The debate about homeopathy is over. These verdicts prove it

I have made my views on homeopathy clear on many occasions — actually, I don’t see them as ‘views’ but as evidence-based statements. But this has never stopped the homeopathy brigade vehemently disagreeing with me. Not only that, they also claim that I cannot be trusted because I am biased, corrupt, incompetent and dishonest.

Such allegations are untrue, of course, but, in the mind of many consumers, they nevertheless create the impression that there is some sort of a legitimate debate about the value of homeopathy.

To dispel this false impression, I have collected all the ‘official verdicts’ about homeopathy that I could find, regardless of what they tell us. By ‘official verdict’ I mean recent statements from national or international organisations (rather than from single individuals) that:

  • are independent
  • conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence
  • have a reputation of being beyond reproach

I excluded statements from organisations of homeopaths and those with an ideological or commercial interest in homeopathy. I did not exclude any verdict for not confirming my own published views. None of the statements below were developed with my involvement.

Here is the complete list of 12 verdicts that I managed to find.
(If someone does know further statements, please post them in the comments section below):

1. ‘The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available.’
Russian Academy of Sciences

2. ‘Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.’
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia

3. ‘These products are not supported by scientific evidence.’
Health Canada

4 “Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence based medicine.”
Hungarian Academy of Sciences

5. ‘The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.’
Swedish Academy of Sciences

6. ‘We recommend parents and caregivers not give homeopathic teething tablets and gels to children and seek advice from their healthcare professional for safe alternatives.’
US Food and Drug Administration

7. ‘There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.’
National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, US

8. ‘There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.’
National Health Service, UK

9. ‘Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and the principles on which homeopathy is based are scientifically implausible.’
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK

10. ‘Homeopathy has not definitively proven its efficacy in any specific indication or clinical situation.’
Ministry of Health, Spain

11. ‘There is a constant increase in the quantity of evidence and the conviction of the scientific community in medicine, that homeopathy should be treated as one of the unscientific methods of so-called “alternative medicine”, which proposes worthless products without scientifically proven efficacy.’
National Medical Council, Poland

12. ‘From a purely clinical perspective, the fact remains that there is no valid empirical proof
 of the efficacy of homeopathy (evidence-based medicine) beyond the placebo effect.’
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg, Belgium

So, don’t trust me, I’m only a doctor. But surely you must trust this multitude of judgments made by officials who have no axe to grind and merely aim at informing the public responsibly: homeopathy is neither plausible nor evidence-based.

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.


  • rosross

    Ernst keeps up the campaign against Homeopathy, quoting from compromised sources, as indeed he must, while millions of people around the world ignore him and his claims and continue to practise, learn and heal with Homeopathic medicine.

    Homeopathy may not be plausible, according to the very distorted and limited mindset of modern science, but many treatments in Allopathic medicine are not plausible either and now as the third biggest killer, many of those treatments kill and injure millions every year.

    Homeopathy is the only true evidence-based medicine around since its foundation was and is empirical, in ways conventional Allopathic medicine is not.

    When the world in general comes to its senses, Homeopathy will be recognised for what it has always been, the most brilliant medical modality for healing yet developed, and a treasure trove of information about human beings and their health and disease.

    • edzard ernst

      “…as indeed he must…” WHY MUST I?

      • rosross

        Because it is now your street cred, your persona, your image and the source of prestige in certain circles.

        Even you should know how the NHMRC report was a disgrace both to science and to medicine.

        • edzard ernst

          even you should know that the above sources are NOT ‘compromised’

          • Pulsatilla Arnica

            The FDA is not compromised? Come on Dr. Ernst! Don’t be ridiculous. In fact its ties to the drug industry have not even escaped TIME magazine:

            http://time.com/3714242/candidate-to-lead-fda-has-close-ties-to-big-pharma/

          • edzard ernst

            I don’t care what you or anyone else think of the FDA or any other single source above. this is why I cited ALL the official sources that made statements on homeopathy. are you seriously thinking that they are ALL compromised?

          • rosross

            Because there is clear evidence Homeopathy works of course they are compromised.

            Are you seriously saying in this age of litigation that any MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools, Governments would touch Homeopathy if what you and these ‘studies’ say were true? They would not. But they do, in many countries.

            The rage against Homeopathy is not seen universally. Many European countries embrace it still. How can this happen if you were right? It could not. Ergo, you and your studies are wrong.

          • edzard ernst

            are you seriously claiming that, because some individuals and institutions use a therapy, it is proven to be plausible and effective?

          • rosross

            I am claiming, in this age of litigation, MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools and Governments take legal advice if they fear being held to be fraudulent or incompetent. That is a reality.

            Ergo, since many MD’s, hospitals, universities, even some medical schools and Government embrace Homeopathy, logic says they have taken legal advice and they have evidence to support their position. Now, that may be evidence you reject, but clearly they and their legal advisors are comfortable with it.

            And, if you were correct, would not Dr Peter Fisher, the Queen’s physician, have been struck off for practising fraud? Ergo, you are not correct.

          • I am claiming, in this age of litigation, MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools and Governments take legal advice if they fear being held to be fraudulent or incompetent. That is a reality.

            Given that we don’t see what what you are claiming and the massive amount of information we do have on homeopathy it shows that your claim is wrong.

            If you want an actual view on reality you may want to look at the steady decline in popularity within an increasingly educated population. That’s something backed by numbers and evidence.

            I reject your reality and substitute one that better matches unbiased observation.

          • You can point out all their logical fallacies, their sloppy thinking, their unevidenced claims, their rhetoric, but you can never make a homeopathy fan actually think. Their minds are closed to reality.

          • Peter Olins

            If we assume that homeopathy is simply a form of faith-healing, and any perceived or real benefit relies on the placebo effect, aren’t these folks better off living in their reality? It’s about as futile as trying to convince a person that the particular God they believe in doesn’t exist.

            I consider homeopathy to be a quaint fantasy that benefits the person who believes. It’s analogous to how a child believes in the Tooth Fairy or Santa: the only difference is that most people grow out of these fantasies before long.

          • If we assume that homeopathy is simply a form of faith-healing, and any perceived or real benefit relies on the placebo effect, aren’t these folks better off living in their reality?

            In their reality they could die from something as treatable as influenza or complications of eczema.

            IMHO, no. They’re not better off when they forgo treatment for easily treatable, but deadly things and replace it with “hoping really hard”.

          • Peter Olins

            My anecdotal experience has been the opposite: homeopathy seems to be surprisingly popular among college-educated people. This fits in a pattern with other anti-rational positions, such as a belief in the health benefits of “organic” foods, or a fear of vaccines.

          • My anecdotal experience of college-educated people that I know is the polar opposite to yours. This is why we don’t rely on anecdotes. In this case we are both looking at a self selected subset of a category of people. i.e. we’re comparing echo chambers.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ergo, since many MD’s, hospitals, universities, even some medical schools and Government embrace Homeopathy, logic says they have taken legal advice and they have evidence to support their position.

            All performing some service necessitates is that the person performing it does not fear legal prosecution. Different thing.

          • That seems to be her ‘argument’. By her same ‘logic’, however, it seems she also seems to be admitting vaccines (and statins and everything else) are proven, plausible and effective.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Because there is clear evidence Homeopathy works”

            So can we see some then?

          • rosross

            So, you are accusing this hospital in Melbourne of fraud, because it lists Homeopathy as a possible treatment?

            http://www.rch.org.au/ccc/treatments/Complementary_medicine/

            And this is also fraud, the use of Homeopathy in Paediatric Oncology:

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47567264_Use_of_Homeopathy_in_Pediatric_Oncology_in_Germany

            And Dr Peter Fisher, qualified in Allopathic and Homeopathic medicine is also a fraud? Why has he not been struck off? By your claims he should be.

            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrPeterFisher.aspx

          • edzard ernst

            where have I accused anyone of anything?

          • rosross

            You claim Homeopathy does not work. You claim it is fraud. Logically, that means anyone who practises it on their patients are engaging in fraud.

          • I don’t think you understand logic at all…

          • No, some could be marks.

          • AlPhur

            Maybe not visibly compromised. Dishonest nevertheless.

            TL;DR

            Let me explain: I would have thought that any competent professor would have, alongside an attachment to academic integrity, an interest in maintaining funding for the department, the departments of friends, and the university or supporting body – not only in generating new income, but also in not upsetting income that already pertains.

            Now, in this case the subject in question has a very wealthy rival commercial sector who one would wish to court and not to offend. The easy route would be not to promote something that could be a formidable rival and reduce profits. It does not lend towards being uncompromised, and I daresay some players are a little economical with the truth regarding their allegiances.

            Take care: I am not suggesting that the vast financial interest ranged against acceptance of homeopathy (and other alternative medicine) somehow validates it, merely that some degree of bias could be expected to exist at the upper echelon. We have all seen science politically applied when it makes no other sense.

            Secondly, as we have seen in climate science and paranormal investigations say, it becomes an issue of virtue signalling not to be seen as supporting something others – donor in particular – find anathema, even if their reasoning is faulted. To do so invites unwelcome ridicule (v. Alinksy’s rules, 5. Not rule 2 though.).

            Again, dear reader, watch for your own irrational bias – I am not here suggesting that homeopathy has a direct connection with the paranormal or prayer. That would be silly. I am only saying that peoples’ opinions can be compromised by social influences, without any directly visible financial interest.

            Perhaps more research is in order.

          • Acleron

            No, no more evidence needs to be collected, we have enough already.

            While you are babbling about commercial concerns acting illicitly you might look up Claus Fritzsche who was paid by a cartel of homeopathy companies to libel Prof. Ernst.

            They were willing to pay to do this but not willing to pay for research into homeopathy. It doesn’t require Einstein to understand why.

            When you have the evidence that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo then bring it on but we and you know that not only do you not have any evidence but that you won’t ever have any evidence of quantity and quality to combat Shang et all and the Australian NHMRC report. Hence your hand waving antics.

          • edzard ernst
          • Maybe not visibly compromised.

            If it’s not visibly compromised how do you know they are compromised? If you have evidence then present it. But if you’re able to do that they are actually visibly compromised.

            If you can’t present this evidence then you’re just making shit up.

            Dishonest nevertheless.

            Again, present the evidence for the dishonesty. If you can’t then you have nothing to base this claim on and stating this the way you have makes you the dishonest one.

            In response to the TL;DR;
            1. You don’t understand the use of tl;dr.
            2. Assumptions and conspiracy theory are not evidence. (that’s the summary response to the whole section)

          • Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are not threatened by homeopathy. If it worked they could use it, but it doesn’t work, so only a tiny indoctrinated minority do use it. It really is that simple.

            Homeopathy is profitable. Many homeopathy companies are owned by “big pharma” and the absolute killer point here is that even if they were not, if homeopathy genuinely did work then there would be *absolutely nothing to stop pharma companies from making it*. The majority of homeopathy studies are funded or conducted by homeopaths or homeopathy manufacturers. Homeopathy shills don’t see this as a conflict of interest, but they do see *any* scientific investigation that contradicts their belief as being founded on dogma and malfeasance. In their minds, either you torture the evidence until it confesses that homeopathy works, or you are evil.

            The idea of “competition” stems from an entirely false premise: homeopaths see medicine as the enemy, because opposition to medicine is literally the origin of homeopathy, but medical science simply does not care: it looks only at whether something is right or wrong, not where it came from. Most new drugs are synthesised analogues of naturally occurring substances, and if like actually cured like and dilution actually increased potency then pharmaceutical companies would be using that as the basis of new products.

          • rosross

            But they are. The NHMRC report was a particular disgrace. Conflicts of interest, selective loading of the study panel, selective choosing of studies which would be allowed – prejudice and subjectivity from start to finish. Nothing scientific about it.

        • shay simmons

          You keep saying the report (and the one from Australia) was a disgrace…but you never get around to explaining why.

          • rosross

            I have explained why and I have posted information on it many times. You ignore it so I really cannot be bothered with you. Go and look it up yourself. It is easy.

            The NHMRC was not objective, it was subjective and it was selective in cherry-picking research it allowed in the study and members of the panel had a conflict of interest.

            Now, any scientific and academic criteria would deem that a disgrace. But I understand to hold your position you must be flexible with principles.

          • shay simmons

            No; when asked for an explanation of how homeopathy can be clinically effective (given that it’s water), you can’t answer. The argument by popularity fallacy is not an explanation.

            HOW was this report subjective, WHAT research was omitted, and WHAT exactly were the conflicts of interest?

            EDITED TO ADD: and explain the flaws with all of the other studies listed, while you’re at it.

          • rosross

            You might like to chase up Charles Darwin’s research using Homeopathy on plants. And his son’s work. Seems the plants did not know it was just water. Darwin was impressed although he could never quite come to terms with it for humans, but, he categorically stated it worked on plants. Now, how could that be?

            NHMRC you can sort for yourself. It is easy enough to find.

          • shay simmons

            Argument by assertion is also a logical fallacy, ros. You be made these accusations against these reports , now produce your corroboration.

          • rosross

            Oh dear, you are desperate. Now the logical fallacy.

          • shay simmons

            Not to mention burden of proof.

          • rosross

            The proof that Homeopathic medicine is effective abounds. the only thing missing is a clear scientific explanation for how it works. But since science has not developed enough to come up with one, we shall have to wait.

            In the meantime Homeopathic medicine will continue to heal as it has done for centuries, and will be a pivotal modality in the emerging field of Integrative Medicine.

          • rosross

            To be fair, with former editors of both The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, stating much scientific research is just plain wrong – distorted, corrupted etc.,- and the work of Dr John Ioannidis concluding most of it is just plain wrong, any positive Homeopathic study results are questionable.

            Then again, that means all study results are questionable so maybe those who rely on empirical evidence, i.e. Homeopathy is seen to be effective, are the sensible ones after all.

            Science as a system of enquiry cannot be trusted on any count.

          • Acleron

            ‘Science as a system of enquiry cannot be trusted on any count.’

            That must be why we have discovered so many demonstrably proven treatments, antibiotics, vaccines, hormonal treatments, vitamins… It must be why we have discovered that many treatments without evidence do not work, bleeding, many herbal treatments, reiki, acupuncture, homeopathy…

            It is always amusing that homeopaths use this argument when if they ever have a high quality clinical trial that shows an effect for homeopathy, they tout it to the world. Some hypocrisy.

          • Ross, you know you’re the one that used the logical fallacy, right? And that Shay mentioned them. So….oh dear, you are desperate.

          • Charles Darwin’s research? Care to link to that?

            Here’s what I found from the Darwin Project:

            The letter to W. D. Fox   4 September [1850][cached]

            The letters summary: “Has heard that Louis Agassiz maintains the doctrine of several species of man “much I daresay to the comfort of the slave-holding southerners”.

            Homeopathy excites his wrath even more than clairvoyance.

            Also, Roslyn, note the links. They’re easy to do if you actually have a citation. If you’re going to argue this point you need to take the challenge to University of Cambridge. This is what evidence looks like.

          • Or you know, you can cite the PMID numbers though of course there is a hierarchy of evidence.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            “Hierarchy” is what you say to your friend Archy in the shower. If only I could join you both.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Wow. Another stupid meme.

            Ge crawl back in your shell for the rest of the day.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            No.
            I always want him “higher” up my ass.

          • That would be “Higher, Archy.” Hierarchy is not the same thing.

          • Charles Lindturtle
          • Can’t you do better than a silly pun?

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Wasn’t me. Jonathan has found a way to hijack my account!

          • I do encourage everyone to look up Darwin’s writing on homeopathy.

            “You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one’s ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist!”

            Darwin was utterly contemptuous of homeopathy. I cannot find any reliable authority for his having done research using it on plants, most of the comments on this are homeopathists citing Dana “Mr Uncredible” Ullman, who is a fantasist.

          • Acleron

            Darwin performed experiments on Drosera and showed they responded to very small doses of ammonium salt. Homeopaths have tried to claim that validates their nonsense. They lie.

          • They lie? Imagine that.

          • I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you!

          • Acleron

            Lol, you really should stop taking Dullman’s mumblings as fact. Darwin didn’t use homeopathy on plants, he used very low doses of ammonium salt on them. Very low does not equate to the zero dose in most homeopathic preparations.

          • Mike Stevens

            “…it was subjective and it was selective in cherry-picking research….
            Now, any scientific and academic criteria would deem that a disgrace.”

            In other words, pretty much like every assessment and analysis there has ever been on the supposed benefits of homeopathy.

          • Mike Stevens

            “it [the NHMRC] was selective in cherry-picking research it allowed in the study”

            Several times you have pointed out that the majority of published scientific studies have flaws [as per John Ioannidis]. He pointed out that many studies are poorly designed, have too few subjects and are underpowered, poorly interpreted, and riddled with some form of bias, including publishing bias of positive studies.

            So I applaud the NHMRC for “cherry picking” homeopathy studies that are more robust, and ignoring the vast majority, as should you be, Ros, if you were consistent in your claims.

    • Acleron

      If modern science was that wrong about homeopathy then the device you use to advertise your propaganda would not work.

      • AlPhur

        Don’t be silly.

        • Acleron

          Another who doesn’t know any science.

          • AlPhur

            Don’t be silly.

          • rosross

            Okay, prove to me that just because science has invented how to make a computer work, it can equally create a flower. No seed. All man-made just as computers are made. Off you go.

          • Science didn’t “invent” the computer. It described a collection of rules that through an absolutely astounding amount of testing allowed people to apply them in such a way that computers happend. Eventually.

            These rules, that science has given us, allows us to understand nature to the point where we also understand how the flower came about, how its internal bits work and why it is beautiful.

            The fact that you have made such a statement after the years of conversing on this topic on comment threads all over the place shows that you literally don’t even have a basic grasp on what science actually is.

            You are a poor example of a human and a testament to the flaws in the education system you grew up in.

          • Acleron

            What a crazy demand. Of course you are trying on the old and tired argument that as we don’t know everything then we know nothing which is demonstrably untrue.

            When you have chucked everything capable of any activity away then what remains must be something capable of grossly affecting matter. All interactions with matter is explained by Quantum ElectroDynamics, a theory that has so far been confirmed to 14 decimal places. For homeopathy to work it whatever is left wouldn’t be capable if affecting anything. Alternatively, QED is wrong and would be unable to be used to design the computer that you use.

            So what’s more likely, homeopathy works or that we can randomly mix materials together and consistently produce working computers, smart materials and predictions of unprecedented precision?

          • shay simmons

            “What do you think science is? There’s nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results.

            Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

            Dr Steven Novella

      • rosross

        Okay, so you believe modern science because it can build a plane, can build a tree from scratch? Really?

        You are saying that the same skills required to make a computer could create a bird, a flower, a human being? you are delusional.

        • PIbber Seventy

          At the risk of arguing with an idiot:
          Can homeopathy do *anything*, other than offer a placebo effect?

          • rosross

            Abuse, name-calling, ad hominem attacks make you look foolish. Some of the greatest minds in history have embraced Homeopathy. And some of the biggest fools reject it. There you go.

            If you believe that the placebo effect operates with cells in a petri dish, plants, animals, small children, unconscious humans and animals and months after being taken, as Homeopathic medicine demonstrably does, you might be able to explore a case for pure placebo.

            Banerji P, Campbell DR (2008): Cancer patients treated with the Banerji protocols utilising homoeopathic medicine: A Best Case Series Program of the National Cancer Institute USA. Oncology Reports, 20: 69-74.

            Frenkel M et al. (2010): Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells. International Journal of Oncology, 36: 395-403.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5289077/

          • shay simmons

            “The difference in the volume of blood and serum collected by drainages between the group of women treated with A. montana and those treated with placebo was statistically significant in the PP dataset, but only in the model which included, in addition to the type of treatment, the volume collected on the day of surgery, and the weight of the patient. Thus, we determine that these two additional variables have a considerable effect on the efficacy of the treatment, and further studies are needed to investigate their specific contributions. In general, the other data obtained, such as a slightly earlier removal of the drainage and a faster reduction in the volume of blood and serum collected in the drainage, were not statistically significant and only suggested a slight advantage in the post-operative recovery process of patients treated with A. montana. “

          • rosross

            Slight advantage beats, has no effect, is fraud etc., by any standards.

          • shay simmons

            Not by scientific standards, particularly when coupled with the phrase ‘ Not statistically significant.’

          • rosross

            But your side claims it does nothing and it can do nothing etc. etc. etc. The mere fact that it does something demolishes your claim. Not statistically significant means very little

            Deformity in one breed of rabbit when testing Thalidomide was not considered statistically significant but we soon found out how significant it was.

            You cannot have it both ways. Either there is some effect or as you claim there is none. Wherever there is some effect, even if dismissed as not statistically significant, there remains an effect. Which trashes your position.

          • shay simmons

            Except that this study doesn’t prove that it does anything. Something was observed but there was no strong evidence that the homeopathy caused it.

            That’s what statistically significant means, in research.

          • rosross

            There was no strong evidence. Qualifier. There should have been not a shred of evidence, strong or weak, or any possible indicator if you were correct.

            I still await your explanation as to how, if Homeopathy is simply water, which would make using it as medicine fraud, there are MD’s and hospitals around the world, particularly in Europe, where it is practised; universities and even some medical schools, particularly in Europe, where it is taught, and Governments which include it in State medical systems.

            What is your theory, assuming you are correct and this is just fraud, as to how that can possibly happen given the need for legal surety by such groups in regard to fraud?

            I mean, how can the Queen’s physician, both an Allopathic specialist and a Homeopathic physician get away with it? Surely if you were correct he would have been struck off long ago.

            How does it happen? Perhaps the answer is simpler than you might be prepared to consider – they have evidence for its efficacy and know it is not just water but profoundly effective medicine.

          • shay simmons

            Sorry to burst your bubble, ros, but when an observation is made, you can’t wave that around as proof that homeopathy caused it, when the researchers themselves note that there were different variables involved. That’s not what strong statistical evidence looks like.

            More like wishful thinking.

            As for the rest of your claim, that’s the argument by popularity fallacy. That many people believe something works, is not proof it works.

          • rosross

            I am not sure if you have an issue processing, or are being obtuse.

            Your claim is that Homeopathy is just water, which means it is fraud and cannot do anything.

            When there is a demonstrable effect anywhere, anytime, that proves you wrong. It should not happen.

            I have never claimed that because many people embrace something means it is proof that it works. However, only a fool would not recognise that generally if something is around for centuries, it must be effective or it would not have lasted.

            It is proof that millions of people have found it effective. So you are wrong again.

            I still await your explanation as to how, if you are correct and it is all fraud, various bodies can get away with embracing Homeopathy and an Allopathic physician can continue to practice.

          • Your error is a common one among believers in woo. It embodies the post hoc fallacy.

            The requirement is not that a demonstrable effect happens, but that it is provably caused by the homeopathic nostrums themselves. We already know that null interventions can appear to cause improvement due to regression tot he mean, natural course of disease, reporting bias, observer bias and a number of other human failings.

            What has never been demonstrated – ever, by anybody – is that homeopathic nostrums cause any effect that cannot be accounted for by these known confounders.

            Exactly like astrology, in fact.

          • shay simmons

            “, only a fool would not recognise that generally if something is around for centuries, it must be effective or it would not have lasted.”

            Like leeches?

          • Or bloodletting?

          • However, only a fool would not recognise that generally if something is around for centuries, it must be effective or it would not have lasted.

            What is the line? Genuine question.

            How many years does something have to be around before we no longer need to research and/or question it?

            Who set’s that number?

          • JGC

            Like the traditional Chinese medicinal use of aristolochia? Blood letting, which continued in use into the 1920’s?

          • Ismael AG

            Well he does get away thanks to people like you who refuse to accept that there is no evidence because they want to believe in magic. And because homeopaths usually know better than to treat anything serious with homeopathy. If they administered homeopathy for cancer people would start dying.

          • If they administered homeopathy for cancer people would start dying.

            @Ismael AG:disqus, this is already a thing. :/

          • Acleron

            Unfortunately, the more deluded ones do administer homeopathy for serious non self resolving disease.

          • P=0.05 is the test of statistical significance. By definition, that is a 1 in 20 chance of a false positive. But, as Ioannidis pointed out, that test is only valid for a plausible intervention, and even then, most of the supposedly significant results are actually incorrect (and of course we never know how many negative results languish in the filing drawer).

            What you need is to provide robust repeatable results that are provably inconsistent with any other observation. That has never been done, by any homeopathist, ever.

            For best results this should come form people who do not have a vested interest in the outcome. You know how you denigrate research funded by “big pharma”? The Banerjis’ entire business depends on the claims they make in their crappy papers. Independence matters.

            Remember: for homeopathy to be true, there must be an entire undiscovered property of matter. That requires some solid proof. Benveniste thought he had that, but it turned out to be self-delusion.

          • shay simmons

            “There should have been not a shred of evidence, strong or weak, or any possible indicator if you were correct.”

            If there had been no evidence or indicators I would have immediately suspected the researchers of either having faulty equipment or having hired piss-poor lab assistants. There is ALWAYS an indicator of something, even if it is just that Mrs A’s drainage today was X, and yesterday it was Y.

            Where the hard work comes in is analyzing the results to see what it can be attributed to. That’s what you don’t understand about research, ros.

          • That’s what you don’t understand about research, ros.

            That’s just one of the many many things Roslyn doesn’t understand about research.

          • Acleron

            We know thalidomide is teratogenic in humans. Your cherry picking would not reach that conclusion because not every woman who took the drug gave birth to deformed babies. Until you learn to look at the totality of the evidence and stop cherry picking you will be unable to learn.

          • It’s kind of…What do we mean when we talk about “causing”?

            Some people might be using causing in the sense of Car Accidents causing some Unique Injury That Is Only Sustained In Car Accidents. By that standard, no, thalidomide is not teratogenic in humans.

            Some mean disproportionate representation in that X is caused by Y in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer…and by that standard, yes, thalomide is teratogenic in humans.

            Then there’s which way you want your errors to go. This is disqus – I really don’t care which sense people use….just be consistent.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ros, there have been many studies on homeopathy.
            Most deploy poor methodology and poor analysis to contrive meaningless results, but by sheer chance, sometimes a study will demonstrate a weak effect or an anomalous “statistically significant” result. None of these seem to be replicable when further properly designed studies are done.

            I refer you to the jellybean study.
            https://xkcd.com/882/
            I hope you can see that finding an apparent effect is not proof of efficacy. You must realise this surely, or you are even less rational than I thought you were.

          • JGC

            “Not statistically significant means very little”
            Only if by very little you mean “completely indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever”.

          • It depends on the journal. In this case the journal has no impact factor and no academic status, so the claim is basically worthless.

          • Abuse, name-calling, ad hominem attacks make you look foolish.

            There was no abuse, name calling or ad hom in that statement.

            “At the risk of arguing with an idiot” is not abuse due to the qualifier.
            “At the risk of arguing with an idiot” is only name calling if the risk pans out.
            And it isn’t an ad hominem. After the hundreds of times you’ve had the Ad Hom described to you how can you still not understand what an ad hom is?

            I’ll go there. You’re an idiot.

            That’s not abuse or name calling. It’s a layman assessment of your intelligence and your ability to learn based on the evidence at hand.

          • It’s amazing how many quacks don’t understand the ad hominem fallacy. In the words of the great Mojo:

            Ad hom: “You’re wrong because you’re a fecking eejit.”
            Not ad hom: “You’re wrong and you’re a fecking eejit”
            Also not ad hom: “You’re a fecking eejit because you’re wrong.”

          • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c439ea71493f4b2c6e9941bbf6169266ebe0abe2b800b6613bdf1d31f714bb2.png

            Though in cases #2 and #3, we’ve certainly been less than polite…it’s just also not the ad hom fallacy.

          • PIbber Seventy

            So, no.

        • JGC

          “Okay, so you believe modern science because it can build a plane, can build a tree from scratch”
          Of course not, especially as there exists no need to believe is modern science as there exists a very large body of evidence which demonstrates its efficacy.

    • Mike Warren

      “When the world in general comes to its senses, Homeopathy will be recognised for what it has always been,”

      I agree with that bit. All the rest is evidence-free nonsense.

      • rosross

        Well, quoting out of context is the sloppy resort of those who can make no case against Homeopathy.

        • Well, quoting out of context is the sloppy resort of those who can make no case against Homeopathy.

          Pot, kettle, black.

        • Learn what the burden of proof is.

    • Lenny

      How strange it is that the only people who see homeopathy to be effective are the homeopaths. Who obviously are completely neutral and in no way compromised financially, morally and ethically by their therapy repeatedly being repeatedly demonstrated to have no effects beyond placebo and regression to the mean. How curious it is also that so many august national bodies with interests solely in what is best for patients should apparently collectively conspire to suppress the miraculous truth about the wonderful healing powers of shaken water. Is it not the truth that the great homeopaths and their supporters all live to a ripe old age after any illnesses are cured by their shaken water? Unlike Kaviraj, Jan De Vries, Tinus Smits, Jacques Benveniste et al? James Tyler Kent, the father of modern homeopathy, surely was fit and well well into his 90s? What? He died in his 60s as well?

      Now there’s a thing.

      • AlPhur

        Look, none of this is relevant, and your points are feeble.

        James Tyler Kent died of kidney failure in 1916, at the age of 67. According to http://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html , average male Life expectancy in the USA in 1916 was 49.6 years. There, now I’ve learnt something new, thank you.

        The arch-Nemesis of homeopathy teaching in the States, JD Rockefeller, was himself ironically an adherent of homeopathy. Just not for the masses, because that would eat into profits. JD died at 98 years.
        http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2007/08/28/john-davison-rockefeller-senior-and-homeopathy/

        Yes, Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj 67 ( a well-lived life),De Vries, 78. Smits, (of cancer) 63. It happens.
        Jaques Benveniste was not a homeopath.

        Hahnemann 1745-1853, even in his time when average life expectancy was 40 years, died at 98.

        “The only people who see homeopathy to be effective are the homeopaths”. Well, yes, if you include their patients of course. Rather a self-selecting sample. Those who see it as ineffective are very largely people who have never used it (or confuse it with something else). Those who see pharma medicine as ineffective and dangerous are also a self-selecting sample. It’s just irrelevant.

        “so many august national bodies with interests solely in what is best for patients ” had me in stitches.

        • My grandfather smoked four packs of cigarettes a day and lived into his nineties, cigarettes save lives.

          And yes, that argument is precisely as rigorous as yours, the crucial difference is that my grandfather didn’t make a living selling cigarettes and neither do I.

          • rosross

            That proves smoking does not kill people per se: Tobacco is a herb. One of its earliest uses was to treat asthma. I knew a couple of asthmatics in the early Seventies who swore it helped them.

            There you go. And leeches, bloodletting and maggots for wounds are back.

            The argument for Homeopathy is simple – it has healed people for more than two centuries. If it had not it would not have lasted.

            Despite the campaign against it Homeopathy is practised by many MD’s around the world, who clearly have no issue despite their Allopathic training, and in hospitals; taught in universities and even some medical schools and included by Governments in State medical systems.

            In this age of litigation that would be impossible if Homeopathy were ineffective or a fraud.

            So, all the naysayers are gazumped by realities.

          • Fedos

            Just because you’re a willfully ignorant moron doesn’t mean homeopathy isn’t bullshit.

          • rosross

            Abuse and ad hominem attacks simply register you have no case. Thanks.

          • I have to say I am impressed by the number of errors you can get into a short comment.
            Substitute reiki, astrology, prayer, crystals or any other mystical bullshit for homeopathy in your argument and the sense does not in any way change. That is a telling point.

            First, your inability to understand an argument does not invalidate it. The claim was around Kent’s “longevity”. In fact this was perfectly routine in its day, the average lifespan was brought down by infant mortality, once you survived to adulthood the average age at death was mid sixties or so, depending on where and when you lived. And, like belief in homeopathy, smoking cigarettes does not *inevitably* kill, but it kills. I’d say ask Penelope Dingle, but she died in agony because of belief in homeopathy, so you can’t.

            Second, leeches may well be back but not for balancing the humours, which was how doctors of Hahnemann’s day used them. The use of leeches as anticoagulants does not in any way validate their historical use. Pretty much all medical “knowledge” of Hahnemann’s time is nonsense, and that includes Hahneman’s own beliefs re homeopathy.

            Third, your fallacious appeals to popularity and authority ignore the fact that MDs (aka former medical students) are every bit as susceptible to magical thinking as anyone else. In fact they have a long history of believing to excess in their own arcane knowledge. It can be quite difficult to persuade doctors to drop a wrong idea learned at the feet of their masters. It is true that a few MDs are also heomopaths, just as a few scientists are creationists, but that does not validate the doctrines of homeopathy.

            Fourth, the spread of “quackademic medicine” also does not validate homeopathy. It is tooth-fairy science.

            Fifth, not one of the arguments you raise actually undermines the fact that homeopathy is bullshit, all it does is underscores the importance of challenging that bullshit and getting it out of places where it has no business being, like universities, pharmacies and doctors’ surgeries

        • Look, none of this is relevant, and your points are feeble.

          So you concede that they are at least actual points.

      • rosross

        Now that is where you are wrong. The people who see Homeopathy as effective are those who know it is effective because of observation and empirical experience. That is of course Homeopaths but most importantly, patients. I am not a Homeopath but, as a patient I know that it works and remain eternally grateful for its healing capacity.

        The reason why the campaign against Homeopathy fails is because there are millions of people around the world like me and the number grows and grows.

        So, your argument is that all Allopathic doctors live beyond 100 and never get sick? Hmmm, I doubt that. No medicine is perfect all of the time.

        • Only one person ever observed something in the absence of an external description and concluded that homeopathy works. The one person was Samuel Hahnemann, and the basis on which he founded that conclusion has been known to be wrong for well over a hundred years, and was confidently predicted to be wrong decades before that.

          People who are not homeopathists and conclude that homeopathy works, do so only as a result of promoting by the homeopaths. Like any religion, belief in homeopathy only exists because it is proselytised.

          It’s not a question of whether homeopathy or medicine are perfect all the time, it’s a question of medicine being imperfect and homeopathy being nonsense. There are so many data points by now that there is no realistic room for doubt.

          When a manufacturer can ship product where the magic only touches the top fraction oft he vial, and one in six vials contains none of the magic at all, and *nobody notices*, you can be reasonably confident that you’re dealing with an ineffective product.

        • There is no magic number of airplane crashes that proves that magic carpets fly.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Duh! If the carpet couldn’t fly, then it wouldn’t be a magic carpet!

    • It’s not a campaign against homeopathy, it’s a campaign against nonsense. The universe hates you and has proved you wrong, sucks to be you.

      • rosross

        Oh dear, I doubt the universe hates anyone and given how effective Homeopathy has been for more than two centuries, I would say the universe, if it has a side, is on the side of Homeopathic medicine.

        • Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. Homeopathy is not medicine and has never been effective.

          I was following your preferred rhetorical mode of describing everything in terms of animus. If science “hates” homeopathy, then by the same argument reality “hates” homeopathy.

          In fact, of course, neither reality nor science give a shit about homeopathy, they simply show it to be wrong. Science is no more threatened by the claims of homeopathists than it is by flat-earthers, alchemists or astrologers.

    • shay simmons

      Explain to us again, ros, just exactly how homeopathy works.

      • rosross

        No-one knows exactly how Homeopathic medicine works as yet. But eventually we will.

        As with many Allopathic treatments, there are various theories but what people care about is that a treatment works, regardless of whether the how is known.

        • shay simmons

          Something something magic something.

          No one knows how homeopathy works because it doesn’t.

          • rosross

            Keep up the good work. The silly comments from naysayers just makes people with open minds curious about Homeopathy. You are our best supporters.

          • shay simmons

            People with open minds soon figure out that a glass of water isn’t going to cure anything but thirst.

          • rosross

            Keep up the good work.

          • shay simmons

            Piece of cake.

          • rosross

            Meanwhile, in the real world, Homeopathic medicine continues to help people, despite the fact that in your view, since it is just water, it can do absolutely nothing.

            This should not be happening.

            Quote: In 2005, the University of Texas published a clinical study of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies on cancer patients. According to the study, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is an effective cancer treatment.

            However, one study published in the journal Cancer found evidence that the homeopathic remedy Traumeel S could greatly reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy side effects such as stomatitis. As with all cancer treatment options, any use of homeopathic medicine should be discussed with your mesothelioma physician.

            https://www.mesotheliomahelp.org/treatment/homeopathy-mesothelioma/

            And kids, German oncologists use it for children. Why are they all not up on fraud charges?

          • shay simmons

            Ros…you might want to actually read the page you linked to.

          • rosross

            I did read it and I posted a relevant comment of Homeopathic medicine having an effect. See above. You claim that cannot happen. It does.

            The site is a conventional Allopathic medical site, but clearly they are open-minded to Integrative Medicine which is all to the good. However, they will, because they must veer to the conventional view and one takes that context into account.

            Quote: However, one study published in the journal Cancer found evidence that the homeopathic remedy Traumeel S could greatly reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy side effects such as stomatitis.

          • Mike Stevens

            “However, one study published in the journal Cancer found evidence that the homeopathic remedy Traumeel S could greatly reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy side effects such as stomatitis.”

            Wasn’t it you who called to use of cherry picked studies a “scientific disgrace” not a few posts ago Ros?

            This study on Traumeel S is not as “great” as you would have people believe. They had to do a bit of hand waving to contrive any statistically significant results from the data, seeing as how they only had 15 people in each of the 2 arms of the trial.
            I’d point out 2 things: firstly that when one looks at their primary outcome (whether Traumeel prevented stomatitis) this was not statistically significant (see pic below)
            And secondly, the people in the groups differed substantially. For instance, graft versus host disease (which causes severe stomatitis) was a side effect of the bone marrow transplant in only 3 of those given Traumeel, but in 6 of those given placebo. Now no treatment of any description is likely to avert GVH disease stomatitis, so these patients should have been excluded from the analysis. Including them makes the outcome in the Traumeel group look better than it was.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1af95c323436d74a65972dda00c1b1d67b0cef8b44268094a473bb08c1cdb85c.jpg

          • duplicat

            When a vaccine study needs to pass queer-review, they send it to Mike Stevens.

          • Keep up the good work. The silly comments from naysayers just makes people with open minds curious about Homeopathy. You are our best supporters.

            Actually…. what will be happening here is the people you refer to, the ones with the open minds, the undecided ones… They’ll be seeing Homeopathy challenged and the supporters being unable to meet those challenges. They’ll see long threads where the supporters eventually resort to accusations of name calling and incorrect claims of Ad Hom and suppression of opinion.

            They’ll see the homeopathy side can’t actually back itself.

            The pro-science crowd aren’t your best supporters.

