I know it.

            But can you prove it? If not, this is defamation.

            Now, a statement like “@Escobar314:disqus is a dick. I present their comments to @disqus_0bT5QNRHDf:disqus in this tread as proof” wouldn’t be defamation. It would be an opinion backed by the evidence that caused the person to reach the conclusion.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Mike is a faker, and I know it.”

            You don’t seem to know much though, do you Rene?

          • Renè

            Mike, you’ve make 3 bone-headed math errors and you’re telling me that you are a fellow in the Royal College of Physicians?

            Whatever Mike. I don’t believe you.

          • Mike Stevens

            You don’t need higher maths to do a medical degree, Rene.
            (And your math skills are no better than mine)
            So why haven’t you qualified as a doctor, Rene… didn’t you make the grades?

          • Renè

            You don’t need higher maths to do a medical degree, Rene.

            Those weren’t higher math errors Mike.

          • Mike Stevens

            What errors, Rene?
            I recall only one, which was matched by your own blooper.

          • Renè

            No, you said the LD₅₀ of thimerosal represented 9% of the rats body weight.

            And there was another I cannot quite think of right now….

          • How does this relate to Homeopathy and Charlie’s cows?

          • Mike Stevens

            What’s your degree in, Rene?
            Do they require one for burger flipping at Mackie Dee’s?

          • Renè

            I wouldn’t know Mike. Do you?

            You obviously suck at math. You probably still draw with with crayons using a kung-fu fist-like grip.

            And you arrogantly bully people and pretend to be a physician.

            Well, if you are a physician, then they obviously don’t have very high standards.

          • Mike Stevens

            “You obviously suck at math”
            Says the person who calculated the LD50 for thimerosal as being 18 times the dose in a vaccine, when it was 18,000 times that.

          • Renè

            And you calculated it to be 5 million!

            At least my error was a simple metric x10³ error. Your’s came out of left field!

          • Mike Stevens

            I made a single decimal space error with a 25x multiplier as I realised it was about dose per vaccine (25) and not per microgram. This I immediately corrected.
            You on the other hand were 3 orders of magnitude out with your calculation.
            If my math sucks, yours stinks to high heaven, you hypocrite.

          • Renè

            LOL. What about your other two blatant errors Mike?

            You said that the LD₅₀ of thimerosal represented 9% of the rats body weight. That was way off!

          • ciaparker2

            I LOVE your avatar! It’s deeply stirring to see it!

          • Mike Stevens

            🙂

          • ciaparker2

            I would if I could. I’ve looked at the purported instructions online and wasn’t able to figure it out. Can you tell me? It can’t be hard.

          • Mike Stevens

            Find a picture you want as your avatar. Save it to your hard drive in a folder where you can find it again.
            Go to your disqus profile, and select edit profile from the setting dropdown menu at top right.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e00531dd4d4e011d544b1782d9d02d16e26f11c7a8daeb32f0900c9c5f1563b0.jpg

            Go to the avatar menu and select “upload from computer” from the avatar dropdown menu.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7fbc7ca039739b65571d2de5aca51118dba32ac24c8511cb1046e2d7353b90ea.jpg
            Click on “Browse”, and navigate to the folder storing your new avatar pic. Double click on it, and it should be uploaded. Press “Save” at the bottom of the page, and … voila!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/589a0de7bb4438d1fc6ebfa91bb1a803eb08ce165d88d4a7d312bff39babdf72.jpg

          • ciaparker2

            Je vous remercie infiniment pour votre aide! I’ll try tomorrow, I’ve been translating and need to go fix supper now. Capello almond flour lasagne, which is expensive, but SCDiet-safe and absolutely delicious! I emailed your instructions to myself, just in case they get taken down from here. Thank you! Cool! If I can do it, I’ll be able to change my avatar just like everyone else. If I can’t, I’ll ask my daughter’s sponsor when she comes for C’s confirmation, I’m sure she can figure it out.

          • Mike Stevens

            Of course, choose a suitable pic!!!

          • ciaparker2

            Check it out!!! Thanks so much!!!

          • Oooh…pretty pic, Cia.

          • Mike Stevens

            🙂

          • Learnt that other countries exist yet?

          • Renè

            Still beating Dalmatian puppies with baseball bats?

          • Learnt how shill gambits work yet?

          • Renè

            Learn how to tie your shoes yet?

            Or are you still wearing your Mr. Rodgers type velcro loafers (with a granny-sweater to match)?

          • Irrelevant.

          • I’m going to make the most generous assumption here and pretend that the U.S. part is supposed to be evidence.

            So let me see if I have got your contention right:

            You know that Mike, a British as in not American doctor working in Scotland, UK as in not a state in America, not anywhere in America had an education that was set up in a way that’s …. not American but rather British.

            To the rest of the 6 billion and 500, thousand or so people on the planet, that’s just common sense.

          • T-500

            ” and that the evidence has ideally been replicated, confirming its validity.”

            Then, the overwhelming vast majority of “science” is, in the real life, simply pseudoscience:

            http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

            Quote:
            More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature’s survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.
            End of Quote

            Nature survey only detect in 1,576 emeritous researchers. Researchers need a multi national survey applied on universitires (not to Randi believers, please).

            Probably, some parapsychological research is most rigurous and reproducible than “premium” areas of science.

            What is the empirical evidence of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

            Please, stop to link pseudo skeptical links or shit blog’s as “Rational Wiki”, Illegal charities as “Nightingal Collaboration”, or Pharma Monsanto shills as “American Council on Science and Health”, “Science Based Medicine”, “Genetic Literacy”, “Meyerside Skeptics”. Provide the papers published in a scientific journal not fake journals as “Scientific Review on Alternative Medicine” or “Philo journal” or popular magazine$$$ as “Skeptikal Inquiter”, “Skeptic”.

          • It’s OK, T-500. I can be patient: just provide your evidence in your own good time.

          • T-500

            Yes, videos from Randi are Not Scientific evidence. The Hierarchy are valid only in medicine, not in physics. Provide serious dedunk of this paper:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466617300236

          • T-500

            I like your propaganda:

            Quote:
            NHMRC did not consider any of these types of evidence: laboratory studies; studies in animal
            End of Quote.

            https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Executive-Summary-to-Ombudsman-Complaint-re-NHMRC-Homeopathy-Review-FINAL.pdf
            Sorry,

          • T-500

            Fake webs as:

            Edzardernst.com
            Instituteofideas
            Genetic Literacy
            Science 2.0
            Sciencebasedmedicine
            CSICOP.com
            GWUP.com
            Cfi.com
            senseaboutscience.com
            scilogs.com

            Are not evidence.

          • Of course it isn’t evidence. It is merely a hierarchy of evidence.

          • T-500

            Web fan pages from false skeptics are not part of hierarchy of evidence.

    • edzard ernst

      luckily, we have given up opinion-based medicine about 150 years ago.

      • UK Homeopathy Regs

        I know that you mean something different but it is it is very interesting different doctors can come with with different diagnoses presents with the same case. It’s a very different discussion though.

    • UK Homeopathy Regs

      Billions? I very much doubt that.

      • Suprajit Biswas

        If it is tens of millions, does the gist alter?

        • edzard ernst

          no! because the appeal to popularity is nothing more than a fallacy!

          • T-500

            Mesmerism was abandoned steadily, homeopathy not. Stop with your arbitrary excuses.

        • UK Homeopathy Regs

          Yes it does. Exaggeration of numbers in support of homeopathy weakens any argument that might be made in favour of it. For example, UK homeopathy claims 15% of the population use homeopathy on the basis of a very weak survey yet better surveys show it around the 1% level.

          • Suprajit Biswas

            There are many other countries than UK in the world and its population forms a tiny fraction of the total population. It has one of the developed economy too.

          • @suprajitbiswas:disqus, please reread what @UK Homeopathy Regs:disqus actually said. Forget the country named and look for the reasoning in the comment. As it stands, you have missed the point being made.

    • The efficacy of Homoeopathy, in my opinion, is beyond doubt.

      Your opinion doesn’t match the best research we have on it at the moment.

      • T-500

        Provide the “best research”.

  • UK Homeopathy Regs

    Whilst the over use of antibiotics is undoubtedly a problem, it’s driven by big agribusiness and consumer demand for cheap food animal products. The use of antibiotics as “growth promoters” was banned by the EU back in 2006. The US banned in only this year. There are still some countries that still permit this but Big Ears is out of touch stating that antibiotics are given to healthy animals. Even prophylatic use on a herd that contains diseased animals is strongly discouraged.

    Over use of antibiotics is an animal welfare issue. It leads to antibiotic resistance and many animals become unnecessarily ill. However, the reverse is also true. Not administering antibiotics to a diseased animal and depending on homeopathy as a first line treatment can prolong suffering and result in otherwise avoidable death. Organic and biodynamic products command a premium but certification places limitations on treatment. The Demeter certification, for example, prohibits vaccination of animals unless it is mandated by law.