            Now, if you were able to provide robust evidence for your claims, demonstrate even a vague understanding of how science works or apply the argument of the logical fallacy with even a hint that you knew what you were talking about, you may be right.

            But you’ve demonstrated conclusively that you can’t do that.

          • Rosross…

            Being open minded is the willingness to assess evidence for claims…so got any?

        • Ros said:

          “No-one knows exactly how Homeopathic medicine works as yet. But eventually we will.”

          Some may find your faith touching.

          • duplicat

            Some may find your faith touching.

            “Faith touching” is the exclusive domain of Catholic Priests.

        • “No-one knows exactly how Homeopathic medicine works as yet. But eventually we will.”

          This is incorrect. Science has a full and coherent explanation that fits all the observed facts and is both internally and externally consistent – that is, it is fully consistent with other branches of inquiry.

          Homeopathy does not work, but people falsely believe it does due to a number of cognitive and inferential errors. The observed facts are consistent with known confounders such as regression to the mean, natural history of disease and cognitive biases. Not one rigorous study of homeopathy is provably inconsistent with this.

          The people who don’t know how homeopathy works, are homeopathists. Scientists understand ti just fine, it’s just that the facts conflict with your religion so you can’t accept them.

          There may be “various theories” within homeopathy, but none of them is coherent, complete and consistent with the known facts about the nature of matter, human physiology and the like. These, then, are not theories but conjectures, ad-hoc rationalisations to avoid an ideologically unacceptable scientific consensus.

    • Mike Stevens

      “many treatments in Allopathic [sic] medicine are not plausible either”
      Can you list these “many treatments” for me, ros?

      • Mike Stevens > rosross • 6 days ago
        “many treatments in Allopathic [sic] medicine are not plausible either”
        Can you list these “many treatments” for me, ros?

        [crickets]

    • shay simmons

      Ros, you keep trotting out that lie about the third biggest killer, even though you have many times been shown the statistics that says what the top ten causes of death actually are. Why is it that you keep posting it, short-term memory loss? Stupidity? Deeply ingrained dishonesty?

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

    • Jonathan Graham

      continue to practise, learn and heal with Homeopathic medicine

      …or more correctly fool themselves into thinking so.

      Homeopathy may not be plausible

      The cognitive error here is that you assume “implausibility” is somehow a binary state. Otherwise you could admit that it would be hard to come up with something as implausible as homeopathy in accepted medical science.

    • Mike Stevens

      Ok, you don’t need to give the “many” treatments, just a couple of examples will do, Ros.

      • kfunk937

        I’m still waiting for ros to specify the homeopathic remedy (or prophy) for rabies. And then some case reports of survivours would be nice.

        Brave Sir Robin always runs away.

        • shay simmons

          On another discussion (violentmetaphors) Ros boasted that if she were ever exposed to rabies she would use homeopathic remedies.

          As Jennie commented, “homeopathetic.”

          • Charles Lindturtle

            You mean use a “homopathic” of course. When I visit the gay saunas I always look out for them.

          • shay simmons

            Hi Travis. Bye Travis.

        • Mister Atoz

          This doesn’t relate to your discussion as far as I can tell but I thought you might be interested:

          Medical Mystery: Only One Person Has Survived Rabies without Vaccine–But How?

  • Rotmm

    Ernst keeps up the campaign against Prayer, quoting from compromised sources, as indeed he must, while millions of people around the world ignore him and his claims and continue to practise, learn and heal with Prayer.

    Prayer may not be plausible, according to the very distorted and limited mindset of modern science, but many treatments in Allopathic medicine are not plausible either and now as the third biggest killer, many of those treatments kill and injure millions every year.

    Prayer is the only true evidence-based medicine around since its foundation was and is empirical, in ways conventional Allopathic medicine is not.

    When the world in general comes to its senses, Prayer will be recognised for what it has always been, the most brilliant medical modality for healing yet developed, and a treasure trove of information about human beings and their health and disease.

    • Nickhill

      If prayer is considered as an entry point to faith, then you need to also compare the life outcomes of those with faith against those without.
      I can’t think of any similar epi-phenomena which come with homeopathy.

      Therefore, whilst sticking to a purely materialistic standpoint, prayer is potentially a much better health treatment than homeopathy. They are not comparable. Prayer is better.

    • AlPhur

      Rotmm wrote:


      The debate about pudding is over. These verdicts prove it

      I have made my views on pudding clear on many occasions — actually, I don’t see them as ‘views’ but as evidence-based statements. But this has never stopped the pudding brigade vehemently disagreeing with me. Not only that, they also claim that I cannot be trusted because I am biased, corrupt, incompetent and dishonest.

      Such allegations are untrue, of course, but, in the mind of many consumers, they nevertheless create the impression that there is some sort of a legitimate debate about the value of pudding.

      To dispel this false impression, I have collected all the ‘official verdicts’ about pudding that I could find, regardless of what they tell us. By ‘official verdict’ I mean recent statements from national or international organisations (rather than from single individuals) that:

      are independent
      conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence
      have a reputation of being beyond reproach

      I excluded statements from organisations that promote pudding and those with an ideological or commercial interest in pudding. I did not exclude any verdict for not confirming my own published views. None of the statements below were developed with my involvement.

      blah, etc

      Fair use.

    • Prayer, like homeopathy, has been extensively tested and shown not to work. I guess that was your point, yes?

      • rosross

        Actually Prayer has been tested and shown to work.

        Quote: “Studies have shown prayer can prevent people from getting sick — and when they do get sick, prayer can help them get better faster,” Duke University’s Harold G. Koenig, M.D., tells Newsmax Health.

        An exhaustive analysis of more than 1,500 reputable medical studies “indicates people who are more religious and pray more have better mental and physical health,” Dr. Koenig says.

        http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline/prayer-health-faith-medicine/2015/03/31/id/635623/

  • AlPhur

    Argumentun ad verecundiam. A hefty dose of appeal to ignorance and singing to the choir as well, but what else could we expect? Naturally you wouldn’t cite Robert Hahn’s view that the body of evidence does not support the anti-homeopathy propaganda. But then you indulge in ad-hominens against him – which I suppose is fair enough in the light of his view that your own opinions hold no weight and should be disregarded.

    Are you playing politics and asking for a groundswell of personal support for your views? The usual crowd will be here no doubt.

    Now, is there any one of those reporting bodies that is truly independent, I wonder? How many had co-opted knowledgeable homeopaths to their committees (real homeopaths, that is), or were they simply Star Chambers stroking their confirmation bias?

    Are any of these peer-reviewed? Any?

    Perhaps the bogus so-called “evidence check” of 2010 was peer-reviewed, in the literal sense. (9. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK)
    Was that not the one set up by a known anti-homeopathy activist, who did not in advance invite anyone with actual experience of homeopathy to participate, whilst inviting several other denialists who shared his ambitions? (One of whom was another anti-homeopathy propagandist called Ernst, was it not? )

    That committee formed of a dozen or so members who absented themselves from the report’s acceptance vote? Oh, yes, that one where two novice members were recruited after the hearings had finished, as flattered lobby-fodder, in order to push the report through, three-to-one. The report that was later formally sidelined and ignored by Parliament and the responsible Ministry? (Which did, I think, at least privately observe that the committee had exceeded its brief.)
    Scarcely beyond reproach; I’m mildly surprised the pseudo-skeptics keep dragging it up considering their stated aim to employ critical thinking.

    I haven’t the time to look into the full list, except to note that the Australian report was widely criticised as biased and unscientific. They stand in need of a hefty debunk.

    I do not accept the view that the matter is settled (either way, though I’m inclined from my own observations to say that homeopathy works, and works profoundly, though its practitioners are not infallible). It is certainly not settled on the basis of opinions of those implacably opposed to the idea, attempting to form a false consensus – though I do appreciate the average uninformed pseudo-skeptics’ fear that good research may well come through to demolish their position, for example working towards observed mechanism, or another few good controls of epidemics. Hence perhaps the calls to shut down the argument, prevent further research funding, and withdraw funds where homeopathy is working in clinical environments, prevent its use where it could be shown to succeed.
    Whatever it is, that is not science. Who, I wonder, benefits?

  • Homeopathy

    Homeopathy does work. Those who have used it at least once will always say that it is the real treatment. Homeopathy is based on definite principles. Modern medicine is never a complete medicine and similarly homeopathy. Homeopathy can always keep anyone healthy for years to come

    http://www.homoeoscan.com/p/cases.html

    • Acleron

      That must be why Penelope Dingle survived after being advised by a homeopath to ignore real medical treatment. Oh wait, she didn’t, in fact she died painfully after being conned by you lot.

    • Mike Warren

      ” Homeopathy can always keep anyone healthy for years to come.”

      A bold claim. Any evidence to support it? A link to a website full of unverified and unverifiable anecdotes doesn’t count by the way.

      • rosross

        The evidence is in the millions of people around the world being treated with Homeopathic medicine and more than two centuries of empirical evidence.

        • The evidence is in the millions of people around the world being treated with Homeopathic medicine and more than two centuries of empirical evidence.

          Well… if you want to argue fallacious logic, what about the billions of people around the world being treated with actualmedicine?

          • Acleron

            It also makes the assumption that those millions have been cured of anything and are enthusiastic supporters of homeopathy. Even in that hotbed of alternative nonsense, India, the homeopaths are demanding the right to prescribe real medicine. Could that be because their customers are asking for it?

          • duplicat

            Still battling homeopathy?

            This is easier than debunking the Easter Bunny!! I see you’re still on level 1.

        • Please provide a list of cases where homeopathy has been independently and objectively authenticated to have cured anybody of anything, ever. I have challenged many homeopathists to do this and not one has ever been able to. They usually fail at the “objectively” test, but also generally on “independently”.

          I have spent a lot of time looking into this and cannot find a single example where the outcome is provably inconsistent with the null hypothesis. And that is the bar. Obviously believers *assert* that results are due tot he magic of homeopathy, but not one example has yet been provided which cannot be accounted for by plausible and scientifically defensible alternative explanations that do not rely on the claims of homeopathy being true.

          Remember that you are making claims that essentially invoke a new and undiscovered property of matter, so your evidence has to be especially robust. After 200 years, science has got a lot better at blowing away the cobwebs. With homeopathy it’s pretty clear by now that cobwebs are all there is.

        • Mike Stevens

          So the only evidence you have for homeopathy’s “effectiveness” is the old appeal to popularity fallacy?

    • Spamming your website is not a substitute for credible science.

      There is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, like does not cure like.
      There is no way it can work, its doctrines are fundamentally incompatible with the properties of matter.
      There is no proof it does work, all observations are fully consistent with the null hypothesis.

      • rosross

        If Like cannot cure Like, why is Ritalin used to treat the condition it causes in healthy people? Why are many cardiac medications treating conditions they would cause in healthy people?

        Why are Chemo and Radiotherapy used to treat Cancer when both are causes of Cancer?

        Apart from which you clearly have zip understanding of Homeopathic methodology. Like Cures Like is not a claim that the same thing will cure anyone, anytime, but an indicator of the best Homeopathic medicine for the individual.

        • Like does not cure like. A small number of drugs may have side effects that are superficially similar to the conditions they treat, but that is nto the same as like curing like.

          Hahnemann based the doctrine of similars on an idiosyncratic reaction to cinchona whic h he decided was “like” malaria, and thus he speculated that cinchona cures malaria because it can cause like symptoms. In fact we have known for well over a century that cinchona cures malaria because it contains quinine, which kills the plasmodium falciparum parasite that causes malaria.

          You assert that chemo and radiation therapy for cancer is evidence for like cures like. That displays profound ignorance of how those therapies are used. Both require clinically meaningful doses (inconsistent with homeopathic doctrine), and both work by well understood means: they kill cells. Killing cells is not what causes cancer. Chemo drugs differentially target those cells which are dividing most quickly. That is not how cancer is caused. And even if these things did work by symptomatic similarity, which they do not, it still would not validate the doctrine of similars because that is claimed to be essentially universal.

          Like cures like is based on a false inference. Adding more false inferences does not constitute a body of evidence that like cures like. Homeopathists claim that this is a universal and sole basis of cure, there is absolutely no evidence that this is so and there is no property of matter by which it could work. Like does not cure like. Symptomatic similarity is not a useful indicator.

          You have asserted many times that I don’t understand homeopathy, but the evidence is that I understand it very much better than you do. Science has a complete and coherent explanation for the observed facts that is both internally and externally consistent. Homeopathists prefer an alternative explanation which is incoherent, incomplete, internally inconsistent and wholly inconsistent with all relevant science. That is the scientific way of saying: homeopathists do not have a clue what they are talking about.

    • Homeopathy does work. Those who have used it at least once will always say that it is the real treatment.

      As someone that’s used homeopathy I can demonstrate that you are wrong.

      It didn’t work.
      It doesn’t work (according to the best quality research.)
      It can’t work (according to our current, extensive understanding of physics, chemistry and biology)

      • rosross

        Homeopathy does not work for everyone but then that applies to all Allopathic treatments. Homeopathy works for most but no medical modality can ever claim to be effective for all people, all of the time. And no Homeopathic doctor would make that claim.

        It does work according to some of the best quality research but that gets ignored.

        The fact that it cannot work according to the current understanding of science is irrelevant. Even Einstein did not accept quantum mechanics when first mooted. Science had to evolve.

        The same will happen in regard to Homeopathy and when science has developed enough to understand it there will be many looking like fools for rejecting such a brilliant, effective and cheap medical modality. In the meantime Homeopathy will continue to heal people as it has done for more than two centuries.

        • Everything after your fourth word was redundant.

          Homeopathy does not work. There is no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work. Your statement of faith does not change this.

        • Acleron

          ‘Even Einstein did not accept quantum mechanics when first mooted. Science had to evolve.’

          Einstein was the instigator of Quantum Mechanics when he explained the photoelectric effect. He didn’t like one aspect of the conclusions of QM, namely entanglement, he tried all of his life to develop an alternative explanation.

          • duplicat

            I think you should read this guys comments on Quora. I think you would enjoy them: https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Brenner-13

            He has 88 answers and about 30 on relativity of quantum mechanics. I think he is the same Micheal Brenner from Harvard: https://www.seas.harvard.edu/brenner/Home.html

          • Acleron

            I can see why you like him, he is full of nonsense, a kindred spirit or is that you impersonating people yet again.

          • duplicat

            I see you think a Doctor of Physics at Harvard is “full of nonsense”.

            That says alot about you.

          • Acleron

            Yeah, it means unlike you, I can read.

          • duplicat

            You’re an idiot. Have fun with your cheezy dumbed-down pop-physics books.

    • edzard ernst

      I have used it at least once and say it’s a placebo!

      • rosross

        So you have used it at least once and you say it is a placebo. Now, be honest, that hardly amounts to rigorous, objective research does it?

        • edzard ernst

          1) I am always honest
          2) ‘at least once’ can mean a million times
          3) I was not referring to my research; that you can find on Medline, for instance.

          • rosross

            If you had used it a million times you should have said. That is not what you said.

            I know your history. You originally were impressed by Homeopathy and then changed your mind. I am not sure how one can suddenly decide that finding something effective, over years I believe, is no longer effective. Surely that is rewriting your history. Unless you claim to be delusional for many years.

          • edzard ernst

            no, I used the quote that I was commenting on!!!
            “I am not sure how one can suddenly decide that finding something effective, over years I believe, is no longer effective.”
            IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH EVIDENCE; YOU SHOULD TRY IT.

          • rosross

            So, you are saying that while empirically, for years, you found Homeopathy effective, at the point where you decided there was not enough scientific evidence for that efficacy, it did not work?

            Or are you saying that without scientific proof you were not prepared to trust your own experience as you once had done?

          • edzard ernst

            I am saying that experience is often misguided, and mine was no exception. maybe you want to read this post which tries to explain: http://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/

          • Mike Stevens

            Perhaps when he started out training in homeopathy, in his naivety he was swept along on a wave of enthusiasm and wishful thinking, only to find that when he objectively and critically looked at the subject that he realised it was a scam.
            There are many examples of people who are convinced something is real, only to come to their senses when the magic trick is revealed to them and that the girl wasn’t really sawn in half after all.
            Unfortunately you are still stuck at the gullible delusional phase and haven’t developed the faculties to realise homeopathy is just smoke and mirrors. It’s worse than that really, as it’s “success” when observed is even much less than that of the magician. You still believe your magic homeopath can perform the equivalent of sawing people in half and joining them back again, despite his killing his assistants 95% of the time.

          • You really need to read his book. What he found was that he had been deluding himself. That’s what all homeopathists do. Homeopathy is an exercise in self-delusion. Mis-describing this as “empirical evidence” is a classic error. Google n-rays for the canonical example.

          • Acleron

            And that is the basis of the scientific method. No, we don’t trust ours or anybody’s elses personal experience because so many times it has been proven to be wrong.

          • Tetenterre

            …then changed your mind.

            Changing one’s mind in the face of new evidence that is contrary to one’s original views is a sign of intelligence. And honesty.

        • Mike Stevens

          Ernst was responding to the poster who claimed “if you have used it at least once…”
          Pay attention and stop being such a pernickity jerk.

        • So you have used it at least once and you say it is a placebo. Now, be honest, that hardly amounts to rigorous, objective research does it?

          But… you reject the rigorous, objective research too. It’s only when the “rigorous” and “objective” are removed or poorly applied that we see positive outcomes.

  • Homeopathy

    It would be nice if you read this too..why-james-randi-will-not-give-the-one-million-dollar
    http://www.homoeoscan.com/2016/11/why-james-randi-will-not-give-the-one-million-dollar.html

    • Acleron

      That old lie about Randi?

      • They do seem to like recycling them. Maybe they have nothing more?

      • rosross

        My question is why, if the science is so solid against Homeopathy, the scientific fraternity needs to hire a magician, a trickster, like Randi – fall about laughing – to represent it.

        And the truth is, the science is not solid or we simply would not see MD’s and hospitals around the world practising Homeopathy; universities and even some medical schools teaching it and Governments including it in State medical systems. It would not happen. It could not happen if the claims were true.

        More to the point, the Queen’s Physician, Dr Peter Fisher, qualified in both Homeopathy and Allopathy would be struck off if any of the claims made against Homeopathy had any credibility.

        Keep up the good work naysayers, You spread the word for Homeopathy because your own position is so pathetic.

        • Mike Stevens

          “the Queen’s Physician, Dr Peter Fisher, qualified in both Homeopathy and Allopathy would be struck off if any of the claims made against Homeopathy had any credibility.”

          Why do you say that, ros?
          Can you specify where and why Peter Fisher would be breaching GMC guidelines concerning Good Medical Practice to the degree where he would lose his license to practice? Can you explain your reasoning?

          • duplicat

            The planet only has a finite quantity of water. Thus, you people are drinking my homeopathic piss. All of you are; especially Mike.

          • JGC

            To the exact same extent you are drinking all our diluted urine, duplicat: what’s your point?

          • duplicat

            My point is: Mike likes it!

          • JGC

            Duplicat, you don’t have a point: you’re a little kid giggling at potty humor.

          • rosross

            The claims here are that Homeopathy is fraud, no more than water. If this were true, since Fisher practises it, he would be a fraud in the eyes of Allopathic medicine and struck off.

            Because he is not it says Homeopathy is not fraud and it is effective medicine and even Allopathy cannot counter that.

          • Logic 101 fail.

          • Mike Stevens

            No, the claims are that homeopathy is ineffective, and does not do what it says it can do. In some cases it might be described as part of a fraudulent promotion of useless therapy, and it would certainly be illegal if it were promoted as a cure for cancer for example, and would draw major disapproval should it be recommended to the detriment of someone who was to forgo effective orthodox medical care.

            So the GMC will allow doctors discretion is recommending it. Peter Fisher knows full well that he will only offer it if the illness he is treating is a) trivial, and b) conventional therapy has no effect.

            For example, when Prince Philip had ischaemic heart disease (unstable angina) Dr Peter Fisher ensured he was sent to a proper doctor, and didn’t fart about giving him 100C dilutions of Berlin Wall or whatever. He was admitted to hospital, and underwent coronary stenting. Problem solved.

            If Fisher were to breach GMC prescribing guidelines, then he could be reported to the GMC, and might even be subject to an enquiry. But the GMC err very much on the side of leniency to doctors, it is one of their failings. One has to commit serious professional misconduct to merit being struch off (you know, like Wakefield).

        • The first popular science critique of homeopathy was written in 1842 and there have been hundreds since (my favourite is Jay Shelton’s Homeopathy: how it really works). Fixating on Randi is understandable since homeopathy is based on fallacious appeals to authority, but science does not rely on Randi.

          His one unique contribution was squarely within his field of expertise: exposing Benveniste’s self-delusion. I cannot think of anybody better qualified than Randi to test Benveniste’s claims. Remember, dowsers also sincerely believe in their claims.

        • Acleron

          Science didn’t hire Randi, he developed an interest in exposing frauds. The million dollar prize was attempted in a very public demonstration by the Royal Society and the BBC. Vithoukatis failed to complete the registration process for it. Probably because he realised that his ‘superior’ intelligence would be unable to con the Randi Foundation.

          • rosross

            Randi is the face of failed science. End of story. Randi is the face of failed magic.

          • If only you could back up your nasty allegations…

          • ichthyic

            “Randi is the face of failed science.”

            that’s right, when confronted with your lie, lie some more! works every time.

          • Acleron

            Science has easily exposed your quackery, how has it failed?

            Oh well, as you continue to make your rather incoherent statements, scientists are making discoveries in areas as diverse as preventing heart disease, chemotherapeutic treatments, vaccines etc. These are of real benefit to humanity as opposed to the fraud you promulgate.

          • duplicat

            There are much more efficacious chemical treatments for cancer that have been ignored and suppressed.

          • Oh really.

          • duplicat

            Totally.

          • Prove it.

          • duplicat

            Methylgloxal.

            Read Robert Koch’s (MD, PhD) articles and the Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s (PhD) articles. You can also read the studies by Subhankar Ray, who is now carrying the torch.

            Cancer can be turned off and on at will. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi thinks proteins are conductive, and carry electrons from one end to heme. The iron at the center of the heme takes the electron and gives it to O₂, which turns it into water.

            Szent-Gyorgyi thinks that cancer is the electronic saturation of the semiconductive bands of proteins, disabling the oxidative machinery and relying on glycolysis. A cell in this state de-differentiates and has uncontrolled cell division.

            The simple dicarbonyl compounds such as methylglyoxal and bromopyruvate are thought to desaturate the backbone nitrogen of proteins, making them semiconductive once again and facilitating respiration.

            There are other proposed mechanisms, but what cannot be argued is that methylglyoxal works. Bromopyruvate also works and is a very similar molecule. It is not uncommon to reverse tumors in all mice when injecting these compounds.

            A BRIEF CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF METHYLGLYOXAL AND FURTHER EVALUATION OF A METHYLGLYOXAL-BASED ANTICANCER FORMULATION IN TREATINGCANCER PATIENTS
            –Ray

            The living state and cancer–Szent-Gyorgyi

            Robert Koch had a doctorate in chemistry. He was also a medical doctor and was the first to catch on to this.

          • duplicat

            There is also Young Ko’s studies in rats with bromopyruvate: Advanced cancers: eradication in all cases using 3-bromopyruvate
            therapy to deplete ATP

          • So, you’re not able to provide any good evidence, then? You’re certainly not showing any signs of even understanding what cancer is and isn’t.

          • duplicat

            I provided a rat study in which all tumors were reversed my bromopyruvate. Similar studies have been done with methylglyoxal (Ray).

            I read three of Szent-Gyorgi’s books and about six of his articles. He discovered vitamin C, the Citric Acid Cycle, and won a Nobel Prize.

            I’ll take his theories as truth over whatever stupid mind-virus you’re peddling.

          • JGC

            And your evidence that bromioyruvate is similarly effective in human subjects would be what exactly?

          • JGC

            citations needed, duplicat

          • Acleron

            Tell me Rene/Travis is there any bat shit crazy conspiracy theory you don’t buy into?

          • duplicat

            Read the science asshole.

            A bible-thumper (Acleron) from the Religion Forum is claiming that Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is wrong without the slightest bit of evidence.

            …as if he can overturn evidence will ridicule.

          • Acleron

            That’s inadvertently very funny. I’m English.

          • duplicat

            It’s called science. Read it:

          • Acleron

            Lol, what made it funny is that I was sure you didn’t understand what you said, thanks for confirming it.

            I spent most of my working life working as a researcher, I think I know just a little science but you obviously have no clue.

          • Acleron

            So in answer to my previous question, there is no bat shit crazy conspiracy you don’t buy into.

          • duplicat

            I don’t buy into any.

            You’re the psycho that thinks aluminum becomes safe one it’s in a vaccine. If that’s not bat-shit crazy I don’t know what is.

          • Acleron

            No, you don’t know what is.

          • Good job there’s no al in vaccines, right? Compounds are not elements.

          • JGC

            Citations needed

          • duplicat

            …scientists are making discoveries in areas as diverse as preventing heart disease, chemotherapeutic treatments, vaccines etc.

            You mean new ways to scam people?

            The cause of heart disease has been known for decades, and cure is cheap.

            Too bad your either too brainwashed to know that, or get paid to pretend otherwise.

          • Acleron

            Yet you are unable to say what cheap cure for heart disease is available.

          • duplicat

            I am. It’s called ascorbate, a molecule that increases procollagen synthesis threefold and is also necessary for collagen crosslinking. Collagen composes roughly half of the arterial wall.

            Uncrosslinked collagen has free lysyl groups which bind to Lp(a) strongly, similar to fibrin. In the arterial wall, this means plaque nucleation.

            I get my information from Nobel Laureates. You get your information from Paul Offit and other sundry morons.

            A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular
            Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of
            This Disease as a Cause for Human Mortality

            –Linus Pauling PhD

            However, arterial calcification is a different mechanism caused largely by incomplete γ-carboxylation initiated by a phylloquinone deficiency. The greatly increased calcification from patients on Warfarin show this as well as dozens in experimental studies both with vitamin K deficient mice and matrix Gla protein knockouts.

            High-ascorbate, high-phylloquinone, and low-salt will make you immune to cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol has a minor role.

          • Acleron

            Yeah like the double laureate, Pauling, he was still wrong about Vit C. It partly explains your anal fixation, large doses of Vit C causes diarrhoea as the body struggles to get rid of the excess.

          • duplicat

            …he was still wrong about Vit C.

            What was he wrong about? Read the article and tell me what is incorrect? I have have fact checked his articles and everything turns out correct.

          • Acleron

            You fact checking anything? Wow. You have demonstrated a complete disregard of facts. Lol, the concept of you fact checking is so amusing.

          • duplicat

            You’re an idiot and completely ignorant of his articles.

            You’re simple mind probably reads like this:

            [enter Acleron’s mind]
            > Linus Pauling?
            > Searching….
            > Linus from Charlie Brown?
            > He carries around a blankie?
            > [Googles]
            > Negative
            > Searching….
            > Pauling = Quack
            > Yes!
            [exit Acleron’s mind]

            Fact check:

            Lp(a) binds to lysyl groups. They use affinity chromatography charged with lysyl groups to separate Lp(a). ✓

            Lysyl groups are found on degraded and uncrosslinked collagen. Vitamin C is necessary to crosslink collagen. ✓

            Vitamin C is also necessary to produce procollagen. ✓

            Ergo, vitamin C prevents Lp(a) from binding to the arterial wall. It is impossible to induce cardiovascular disease in animals which produce large amounts of their own vitamin C.

            The guinea pig is the standard model for atherosclerosis for a reason.

            Now what do you have a problem with?? Are you going to say something of consequence or just spin your beachball propeller hat and say “woo”??

          • Acleron

            Pauling contributed greatly to molecular biology, his claims about Vit C were nonsense. But the idea of you fact checking anything is still making me laugh.

          • duplicat

            What is “nonsense”?

            You can’t dismiss this based on fashions or rumours. I admit, it sounded ridiculous to me at one point (probably because we associate vitamin C with innocuous things such as colds.)

            However, I spent time reading his articles and the articles of Dr. Willis before him in guinea pigs. The truth is, cardiovascular disease is largely subclinical scurvy which is reversible with ascorbate.

            And it makes perfect sense on molecular and evolutionary levels.

            You should read at least the article I linked to get your feet wet. If you need more proof there are the studies of Dr. Willis as well as a contemporary opthalmologist who has noticed reversal of cardiovascular disease in the arteries of the eye (ophthalmoscope).

          • Acleron

            For those who are interested in the facts concerning Pauling and Vitamin C, this article, complete with references, is less credulous.

            https://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

            Many senior scientists have gone down the rabbit hole of nonsense. They are listened to because of their previous achievements but in the end the facts are the important thing.

          • duplicat

            Quackwatch? Really! Looks like you’re a real heavyweight.

            The propaganda arm of the AMA. When they run out of arguments they just fling poo at people.

            So are you going to bring-up a serious point against the most logically-sound theory of cardiovascular disease, or are you going to keep spinning your propeller hat?

          • Acleron

            So Steven Barrat can back each point with a reference. Not only is high dose Vit C ineffective, in some animals it can increase the rate of cancer. A fact that Pauling tried to suppress.

            If you wish to believe in a failed modality, just go ahead. Just remember to wear your nappy when you go out.

          • duplicat

            You brought up cancer, not me. Albert Szent-Gyorgi had the best angle on cancer. The value in vitamin C is on collagen synthesis and crosslinking. You can see this to great effect in cases of scurvy.

            But before that happens (full-blown scurvy), a mild deficiency can lead to wrinkles and arterial collagen breakdown. In the event of arterial collagen breakdown, Lp(a) helps to plug the microscopic holes. This is cardiovascular disease.

            Weight-extrapolating the ascorbate synthesis rate of other animals to humans leads one the prescribe about six grams per day. You can get this with a high-fruit and raw vegetable diet.

            Perhaps Pauling overstepped his bounds trumpeting ascorbate for cancer (and his DNA triple helix), but he was spot-on in his assessment of cardiovascular disease.

            And the fact that you linked “Quackwatch” is an admission that you know absolutely nothing about this. You seem like someone who looks-up to David Gorski and Steve Novella.

          • Acleron

            Actually it was you who brought up the nonsense that cheap cures of cancer exist and then tried the fallacious appeal to authority.

            If you knew anything about the structure of DNA, you would have known that many guesses were made at the time, Pauling’s was closer than most but Watson and Crick were in the possession of a crucial piece of data, the X ray crystallography of Rosalind Franklin.

            As for Vit C megadoses and cancer, clinical trials show little effect on cancer occurrence but of course your delusion prevents you accepting evidence and poisoning the well with your nonsense about quackwatch doesn’t magically negate the existence of such evidence.

          • duplicat

            I’m not deluded, I said nothing about vitamin C and cancer.

            I’m talking about cardiovascular disease. Your entire stupid “Quackwatch” article didn’t even address that.

            Off topic. We can talk about cancer some other time.

        • Tetenterre

          the science is not solid or we simply would not see MD’s(sic)…practising Homeopathy

          By that ‘reasoning’, the science that shows that smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol to excess cannot be ‘solid’ because some MDs do these things.

          • rosross

            No, the correct analogy would be if doctors prescribed excessive alcohol and excessive smoking as medical treatments. One presumes they would be struck off.

            But they are not struck off for prescribing Homeopathic medicine.

          • Mike Stevens

            To drive the point home, I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere in response to this repeated claim of yours about whether prescribing homeopathy would be regarded as fraud in the UK.

            The claims are that homeopathy is ineffective (not fraudulent), and does not do what it says it can do. In some cases it might be described as part of a fraudulent promotion of useless therapy, and it would certainly be illegal if it were promoted as a cure for cancer for example, and would draw major disapproval should it be recommended to the detriment of someone who was to forgo effective orthodox medical care.

            So the GMC will allow doctors discretion is recommending it. Peter Fisher knows full well that he will only offer it if the illness he is treating is a) trivial, and b) conventional therapy has no effect.

            For example, when Prince Philip had ischaemic heart disease (unstable angina) Dr Peter Fisher ensured he was sent to a proper doctor, and didn’t fart about giving him 100C dilutions of Berlin Wall or whatever. He was admitted to hospital, and underwent coronary stenting. Problem solved.

            If Fisher were to breach GMC prescribing guidelines, then he could be reported to the GMC, and might even be subject to an enquiry. But the GMC err very much on the side of leniency to doctors, it is one of their failings. One has to commit serious professional misconduct to merit being struch off (you know, like Wakefield).

          • Tetenterre

            You really are contorting yourself; neat, but unsuccessful, pretence that you originally wrote “practising”, not “prescribing”. Now, if only homeopaths and their apologists would practice scrupulous honesty….

          • Acleron

            That would be a day.

    • Oh wow, a tired old self-serving attack piece by homeopathists. Literally nobody expected that.

    • Fedos

      JREF won’t give a million dollars to homeopaths because 1) the conmen are unable to demonstrate the veracity of their claims and 2) the million dollar challenge has been retired (and had been for a year at the time you write that crap)

  • AlPhur

    My earlier comment seems to have vanished. Some techinical glitch no doubt. I’ll re-post it:

    Appeal to Authority. A hefty dose of appeal to ignorance and singing to the choir as well, but what else could we expect? Setting the bar against knowledgeable individuals allows you to exclude Robert Hahn’s view that the body of evidence does not support the anti-homeopathy propaganda. But then you indulge in ad-hominems against him – which I suppose is fair enough in the light of his view that your own opinions hold no weight and should be disregarded. [Overview: http://freedom4health.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/September-newsletter.pdf ]

    Oh, and wishful thinking. Keep repeating a thing often enough and it may become commonly accepted?

    Are you playing politics and asking for a groundswell of personal support for your views? The usual crowd will be here no doubt.

    Now, is there any one of those reporting bodies that is truly independent, I wonder? How many had co-opted knowledgeable homeopaths to their committees (real homeopaths, that is), or were they simply Star Chambers stroking their confirmation bias?

    Are any of these peer-reviewed? Any?

    Perhaps the bogus so-called “evidence check” of 2010 was peer-reviewed, in the literal sense. (9. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK)
    Was that not the one set up by a known anti-homeopathy activist, who did not in advance invite anyone with actual experience of homeopathy to participate, whilst inviting several other denialists who shared his ambitions? (One of whom was another anti-homeopathy propagandist called Ernst, was it not? )

    That committee formed of a dozen or so members who absented themselves from the report’s acceptance vote? Oh, yes, that one where two novice members were recruited after the hearings had finished – to be clear, did not attend the hearings – as flattered lobby-fodder, in order to push the report through, three-to-one. The report that was later formally sidelined and ignored by Parliament and the responsible Ministry? (Which did, I think, at least privately observe that the committee had exceeded its brief.)
    Scarcely beyond reproach; I’m mildly surprised the pseudo-skeptics keep dragging it up considering their stated aim to employ critical thinking. No shame.

    I haven’t the time to look into the full list, except to note that the Australian report was widely criticised as biased and unscientific. They stand in need of a hefty debunk.

    I do not accept the view that the matter is settled (either way, though I’m inclined from my own observations to say that homeopathy works, and works profoundly, though its practitioners are not infallible). It is certainly not settled on the basis of opinions of those implacably opposed to the idea, attempting to form a false consensus – though I do appreciate the average uninformed pseudo-skeptics’ fear that good research may well come through to demolish their position, for example working towards observed mechanism, or another few good controls of epidemics. Hence perhaps the calls to shut down the argument, prevent further research funding, and withdraw funds where homeopathy is working in clinical environments, prevent its use where it could be shown to succeed.
    Whatever it is, that is not science. Who, I wonder, benefits?

  • Suprajit Biswas

    Actually I get feeds regarding homoeopathy as I once showed my interest in getting it in my google app. I have several times used it on myself as well as few near and dear ones. It has turned out to be a miracle. I am not a professional but with a very little knowledge from some sources I administerd in some cases some remedies on myself and it responded as described in the books. I do not describe it longer as it is my personal experience.
    But what I can see in the feeds is that almost all of them are for bashing this branch of treatment. I have hardly seen any feed glorifying it. But this could not stop, I presume, the progress of homoeopathy. Because people chose it depending on their experiences for its efficacy not on propaganda from some quarters.

    • Yours is what’s called an unverified and unverifiable anecdote: it tells us nothing about homeopathy.

      • Suprajit Biswas

        I wanted to point out that although there are much criticism and propaganda against homoeopathy, as I can hardly remember topics in the google feed that portray this branch of homoeopathy in positively, it is thriving on its own, gaining popularity on the basis of its effectiveness, felt by people across the world. I can’t understand what causes some people to voice against this branch of treatment so loudly. Have they ever used it and been any victim?

        • Your claim that homeopathy is thriving is interesting: any evidence it is thriving and that it’s because of its effectiveness? Certainly in the UK, there is good evidence it is collapsing: prescriptions in the NHS in England have fallen 96% in the past 20 years. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9f6582b04b460fa11d9f250247876e6e0eeee5ca69a1e1ee1c64431f34ceb0b.png

          • Suprajit Biswas

            If it is not thriving then what is the point of shouting against it? Let people choose what they like and what is beneficial to them. It is not right to think people so much foolish.

          • LOL! Nice try. Any one person being misled by the claims of homeopathy is one too many, don’t you think? But where’s the evidence for your claims that it is thriving and that it is because it’s effective?

          • If it is not thriving then what is the point of shouting against it? Let people choose what they like and what is beneficial to them. It is not right to think people so much foolish.

            Two points here;
            1. The purpose of “shouting against it” is misrepresenting the discussion. The science doesn’t support it. When tested in rigorous settings any perceived benefit turns out to be observer/confirmation bias. We’re not “anti-homeopathy” we’re pro-science.
            2. We’re also not saying people can’t use it if they want to.
            2a) We vocally rally against it being covered with taxpayer money because that’s a limited resource. You’ll hear people claim it’s a drop in the bucket of overall spending but when there are junior doctors and nurses going on strike because of the hours they work for the pay they get and you could measure this “drop” in the terms of the dozens of salaries that could be covered it makes sense to trim the pseudoscience funding.
            2b) We vocally rally against it because those that support it are so active at trying to ignore the science around it. The pro-science crowd is the more pro-choice crowd because we just want the consumer to have the best information available to better make a choice for themselves.

          • poppy72

            Yes I was talking to my health Insurer H.C.F. asking them to remove Woo coverage ( Homeopathy,Chiropractics. Acupuncture etc ) So that they could lower the monthly premiums. Their updated response was “the customers want it.” So it means that they can keep their premiums up.

          • Tell them you want cigarettes to be covered too. They used to think those were healthy and worked once too.