    Organic farming is still a business, except, perhaps if you are a hobby farmer like Big Ears.

    • T-500

      Legal charities of pseudo skeptics “UK homeopathy regs”. Is another fake name of the legal industrial business firms?

      Sorry guy…

      Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses

      https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/123/6/ehp.1409149.alt.pdf

      • UK Homeopathy Regs

        Your lack of language comprehension skills is very clear.

        • T-500

          Another example of ghost pseudo skeptic that post anonymous blog with the (i)legal and monopolic charities behind the monopolies as “ASA” or “Good Thinking Society” of “Genetic Literacy”, allowing the legal threats. And they call the arguments a “legal truth” or “science based medicine”.

          • UK Homeopathy Regs

            What are you actually trying to say? Your response to my post indicated that you either did not read it or did not understand what it said.

          • T-500

            I have read your comment troll.

          • UK Homeopathy Regs

            ad hominem tu quoque.

          • T-500

            What does mean “ad hominem tu quoque”?

          • Here’s a trick. Highlight the words that are confusing to you, right click and select your search option. Odds are *really* good that you’ll get a fair answer. Any idiot could do this. Try it in future rather than asking for others to define amazingly common words for you.

            In this case: argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

            All of these things are things that you are guilty of. The response from @ukhomeopathyregs:disqus is a fair call.

            A good example of when it would be appropriate to ask what the poster means is when their words, when searched for, return nothing useful. As an example…

            Highlight “What does mean” in your comment above. Right click and throw it at a search engine. You’ll see that none of the results are actually helpful. You can even edit the string and wrap it in quotes to get more specific for the confusing phrase. Give it a go now. You will see that the results will change but again, nothing that really relates to the conversation here.

            So, given the example above, and our double checking of the words and phrase…

            What does “What does mean” mean?

            In your own words; Share the definition, no more tricks troll.

          • T-500

            Provide evidence of the ad-hominem fallacy in my comment Gold.

            Yes, in my own words. Share the defintion of “objective and compelling evidence”. Why do you not share an objective definition?

          • Mike Stevens

            I see. So you did not understand it then.

  • Odd that the comment by Philippa Lyon seems to have disappeared.

    Anyway, she said, inter alia:

    “A good western diet is still about 30% malnourished so would benefit from homeopathy although better from an improved diet.”

    Really? Evidence, please.

    • Butterfingers

      Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      Q: Where is the evidence?
      A: it’s out there, go and have a look yourself. FFS

  • Louise Mclean

    Lots of farms are using homeopathy for their animals. It works very well on for animals. Much better than giving them antibiotics, going into our food supply.

    • edzard ernst

      why don’t you show us some evidence then? In my article, I included the currently best evidence, please do the same.

      • T-500

        Yes, you include the “best evidence”. The paper is very curious, it shows the lack of efficacy of antibiotics in veterinary.

    • Louise Mclean said:

      “It works very well on for animals.”

      As a homeopath, you’ll be able to provide the evidence for that claim, won’t you?

      • T-500

        Share the “good evidence” definition.

        • I’ll take a look at whatever study she believes is the best… No point in limiting her options.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of good evidence, no more tricks, no more goal posts.

          • There’s no point in me making life even more difficult for her than it already is by limiting her available options: just present the evidence so we can all look at it and see just how good it is. No more delays. If she can’t provide any or is unwilling to, that’s OK…

          • @AlanHenness:disqus, there’s no point responding to the anonymous troll. Even if you did give a suitable answer they wouldn’t accept it. They’d just ask you define some other word you used or dismiss it with some diversion or a blatant lack of understanding of a basic aspect of the language.

            T-500 is literally not worth the effort any more. They are more than capable of trashing their own position just by posting it.

        • edzard ernst
          • T-500

            I read it. The authors contradict your dicothomic thinking.

            Quote:
            “Results were classified as ‘inconclusive’, when the level of efficacy did not differ significantly between the homeopathic group and the group employing antibiotics (without a further control group as placebo or untreated), when the values of particular parameters improved while others deteriorated or when the authors did not provide a clear result.”

          • T-500

            The paper of Veterinary Record is interesting. Why the research do not conduct a meta-analysis? The paper appear the political propaganda against the European Commission Regulation (see the Introduction for more details). The paper overwhelming shown the vast majority of RCT in veterinary homeopathy are positive! (26 positive vs 22 not, lack of correlation between quality and specific effect).

            Let’s take a litte tour in the alternative world of pseudo skeptics!

            http://edzardernst.com/2017

            Quote from Ernst: “One does not need to look far to find that these figures are clearly not correct! To disclose the ‘mistake’, we do not even need to study any of the 104 RCTs in question, we only need to straighten out the BHA’s ‘accounting error’ and ask: what on earth is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT?”

            See the paper on verterinary record and What Pseudo skeptics Don’t Tell You!

            “Results were classified as ‘inconclusive’, when the level of efficacy did not differ significantly between the homeopathic group and the group employing antibiotics (without a further control group as placebo or untreated), when the values of particular parameters improved while others deteriorated or when the authors did not provide a clear result.”

            Surprise, the results cannot be generalized to “debunk” all homeopathy. And, if homeopathy in veterinary is only placebo effect, probably the overwhelming “anti biotics” are hamrful and magic pills without specif effect!

          • edzard ernst

            “Why the research do not conduct a meta-analysis? ”
            because the preconditions for this were not met.

    • lolexplosm

      And yet the BVA doesn’t endorse homeopathy because it has no proven efficacy.

      Antibiotics don’t really go into our food supply because there are withdrawal periods for all medicines.

    • edzard ernst
  • T-500

    I like the auto-promotion of pseudo skeptic bussiness in the mass (garbage) media. In all “interviews”, Ernst force the marketing of his poorly document book. I have read this book, incredibily the fallacies, contradictions and the lack of support of evidence is the watermark of house of pseudoskeptics!
    Let’s see an examples!
    I want mark with bold letters the fallacies of Ernst

    Example of ad-authoritas (Example: if the dominant physics do not accept the facts that contradicts the theory, then the dominant psysics will say the true!)

    –>”There are several plausible explanations as to the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Currently, there are several theories about the mode of action, but none of them has been generally accepted outside the realm of homeopathy.” (page 15)

    Example of the Creationist fallacy (Example: Darwin theory is only a theory!)

    –>“For instance, some experiments have suggested that water molecules can, in fact, form structures which might preserve the memory of the substances previously contained in that water. Other homeopaths believe that, during the process of succussion, tiny particles, called nanoparticles, are formed, which in turn explain the health effects of highly diluted remedies. Others again think that hormesis—the phenomenon that, at very low doses, some toxins can have the opposite effects from those at high doses—could provide a scientific explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action. Unfortunately, all of these theories have one very obvious thing in common: they are just theories! As such they are shared by some but not by the majority of scientists, and a scientific consensus as to how homeopathy works simply does not exist at the moment. In fact, if we are close to a consensus, it would be that there is no explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action (other than a placebo effect) which would be in keeping with the known laws of nature.”

    Compare the sentence of Chickramane et al paper, Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A
    Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation:

    “On the basis of the results from our experiments, we have unequivocally shown that nanoparticles can be concentrated on the liquid surface in a manner similar to the traditional froth-flotation process used in the metal ore purification of larger particles”

    Another paper, Embryonic Zebrafish Model – A Well-Established Method for Rapidly Assessing the Toxicity of Homeopathic Drugs, confirm the fact of ITT team:

    “presence of NPs and conglomerates in all three homeopathic medicines at both dilutions. We also observed diversity in the shapes and the sizes of the NPs in the various medicines analyzed as well as in their different potencies.”

    Only empirical facts!

    • Ieva Zagante

      Yes, form structures that disintegrate in a blink of an eye (actually faster). And that is the problem with the other theories (or maybe Mr. Ernst should have used hypotheses): they have to be accepted (or rejected), because they cannot be convincingly confirmed.
      By the way, have you thought why homeopaths themselves do not agree on the mechanisms of action? Seems they have no idea.
      But OK, Science is developing people are learning new things and patients are interested in whether it works and against which diseases. And new problem: so many homeopaths cannot decide whether they are treating patient or disease…. I do not mean Boiron. I mean claims about infections, diabetes (both Type I and II, although many pushers do not seem to know the difference) and, of course cancer (again it does not seem that at least vociferous homeopaths have any idea. Although quiet are also promising to cure diseases that are found in the ICD-10.

        • T-500

          Please Gold, I have read full paper of Dr. Cowan, they do not use a potentized solution. This is a true study with homeopathic potencies: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215312277

          • This paper isn’t *about* homeopathy.

          • T-500

            Yes, this paper is not about homeopathy, is irrelevant. Please Gold, point out the page of Nature paper when the Dr. Cowan wrote about of homeopathic potency.

      • T-500

        Why medical doctors themselves do not agree on the mechanism of action of aspirin?

        “, form structures that disintegrate in a blink of an eye (actually faster)”

        Sure?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24439454

        • Why medical doctors themselves do not agree on the mechanism of action of aspirin?

          You’re an idiot.

          1. We don’t need to know how a thing works to know that a thing works.
          2. We know how aspirin works.

          Regarding point 1. We know that homeopathy doesn’t work.

          • Ron Roy

            We know that homeopathy doesn’t work. No you don’t.

          • @disqus_ruSIKtVC0i:disqus : We know that homeopathy doesn’t work. No you don’t.

            Wait… You’re saying that *You* know that homeopath doesn’t work and *I* don’t? The grammar there is pretty awful, But I think that’s the closest thing that is reasonable to parse from that.

            The science is fairly settled on this point. How can you and I have the same opinion and one of us be right and the other wrong?

            Cognitive dissonance is a skill you must wield with expertise.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sure. Every day you and everyone else ingests all sorts of water which is impossible to differentiate experimentally from homeopathic water. 🙂

          • FallsAngel

            That has crossed my mind as well!

          • T-500

            “You’re an idiot.”

            Typical violence from pseudo skeptics.

            ” We don’t need to know how a thing works to know that a thing works. 2. We know how aspirin works.”

            Doctor Google in your help?
            Worst, Pathetic and shill. See the first link:

            http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-does-aspirin-actually-work-1704823578

            Quote:
            Aspirin is probably the most well known pain killer. It was derived from willow and birch bark, and works by blocking a certain enzyme. Cyclooxygenase-2 is basically an alarm be
            End of Quote.

            This is not the how. This is the effects. You’re an fool.

  • T-500

    The paper of Veterinary Record is interesting. Why the research do not conduct a meta-analysis? The paper appear the political propaganda against the European Commission Regulation (see the Introduction for more details). The paper overwhelming shown the vast majority of RCT in veterinary homeopathy are positive! (26 positive vs 22 not, lack of correlation between quality and specific effect).

    Let’s take a litte tour in the alternative world of pseudo skeptics!

    http://edzardernst.com/2017/02/the-growing-body-of-positive-evidence-for-homeopathy-in-your-dreams/

    Quote from Ernst: “One does not need to look far to find that these figures are clearly not correct! To disclose the ‘mistake’, we do not even need to study any of the 104 RCTs in question, we only need to straighten out the BHA’s ‘accounting error’ and ask: what on earth is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT?

    See the paper on verterinary record and What Pseudo skeptics Don’t Tell You!

    “Results were classified as ‘inconclusive’, when the level of efficacy did not differ significantly between the homeopathic group and the group employing antibiotics (without a further control group as placebo or untreated), when the values of particular parameters improved while others deteriorated or when the authors did not provide a clear result.”

    Surprise, the results cannot be generalized to “debunk” all homeopathy. And, if homeopathy in veterinary is only placebo effect, probably the overwhelming “anti biotics” are hamrful and magic pills without specif effect!

  • Suprajit Biswas

    There is a range of frequencies that are audible to the human beings; this does not imply that there is no frequency outside it. Similarly, one can not infer so simply that something does not exist owing to one’s ignorance.

    • And science is what demonstrated there were frequencies beyond our audible range.

      Just like science has demonstrated that homeopathy doesn’t actually work. The question of “how” it supposedly works doesn’t need to be explored.

      • T-500

        Sciende has not demostradte that homeopathy doesn’t actually work. Share the links with “good” and “compelling” evidence, and objective definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

        • It’s homeopathy’s job to demonstrate that homeopathy works.

          • T-500

            If homeopaths make a trials, pseudoskeptics began with “fraud, quackery”. Provide evidence of fraud.

          • The fact we’re having this argument over a computer?

          • T-500

            Unsense.

      • Suprajit Biswas

        Hopefully we have not reached the tail end of scientific knowledge. The word science consists of a vast sphere which can’t be limited by some unscientific axiomatic opinions. May be in the future the mystery of its workings will be resolved as have been in numerous instances earlier through ages.

        • In the immortal words of Dara Ó Briain: “Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

          Homeopathy is one of those fairy tales.

          • Suprajit Biswas

            Fairytales turns reality as times pass by. And how can you infer its a fairytale? I am not a professional but I have seen its efficacy many times. In many cases it has yielded better results than other much used branch of treatment. One my near one had to take periodically some medicines for years for the treatment of food allergy but after being homeopathically treated it is no more needed to take medicines. Once for abscess I was prescribed antibiotics but cure was not total and permanent, it resurfaced sooner at an adjacent place; but homoeopathy cured it fully and permanently. I met with an accident a couple of months ago spaining my left ankle and homoeopathy did a great job recuperating it while pain killers failed to give any relief. There are more instances.

          • It’s called an anecdote. An unverified and unverifiable anecdote.

          • Suprajit Biswas

            It is called the omniscience. It is an act like omniscience. These are all pervading knowledgeable persons. But I can’t make out what harm has homoeopathy done to them. It seems they have hardly undergone homoeopathic treatment ever but they have all the right to persuade people not to use it. No more time to discuss with these “omniscient” persons. Thanks.

          • LOL!

          • Please can you explain what bearing having used/not used homeopathy has on the fact or falsity of the claims?

          • T-500

            An unverified anecdote as “massive overdoses”?

          • Has Goldilocks happened yet?

          • I’m hanging out for Peter Pan to be a thing. Being able to fly like that… That’d be cool 🙂

          • Fairytales turns reality as times pass by. And how can you infer its a fairytale?

            I infer that based on the tiny number of very vocal people supporting it despite the massive amount of good quality evidence that demonstrates it doesn’t work any better than a similarly administered placebo.

            I am not a professional but I have seen its efficacy many times.

            I’m not a professional either. I can also accept that what I think I see is not necessarily the truth of the situation. For this reason I concede my position on things, like the nature of homeopathy, to the professionals. i.e. the people that know how to do effective research. The people that understand the concept and application of the scientific method. The people that are experts.professionals in their very well established fields (physics, chemistry and biology)

      • Ron Roy

        You mean the science that’s bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies? You know the science/studies that are conducted in such a way that they have a predetermined result. That ” science ”?

          • Planet Vague

            I saw this go up two hours ago, now it has four likes.
            This article is a week old!

            Are you (that’s singular) all activists ?

          • Planet…

            What is disqus-reccomend?
            What is disqus-follower?

            Are they random selections?

          • Planet Vague

            Wowsers! Quite a lot of unthinking nutjobs following you there. How do you cope, I couldn’t …

          • You do know that a kneejerk reaction of authority is no more thinking for yourself than a kneejerk reaction of following authority, right

          • Planet Vague

            I’ll appeal to your authority now: loved that pyramid sketch, (dude!). Standard first year CRA stuff.

          • @planetvague:disqus, some of us are pro-science, others are pro-alt-med/pro-homeopathy/anti-science.

          • T-500

            False dilemma falacy.

          • T-500

            4 fake “activists” = vested interestes with CSICOP fake organization.

        • Jonathan Graham

          studies that are conducted in such a way that they have a predetermined result

          Except that many studies have counter-intuitive results and many that are contrary to popular beliefs.

          • Ron Roy

            BULL!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Cancer drugs only have a 4.7% chance of making it to approval[1]. Ergo all pharmaceutical science does not have a pre-determined outcome. Have you ever considered actually researching your position before you claim it?

            [1]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success-idUSTRE71D2U920110214

          • Hey! @skeptistics:disqus, that’s hardly fair. Using evidence and facts like that.

            You’ll do serious mental harm to @disqus_ruSIKtVC0i:disqus now that they have to perform even more mental gymnastics to maintain their cognitive bias.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ron already doesn’t believe in germ theory but yet believes in some mystical hokey-pokey that homeopaths use to turn ordinary water into magic water.

            I’m really not sure if I could actually make him less rational.

          • Seriously? Doesn’t believe in germ theory? I hope he doesn’t do anything that involves interacting with people for a living.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well he has multiple times claimed that if he were to inject rabies/ebola or any other virus into his body he would survive due to his superior nutrition. That said he’s spent infinitely more energy making those claims than actually trying to demonstrate this point.

          • LOL! That’s a sad case to make.

            It gives a new perspective on @disqus_ruSIKtVC0i:disqus too. Crazy guy.

          • Ron Roy

            Speaking of crazy have you looked in a mirror lately?

          • Yes. I look tired and worn out. But that’s due to personal life things and I know it will pass when the current project is done.

            Have you read your disqus comment thread lately?

          • Renè

            But that’s due to personal life things and I know it will pass when the current project is done.

            I clicked on you link. You’re building a gerbil launcher? LOL. Wierdo.

          • Ron Roy

            WOW 8 shill all working the same shift.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ron Roy: The Boy Who Cried “Shill”.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re probably too young to have seen “Fractured Fairy Tales” on Rocky and Bullwinkle.