          • poppy72

            I better not, otherwise they might be silly enough to do it.

          • Suprajit Biswas

            Does science require any marketing? I am not sure about whether you raise your voice against other malpractices social or scientifical. However I have experienced its efficacy and believe one day it will be proved scientifically. I do not know how far science has progressed in interpreting its efficacy till now but neither has its progress come to a standstill.

          • Debi Carmi

            of course, in order to be accepted you have to fit their strict measurements of scientism.. which only fits to pharmaceutical models.. how can you do a double blind randomised controlled trial of a process which requires interaction, humanity and compassion..

          • JGC

            Easily: you start with a validated animal model whose readout foe efficacy takes the form of some quantifiable metric (I suggest collagen induced arthritis in mice, with the readout being measurement of paw edema).

            Then you separate the subjects into two cohorts, one of which receives homeopathy and one of which receives vehicle (whatever solvent used to succuss the active ingredient only.

            You blind the trial: neither the people dosing the subjects nor the people measuring edema may know whether subjects received treatment or control.

            Then you crunch the numbers.

          • JGC

            How did you establish that the improvements to your symptoms/condition you attribute to homeopathy were actually caused by the homeopathic treatment you received, on any basis other than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy?

          • Does science require any marketing?

            Looking at threads like this with such an anti-intellectual/anti-science undertone… Yes.

            I am not sure about whether you raise your voice against other malpractices social or scientifical.

            However I have experienced its efficacy and believe one day it will be proved scientifically.

            Ones own experiences are the worst form of evidence. If you know anything at all about how science works and why it is needed you’d realise that your own confirmation bias is the first thing you need to remove. Some of us accept that more readily than others. Some of us still need to really understand that.

            I do not know how far science has progressed in interpreting its efficacy till now but neither has its progress come to a standstill.

            The science on this is pretty much conclusive and settled within the wider scientific community. The more robust the scientific method is applied to trials and studies the less of an effect there is to be seen. The only places where any “controversy” lies is in very vocal fringe groups.

          • Debi Carmi

            don’t mind this idiot suprajit, he uses exactly the same lines for acupuncture denial as for homeopathy.. he is what is know as a Troll.. its impossible to have a rational debate as they will just regurgitate the same lines as if they are actually debating and not just bullying.. we know the truth, as do millions of other people around the world..

          • don’t mind this idiot suprajit, he uses exactly the same lines for acupuncture denial as for homeopathy.

            That is because the robust evidence leads to that conclusion.

            its impossible to have a rational debate as they will just regurgitate the same lines as if they are actually debating and not just bullying.

            We would stop “regurgitate the same lines” if you would provide robust evidence to counter the points being made. This is how a rational discussion would proceed. If you consider “bullying” to be the presentation of facts that you have repeatedly refused to address then you should probably look them up and check them yourself.

            Take the charts above. The source is described on them. Go look up the numbers yourself and chart them.

            These are the facts. You either need to accept them or demonstrate why they are wrong. You appear to be unable to do either. You’re refusal to do either drops you firmly in the irrational camp.

          • Hmmm….

            bully1

            definition: use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something.
            example: “a local man was bullied into helping them”
            synonyms: persecute, oppress, tyrannize, torment, browbeat, intimidate, cow, coerce, strong-arm, subjugate, domineer; More

            Does this really seem like what we do, lurkers?

          • Why are you talking about x denial? You do realise that it’s your job to provide evidence for claims that you made….right?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/03ead76900f1c9d792d52e6321d87a1f3f13bbb5bf3005929d96652787f35f1a.jpg

          • T1-R

            Your chart is very funny. Any idiot take and made a simply graphics out of context as you.

          • I bet you have lots of them. But if you knew anything, you’d know where these data came from and what they mean. Bet you don’t.

          • T1-R

            Yawn, your idiothic graphics take off the real data of consume out the NHS and elude quote the britanic homeopathic hospitals that dissapear in the context of the pseudoskeptic campaing. Please Acleron, sharte the costs with “conventional medicine”. Do it!

          • Hey! You’re making progress! Keep it up. You’ll feel better afterwards.

          • T1-R

            Share your papers Alan.

          • T1-R

            LAL!

          • T1-R

            Sure, sure, the chart is a tinny and stupid work for to try undermining the credibility of homeopathy in the patiens and no patients. By the way, can you post the viral campagins of pseudoskeptics as cofounders? Please, share this influence in the data.

          • Yeah. I knew you didn’t.

          • T1-R

            Sure, sure.

        • Acleron

          There are many more sites promoting this quackery and even if comments are allowed, even asking questions gets you banned.

          And no, enough evidence is available to show that not getting treatment for serious disease, ie homeopathy, is dangerous.

          • There are many more sites promoting this quackery and even if comments are allowed, even asking questions gets you banned.

            And everyone knows that blocking people asking questions just screams “integrity”.

          • poppy72

            I truly know all about that.

    • Challenge: make a double blind trial, or blind, whatever: mix up the remedies and look if they still work =)

    • Here’s the difference between medicine and alternative medicine.

      Many people sincerely believed that knee washout surgery benefited them. It was a popular, plausible and reasonably profitable field of practice.

      Then a well conducted study proved that there is no difference between real and fake knee washout surgery. And now it is no longer used.

      If your practice is broadly based and you are open to evidence, treatments will come and go. Homeopaths are wedded to one specific treatment so cannot accept its refutation because that is all they have.

      The homeopaths’ approach to evidence is easily demonstrated by reference to the list of remedies and indications removed from the repertories over time as they are found to be incorrect. There are none. Homeopathists consider their field uniquely immune to human error.

  • rosross

    The Australian report

    In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an Information Paper on homeopathy, commonly referred to as ‘The Australian Report’.1

    This document concludes that “…there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.

    This report triggered headlines around the world suggesting NHMRC had found that homeopathy doesn’t work for any condition.3

    Australian Report key facts
    An extensive detailed investigation by Gerry Dendrinos of the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the report by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report:

    NHMRC did the review twice. They rejected the first report, despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist who is an author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct reviews.

    The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public – it was only discovered by AHA through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

    NHMRC said the results of their 2015 report were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.

    NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or since. NHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.

    These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leaving only 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.

    Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, initially failed to declare that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’.

    In violation of NHMRC’s own guidelines there was not one homeopathy expert on the committee.

    HRI is not alone in criticising the accuracy of NHMRC’s findings. FOI requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the report’s conclusions during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, “…. ‘no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback and did not amend their conclusions.

    Complaint submitted to Commonwealth Ombudsman
    In August 2016 HRI’s in-depth scientific analysis was used as part of a submission of complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman brought by Complementary Medicines Australia, Australian Homoeopathic Association and Australian Traditional Medicine Society.

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

    • Odd that you seem to advocate the inclusion of even poorer quality trials without saying how doing that would improve the evidence overall…

      • rosross

        You don’t get it do you? By your criteria, as water and pure fraud, there should never ever be any demonstration of effect. But there is. Often, and substantially so. Which means you are wrong, poorly researched, prejudiced, or all of the above.

        As this vet says, the animals he sees are failures for conventional vet science medicine. When he saves them with Homeopathy how is that fraud? Surely after this article someone must have been able to prove fraud and have him up on charges. Seems not.

        Quote: Day, 69, qualified as a vet in 1972 and has been practising ever since, offering what he terms a holistic approach, treating the “whole animal” with an array of approaches, from chiropractic to dietary advice. “We use all sorts of different tricks,” he says, “and homeopathy is one of them, and a very potent one.”

        He sits on a bale of hay to consider the latest attempt to prevent the use of homeopathy on animals. “This debate has come around every year for 200 years,” he says. “I can understand why the people who oppose it don’t study homeopathy. I can understand why they don’t want to understand homeopathy. What I can’t understand is this refusal to accept that there might be something there. All the animals I see are failures, they are referred to me because conventional veterinary treatment has failed. If an animal I see responds, then we have done something. How can I do this for 40 years and not be uncovered as a fraud? Word would get out.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/16/vet-homeopathy-medicine-royal-college

        • You don’t get it do you?

          I’m pretty sure @AlanHenness:disqus gets it. You on the other hand appear to live in a world of strawmen.

          • rosross

            I am sure others will make up their own minds.

          • ichthyic

            “I am sure others will make up their own minds.”

            translation:

            “boy, I sure hope there are still really confused and gullible people reading this who believe my lies!”

        • Mike Stevens

          “We use all sorts of different tricks,” he says”

          And how….
          At least he has some insight.

          BTW, it’s not true that other vets/the general public do not regard his homeopathic practice as nonsense, the article cites the BVA view clearly. It can be nonsense without being downright fraudulent, you know. Fraud requires intent to deliberately deceive, and it sounds like this vet is deluded, rather than fraudulent.

          “The membership-based British Veterinary Association is firmly opposed to the use of homeopathy. “The BVA cannot endorse the use of homeopathic remedies, or indeed any products making therapeutic claims, which have no proven efficacy; the consequence could be serious animal health and welfare detriment because of the lack of therapeutic effect”

        • JGC

          “By your criteria, as water and pure fraud, there should never ever be any demonstration of effect. But there is. Often, and substantially so.”
          rosross, what in your personal opinion represents the strongest piece of evidence demonstrating that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any non-self-limiting injury and illness, where outcomes are determined via objective measurement?

        • shay simmons

          Anecdotes =/= research, ros.

        • Nope. You’re still not showing any signs of insight into your failures and misunderstandings of science, the scientific method, evidence, clinical trials, sources of biases, null hypotheses, etc, etc.

    • edzard ernst
      • rosross

        Yes, I have read it. You, Professor Ernst are a highly subjective source on this issue.

        However, since you state categorically that it it unethical to use Homeopathic medicine, can you give me your explanation as to why Dr Peter Fisher has not been struck off and why the MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools and Governments which embrace Homeopathy have not been sued?

        One presumes they have evidence you do not.

        • You really don’t have a clue, do you Roslyn?

          • rosross

            And you think that makes a case? Keep up the good work.

          • LOL! No, but your errors and failures in logic, comprehension and evidence have been explained to you on multiple occasions. Still you make no progress.

          • rosross

            Claiming errors etc., does not make a case. It is mere bleating.

          • Oh, I’m pointing out that you have been repeatedly shown where your errors lie, yet you keep making them. Now, what does that tell you about your abilities?

          • The errors indicate that no case needs to be made. You’re challenge is flawed.

          • ichthyic

            “Claiming errors etc., does not make a case. It is mere bleating.”

            translation:

            “Constantly pointing out that I am not only wrong, but deliberately lying about everything is meaningless, so long as I can simply say: I know you are but what am I!”

            fucking moron.

          • LOL! No, but your errors and failures in logic, comprehension and evidence have been explained to you on multiplehundreds of occasions over many years. Still you make no progress.

            Fixed that for you. “multiple” occasions, that’s way to generous.

        • Mike Stevens

          “However, since you state categorically that it it unethical to use
          Homeopathic medicine, can you give me your explanation as to why Dr Peter Fisher has not been struck off and why the MD’s, hospitals,
          universities, medical schools and Governments which embrace Homeopathy have not been sued?”

          It is the opinion of the vast majority of medical doctors that it is unethical to use homeopathy. That doesn’t mean that the all-too-lenient GMC regard its use as fraud. Fraud implies deliberate deception in order to gain some advantage (usually financial).
          Recommending homeopathy when there is likely to be no other effective treatment, and/or where the illness is trivial, by someone who clearly beleives he is offering valid treatmet is not usually going to be recognised by the GMC as “fraud”.
          However, if the health of a patient is put at great risk as a result, then that practitioner might well be at risk of being investigated by the GMC and potentially being found unfit to practice and struck off. It has happened before…
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2666411.stm

          • duplicat

            Mike Stevens comments of UFO forums.

          • poppy72

            Are you impersonating again Travis.?

          • duplicat

            No. That’s really him. He’s gone off the deep-end.

            You can sometimes hear him mumbling stuff about the flat-Earth. He thinks Donald Trump is an alien from ζ Reticuli that needs aborted fetuses to survive.

            That’s why he’s orange.

          • poppy72

            I suspect it is another “Mike Stevens” same as we had another “REALItY 022”

          • duplicat

            Well, go to the UFO Forum and ask him a shibboleth!!

            You can find out if it’s really him!!

            Ask him how many times he got αssfμckeδ in The Navy. Only Mike knows that.

          • poppy72

            I went to that site and I don’t think that it is our Dr Mike Stevens. Actually Travis I would have to get my geek friend to do some probing to find out for sure but I won’t at this stage because I think it is another Mike Stevens.

          • duplicat

            …I would have to get my geek friend…

            Jonathan Graham???

            …to do some probing…

            Anal probing!!!

          • To be honest, I’m not sure why duplicat thinks we should care whether Mike Stevens is gay or not. It’s not like the truth or falsity of any of the claims he’s made actually have anything to do with his orientation

          • duplicat

            We’re talking about his belief in aliens Derp.

          • The same thing applies to his belief in aliens. Or any other thing about him.

          • poppy72

            I think Travis has too much time on his hands and is seeking attention here. My opinion of gays is this, I DON’T CARE so long as you don’t involve me. some of my best friends are gay but they never cross the line with me.

          • duplicat

            Yeah right. You like it.

          • Acleron

            It only shows that René/Travis is a homophobe.

          • duplicat

            …I would have to get my geek friend…

            Jonathan Graham???

            …to do some probing…

            Anal probing!!!

          • poppy72

            Let’s face it Travis, what you are doing is really sad, why don’t you do something for your country, like join the armed services.

          • shay simmons

            PLEASE. The Army has enough problems.

          • poppy72

            Sorry, you are right, I retract that suggestion

          • duplicat

            What? Killing people in other countries is “useful”?

            What a deluded old man you are.

          • Mike Stevens

            No, I post only on disqus as “Mike Stevens”. It was Travis who went and registered on a number of sites using the name of “Mike Stevens”. He would then post links to those sites pretending I was the one who was a member. In all the cases, the commenter “Mike Stevens” had just signed on/registered a few minutes prior to Travis first linking to the comments from “Mike Stevens”. Now I know he is obsessed by me, and spends most of his waking time looking for my posts so he can troll me, but I think you’d agree that it would be extremely improbable that he would not only somehow find posts by me on some obscure website or forum out of the hundreds of billions that exist on the internet, but happen to find these comments immediately after I had first made them.
            One amusing episode was when he linked to a gay forum in order to point to a comment I supposedly made, but when I tried to follow the link no comments were visible, since one had to be a member of the forum to even see the posts, indicating that Travis was in fact the “member” of the forum, but didn’t realise that non members could not see anyone’s comments!

          • poppy72

            He is truly a sad person, I think a 5 year stint in the Army would do him good.

          • shay simmons

            Poppy, what do you have against the Army?

          • poppy72

            I see where you are coming from, I don’t even think the Army could help Travis, beyond help.

          • duplicat

            I don’t do imperialism.

          • duplicat

            …indicating that Travis was in fact the “member” of the forum..

            Like I said. I was just trying to sell my classic Elton John records. You’re the one who was soliciting buttsex!!

            …spends most of his waking time looking for my posts so he can troll me…

            It only takes a few minutes Mike.

          • Proponent

            poppy72: “I went to that site.. .”

            Yeah, don’t do that, poppy. Don’t click on any of Travis’ links in the future.

            To wit..

            Jonathan Graham: “One of the reasons that this particular bozo piqued my interest is because he’s made attempts to gather intelligence on me. He posted a link where the text was crafted to look like the way you post a bare URL but the link actually pointed to a amazon hosted VM.”

          • poppy72

            Thanks for the heads up.

          • Zogby

            Nope.

            I’m not going to go scouring through the comment history of either one, but I remember looking at it when it happened. The link was to an image from a commercial site that uses Amazon cloud as a CDN.

            Nothing more than that.

            For somebody who claims to work in network security to get his panties wet over it kinda cracked me up.

          • Zogby

            Nope. It was an image from a commercial site that uses Amazon Cloudfront as a CDN.

            Seeing someone who pretends to be in IT security wet his panties over that was actually kinda funny.

          • Proponent

            Ehhh.. I knew I should have searched Jonathan’s commenting history for a more definitive example. Got lazy.

            Travis; aka aka.. has posted links that required one to sign in, for example.

            So.. I think the point still stands for the uninitiated.. don’t click on Travis’ links.

          • poppy72

            Thanks

          • poppy72

            Better to be safe than sorry, I appreciate any poster who tries to help me.

          • Mike Stevens

            Correct. Travis/duplicat registered in my name on several forums to carry out his impersonations. I have blocked him, so I can’t see his bs and abuse any more, but the more he trolls me the more it means I have succeeded in annoying him! I don’t care how he wastes his time- rather me than someone else who cares, I say.

          • duplicat

            Look at how he tries to deny it!!! I exposed him, and now he’s pretending that I made those comments. Pretty low Mike.

          • Acleron

            We all know your MO, now go troll off.

          • Duplicat, you realise of course that it’s not Mike Steven’s responsibility to disprove the claims that you made yourself…right?

          • duplicat

            What PR company do you work for?

          • Your claim, your burden of proof.

          • duplicat

            That was a question, not a “claim”.

          • Except that:

            1)You’ve already made the claim so you don’t get to innocently pretend it’s a question now
            2)Any question taking the form of , for example, ‘Which PR firm do you work for’ assumes I work for a PR firm in the first place…guess what that is? That’s right, a claim.

          • duplicat

            That’s not “a claim”, that’s a fact.

            And you never even deny it. You just “demand evidence”.

          • 1)Then it should be easy to prove it.
            2)Why on earth do you think that it is my responsibility to deal with your claims that you made yourself?

          • duplicat

            It has been proven. You prove it yourself nearly every day.

            And you’re proving it right now.

          • We’re both posting on disqus. Excuse me if I don’t think that counts as working for a PR firm.

          • Why are you inherently making the claim that I work for a PR company in the first place?

          • duplicat

            It’s obvious. Everyone knows that!

          • Knowledge is just justified true belief so if it’s obvious, you should have no problem providing evidence for your claims that you made yourself….kindly get on with it.

          • duplicat

            I see that you won’t answer my question.

          • Not my responsibility to disprove your claims.

            Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

          • Indeed. I have a similar viewpoint. I mean, I’ll provide consequences but not the same thing as caring.

          • poppy72

            I am going to ignore him.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No. That’s really him

            Oh, how do you know?

          • rosross

            Ethics in medicine where human lives are involved, is not a half measure. If Homeopathic medicine were considered unethical all MD’s practising it would be struck off; no hospital, university or medical school would touch it and no Government would include it in a State medical system.

            Since many do, you are wrong. The mere fact that it is used as described means that there is evidence out there for its efficacy. And that cannot be taken away despite the distortions pushed by those who for whatever bizarre reason, are terrified of Homeopathy and seek to destroy it.

            Noted medical professionals,including former editors of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have both said much research is just plain wrong. Only those with deep dogmatic faith would trust anything said by science-medicine. Luckily most people are more independent and braver than that.

          • Mike Stevens

            So Ros, to summarise, your scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective now relies on two pillars, first that it is popular, and second that it is not declared sufficiently fraudulent or dangerous to be “outlawed” by some medical authorities.

            What an incredibly weak “evidence” base, and no science in there at all.
            I assume that by the same reasoning, consumption of alcohol and smoking cigarettes also points to their wonderful health benefits?

          • rosross

            No, that is not what I said but I understand you wish to misquote for your own reasons.

            The effectiveness of Homeopathy is sourced in empirical records; research studies and results.

            I did not refer to its popularity in that regard. However, any study of history reveals that which is not effective rarely endures. So, the survival of something, particularly where it is challenged, is evidence that many disagree and when it comes to medicine, that says they find it effective.

            Neither did I mention outlawed. But I understand your need to distort and misquote. Needs must when you cannot rebut realities.

            What I said was, and I realise it is complex and might be difficult for you to absorb, was that, in this age of litigation no-one ventures into potentially dangerous areas without getting legal sign-off and doing the research to ensure their position is sound.

            Since many MD’s and hospitals practise Homeopathy; universities teach it and even some medical schools and some Governments have included it in State medical systems, logic dictates they have evidence you clearly do not have, or refuse to accept, and assurance from their legal advisors that the claims such as those you make, are not true.

            If Homeopathy could be outlawed then it would have happened already. But is hasn’t and that means it cannot be. Even the full weight of the naysayer campaign does not dent the growing use of Homeopathy worldwide. Because, it is effective and because modern Allopathic medicine is becoming an increasingly dangerous lifestyle choice for those who wish to be healthy.

          • Ethics in medicine where human lives are involved, is not a half measure.

            It would be interesting to see how many homeopathy “provings” have ERB approvals.

          • Ethics in medicine where human lives are involved, is not a half measure. If Homeopathic medicine were considered unethical all MD’s practising it would be struck off; no hospital, university or medical school would touch it and no Government would include it in a State medical system.

            Since many do, you are wrong. The mere fact that it is used as described means that there is evidence out there for its efficacy.

            No, it doesn’t.

            And that cannot be taken away despite the distortions pushed by those who for whatever bizarre reason, are terrified of Homeopathy and seek to destroy it.

            And yet we see it being removed from more and more taxpayer funded sources. By your own standard of “evidence” this demonstrates that you are wrong, therefore homeopathy doesn’t actually work.

            That is a fallacious argument, but it is of the same quality as the arguments you present. Homeopathy doesn’t work because it is implausible and the best quality evidence shows it to not work.

            Noted medical professionals,including former editors of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have both said much research is just plain wrong.

            You are misrepresenting the and over simplifying the issue. Regardless, this doesn’t prove homeopathy to be efficacious.

            Only those with deep dogmatic faith would trust anything said by science-medicine. Luckily most people are more independent and braver than that.

            If that’s how you feel why do you and yours present scientific research as evidence when there is even a hint that if can be misrepresented to show homeopathy works. By your own standard, your own demonstrated distrust of science, you would have have us reject this research too. The double standards and hypocrisy are strong in you Roslyn.

        • edzard ernst

          You, Professor Ernst are a highly subjective source on this issue.
          STOP GIVING ME YOUR OPINION ABOUT MYSELF [AND OTHERS] AND TRY TO TELL US WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY ARGUMENTS

        • Acleron

          Over many years and many countries, homeopaths successfully claimed exemption from regulation on the basis that because their snake oil contained nothing it was safe. In retrospect, those decisions to allow quackery were wrong. Now the regulations are being tightened to bring homeopathy into line with healthcare. Your screams are indicative of the effectiveness of the new regulations.

          • rosross

            What regulations? You mean in the UK? Homeopathy is still available and Europe is not far away. People fly to India for surgery because it is cheaper. Homeopathic medicine will always be available and increasingly used.

            Homeopathic medicine has no issue with being accountable. The issue is when distorted campaigns against it pour out propaganda.

            Homeopathic medicine remains solid in Europe, is booming in India and other parts of Asia; increasingly used in South America and Africa….just because the Brits and Australians can be bought off by BigPharma proves nothing in terms of world use of this brilliant medical modality.

            You seem to underestimate the fact that increasingly people don’t believe a word science says, so compromised and corrupt it has become. Word of mouth will always have the greatest power and I suspect that is what frustrates you and your colleagues the most.

            Homeopathy has survived for centuries because of public opinion and it will continue to do so.

          • Acleron

            ‘People fly to India for surgery because it is cheaper. ‘
            ? Do you think it is homeopathic surgery?

            The only change in the UK has been the enforcement of existing regulations on advertising, homeopaths who regularly made false claims are squealing because they have been stopped. The hearings in the FDA caused uproar among homeopaths who almost needless to say, still had no evidence.

            And then we get to the nonsense of pharma. In India, homeopaths are demanding the right to prescribe pharmaceuticals. Perhaps they’ve been bribed by BigPharma? Lol.

          • Roslyn said:

            “Homeopathic medicine remains solid in Europe”

            Uh oh…

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9f6582b04b460fa11d9f250247876e6e0eeee5ca69a1e1ee1c64431f34ceb0b.png

          • What regulations?

            You seem to be unaware that there are regulations…

            You mean in the UK?

            …and then immediately answer your own question. You really are confused, aren’t you?

            Homeopathy is still available and Europe is not far away. People fly to India for surgery because it is cheaper.

            Still doesn’t mean homeopathy works.

            Homeopathic medicine will always be available and increasingly used.

            Always available, yes. Increasingly used? You’re a psychic now?

            Homeopathic medicine has no issue with being accountable.

            You can tell by how ineffective the industry is are regulating itself.

            The issue is when distorted campaigns againstfor it pour out propaganda.

            Fixed that for you.

            Homeopathic medicine remains solid in Europe,

            Speaks nothing towards its efficacy.

            …is booming in India

            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.

            and other parts of Asia; increasingly used in South America and Africa….

            Citation needed.

            just because the Brits and Australians can be bought off by BigPharma

            Citation needed.

            proves nothing in terms of world use of this brilliant medical modality.

            It also proves nothing towards homeopathy being a real thing.

            You seem to underestimate the fact that increasingly people don’t believe a word science says,

            That explains the increase in Govts removing public funding for it. That explains the 96% drop in prescriptions for homeopathy on the NHS in the UK over the last 20 years.

            You live in an echo chamber. A horrifying echo chamber of ignorance.

            so compromised and corrupt it has become.

            It’s not as bad as you paint it. Also, do you know how the problem was discovered? Science. Do you know how it’s being fixed? More science.

            Word of mouth will always have the greatest power and I suspect that is what frustrates you and your colleagues the most.

            With an increasingly educated population word of mouth will still be a thing. But rather than the world you paint I’d like to think that people will be talking about the latest research in their fields of interest. This would explain the demonstrable decline in popularity of homeopathy.

            We can’t all be the scientists. We can’t all do the research ourselves and we can’t all read all the research. So yeah, word of mouth is a legitimate way to disseminate science. When people aren’t sure on something they can look it up rather than take the word of the person they heard it from. And you know what happens then? Someone says something about homeopathy, the listener thinks “is that real” and looks it up later.

            Homeopathy has survived for centuries because of public opinion and it will continue to do so.

            So has bloodletting and the idea of the four humors. Actually, they’ve been around much longer than homeopathy.

            Oh, wait… They’re a thing any more either.

          • Mike Stevens

            I see India ranks down in 143rd place in an analysis of global health indicators.
            It really looks like disease is booming, along with the use of homeopathy!
            http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(16)31467-2.pdf

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I’m glad they didn’t use any of that magic pill crap on me in Mumbai. I might still be stuck in the ward, watching CNN International and 90s movies.

          • shay simmons

            “Increasingly used in South America and Africa”

            Not for Ebola, it wasn’t. Shown the door and told, “no thanks!”

        • shay simmons

          In the US, medical centers that leaped on the bandwagon years ago when the misinformed began asking for woo are now quietly abandoning it. See “Terminating the Terminator” at Science-Based Medicine.

          • rosross

            Integrative medicine is growing in the US but Americans are so sickly, so sick and so often killed by Allopathic medicine it is not surprising.

            Science-medicine has come out with so much crap, then shown to be wrong, and now, as the third biggest killer and rising, only a fool would put their trust in the system.

            Here is the thing you cannot get around as you quote scientific research to oppose Homeopathy, there are many thousands of people around the world who trained in Allopathic medicine and then trained in Homeopathic medicine and who go on to spend a lifetime mainly practising Homeopathy. And that says, that they know all the science and research you know but they can come to terms with Homeopathy without knowing exactly how it works, BECAUSE IT WORKS. It is that simple.

            If it did not work, if it was not effective, no-one but no-one would bother spending more years training in Homeopathic medicine or practising it. But they do. In France you have to first qualify as an MD before training as a Homeopathic doctor.

            Anyone who thinks someone would go through that without finding out what you believe, if it were true, that it is water, that it is completely ineffective, is deluded. And then these Allopathic/Homeopathic doctors go on to spend decades using Homeopathic medicine where they think it appropriate.

            If you were right that would be fraud. All of the evidence sourced in logic, reason, sanity and results, say this happens because IT WORKS.

            And that simple reality is what has seen Homeopathic medicine survive for more than two centuries to become the second most used medical modality after Allopathy today.

            In a sensible world, effectiveness would be the only criteria. There would be no childish wailing, but, but, science doesn’t understand how it can work so that means it cannot work, ad infinitum.

            If Allopathic science-medicine had created a healthier society people might listen. But it hasn’t. People are less healthy and more often sick and very often the treatments add to their suffering and ultimately kill them.

            It must be very depressing being an Allopathic doctor today. No wonder they kill themselves at such a high rate.

          • shay simmons

            Argument by popularity… still your only defense. Where’s the research that shows that it’s effective at anything but emptying the wallet?

          • In a sensible world, effectiveness would be the only criteria.

            Correct. Unfortunately the planet is populated with humans. A product of evolution that has come about because it’s “good enough”. Our brains, and consequently our minds, are not perfect and we have to actively work to overcome our “gut instincts.”

            You should give it a go.

    • Amazing! Homeopaths look for reasons to reject a report that reflects the scientific consensus that homeopathy is bullshit. Who predicted that?

      How is that ombudsman complaint going? Did the homeopaths submit a revised version without the factual errors yet?

      Would you like me to cite the very similar papers from creationists and climate change deniers pointing out the “flaws” in the research they don’t like?

    • shay simmons

      And how has that complaint worked out, ros?

  • rosross

    Quote: Twenty children received adjunctive homeopathic treatment and were compared with ten children not receiving homeopathic treatment, at baseline and after 24 weeks, based on DSMIV characteristics (Conner’s Parent Rating Scale – CPRS) and a self-selected-item scale (Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile – MYMOP). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) found a significant interaction between time and the treatment received.

    A long term analysis of treated children after one year found that they continued to improve, with half the participants registering improvement in their DSMIV scores of over 10 percentiles; a quarter of participants registering improvement of over 20 percentiles, and a quarter registering improvement of less than 10 percentiles.

    https://www.hri-research.org/hri-research/completed-projects/adhd-case-series/

    • You really don’t have a clue about what that is so incredibly poor, do you?

      • rosross

        Oh I do. It demonstrates effect which by your criteria is poor because you labour under the delusion Homeopathic medicine cannot work. Sorry about that.

        • Ros said:

          “Oh I do.”

          Glad you agree it’s poor.

          But it’s worth looking at Fibert’s supposed follow-up trial from that small case series. Her (unpublished) case series was titled:

          Following 20 children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder receiving homeopathic treatment for a year

          Leaving aside issues such as ethics approval, let’s just look at what she claims to be the follow-up from that. It seems to have undergone some rather odd changes. The title of her study (ISRCTN17723526) started out as, well… here’s what her apparent research question is:

          “Research Details
          Current hypothesis as of 05/08/2015:
          The aim of this study is to see whether adjunct treatment by homeopaths or nutritional therapists is clinically- and/or cost-effective and acceptable for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We will also assess whether the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design is feasible to generate evidence about the acceptability, clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment by homeopaths or nutritional therapists for ADHD.

          Previous hypothesis:
          The aim of this study is to see whether adjunct treatment by homeopaths or polyunsaturated fatty acids is clinically- and/or cost-effective and acceptable for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We will also assess whether the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design is feasible to generate evidence about the acceptability, clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment by homeopaths or polyunsaturated fatty acids for ADHD.

          On 05/08/2015 the following changes were made to the trial record:
          1. The public title was changed; the previous public title was ‘The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatment by homeopaths or polyunsaturated fatty acids in addition to usual care for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)’
          2. The scientific title was changed; the previous scientific title was ‘A pragmatic cohort randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment by homeopaths or polyunsaturated fatty acids in addition to usual care, compared to usual care alone, for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)'”

          I’m sure I won’t be the only one who finds these changes somewhat odd and the research question bizarre and unscientific. That may be the intention, of course.

          • rosross

            While the campaign to fudge data and the continued debasement of science and medicine will destroy credibility of those two industries, Homeopathy will continue to heal people and there is nothing you can do about it.

            People care about cure. They do not care about what science thinks. If it works they will make use of it. who would not? And as millions look for other answers away from the toxic kill and injure rate of Allopathic medicine, the use of Homeopathy will continue to grow.

            Quite why the Anglo world is so irrational about it in ways the Europeans, Asians and others are not is the real question. But at least Poms can hop across to Europe and Ireland for Homeopathic healing.

          • Ah. So after you try to provide scientific evidence and that is shown to be rubbish, you try to dismiss science… What’s your next tactic going to be?

        • Also, it the old A + B vs B format so it will tell us precisely nothing about the effectiveness of homeopathy and even less than that about its cost-effectiveness.

        • shay simmons

          It demonstrates that you either don’t read, or don’t understand, the studies that you cite in support of your belief.

    • shay simmons

      Why is this research published on a homeopathy website and not in a scientific journal?

      • rosross

        Why is Allopathic research first published on Allopathic websites? Duh.

        The results are being disseminated. I take it once it appears in a scientific journal you will offer an apology. Great.

        • shay simmons

          Science based medicine research is published in the form of research papers, not editorials.

          Since this study is not likely to be any more valid than the others you have cited, I think the chances of an apology for having been mistaken about it lie somewhere between slim and none.

          • rosross

            Your capacity for invention must stand you in good stead. I hope your work is fiction writing.

          • shay simmons

            I dont bother to write fiction, it couldn’t possibly compete with the studied youve cited.

        • Why is Allopathic research first published on Allopathic websites? Duh.

          Well…

          1) That’s not an answer to the question @shay_simmons:disqus asked and…
          2) To answer your question… It’s not.

        • Mike Stevens

          “Why is Allopathic research first published on Allopathic websites?”
          If conventional medical research was only published on a medical website, rather than undergoing peer review and being published in a scientific journal, I would be the first to be highly suspicious and snort with derision.

          The question is why the homeopathic “research” you cited only makes it onto a website, and doesn’t make the necessary jump to a journal.

          “The results are being disseminated. I take it once it appears in a scientific journal you will offer an apology.
          It’s been 5 years since that “research” was touted on the homeopathy website. Can we expect to see this supposed journal publication any time soon?

          • duplicat

            Mike Stevens is a PR agent that works for these people: http://www.hkstrategies.com/global/en/careers/

            I traced his IP address.

          • Got any actual evidence?

          • duplicat

            Is this your employer Derp??

          • Post evidence that anyone here is being paid.

          • rosross

            So you have not read the work of Dr John Ioannidis, revealing that most published research is false? You should.

            And increasingly studies showing the Peer Review process is a joke and the so-called Gold Standard is really Rusty Tin?

            Perhaps one reason why most people don’t take any notice of all the scientific claims about Homeopathy is because increasingly science-medicine is a joke. Sadly in terms of Allopathic medicine it is often a deadly joke.

          • Mike Stevens

            Good argument…. since “most” published reasearch is “false”, and your pet homeopath has not even bothered to publish her research, so that must make it “true”!
            Nice logic, Ros.

          • rosross

            No, that is not the argument. You consistently invent and misquote but you must.

            Here’s the thing, no-one bothers anymore posting data to the naysayers because it is a waste of time. If one has plenty of time then yes, posting data on the chance someone of open mind might see it and learn something, then it is worth the effort.

            And all of the data in the world, from your side, won’t dissuade people from using Homeopathic medicine and all the data in the world from my side, won’t touch people like yourself who are immersed in subjective and irrational prejudice.

            Logic is understanding those two facts.

          • duplicat

            Talking to Mike? LOL.

            He comments on white power forums.

          • Mike Stevens

            Ok, explain why your pet homeopath hasn’t published in a scientific journal, would you, rather than making veiled accusations against the veracity of published studies?

          • No, that is not the argument.

            It may not have been the intent of your argument but it is a logical conclusion based on the point you are failing to make.

          • Here’s the thing, no-one bothers anymore posting data to the naysayers because it is a waste of time.

            I’m guessing, in this fictitious scenario, you don’t consider yourself to be one of the naysayers? Because the pro-science side presents data all the time. The anti-science crowd inevitable dismiss it with no reason or claim some conspiracy theory or other excuse to ignore it. But they never demonstrate it to be wrong.

            If one has plenty of time then yes,

            Well… looking at your posting history, you do have plenty of time.

            posting data on the chance someone of open mind might see it and learn something, then it is worth the effort.

            You’re spot on. That’s why the pro-science commenters persist. Not to convince you. You’re a lost cause. But those that are reading this, are unsure and have an open mind and even a basic grasp of what science is… These are the people we’re talking to. You are just facilitating a live demonstration of science denialism and painting the topic you are defending as quackery in the process.

          • Jonathan Graham

            So you have not read the work of Dr John Ioannidis, revealing that most published research is false? You should.

            Please do the universe a favor and just stop talking.
            People like yourself need to know a lot more than simply the fact that there exists a paper called “most published research findings are false”. You actually need to know what the paper is about.

            Ioannidis had six ideas (or “corollaries” in his terminology) about what makes research unlikely to be true. The first four are sample size, effect size, posited relationships and test modalities.

            Perhaps one reason why most people don’t take any notice of all the scientific claims about Homeopathy

            Actually Ioannidis’s paper should provide the most warning to people who believe what is written in favor of homeopathy in scientific journals. Since it’s those studies which pretty much showcase every one of the problems he highlights.

        • Acleron

          There is no such thing as allopathic. It was a nonsense term invented by Hahnneman to denigrate medicine. A behaviour that his acolytes continue today. Of course that is far easier than proving that water is different from water.

          • Given that Hahnneman used the term to refer to everything but homeopathy (all the other stuff we call “alt-med” today is included) and it’s turned out that Hahnneman was wrong and the bulk of alt-med that is wrong has glommed onto the term and because there are large markets (India comes to mind) that appear to have adopted it I propose the following update to the definition;

            From Merriam-Webster
            Medical Definition of allopathy
            plural allopathies
            1: a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies (as drugs or surgery) producing effects different from or incompatible with those produced by the disease being treated—compare homeopathy
            2: a system of medical practice making use of all measures that have proved of value in treatment of disease
            3: a synonym of “actual” when used conversationally in a discussion about alternatives to medicine

          • Acleron

            I like 3). Perhaps you might think of changing it to reality based medicine.

          • I’m actually thinking of pushing for the current 3) to be a thing that is adopted in a wider manner.
            No reason that can’t be added as 4) though. 🙂

          • rosross

            Probably not. I presume you see Allopathy as reality based medicine and the reality is that it is now the third or fourth biggest killer in most developed nations, most of it from prescribed medication, so, if that is reality medicine you can keep your deadly reality.

          • Acleron

            A) Medicine is reality based, all else is irrational which is shown handily by B) Despite being shown the facts about the ten major causes of death, you still have to lie about it. Totally irrational.

          • Mike Stevens

            Reality based medicine is the biggest “saver” of lives. That has to count for something.

          • duplicat

            Emergency medicine is.

            However, the oncology and cardiology wards are full of quacks and fraudsters who are still living in the stone age administering expensive treatments which are inferior to 1960’s technology.

            Doxorubicin?? Seriously???

            Szent-Gyorgi and Pauling (the greatest biochemist and greatest chemist) had it all figured-out in the 60’s. They were ignored simply because the truth is not very profitable.

          • rosross

            Hahnemann sought to differentiate from the conventional, Allopathic medicine of the day, and this is the real description:

            Allopathy – n. A method of treating diseases with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself.

            Homeopathy – n. A method of treating diseases with remedies that produce effects similar to those caused by the disease itself.

            Another difference is that Allopathy seeks to remove, repress or reduce symptoms and Homeopathy uses symptoms as a guide to the appropriate medication to trigger self-healing.

            Allopathy sees no problem with removing or repressing symptoms while Homeopathic medicine, and many other non-Allopathic modalities, believes it drives disease deeper into more serious form.

            Allopathic medicine is great where mechanical skills are needed – if something is broken off – but it would heal more and harm less if it used Homeopathy and Acupuncture instead of toxic drugs. Surgery is the skills area of Allopathy and crisis/trauma from accidents. No-one disputes that, but it is the third biggest killer now and rarely cures.

            Cure is the disease gone for good. It is not medication for life or having body parts regularly removed.

          • …and this is the real description

            That *was* the real definition. Language changes over time with usage.

            Today, Allopathy is an alt-med term to refer to things that are not alt-med. Historically it was used to describe things that were not homeopathy. That includes things like acupuncture, chiropractic, reiki, etc. There’s a change in usage.

            In the same way that many derogatory terms have been owned by the people they were aimed at I’m suggesting that we, the pro-science crowd, take possession of Allopathy as a synonym for “actual” in the context of conversations about alt-med.

          • rosross

            Allopathy refers to conventional, pharmaceutical, science-sourced medicine. It is the cult of modern science with all that entails.

            No-one disputes modern Allopathic medicine has skills – surgical, crisis/trauma and diagnostic, but as a healing or curing medical modality, it performs poorly on many counts and never more than on the number it kills and injures.

            I have no doubt if Allopathy were not so toxic and dangerous and deadly because of it, and if it has a solid record of consistent cure, Homeopathy would probably have been left behind long ago.

            But, because of the kill and injure rate of conventional medicine, alternative medical modalities are not just sought, they are required. Homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine with its brilliant 3,000 year old Acupuncture; Ayurveda, with its understanding of the human condition and its herbal knowledge; Herbal and Nutritional Medicine; Chiropractic; Naturopathic; Kinesiology and a raft of other medical modalities which can heal without killing or doing harm.

            One thing is certain, Allopathy does not understand the human body, condition, or the processes of disease and health. It is mechanistic, interventistic and toxic and that is because it is a creation of mechanistic materialist-reductionist modern science.

            The wealth of knowledge within Homoepathy of the human body, the human organism, disease and health is phenomenal and crucial to the medicine of the future which will be holistic, will be integrative and will not have the kill and injure rate of Allopathic medicine.

            The trivial and trite comments which you and others make in regard to all non-Allopathic medical modalities reflects fear, prejudice, subjectivity and vested and perhaps paid agendas.

            None of it will deter people from seeking medical treatments which can heal without killing them or turning them into lifelong invalids.

          • I have no doubt if Allopathy were not so toxic and dangerous and deadly because of it, and if it has a solid record of consistent cure, Homeopathy would probably have been left behind long ago.

            If actual medicine was as you describe it here I would agree with you. But it’s not. The silo you live in lies to you and reinforces those lies to the point where you refuse to verify the sounds in the echo chamber at all.

            Ironically, the way you describe Allopathy here… It is a fair description of the state of modern medicine at the time when Hahnemann invented homeopathy.

            Modern medicine has progressed a lot since then. Homeopathy hasn’t changed at all.

          • rosross

            Modern medicine has progressed but not all for good or it would not now be the third biggest killer in the US and fourth in most other developed nations with millions dead or hospitalised every year because of it, most of it from prescribed medication.

            I take it you don’t keep up with the deep and abiding concerns of some in science and medicine in regard to the dangerous and often destructive nature of Allopathy. You should do some research for a change.

            There remains much that Hahnemann would recognise. The snake oil factor is alive and well in the hands of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

            Homeopathy like all medicine has evolved and progressed. But I know you would not know that because you know zip about it.

          • Ignoring all the misinformation that you’ve been called out on time and time again…

            Homeopathy like all medicine has evolved and progressed.

            Really?

            What was a recent breakthrough made in Homeopathy? What respected Journal was the research initially published in? And the box-load of follow up studies, the replications, that demonstrate that the initial research was actually on the mark?

            When was the last time Homeopathy was found to not work as expected for a given condition and it self corrected? Apart from recalls because there was actual active chemicals in it or it was laced with actual medicines of course.

          • rosross

            Homeopathic medicine is based on empirical results. That seems much more reliable than your oft-quoted research. In fact, the reason why Allopathy has the kill and injure rate it does is because science-medical research is so flawed.

            I wouldn’t put too much faith in your research studies, for anything:

            Quote: Summary

            There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false

            The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

            Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

          • Homeopathic medicine is based on empirical results.

            And the best research we have of this type shows it doesn’t work.

          • What must it be like to have have standards that are so low, they are non-existent?

          • Homeopathetic?

          • LOL! 🙂

          • shay simmons

            Ouch.

          • Mike Stevens

            Which is why we tend to rely only on studies that are the most robust methodologically.
            There is a reason virtually all homeopathy studies are viewed as being very weak… Ioannidis explains why.

          • JGC

            “Homeopathic medicine is based on empirical results.”
            To the exact same extent that bloodletting and use of aristolochia, were based on empirical results. We all know how well that worked out.

          • Homeopathic medicine is based on empirical results.

            I repeat: What was a recent breakthrough made in Homeopathy? What respected Journal was the research initially published in? And the box-load of follow up studies, the replications, that demonstrate that the initial research was actually on the mark?

            When was the last time Homeopathy was found to not work as expected for a given condition and it self corrected? Apart from recalls because there was actual active chemicals in it or it was laced with actual medicines of course.

          • shay simmons

            “Homeopathic medicine us based on empirical results.”

            What are these empirical results and how have they been validated?

          • kfunk937

            What are these empirical results […]

            Isn’t the gist of it (a) when well persons* took a proposed remedy, they reported various subjective impressions, and (b) for illness, bald assertions that amount to “It worked for me” (or “my” cousin’s preschool teacher’s husband’s half-brother’s mother-in-law), or (c) similar assertions that millions of people have used or do use homeopathy, so who cares if it works obviously it must work, right? Right?

            […] and how have they been validated?

            Hahaha… see a through c, above.
            .
            *In the case of Light of Saturn or Berlin Wall (I forget which one), “well persons” was apparently a subset of “catastrophically stoned persons”.

          • rosross

            Whoever coined the term, it is etymologically sound and now commonly used to differentiate Allopathic, conventional medicine from other medical modalities.

            Medical schools use the term Allopathic. Check out Johns Hopkins.

          • Acleron

            Ooh big word but ros doesn’t know what it means. Etymology is the study of the origin of words, you couldn’t get more unsound than an ignorant quack making up a nonexistent difference.

            If homeopathy or any other quackery worked then it would be medicine. They don’t and are obviously nothing to do with medicine.

          • rosross

            Understanding the construct and origin of a word, enables understanding of modern definitions. It explains why the term was coined.

          • Acleron

            Yes, we know it was coined by a deluded individual, hardly a sound basis.
            Laughably, Hahnemann is described by homeopaths as a brilliant linguist. He certainly couldn’t understand that medicine is medicine, it’s almost as if he was leaving a clue that homeopathy has nothing to do with medicine.

          • Whoever coined the term, it is etymologically sound and now commonly used to…

            “Whoever coined the term”? That is literally Hahnemann. This is as good as it gets when referring to the etymology of a word.

            “etymologically sound”? You have just demonstrated that you don’t know what that word means.

        • Why is allopathic research first published on allopathic websites? Well, this is a weird question considering that it first appears in the form of published papers.

          Second, why are you making the claim before it appears in a scientific journal?

          Thirdly, even if your first point was true….you do realise that it doesn’t matter how many airline disasters there are if you’re trying to prove that flying carpets exist?

      • JGC

        Well, it is published in the journal Homepathy, for what that’s worth.

        (see PMID: 27211327)

        • The publication Homeopathy was added to the Title Suppressions list for gaming peer-review. In laymans terms; cheating.

          • JGC

            As I said–take it for what it’s worth.

        • shay simmons

          Not Mother Goose?

        • Acleron

          (Deleted)
          I see Gold has already addressed this.

    • poppy72
    • JGC

      Did you read the publication itself, or rely on the abstract?

      Look at Table 2, paying attention to the SD values:
      Treatment group at 4 months is given as 76.2 with an SD of 10.9, control as 83.4 with an SD of 6.9.

      So treatment scores range between 67.1 and 87.1, control between 76.5 and 90.3: the ranges overlap.

      Given the difference in the number of subjects (20) versus the number of controls (10) this study represents exceedingly weak tea.

    • JGC

      Continuing to read, we see more problems with the study design:

      “Eleven different remedies were used, namely: stramonium (4), tuberculinum (3), Calcarea carbonica (3), medorrhinum (2), carcinosin (2) aranea ixobola (1), baryta carb (1), lac delphinum (1), sulphur (1), syphilinum (1), lycopodium (1).”

      So the treatment group is actually 11 different treatment groups, with their outcomes merged, yet the authors don’t correct their statistical analysis to account for multiple comparisons.

      And we’ll compound this by adding additional; variables to the mix (again not addressed in statistical analysis);

      ‘Additional to their individualized remedies, 4 children were treated using a novel homeopathic methodology whereby an environmental substance suggested by the parent to be causative or aggravating was given. These children received 30c, 200c, 1 M and 10 M potencies of cannabis, launderette chemicals, anti-psychotic drugs or anti-biotics.”

      And still more variables:

      “Three had additional diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders and four described environmental insults and were treated using CEASE methodology.”

      So we have a subject cohort that received standard treatment, 11 different homeopathic treatments, 4 of whom received yet more different homeopathic treatments, and 4 of whom were treated with CEASE.

      Also three children in the subject pool with additional ASD diagnoses, yet no indication that any of the control subjects were diagnosed with ASD.

      TLDR? Garbage in, garbage out.

  • nalini bajaj

    Plz. Meet some real good homoeopath . And get cured . You yourself will become the most valid evidence to prove that its a science that your science still is not advanced enough to prove or contradict.
    Thanks and Regards.

    • Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have a clue about science or what constitutes good evidence and why.

    • JGC

      Uh, no: personal experiences with an n = 1 are not the most valid form of evidence in support of any medical intervention.

  • Agrawalsir Rajendra Agrawal

    Kindly take an introspection:

    One of the stars of the science of Homeopathy is indeed Dr. James Compton Burnett. He was born on July 20th of 1840, near Salisbury, Wiltshire. He qualified with honours from an orthodox medical school in Vienna in 1869, and then from Glasgow in 1876. He was awarded the Gold Medal in Anatomy upon graduation.

    As a Homeopath Burnett was a productive writer and wrote twenty six books about many aspects of homeopathy.

    One of Dr. Burnett’s famous Homeopathic books is called “Fifty Reasons for being a Homeopath.” Dr. Burnett was provoked to write this work by some remarks made by a young allopathic medical man who regarded Homeopaths as quacks, and challenged Burnett to produce the fifty reasons, which he did, and Dr. Burnett replied “I could give fifty reasons for being a Homoeopath that if not singly, at least collectively, would convince a stone”.

    On behalf of the Homeopathy community around the world, I would like to thank Dr. Burnett for his dedication in defending Homeopathy! God bless his soul.

    Ref: Biography – Life and Work of James Compton Burnett, 1904

    • One of the stars of the science of Homeopathy

      “Science of homeopathy” is an oxymoron.

      With respect to the argument from authority I would like to direct you to the book “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time”. So as not to link to any commercial element I would suggest the wikipedia page on the book and the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things

      • rosross

        As someone who quotes from Wiki, a source not accepted by any credible university in the world, you hardly make a case.

        • Stevie Clownstick

          As someone who makes an appeal to the authority of “credible universities” in defense of homeopathy, nor do you.

        • ichthyic

          person explains exactly why they link to wiki instead of directly to source material (avoiding the commercial issue).

          lying liar twists that into meaning they are not citing a credible source.

          Lying liar fails to convince anyone with a functioning brain.

          standard MO for alt-med adherents.

          rosross = lieliar.

          • Acleron

            They hate wikipedia because their high priest, dullman, told them to.

          • They hate wikipedia because their high priest, dullman, told them to.

            Also, it is a biased information source. The bias towards demonstrable facts is really blatant on that site.

          • Jeff McCabe

            I suspect the book exists though.

          • rosross
          • Mike Stevens

            Are you that stupid that you don’t realise gold only referred to a review of a book on Wikipedia, rather than linking to its publisher to avoid commercial implications, and was not promoting Wikipedia itself?
            Go read the book.

        • As someone who quotes from Wiki…

          I would call you an idiot, but that would just be insulting to actual idiots.

          Are you really so blinkered and close-minded that you can’t see the actual point of that part of the post? The book. The thing you explicitly didn’t address.

          • JGC

            I didn’t see a quote from Wikipedia in his post, merely a reference to Wikipedia.

      • T1-R

        Ernst is the best example of appeal to authority fallacy.

  • edzard ernst

    ONE MORE TO ADD TO THE LIST [SPANISH ROYAL ACADEMY OF PHARMAY]:
    http://www.ranf.com/images/pdf/academicos/articulos/InformeHomeopatiaRANF.pdf
    “…FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW, THERE ARE NO ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE EFFICACY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

    • rosross

      All that says is that the current level of scientific develop cannot come up with a theory to support it. So what? The same could have been said about quantum mechanics, and was, before it was grudgingly accepted. And never by the supposedly brilliant Albert Einstein.

      You seem to think that the word science means something. It doesn’t. And increasingly less so as its damage and disaster rate ramps up, particularly within Allopathic medicine.

      • Science is not even looking for a theory because there is no observable effect – there’s no difference in length of recovery for for example a cold with or without homeopathy beyond, if even, placebo.

        • Acleron

          It takes a week to recover from a cold, with homeopathy it only takes seven days.

          • Holly Louise

            Ha!!

          • T1-R

            Alan, as usually you can’t share the paper of the “good” and “compelling” evidence.

          • Acleron

            Oh, Eggar has escaped his minders again.

          • T1-R

            Alan, where is your academic papers? Post it here, now!

        • Ron Roy

          While homeopathy has long been taken seriously in
          Europe, it wasn’t until 1994 that a study on a homeopathic preparation
          appeared in an American medical journal. Jennifer Jacobs, M.D.,
          assistant clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of
          Washington School of Public Health, conducted the study to determine the
          efficacy of a homeopathic treatment for acute diarrhea, the leading
          cause of dehydration and death in Third World children. Of 81
          Nicaraguan children under age five, half were given the standard
          solution of water, sugar and salt, and the other half were treated with
          the same solution plus a homeopathic remedy specific to each child’s
          symptoms and disposition. The children’s diarrhea lasted about 4 days
          in the control group, while those in the homeopathy group recovered in
          only 2 ½.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …and without knowing the confidence intervals or standard deviation such results are useless.

          • shay simmons

            Follows you around like a puppy, doesn’t he.

          • Jonathan Graham

            In particular it’s funny how Adadd/Ron Roy/Travis talk about me. Apparently I make quite the impression.

          • duplicat

            LOL. You impress people with your special brand of annoyance (GingerAnnoy™).

            And you’re going to lose your special ginger powers pretty soon. Keebler is discontinuing your secret power food in August of this year.
            https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/6d35c35b-ede7-4345-b22f-0f2fcc993c04_1.5794a2e2d2a55582ac6df4730df7eb0a.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF

          • T1-R

            LAL! You impress the SAS-CSICOP-Meyerside troll team with images of cookings. Please, share your debunking of this:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882401016307872

          • AutismDadd

            Someone has to carry the scooper and plastic bag.

          • T1-R

            As usually, Graham can’t read a simply paper.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583

            Quote:
            To examine the consistency of effects from trial to trial and the impact of sample size on statistical significance we conducted a metaanalysis of effect size differences between homeopathic and placebo groups for all trials. We graphed these differences with 95% confidence intervals for each trial and the combined group
            End of quote.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Graham can’t read a simply paper

            Ron is the person who should provide the paper.

            We graphed these differences with 95% confidence intervals

            Still no confidence intervals have been provided.

          • T1-R

            “Ron is the person who should provide the paper.”

            No, I provide the meta-analysis.

            “Still no confidence intervals have been provided.”

            In the paper the IC are clearly visible. Idiot.

          • Jonathan Graham

            In the paper the IC are clearly visible. Idiot.

            Which is missing the point. Ron made an argument and provided no evidence (a conclusion isn’t evidence). Is it really everyone else’s responsibility to support Ron’s argument?

          • T1-R

            No, the point is very clear. Began to debunk this:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882401016307872

          • Holly Louise

            Missing info is what the “homeopathic remedy” was added. Could simply have been any of the other electrolytes which the diarrhea was depleting.

          • Acleron

            That would be
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8165068

            ‘An individualized homeopathic medicine was prescribed for each child and daily follow-up was performed for 5 days. Standard treatment with oral rehydration treatment was also given.’

            This would be different treatment for the two arms making it non blind and non placebo controlled and therefore useless.

          • Holly Louise

            That doesn’t answer the question. They don’t tell what actual medicine was given. There’s no useful conclusion there at all, actually.

          • Holly Louise

            For a moment I thought you were seriously offering the link as an answer.

          • Badger

            Jacobs has been totally discredited for her horribly flawed “study.”

            “Now, an extensive analysis of 225 controlled studies and some 1,800
            papers—ranging from evidence provided by homeopathy interest groups to
            government guidelines —has confirmed what many researchers have long
            suspected: Homeopathy is not an effective way to treat any health
            conditions. Not muscle soreness, not sleep disturbances, not rheumatoid
            arthritis.”

            Homeopathy is a fraud perpetrated by greedy people who prey on the gullible.

            Next time you get bitten by a rabid raccoon tell the doc you don’t want rabies treatment – tell him you want a bottle of rabies juice.

            Some “remedies” have been diluted so many times you can’t even find a single molecule of the original poison. But the water has memory – sure it does.

          • T1-R

            The NHMRC report do not include the Jacobs paper.

          • Mike Stevens

            No, they excluded junk science from their analysis.

          • T1-R

            In the junk science include the Ernst small trials? LOL!

          • poppy72

            Great news Mike, last night on Channel 7 news, some government body ( I missed it ) recommended that all chemists should keep REAL medicine behind the counter and separate from complimentary medicine and they strongly recommend not stocking any Homeopathic medicine as it has been found to be USELESS, this news can be viewed on channel 7 news Australia on the internet and it makes me proud to be Australian.

          • Mike Stevens

            Thanks. I’ll look at it later! Is it some final reaction to the Aussie NMHRC report on homeopathy?

          • AutismDadd

            Mike has a certificate in homeopathy.

          • AutismDadd

            Mike tell us more about your certificate in homeopathy.

          • Badger

            And the Warren report contains no mention of Jacobs either. So what’s your point?

            Homeopathy is still a fraud.

          • AutismDadd

            Horribly flawed too right?

          • Badger

            Your lack of punctuation leaves your comment open to interpretation.

          • T1-R

            The NHMRC did.

          • Badger

            Nope. The other guy did.

          • AutismDadd

            Funny how unpopular (to mainstream medicine) studies are always horribly flawed, not simply flawed.

          • Acleron

            Just because you judge on result, don’t make the assumption anyone else is so stupid.

          • AutismDadd

            Stupid describes most human beings.

          • sabelmouse

            sadly true.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            I say Acleron at the grocery store buying this.

          • Badger

            You are such a funny lad. You believe that science should embrace phony submissions and ignore those that pass peer review.

            Why don’t you conduct an experiment. Let a rattlesnake bite you and then pour some of your magic water on the wound – tell us how that works out for you.

          • AutismDadd

            Crawl back in your hole lad. Science is owned by corporations and we know what corporations are known for. Peer review is suspect due to the fact researchers scratch each other’s backs.

          • Badger

            I bow to your superior form of logic. Of course a tenured professor at Harvard is going to put his stamp of approval on a totally fake study, why wouldn’t he? Except for losing a great job, getting sued and being publicly humiliated there is no downside.

            And what about the professor’s PhD candidates you might ask. Well those students are told on day one exactly what they must do. They must ignore all actual research and spend their time writing phony studies and praising the phony studies done by others.

            Now why do students and professors do this? It’s logical – corporations own Harvard and everyone there does exactly as told. But why do corporations want all these phony studies? Simple. Corporations could make drugs that really help people with no side effects but they chose not to. Rather than help people, corporations want to kill babies and make the populous as sick as possible. Why corps want to kill babies and make people sick is a question I can’t answer, but then I’m just an ordinary guy with a PhD in economics from Stanford – I’m not an expert in logic, biology, mathematics, physics and pharmacology like you.

            So thank you very much for your totally logical explanation as to why all science is a lie. Please let me know when you discover the edge of the flat earth.

          • AutismDadd

            The Earth is round Mr Stanford. Maybe you should ask for a refund of your tuition.

          • Badger

            I said let me know when YOU find the edge of the flat earth. Don’t tell me an intellectual powerhouse like you has difficulty in reading a simple
            sentence?

            I can tell by your snarky reply that you hold a certain disdain for education. Why don’t you try it and see for yourself. Once you earn your GED you could then go to some kind of training camp and
            learn how to mow grass or pick weeds (rather than smoking them).

            Finally, you must be very blissful.

          • AutismDadd

            So Mr Stanford do you always deal in nonsense like this? Its boring.

          • Badger

            Let’s see…you believe in magic water and I don’t…so that makes ME nonsensical. Yeah, that’s the ticket…believing in magic water totally makes sense.

            Here’s the funniest part of all this. You have no clue as to how idiotic you sound. Magic water…that’s hilarious.

          • AutismDadd

            You are delusional. I’ve said zero about magic water.

          • Badger

            Sure you did. Many homeopathic “remedies” have been diluted so many times that they are now pure water. BUT you say that pure water has some kind of memory – that can only be described as magic water.

          • AutismDadd

            You have become a candidate for blocking.

          • Badger

            I have never blocked anyone and never will. It’s a sign of cowardice. But do what you must. Here’s an idea – don’t reply to this post and I won’t address you ever again.

            Your choice – keep going or go attack someone else.

          • Acleron

            Try real research and submitting a paper to a real peer reviewed journal. ‘Scratch each other’s back’? Lol, how little you know.

          • AutismDadd

            I’m sure there are ways they cheat the system. No wonder 70% of journals are junk science.

          • Acleron

            I’m not sure it is that high but steps are being taken to identify the predatory journals and all the anti science journals such as Homeopathy and the other quack medicine magazines. I’m glad you agree with these actions.

          • AutismDadd

            Where did I use the word agree? Typical deflection from a vaccine injury advocate though.

          • Acleron

            Oh, you don’t agree with the steps taken to fix the problem. OK.

            And I know you’ve learned a new word and as usual you don’t know what it means but don’t wear it out again.

          • Jeff O

            Acleron Jeff O • 5 days ago
            That would indeed have been an impressive prediction had it not taken place before the NT was written
            ————————————————————————

            Daniel was written long before Christ or the Messiah was born. The Account of Matthew mention the Reference from Daniel long prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem.

            Daniel 9:26
            26 “And after the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.

            “And the people of a leader who is coming will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.

            Matthew 24:15, 16
            15 “Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, AS SPOKEN ABOUT BY DANIEL THE PROPHET, standing in a holy place (let the reader use discernment), 16 then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.

            Are you convince that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE foretold long ago by Daniel, and then by Jesus is a true prophecy, and that we can rely that the prophecies in the Bible came true and will become true?

          • Acleron

            You are in the wrong forum.

          • Jeff O

            I’m sorry about that. The old thread was locked. And forgive my actions in replying to this thread.

            But what can you say about Daniels prophecy regarding the Destruction of Jerusalem, and Jesus repeating that prophecy in the account of Matthew?

          • Acleron

            See you in the religious forums.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Oh burn!

            ⚐Go Acleron!
            ⚐Your a douchebag!
            ⚐Huge douchebag!
            ⚐Hoo…raa…raaa!!!

            [pom-poms twitch and fluffle]

          • AutismDadd

            Sorry , don’t speak blah blah

          • Except that’s not what happened. Jacobs, a homeopath (conflict of interest alert) condcted a badly designed study intended to prove her beliefs. She failed to control for: diet (which has a considerable impact in these illnesses); level of dehydration (and the data shows that the treatment group suffered from milder dehydration, which indicates a material difference between the populations); previous treatment interventions (patients in the treatment group were more than twice as likely to have received treatment before starting homeopathy). She did not use optimal recommended methods for quantifying severity of symptoms.

            So, a homeopath compared two dissimilar groups, and attributed the difference between them to homeopathy despite the fact that those in the treatment group were more likely to have received reality-based treatment and already showed lower dehydration indicating that this had been effective. Her subsequent studies were all negative, but she still claims to have a positive overall result through statistical sleight of hand.

            The real question here is why crappy debunked studies are still being touted as slam-dunk evidence.

      • Science already has a complete and coherent explanation of homeopathy which is both internally and externally consistent. Homeopathists reject this as conflicting with their faith, but that is no more relevant than creationists’ rejection of evolution.

        All observed facts are fully consistent with the scientific understanding that homeopathy is inert. No one single observation has been provided that is provably inconsistent with regression to the mean, natural course of disease, cognitive biases and errors and other well documented confounders.

        Homeopathists basically demand that science goes away and tries again until it gets an answer they like. That’s not how it works.

        • T1-R

          Can’t yout share nothing new that your bored rethoric?

          “All observed facts are fully consistent with the scientific understanding that homeopathy is inert. “

          if your assertion is true, then any observation that debunks your mockery is evidence of your lack of understainf on basic sciences. The overwhelming evidence of high dilution effects is cleary, homeopathic may exert a biological effect over the “placebo” pill.

          • All observed facts are fully consistent with the null hypothesis. No homeopath has ever produced anything that was not, and if they had, the conversation would already be profoundly different.

          • T1-R

            “All observed facts are fully consistent with the null hypothesis.”

            References? Nothing.

            “No homeopath has ever produced anything that was not, and if they had, the conversation would already be profoundly different.”

            References? Nothing.

          • If one single observation in homeopathy were provably inconsistent with the null hypothesis, the debate would be fundamentally different. As it is, there is not one single case where homeopathy has been independently authenticated to have objectively cured anybody of anything, ever.

          • T1-R

            Yaw, your opinion ir irrelvant. As it is, there is a lof of cases, clinical trials and replications where homeopathy has been independentrly validated. You are a fake.

          • T1-R

            This if Troll Chapman:

            ‘We appreciate Mr Chapman’s description of the interesting history of the 1917 observation that led to the development of Oscillococcinum ® .DrRoy’s mischaracterisation ofhisobservations might perhaps befor given, given that viruses were only first visualised after the development of the transmission electron microscope in 1932.[i] Prior to that time, experimental transmission of influenza symptoms from infected to uninfected animals was attributed to an ’ultrafiltered material’.[ii] The annals of medicine are replete with medicines
            that changed direction during their development: e.g. sildenafil citrate (Viagra), which failed in its trials as an anti-hypertensive, but found new life in one of its ’adverse effects

            In our review, we directly address the subject of high dilution (How the interventionmightwork). Studiesin recentdecades with a variety of instruments have demonstrated the ability to distinguish various homeopathic medicines as well as different potencies of the same medicines. Recent studies reveal that homeopathic remedies contain nanoparticles of source materials formed by mechanical grinding in lactose and/or succussion (forceful agitation) in ethanolic solutions combined with silica nanostructures formed during succussions in glass.[iv] Other studies using various physical and physico-chemical methods have demonstrated persistent structural modifications as a result of homeopathic preparation methods. e.g.[v],[vi], [vii] These technologies have not yetbeen appliedto Oscillococcinum ® , but the assertion that no such instrument exists is incorrect.

            Similarly, it is unclear why Mr Chapman characterises randomised controlled trials as ’observational studies’. Consistent with standard Cochrane methods, our conclusions were based on experimental research: i.e. randomised controlled trials, not observational studies. We refer him to furtherinformation on thesubject of clinical study design.[viii] Given hisexpressed concerns about conflict of interest, it is interesting that he nevertheless accepts the evidence from an article published in 2002 by a ’trained homeopath’ (see Conflict of interest in his reference no. 2). Even in 2002, when that article was published, there was no ’consensus’ of evidence from systematic reviews of homeopathy. More recently, systematic reviews have reported positive conclusions about homeopathy in several medical conditions. e.g.[ix],[x]’

          • Oh, thank you for pointing out that gem. I love the bit where they say “A respondent with a known predisposition to condemn homeopathy” and forget to point out that two of them actually make their living from selling it.

            You also “forgot” to note that the review is now withdrawn. Or that I am absolutely correct to point out that there is no such thing as an oscillococcus, and that Roy’s instruments would be incapable of resolving the virus that actually causes influenza.

      • Dr Chris Fogarty

        Rosros I think you are confirming that homeopathy should not be held to the same analysis as allopathic medicine because it is a completely different paradigm. Am I right?

        • rosross

          It depends what you mean by scrutiny.

          All medical modalities should be equally accountable, but we both know there are many things done within Allopathy which injure or kill, and which continue to be done despite that fact. There are also many treatments which are known to be ineffective but which are still used, so there is a lot of wriggle room in conventional medicine.

          Homeopathic medicine cannot be studied in the same way Allopathic medicine is because it is an entirely different modality. That does not mean it cannot or should not be studied, but that you cannot take the system used for Allopathy and try to force Homeopathy into it.

          Then again, Allopathic medicine is the third or fourth biggest killer in most developed nations, most of it from prescribed medication, so no-one can claim that the analysis done there is effective anyway.

          • poppy72

            The problem is that Homeopathy HAS been studied to death AGAIN AND AGAIN coming to the same conclusions and that is that it is WORTHLESS.

          • T1-R

            “coming to the same conclusions and that is that it is WORTHLESS.”

            False, idiot.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882401016307872

          • poppy72

            You call me an idiot, then you direct me to a study on “mice” yeah right. Now how about some “credible proof” that Homeopathy works.

          • poppy72
          • Dr Chris Fogarty

            Homeopathy never killed anyone directly (because it has no active ingredients), but by diverting people from effective treatment it surely has. It is a belief system, not a science. It claims that water has a memory. It does not dispute that there is no active ingredient left after dilution. In terms of science it is a bit like astrology. And OK astrology can claim to be outside the scientific paradigm too. But in the end there is only science and anti-science. Homeopathy is in the latter category.

          • rosross

            That is assumption. And given how many are killed by things like Chemo and in general by prescribed medication, you are on very flimsy ground.

            It is not a belief system. It is empirical science but I understand prejudice clouds your judgement.

          • Dr Chris Fogarty

            Tell me more about the empirical science of Homeopathy…..Wish I had a cartoon to go with that question.

          • rosross

            empirical
            ɛmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l,ɪmˈpɪrɪk(ə)l/Submit
            adjective
            based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

            Something Allopathic medicine used to be, but no longer is and something Homeopathy has always been and remains.

            science
            ˈsʌɪəns/Submit
            noun
            the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

            Something present in both Allopathy and Homeopathy. You see, the definition of science is not subjective – it is a principle.

          • Your selective reading of a dictionary definition is irrelevant.

            Medical science is absolutely empirical: it starts by establishing a plausible hypothesis and then tests it. The essence of science is to try to disprove your idea, rather than prove it. Pseudosciences like homeopathy reverse this.

            Homeopathy is not empirical because it studiously avoids any attempt to remove bias and error from its observations. It’s like the 50/50 lifeline version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue: remove one right answer and one wrong answer, then pick from the two remaining.

          • rosross

            Allopathic medicine was the reference. I am talking about the practice of medicine, not the science behind it. It is no longer empirical as it once was.

            Doctors do not rely on observation as they once did, they rely on research studies (often flawed) and material provided by pharmaceutical companies selling drugs, along with reliance on generic tests for humans who do not exist.

            All of which is why, no doubt, it is now one of the top killers.

            Homeopathic medicine is practised empirically. Observation through the Proving process; observation of the patient as an individual; observation of different disease processes.

            The wealth of information contained in Homeopathy in regard to the human condition and disease, is invaluable. One day that will be something used by all forms of medicine, including Allopathy.

          • T1-R

            Yaw, another pseudo Karl Popper child

            “The essence of science is to try to disprove your idea, rather than prove it. Pseudosciences like homeopathy reverse this.”

            No socketpuppet, the essense of science that’s not underlying in the ingenous Popperian comedy old model. Your model of epistemology is outdated. The falsability is only an condition of the empirical science, not the only valid model of testing. If your argument were valid, then the meta-analysis of homeopathy simply can’t made.

          • Yaw, another pseudo Karl Popper child

            “The essence of science is to try to disprove your idea, rather than prove it. Pseudosciences like homeopathy reverse this.”

            No socketpuppet, the essense of science that’s not underlying in the ingenous Popperian comedy old model.

            Wow… That sentence literally makes no sense at all.

            For the abuse, the massive number of posts, the abuse, the inability to actually address anything in any coherent way whatsoever, oh, yeah, and the abuse…

            [Blocked]

            Things are better now. I recommend others give this a go too. When a commenter is making as little sense as this one is it’s just not worth paying them any attention.

          • T1-R

            “For the abuse, the massive number of posts, the abuse, the inability to actually address anything in any coherent way whatsoever, oh, yeah, and the abuse…

            Blah, blah.

          • T1-R

            Post your debnuking!

          • Mike Stevens
          • duplicat

            Is that a turkey baster?

          • Tell me more about the empirical science of Homeopathy…..Wish I had a cartoon to go with that question.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/761ccb4af83df79b6e9263a1406688d90fd947713dec166a10d1c5acc1e0e0d4.jpg

          • T1-R

            Marvel or DC comics are not credible.

          • Proponent
          • T1-R

            As usually, pseudoskeptics only share stupid satirical images. Hulla hulla idiot!

          • Yes, homeopathy is a belief system. There is zero empirical evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure, the sole data point on which Hahnemann conjectured this has been known to be wrong for over a century. Homeopathy is rote-learned from sacred texts written by prophets like Hahnemann, Kent and Vithoulkas,

            This is exactly how religious sects work.

            If homeopathy was a science then it would be possible to objectively settle fundamental questions like whether non-individualised homeopathy is valid, whether the Korsakovian method is valid, whether imponderables are valid. There are competing beliefs which are mutually exclusive: they cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong.

            As to the “harm” of chemo, everyone undergoing chemo does so with informed consent. This is an aggressive treatment that may extend or even save your life, but will cause unpleasant side effects and potentially even death. The alternative is a painful death from untreated cancer, as people like Lucille Craven, Paul Howie, Francesca Linke, Penelope Dingle and Kaviraj experienced.

            One of the most despicable things alt-meddlers do is to scare people off chemotherapy and offer them worthless alternatives.

          • rosross

            The fly in your ointment is that many people are cured of Cancer without Chemo or conventional medicine.

            Chemo has such a high failure rate that it would have been tossed from any market which did not survive on exploiting terrified sick people. It is barbaric and it kills more than it ever ‘cures.’

            I would not scare anyone off Chemo. A little research will do that. I merely support freedom of choice and the fact is if someone has faith in Chemo and is robust there is a good chance it can work for them. However, I have seen too many die miserably and so far, none cured. I am sure they are out there, but don’t deny the toxic reality of Chemo. How many times are people announced clear and then within 2 years find they are riddled with the disease? Many times.

            I believe all options should be offered and people allowed to make their own choices.

            All your waffle about cults is just desperation. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can do their own research and quickly learn that what you are saying has no substance.

          • poppy72

            Tell me, When a brain surgeon comes to your bedside in hospital and tells you—“you have a brain tumor, we must operate then follow up with Chemo, otherwise you will die next week? what would you do? call your local Homeopath? yeah I bet you won’t.

          • rosross

            I am really pleased your medical choices worked for you. I simply think everyone should have the same right.

            If I was really sick I would explore all options and make a decision. One thing I do know is that doctors can be bone-pointers predicting death but they do not really know. In fact, I don’t think doctors should point the bone and say you will die in x amount of time. Do you know the stats on how many people die to the day their doctor predicted? That is the nocebo effect. Powerful.

            Having seen people I love die horribly from brain tumours, doing all the orthodox stuff, I have little faith in that approach. They wished they had been allowed to die instead of being slowly paralysed after all of the surgery and toxic treatments.

            So, my view of the Allopathic doctor would be the same as the other doctors I would choose to consult. Tell me what you think and I will make up my own mind what happens to my body.

            And death is not the worst of things. Horrible dying is the worst of things. We create so much horrible dying in this day and age with medical mechanics.

            The only people I know who have survived Cancer, four of them out of 15 of them, and none had Chemo. Two had surgery, one opted just for Radio and none would agree to Chemo. But that was their choice and that is all which matters. One who was cured did none of it and took the Homeopthic, Herbal, Nutritional approach and that worked for him. To each their own.

          • poppy72

            You know I am tired of people who worship Homeopathy, I put it to you, if you were in my position would you have done what I did or would you choose Homeopathy, I bet you would have done what I did because it gave me an extra 12 years of life to enjoy my grandchildren, something that Homeopathy could not do and you know it.

          • NoToGMOs

            Got on a plane and flown to Kolkata, India?

            http://www.pbhrfindia.org/

          • poppy72

            No evidence there.

          • poppy72

            I would like you to provide credible evidence that Homeopathy has cured anyone from any illness. The one you talk about being cured by Homeopthic,Herbal Nutritional method, I take it that you can provide evidence for that as I am sure my Oncologist would like to examine that evidence.

          • rosross

            Your oncologist might be interested as many in Europe are, but in the current climate I doubt it. The pressure on doctors by the vested agenda groups which seek to discredit Homeopathic medicine is enormous in the UK and it would take a very brave doctor prepared to risk his or her professional prestige for the sake of their patient to go out on a limb and explore non-Allopathic medical modalities.

            The power of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine is enormous. There is huge pressure from them on doctors and hospitals to reject anything which will diminish their power and profits. In other words, doctors pretty much have no choice but to use what the pharmaceutical tyrants tell them to use.