            Your suggestion would make a great episode, though! “The Boy Who Cried ‘Shill'”, starring Ron Roy as the Little Engine Who Couldn’t…

          • Jonathan Graham

            Rocky and Bullwinkle was on the air well into the 70’s in my area. So I did watch it and I do remember “Fractured Fairy Tales”. 🙂

          • Ron Roy

            Ron Roy as the Little Engine Who Couldn’t.Stuttering problem? If your going to repeat something get it right: It’s Ron Roy, the Little Engine Who Could.
            FTFY

          • JoeFarmer

            Your reading comprehension is as poor as ever, Ron.

            You are Ron Roy, the Little Engine who Couldn’t.

            Have a grown-up read the line above to you. Or a six year-old.

          • Ron Roy

            It’s fun to see all you shills talking to one another because nobody else give a rats ass. Well maybe me a little I enjoy tormenting you. Well back to Facebook were I and others like me do make a difference.

          • Jonathan Graham

            because nobody else give a rats ass

            Except you. You’re pretty steamed that we are talking about how silly and anti-intellectual you are. Which is why you’re replying. 🙂

            Well back to Facebook

            This kitchen is too hot for you. I understand. 🙂

          • JoeFarmer

            So you really do enjoy being Ron Roy, the Little Engine Who Couldn’t!

          • Ron Roy

            And those that are approved still don’t work lol:The cancer drug success rate was a mere 4.7
            percent, with cardiovascular drugs second-worst at 5.7 percent, as
            regulators are increasingly demanding proof that heart drugs reduce
            heart attacks and strokes rather than just lower a risk factor, such as
            cholesterol levels.

          • Jonathan Graham

            And those that are approved still don’t work

            …so you agree that your premise that all science published in journals and used in safety study has outcomes that are predetermined is false. Thanks.

          • Ron Roy

            Don’t agree with you at all Pasty.

          • Jonathan Graham

            However you’ve already admitted that you do agree. Since you agree that less than 10% of cancer drugs get approval. Right? Or are you claiming that actually EVERY drug gets approved? If some don’t get approved that means the science can’t have a predetermined outcome.

          • Ron Roy

            Since no cancer drug works I’ll admit getting any of them approve is a problem for your employers however that doesn’t apply to all the other poisons they put out.

          • Jonathan Graham

            So you agree that the science isn’t predetermined for the vast majority of cancer drugs?

          • Ron Roy

            How can you predetermine efficacy when NONE of them do work?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ron did you forget your own argument? You’re claiming that the outcomes of the SCIENCE is pre-determined. i.e. Studies that have to do with vaccine safety show they are safe even though they aren’t. Thus in the same way you believe that no cancer drugs are effective. Then you believe that 95% of the studies didn’t have pre-determined positive outcomes.

            Ergo the vast majority of published science is not pre-determined. QED

        • Yeah… That’s bullshit.

          The alt-med industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. They’re not exactly short of cash to fund the research themselves.

          You’re argument is pathetic.

          • Ron Roy

            ” The global prescription pharmaceuticals market was estimated to be USD 1,114 billion in 2015.”https://igeahub.com/2016/05/06/top-10-pharmaceutical-companies-2016/ Now add to that to the profits from over the counter medications and compare that to the income from alternative medicine, which by the way includes vitamin, mineral, bodybuilding supplements etc., of 34 billion dollars then tell me who has the most influence on all our government agencies, medical schools, and all the publications they advertise in. And those figures are from only the top ten drug companies.

          • So? All that shows is relative popularity and acceptance of one market over the other.

            Popularity and acceptance are typically the arguments that the anti-science present for the validity of their case. From that point of view the argument *for* homeopathy working has just been crushed into an extremely fine powder.

            But you won’t find the pro-science side arguing that because it’s a fallacious point to hold.

            Anyway, that’s not what we’re talking about. Regardless of the size of the respective markets the tiny little one you are backing is still a multi-billion dollar industry and has more than enough money to fund the testing themselves.

            You’re point is rejected.

    • UK Homeopathy Regs

      How do you get past the consultation problem? Picking the right remedy must be very difficult when the patient can’t describe very specific symptoms.

      • T-500

        Welcome to the world of subjective symptoms in alopathic medicine. Share the quantification of all type of humans symtoms. Provide the evidence.

        • Mike Stevens

          “Welcome to the world of subjective symptoms in alopathic medicine.”
          Subjective symptoms”?
          Snort.

          In what you disdainfully term “alopathy”[sic], we go on to perform a rigorous physical examination to explore the context of those symptoms, and back this with laboratory and other diagnostic investigations before determining the likeliest diagnosis and determining the most effective therapy.

          Homeopaths OTOH, just take those same “subjective symptoms”, arrive at a completely unwarranted conclusion they pluck out of thin air and prescribe some magic water and fairy dust pillules.

          Madness, and certainly unscientific and likely to be of no benefit (unless they elaborate the ritual to enhance what little placebo effect they may glean from the process)

          • T-500

            Medical doctors (not homeopaths) take in count subjective symptoms. You live in another world.

          • T-500

            Medical homeopathy take in accout objective and subjective symptoms.

          • “Medical homeopathy” is an oxymoron.

          • T-500

            PsduoSkeptic and ethical is an oxymoron. Medical homeopathy is a reality.

        • Obviously. Symptoms, by definition, are subjective evidence of disease. Do you know what the word for objective evidence of a disease is? SIGNS.

          • T-500

            Yes, however, symptoms are not Signs. All good physician will check symptoms and signs. Objcetive evidence of homeopathic drugs in signs existe.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121151730060X

          • Obviously. Symptoms, objective evidence of a disease, are obviously not the same thing as signs, the subjective evidence. Though, obviously,a good physical will check both.

            Evidence must be weighed, not merely counted.

          • T-500

            -Share the objetive meditions of ALL human symptoms in a disease. Provide the paper.
            -Evidence is evidence, not phamplets of Ernst.

          • Doesn’t exist.

          • T-500

            Thank you, I love your response.

    • So basically, it works wonders in treating self-limiting conditions but is no use for cases that need actual treatment?

      I wonder why…

  • T-500

    Alan Henness, CISCOP and Genetic Literacy team will need a good lawyers for their criminal acts against the humanity!

    44586 people around the world
    http://www.monsanto-tribunal.org/

    Independent Brazilian scientist share the points!

    http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17483-the-750-studies-that-gmo-regulatory-bodies-often-ignore

    Pro GMO and anti homeopathy lobbist Alexander panchin was fired!

    Stay tuned for more news in UK and USA, Ernst! You need a great help, money and support from the fake agencies!

    • What’s any of that got to do with anything? More diversions?

      • T-500

        Yes, more diversions for you and the fake Marshall “independent” campaigns. Stay tuned for more surprises, Alan!

        • It’s OK, T-500. I can be patient. Just provide your evidence in your own good time.

          • Butterfingers

            Arrrrrghhhhh! Go and pay for the seven year, four phase clinical trial study employing only certified CROs and expensive nice vets yourself! ARRGGGHHHH?!

            See what I did there?

          • Isaiah

            you told him to get a life?

          • T-500 regularly claims this shit works. That the evidence is already out there. Yet consistently fails to present it.

            Oh, yeah, they’re also a dick about it. Worst ability at making logical connections that I’ve seen in a long time. They’re incoherent much of the time. Their ability to maintain a line of reasoning or thought is of a Trumpian scale.

          • T-500

            “Shit”?

            Typical emotional tone from pseudo skeptics.
            Gold/Unifex never post any “good evidence” definition or the “overwhelming negative studies”. Provide the document of this overwhelming negative studies.

          • T-500

            Provide the definition of “good and compelling” evidence. Nor more tricks. No moret goal post fallacy.

          • As I said, I’m prepared to look at whatever piece of evidence you want to provide – with an offer like that, what are you afraid of? I’m still waiting.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            Pay for it.

          • Who pay for what?

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            You must pay for it.

          • You’re not helping. Who must pay for what? Pay for evidence? Me? Why?

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            You demanded proof. Do keep up.

          • Butterfingers

            I don’t think these guys understand English, it’s definitely not their first language.

            Are they all commies from Russia? That Gold guy looks Mongolian.

          • LOL!

            The burden of justifying claims with evidence lies with those who make the claims, not those asking. As for paying for it, that’s not my problem either: perhaps those who profit from homeopathy should pay? But if you think more evidence is needed, why are they currently making those claims?

          • Tetenterre

            You seem to think that, simply because those who tout this species of pseudomedicine do so despite the simple fact that there is no replicated robust evidence that they are distinguishable from placebo, that those who point out this deception must pay to have the stuff tested.

            Yeah, right.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            I don’t think that, no.
            Next.

          • Tetenterre

            So why the hell are you telling Alan that he must pay for the evidence that you are spectacularly unable to provide?

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            Any five year old would know the answer to your question which is that he asked for it, about twenty times on this blog under different guises, probably a million times in total. Clear evidence of clinical levels of depression.