            I am sure if your oncologist spoke to Dr Peter Fisher he could get a lot of information, vastly better than what I could provide. So, by all means discuss it with him although you said you were cured, which is terrific, so I guess you don’t need to see him.

            Fact is, he or she could easily get the information if they were interested but I suspect there is a snowball’s chance in hell they would be. And that is fine. They are trapped in the system and as I said, unless they are very brave, unable to do anything else until we see that system change, as we will. Integrative Medicine is the future.

            And hey, if Allopathy worked for you and you trust it, stick with what makes sense to you.

          • Acleron

            Pharmaceutical companies are just not interested in homeopathy as a competitor but homeopaths certainly feel threatened by medicine which is why they and you spend so much time lying about medicine.

            Amusingly, as usual, ros has no evidence for her nonsense but evidence is available that homeopathy companies conspired to libel a critic of homeopathy.

            http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/07/german-homeopathy-companies-pay-journalist-who-smears-uk-academic.html

          • poppy72

            No I did not say I was cured, what I said is that my life has been extended by 12 years so far. So no credible evidence?

          • T1-R

            LOL! Your link is a big ad-hominem, or misleadings:

            ‘The House of Commons Select Committee review of the evidence for Homeopathy comes under fire first’

            Review? Where is the systematic review of the twenty pages of the UK garbage report?

          • Mike Stevens

            “I am sure if your oncologist spoke to Dr Peter Fisher he could get a lot
            of information, vastly better than what I could provide.”

            So, you don’t have any evidence for homeopathy curing cancer yourself, but think Peter Fisher has?
            Thanks at least for admitting you don’t know of any, but may I ask:
            Why, if it exists, do others not know about it? Why will he not publicise this, but keep it to himself?

          • shay simmons

            “…vastly better than what I could provide.”

            Since you have yet to provide any, we’ll take that as a given.

          • NoToGMOs
          • poppy72

            still no credible evince.

          • NoToGMOs

            Since you seem incapable of simple reading, here, let me give you a quote from study #1:

            “Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors.”

          • poppy72
          • T1-R

            Scienceblogs? It is a joke?

          • Mike Stevens

            Popppy asked you to “provide credible evidence that Homeopathy has cured anyone from any illness”

            This did not mean for you to provide studies on cells in the lab (citation #1 and #2), or a report on some anecdotal observational cases supposedly improved by homeopathy (citation #3) in 2008 which was stated would form the basis for further studies which have never taken place.

            I’ll give you a clue – the important words were “credible” and “cured from illness”

          • NoToGMOs

            Tsk, tsk, lying again “Dr.” Stevens?? Why am I not surprised? If you had bothered to read at least the abstract of study #1, let alone the full version, you would have seen that it included both in vitro (“cells in the lab” as you say) and in vivo (in actual humans) studies. Here, I’ll give you a quote from the abstract since apparently, reading comprehension is not your thing.

            “Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors.”

            Why don’t you or Poppy provide us with “credible evidence” that chemotherapy has “cured” Poppy from his brain tumor. I’ll wait.

          • Mike Stevens

            The first citation also covers the same cases mentioned in the 3rd citation, so it provides no additional evidence.
            Case reports/unverified anecdotes – these are one of the weakest forms of scientific evidence there is.
            We had asked for credible evidence, to which I will append the word “robust”, since you seem to think any old report of how marvellous homeopathy was is good, irrespective of quality or provenance.

            The evidence that conventional medical therapy cured Poppy of his brain tumour is the same evidence that you cite to show homeopathy cured a brain tumour – it is an anecdote, that is all.
            However, Poppy’s therapy is undoubtedly the culmination of thorough prior scientific testing which determined what the best curative strategy might be in these circumstances.

          • NoToGMOs

            I can guarantee you that poppy has not been “cured” of his brain tumor, especially if it is a glioma which has a very poor prognosis with your conventional medicine. Chemotherapy and radiation has never “cured” anyone.

          • Mike Stevens

            Poppy’s tumour was 12 years ago.
            I’d call that a cure.

          • T1-R
          • poppy72

            As Mike said I was fixed 12 years ago, close enough to a cure, but my brain surgeon refuses to use the word cure, but on the other hand ,when I saw him in April he said to me, “unless you experience a NEW symptom you do not have to see me again”, so I suppose it is close enough to a cure.

          • poppy72

            That post of yours just tells me how little you know about brain tumors, Here I am 12 years later doing well, not a poor prognosis.

          • poppy72

            You have a reading problem, I have NEVER said cured, what I said, Chemo has EXTENDED my life by 12 years and counting.Yes my case is anectdotal but if you give me your email address I will forward you a copy of documents relating to my cancer, as for “CURING” brain cancer,that does not exist yet, the best that can be done is to extend one’s life by Chemo, Radiation, with surgery, NOT with HOMEOPATHY.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Wrong. Methylglyoxal works the best. It works so well that they have to pretend it doesn’t exist so they can keep all of the researchers and oncologists in business.

          • NoToGMOs

            And yet you have no qualms about demanding proof of credible “cures” from homeopathy? Why hold it to a different (and higher) standard than you do conventional allopathic medicine??

            Was your brain tumor a glioma?

          • poppy72

            You have not provided credible evidence that Homeopathy cures anything.

          • Acleron

            What’s the betting that these patients were already receiving standard medical care?

          • NoToGMOs

            Why bet? It would be easier to simply look up that detail in the full text of the study (for free if you have access or by purchasing it if you don’t).

          • Acleron

            Not wasting my money. The Bannerjis make the same claims for magic water as these guys. Buried in the depths of their ‘protocol’ is the word adjunct.

          • T1-R

            Define “magic”.

          • NoToGMOs

            Treating brain tumor with a homeopathic medicine:

            https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/23/4/975

            “Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors” Impressive, wouldn’t you say?

          • poppy72

            No, because it was a statement with no evidence to back it up, I can get two friends of mine and the three of us can say we saw a pig flying, would you believe me? Get me some credible evidence, You do know what credible evidence is?

          • NoToGMOs

            Are you really this daft?? I didn’t make up that statement! It’s a quote from the results of a study! Read it in its entirety!

            “Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors.”

            You say “I”m still here, no thanks to Homeopathy”. How could you say that when you haven’t even tried it?! You dismissed it without even giving it a chance and that is your proof that it doesn’t work??? Disingenuous.

            Was your brain tumor a glioma?

          • poppy72

            Yes I read it all, I believe Mike Stevens gave you a comprehensive statement regarding this “Astract” published in a “Indian Paper” The Indian population are well known for their belief in Homeopathy, those 6 people that “survived” I did not see a MRI of the tumor prior to treatment nor did I see a MRI after treatment to back up those claims.Tell me, did Homeopathy save the late Mr Steve Jobs?

          • Mike Stevens

            These were 4 cases (ie an uncontrolled, observational collection of a few anecdotes), rather than a credible scientific study from 2008.
            They stated that the cases would form the basis for a follow up study.
            …Eleven years later, one has to wonder, where is that study?

          • poppy72

            Do not hold your breath waiting for it Mike.

          • NoToGMOs

            4 cases?? False. 15 patients were given this homeopathic treatment and their progression of disease was noted (you know what regression of tumors means, I hope?). You must be reading some other study. This one was from 2003. Not 2008.

            https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/23/4/975

            “Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors. “

          • Mike Stevens

            The cases from 2003 were later included as cases for the 2008 cases presentations for the NCI BCS programme which you cited elsewhere.

          • NoToGMOs

            With the concerted effort by allopathic organizations and practitioners such as yourself and your gang of pharma shills to sideline and demonize any form of alternative treatment such as homeopathy, I’m not surprised that progress on a follow up study has yet to be made.

          • Mike Stevens

            “With the concerted effort by allopathic organizations and practitioners such as yourself and your gang of pharma shills to sideline and demonize any form of alternative treatment such as homeopathy, I’m not surprised that progress on a follow up study has yet to be made.”

            So… let’s get this straight… you allege that a gang pharma shills who are against homeopathy is the reason why this band of highly dedicated and marvellous researchers have not performed any followup studies?

            Pull the other one – the first one has fallen off.

          • NoToGMOs

            Dr. Banerji does not need to prove anything to you or to western “scientific” medicine. His patients in regression from various cancers including the very difficult to treat by conventional medicine gliomas, are living proof that it works. Why would anyone want to stand in the way of treatments that could help patients with such difficult diagnoses? Unless of course, their bottom line is threatened.

            http://www.pbhrfindia.org/case-studies-at-pbhrf/brain-tumor-or-cancer-casestudies.html#

            Glioma case study 1:

            http://www.pbhrfindia.org/brain-tumor-treatment-with-banerji-protocols/58-glioma-casestudy-1.html

            Glioma case study 2:

            http://www.pbhrfindia.org/brain-tumor-treatment-with-banerji-protocols/85-glioma-casestudy-2.html

            Glioma case study 3:

            http://www.pbhrfindia.org/brain-tumor-treatment-with-banerji-protocols/144-glioma-casestudy-3-2013.html

          • Mike Stevens

            Anecdotes again?
            Where is the credible, robust clinical trial showing that his therapy is effective?

            PS I haven’t visited your citations. My antivirus warns me not to.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b1d3cafc394561a027297eb7c81e32cf1f18fb871272d4e7046f3c5b1613bc36.jpg

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Mike had to get the top-of-the-line antivirus protection so he could visit gayporn websites.

          • T1-R

            Little idiot, case reports are not “anecdotes”.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’d just like to add that the NCI did perform a further interim follow up “study” of these submitted cases, and this was reported in 2013 (see below).
            There were a number of cases deemed as being “persuasive” (most were non-evaluable), but the problem arises in verification of the outcomes and interpretation of follow up scans and data. The paper states numerous caveats and warnings about interpreting this type of selectively biased evidence, and they spend most of the discussion talking about this.
            There was only one case of brain tumour submitted; a glioblastoma. The evidence presented by the Indian homeopaths was “not evaluable”.

            The paper also specifically state that cases reported through the BCS should not be regarded in any way as indicating clinical effectiveness (something you were asked to provide, and clearly this evidence does not fit that bill).

            “Most important, the BCS approach is clearly not designed to permit assessment of response to a particular unconventional therapy; but rather, it is used as a vehicle to evaluate case reports of unconventional approaches. Well-designed clinical trials would be necessary to make determinations about the effectiveness of a therapy.”
            http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735412473641

          • Acleron

            Apart from your terminological inexactitudes, it is more likely they sidelined themselves by being unable to come up with quality evidence.

          • NoToGMOs

            “Quality” as defined by you?? Hahaha!!

            What “terminological inexactitudes” exactly would those be??

          • Acleron

            ‘Allopathic’, ‘gang’, ‘shills’ and ‘treatment’ are your lies.

            Quality can be determined either by the odds ratio to be expected, ie the power of the study as used by Shang or by accepted criteria such as blinding, number of participants, ability to examine the raw data, clarity of the statistical analysis.

            Here is an homeopath misapplying these principles.
            http://edzardernst.com/2014/12/homeopaty-proof-of-concept-or-proof-of-misconduct/

            The Shang study was performed in part to eliminate the selection by results so beloved of homeopaths. The homeopaths response? You guessed it, they took the same study and selected for positive results for the magic water. If they weren’t selling a dangerous product, it would be laughable.

          • T1-R

            Define “good and compelling quality/evidence”. Share your report published in academic paper.

          • T1-R

            As usually, the troll of CSICOP repeat the same:

            “here is zero empirical evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure, the sole data point on which Hahnemann conjectured this has been known to be wrong for over a century”

            Empirical evidence from 2010 and 2011

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20558607

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21622119

          • poppy72

            No Chemo saved my life. Don’t get me started.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            I thought it was the surgery?

          • T1-R

            “but by diverting people from effective treatment it surely has. It is a belief system, not a science”

            Yaw, if the patient show a incurable disease? How can you cure the incurable disease with conventional medicine? How?

          • poppy72

            Well you certainly won’t cure it with Homeopathy.

          • T1-R

            Weel, you certainly can’t offer anything rational argument.

          • The irony here is that we know about the side-effects of medicine primarily from the inherently self-critical process of medical science. Anything that has an effect has a potential side-effect, and the business of medicine is entirely about trading the balance of risk and benefit. When medicine finds a treatment is harmful or ineffective, it is dropped. Knee washout surgery is no longer used. Drugs are withdrawn if shown to be harmful.

            However, the claim that medicine is the fourth biggest killer is bullshit, because it basically depends on attributing 100% of an adverse outcome to error and 0% of any potential benefit. A patient with a ruptured aneurysm can be taken into surgery and might die on the table. It’s very high risk surgery. This would be counted as a death by medicine in your claim, but in fact the condition is 100% fatal without intervention, so to convert a 100% chance of death to, say, a 50% chance of death, is a worthwhile trade. The people who died would have died anyway. Similar logic applies to a large number of the claimed adverse medical events touted by SCAM proponents. Count all the harm and none of the benenfit, and yes, it looks bad, but only an idiot with an agenda would do that.

            Contrast that with alternative medicine. Do you know how many of the remedies in Hahnemann’s original repertories have been withdrawn after being found to be in error? None. Not one. How plausible is it that Hahnemann made absolutely no errors whatsoever as he invented homeopathy from the ground up? This would be literally the only example in history of an exercise this large which was completely immune from human error.

          • rosross

            Side effects don’t exist. What are called side effects are toxic results. And we know about it because patients live it and doctors try to deny it often, but cannot.

            We are beginning to see some medical professionals of integrity calling out the corrupt scientific research system but I guess some of them do get depressed at their kill and injure rate in Allopathy.

            Not all harmful drugs are withdrawn. The high kill rate of Allopathy is largely from prescribed medication. Can’t even get that right.

            I have often said Allopathic skllls in crisis/trauma and surgery are valuable. Although your aneurysm patient would still do better if toxic drugs were avoided where possible and Homeopathic and other medical modalities were used.

            If you ever bothered to research Homeopathy you would know that non-toxic medications don’t need to be withdrawn because they have been formulated differently to Allopathy. You all make this silly mistake. Do no research, waffle on in ignorance and pretend Homeopathy can be assessed like Allopathy. It cannot.

          • Dr Chris Fogarty

            I was waiting patiently for this comment. Homeopathy for ruptured aortic aneurysm. Or any emergency. Bloody hilarious.

          • Allopathy ceased to be used in Victorian times. Try sticking to reality-based examples.

          • T1-R

            “Do you know how many of the remedies in Hahnemann’s original repertories have been withdrawn after being found to be in error? None. Not one.”

            Your problem is flawed, the repertories were designed for individualized treatment.

          • Your logical fallacy is: special pleading.

            Hahnemann’s repertories (and those of Kent and others) have the status of Revealed Truth in the cult of homeopathy. The absence of self correction and the implication of infallibility clearly shows homeopathy to be a religious doctrine.

          • T1-R

            Non sense, the repetories have been revisited by homeopaths around the world. Did you know the new materias medicas, big idiot?

          • shay simmons

            “Allopathic medicine is the third or fourth biggest killer…” Ros, why do you continue to lie about this when you’ve been shown the mortality charts over and over?

          • T1-R

            Yaw, the charts of motality do not include homeopathic hospital statistics. Your comparation is flawed.

          • shay simmons

            Perhaps you should read enough of the conversation to keep yourself from posting a completely irrelevant comment.

          • T1-R

            Blah, blah, troll, debunk this:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882401016307872

            7 up votes from your “friends”.

          • shay simmons

            Congratulations on your cat-like reflexes.

          • T1-R

            Share with your friend Mike Marshall.

          • T1-R

            Share to with your imaginary “friends”- LOL!

    • Andrew Lazarus

      While I concur, please don’t shout with CAPS.

      • poppy72

        Hi, Andrew, I myself use CAPS, not for shouting but to draw attention to a word or specify attention. I can’t speak for edzart.

        • AutismDadd

          BUH WAH HA HA

          • poppy72

            Why have you parachuted here? to answer a 7 day old comment, getting bored at Facebook?

          • AutismDadd

            I’m not on Facebook and never was. Did you know you can comment UNTIL the little padlock emblem goes up?

          • poppy72

            Yes and I will now exercise my right to ignore you.

    • Ron Roy

      In 1989, a British placebo-controlled,
      double-blind study tested Oscillococcinum, a typical homeopathic flu
      remedy, on 487 people. Two days later, the group taking the homeopathic
      remedy reported significant relief of their symptoms. One might be
      tempted to argue that the virus affecting this group had simply run its
      course. That doesn’t explain however, why the placebo group didn’t
      recover as quickly. Another placebo-controlled, double-blind study took
      place in Germany in 1990 on 61 people suffering from varicose veins.
      For 24 days, part of the study group drank a solution of 8 combined
      homeopathic remedies three times each day, while the others had a
      placebo cocktail instead. At the completion of the study it was
      determined that the severity of symptoms rose 18% in the placebo group,
      while those who took the homeopathic remedies experienced a 44%
      improvement.

      • Chris Preston

        In 1989, a British placebo-controlled…while those who took the homeopathic remedies experienced a 44% improvement.

        Stolen verbatim from An Introduction to Homeopathy. I think that earns you an F grade.

        Also it is not at all relevant, because Karyn Siegel-Maier is a freelance writer specializing in writing about “not medicine” and not a national or international organization or agency specializing in science or medicine.

      • Jonathan Graham

        Isn’t it interesting that you never seem to think that providing the actual study is important. Almost like you choose your research by it’s outcomes….

      • edzard ernst
        • T1-R

          Varicose vein trial:

          Ernst: “No, because our verum was far from being a homeopathic, highly diluted remedy.”

          The trial: “The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a combined homeopathic medication in primary varicosity”

          VS

          Professional medical historians of medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338200

          Quote:
          Low dilutions play a role in homeopathic prescribing, and are particularly prominent in systems of homeopathy focusing on the organotropic effects of homeopathic medicinal products integrated with conventional medicine diagnosis and treatment. (Mother) tinctures may be employed in homeopathy as well as in herbal medicine. The distinction between the two is based on the clinical context, the rationale behinds its use, and the production method of the tincture.

        • T1-R

          If your argument is true, then Oscillococcinum is not homeopathic.

          • Mike Stevens

            Oscillococcinum is a mythical invention of the homeopaths.
            It doesn’t even exist.

          • T1-R

            Are you idiot? The Oscillococcinum is made from viral reservories.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Viral reservories”?
            Are they related to recombinaltion tinikers?

          • T1-R

            No, your idiot friend to shown the lack of reading skills.

          • duplicat

            Oscillocockinum is what you received in The Navy.

      • JGC

        That would be A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes (PMID: 2655683)

        It did find a small statistical improvement in 5 self reported symptoms, and used only one objective readout for disease improvement (rectal temperature). On entry only 43% of the subjects however, reported at least three of the 5 symptoms used to gauge efficacy and throughout the course of the study only 58% reported all 5 symptoms. demonstrating that the cohorts were comprised of subjects whose flu varied widely in severity.

        If you’ll look at table 4, you’ll see that there was no statistically significant difference in the time to recovery between the treatment and placebo groups in subjects with severe influenza. Statistical significance is only seen it subjects classified as having mild to moderate influenza.

        So, what did the authors of the study conclude? Certainly not that homeopathic Oscillococcinum was effective as a treatment for influenza.

        From the article (bold for emphasis:

        “Despite the use of terms such as ‘attributable fraction’ which have specific meaning in clinical epidemiology parlance, it would be unwise to claim that the study has demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between the drug and the recoveries. The positive effect of the homoeopathic preparation cannot be explained in our present state of knowledge, and thus calls for further investigation. The effect was modest (the increase in proportion of recoveries within 48 h was less than 7%), but nevertheless is of interest.”

        Recall that this study was performed in 1989, and that the authors call for ” further rigorously designed clinical studies” has been met since that time, and the rigorously designed clinical studies conducted since have found no evidence suggesting homeopathic treatments are any more effective than are placebo controls.

      • So you think that flu is caused by the oscillococcus bacterium? Small problem: it doesn’t exist. Another small problem: flu is not caused by a bacterium but by a virus. You think self-reported surveys are a valid form of evidence? Guess again.

        The article is old and calls for further studies. Those have been performed. Amazingly (not really) the results are resoundingly negative. You can only get a positive result through the miracles of P-hacking. http://www.cochrane.org/CD001957/ARI_homeopathic-oscillococcinumr-for-preventing-and-treating-influenza-and-influenza-like-illness

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum

        • T1-R

          I like the Cochrante meta-analysis:

          We appreciate Mr Chapman’s description of the interesting history of the 1917 observation that led to the development of Oscillococcinum ® .Dr Roy’s mischaracterisation of his observations might perhaps be forgiven, given that viruses were only first visualised after the development of the transmission electron microscope in 1932.[i] Prior to that time, experimental transmission of influenza symptoms from infected to uninfected animals was attributed to an ’ultrafiltered material’.[ii] The annals of medicine are replete with medicines
          that changed direction during their development: e.g. sildenafil citrate (Viagra), which failed in its trials as an anti-hypertensive, but found new life in one of its ’adverse effects’.

        • T1-R

          Guy Troll:

          From the Cochrane meta-analysis:

          In our review, we directly address the subject of high dilution (How the intervention migh twork). Studies in recent decades with a variety of instruments have demonstrated the ability to distinguish various homeopathic medicines as well as different potencies of the same medicines. Recent studies reveal that homeopathic remedies contain nanoparticles of source materials formed by mechanical grinding in lactose and/or succussion (forceful agitation) in ethanolic solutions combined with silica nanostructures formed during succussions in glass.[iv] Other studies using various physical and physico-chemical methods have demonstrated persistent structural modifications as a resultof homeopathic preparation methods. e.g.[v],[vi], [vii] These technologies have not yet been appliedto Oscillococcinum ® , but the assertion that no such instrument exists is incorrect.

    • T1-R

      “Pharmay” —> XD Idiot.

    • T1-R

      Yaw, so Ernst feel that the RAF spanish pharm, is the evidence based medicine?

      No Ernst, the RAF was debunked!

      https://losseudoescepticos.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/elinformedelareal/

    • T1-R

      “PHARMAY” –> LOL!

      Debunked and re-debunked your garbage:

      https://losseudoescepticos.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/elinformedelareal/

  • louise40

    Of course the scientific community will always back Big Pharma who wants homeopathy to be proven wrong, along with all their other questionable science to prove orthodox medicines are good. Here we have all the skeptics commenting below as well. However, it doesn’t matter how many times you attack it, homeopathy still works really well.
    Ernst himself has stated in various interviews that his family doctor was a homeopath, that his wife uses homeopathy and that he was impressed by the success of homeopathy in a hospital in Germany, so I am not sure why he is making it his life’s work to disprove it. One can only guess.

    • edzard ernst

      stop guessing!
      IT’S THE EVIDENCE, STUPID!

      • Debi Carmi

        stop being abusive and name calling.. maybe you should go back to your native country and your native language and read the research in Deutsch because your English isn’t working

        • Still nothing other than personal abuse and xenophobia? Or is it racism?

          BTW, Prof Ernst speaks English (and several other languages) perfectly well.

          • Debi Carmi

            and my fiance is german.. my father jewish and i have lived in other countries.. it is very clear that Ernst started the abuse and name calling.. just read up a few lines.. you are so boring.. the reason people stop arguing with you is that they have a life better spent than trying to enlighten a brick wall.. and is Ernst your boyfriend, because everywhere on the interenet he has something posted there you are bullying anyone who dares to point out the obvious errors.. have a nice life.. preferably far far away from me

          • The reason is that homeopathy fans fail to provide robust evidence for the claims made.

          • rosross

            No, the reason is that gaggles of prejudiced, subjective, agenda-driven people like yourself don’t do research and don’t read anything which challenges your dogma and beliefs.

            None of it matters. Homeopathy has had to face off the chemists from the time it was developed. It did, it does and it grows in use.

            Quite why anyone would get hysterical about a medical modality which does no harm is beyond reason.

            There are hundreds of thousands of qualified MD’s in the world, who are trained as Homeopathic doctors. Clearly they know things you refuse to hear.

          • No, the reason is that gaggles of prejudiced, subjective, agenda-driven people like yourself don’t do research and don’t read anything which challenges your dogma and beliefs.

            You’re looking in a mirror aren’t you…

          • rosross

            Now that is almost witty. Made me smile.

          • shay simmons

            Because it does no good, either. It does nothing.

          • it is very clear that Ernst started the abuse and name calling..

            Ah. You must be new.

          • you are so boring.. the reason people stop arguing with you is that they have a life better spent than trying to enlighten a brick wall..

            The reason people tend to stop talking to @AlanHenness:disqus is because he ends up LOLing at peoples attempts to dodge the topic or ineffectively dismiss the data being presented. It’s not easy when sound, robust data is presented and you don’t have any to counter it with.

            If people didn’t make such laughable attempts to not address the points being made perhaps the conversations would last longer.

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      As you said, Louise, homeopathy works really well. Not only does it work well but it is also safe, non-toxic, non-addictive and inexpensive. As those of us who use it know, it is often curative where conventional treatments fail.

      These are the reasons its use is growing annually in countries around the world at rates of between 10% and 30%. These are also the reasons why it presents a massive challenge to conventional drugs which do nothing but suppress the symptoms of disease, cause disease and often result in death. To combat this challenge big pharma does everything it can to influence the public against it. Negative articles in the press and so-called “skeptics” making claims in comments sections are themselves proof that homeopathy works. If it didn’t, there would be no need for either articles or comments. It’s use would have died out many decades ago. Instead it’s now the second most used system of medicine in the world with big pharma’s products being third.

      People who would like to know what homeopathy can do for them and their families will find hundreds of case records of cures of conditions from type 2 diabetes to gangrene to addiction to prescription drugs by googling “homeopathy cured cases”. They are documented with CT scans, x-rays, histopathological reports, blood work and more plus comments from both treating physicians and patients.

      • Ah, the old familiar faces. Nice to see that the Homeopathy Rabid Reaction Farce is still in place. Baggie be along soon, will she?

        The three problems with homeopathy are:

        1. There is no reason to suppose if should work as like does not cure like.
        2. There is no way it can work, as the doctrines of homeopathy are inconsistent with well established scientific fact.
        3. There is no proof it does work, there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

        • Debi Carmi

          there is no scientific evidence that you are not a complete idiot.. so by your reasoning that also must be true!

          • LOL! You don’t quite get this, do you?

          • Debi Carmi

            actually i get it, just saddened for you that you don’t

          • Nope. You don’t.

          • poppy72

            Instead of providing evidence, you resort to name calling, why am I not surprised.

          • T1-R

            Your troll friend Chapman never share nothing more that his delirant comments.

          • poppy72

            Unlike you or Debi, he has not lowered himself to name calling something that is common to anti vaxxers when they can not refute the evidence presented to them.

          • T1-R

            Unlike you or Alan, he has not lowered himself to name calling something that is common to Monsanto shiters when they can not refute the evidence presented to them.

          • T1-R
        • Jonathan Graham

          Well said. I’d amend #3 to include “despite people looking really hard”. There is no expectation of “independently authenticated cases” unless people are looking hard. As soon as homeopathy nuts admit that people are looking hard for this evidence, the expectation becomes that we would see the evidence if the effect is there. The lack of effect is Bayesian evidence against the hypothesis that “homeopathy works”.

          Combine that with #1 and #2 as prior probabilities of near zero and the likelihood that any homeopathic treatment is useful is next to nothing.

      • ichthyic

        “As you said, Louise, Lies work really well. Not only do lies work well but are also safe, non-toxic, non-addictive (ok, maybe not) and inexpensive (free!).
        As those of us who use lies know, lies often pay off where factual evidence is ignored.”

      • Challenge: =) It’s really easy to test if it works – give people, blind (just let somebody mix up the labels), different remedies than those they should have – and see if it still works.
        If the remedies still work it might not be because of homeopathy, but because of placebo.

        I did this with my mother (using Hahnemans proposed adverse effect if you take homeopathy although you’re healthy, that’s how he tested his remedies) and well she now uses the little sugar pills only as placebo for minor stuff.

        • rosross

          You demonstrate what the rest do – you have not the faintest idea of Homeopathic methodology. By all means reject it but do some research first.

          Unless you have trained in Homeopathic medicine your little test was meaningless. Did you study the Proving process?

          But, it doesn’t really matter. What floats your boat.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Did you study the Proving process?

            Unless the proving process conforms to some form of Bayesian or Frequentist evidence model/hypothesis testing procedure then it can’t really have anything to say about the treatment’s abilities.

          • rosross

            So, you have no idea what the Proving process entails? You have done no research. Par for the course for those seeking to reject Homeopathy.

            Go and study the Proving Process and then we can have a conversation if you want one.

          • Jonathan Graham

            What I’m pointing out is it is totally, completely and provably irrelevant what the proving process entails UNLESS it conforms to some form of Bayesian or Frequentist evidence model/hypothesis testing procedure.

            You seem to imply that you well understand this process. So you’re complete silence on this subject tells me that you don’t know if it conforms. Ergo, you are in no position to claim that the proving process can really predict anything.

          • rosross

            Let me ask you again have you studied the Proving process? If you have, tell me how it is done and how it works? If you have not studied it your comments regarding Bayesian or Frequentist are meaningless.

            You raised it. You need to know if it conforms. Not me. I know it works.

            The Proving Process, done on humans, not animals, establishes the healing potentials.

            But, no conversation is possible unless you have some idea what you are talking about. It’s called research. Useful.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Let me ask you again have you studied the Proving process?

            …and I’m pointing out that it’s irrelevant UNLESS you can make that claim. Since you can’t it’s not rational for you to claim that it can predict anything.

          • rosross

            Why not answer the question. Have you studied the Proving Process? If you have not then any conversation with you is meaningless.

            If you have no idea what I am talking about then you have no idea what you are talking about, that is irrational.

            I am merely trying to assess if you have a modicum of knowledge or understanding about the process. It seems not. I don’t know what work you do but starting from a base of abject ignorance doesn’t get people far.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Why not answer the question

            Because it’s irrelevant to the point. Until you can establish what you clearly do not understand your belief in homeopathic proving is unjustified.

            If you have not then any conversation with you is meaningless.

            Provably incorrect. You might as well claim that I need to understand Thor’s 43783343 Rules of Judgement if I want to call Thor “unjust”. However I can instead point out that there’s no reason to believe in Thor then I don’t need any knowledge at all of his 43783343 Rules of Judgement.

          • rosross

            Thanks for demonstrating yet again, that you, like most of those who oppose Homeopathy have no idea what they are talking about and apply sloppy subjectivity and prejudice to a basis of complete ignorance.

            You resort to the ridiculous to try to hide your lack of knowledge but it doesn’t work. I wonder sometimes if people don’t bother to do some research into Homeopathy because their capacity for research is minimal.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Thanks for demonstrating yet again, that you, like most of those who oppose Homeopathy have no idea what they are talking about

            Have you ever considered actually reading the posts before you respond? I only wonder this because my actual thesis was “You don’t have to understand homeopathy to make specific judgement X about it unless you can first assert Y about homeopathy”.

            In the same way that you don’t need to understand all the rituals about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodliness endure!) to determine that I don’t need to follow them

            Your constant dancing around this point makes it pretty clear that a) you have less than zero clue about how to talk about proving in terms of Bayesian or Frequentist statistics – and therefore lose the right to make rational claims about provings being able to predict what a treatment will do and b) are kind of desperately trying to find some kind of rock to hide under.

          • rosross

            Yes, I do read the posts. And I disagree with you completely. You do need to understand something before you can hope to make a judgement.

            If we were talking quiche, and you had not the foggiest notion how it was made, and I was a chef, who did know, your judgements would be meaningless. Ditto with Homeopathy.

            A sensible person would find out about that which he or she seeks to reject.

            And then you get silly. Your lot always do. Flying Spaghetti monsters because you know nothing and you refuse to know anything and it all just makes you look foolish.

            You know nothing about Provings and until you do, your words are empty.

            I have better things to do.

          • Jonathan Graham

            If we were talking quiche, and you had not the foggiest notion how it was made, and I was a chef, who did know, your judgements would be meaningless.

            Yawn, a) your example begs the question and b) is irrelevant. Your example only refutes the idea that there exists at least one (trivial) thing which you need to know something about in order for your judgements to be correct. I’ve already provided several examples which demonstrate the opposite. Which you have not been able to refute.

            So unless you can refute them or demonstrate that homeopathic provings do not require Bayesian or Frequentist statitsics in order to make useful predictions about the future – like treatment X will do Y. Then you are stuck demonstrating that they do or admit you do not know and can no longer make rational claims.

          • Notice that even if you don’t have the foggiest notion of…oh, say….how a table is made….

            You still recognise a table that collapses under the weight of one solitary mug as a bad example of ‘table’.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well said. It’s only in trivial cases where you can’t make any inferences. Rosross’s example was to narrow what we know absolutely nothing about to “quiche construction” and then talk about the value of ones opinions on “quiche construction”. Even there the argument is dependent on what we mean by “know nothing about”. I may, as in your table example know nothing specific about “quiche construction” but I may also know some general rules which allow me to criticize it. For example that botulinum toxin is probably not a reasonable thing to have on the list of ingredients.

          • And if it smells of rotten eggs or the meat is green, things probably did not go to plan.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Get in your shell Derp.

          • I think what you’re doing there is…

            Botulinum Toxin is not a reasonable thing to have in food–>This strange thing is an example of food–>Therefore this thing should not have Botulinum Toxin in it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I think we’re on the same page. What I’m saying is that when someone says: “You don’t know anything about constructing quiche” they probably don’t mean “You don’t even know what the noun quiche refers to?” but rather “I have some vague ideas of what a quiche is but not enough to construct one (or have a very good chance of constructing one)”.

            In the former case I might not know if botulinum is a component or not, in the later case as long as I know things like “Quiche is a food” then I can make some correct judgements about it’s construction.

            Specifically if I know that the goal of Homeopathy proving is to say something about the likelihood of a particular remedy treating a particular illness. Then I can say that there is one and only one objectively demonstrable way to determine likelihood. Which is using statistics. So if it doesn’t, then it can not make those kinds of predictions.

            The out for homeopaths I suppose is that they employ a method of determining likelihood that is not objectively demonstrable. So like intuitive ideas about probability.

          • I have better things to do.

            The amount you post here demonstrates that you likely don’t have anything better to do. So you can’t even get facts about your own life right.

          • duplicat

            Gold spends all day masturbating to his Alan Turing poster.

          • shay simmons

            You do need to understand something before you can hope to make a judgement.

            Says the poster who admits she doesn’t understand how homeopathy works.

          • Jazz Let

            You do not need to know how quiche is made to judge whether it is an effective (tasty, texturally pleasing) quiche or a ineffective (bland, slimy etc) quiche. Similarly it seems to me you don’t need to know exactly how homeopathic medicines are made or designed to find out they are ineffective.

          • duplicat

            …(may his noodliness endure!)

            Blasphemy! Ahemm…it’s His Noodliness. Is your shift key broken?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Do you think this is the part of the movie where you, the homophobe jerk shares a laugh with the rest of the cast? Trav, not trying to put down your overtures too hard here but your behavior in the past is pretty anti-social and speaks of an environment with insufficient negative feedback towards various things like using homosexuality as an insult.

            If you want to interact on a more socialized level, you need to consider apologizing for most of your other antics and probably to some people personally.

          • duplicat

            Just pointing out your mistakes. You need to address deities properly.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Trav, if you want to act in a socialized way. You probably need to start with some apologies.

          • duplicat

            Me? You’re the one blaspheming, not me. I am the most devout.

            I sacrifice a bowl of capellini every Tuesday.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …again socialized interaction requires an apology.

          • Your constant dancing around this point…

            Roslyn has to dance around the point because, at some level, she’s aware it is indefensible.

            The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

            Yes, easily seen in the “You don’t understand X? Then your opinion of Y is invalid?” posture.

          • rosross

            Study the Proving process so you know what you are talking about and a conversation is possible.

        • Challenge: =) It’s really easy to test if it works – give people, blind (just let somebody mix up the labels), different remedies than those they should have – and see if it still works.

          The manufacturing process of a major manufacturer was reviewed some time back. It was found that 1/6th of the bottles weren’t getting sprayed and of the remainder only the top 1/3rd of the pills in (the top of) the bottle were getting sprayed.
          So the product from this manufacturer was more untreated pilule than not. No one noticed. No one complained. No recalls were issued…

          The experiment has inadvertently been run.

          The report warning letter is here.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I read over the report.

            The investigator also observed for Batch #36659 that one out of every six bottles did not receive the dose of active homeopathic drug solution due to the wobbling and vibration of the bottle assembly during filling of the active ingredient.

            That’s pretty awesome. Not to mention that this had to be detected by inspection. Why? Because there is probably no test that can reliably differentiate between product that was sprayed and that which wasn’t.

            If we were talking about an actual pharmaceutical we could pull batches and test them for some active ingredient. How do you trust a product for which quality control is a deliberate impossibility?

            People who use these things are really no different than someone calling a psychic healing service.

          • That’s pretty awesome. Not to mention that this had to be detected by inspection. Why? Because there is probably no test that can reliably differentiate between product that was sprayed and that which wasn’t.

            If we were talking about an actual pharmaceutical we could pull batches and test them for some active ingredient. How do you trust a product for which quality control is a deliberate impossibility?

            Further on the mention the presence of a Gas Chromatography machine for the testing. Trouble here was that they didn’t have anyone qualified to use it. I suspect anyone that is qualified would look for work anywhere else because of the tests coming back 100% negative all the time.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yeah at 8X-12X you might even be at the sensitivity of the machine.

    • This is probably the most stupid argument for homeopathy. Only homeopathists see homeopathy as competition to medicine. Medical science could use homeopathy tomorrow, if there was any credible evidence it worked. A small minority of MDs actually do use it.

      You hypothesise a conspiracy that must by definition include millions, not one of whom has ever blown the whistle. It would have to include a huge number of scientists, any one of whom could make their name overnight if they discovered the new property of matter that would be needed for homeopathy to work. Instead we are supposed to believe that all of science has closed ranks because it is threatened by an idea it supposedly doesn’t understand. Science, as a field, exists entirely to investigate things it doesn’t understand, but thus one thing is supposed to be so threatening that scientists in multiple fields have built an international conspiracy, rigidly enforced and sworn to secrecy, to suppress it.

      Not very likely, is it?

      • rosross

        Medical science will not use Homeopathy because it is a low-profit modality. Homeopathic medicine cannot be patented; does not have a use-by date and is cheap to produce and easy to administer. Neither does one take Homeopathic medicine for life.

        A medication which might be required once, or perhaps half a dozen times, and does not expire. Who wants that? Well, patients do but they don’t drive the medical industry.

        So, it is a poor payer and of no interest to the profit driven science-medical industry.

        • Rosross said:

          “Medical science will not use Homeopathy because it is a low-profit modality. ”

          Oops!

          Homeopathy manufacturer Boiron have a market capitalisation value of some €1.3 BILLION and make a gross profit of €345 MILLION on an annual revenue of €623 MILLION. Is that a low profit to you?

          “Homeopathic medicine cannot be patented”

          Oops!

          There are 14,741 results searching Google Patents for the word homeopathy, many of which are granted patents: https://patents.google.com/?q=homeopathy

          “does not have a use-by date”

          Oops!

          They certainly do in the UK! This is a copy of the packaging for Nelsons 30C Arnica homeopathy product as approved by the MHRA. Note the space for the mandatory Use by date:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/655ae7b1d011ad9f9fe0e1a674d798541aa7aba1a054d5bf5c13a269357898c2.png

          • kfunk937

            Maybe what ros meant by “does not have a use-by date” is that homeopathy as a field has been essentially unchanged for over two hundred years, despite conclusive evidence that it does not and cannot be effective and is not necessarily safe.

          • duplicat

            Maybe what ros meant by “does not have a use-by date” is that homeopathy vaccination as a field has been essentially unchanged for over two hundred years, despite conclusive evidence that it does not and cannot be effective and is not necessarily safe.

            FTFY.

          • LOL!

          • Acleron

            You fixed it by lying. Sort of fits your existence.

          • T1-R

            Oops! Another idiot that confused OTC homeopathic vs no OTC.

        • Chris Preston

          Medical science will not use Homeopathy because it is a low-profit modality.

          This is complete rubbish. My doctor always asks me about diet and exercise when I have an appointment. Exercise costs nothing. Medical science does not use homeopathy, because it doesn’t work.

          Treatments that work are called medicine, those that don’t I prefer to call not medicine (used to be called alternative medicine, but now are often referred to as complimentary medicine. I, however, prefer not medicine as that is far more accurate description). Homeopathy falls into the second group of not medicine.

          • duplicat

            My doctor always asks me about diet and exercise when I have an appointment.

            Do you eat genetically-modified soy?

        • Rossross…how do you explain non-profit-driven science-medical industries then? Like say…all the green countries on this map?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/95e25c72c9da10f780a72073158784ca3e4b0bcba989270c90d96945733e575a.jpg

        • JGC

          Homeopathic products can and have been patented, rosross. In any event the lack of patent exclusivity doesn’t prevent a product from being profitable–aspirin had been off patent for years, but Companies still generate revenue producing and selling it.
          As for homeopathic preparations not expiring, people selling bottled water (which is, after all , what homeopathic preparations are) don’t seem to have a problem profiting by its sale.
          And as for a medication that might be required once of perhaps a half dozen times, what FDA approved medical products does that remind you of?

        • What about countries with socialised medicine?

        • FallsAngel

          You don’t seem to understand that the “profit” side of health care in the US is in the financing, not in the practice. IOW, doctors don’t do a procedure or whatever to make money, or more money. There are in fact many medications that are used once, or perhaps half a dozen times, or 10-14 days, like antibiotics.

        • Jonathan Graham

          Medical science will not use Homeopathy because it is a low-profit modality.

          Medical science is more about publishing research. That’s why we could easily bury you and everyone you know in papers which have no clear profit (or than perhaps to generate more research grants). Being the first person to prove that water can remember it’s been near a tiny amount of eviscerated duck but forget all the poo it’s been near. Would probably make one pretty famous, since it’s a prima facie violation of most of chemistry and physics.

          Homeopathy is not pursued by medical science because it is so unlikely to be true that you might as well start worshiping Thor.

          • Homeopathy is not pursued by medical science because it is so unlikely to be true that you might as well start worshiping Thor.

            Wait… Worshipping Thor was an option?? :/

          • Jonathan Graham

            Thor loves you my son. In particular he would love you to bring him a sandwich.

          • I am loved!

            Sandwich? You didn’t even sudo!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Apparently Thor’s ideas about Proper User Policy aren’t “Simon says” it’s “Thor Says” and Thor says “Make me a GD sammich!”.

          • /me makes a sammich.

          • Jonathan Graham

            That’s what I’d do too!

            (Props for the XKCD/Unix/IRC references)

          • It is the world I live in. It’s a better place for it being a real thing too.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I figured from your bio. So….pseudo-random question: Name your top ten all time favorite books on computers/technology.

            Here are mine roughly in the order I read them:

            Apple Graphics and Arcade Game Design (Stanton)
            C Programming Language (K&R)
            Art of Computer Programming Volume 1 (All Knuth all the time)
            Design and Implementation of the 4.xBSD Operating System (McKusick et. al.)
            Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (Ableson et. al.)
            Mastering Algorithms series (O’Reilly)
            Essentials of Programming Languages (Friedman et al.)
            Learn Python the Hard Way (Shaw)
            Reversing (Eilam)
            Bayesian Methods for Hackers: Probabilistic Programming and Bayesian Inference (Davidson-Pilon)

          • Proponent

            “Yes, yes.. “Bayesian Methods for Hackers: Probabilistic Programming and Bayesian Inference”.. that’s a good one, alright.”

            (*hides his copy of “Ruby For Kids For Dummies” behind his back*)

            😛

          • Jonathan Graham

            I think it’s title is more intimidating than the book is. Some of the books I listed you can get for free:

            K&R’s C book:http://cs.unm.edu/~fastuous/spring14/cs241/C%20Programming%20Language%20-%202nd%20Edition.pdf
            Python the Hard Way: https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/
            Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs: http://www.math.grinnell.edu/~miletijo/m208s15/StructIntCompPrograms.pdf
            Bayesian Methods for Hackers: http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780133902839/samplepages/9780133902839.pdf
            Essentials of Programming Languages: https://karczmarczuk.users.greyc.fr/TEACH/Doc/EssProgLan.pdf
            Design and Implementation of 4.4BSD (just chapter 2): https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/design-44bsd/book.html

            All of these appear to be from reputable sources. Everyone knows that you can uh…find…other sources.

          • Top ten? Not sure I have that many (or any) :/ I’m mostly self taught through having to learn as I needed things. The social group I was in back in the day was the sort where if you couldn’t compile your own kernel there was someone close by that would be willing to show you how.

            I think the only actual book I read to learn a specific thing was Pro Drupal Development 1st Edition back in 2006.

          • poppy72

            That little black screen where you type “sudo” is still my weakness but I am getting there, I remember some app failed in my linux and my geek friend instead of repairing from the distro disk, he rebuilt it by hand with 15 minutes of furious typing–WOW.

          • kfunk937

            Utterly OT, but I trust this new cyberattack is already on your radar?

            To reiterate: bugger all blackhats. Good news: at least this time they don’t appear to be targeting essential services. Bad news: it appears there’s no killswitch.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yep, right now I’m just composing communication pieces. Mitigation-wise there’s not much more to do than what has already been done for WannaCry. The main thing is to check that ports 139/445 are blocked at the edges.

            I was toying with some ideas to put some controls between vlans for 139/445f but I think Windows uses them too heavily for domain administration. Other measures: Good backups, have only one account capable of accessing backups, don’t open attachments you aren’t expecting, etc…

          • kfunk937

            Thanks, I figured you’d know long before before we peons. Glaxo announced that they were affected, although I’ve not checked with my friend at GSK to ask if it was enterprise-wide. AVs everywhere are celebrating. :/

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Glaxxo deserves to be punished.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The internet is a great equalizer. If something is happening in Canada, in particular within the community of security folk I talk with. I will know before most but often enough we get our news from the tubes too.

            GSK? I had heard Merck was hit too.

          • kfunk937

            Oops, yes it was MSD, thanks. Complete brain leak on my part. ~blush~

          • Jonathan Graham

            Hey, for all I knew it was both – you might have more contacts than I do. 😉

            Anyway another good news/bad news event is that the software was using email to provide decryption keys. The email provider, once contacted shut the account down. So the bad news is that people who have been encrypted are SOL but the good news is that ransomers are making exactly $0.

            Interesting tactic on behalf of posteo. Where I their CSO I would have done the same thing.

            https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/27/15881110/petya-notpetya-paying-ransom-email-blocked-ransomware

          • Jonathan Graham

            Now this is interesting! The encryption doesn’t start until a forced restart. There is totally a window to save your data if you can either delay this (and backup) or turning off before the boot starts. Remove the HD and copy the files.

            https://securelist.com/schroedingers-petya/78870/

          • Jonathan Graham
          • Charles Lindturtle

            To reiterate: bugger all blackhats.

            Bugger? You mean, up the bootie?

            That’s pretty harsh. Even Oscar Wilde didn’t go that far!

            Wilde was arrested for “gross indecency” under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, a term meaning homosexual acts not amounting to buggery (an offence under a separate statute).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde

            [Translation: It’s not buggery of you have the common courtesy to give a reach-around, or write them love letters.]

          • duplicat

            LOL you don’t get it! A “sandwich” is a gay term that Jonathan uses.

          • shay simmons

            Since Thor is one of my cats, that comment threw me for a moment.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Thor is an awesome cat name. Our current cat is actually nameless. Unless you count “cat” or as more often invoked “CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!! get off/stop eating/clawing that _____”

          • rosross

            Medical science is largely funded by pharmaceutical companies who dictate research projects and outcomes.

            And since former editors of both The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have both said much published research is wrong, and Dr John Ioannidis concluded most published research is false, it doesn’t say much about scientific research nor give you much hope of burying anyone but yourselves.

            Water doesn’t remember, ah the old claim, which naysayers who have never done a minute’s research into Homeopathy always pump out….. you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Any comprehensive study of Homeopathy reveals that it is not based on water remembering. However, the capacity of water to receive, record, release information is looking very interesting and there is scientific research in that regard. You should look it up after you research Homeopathy.

            And if Homeopathy is not pursued because it is unlikely to be true, explain to me why it is used by MD’s, in hospitals, around the world, particularly Europe, taught in universities and even some medical schools and included by a number of Governments in State medical systems.

            Do you think they consulted Thor before making the decision? Or do you think they asked their legal advisors to run an eye over research regarding Homeopathic integrity and efficacy. I pick the latter.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Medical science is largely funded by pharmaceutical companies who dictate research projects and outcomes

            If pharmaceutical companies dictate the vast majority of research then there would be no research which does not create a product. Yet, there is an enormous amount.

            Dr John Ioannidis concluded most published research is false

            What Ioannidis actually claimed that there are about six criteria that make studies more likely to be wrong than right. Most of those could be leveled at any study on homeopathy. Not to mention that even if 50% of papers assert something that is true which is false. All it would take is multiple experiments to adjust our confidence to whatever we want. See you have to read more than the title of the article. You also need to know some math.

            the capacity of water to receive, record, release information is

            Well within what people would mean by “remembering”. So that’s a distinction without a difference.

            And if Homeopathy is not pursued because it is unlikely to be true, explain to me why it is used by MD’s, in hospitals, around the world, particularly Europe

            Because none of that is discordant with the hypothesis that it is generally not pursued in research because it is unlikely to be true. None of them even make a dent in the likelihood. Tyranny of the normal distribution baby.

            taught in universities and even some medical schools

            Because universities and medical schools are largely driven to make money. You could just as easily posit – “Why are there Reiki classes?”.

            and included by a number of Governments in State medical systems.

            The real question is why is it offered by far, far, far more private systems than state systems. Because private systems have far more to gain since homeopathy is a cheap bullet point to put on marketing literature. State sponsored systems almost never support it. The NHS has what two hospitals that offer it?

    • You do realise that you can empirically demonstrate universal widespread fraud, right?

      The meme uses GMOs as an example but the broader principles apply just as well to anything else.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c130cc76eddfc381705d7df2933291f86edfba653b15beef3bb6a93b92945cdd.png

    • JGC

      Why would Big Pharma want homeopathy to be wrong? There would be a tremendous opportunity for them to profit if that were the case: they already have all the capital infrastructure to churn out homeopathic products of exceedingly high quality cheaply and in great quantity, they already have dedicated sales and distribution.systems in place, etc.

  • Steve H

    Biologically implausible was my line

    • rosross

      Biologically implausible only by the standards of current knowledge. Many things fit that category depending on the century and the decade. If science-medicine rejected on that basis we would not get far.

      Science is meant to be a system of enquiry, that means implausible counts for nought.

      • Science is meant to be a system of enquiry, that means implausible counts for nought.

        Agreed. However, there are things that it’s clearly not worth spending time on.

        Working on the assumption that unicorns poop cupcakes, how many cupcakes do we need to check to see if they’re actually unicorn poop? Starting from a point of view that it’s implausible because unicorns don’t exist we can save a lot of time and money.

        Given what we know about the world now and what we know about homeopathy (yes, it’s been tested thoroughly) your point is equivalent to advocating we continue testing for unicorn poop.

        • rosross

          True science would believe everything is of interest and worth the questions. Particularly a medical modality which has thrived for more than two centuries and is now once again growing in use.

          I thank your lot for that. Force will increase resistance, a law of physics. So, forcing people to reject Homeopathy will just increase resistance, raise questions and conversations and have more people looking into it and many, perhaps most, finding the brilliance of it as a medical modality. Keep up the good work.

          And no, it has not been thoroughly tested but then not much is in this day and age, not even Allopathy, which is why it is one of the top killers. Scientific tests are not worth the paper on which they are written in the main.

          Only those who must put their faith in something opt for science. But, if that works for you, great.

          • And it was questioned, and lo and behold, the best evidence says it has no specific effect over placebo.

          • T1-R

            What is the “best evidence”? Share the definition of the “best evidence”.

          • LOL! Here we go again!

          • T1-R

            Yes, as usually, you can’t share the definition of “good and compelling evidence”.

          • Oh you are so funny!

          • T1-R

            Yes, I’m very funny. Your company in Spain is down!

            https://losseudoescepticos.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/elinformedelareal/

          • I’ll add sarcasm to the list of things you don’t understand. But I don’t have a company in Spain. Do you?

          • T1-R

            Yes, your company of the pseudoskeptical is down. Sorry for you, the next point is the UK pseudoskeptics. Thank you Acleron-Alan.

          • As I’ve said, I have no company of trolls: you really do have very odd notions, don’t you?

          • T1-R

            Alan Army Monsanto troll is the same!

          • If you think it’s my company, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you have. I could do with a good laugh.

          • T1-R

            As usually, you only can laugh when the pseudoskeptics fall of the roof!

          • Oh, I’m laughing all right. Now, where’s that evidence of yours for your nasty accusations?

          • T1-R

            Yes, you can laugh, as your spanish friends!

            Shuht the down!

          • T1-R

            Darth Ernst employe of the SAS is than pathethic as you!

          • T1-R

            LAULINGH! LAL!

          • T1-R

            Monsanto can pay troll’s as the team of Genetic Literacy and the Acleron group of hoolingans working in the web.

          • Well, those are words… but you are still incoherent.

          • T1-R

            Acleton The Hooligan = Alan Henness.

            Where is your Monsanto army now?

          • LOL! You’re still funny! Even when incoherent.

          • T1-R

            Even incoherent, your Army was exposed!

          • T1-R

            LAL! LEL! LIL! LOL! LUL! LOLING! LALING!

          • T1-R

            Yes, are still incoherent as you.

          • LOL!

          • T1-R

            LAL!

          • YOU STOPPED! Why did you stop???

          • T1-R

            LAL!

          • T1-R

            LEL!

          • T1-R

            LIL!

          • T1-R

            LUL!

          • T1-R

            Catche me Acleron!

          • Acleron

            Gosh, that’s impressive, a lie, incoherence and illiteracy all demonstrated in three words.

          • poppy72

            I am surprised that he has not been banned for harasing.

          • Acleron

            That’s a difficult one, is it harassment or just an irritance. Look at it this way, he is an excellent poster child for homeopathy.

          • poppy72

            In reality he is very funny and provides a good laugh so in that respect. let him continue to entertain us.

          • T1-R

            Fuzzy Alan, your lies down!

          • Charles Lindturtle

            “Catche me Acleron!” Is that what you said as you fell into his arms for a sweet embrace? I am jealous!

          • T1-R

            Typical response of Acleron:
            LAL!

          • T1-R

            LOL!

          • T1-R

            LIL!

          • T1-R

            LEL!

          • T1-R

            LUL!

          • T1-R

            LOL! LAL!

          • poppy72

            I am surprised that you have not been banned for harassing Alan.

          • T1-R

            Where is the “harassing”? Show me the harassing.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            You seem like a fun guy T1. Do you fancy meeting up for a weekend of chemsex with me?

          • T1-R

            LEL!

          • T1-R

            LIL!

          • T1-R

            LUL!

          • T1-R

            LOLING!

          • T1-R

            LALING!

          • T1-R

            LELING!

          • T1-R

            LIL!

          • T1-R

            Working more Acleron, you need a BIG help!

          • T1-R

            Spy, spy, again Acleron.

          • T1-R

            Acleron looser can’t debunk nothing.

          • T1-R

            Hey Acleron, share your academic papers!

          • T1-R

            Academic Papers from Alan = ZERO!

            LOL!

          • You’re trying to use words again, aren’t you?

          • T1-R

            ZERO academic papers from Acleron! LOL!

          • Acleron

            Only two lies in one phrase, you are slipping.

          • T1-R

            Then, post your academic papers.

          • T1-R

            LAL! LIL! LEL!

          • T1-R

            Well, your words are non sense.

          • T1-R

            What is the next Acleron? Attacking Latin America, Ukraine, Russian and Asiatic countries with the same bored propaganda?

          • T1-R

            Acleron Monsanto and your wife “Sense About Science”. In Spain we can detect your trolling group, a small cell of false and fake twitter counts. You’are the next, bastard!

          • Now, now. No need for bad language. Oh! And my wife isn’t ‘Sense About Science’ – whatever made you think that? No. Don’t tell me. I’m really not sure I want to know what you think.

          • T1-R

            Yes, your wife is SAS.

            I’m really not sure I want to know what you think.”

            As usually, Acleron elude to discuss his industrial and lobby interests.

          • Yep. Still funny.

          • T1-R

            Do you like the Monsanto army?

          • T1-R

            LAL!

          • T1-R

            LEL!

          • T1-R

            LIL!

          • T1-R

            LUL!

          • T1-R

            LORL!

          • T1-R

            LURL!

          • T1-R

            LIRL!

          • T1-R

            Super LOL!

          • T1-R

            Super LAL!

          • T1-R

            Super LIL!

          • T1-R

            Super LEL!

          • T1-R

            Ultra LOL!

          • T1-R

            Ultra LIL!

          • T1-R

            Ultra ROFL!

          • T1-R

            Combo LIL!

          • T1-R

            Combo LOL!

          • T1-R

            Mega LAL!

          • T1-R

            Dear Acleron, why do you can’t publish in academic journals?

          • T1-R

            Call your Entine- Enrst- Monsanto army!

          • T1-R

            A-c-l-e-r-o-n brainfish!

          • T1-R

            Drink RounUp, please!

            10:23 Round Up!

          • T1-R

            YOU STOPPED! WHY Did you stop Acleron???

          • T1-R

            Share the last comment!

          • T1-R

            Wrote the last comment as your Monsanyo army!

          • T1-R

            Wrote the last comment, you can do it!

          • T1-R

            Ernst need your help $$$

          • T1-R

            Yap. Still funny is this:

            https://facultyofhomeopathy.org/faculty-publication-consolidates-position-leading-research-journal-homeopathy/

            Quote:
            Homeopathy is published by the Faculty of Homeopathy and is the only Medline/PubMed indexed journal in this specialist branch of medicine. The new IF is 1.16, an increase of more than 50% on its previous assessment, which serves to consolidate the journal’s position as the world’s leading publication for scholarly articles on homeopathy.
            End of Quote.

          • Ah. Homeopathy. That’s the journal that was suppressed by Journal Citation Reports last year for excessive self-citations and citation stacking, wasn’t it? I’m still laughing.

          • T1-R

            Ah, Homeopathis, the journal that recovery its impact factor with more than 50%. In your fucking face idiot!

          • T1-R

            Ah. Skeptikal Inquirer. That’s the journal that never show his Impact Factor. I’m still laughing of the decay of his bussiness:

            https://losseudoescepticos.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/un-por-que-de-los-ataques-de-los-seudoescepticos-su-perdida-de-influencia/

          • T1-R
          • T1-R

            Your wife is a mock of the CSICOP troll team on-line.

          • T1-R

            No, your are and employee, as your wife. Share your academics papers.

          • Charles Lindturtle

            Alan had his rear end trolled in the Army. I know because I did it to him.

          • LOL! It ain’t my company, you ejit.

          • T1-R

            As usually, Acleron can’t say nothing rational. How can Monsanto pay to the CSICOP troll company?

          • T1-R

            I want buy a course of trollin as pseudoskeptics.

            PhD in Alan trolling. LOL!

          • T1-R

            Academic Papers of Acleton (Alan): ZERO!

          • T1-R

            In Spain not, UK yes.

          • That still isn’t my company!

          • T1-R

            You are the employee. Share your last comment.

          • T1-R

            Provide your paper Alan!

          • What paper are you referring to?

          • T1-R

            As usually, Acleron can’t wrote nothing.

          • You could try English.

          • T1-R

            You could post your magic paper.

          • LOL!

          • T1-R

            As usually, Acleron can’t tell nothing rational response.

          • T1-R

            LEL!

          • T1-R

            Alan, Alan, your company of “anonymous” troll’s working 24 hours per day need your help!

          • LOL! I have no company of trolls, anonymous or otherwise. You have some very strange ideas.

          • T1-R

            Alan, tell me of the Monsanto troll program.

          • Are you feeling OK? Where do you dream up your bizarre notions? Perhaps you could tell us?

          • T1-R

            Yawn, Acleron is very stupid. Monsanto Army and CSICOP army trolls are the same bunk of idiots!

          • Mike Stevens

            Oh dear, an infestation of the illiterate, irrational and illogical T1R troll….

          • Yup. Throwing nasty – and downright very silly – accusations seems to be his/her MO.

          • T1-R

            LAL! Your company of trolls is alredy work here!

          • JGC

            “True science would believe everything is of interest and worth the questions”
            And how do you propose science identify what is “worth the questions” other than by consideration of biological plausibility?

          • Peter Olins

            You raise a good point, rosross,
            “Force will increase resistance…”.
            Do you have any suggestions for the most effective way to shift entrenched ideas?

          • I have: just let the wrong idea die out by experience. Let people experience farmaceutic medicine do what they promise and homeopathic stuff will die out :).

          • Not really, no. Investigating stupid assertions based on nothing but doctrine (the earth is flat, the stars affect our destiny, homeopathy works) is a waste of resources and only prolongs the ability of charlatans to portray closed questions whose answers are commercially inconvenient, as i they were still open.

            The only scientifically interesting aspect of homeopathy is how the belief is sustained when it is so well known to be wrong.

          • Dr Chris Fogarty

            RosRoss you seem to know a bit about it so can you please explain your understanding of dilution and succussion as it applies to homeopathy?

          • rosross

            My understanding is irrelevant. I am well-read on the topic but I am not qualified as a Homeopathic physician.

            If you have a serious interest there is a wealth of reading out there. Dr Peter Fisher, qualified in both Allopathic and Homeopathic medicine is worth reading:

            http://chconference.ca/peter-fisher/

            There are thousands of books describing the process, the theories, the methodology and the outcomes.

            Dr Larry Malerba, also qualified in both Allopathic and Homeopathic Medicine is worth reading:

            His latest book is Dynamic Medicine.

            Read books written by some of the greatest Homeopaths regarding their understandings of dilution and succession and potency prescribing. If you have a serious interest.

          • You are right that your “understanding” is irrelevant, but wrong to assert that you are well-read, because your reading has clearly excluded the reality-based perspective, hence your continual repetition of debunked claims.

            Reading Fisher to understand homeopathy is like reading the work of Ken Ham in order to understand the age of the earth. You can study their writings in order to understand how they make the errors they do (such as Fisher’s false claims in the media about the Mathie study), but it gives you no insight into the subject itself, because their understanding of it is objectively wrong.

          • rosross

            You have gone off on a tangent. The discussion was in regard to dilution and sucussion and Fisher as a qualified Homepathic doctor would know about that. Since he is also a qualified Allopath it carries weight because he, like many others, is able to practice both medical modalities in ways you consider impossible. But clearly are not.

        • Now, of course, if rossross can bring evidence of unicorns, that shifts the prior plausibility.

        • T1-R

          Share the magic number of the “many” cupcaked do we need to chacje to see if they’re actually proven the homeopathy.

      • shay simmons

        And this system of enquiry has determined that homeopathy, like slitting someone’s vein to prevent apoplexy, doesn’t work.

        • rosross

          No, this system of enquiry has no explanation for how Homeopathy can work so it says it cannot work. Except it does, which is why it is the second most used medical modality in the world.

          Frustrating I know, but that is the reality.

          • shay simmons

            Nobody can explain how homeopathy works because it doesn’t…and all your claim boils down to is “people like it.”

          • rosross

            No, my claims don’t but you know what, even if they did, those who are healed with Homeopathic medicine would not give a toss.

            You are trying to dismiss a reality – Homeopathic medicine cures and people who are cured usually talk about it and we all know word of mouth beats marketing every day.

          • shay simmons

            Even leaving out the fact that it is impossible for homeopathy to work, you can’t produce any controlled experiments that provide clinically or statistically significant evidence that it does work.

            It doesn’t matter what people believe; science is not about belief. It is about what has been proven to work, and what has not.

          • rosross

            You need the qualifier. Science is about what has been proven to work and what has not within the current limitations of scientific knowledge and expertise.

            As I said, Quantum Mechanics was seen to be a joke until finally science evolved enough to understand and work with it.

            You seem to think that the scientific system of enquiry as it stands knows all there is to know about everything. In fact it is quite the opposite.

            Leaving aside the clear prejudice and subjectivity which results from vested agendas, particularly in medicine, factors which senior medical professionals have stated result in flawed science and flawed medicine.

            Science cannot even get it right for its own medical modality, Allopathy, so why on earth would anyone think it could get it right for another, particularly one which challenges its financial backers.

            And while those involved in science need to continue to believe in their system, the public is increasingly suspicious and questioning as they see that Science has become Scientism, dogmatic religion which is no longer a pure system of enquiry.

            It matters very much what people believe. Science has remained powerful because it does clever nuts and bolts, manmade stuff, and people hoped that would transfer to medicine but mostly it doesn’t. The reason why millions are looking for other medical modalities is because most people are not fools and many are tired of not being cured or even healed by Allopathic medicine.

            The rates of chronic and serious disease are astronomical. You think people don’t notice but they do. Your faith in science is increasingly not shared.

            Which is why most people don’t give a toss what scientists say about Homeopathy or other non-Allopathic medical modalities. Ultimately the public will decide. It has ever been thus.

            If science can regain some integrity it can win back respect. That is the job of scientists.

          • shay simmons

            You still cling to the fantasy that homeopathy is some kind of un-knowable magic, but haven’t been able to produce any explanation for the following:*

            A. No one has ever established that like cures like. Ever.
            B. Even if someone could someday prove A, homeopathy couldn’t work because it violates among other things Avogadro’s law. By the time compound X has been diluted according to established homeopathic procedure, there is no trace of it left.

            Let’s say that a miracle occurs and someone has been able to prove that compound X does cure condition X, and then another miracle occurs and someone is able to establish that compound X is the only substance in the known universe that is exempt from Avogadro’s Law, then you will still require

            C. Properly designed, ethical human subject research that produces strong evidence homeopathic dosage X in fact is an effective treatment.

            *and you never will.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I think if, instead of Homeopathic spells, that believers simply embraced Harry Potter spells and went around claiming that “Protego” and “Enervate” had some real effect they could maintain their current standard of evidence and simultaneously improve their image…well until they started talking about Quiddich.

          • JGC

            And why did science ‘evolve’ enough to understand and explain it? Because there was a substantial body of evidence that quantum effects were real.
            The same isn’t true for homeopathy’s purported healing effects.

          • Roslyn, you are an anti-science crank.

            You fundamentally do not understand science.

            You are not worth engaging on the topic of science and you have demonstrated, conclusively, that you are so closed minded that you can’t see or accept explanations for why you are wrong. Your grasp of science is so fundamentally flawed that even with so many people repeatedly pointing out to you that you are wrong, why you are wrong and where you are wrong you refuse to consider that you may actually be wrong.

            With all of the studies that are regularly pimped as evidence for homeopathy I cannot reasonably be expected to read them all in a timely manner. Because of this I regularly find myself wondering if my understanding of the scientific consensus is right or if the research has moved on and I need to reassess my position on it. It’s not until I read these myself or read summaries from others that I trust to know how to read these that I find my confidence in the actual state of the scientific consensus restored.

            You are not worth the time. You are incapable of grasping the nature of the thing you talk about.

          • shay simmons

            Now I understand…you think medical science is decided by who has the most effective advertising.

          • rosross

            Nope. If I have a claim it is that we know Homeopathy works because people are healed and cured by it. They know it, their doctor knows it, their family, friends, community know it and that is why Homeopathy thrives despite campaigns against it.

            Like is irrelevant unless you take into consideration that people like being healthy.

          • shay simmons

            You *believe* homeopathy works.

          • Jonathan Graham

            People’s desire to play semantic games with “know” and “believe” is kind of interesting. As if switching a word changes the evidence (but I bet it relieves some dissonance!)

          • JGC

            How exactly do “They know , their doctor knows , their family, friends, community know ” etc. that the improvements attributed to homeopathy actually were caused by the homeopathic treatments received, on any basis other than a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy?

          • rosross

            People know when they are well. You have suffered with poor health – migraines, arthritis- for 30 years and you see a Homeopathic doctor. Nothing else in your life is different. You take the medication you are prescribed and your arthritis clears up and you have no more migraines. And you sleep well, feel healthy in a way you have not done for decades. It is called cure.

            People know the difference between sickness and health. And when you see it working on your pet, most people figure it is not placebo. Most logically reach the conclusion that if placebo can be this effective, for themselves or even for an animal, why was it not with their Allopathic doctor or vet whom they trusted totally for decades?

            Or, someone who has been profoundly depressed for decades and wants to get off toxic medication because of debilitating side-effects. A few visits to a Homeopathic doctor, perhaps a couple of remedies tried, because all people are different, and then, for the first time in years, your Depression lifts and does not come back.

            You can call it whatever you like. Sensible people just call it cure. It is the reality of cure which all the so-called scientific evidence in the world will never touch.

            Science can only make one claim – it does not know how Homeopathy can work. Fact is, patients and doctors don’t care how it works, as interesting as that might be. They only care that it does work.

          • JGC

            I haven’t questioned whether or not people know when they are well (although that is clearly not the case, given how many people are surprised each year with a diagnosis of late stage cancers or a previously unsuspected chronic condition like type 2 diabetes).

            I’m asking how people who believe homeopathic treatments improved their conditions have established that it actually was the homeopathic treatment the result in the improvements they’ve noted, on any basis other than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

            “And when you see it working on your pet, most people figure it is not placebo.”

            Why to they figure that–what evidence suggests it is not?

            ‘Or, someone who has been profoundly depressed for decades and wants to get off toxic medication because of debilitating side-effects. A few visits to a Homeopathic doctor, perhaps a couple of remedies tried, because all people are different, and then, for the first time in years, your Depression lifts and does not come back.”

            And the evidence demonstrating that it was in fact the homeopathic treatments received that is responsible for the depression lifting would be what, exactly?

            “Science can only make one claim – it does not know how Homeopathy can work.”
            That isn’t true, I’m afraid: science can also claim with a very high degree of confidence–the same degree of confidence with which they can declare antibiotics and NSAIDS do work–that homeopathy does not work.

          • You are using “know” in the religious sense here, i.e. you *believe* it, but in fact there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

          • rosross

            No, I am not. I am using know as in irrevocable proof, i.e. cure. No belief is required. One had psoriasis for instance and then one does not. After years of failed Allopathic treatment, cured by Homeopathic medicine.

            Only an idiot would discount such proof. There are many authenticated cases, centuries worth of it, but never let facts get in the way of propaganda, hey? There are also some of your much touted, but largely useless, scientific studies but I understand you cannot go there. Keep up the good work. It actually helps Homeopathic medicine because your prejudice and subjectivity make a case for it, not against it.

            Luckily most people don’t give a toss what science or the naysayers have to say and Homeopathy will continue to thrive, no doubt even more so as antibiotics become useless thanks to medical and scientific negligence.

          • * No, I am not
            * irrevocable proof
            * cure
            * belief
            * idiot
            * facts
            * scientific studies
            * medicine
            * subjectivity
            * science
            * continue to thrive
            * antibiotics

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcea0487a2734483fe985d4264a5e427432c0ac7877b3348a48ab8f85532e3c5.jpg

          • JGC

            In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it does work, where is the need of an explanation of how it could work if it instead did work?.

          • rosross

            There is a wealth of evidence that it works. And one presumes the many MD’s, hospitals, universities, even some medical schools, Governments, who embrace it have seen that evidence even if you have not.

          • JGC

            If there’s such a wealth of evidence that it works, why is it that no one who believes it works can ever provide any? All taht’s ever offered are personal testimonials, anecdotal accounts, post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies, etc.
            Tell you what: indicate what in your personal opinion is the single most credi9ble and convincing piece of actual evidence demonstrating that homeopathy actually doe work (i.e., generates better outcomes that an appropriate placebo control) for any non-self-limiting illness or injury so we can discuss it.
            If there is as you suggest an actual wealth of evidence demonstrating homeopathy works you should have no trouble identifying a single credible, well-designed and appropriately blinded and controlled study supporting thatlaim.

          • rosross

            Oh many people many times have provided it but the same lot of naysayers has appeared here as usual and they just dismiss everything so why bother. If you have a serious interest you can find it for yourself.

          • Why do they dismiss it, Roslyn?

          • T1-R

            Why do you dismiss the CSICOP program of trolls as you and your sockepuppet Acleron?

          • LOL! What is this ‘CSICOP program of trolls’ of which you speak?

          • JGC

            So despite the supposed wealth of evidence you’re either unable or unwilling to indicate what you personally believe to be the single most credible and convincing piece of actual evidence demonstrating that homeopathy actually doe work non-self-limiting illnesses or injuries?
            I would have thought you would leap at the chance to support your claims.

            You do realize that evidence your cannot or will not present is the functional equivalent of no evidence whatsoever, don’t you?

          • Mike Stevens

            “Oh many people many times have provided it [a single most credible bit of evidence that homeopathy works]”

            The fact that you refuse to provide this mythical evidence indicates that it really does not exist, Ros.
            If it existed, you’d link to it surely?

          • T1-R

            Mike Stevens can’t debunk nothing.

          • Mike Stevens

            Thanks for admitting I can!

          • T1-R

            No, you can’t. Sorry guy.

          • Or cite PMID numbers/DOI numbers.

          • duplicat

            You’re a terrible person.

          • Mike Stevens

            She did cite the study on Traumeel, which was utter hogwash and easily debunked as useless.
            I’m waiting for another clinical one that has been published. She can’t find one.

          • Rubbish. You have repeatedly claimed that science has no explanation for how homeopathy works but I have pointed out repeatedly to you that this is a combination of at least three errors on your part.

            First, you implicitly claim that homeopathy actually does work. There is no good evidence this is true. If, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, homeopathy does not work, then there is nothing for science to explain and your argument instantly falls. This is especially ironic in the context of your refusal to contemplate the possibility that you are wrong, which is antithetical to everything that makes science what it is.

            Second, your claim requires that the accepted scientific explanation of the observed facts does not exist. When you claim that science cannot explain homeopathy you are not simply denying the scientific explanation of homeopathy, you are denying that it even exists. This is trivially disproven.

            Third, the assertion that homeopathy cannot work is not a result of science’s inability to explain it, but a statement of simple fact. The doctrines of homeopathy conflict with every material fact about the nature of matter, human physiology, biochemistry etc. The science that makes satellite navigation work, indicates that homeopathy can’t. That’s not science’s problem, it’s yours. You have to provide proof of mechanism that is of a standard comparable to the evidence supporting quantum physics. That’s a high bar. No homeopath has come close. No homeopath I have seen has even demonstrated they understand the problem.

          • rosross

            What brings your position crumbling down is the simple reality, that, around the world, particularly in Europe, people who should take your view of Homeopathy do not. Why could that be?

            There is a worldwide scheme to bribe, brainwash, coerce hundreds of thousands of qualified MD’s, Allopathic hospitals, universities, even some medical schools and various Governments? Is that your theory?

            Surely applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer is that all of these people who should know what you know and think what you think, must have different information to that which you have and are assured that Homeopathy is ethical, effective and not in the least fraudulent.

            Perhaps they have seen the empirical case-study evidence. Perhaps, no doubt, they and their legal teams have seen the research – it is out there, however much you deny it. And perhaps, more likely, is that they have seem Homeopathic efficacy and demonstrated healing is enough for them.

            If I am wrong then countless MD’s, academics, politicians are also wrong. Could it be that you and your little band of anti-Homeopathy fanatics are the ones who are wrong?

            Remember, Homeopathy is particularly embraced in Europe so those doctors, nurses, scientists, lecturers, academics, politicians, etc., would have been treated Homeopathically since the time they were born. They know it works because they have experienced it working.

            Yes, my comments might be in opposition to what science is, but yours are in opposition to what science should be. Science at this point in history is deeply flawed, often corrupted and compromised and lacking in integrity and ethics. I admire real science, not the Scientism and corporate driven profit machine we have today.

            To be fair, there remain some scientists with integrity and we must rely on them to drag the rest kicking and screaming back to real science.

            The science which makes satellites work has nothing to do with what makes medicine work. And your statement reflects the key and core problem with modern science. It is mechanics based and materialist reductionist which is terrific for laptops and satellites but out of its depth for the natural world, of which humans are a part.

            This attitude is why its personal creature, Allopathic medicine, is now one of the top killers, most of it from prescribed medication. Science cannot even get that right. And I qualify by saying that the mechanics have proven useful in surgery and some of the toys used for diagnostics although even there, for all the bells and whistles, and whizz-bang machinery, humans are not healthier but sicker, and modern medicine still largely fails to cure disease.

            More correctly, to trigger cure because it is only ever the body which cures. Modern medicine often creates more sickness as it removes and represses symptoms.

            I have to prove nothing to you. I could present a dozen different and potentially viable theories as to how Homeopathy works and you would laugh at all of them. So there is no point. However, research does continue into the mechanism of Homeopathy and as science evolves, even with the corruption, I have no doubt it will eventually reach a point where it can understand how it works. Until then Homeopathy will continue to heal people.