          • Tetenterre

            Congratulations! You must be very proud to be able to flaunt your total mastery of the ignoble art of the disingenuous non-sequitur.

            (Clue: Which bit of “The onus is on those making claims for the efficacy of homeopathy” are you pretending not to understand?)

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            What claims have I made, son?

          • Tetenterre

            You may need hone your basic comprehension skills: nowhere did I assert that you have made any claims. The simple pertinent point here is that the person you say must pay has not made claims of efficacy for any form of pseudomedicine. But then, you already knew that, didn’t you?

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            I already knew that you are going to pay for getting the answers you desire, son. Do keep up.

          • Tetenterre

            You wrote: “I already knew that you are going to pay for getting the answers you desire, son.”

            Try to pay attention this time:
            #1. When it comes to the efficacy of pseudomedicine I already have all the “answers” I “desire” in Sagan’s dictum (aka Hitchens’s razor). You may need to look it up. GIYF.
            #2. I am not going to pay for what I already have.
            #3. As I am not going to pay for it, you cannot possibly know that I am going to pay for it. (Have you ever considered making truthful assertions?)

            If you can’t follow that, I’m done; normally I’d try and simplify it further for you, but I’m all out of puppets and crayons.

            “Do keep up.”
            Damn! There goes another irony meter!

            Edit: Just noticed the date. OK, you got me there; first April Fool prank to get me for a few years. Oh well.

          • Can you provide evidence for your accusation of sockpuppetry?

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            Here’s some homework for you to do over the Easter break. Type the following combination of case sensitive letters :

            I A M e v i D E N S E

            Print screen
            Save as
            Select
            Set as screensaver

          • No, Hermine. Not how it works. When someone makes a claim, they make an implicit promise that they will provide the evidence. Alan is merely calling certain people out on the fact that they failed to follow through.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            And I am calling you out for not reading and/or taking into account what I have posted.

          • I am taking it into account, Hermine. That’s why I’m correcting you.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            To which I replied that you’ll need to pay for it.

            Donuts aren’t free, nor is my window cleaner, nor is ‘the evidence’ that you seek under your guidelines. Only You seek it to your guidelines, ergo You must pay for it.

          • Do you know who gets to pay intially for the R&D needed to develop a new kind of window cleaner, though?

            And please learn logic 101.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            You are trying to teach me to suck eggs again.
            My window cleaning contract went out to tender after I defined the scope of works and outcome required. The current company I employ fully met my expectations after completing with their first service, in the field not in a lab. Incidentally, homeopathy works very much the same way, when it works, it works. No matter the evidence only You seek and don’t want to pay for, as I have come to conclude, applying logic and all that.

          • 1)I’m not the same person as the other person you talked to.

            2)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

            3)You realise that already knowing this stuff makes it worse, right? Since it means you’re lying, rather than merely being ignorant.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            1) irrelevant for the purpose of this exchange

            2) Suck your own egg, Merits! Jesus.

            3) I am not lying.

            Did you find my reasoned and well argued exposé so compelling that you felt sine qua non heading down a slippery slope was the right thing for you to do?

          • 1)True. Claims stand or fall on their own merits.

            2)How is asking you a question teaching you to suck eggs?

            3)Well, you see, either you were ignorant about the burden of proof or you were lying. But you said that you knew. So…that means either you’re too dumb to know they contradict or at least one is a lie.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            1) not too dumb for you then am I

            2) on and on it goes

            3) well, you see, we know you are not qualified to discuss any scientific or medicinal matters yet you engage at great length so to speak. The subject really is something beyond your knowledge base as you find yourself cornered and restricted to screaming ‘evidence!’ as a default response to anything.

            Naturally you may be aware of the fact that any four-year-old could do the same and some stay-at-home mums will probably assert that this can be a good thing.

          • 1)Again, it wouldn’t matter.

            2)Simple question.

            3)Asking for evidence is how we know stuff works.

          • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

            1) whatever

            2) whatever

            3) you want evidence? Three… two… one… all together everybody…. then pay for it.

          • T-500

            Please Alan, share the definition of “good evidence”.

          • No, no, T-500. It’s perfectly alright – I’ve no wish to put any constraints on you that might limit your response. I have infinite patience.

          • T-500

            Share the perfect definition of “good evidence”. Why do you hot share the definition Alan?

          • I don’t mind repeating myself (yet again!) for your benefit, T-500, to help you understand: there’s no need for me to limit you in whatever you might want to share in terms of evidence… You do have some evidence, don’t you, T-500? If you don’t mind me saying, you do seem a tad reluctant to share it. Perhaps you’re not that persuaded by it yourself? Why not share it anyway and let us all see if we can help you? But if not, never mind, whatever the reason, I can wait…

          • T-500

            Alan, only share the definition of “good evidence”. I can wait your perfect definition. Post here!

          • It’s quite alright, T-500. I’m sure we’re all on tenterhooks awaiting whatever it is you believe is evidence, but there’s no rush. But if it’s a problem for you, please let us all know in case we’re able to help you post it. Is it a technical issue? I’m sure Acleron or I might be able to help you with that. Is it a language issue? We can deal with that once you’ve posted your evidence. If it’s a language I’m not familiar with, I’m sure we can find someone… Go on, give it a go…

          • T-500

            Please Alan, share your own and exclusive definition of “good evidence”.

          • The casual reader may be starting to think that – after all this time – you might not have a jot of evidence, T-500. Would they be right?

          • T-500

            Alan, share the definition of “extraordinary evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • T-500

            Why can’t pseudo-skeptics share properly, and definitive definition of “extraordinary evidence” and “good evidence”?

          • Why can’t homeopathy fans share just share their evidence? What’s the problem? Is it a secret, only for the eyes of True Believers who have been fully inducted into their Inner Circle?

          • T-500
          • LOL! If you are unwilling – or unable – to provide evidence, please just say so.

          • T-500

            If your are unable to provide a definition of “good evidence” and “extraordinary evidence”, just say yes.

            http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/781/818/5f8.gif

          • T-500

            You are unable to provide any argument, you are the pet of Alan, is evident.

          • It’s difficult to argue with your evidence if you refuse to actually provide it, T-500! What’s the hold up? Misplaced it?

          • T-500

            Alan, provide the definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

            Search “extraordinaru claims requiere extraordinary evidence”

            Results: Zero!
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=extraordinary+evidence

            I like your tactis Alan, my life is more happy!

          • T-500

            Ready with defintion of “good evidence” and “extraordinary claims”?

          • T-500

            Provide the defintion of “good and compelling evidence”.

            Why can’t pseudo skeptic believers share their definitions? What’s the problem here? Is it a secret, only for the eyes of True Randi Believers who have fully inducted ther religious circle?

          • T-500

            Chapter One: A old man without imagination
            This is the story of an Old man, his name is Alan Henness, when he worked on internet as MON-SAN-TROLL for the lucky charity Sugar About Sense.

            The director, Simon Caries Candy told: “I told them, attack ALL web forums, disqus, twitter, repeat with me “-Still no evidence of nothing believer, your papers do not prove nothing-“.

            Big Henness manages a little officine with her wife, Ms. Maria in a old bulid on UK. They are not scientist, Alan was a ex-engineer of Honey Sugar, the funny industrial machineries for happy bees. When the two haoxers work, all day, all week, all months, they monitoring newtworks.

            -“That’s a funny day”, told Alan, and he replied him: “I will open my twitter acount, I wrote a few sentences, I don’t discuss nothing, I will repeat the same”.

            Chapter two: The little and cheaper team of trolls needing control the Wikipedia editions.
            Tracey Cigarrettes Brown Color (Ms. Malboro), a sociologist and pseudolawyer, had four parents: Big uncle Ernst, Sugar Singh, Susan Garlic and Kevin Transgenic Folta. They were strong and hardworking. But they always quarrelled with one another. Sometimes, they even fought. Ernst, the farmer, wanted his sons to stop quarrelling, -“Richard R come on-, said Ernst, and fighting versus True Believers, I need a Uk pseudolawyer”.

            He wanted them to live withour regulations for Monsanto and GSK. One day, a rich merchant came to Skeptikal Land, his name is John Entine. He said to all parents of Tracey, “I have few servants in my house. One of them has stolen my $$$ of precious consumes. Please find out the thief.” So Alan went to the rich man’s house. He called all servants in a room. He gave a cell phone, tablet and PC to each one of them. Then he said, “These are magic machines. Just now all these machines are equal. Keep them with you and return tomorrow for a software review with Tim Farley. If there is a thief in the house, his Android will advice an color alert”

            “Acleron”, a poor biologist, work all week. He need a virtual friend, “Gold/Unifex is my perfect friend”, said Acleron. It was a hard worker. The twitter wind was extremely strong. Two travelers were going along a dusty road of words that had no quack along its sides. Looking for some shelter from the hot sun, they saw a forum with big supporters og homeopathy and branches spread like an umbrella. They want attack, “I need more soldiers, Alan”, said Unifex.