            Look at the ignorance of science at this point as akin to understanding before doctors had microscopes to convince them that bacteria really did exist, and then they were prepared to wash their hands and stop killing people; or, the level of understanding before Quantum Mechanics was developed, throwing into disarray, centuries of erroneous belief.

            Science will get there and Homeopathy will continue to thrive.

          • Roslyn, your world view is wrong. When asked for statistics to back your claims you generally fail to present any. On the occasions you do they’re from dodgy sources and you fail to address any challenge to the quality of the source.

            When this happens you present scenario’s that are built on false assumptions of almost every nature. You build strawmen from these false assumptions and refuse to accept any challenge to them.

            The world is more complicated than that.

            The simplistic and naive world view you present is a sad attempt to shore up the walls to maintain your cognitive dissonance.

          • rosross

            My world view is very simple. I believe in freedom of choice in regard to health and I believe in options. I believe that holistic medicine where the body is respected and worked with, instead of ignored and worked against as Allopathy does, is the best medicine.

            I believe all medical modalities have useful skills, including Allopathy, and in the best of worlds, patients will be able to choose from all of them and so will their doctors. Perhaps then the kill and injure rate of modern medicine will diminish.

            You know as well as I do, that on this topic, the same faces appear, and you and I and all of the others have had many conversations over the years and a great deal of information has been provided, which achieves nothing and reposting it is a waste of time. So I no longer bother. I figure anyone reading the thread with an open mind will work out how to do their own research. It isn’t hard.

            You and the others have a fixed agenda – to discredit and destroy Homeopathy. It won’t work, but such prejudice and subjectivity makes real conversation impossible.

            You keep labelling people who hold dissenting views. There is a boringly repeated vocabulary – straw man, cognitive dissonance, logical fallacy etc. etc etc. The subjectivity is tedious.

            The world is more complicated than any of us imagine, which is why millions find Homeopathic medicine to be invaluable, and some like yourself, cannot understand why.

            I started out, like most people, as Allopathically inclined and spent some years producing material for a major hospital – taking scientific and medical data and turning it into a form which could be readily appreciated by the general public.

            But, the more I read about the human body and condition and the more Allopathy failed me, the more I looked elsewhere. I wish I had found Homeopathy sooner. I went to live in Europe in my late Thirties and was impressed by the fact that the local GP’s were likely to use Homeopathy, Herbs etc., before they resorted to toxic Allopathic drugs. They had a much more holistic view of the human body than I had ever experienced in Australia.

            When something heals you, there is no question of belief. I still remain somewhat astonished but impressed, by Homeopathy, because I am analytically inclined and I like to understand how things work. It is, in itself, a fascinating and brilliant modality, which, intrigues those who study it. I wouldn’t bother if it were not effective, but it is and that position will never be countered by any amount of ‘data’ from naysayers.

            To each their own is my world view and I simply cannot understand why some people like yourself put so much effort into trying to destroy a modality which does no harm and which you have the choice not to use. I don’t get that and probably never will.

            I am perhaps a purist and find prejudice and subjectivity to be sloppy, and even more so when those suffering from the condition claim to represent science. Sadly, these days they probably do. But the world is about swings and roundabouts and eventually the best scientists will get sick of the corruption and unethical behaviour and demand change.

            So, I remain a natural sceptic and an optimist when I look around at the world.

            I think we have turned enough circles this time. Take care.

          • My world view is very simple.

            That’s very clear. That is also why it is wrong.

            To use a thing that you think lends words weight…

            Quote: I think you’ll find it’s more complicated than that.

          • poppy72

            As I said elsewhere, modern medicine has saved me from cancer, and do you really believe that Homeopathy would have done the same for me?

          • duplicat

            Does your son know that you are an opium addict?

          • rosross

            I have no idea what Homeopathy might have done for you. What matters is we all get to choose our own medical path. You chose and it worked for you. Great. For others it does not work and some look elsewhere.

            In the best of worlds medicine would offer all modalities, not just one.

          • poppy72

            Yes you are right, some look elsewhere, but Homeopathy is not the place to look, neither is Acupuncture, nor Reiki, or crystals, nor Aromatherapy, these are called Woo medicine for good reason and that is they don’t work.

          • rosross

            That is your opinion. Millions around the world do not agree with you and that is their right.

            Woo is a childish word used by people who are subjective, prejudiced and generally completely ignorant about what they seek to dismiss.

            I doubt you have any knowledge of any of them and so have no idea if they work or not. But that is also your right and good luck to you on your path.

            Do not seek to dictate your views to others. Those who make use of non-Allopathic medicine do not seek to dictate to you to reject Allopathy, so do them the courtesy of respecting the same rights you demand, for them.

            I know they work and like millions of others I do not give a toss that there is a vocal minority convinced, or paid to believe, they cannot work. Fact is, the naysayers make such a pathetic case, revealing such prejudice and ignorance, they actually make open-minded people more curious.

            So, keep up the good work. Your negativity boosts Homeopathic medicine.

          • poppy72

            “I doubt you have any knowledge of them”—-what is “them’? “millions do not agree with you”— does not make them right. I am not dictating to anyone, I was talking to you. “I know they work”— what works?. — Is English your second language as I find it difficult to understand your post.

          • poppy72

            “I have no idea what Homeopathy might have done for you? REALLY? I tell you what it would have done—NOTHING! “For others it does not work”— so you are saying if someone else had my problem, my treatment would not have worked and perhaps Homeopathy would have saved them, are you SERIOUS or are you yanking on my chain?

          • poppy72

            My father told me when I was a young boy “there are a lot of stupid people in the world” As an adult I now know what he meant. What you are saying is because Prince Charles believes in Homeopathy then that means it works,REALLY?

          • rosross

            No, that is not what I am saying. I never mentioned Prince Charles.

            What I said was, given the paranoid hysteria today by some, about Homeopathic medicine, if all the claims that it is just water, fraud etc., were at all credible, not one MD, hospital, university, medical school or Government in the world would embrace it. Certainly not the First World. And many do. Ergo, in an age of litigation no-one would go near Homeopathy if they thought they might be accused of fraudulence, look like idiots and risk being sued.

            Pretty clearly the claims about Homeopathy from the anti-Homeopathy brigade are baseless.

            We can say that science cannot understand how Homeopathy might work, but that is all science can say. There is much science does not know and even more that it gets wrong.

            I advocate freedom of choice in medicine, no more, no less.

            Calling people stupid just reflects your prejudice and makes you look intolerant. Unless you have any real knowledge or experience of Homeopathy you are simply repeating propaganda you have heard.

          • poppy72

            I am not reading propaganda, What I am saying is there are stupid people in all walks of life.Here in Australia there was severe testing of Homeopathy in 2014 and the results was that Homeopathy is USELESS. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/homeopathy-is-bunk-study-says

          • T1-R
          • poppy72

            Go to this link, read it then tell me all the references there are B.S WAKE UP http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_effectiveness_of_homeopathy

          • T1-R

            That’s funny! The physical evidence of this idiots were debunked here:

            https://losseudoescepticos.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/apetp-y-el-arte-de-vender-basura-ii/

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            My father used to say” find someone of just average intelligence…talk to them for a while…then realize half the world is stupider then they are”…I wondered at the time how he had grown so cynical…

          • T1-R

            “The doctrines of homeopathy conflict with every material fact about the nature of matter, human physiology, biochemistry etc.”

            Share the each conflict. Share, share!

      • Biologically implausible by the standards of the mid 19th century, and it has become more and more implausible the more we understand about the nature of matter, human biology, physiology and everything else.

        Your statement is akin to saying that gravity is a force of attraction based on mass only according to current knowledge, but we may yet find that we are held down by angels pressing on your heads.

        • rosross

          Since science still cannot explain gravity your point is rather lost. The current theory is gravitons but they still have to find some.

          Quote: Gravity, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be caused by anything at all. It just happens, and continues to happen, no matter what other things the tiny amounts of space particles are doing. There isn’t a specific action we can point to as a cause for gravity.

          For a while, theorists pushed around the idea of a particle called a “graviton” or “gravitron”, but in over a hundred years of poking around in the sub-atomic world we haven’t even seen the tiniest hint of something like that.

          Besides, that just makes it worse. If gravity is caused by particles, are those particles also acted upon by gravity? After all, everything with mass is affected by gravity. So that explanation just led to more headache, and eventually fell apart.

          The point is, nobody has any clue why gravity happens

          https://www.theodysseyonline.com/science-still-cant-explain-gravity

          Odd is it not? Gravity can be measured but not explained but science accepts the reality of gravity.

          Homeopathy can be measured but not explained but science does not accept the reality of Homeopathy. Never mind, most people don’t care what science thinks.

          Most people find gravity fascinating. Many also find Homeopathy fascinating. There you go.

          • JGC

            Except science has explained how “gravity happens”, in sufficient detail to make testable predictions (e.g., that gravity waves should exist, a prediction that has recently been confirmed.)

          • rosross

            As have Homeopathic doctors. It is called cure. It is called healing. It is called treatment. It is called medicine. For more than two centuries. Same principles.

          • JGC

            “For more than two centuries” is the logical fallacy “appeal to tradition”: that it has been in use for a long time isn’t evidence it works, anymore so than the many centuries traditional Chinese medicine embraced arsitolochia meant it worked as claim (when it fact it offered no health benefits but did cause cancers of the urinary tract).

            I’m aware of no evidence demonstrating that homeopathic preparations generate better outcomes than placebo controls when used as treatments for any non-self-limiting illnesses or injuries.

            If you have any actual evidence to that effect I’d certainly like to consider it.

          • rosross

            There is plenty of research data out there. It is easy enough to find if you can construct a level of objectivity and an open mind.

            If you are in the UK, go and talk to an MD who practises both Allopathy and Homeopathy and ask them for their evidence base. I am sure if you wrote to Dr Peter Fisher at The London Hospital for Integrative Medicine he could point you to the best data.

          • Roslyn said:

            “There is plenty of research data out there.”

            You keep repeating that as it if was true…

          • JGC

            rosross, you do understand that it’s not my responsibility to go hunting for evidence I don’t believe actually exists to support a claim that you have asserted completely without support, don’t you?
            It’s both your responsibility and your obligation to credibly support the claims you have made.

          • Odd is it not? Gravity can be measured but not explained but science accepts the reality of gravity.

            So your argument is that the supposed mechanism for Homeopathy can’t be explained either, so we should accept it?

            But the outcomes of homeopathic treatment can be measured and the better we are at removing bias from the testing the more it shows that homeopathy is not a real thing.

            The odd thing is that you flip-flop from arguing for or against science based on it’s support for your position. Either embrace it or reject it wholesale. You don’t get to cherry pick.

          • rosross

            The only measure for Homeopathy is healing and cure. And that abounds.

            If science can accept Gravity without understanding how it really works, but simply observing effect, then why does not the same principle apply to Homeopathic medicine? Selective and subjective standards which is hardly scientific.

            I do not argue for science-based Homeopathy. I think modern science is currently so corrupted that it is not worth much at all, certainly within the industry of medicine.

            The naysayers harp on about science as their arbiter, but really, until science develops enough to be able to understand no-one really cares. Curious about it, sure, but dependent on knowing how it works, no. All that matters is that it is effective and that is why all the science-waving in the world will not stop people using Homeopathic medicine.

            Sure get it banned in the UK, maybe partially in the US, but honestly, out of the 7 billion people in the world, that is a trivial amount. And the Brits and Americans can still go elsewhere for Homeopathic healing.

            As the kill and injure rate of Allopathy rises, watch more and more turn elsewhere.

          • Objective measures of “healing and cure” consistently fail to demonstrate any effect from homeopathy. People claim to feel better but objective tests show that they are not.

          • Roslyn said:

            “I do not argue for science-based Homeopathy. I think modern science is currently so corrupted that it is not worth much at all, certainly within the industry of medicine.”

            Oops! The fallacy of equivocation.

          • shay simmons

            That planes occasionally crash doesn’t mean your flying carpet is a viable alternative.

          • Peter Olins

            What a strange comparison! We are all clear that gravity exists, even though its source or mechanism may be unclear.

            First comes evidence; then comes understanding. Homeopathy fails to past the first hurdle of evidence. More interesting is why so many people are willing to believe, and this question is amenable to inquiry and experiment.

          • rosross

            Explain why it is strange. A reference was made to Gravity and I responded with the fact that Gravity and Homeopathy have something in common –

            science does not know what gravity really is, nor why it works as it does, but from the evidence can reach conclusions that it does work.

            Ditto for Homeopathy.

            Homeopathy does not fail the first hurdle, evidence. More than two centuries of meticulous case records, and added to by the day, provide empirical evidence of its efficacy.

            p.s. you don’t have to believe in Homeopathy for it to be effective. Those who believe it cannot work are just as likely to be healed as those who believe it can.

            People don’t believe in Homeopathy, they give it a try, often in desperation because Allopathy has failed, and when it is effective and they are cured, they consider it to be highly effective medicine. Which it is. That is not belief, that is reality.

          • Nobody knows how gravity works, but it can be objectively shown to work, so this is an open and interesting question in science.Gravity repeatably causes effects.

            Science understands why people believe homeopathy works even though there is no credible evidence it does. Homeopathy is indistinguishable form any other inert remedy delivered in a comparable context. There are no equations. Homeopathy has no 6.67408 × 10^-11. Subjective and objective results in homeopathy are completely mis-aligned. Same as for astrology. Objectively, homeopathy does not work.

            Science has a full and coherent explanation of all the observed facts which is both internally and externally consistent. You don’t like this explanation so you pretend it does not exist, but that has never actually worked as a way of making science go away.

          • rosross

            You seem to think that it is an argument against something if science does not know how it can work. What scientific hubris.

            Science does not know the why or how of many things in our lives but we continue to use them. In fact science doesn’t even know the why or how of many Allopathic treatments, so you would be tossing out a lot of conventional medicine by your criteria.

            Fortunately most people are independent and brave enough to make their own decisions without needing science as a nanny.

            Science might have a coherent explanation for many things but it has a full explanation for absolutely nothing since it cannot explain the why of things. Sure, it doesn’t see that as important, but it still means it does not have full explanations for anything.

            People don’t believe Homeopathy works, they know it works. No belief is required. None at all. It is equally effective on those convinced it cannot work as it is on those convinced it can. Zip goes your placebo effect.

      • Chris Preston

        Biologically implausible only by the standards of current knowledge.

        Indeed. However, there is no evidence that the biological implausibility of homeopathy will be turned over any time soon.

        Homeopathy is not only biologically implausible, but has never been shown to work in any well managed studies. So even if all we have learnt of physics, chemistry and biology over the last 200 years turned out to be spectacularly wrong by new knowledge, homeopathy still would not work.

        • shay simmons

          You beat me to it.

        • rosross

          The fact that something cannot be perceived, does not render it impossible, or even unlikely.

          Homeopathy is actually not biologically implausible. It is under the current scientific system considered implausible, but even that does not make it so.

          And most studies are not well managed, not even for Allopathy which is why it is a major killer today. Homeopathy has been shown to work well in a number of studies, which is impressive, given the distortions inherent in the scientific system, and no doubt those studies are what the MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools and Governments who embrace Homeopathy have read and which you and others who refuse to countenance Homeopathy have not.

          Physics, Chemistry and Biology do not have to be spectacularly wrong, simply inadequate, and not fully developed in order to understand how Homeopathy can and does work.

          Your last comment is really ridiculous if you look at it. And not at all scientific. Even if all current knowledge turned out to be wrong then Homeopathy still could not work. That conclusion is impossible for anyone to reach on such a basis. But never let facts get in the way of propaganda hey?

          Empirical evidence over more than two centuries and results are what support Homeopathy. I bet you have never looked at Government records in the 19th century of Homeopathic efficacy during epidemics. Nor the more recent research in Cuba. Of course not. How can you when it would fray the edge of your belief.

          I remain astonished at how subjective are those who tout science as the arbiter on this issue. Some science.

          • Chris Preston

            The fact that something cannot be perceived, does not render it impossible, or even unlikely.

            The fact that something cannot be perceived despite careful investigation over decades, does indeed render it unlikely.

            The fact that something cannot be perceived despite careful investigation over decades and in addition for it to be present would render invalid the rules of physics and chemistry that successfully allowed man to land on the moon, renders it almost impossible.

            The fact that something cannot be perceived despite careful investigation over decades and in addition for it to be present would render invalid the rules of physics and chemistry that successfully allowed man to land on the moon, is not evidence that ‘something’ exists.

            The evidence against homeopathy is so overwhelming that for people to continue to believe it works demonstrates their ability to fool themselves.

            Homeopathy is actually not biologically implausible.

            Indeed it is. We now have excellent biological understanding of the causes of numerous human ailments and a partial understanding of most others. The “law of similars” does not occur in any of this biological understanding. For the “law of similars” to be a real law, all we know of disease causation would have to be wrong.

            Physics, Chemistry and Biology do no have to be spectacularly wrong, simply inadequate, and not fully developed in order to understand how Homeopathy can and does work.

            You are completely wrong here. It is evident that you have a faulty understanding of these disciplines if you think that homeopathy working could be contained within the current body of knowledge in these disciplines.

            Empirical evidence over more than two centuries and results are what support Homeopathy. I bet you have never looked at Government records in the 19th century of Homeopathic efficacy during epidemics. Nor the more recent research in Cuba. Of course not. How can you when it would fray the edge of your belief.

            There isn’t even any good empirical evidence supporting homeopathy. When the claims are looked into carefully, they turn to water. The Cuba leptospirosis example is a good one. The homeoprophylaxis began to be rolled out in Week 45 of 2007. Leptospirosis cases peaked in Week 47 and declined to insignificant numbers by Week 49. Ah, that shows the homeoprophylaxis worked I hear you say. Not so fast. The disease takes a week from infection to display. There is no way that enough of the population would have been treated to be responsible for the decline in incidence. Indeed the spike and decline in incidence in 2007 was almost identical to that in 2006 when no homeopathy was offered. Rat control was what reduced incidence of the disease in 2007.

          • rosross

            Except there has not been careful investigation over decades. In fact, quite the opposite.

            The Law of Similars is also at work in Allopathy even if unrecognised. Ritalin used to treat the condition it causes in the healthy; many cardiac medications ditto; Radiotherapy and Chemo used to treat Cancer when both cause Cancer. I could go on.

            But you have no idea at all of the Homeopathic Law of Similars, as you consistently demonstrate which is why your comments make no sense.

            And if you have excellent biological understanding of conditions why does Allopathy consistently fail to provide cure? Medication for life or body parts regularly removed is not cure.

            Allopathic understanding of the why of disease remains minimal. There is some understanding of How, but not enough to prevent or cure disease. Allopathy remains mechanical maybe medicine where fortunes are made treating people for diseases they do not have and may never get, and often in the doing, rendering people chronically sick.

            This is the sickly age, and worse for children.

            Allopathic knowledge may be far greater than 100 years ago but in terms of healing, curing and providing health, it remains minimal. We have more serious and chronic health than ever before. Whatever your system does, it does not create healthy people.

            I did not say Homeopathic function could be contained within current chemistry, physics, biology knowledge – I said, all of those areas would have to develop. There are things within all of them which were not known 200 years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that science now knows all there is to know in those fields? Delusional.

            Yes, I have read your version of the Cuba experiment. The observer effect can be quite powerful and often unconscious.

          • Mike Stevens

            “The observer effect can be quite powerful and often unconscious.”
            At last you are grasping the problem with your anecdotes and studies on homeopathy.

          • This is the sickly age, and worse for children.

            That explains why our current life expectancy is the lowest it’s ever been. It explains why child mortality is at the highest point it has ever been too.

            At least it would if reality was the opposite of what we actually observe today.

            So we have established that you have no grasp of even the very basic fundamentals of science and you have literally no knowledge of history.

            Roslyn, do you have a goatee by any chance?

          • Jackson

            You still don’t understand. According to homeopathic principles, the less evidence one has, the stronger it becomes.

          • …and the fact that the most vulnerable were given the proper, tested, proven vaccine, Vax-Spiral. And the fact that all they did was project for data from a few previous years and compare 2007 to that unverified model. Only the most ardent homeopathy fan would find that at all convincing.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Empirical evidence over more than two centuries and results are what support Homeopathy. I bet you have never looked at Government records in the 19th century of Homeopathic efficacy during epidemics. Nor the more recent research in Cuba.”

            So you have ceased using the argumentum ad populum fallacy as your basis for homeopathy’s alleged effectiveness… that’s good.
            You are just left with “empirical evidence”… the same evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of rubbing your skin with a toad to cure warts…

            Oh, and Cuba was not homeopathy, but homeoprophylaxis.

          • rosross

            I have never used argumentum ad populum, but I understand your need to attempt to reject valid realities in such a way.

            Empirical evidence is empirical evidence, however it might be applied.

            And Cuba was Homeopathic medicine, whether used prophylactically or not. Are you suggesting that prophylactic Allopathic dental and medical treatments are not Allopathic?

            But we both know your knowledge of Homeopathy is zero so you cannot help but make mistakes. Keep up the good work.

          • Chris Preston
          • rosross

            Your capacity to distort and distract is impressive.

            My consistent argument is that Homeopathy is not just water, or fraud as you claim and that people are not fools and neither are medical professionals and academics and politicians stupid enough to touch something unless they have ascertained it is ethical and effective.

            I do not use the fact that millions make use of it, including those who scientifically should know better to prove that it works, but to make the point that millions do not agree with you and clearly know it is not just water and not fraud.

            If you want to call such realities argumentum ad populum then I don’t really care, but that is not my position.

            But people in glass houses should not throw stones. You and your colleagues regularly point out that Allopathic medicine is the majority medical modality, which is a reality I have no issue accepting, but also falls into ‘ad populum’ and you also keep harping on about how many Homeopathic hospitals have closed, how many doctors you think no longer use it, etc. etc., so you are on flimsy ground yourself.

            My point quite simply is that no doctor, hospital, university, medical school or Government would touch Homeopathy if you were correct, and many do and that is not an argument based on popularity, that is an argument based on the reality of this age of litigation and the conservative and cautious nature of all of those bodies.

            It is because many medical professionals make use of Homeopathy that millions around the world are treated with it. Reality.

            p.s. and then you resort to abuse which is such a bad look and immature to boot.

          • Chris Preston

            So incredibly ignorant it is.

            This whole post of yours is a grand example of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. You are basically stating that the evidence homeopathy works is because lots of people use it and they wouldn’t do so if it didn’t work. It is also, I might point out, a circular argument.

            It is not evidence of anything other than the fact that you have in more than 100 posts on this thread produced exactly 0 evidence that homeopathy is effective for the treatment of a single medical condition.

            Perhaps it is time for you to put up or shut up. Produce the trial evidence showing that homeopathy is an effective treatment for Stage 1 melanoma.

          • rosross

            No, that is not what I said. That is what you want me to have said and that is what you project onto what I said.

            I said, in this day and age no medical professional, academic, politician or Government would embrace Homeopathy unless they felt certain it was ethical and effective. And that is true. Since many do, it means that even if you do not have the required evidence they do.

            If you were correct, none of them would touch it with a barge pole. Ergo, you are wrong and you actually know it.

            I am not basically stating Homeopathy works because a lot of people use it, although that is generally the argument for Allopathic medicine even given its huge failure and kill and injure rate.

            Since Allopathy is hardly on a win in regards to Cancer, your trite point is meaningless.

            No-one claims Homeopathic medicine can trigger cure for all things but Homeopathy does ot treat disease anyway, something you don’t know since your knowledge of the modality is zero. So Homeopathy would never treat melanoma, even though it could treat the individual with this particular symptom but it would be only one symptom amongst many.

            I really wish you would make some effort to at least sound as if you know what you are talking about. Subjective prejudice as you display toward Homeopathy is hardly professional and not in the least scientific.

            I don’t have to put up and shut up. Homeopathic medicine won’t be stopped by you and it doesn’t need me. Real science would welcome all questions and opinions but we haven’t seen much real science, at least in the field of medicine for a long time.

            Let’s agree to disagree. You seem frustrated. Best of luck to you.

          • Acleron

            So you have no evidence but someone has? Why is this evidence so secret? And how does this secret evidence rebut the best quality evidence that shows homeopathy to be no more than a placebo?

          • Mike Stevens

            “I said, in this day and age no medical professional, academic,
            politician or Government would embrace Homeopathy unless they felt
            certain it was ethical and effective.”

            This is all your argument boils down to, isn’t it Ros? You have dismally failed to demonstrate homeopathy is effective, so you resort to claiming people would not use it or endorse it unless it was effective.

            Even then you are wrong – since homeopathy is a form of complementary/alternative therapy that in itself does not cause direct harm, then there is no legal reason why people cannot use or promote its use. There are indeed individuals or organisations that promote it, but they have also failed to make a sound scientific argument for their case. But since they are not committing fraud or direct deception, they are not doing anything that is illegal. Many use homeopathy as a form of placebo, admitting it has no effects outside of that modality. Most governments are reluctant to ban quack remedies – for one, there are so many of them that the legislation would be a red tape nightmare, and secondly they realise homeopathy is pretty harmless. Where it is used negligently, then current regulations and legislation are sufficient to find doctors guilty of malpractice already. There are some governments with severe restrictions on homeopathy – Sweden is one of them, and many scientific societies and organisations in other countries have decreed that it is useless, Australia and now Russia being one of the latest.
            http://klnran.ru/en/2017/02/memorandum02-homeopathy/
            The writing is on the wall wrt this pseudoscientific claptrap, and people are realising it.

            I am rather surprised your argument homeopathy is great consists solely of your claim that since people use it, so it must work.
            I now presume you will extend this line of argument towards conventional medicine (which you call “allopathic”).
            ….Since there is no country or medical organisation in the world that has banned it, or declared it to be fraudulent, then we can all assume it is fantastically effective.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I said, in this day and age no medical professional, academic, politician or Government would embrace Homeopathy unless they felt certain it was ethical and effective.

            Again, since this reasoning comes up a lot in your posts I’ll just point out again that it is entirely incorrect.

            Firstly “felt certain” does not indicate anything about the likelihood that a remedy is effective . People can today feel certain about many wrong things for a variety of reasons.

            Secondly, you have elsewhere made the claim (and I assume it’s implied here) that all of these people would have consulted with lawyers and therefore would only embrace these ideas if they were true. However lawyers are not trained to evaluate science. They might be able to tell you that a policy or other written or spoken statements will end up with you in court and can suggest ways to modify the statement(s) to mitigate this risk.

            So in short you can “feel absolutely perfectly certain” that Thor is going to return next week and bonk people on the head with Mjölnir, you can even write a book about that and you can visit a lawyer and ask them to evaluate what you’re saying and if it will get you sued.

            However none of that alters the likelihood of your hypothesis.

          • rosross

            Having worked in a major hospital, admittedly some years ago, but I doubt things have changed, I know how cautious they are about embracing controversy.

            Homeopathy today, thanks to the hysteria and distortions presented by the fanatics, and the delusional belief in ‘science’ even though it is admitted much research is just plain wrong, is akin to someone wanting to kill a goat in emergency to ‘release’ healing energy.

            That is the environment in which many within science and medicine erroneously view Homeopathic medicine. So, if a doctor or hospital, or university, or heaven’s medical school, or Government are prepared to carry out the symbolic equivalent of killing a goat, by embracing Homeopathy, logic suggests they would have been very careful with their prior research and legal advice.

            Ergo, the mere fact that any of these bodies embrace Homeopathy is clear evidence it is not akin to killing a goat etc. etc.

            So, my reasoning is not only correct, it is logical and a clear reality in this age of litigation.

            And your comment regarding lawyers means you know as much about legal work as you do about Homeopathy. Nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            is akin to someone wanting to kill a goat in emergency to ‘release’ healing energy.

            Categorically incorrect. Killing a goat in a hospital would violate all sorts of rules about safe medical practice, humane treatment of animals – in addition to the fact that it’s simply entirely ineffectual. So your argument is a false analogy. Allowing access to treatment on request/demand which is somewhere between ridiculous and questionable is hardly a new thing.

            logic suggests they would have been very careful with their prior research and legal advice.

            Logic doesn’t “suggest” things. The only thing you can tell from someone going to a lawyer is that it’s likely they got (and perhaps took) legal advice. However doing something in a manner that won’t get you sued doesn’t shift the likelihood of what you are doing being correct. The fact that various people believe in homeopathy is entirely expected and explained by the hypothesis that homeopath is highly unlikely to be true.

            So there is really nothing supporting your hypothesis other than some things you made up.

          • rosross

            You don’t understand symbolic it seems. The goat analogy was symbolic, metaphor, so there is no violation of anything.

            Logic most definitely does suggest things – we deduce logically and are presented with scenarios. They will be better with some intuition but logical deduction is fairly reliable, as long as their is some objectivity, which might be hard for some.

            Homeopathic methodology is only unlikely to be true according to the current belief system of modern science. It has always been true on many levels and remains so.

            If you are someone who will not make a decision without science saying yes, or no, then you will be impacted negatively by this situation. If you are intelligent, informed, open-minded and sensible you will not give a toss that science cannot explain how it might work.

            You will opt to give it a try, see what happens and make up your own mind. You might even do some research out of curiosity but mostly all you will care about is efficacy. On that count, science and its opinions are irrelevant.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You don’t understand symbolic it seems

            I rather suspect you don’t know how to use symbolism.

            The goat analogy was symbolic, metaphor, so there is no violation of anything.

            So in other words it isn’tlike the thing you are referencing in many rather important ways. So again that’s a poor analogy. Perhaps you can pick a better one? Perhaps you could simply list the way(s) in which offering homeopathy to patients who request it in a hospital is like stabbing a goat next to a patient in the ER.

            Just saying “it’s symbolic” without stating what it is symbolic of kind of sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            Logic most definitely does suggest things – we deduce

            Deduce is not really the same thing as “suggest”.

            Homeopathic methodology is only unlikely to be true according to the current belief system of modern science

            If we’re back to talking about your methodology for “proving” things (otherwise why are we talking about “methodology” here instead of just “homeopathy”?). Then you’re not representing what I’m saying very well.

            What I’ve been saying is that homeopathic provings are entirely and provably dependent on Bayesian/Frequentist statistics if you want them to say anything about the future in a useful way. So before anyone anywhere investigating homeopathy should care about the structure or products of homeopathic provings. We first need to establish this, all the information in the world about the details of these provings is utterly and totally useless without that.

            If you can’t make any kind of assurance about this. Then you really have little to say on the subject of what homeopathy can or can not do.

          • poppy72

            There are a lot of stupid politicians. academics, governments, and medical practioners, doesn’t mean Homeopathy works,for example one doctor incorrectly diagnosed my father in law as having dermetities when in fact he had Shingles.

          • duplicat

            This whole post of yours is a grand example of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

            But Chris, I thought you enjoyed phallacies?

          • duplicat

            Kānāwai Māmalahoe makes you look like a cretin Chris.

          • Jonathan Graham

            but to make the point that millions do not agree with you

            UNLESS you are making an ad populum argument this point is irrelevant millions and even billions of people can believe wrong things.

            and clearly know

            More correctly “prefer to believe for no statistically strong reason”

            My point quite simply is that no doctor, hospital, university, medical school or Government would touch Homeopathy

            …which is incorrect. It’s entirely expected that some doctors, hospitals, universities, medical schools will embrace things that clearly don’t work.

          • rosross

            You are correct. Many Allopathic doctors embrace things that clearly don’t work because they would be mocked if they did not because of the pressure in their system to follow certain procedures no matter what.

            The difference with Homeopathy is that they will be mocked for using it, so, if it didn’t work they would quickly stop using it. They don’t. Ergo, it works.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s entirely expected that some doctors, hospitals, universities and medical schools will embrace things that clearly don’t work whether they get mocked for it or not.

            So your argument is irrelevant. 🙂

          • Mike Stevens

            Ahhh…. the latest version of “evidence” that homeopathy “works” from our friendly neighbourhood apologist…
            …homeopathy works because homeopaths still use it despite being mocked for doing so.
            😄🤣

            Ros, why don’t you just drop these ridiculous fallacies and stump up some scientific evidence? Cite one paper you think provides the best, most robust evidence and well look at that.

          • Your capacity to distort and distract is impressive.

            You’re delusional.

          • Lenny

            Roslyn understands logical fallacies in the same way that she understands science. She wouldn’t recognise logic if it booted her up the arse. That she continues to post her hapless and inconsequential flailings despite their repeated dissection and evisceration here and elsewhere is all the indication we need of her state of mind. To her credit, unlike Dana and Benneth, she can string together a semi-coherent sentence. Unfortunately she can’t do the same with reason and rationality.

            Remember, everyone. It is impossible to defeat with logic a position which is fundamentally illogical.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I have never used argumentum ad populum”

            Then can you please stop mentioning every other comment you make that homeopathy must be effective because “millions” of people use it?

          • rosross

            Not a problem, since I have not said the words – homeopathy must be effective because millions of people use it.

          • Was bloodletting effective when it was used by millions, Roslyn? Did it become less effective when people stopped using it?

          • Mike Stevens

            Interesting you feel the need to lie, Ros.
            “Not a problem, since I have not said the words – homeopathy must be effective because millions of people use it.”

            Yet you repeatedly say it.
            Here is one example shown below from a few days back:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/764264bb18e38a932aa57a1f4ff118e319a25f0a79312c9ec896fe893c1cd5bb.jpg

          • Mike Stevens

            My knowledge of homeopathy is zero?
            You are the one confusing homeoprophylaxis (a form of isopathy utilising the agent as a nosode) with classic homeopathy which employs the principle of similars and is used for treatment of conditions and not for prevention.

          • I have never used argumentum ad populum

            You use it all the time. The demonstrated fact that you can’t accept it or recognise it just is one of the reasons that no one should listen to you on this topic.

            This fictitious world view you have been steadily building and expanding on here show’s you to either be living in a very self-selected bubble. Or you are literally delusional.

          • Actually Cuba was regression to the mean. And the Cuban health ministry knows it, which is why they now use their innovative vaccine instead – because that actually works.

          • Not forgetting those most at risk getting the real, proven vaccine… and that all they did was compare the number of cases that got leptospirosis with the number they ‘predicted’ from an unverified model.

          • shay simmons

            You constantly use the argumentum ad populum, cupcake.

          • rosross

            No. You constantly project that onto what I say. But I realise you must. Patronising is a poor look for someone who claims to be a professional science something.

          • No. You constantly project that onto what I say.

            That would be because that is constantly what you say. no projection needed. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/79fc7663fb833c1636bc2f5f074c81e391af4fbf318d884b292bbbf94ffde5b8.png

          • shay simmons

            So basically, you have no clue what ‘argumentam ad populum’ means, since you keep insisting homeopathy works because a lot of people believe in it. After you’ve looked it up, go back and find where I have claimed to be a ‘professional science something.’

          • rosross

            I never claimed Homeopathy works because a lot of people believe in it. But then you do have a tendency to misquote which I am sure anyone reading the exchange will also pick up.

            Isn’t that a bit sloppy for someone who says they are a scientist? Oh, you didn’t say that so you are not a scientist. That is probably good for science given its parlous state.

          • shay simmons

            Your critical thinking skills could use a bit of work. Is this typical of how you jump to and then reverse your conclusions?

            “someone who claims to be a professional science something.”
            “Isn’t that a bit sloppy for someone who says they are a scientist? Oh, you didn’t say that so you are not a scientist.”

      • JGC

        What standard other than our current body of knowledge do you suggest we use when evaluating biological plausibility, rosross?

      • You do realise that implausible is not the same thing as impossible, right?

  • Debi Carmi

    yet many Doctors I know are happy to refer people to Homeopaths, we even have a homeopathic hospital in London.. This Sad individual doesn’t actually understand what scientific research , or open mindedness means. but rather is an avid follower of scientism and wants to boost his ego by having people blindly follow him into the darkness

    • Debi Carmi said:

      “we even have a homeopathic hospital in London.”

      No, we don’t. There was the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital some years ago, but that was re-branded to the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. Did you know it no longer has a homeopathic service?

      “his Sad individual doesn’t actually understand what scientific research , or open mindedness means. but rather is an avid follower of scientism and wants to boost his ego by having people blindly follow him into the darkness”

      Do you have anything other that erroneous opinions and personal attacks?

      • rosross

        A quick search shows Homeopathic medicine is available through the system:, of University College London Hospitals. Quite a few pages, here is a sample.

        Have they tricked you by changing the name and making it harder to find Homeopathic services?

        Practical Homeopathy for Paediatricians Flyer
        … questions about homeopathy for children and improve the discussions you can have with your patients … principles of homeopathy, safety issues, information about common and simple to use medicines, how …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Documents/Practical Homeopathy for Paediatricians Flyer.pdf

        Practical Homeopathy for Midwives
        … questions about homeopathy in pregnancy, and improve the discussions you can have with your clients … principles of homeopathy, safety issues in pregnancy, information about common simple to use medici …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Documents/Practical Homeopathy for Midwives.pdf

        Fast-Track Course in Medical Homeopathy brochure 2012
        … of the Faculty of Homeopathy) and MFHom (Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy) examinations. … Homeopathy has the added bonus of using a different healing paradigm to Western Medicine and therefo …

        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Documents/Fast-Track Course in Medical Homeopathy brochure 2012.pdf
        Courses in Medical Homeopathy
        The course leads to a basic qualification from the Faculty of Homeopathy. … course in Medical Homeopathy The Fast Track course is for qualified medical doctors only, and compr …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Documents/Education Department RLHIM 2015.pdf

        Dr Peter Fisher
        … specialist in both homeopathy and rheumatology, he has published many papers on research in homeopa … Editor-in-Chief of Homeopathy, published by Elsevier, the only journal dedicated to homeopathy inde …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrPeterFisher.aspx
        Course information
        The course leads to a basic qualification from the Faculty of Homeopathy. … Fast Track course in Medical Homeopathy
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Pages/Courseinformation.aspx
        Podiatry & Chiropody – The Marigold Clinic
        Homeopathy … See our leaflet, “Homeopathy” for details.
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/ourservices/servicea-z/intmed/impod
        Dr Jennifer Lenhart
        … started studying homeopathy and obtained her membership of the Faculty of Homeopathy in 2003 (MFHom …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrJenniferLenhart.aspx
        Dr Sara Eames
        … of the Faculty of Homeopathy. … fascinated by homeopathy in the 1980s when she saw it helping patients who had not responded to con …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrSaraEames.aspx
        Dr Sosie Kassab
        Sosie specialises in homeopathy, acupuncture and Iscador (a mistletoe preparation) … Cochrane Review ‘Homeopathy for Adverse Effects of Cancer Treatments’, and was involved in developi …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrSosieKassab.aspx
        The Complementary and Alternative Medicine Library and Information Service (CAMLIS)
        … of Practical Homeopathy, The Ann Hill Trust, The Faculty of Homeopathy, British Autogenic Society a …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/OurHospitals/RLHIM/Pages/camlis.aspx
        Dr Gill Hyams
        In 2004 she became a Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy. … to train in homeopathy because of its gentle and holistic approach towards patients.
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrGillHyams.aspx
        History of The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine
        The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine was founded as the London Homoeopathic Hospital by Dr Frederick Foster Hervey Quin in 1849. He was among the first doctors to practice homeopathy in …
        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/OurHospitals/RLHIM/Pages/historyofrlhim.aspx

        https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/Search/Pages/SearchResults.aspx?k=homeopathy&s=All%20Sites&start1=1

        • You may want to double check the links in your copy/paste docs…

          • rosross

            Why? Because some are not current? But some are. I figure people can work that out for themselves.

            The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine
            Foundation Level Course in Medical Homeopathy
            Application Form – February 2017

            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/ServiceA-Z/INTMED/IMED/Documents/Foundation%20Application%20form%20February%202017%20v2.pdf

            And:

            Rheumatology clinic at RLHIM
            The Rheumatology clinic is led by a specialist in both rheumatology and homeopathy. It works closely with the musculoskeletal service. The team includes doctors, an osteopath, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, dietician, podiatrist and nurse practitioners with specialist skills in various forms of complementary medicine.

            We provide diagnostic techniques including scanning and blood tests and treatments for a wide range of arthritic and rheumatological problems at different stages.

          • Why? Because some are not current? But some are. I figure people can work that out for themselves.

            404 == “not current”? You think they’ll come back?

          • rosross

            That was not the point. Henness said it no longer has a Homeopathic medical service, but, as you can see, the Hospital clearly still has Homeopathic training programmes and services so he is wrong.

            As you can see, if you access the site, The RLHIM, the Rheumatology Clinic states –

            The Rheumatology clinic is led by a specialist in both rheumatology and homeopathy….

            I think most people who are interested in Homeopathy are aware of your deluded and destructive campaign and know they might have to search a bit more and ask some extra questions, but yes, they most definitely do come back?

            You only see it from your perspective. For some bizarre reason you are frightened of Homeopathy and want to see it destroyed, but the majority of people do not feel that way and if they opt to look for alternative medical modalities, they don’t care what you and a few others say, they will make the effort to find out for themselves.

            Those few who don’t last the distance may well die because of your efforts, or live with poorer health, but at the end of the day their health is in their hands and blaming others is pointless.

          • That was not the point. Henness said it no longer has a Homeopathic medical service, but, as you can see, the Hospital clearly still has Homeopathic training programmes and services so he is wrong.

            That may be the case, but you were responding to me, not Alan.

            You present this as if it’s me that needs to accept responsibility for Alan’s words. His integrity is such that he’ll concede and/or clarify his position himself.

          • rosross

            My post was to Alan Henness and you replied to my post:

            You may want to double check the links in your copy/paste docs…

            Hence I replied to you. Your choice to enter that conversation.

          • My post was to Alan Henness and you replied to my post:

            Correct.

            You may want to double check the links in your copy/paste docs…

            Correct. And you should.

            Hence I replied to you. Your choice to enter that conversation.

            Correct. But the point is that the way you phrased it made it sound like you expected me to speak on behalf of Alan. And you avoid that point with this pointless post.

          • rosross

            I realise you spend a lot of time misquoting, misrepresenting and misinterpreting but you really need to try to regain some objectivity.

            Why on earth would I think you would speak on behalf of Alan Henness? I would not. I simply replied to your comment. It is the way of such threads.

            The post was not pointless. You did not like it because you erred and it was pointed out to you.

          • And the RLHIM still does not have a homeopathy service…

          • rosross

            Clearly it does or it would not bother listing Homeopathic credentials for its doctors. If it did not list them then you would be right. It does so you are wrong.

          • Clearly you are clueless.

          • Jonathan Graham
          • shay simmons

            I realise you spend a lot of time misquoting, misrepresenting and misinterpreting

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/18481ec909a776105a4b817ed075a49553c7cfb409c6eabcb057181f41eabeba.jpg

        • Oh dear. Another rosross fail. Your inability to pay attention to detail is legend and you just never seem to improve. It’s attention to detail and precision in words and communication that marks out a scientist from a quack. Scientists also like to keep their knowledge up to date are quite adept at citing publications correctly…

          However, perhaps you’d like to point where their supposed homeopathy service is in their list of services currently provided at the RLHIM to the public?

          https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/OurHospitals/RLHIM/Pages/Home.aspx

    • yet many Doctors I know are happy to refer people to Homeopaths,

      There are many more that are more up to date with the science and don’t recommend homeopathy. So by the argument from popularity the alt-med crowd is fond of this is “evidence” against homeopathy.

      we even have a homeopathic hospital in London..

      Not for some time now. Like your education, your knowledge base is woefully out of date.

      This Sad individual doesn’t actually understand what scientific research ,

      This “sad individual” is an academic physician and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medicine. He was also Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter.

      What have *you* done to further the sum total on human knowledge?

      or open mindedness means.

      Would you agree that open mindedness would require one to change their position in the face of reliable, robust evidence that challenges that position?

      If not, you don’t know what “open mindedness” means.

      If so, then you should be holding @edzardernst:disqus up on a pedestal given where he started, what he did and where he ended up on this topic.

      but rather is an avid follower of scientism

      Ah. “Scientism”. The refuge for those that have such a closed mind they can’t accept that they’re even wrong about the very nature of the thing they think they’re rallying against.

      and wants to boost his ego by having people blindly follow him into the darkness

      He doesn’t need to boost his ego. While I’ve never met the man I have seen him speak and know a number of people that do know him personally. “Ego” is not something he suffers from.

      • rosross

        There is still a Homeopathic Hospital in London. The name was changed, that was all, to satisfy the neurotics like yourself. The Integrative Hospital, better name anyway, still practises Homeopathic medicine.

        Ernst has credentials in Allopathy but little or none in Homeopathic medicine.

        Dr Peter Fisher is qualified in both Allopathic and Homeopathic medicine. Take your pick of who might know what they are talking about.

        • There is still a Homeopathic Hospital in London.

          There used to be many. Then there used to be one. Then, as you said, it became the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. Then it stopped offering inpatient services.

          It’s becoming less and less of a real thing as time passes and science progresses.

          • rosross

            A change of name means nothing and it does still offer Homeopathic services.

            meanwhile Homeopathy booms in India and China and continues to be embraced in much of Europe. A few fearful and misinformed Anglos hardly counts worldwide.

            No-one disputes the campaign in the UK mostly, not sure what the Poms are about, in the US to some degree, although now there is a resurgence, and in Australia to a degree, Canada not so much, has created this atmosphere of delusional scaremongering but that has not impacted Homeopathic medicine worldwide.

            And the Brits can still go to Europe for treatment so they don’t lose completely.

            As science progresses it will be able to understand how Homeopathic medicine works and with the end of antibiotics it will be desperately needed. Your lot will look very silly but it doesn’t really matter because Homeopathy will continue to do what it has always done, heal and cure.

          • A change of name means nothing and it does still offer Homeopathic services.

            The place can only service so many people. The fact homeopathy is being wound back further and further does actually mean something.

            meanwhile Homeopathy booms in India

            Homeopathy is a fringe medicine in India. See my comment on that elsewhere in this comment thread.

            and China and continues to be embraced in much of Europe.

            You and yours have started claiming this. Can you back that with numbers from a reliable, unbiased source? The WHO would be a great one.

            A few fearful and misinformed Anglos hardly counts worldwide.

            Your inner racist is showing.

          • Peter Olins

            A useful collection of data on the worldwide use of homeopathy can be found here:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-euro_b_402490.html
            Yes, it’s HuffPo, but it looks solid.

            To me, the most scary statistic was that 94% of French pharmacists RECOMMEND homeopathic remedies for pregnant women!

          • Dana Ullman isn’t what I would call an reliable or an unbiased source.

          • Peter Olins

            I am certainly no defender of Mr. Ullman (or HuffPo, for that matter!), but I think the references provide useful evidence for the magnitude of this pernicious problem. Ullman obviously has a different interpretation of the significance of this evidence. If the references are incorrect, then please clarify.

          • One example. Ullman says:

            “The respect accorded homeopathy and homeopathic practice by British physicians is evidenced by a 1986 survey in the British Medical Journal that showed that 42 percent of physicians referred patients to homeopathic doctors (12).”

            What Ullman omits to say is that the survey was of GPs in the county of Avon (as it was) that the (now-closed) Bristol Homeopathic Hospital was also in: it cannot be extrapolated to the UK in general.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1340501/

          • Peter Olins

            That’s my point: we need to distinguish between the data and how it is interpreted.

          • rosross

            The Europeans consider the British paranoia on this issue to be amusing. I mean seriously. What is at work with the Poms these days? Are they gullible, easily fooled, or naturally paranoid? Fact is, Homeopathic medicine is still available in the UK and MD’s do still use it. There may be fewer of them but that is the loss to the Brits.

            I would like to see it removed from the NHS if only to demonstrate how massively costs, disease and deaths would rise without it.

          • The Europeans consider…
            …British paranoia…
            What is at work with the Poms…
            …the loss to the Brits.

            Either your inner racist is showing or you are resorting to broad generalisations. As we all know, all broad generalisations are wrong (except this one.)

          • rosross said:

            “I would like to see it removed from the NHS if only to demonstrate how massively costs, disease and deaths would rise without it.”

            For someone like you who truly believes in homeopathy, that is a particularly callous and disgusting thing to say. Thanks for showing your true colours.

          • For someone like you who truly believes in homeopathy, that is a particularly callous and disgusting thing to say. Thanks for showing your true colours.

            Unfortunately this isn’t as rare as you’d think. :/ Sandra has gleefully looked forward to the time those that rely on actual medicines die out first. I’m surprised she hasn’t reared her irrational head here yet.

          • rosross

            Wow. I knew you lot were irrational but delusional to boot. You want to destroy Homeopathy completely. I merely suggest removing it from the NHS would be a useful test of why it is needed. You are the one who is being callous, wanting it completely gone.

            I simply want to prove why it is needed.

          • Acleron

            She prefers her own echo chamber after she was lambasted for persecuting a family who lost a child.

          • rosross

            Sorry. Is that not your goal? To have Homeopathy completely removed as a medical modality. Far more than just removed from the NHS as I stated.

            So that makes you callous does it not? Denying people non-toxic effective treatment.

            You are also admitting that the loss of Homeopathy would be negative which means you accept it has positive effect. Thanks for that.

          • Roslyn said:

            “Sorry. Is that not your goal? To have Homeopathy completely removed as a medical modality. Far more than just removed from the NHS as I stated.”

            Good grief. You still fail to understand, don’t you?

            “So that makes you callous does it not? Denying people non-toxic effective treatment.”

            LOL! If only it were effective… something you which you cannot provide a jot of good evidence.

            “You are also admitting that the loss of Homeopathy would be negative which means you accept it has positive effect. Thanks for that.”

            Good grief. I am playing chess with a pigeon, aren’t I? We all are here.

          • Sorry. Is that not your goal? To have Homeopathy completely removed as a medical modality. Far more than just removed from the NHS as I stated.

            It’s been said many many times and you still fail to get it.

            1. Remove homeopathy (and all other ineffective treatments) from taxpayer funded health systems.
            2. Accurately inform the consumer about the actual outcomes and effectiveness based on the growing pile of robust research that we have.

            That’s pretty much it.

            The expectation, given what the current science shows, is that it will die out on it’s own. the statistics we currently have show that it is dying out too. But so long as there are people like you lying and misrepresenting the truth to a less than fully informed public we, or others like us, will continue to correct you and ask you to show us the evidence for your claims.

            You’ve had this pointed out to you time and time again. And you claim that it’s other people that misrepresent positions. You really need to take note because you constantly accuse others of doing things you are repeatedly guilty of.

          • shay simmons

            1. Remove homeopathy (and all other ineffective treatments) from taxpayer funded health systems.

            Hear, hear.

          • rosross

            I said: Sorry. Is that not your goal? To have Homeopathy completely removed as a medical modality.

            You said:
            It’s been said many many times and you still fail to get it.
            1. Remove homeopathy (and all other ineffective treatments) from taxpayer funded health systems.

            Thank you for making it clear my statement was correct. And just because you and a few others think something is ineffective does not make it so.

            I repeat, if it were ineffective as you claim then any use of it would be fraud and no MD, hospital, university, medical school, Government would touch it.

            Ergo, there is evidence it is effective, or no-one would touch it, and many do embrace it so you are simply wrong.

            And if you did accurately inform people no-one would have an issue but your stated goal is so clear you selectively choose your information and so you are not informing people, merely passing around distortions and propaganda.

          • shay simmons
          • rosross

            The Code of Ethics in most developed nations for doctors, as articulated in their associations, states quite clearly patients should be free to choose themselves without coercion of any kind.

            That means Allopathy should not be forced on people because no other choices are allowed.

            Fortunately the Europeans are way ahead of the Brits, Americans, Australians and the other Anglocentric nations which seem most easily fooled or frightened by the pharmaceutical industry>

            Quote: The Swiss Federal Government has announced that medical services using complementary medicine, including homeopathy, will continue to be covered by national health insurance. This decision has been taken following a two year trial period and acknowledges that complementary medicine in Switzerland meets statutory regulations when it comes to effectiveness, guaranteeing high quality and safety.

            As of 1 August 2017, anthroposophical medicine, classical homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and herbal medicine will be fully covered by mandatory health insurance (basic insurance), provided that these are practised by conventional medical practitioners who have an additional qualification in one of the four disciplines as recognised by the Swiss Medical Association (FMH).

            This is very positive news and a decision that is welcomed by the European Committee for Homeopathy, which is committed to integrating high-quality homeopathy into European healthcare and supports all medical doctors with an additional qualification in homeopathy in 25 European countries.

            http://homeopathyeurope.org/homeopathy-continue-included-swiss-national-health-insurance/

          • Acleron

            ‘This decision has been taken following a two year trial period and acknowledges that complementary medicine in Switzerland meets statutory regulations when it comes to effectiveness, guaranteeing high quality and safety.’

            Do you have a reference from the Swiss Federal Government acknowledging the ‘effectiveness, quality and safety’ bits.

            I ask because the SFG described the homeopaths infamous ‘Swiss’ report as tantamount to scientific fraud. Also in 2016, the SFG said that proof of effectiveness etc had not been found.
            https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-61140.html

          • shay simmons

            What does the Code of Ethics say about knowingly providing something that has never been proven to work?

          • rosross

            Clearly not produced Homeopathically since Homeopathic medicine is completely non-toxic.

            Or are you saying Homeopathic medicine does demonstrate effect and can be dangerous?

          • Mike Stevens

            Well it clearly has no beneficial therapeutic effect.
            When the only time “homeopathy” shows an effect, it is a toxic one owing to lack of proper dilution, then you just have another valid reason to avoid it.

          • rosross

            If it were really Homeopathic it could do no harm so either it has not been manufactured Homeopathically or this is a scam.

            Or are you saying that Homeopathy does demonstrate effect and can be dangerous?

            One or the other.

          • Acleron

            Homeopathy is toxic for two reasons
            1) denial of effective medical care by homeopaths
            2) the total resistance of homeopaths to institute Good Manufacturing Practices and Quality Assurance.

            Even the food industry has better quality assurance and will readily withdraw from sale any product that comes under suspicion. Compare that to the homeopathy trade where Hylands left suspect teething products on the shelf for many months. Remember, this product was suspected of killing and injuring babies. Or Nelson’s, whose GMP was so absent that they had broken glass in the vialling area and whose QA was so poor that they failed to notice that one sixth of their product didn’t even have the diluted water in them.

          • rosross

            @ Shay Simmons,

            If it were really Homeopathic it could do no harm so either it has not been manufactured Homeopathically or this is a scam.

            Or are you saying that Homeopathy does demonstrate effect and can be dangerous?

            One or the other.

          • rosross

            And, in the meantime, the very intelligent and informed Europeans keep using Homeopathic medicine.

            Quote: The Swiss Federal Government has announced that medical services using complementary medicine, including homeopathy, will continue to be covered by national health insurance. This decision has been taken following a two year trial period and acknowledges that complementary medicine in Switzerland meets statutory regulations when it comes to effectiveness, guaranteeing high quality and safety.

            As of 1 August 2017, anthroposophical medicine, classical homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and herbal medicine will be fully covered by mandatory health insurance (basic insurance), provided that these are practised by conventional medical practitioners who have an additional qualification in one of the four disciplines as recognised by the Swiss Medical Association (FMH).

            http://homeopathyeurope.org/homeopathy-continue-included-swiss-national-health-insurance/

          • Mike Stevens

            Thanks for calling me very intelligent and informed, Ros.
            Unfortunately I can’t return the compliment.

          • Mike Stevens

            If homeopathy is so great, why did WHO issue a warning that it should never be used to treat serious diseases?
            http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3447

          • Jonathan Graham

            As of 1 August 2017, anthroposophical medicine, classical homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and herbal medicine will be fully covered by mandatory health insurance (basic insurance),

            You realize that this really is more evidence that homeopathy doesn’t work. Right?

          • shay simmons

            “Since 1903 – Hylands has been trusted for generations to provide safe, effective homeopathic medicines for all members of the family.”

            https://www.hylands.com/

          • Mike Stevens

            You miss the point Ros. We would like to see homeopathy removed from the NHS because it is useless. Removing it would not increase deaths, but merely free up more funds for effective medicine.

            You, otoh, think homeopathy saves lives and that without it disease and deaths would go up…. yet you now say you’d like it removed from the NHS just to prove your point that this would result in more disease and deaths?
            You are one callous, heartless individual, you know.

          • Why are you certain that costs, disease, and death will rise massively without it?

          • rosross

            Homeopathy treats the individual and it does so in such a way to trigger self-healing, which, when it happens, functions at all levels.

            Most of the time, or a lot of the time that people see a doctor it is for something minor and Allopathic treatments are generally toxic and seek to repress or remove a symptom, thus often driving the disease into deeper and more serious form.

            Homeopathic treatment allows non-toxic help which works to achieve health in general in the individual. It assists in creating healthy human beings who are less likely to succumb to serious diseases which are may well kill them.

            We already have a situation where levels of serious and chronic disease in general have risen dramatically and more so in children. Whatever Allopathy does it does not create health.

            It would simply be interesting to see what would happen if the NHS dropped Homeopathy completely. So, if it happens, I don’t see it as a bad thing because I know what sort of part it has been playing.

            Just as examples, the use of antibiotics in conventional medicine almost guarantees poor health because they kill the bacteria we need to keep well and get well. Modern medicine creates a lot of disease. Homeopathy does not. If it works, and no system works for everyone every time, it contributes to more robust health. If it doesn’t work then nothing changes.

            At this point, without stopping it as part of the NHS there is no way of knowing what role it has played. It would be worth knowing. It may be little, it may be a lot – it won’t be nothing.

          • Are you sure there’s a real rise and it doesn’t have more to do with a)keeping children with conditions alive and b)not hiding them?

            As for the rest of your comment, learn the difference between claims and evidence.

          • A second example:

            “The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health issued a report to the government of Switzerland which concluded that “the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence, and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe” (30).”

            Ullman completely misrepresents the report. I have written extensively about it and the many errors Ullman and many other homeopathy fans have made in my blog post:

            That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report

            http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/

          • Fair call. When I saw who the author was I admit that I didn’t even bother to check if the article had references. The level of trust in Ullman to honestly represent anything when it comes to science, statistics or homeopathy is less than zero.

            So… The quick skim:
            * Very old sources now. In fairness the article is heavily out of date having been published in 2011.
            * Things that look like studies appear heavily biased towards a specific outcome.
            * Much of the regional statistics appear to be from online newspapers too.

            I wouldn’t rely on this due to:
            * The track record of the author. I can mention multiple reasons why but that’s not what this is about.
            * The age of the article. We could do the same thing today and actually get access to reliable sources.
            * The sources the author relied upon.

            It’s an interesting topic and should be updated taking into account how much more connected to the internet various govts and govt departments are now.

          • rosross

            Just why do you believe Homeopathic medicine is so dangerous? It is non-toxic and heals without doing harm. I know, as do millions of others, how effective it can be, so how am I and the millions who make use of Homeopathic medicine in any danger?

            The naysayers reject any evidence which does not come from their biased sources. Subjectivity is the name of the game on this issue. Hardly scientific.

            But, ordinary people and the hundreds and thousands of Homeopathic doctors don’t actually care because all that matters are the results – healing and cure. And that is why Homeopathy has survived and thrived for more than two centuries and will continue to do so.

            What doesn’t make sense is the hysteria about it. Someone, somewhere considers it a threat, just as they did in Hahnemann’s time, because it was cheap, effective and non-toxic. Some things don’t change.

          • The fallacy of argument from personal incredulity yet again, Roslyn. Are there any fallacies you actually understand?

          • Peter Olins

            Thanks.
            In 2007 homeopathy was used by about 2% of the U.S. population. In contrast, “prayer for health reasons” was used by about 50%.
            http://bit.ly/2tuMx6D

          • There’s also this:

            Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review

            http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(17)30023-1/abstract

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m dumbfounded. There is this harmless, very cheap and highly effective cure for all ills, which boosts the body’s natural healing, and it is used by only 1.5% of the world population?
            …Argumentum ad invidiae?

          • Ha!

          • T1-R

            I love your excel graphic, is utterly non sense and descontextualized. Can I use your graphic for another purposes? Please, say yes!

          • I provide the source so even you can go and look it up yourself.

          • rosross

            Why is that scary. You think it is water? What is truly scary is vaccinating pregnant women with toxins, animal, human and bird material along with disease.

            The French like many Europeans have long used Homeopathy. They know it works and does no harm. All French Homeopathic doctors must first train and qualify as MD’s. So they know both sides and still opt for Homeopathy much of the time.

          • rosross

            Nothing racist about it. The UK, US, Australia – largely Anglocentric countries seem to be the ones most cowed on this issue. Perhaps they are just more easily bribed. Or perhaps they are not as smart as others. Who can say. That was tongue in cheek of course. 🙂

            Homeopathy was introduced to India in 1810 and has grown in use for 2 centuries. It is the third most used medicine after Allopathy and Ayurveda. Hardly fringe.

            Quote: There are over 200,000 registered homeopathic doctors, with around 12,000 more joining the profession every year.

            Homoeopathy in India has been fully integrated into the public health system and its practice is legal. In 1978, a Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy was established.

            http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20140306-The-road-forward/Tech-Science/Homeopathy-India-s-traditional-system-of-medicine?page=2

            The WHO is not a reliable source for anything. Guess who funds the WHO on medical issues?

          • FrenchKissed

            I live in an Anglocentric country, but the majority of MDs near where I live are either Chinese or Indian (or at least Asian).
            http://www.sutterhealth.org/findadoctor/san-francisco-internal-medicine-doctors-results.html?Nao=0&recPerPage=100&Nao=0
            http://www.sutterhealth.org/findadoctor/daly-city-primary-care-doctors-results.html?Nao=0&recPerPage=100&Nao=0

            Practitioners of “alternative therapy” are actually more likely to be white. http://eastwestsf.com/w/#team
            http://missionsfca.com/about/

          • Mike Stevens

            “The WHO is not a reliable source for anything. Guess who funds the WHO on medical issues?”

            Unlike you, we don’t have to guess. WHO funding comes from two sources, Ros. They are either “assessed contributions” – the amount all UN member states have to contribute on a pro rate basis, or “voluntary contributions”.
            Here are details on the voluntary contributions.
            http://www.who.int/about/resources_planning/A66_29add1-en.pdf
            You can drop the evil pharma conspiracist insinuations now.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Homeopathy was introduced to India in 1810 and has grown in use for 2 centuries. It is the third most used medicine after Allopathy and Ayurveda. Hardly fringe….There are over 200,000 registered homeopathic doctors, with around 12,000 more joining the profession every year.”

            So still far less popular than conventional medicine then.
            And if the homeopath numbers were increasing at 12,000 a year, since 1810 there would be two and a half million, not 200,000.

          • Peter Olins

            You must be kidding! Homeopathy might have some efficacy for conditions where a placebo effect could be useful, but do you really think such a woo-woo “drug” could actually treat bacterial infections?

            Please don’t use the word “science” until you gain a basic grasp of what it means, rosross.

          • rosross

            Science is a system of enquiry, no more, no less. Anyone can use it. Modern science is too often not a system of objective enquiry but in terms of the medical industry blame the profit-driven pharmaceutical companies and the craven doctors.

            Please explain to me, your theory, as to how placebo works on cells in a petri dish; plants, animals, birds, unconscious humans and animals and months after being taken as Homeopathic medicine does.

            As the vet who has been practising Homeopathy, and who saves animals which conventional vet medicine has given up on, for 40 years says:

            Quote: “This debate has come around every year for 200 years,” he says. “I can understand why the people who oppose it don’t study homeopathy. I can understand why they don’t want to understand homeopathy. What I can’t understand is this refusal to accept that there might be something there. All the animals I see are failures, they are referred to me because conventional veterinary treatment has failed. If an animal I see responds, then we have done something. How can I do this for 40 years and not be uncovered as a fraud? Word would get out.”

            Let’s have your theory on how there is no placebo effect with Allopathic vet medicine but suddenly there is, with Homeopathic medicine.

            https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/16/vet-homeopathy-medicine-royal-college

          • Chris Preston

            Science is a system of enquiry, no more, no less.

            Science is is a structured system, so it is more than just any system of inquiry.

            Anyone can use it.

            This is not the case. It takes a certain amount of training to know how to use the structured system in an appropriate way. The major failing for the untrained is the failure to use fair tests.

            Modern science is too often not a system of objective enquiry but in terms of the medical industry blame the profit-driven pharmaceutical companies and the craven doctors.

            This makes little sense. But guessing what you want to allege, I can state that you would be wrong.

            Please explain to me, your theory, as to how placebo works on cells in a petri dish; plants, animals, birds, unconscious humans and animals and months after being taken as Homeopathic medicine does.

            This statement makes the assumption that homeopathy works. It does not. Therefore, all conclusions from that point are invalid.

            As the vet who has been practising Homeopathy, and who saves animals which conventional vet medicine has given up on, for 40 years says…

            Anecdote and suffers from lack of well controlled experiments. As Richard Feynman said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

            Let’s have your theory on how there is no placebo effect with Allopathic vet medicine but suddenly there is, with Homeopathic medicine.

            Evidence for there being no placebo effect in veterinary medicine? Thank you, you have managed to demolish your own argument.

          • rosross

            You said: Science is is a structured system, so it is more than just any system of inquiry.

            All systems of enquiry have structure. And so science is not more than just any system of enquiry. It is one system, and one which have proven effective for mechanical and manmade, and sometimes useful but often destructive for that which is not manmade.

            You said:
            This is not the case. It takes a certain amount of training to know how to use the structured system in an appropriate way. The major failing for the untrained is the failure to use fair tests.

            I said anyone can use it as in make use of it. I did not say anyone can practise it.

            In regard to my comment about medical science, you may think it does not make sense but it made a lot of sense to Dr Richard Horton, former editor of The Lancet, and Dr Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. They, like me would say you were wrong.

            Please explain to me, your theory, as to how placebo works on cells in a petri dish; plants, animals, birds, unconscious humans and animals and months after being taken as Homeopathic medicine does.

            You said: This statement makes the assumption that homeopathy works. It does not. Therefore, all conclusions from that point are invalid.

            But there is no assumption. Beyond more than two centuries of empirical evidence, we also have research showing Homeopathy demonstrating effect on for instance, cells in a petri dish and plants etc. So your conclusion based on belief not evidence is invalid.

            You said: As the vet who has been practising Homeopathy, and who saves animals which conventional vet medicine has given up on, for 40 years says…
            Anecdote and suffers from lack of well controlled experiments. As Richard Feynman said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

            So, he is a fool and The Guardian ran his story and then, we presume, dozens of people came out and said he was lying and so he was charged? Yes?

            No, that did not happen and if you were correct it would have happened and it was not anecdote but a vet saying publicly what had been his experience. Something anyone could prove or challenge if they wished.

            Anecdote is when your aunt says, I heard about this vet etc.

            The only argument demolished is yours.

          • Chris Preston

            Please explain to me, your theory, as to how placebo works on cells in a petri dish; plants, animals, birds, unconscious humans and animals and months after being taken as Homeopathic medicine does.

            You said: This statement makes the assumption that homeopathy works. It does not. Therefore, all conclusions from that point are invalid.

            But there is no assumption.

            Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. What a maroon.

            You truly are a fool.

            You said: Science is is a structured system, so it is more than just any system of inquiry.

            All systems of enquiry have structure. And so science is not more than just any system of enquiry.

            I could construct a system of inquiry that involved going through 19th Century writings and selecting anecdotes from them to collate. But that system would not be science. So science is more than just any system of inquiry.

          • rosross

            Great. You are reduced to ad hominem. That makes you look foolish, not me.

            Science is a system of enquiry and an increasingly limited and distorted one and even a few scientists are beginning to realise that.

            Science set out to topple religion and in the doing became a religion itself. Hubris will always bring the arrogant down.

          • Chris Preston

            Great. You are reduced to ad hominem. That makes you look foolish, not me.

            Clearly, you don’t know what an ad hominem fallacy is.

            But that is perhaps not surprising given the number of logical fallacies you have displayed on this thread: argumentum ad populum, special pleading, tu quoque, post hoc ergo propter hoc, hasty generalization among others. In fact it is damn near falalcy bingo.

            Science is a system of enquiry and an increasingly limited and distorted one and even a few scientists are beginning to realise that.

            Evidence?

            It is general experience that people complain of science when it fails to give them the answer they desire. Like you.

          • rosross

            Former editors of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine are complaining about science. So, you are saying that is because it failed to give them the answer they wanted?

            They said that is what is wrong with science. It is not a system of enquiry but merely a machine to churn out what the pharmaceutical industry wants.

            Personally I think Dr Richard Horton and Dr Marcia Angell have more street cred than you do, whoever you are.

            Ad hominem is attacking the person not the argument. You do it all the time. Logical fallacy is just another of your meaningless terms used when you cannot make a coherent response. Keep up the good work as you read what Horton and Angell have to say.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Keep up the good work as you read what Horton

            It would be good if you did sometime. Horton is just rephrasing what Ionannidis said. There are things which interestingly apply rather easily to an enormous amount of homeopathic research. Which make studied unlikely to be true.

          • You are reduced to ad hominem.

            You have had this explained to you time and time again yet you fail to actually understand the nuance.

            “Your point is wrong and you’re an idiot” – a statement of fact based on observation of your comments.
            “Your point is wrong because you’re an idiot” – an Ad Hominem.
            “You’re an idiot” – a statement of fact based on observation of your comments.

          • rosross

            ‘and you’re an idiot’ is a personal attack on the individual not the argument. Ad hominem.

            But it is all good. I know your frustration levels rise when you cannot make a coherent response and so abuse seeps in.

            Any name-calling is childish. But maturity is required for an open mind so it is not surprising.

          • ‘and you’re an idiot’ is a personal attack on the individual not the argument. Ad hominem.

            Sigh… that’s not an Ad hom.

            A “personal attack on the individual” is not an Ad hom. It’s a personal attack on the individual. These are not the same thing.

            You’ve had it explained to you multiple dozens of time, likely hundreds of times, over the years. I’m sorry to say it, but I just don’t think you’re smart enough to get the difference.

            But it is all good. I know your frustration levels rise when you cannot make a coherent response and so abuse seeps in.

            Any name-calling is childish. But maturity is required for an open mind so it is not surprising.

            Yeah, name calling slips in when the frustration levels rise too. There are many sources for that sort of result. You should know. You resort to it just as often.

            However, I understand the source of my frustration now and name calling is an inappropriate response.

            I apologize.

          • Strictly speaking, it may sometimes be an ad hom attack but that’s not quite the same thing as an ad hom fallacy Insulting people isn’t nice – it’s just a separate problem to that of commiting fallacies.

          • Hmm… A may have to take the time to compare the difference between an ad hom attack and an ad hom fallacy. I would have expected that an ad hom attack is the intentional application of the ad hom fallacy.

            But yes, insults are not nice. It’s a shame that the irrational actors here have pushed me to that point. :/

          • An ad hom attack is an attack against the man. An ad hom fallacy is where that’s your entire argument except in cases where it’s actually relevant … e.g. a known thief is a poor choice for a treasurer.

          • duplicat
          • Great. You are reduced to ad hominem. That makes you look foolish, not me.

            Ah….. So close!

            You should have stuck with the message you deleted…

            Science is a system of enquiry and an increasingly limited

            Well… yes. The more we limit observer bias from research the more likely the results are to reflect reality. You’d need to be an idiot not to get that.

            and distorted one and even a few scientists are beginning to realise that.

            Who?

            Science set out to topple religion and in the doing became a religion itself. Hubris will always bring the arrogant down.

            You literally know nothing about the history of science, do you?

          • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/02a03ddb1fd3ed3576db81209ceee696c9517fbd6bd50b06eee5079b6a721515.png

            “Resorting to abuse”?? Wait… Not an ad hom? Could it be that you’re… learning?

            Now, if you could possibly apply this new trait to the rest of the posts challenging your position perhaps you’d realise why your are so wrong.

            As for the “Resorting to abuse means you have no case to make.” part of the claim. That’s an Ad Hominem.
            “They resort to abuse therefore they have no case to make.” – Ad Hom
            “They resort to abuse and they have no case to make.” – Observation. Not necessarily a correct one though.
            “They have no case to make therefore they resort to abuse.” – Again, observation.

            So yeah, the first time you restrain yourself from claiming Ad Hom you shoot yourself in the foot and actually Ad Hom the commenter.

            You know nothing and you are an idiot.

          • rosross

            A list of consultants at the RLHIM all practising Homeopathic medicine.

            Dr Peter Fisher
            … specialist in both homeopathy and rheumatology, he has published many papers on research in homeopa … Editor-in-Chief of Homeopathy, published by Elsevier, the only journal dedicated to homeopathy inde …
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrPeterFisher.aspx

            Dr Jennifer Lenhart
            … started studying homeopathy and obtained her membership of the Faculty of Homeopathy in 2003 (MFHom …
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrJenniferLenhart.aspx

            Dr Sara Eames
            … of the Faculty of Homeopathy. … fascinated by homeopathy in the 1980s when she saw it helping patients who had not responded to con …
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrSaraEames.aspx

            Dr Sosie Kassab
            Sosie specialises in homeopathy, acupuncture and Iscador (a mistletoe preparation) … Cochrane Review ‘Homeopathy for Adverse Effects of Cancer Treatments’, and was involved in developi …
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrSosieKassab.aspx

            Dr Gill Hyams
            In 2004 she became a Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy. … to train in homeopathy because of its gentle and holistic approach towards patients.
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrGillHyams.aspx

            Dr Saul Berkovitz
            … acupuncture and homeopathy.
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrSaulBerkovitz.aspx

            Dr Helmut Roniger
            … and China 1998, Homeopathy training in Germany and Britain since 1997:
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrHelmutRoniger.aspx

            Dr Mohammed Tariq Khan
            member of the faculty of homeopathy (DFHom (pod)
            https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrMohammedTariqKhan.aspx

            http://www.cochrane.org/CD004845/SYMPT_homeopathic-medicines-adverse-effects-cancer-treatments

          • A list of consultants at the RLHIM all practising Homeopathic medicine.

            So this is another diminishing list of quacks.

            Given the places they used to operate from have been becoming fewer and fewer the list of people operating from them must also be decreasing.

          • rosross

            Ah, but the claim was Homeopathy was no longer practised at the renamed Homeopathy Hospital in London and it is. There should be no Homeopaths there and instead, we find quite a few.

            Which is as it should be for Integrative Medicine.

            Sadly, for you, the list of qualified Homeopathic doctors is not decreasing. Homeopathic medicine is booming worldwide. The Swiss now recognise Homeopathy as medicine alongside Allopathy and other modalities. The force is not with you but for the sake of human comfort and health, that is a good thing.

          • rosross said:

            “Ah, but the claim was Homeopathy was no longer practised at the renamed Homeopathy Hospital in London and it is.”

            No, no it wasn’t.

          • Mike Stevens

            “the claim was Homeopathy was no longer practised at the renamed Homeopathy Hospital in London”
            That was never the claim Ros. Why do lie so often? Are you unable to make a valid argument for homeopathy otherwise, just by sticking to the facts?

            …clearly not.

          • As I’ve said, homeopathy fans’ attention to, and understanding of, detail precludes any rational discussion about science with them.

          • rosross

            This is what Gold said:

            Then it stopped offering inpatient services

            Which means his claim was that Homeopathy is no longer practised at the hospital. Given the number of physicians whose Homeopathic credentials are listed and the fact that the Rheumatology Clinic lists Homeopathic medicine alongside Allopathic, because Dr Fisher is qualified in both, pretty clearly Homeopathic medicine is provided, is offered and is practised.

            That is a reality and it was not an argument for Homeopathy per se: but simply proving a statement wrong. Which it does.

          • Mike Stevens

            Gold: “Then it stopped offering inpatient services”
            Ros: “Which means his claim was that Homeopathy is no longer practised at the hospital.”

            Sigh….🙄
            “Inpatient” means someone can be admitted to a bed on a medical ward and remain in hospital overnight.
            There used to be around half a dozen dedicated inpatient homeopathy beds iirc, these have been withdrawn; this service is no longer offered, exactly as Gold stated.
            Gold is correct, and you are wrong.
            That some of the doctors might offer homeopathy in the “integrative medicine” outpatient setting is not in dispute, but as you can see, the number of people offering these is also declining .

          • The RLHIM has no inpatient beds of course. Neither does the Glasgow Centre for Integrative Care:

            “The Centre for Integrative Care closed its inpatient beds on the 31st March 2017.”

            http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/patients-and-visitors/main-hospital-sites/gartnavel-campus/nhs-centre-for-integrative-care/nhs-centre-for-integrative-care-inpatient-service/

            See also: NHS homeopathy in Scotland – on a shoogly peg

            http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/184-nhs-homeopathy-in-scotland-on-a-shoogly-peg.html

          • shay simmons

            Which means his claim was that Homeopathy is no longer practised at the hospital.

            No, his claim was that it stopped offering inpatient services.