            Maria, uncle Ernst and grandfather David Coluqhoun said: “I can’t debunk all papers of experimental homeopathy, I need wrote a paper about of implausibility of statistics, I will publish on the Royal Society Journal, my tricks on swastistics probably serve for the evil purpose”.

            Once upon a time there was a Red Dragon that grew so old that he was unable to kill any prey for his food. So, he said to himself, “I must do something to stay my sexual depravation else I will die of virginity, I need a youg latin men”, told Randi. He kept thinking and thinking and at last an idea clicked him. He decided to lie down in the deepweb pretending to be ill and then who-so-ever will come to enquire about his health, will become his more young prey. The old Red Dragon put his wicked plan into practice and it started working. Many of his quacks got killed. But evil is short lived.

            One day, a CIA internist came to visit the ailing old Dragon. As CIA are clever by nature, the spy stood at the mouth of the cave and looked about. His sixth sense worked and he came to know the reality. So, he called out to the Red Baron from outside and said, “How are you, sir? Probably you need academic prestige (McArthur Fellow) and grant”.

            The Dragon replied, “I am not feeling well at all. But why don’t you show me a child inside?”.

            Then, the CIA worker replied, “I would love to come in, sir! But on seeing, I need more urgent work, I need a magician with nature, your tricks serve as debunking acts”.

            Chapter III: The Nightmare of Alan
            That night Alan slept in a bathroom. The bathroom was very cold with bits of bathroom paper and poo. As his brain were completely empty, Alan thought (¡a miracle!) how combat on the web, it was that the battle field had seemingly flourished Ullman seeds with Pubmed links made of scientific experiments. He, Alan, only believed this until the following morning, when a woman came on the main office…

            -¡Hi, Susan!-, told Maria.
            -¡Hi Maria, I need your husband quickly!

            That year, in the local bar, there was a new skeptic of the reality, as well as some new pupils with washing brain. One of the new kids, Acleron, was the stupidest child anyone had ever seen. It made no difference how quickly or how slowly they tried explaining evidence and experiments to him; he would always end up saying something enormously dumb as “And as usual Eggar has no evidence just increasingly vaguer claims.”, they want invent imaginary people.

            Before this boy arrived, Guy had been the most boring of all. Now they were great fun. Encouraged by the new teacher, Uncle Ernst, the children would listen to the pieces of nonsense
            spouted by the new kid, and they would have to correct his mistakes “evidence of homeopathy is not lacking, is not compelling, water memory is a theory not a fact”, replied Uncle Ernst. Uncle Ernst is not a physicist, however they believe in his flawed clinical trials debunked by Dr. Hahn and Dr. Mathie.

            See you next later!”

          • Awww. Shucks. You spent all your time making up a story about me instead of providing evidence… I’m flattered. Well, I would have been flattered if your story had any literary merit – but that seems to be as scarce as your evidence for homeopathy.

            PS I hope you don’t dream about me. That would be scary. Very scary.

          • shay simmons

            All the time T took writing that epic fantasy — but can’t be bothered answering your question.

          • T-500

            Awww, a little ponny that rejects share his definition of “good and compelling evidence”. Share these Alan, please.

          • I have no idea what a ‘ponny’ is, but never mind. As I’ve said before, there’s no point in me restricting your evidence: just provide whatever you have so we can all have a look at it…

          • T-500

            Just provide the objective definitions.

          • Awww. Shucks. You spent all your time making up a story about me instead of providing evidence… I’m flattered. Well, I would have been flattered if your story had any literary merit – but that seems to be as scarce as your evidence for homeopathy.

            PS I hope you don’t dream about me. That would be scary. Very scary.

          • T-500

            I spent my time making up a real story about you and troll team. You can’t provide a definition a “good and compelling evidence”. I will wait much time, no evidence from you or your team about og my tiny request.

            PS. Your nightmare is all homeopathy supporters, and police deparment when your illegal organization will be checked.

          • Still unable or unwilling to post your evidence, T-500? Why’s that? I’m sure I’m not the only one to wonder if you have even a jot of it.

            “Your nightmare is all homeopathy supporters, and police deparment when your illegal organization will be checked.”

            I don’t have nightmares, but I do wonder how some homeopaths sleep at night. But calling my organisation ‘illegal’ is a very nasty, serious and defamatory accusation. Perhaps you can at least tell us why you think it’s illegal? Or is that something else you are unable to provide evidence for?

          • T-500

            Only provide the objective defintion of “good and compelling evidence”. Provide the paper.

            “I don’t have nightmares, but I do wonder how some homeopaths sleep at night. But calling my organisation ‘illegal’ is a very nasty, serious and defamatory accusation. Perhaps you can at least tell us why you think it’s illegal? Or is that something else you are unable to provide evidence for?

            Yes, you have nightmares. Illegal pseudo-skeptics Mon-pharmashills is very precise, exact and reproducible. Please Alan, define a exactly mean of “evidence”.

          • T-500

            Is the Nightingale Illegal organization in UK? Is the Illegal pseudo organization associated with the Quack Michael Marshall? Is the Illegal pseudo organization associated with Adversting (No authority)? Is the same pseudo organization mounted to attack homeopathy in all mass media?

            Logically, you are the master mind behind of this porky organizations.

          • T-500

            Or is that something else you are unable to provide the definition of “evidence”, “compelling and good evidence”, and “extrarodinary evidence”? Why do you not share the systematic review of the Randi works? Oh, wait, Randi is a illiterare guy, the fake Houdini.

          • Acleron

            A sad look into the seriously damaged mind of Eggar.

          • T-500

            “Damaged mind”, the libelous argument of pseudo-biologist. That’s really sad.

          • Acleron

            The pseudo-thinking of Eggar.

          • Heh… You are actually obsessed with this. That’s really sad.

          • T-500

            Hi, you are really obsessed with all homeopathy forums.

          • Hi, you are really obsessed with all homeopathy forums.

            Ah… This is a pro-science article. I think it’s you that is stalking the posts that disagree with your belief system.

          • T-500

            Why can’t Randi believers share just their objective and reproducible definitions of “extraordinary claim” and “good and compelling evidence?

          • Why bring Randi into it? But what’s a ‘Randi believer’? Someone who believes Randi exists?

            Anyway, that’s just a another diversion: where’s this evidence of yours? Are you perhaps afraid to post it?

          • T-500

            Randi believer or Ernst slave.

            Randi exists, yes! The old illiterate guy.

            No, Alan share the “good and compelling evidence” objective definition.

          • Acleron

            No idea Eggar, but skeptics have defined it to you in great detail.

            Your display of memory loss is just a smokescreen to avoid admitting you have no evidence.

          • T-500

            Skeptics? Where?

          • Acleron

            The squirming Eggar, struggling to avoid admitting he has zero evidence for any of his claims and unaware that he has fully demonstrated he has no evidence.

          • T-500

            I love Acleron troll, you can’t provide the objetive definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

          • T-500

            The casual readers are not your 5 pets (Guy Chapman religious believer, Ernst, Tea cup head, Gold Unifez of Acleron), many causal readers probably do not read this yellow news, and your trained trolls tend to take the control of up votes. Would they change their failed tactis?

          • Nope, sorry. Can’t discern an ounce of sense out of that gobbledegook.

            But found any evidence to give us yet? I really hope it’s not going to be a huge disappointment when you do – eventually – provide it? That would be a shame.

          • T-500

            Provide the definiton of “good and compelling evidence”. Can you share it?

          • Mike Stevens

            Word salad.
            But if you wish to give us good evidence, please provide some that conforms to my definition of it.
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectatorhealth/prince_charless_homeopathy_for_cows_the_royal_society_cannot_stay_silent/#comment-3225393748

          • T-500

            Provide the definiton of “good and compelling” evidence.

          • Really, T-500, your bad faith is astounding.
            You, presumably a grown adult who completed their schooling, are blaming somebody else for your own wilful ignorance?

            You need to read this http://edzardernst.com/2017/01/how-to-differentiate-good-from-bad-research/

          • T-500

            Really laugh!
            Edzard biased and piece opinon “post” is your fantastic evidence? A personal list is very well, however a ad verecundiam fallacy is evidence of nothing. I love these studies!

            Strike One!
            A replication of the study ‘Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review’

            Quote:
            The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).
            End of Quote.

            Alteration is scientific fraud.

            Strike two!
            Homeopathy: Meta-Analyses of Pooled Clinical Data

            Quote
            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.
            Enf of Quote.

            Manipulation and over extrapolation is fraud.

            Strike three!
            Statistical comments on a re-analysis of a previous meta-analysis of homeopathic RCTs

            Quote
            All arguments are based on a prediction rule which extrapolates data outside the observed area. These predictions crucially depend on the model assumptions: Ernst and Pittler assume a linear relationship between the estimated odds ratio and the Jadad score
            End of Quote

            More aduletarion from data, why am I not surprised?

            Strike four!
            Can you kill your enemy by giving homeopathy? Lack of rigour and lack of logic in the systematic review by Edzard Ernst and colleagues on adverse effects of homeopathy

            Quote
            For instance, ‘Pentackan Sinnabaum’ does not exist. The correct name is ‘Cinnabaris Pentarkan’. In Table 1 (p. 1182), a case study by Geukens (2001) is quoted, where causality of adverse events is attributed as ‘Almost certain’, concomitant treatment is given as ‘not mentioned’, the adverse events are said to have been ‘heart disease and bladder cancer’, as a consequence of the homeopathic remedies (2).
            End of Quote

            A pattern of pseudoscientific fraud emerges. Why am I not surprised?

          • T-500

            Quote from Ernst

            WARNIG SIGNALS INDICATING A POOR CLINICAL TRIAL

            -“published in one of the many dodgy CAM journals (or in a book, blog or similar),”

            Many Ernst pseudoreviews was published in FACT, Forsch Komp and Homeopathy Journal. FACT journal with low Impact Factor.

            -“single author”

            Many pseudoreviews from Ernst possess one author. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603

            -“authors are known to be proponents of the treatment tested”

            I can change this statement for: “author are known to be pseudoskeptics of the homeopathy” Same logic!

            -“author has previously published only positive studies of the therapy in question”

            I can change this for: “author has previously altered data, overextrapolation and published only supposed negative studies of the therapy in question”

            -“lack of plausible rationale for the study” and “lack of plausible rationale for the therapy that is being tested”

            Ernst is not physicist of biologist. Yes, this is not a barrier for made a critic. The problem with Ernst is their ingenous arguments on all blog and “studies”.

            -“stated aim of the study is ‘to demonstrate the effectiveness of…’ (clinical trials are for testing, not demonstrating effectiveness or efficacy),”

            Many conventional studies states the same objective. This is not a methodological problem, the result of study may be negative. For example, some studies of George Lewith stated “to demonstrate the effectiveness”, Ernst do not see a problem with this.

            -“stated aim ‘to establish the effectiveness AND SAFETY of…’ (even large trials are usually far too small for establishing the safety of an intervention),”

            This is not a methodological problem, independent replications may debunk or confirm or re-debunk these studies without problem.

            -“text full of mistakes, e. g. spelling, grammar, etc.”

            Many studies of Ernst are full with alterations of mistakes in spelling and grammar (see my second comment).

            -“sample size is tiny”

            Many double blind “studies” of Ernst manage a tiny sample size. For example, the study of Arnica cream and the Thorax study.

            -“pilot study reporting anything other than the feasibility of a definitive trial,”

            Pilot study is a pilot study! Do Ernst need a basic lessons of methodology?

            -“methods not described in sufficient detail,”

            Many pseudoreviews of Ernst do not report sufficient detail (for example the “cochrante review”).

            -“mismatch between aim, method, and conclusions of the study,”

            Many “studies” of Ernst play with this card!

            -“results presented only as a graph (rather than figures which others can re-calculate),”

            The pseudo replication of Linde meta-analysis show only as a graph! Definitively Ernst is a lunatic person!

            -“statistical approach inadequate or not sufficiently detailed,”

            Many studies of Ernst reveals a lack of understanding of basis in stastics. See the Vickers comments about of poor quality or the tiny papers published by Ernst in a obscure german journals as “Perfusion” (zero impact factor).

            -“discussion without critical input”

            Many “studies” of Ernst display a lack of critical discusion in basic research. Ernst do not quote positive evidence, they only quote negative some physical chemistry evidence out of context.

            -“lack of disclosures of ethics, funding or conflicts of interest,”

            Ernst works for Science 2.0, a charity of Genetic Literacy, Can you need more evidence?

            -“conclusions which are not based on the results.”

            For example, all reviews of Ernst?

          • T-500

            Sorry, their fake arguments ARE tipically of ALL pseudo-skeptics.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Please Alan, share your own and exclusive definition of “good evidence”.”

            You keep asking for definitions of what we would regard as good evidence, and we keep telling you. But you never provide it, instead doing a “lather, rinse, repeat” cycle of going back to asking what would be good evidence, as a way of never getting round to posting any.

            I told you my definition before.
            Here is a screenshot. Now, get on with it please, and PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f8bacd8b66ecd81c129c42fafd8df82393ef3380d9c2e5b8bc3f66aa68ef77b.jpg

          • T-500

            Then, provide the definition of “good and compelling evidence” and “extraordinary evidence”. No more goal post fallacy, ad-hoc excuses or MON-pharma Shills as Alan.

          • T-500

            Mike:

            “I would say that form”

            No Mike, No, I need papers, not your personal views.

          • T-500

            Provide the definition of

            -Evidence
            -Good evidence = Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

            Topic number 3 display this:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Extraordinary+claims+require+extraordinary+evidence

            Only 7 papers!
            I look all papers, 6 are comments or piece of opinion.
            One is a meta analysis of PSI effects:

            Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences

            Quote
            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace’s principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999). This statement is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere. However, no quantitative standards have been agreed upon in order to define whether or not extraordinary evidence has been obtained. Consequently, the measures of “extraordinary evidence” are completely reliant on subjective evaluation and the acceptance of “extraordinary claims.” In science, the definition of extraordinary evidence is more a social agreement than an objective evaluation, even if most scientists would state the contrary (see, for example, the recent debate about climate change: Anderegg et al., 2010; Bodenstein, 2010).
            End of Quote

          • Acleron

            So you are claiming that there is no definition of good evidence.

            That’s just hilarious Eggar because elsewhere you claim that the vast majority of homeopathic trials in the Shang paper are better quality than the others.

          • T-500

            Egg?
            Thank you Acleron! You’re right! Homeopathic researches can be made rigorous homeopathic trials. In the Shang meta-analysis none of the Ernst trial’s was rankder as high quality (hilarious!).

          • Acleron

            You’ve contradicted yourself so many times you can’t remember which lie you told. You are a nonsense.

          • T-500

            Vague claims. Typical from the pseudoskeptics

          • Acleron

            I was very specific on your contradictions. When such happens, all you have are insults, projection and gibberish

          • T-500

            Yeah, yeah, what do yo not answer my specific questions?

          • Acleron

            ‘Vague claims. Typical from the pseudoskeptics’

            Eggar thinks the above are specific questions. No Eggar, it is gibberish.

          • T-500

            Them, share the definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

          • Acleron

            It’s already been defined here and elsewhere. Your lying is just a smokescreen to avoid the obvious: you have no evidence.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, bored and silly statements devoided of reason, logic and coherence.

          • Acleron

            And still no evidence. Senseless words are all you have.

          • T-500

            I don’t see your evidence of final definition of “extraordinary evidence” and “good/compellind evidence”. Acleron the burden of the proof is in you and your sect. Share te definition.

          • Acleron

            Yes, you have seen it, you’ve even replied when it has been posted. So are you in denial, can’t read or just your state of immediately lying?

          • T-500

            I’ve read your all bored coments. You can’t debunk nothing. T

          • Acleron

            Well, we can exclude intelligence, obviously.

          • T-500

            We? Probably Acleron is a puppet of Alan Henness.

          • Acleron

            Lying again Eggar to attempt to distract from the fact that you have no evidence for any of your claims. You certainly haven’t read all my comments, a particularly stupid lie.

          • T-500

            Anywhere, you can’t debunk nothing. No evidence of:

            “Extraordinary proof” or “Compelling evidence” definition.

            Share the papers Acleron.

          • T-500
          • Acleron

            So you don’t care if you are labelled as an ignorant or just ignorant.

          • T-500

            Share the definition of “extraordinary proof” and “compelling evidence” and “good evidence”.

          • T-500

            You can’t provide evidence of me and others. Your lies… very bored, the same technique in all nasty comments in your twitter and here!

          • Acleron

            Gosh, you sound that other liar, Trump.

            You have been dealt in an adult manner until you started lying continually. At that stage, Eggar, you were treated as what you are, a liar.

          • T-500

            Blah, blah, you can’t share the objetive defintion of “extraordinary evidence” and “compelling evidence”. Your fake list of ad-baculum fallacy:

            d-bacculum fallacy, yes!

            “Chief medical officer of the UK”

            Opinion of the lady withour proof is irrelevant.

            “the Academy of Science in the USA”

            In USA is the the National Academy of Sciences, not the “Academy of Science”.

            ” the medical associations of Germany,”

            All medical associations? Please, share the evidence.

            ” Czech Republic”

            http://www.homeopathie-unio

            Quote

            The Czech Republic press secretary of the Ministry of Health released information detailing the position of homeopathy and complementary medicine within the country. Pertaining to recent discussions, law No. 372/2011 Sb., which relates to health services and the conditions under which they can be provided, remains unchanged. This means that only trained practitioners are able to make diagnoses and provide therapy. Although the Ministry for Health of the Czech Republic does not perceive the evidence base for homeopathy to be strong enough yet, this does not prevent doctors from utilising this if it is desired and appropriate. There is no intention to alter these conditions, as homeopathic treatment is moving towards standardisation at European level. The Czech Republic will await recommendations to use unified rules for the whole of Europe before taking action.

            End of Quote.

            “To be strong” is not lack of evidence.

            “Sweden”

            No.

            http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng

            “India”

            No. The lack of arguments of the Mumbai Rationalist Association (CSICOP headquearters in India) are not evidence. Official top boy in India

            http://www.nih.nic.in/

            “Austria”

            Did you mean “Australia”?

            I like this:

            https://www.hri-research.or

            Acleron, please provide a copy of the first draft of the NHMRC report, the early version. The burden of the proof is from you and your friends.

          • Acleron

            Eggar, you have no evidence either extraordinary or just ordinary, your continued squirmings convince everybody except your fellow scammers.

          • T-500

            “you have no evidence either extraordinary or just ordinary”

            Share the testable and objective definition of “extraordinary”.

          • T-500

            Sorry, I was unable to found any paper about of empirical demonstration of “extraordinay evidence” = “good and compellind evidence”. I think in all pseudo skeptic blogs. The authoritian bible of pseudo skeptic is the Rational Wiki (A fake Wiki):

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

            I love this:

            Quote:
            The converse of the proposition that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ would be that any claim requires some evidence. Therefore, to argue that a competing ordinary claim is more likely to be true than an extraordinary one, simply because the extraordinary one has no “extraordinary” evidence to support it, fails to account for the possibility that the competing “ordinary” claim has no evidence at all to support it (ordinary or otherwise).
            End of Quote

            Look the final sentence: “has no evidence at all to support it (ordinary or otherwise)”

            Rational pseudo Wiki remarks the lack of any ordinary evidence to define the “extraordinay evidence”. Hurra!

            References?

            1. A old book, lack of demonstration:

            “Théorie analytique des probabilités, 1812, «… Plus un fait est extraordinaire, plus il a besoin d’être appuyé de fortes preuves ; car, ceux qui l’attestent pouvant ou tromper ou avoir été trompés, ces deux causes sont d’autant plus probables que la réalité du fait l’est moins en elle-même. »”

            2. Another old book:

            “Hume, David (1748). An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, chap. 10.4. http://www.davidhume.org/texts/?text=ehu#10.”

            3. ” Marcello Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978.”

            Oh my fucking God! From Truzzi:

            Quote
            Recent critics of claims of the paranormal have suggested that the acceptance of some paranormal effects may open the door to the acceptance of all sorts of irrational thinking. It is this too simplistic kind of black/white, either/or thinking that may be creating the current impasse between some critics and the proponents of the paranormal. It is urgent that if progress is to be made in any dialogue between the proponents and their critics that both sides must carefully hammer out the kind of fundamental decision criteria needed to make responsible scientific evaluations of not only what sorts of evidence would be acceptable but also the quality and quantity of evidence that may be needed relative to the degree of extraordinariness of a paranormal claim.
            End of Quote.

            And:

            Quote:
            What then should we do with plausible reports by witnesses of extraordinary events? In most cases we simply must be patient, recognize that a single such report may simply not be enough to let us make a final judgement. Though we have a right to simply ignore such reports (giving them a low probability of later confirmation) and give them low scientific priority for our time, we do not have the right to dismiss such reports. Since the burden of proof is on the claimant in science, we must state that the evidence is inconclusive and remain skeptical (though certainly less so than we were before this plausible narrative entered the debate). But to say something is unproved is not the same as saying it is disproved. Until more and convincing evidence comes in (and this must be proportional to extraordinariness of the paranormal claim in the theoretical sense I have described), we need to remain skeptical and agnostic about matters paranormal. At least those which have not been explicitly disproved (as we have seen many things like the Bermuda Triangle and pyramid power falsified). It is this kind of scientific skepticism with an open mind that I think being a true zetetic is all about.
            End of Quote

            Truzzi clearly debunks the pseudo skeptic Alan troll propaganda.

          • T-500

            Remember the Rational pseudo wiki sentence:

            Quote:
            “to argue that a competing ordinary claim is more likely to be true than an extraordinary one, simply because the extraordinary one has no “extraordinary” evidence to support it, fails to…. claim has no evidence at all to support it (ordinary or otherwise).
            End of Quote

            Homeopathy fails to support ordinary or otherwise evidence? No, empirical positive evidence of homeopathy is not “extraordinary”.

          • kfunk937

            Also, being abjured from being a pet-owned person, for life, by having used homeopathy to not treat the animal you’re expected to care for, well, that’s a thing, too.

          • T-500

            14 days later…

            Alan rejects share the perfect definition of good definition.

            Why Alan?
            Why Alan?
            Why Alan?
            Why Alan?

          • Acleron

            Eggar’s been found without evidence again.

          • It’s odd, isn’t it?

          • T-500

            Troll Acleron: provide the definition of “good evidence”.

          • Acleron

            It’s been defined for you on previous occasions Eggar, pretending you don’t know it is not going to disguise that you have no evidence. Neither is your only other trick, resorting to complete gibberish.

          • T-500

            Why can’t Acleron write properly, with acceptable grammar and spelling?

          • Acleron

            And as usual Eggar has no evidence just increasingly vaguer claims. When you can match my grammar get back.

          • T-500

            Why can’t Acleron write properly, with acceptable evidence and reason?

          • Acleron

            Eggar, you continually supply all the data to show that you have no evidence.

          • T-500

            Eggar is your name?
            Are comment data and evidence? Fine! Then, all anecdotal evidence is data and evidence! Thank you Acleron!

          • Acleron

            That it escapes your tiny mind is not my concern when posting, Eggar.

          • T-500

            “tiny mind”, a perfect definition of your cranial size.

          • T-500

            Why am I not surprised of your infinite bored ad-hoc arguments?

          • T-500

            Aclaron?

  • Dear old Edzard still trying to gain traction for his negative opinions.

    It’s a good job that some of us farmers don’t listen to people like Alan and Edzard. Instead, we read the literature, books, speak to successful practitioners, and learn. Then we observe the livestock we keep, select a remedy and watch the marvles unfold. In my case, that was 500 dairy livestock (300+ milking cows) and multiple numbers of stock people learning, treating and experiencing, and all over a period of 15 years. Our veterinary surgeons were on the farm weekly for diagnostic work and never fail to be impressed at what we were achieving. Trials in which we partook always saw our health results in the top half of any table.

    Now we find many more farmers understanding that there are remedial options other than conventional medicine and who are switching to using homoeopathy. Not small one-man band type farmers exclusively, but large herds as well.

    It doesn’t matter how many research papers you seek to find, the results on the ground what matters. The cynics and sceptics know enough about homoeopathy to understand that you can’t run an RCT with homoeopathy. That’s because, for example, with mastitis there may be as many as eight different remedies. Many diseases required not just a different remedy, but perhaps a different potency due to the stage/development of the disease/condition. Those of us who understand homoeopathy appreciate this fact and won’t be lulled into some false flag style research. Instead, we just get on with the practical application and successful treatments.

    I’ll leave you to carry on arguing about how many elephants you can stack on the head of a pin.
    I’ll leave all those hundreds of millions of people, either practising homoeopaths or individuals using it successfully on themselves/their livestock, to just get on with the job that they know works. Why would they be interested in listening to people who are trying to tell them that they are wrong? They have eyes and ears, they can see what’s going on, and they don’t need petulant people to try and make them think they are deluded. None of this is to say that they don’t relish and support the value of conventional medication. We all do. You just know that there’s more than one way to resolve problems, and by using those other ways we will help preserve the vitality of antibiotics for the sake of everybody, all of humankind.

    • edzard ernst

      excellent! reading the literature is good. read this then: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/early/2016/12/09/vr.103779.full

    • UK Homeopathy Regs

      Better husbandry is key in reducing antibiotic use.

    • Barzini

      Thanks for your comment – although remember, for the indoctrinated ‘;skeptic’ morons round here, actual living testimony of the success of these methods means nothing

  • Acleron

    Homeopathy is a modality that is known not to work.

    Not applying real treatment when required is cruelty to the animals. .

  • @Philippa Lyon:disqus : When you can’t prove the cause of illness you can’t provide a cure. Western medicine has ignored things like homeopathy because…

    …it’s been tested and found to not actually work.

    Alt-med is a multibillion dollar industry. To think that big pharma wouldn’t get in on that if they could is a hopelessly naive position to hold.

  • There’s a number of more vacuous trolls here that bring the following meme to mind…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6f05a88bca5dd82a33338e0c077800d1fd2f4554b716499084b112ea1b9b7ac.jpg

    • T-500

      Yes, you can’t post any logic argument.

      • And you can’t post any evidence, it seems.

        • T-500

          You can´t post the objective definition of “compelling and good evidence”. Why?

    • eat your greens