The war on homeopathy isn’t working. We need to call a truce

Disclaimer: I am not a believer in homeopathy, but I am rather partial to the remedies because I love the taste.

Having got that out of the way we can begin. Homeopathy is like Doomsday; no, I’m not talking about the end of days, but, as fans of DC comics will be aware, Superman’s most formidable foe, bred to be a perfect, indestructible killing machine, resurrected every time he dies.

Homeopathy is pretty similar. No matter how many trials and meta-analyses are carried out, despite multiple experts opining that, to borrow scientific language, ‘it’s all a bunch of fluff’, and despite arousing the ire of the entire medical establishment en masse, homeopathy refuses to die. It remains the treatment of choice for millions of patients, sales of homeopathic remedies appear to be increasing and thousands of practitioners are registered in the UK alone, not to mention the fact that it is available on our very own NHS.

Prominent supporters include HRH the Prince of Wales, and the Honourable Member for South West Surrey, the Secretary of State for Health. Homeopathy stimulates great emotion on both sides. Supporters all have their stories of miracles, of chronic diseases cured or relieved when allopathic medicine failed, and are usually dismissed out of hand as though they were simpletons, something that only drives patients further towards the homeopaths.

Opponents can be especially nasty, as I discovered when I mistakenly suggested we keep an open mind on the subject, and was rewarded with sustained online abuse. The vitriol of the attack could not have been more appropriate had I suggested we start drowning little children (and kittens) at the bedside of cancer patients, whilst smearing honey on our faces and howling at the moon, instead of using chemotherapy.

Both sides are like a warring couple in a marriage going south, with neither partner wanting to listen, in urgent need of marriage guidance counselling.

As any unbiased and informed scientist will tell you, research is only as good as the hypothesis and the methodology used to prove or disprove that hypothesis. A badly designed study will render any results, no matter how spectacular, meaningless. It takes an expert, or at the very least someone working in a field, both to have an idea worth investigating, but also to possess the knowledge as to how to investigate that idea along universally acceptable lines.

Given that homeopathy costs the NHS between £4 million and £12 million a year, the issue really has to be put to bed once and for all. I would suggest that prominent members of the British Homeopathic Society and relevant specialists in the medical/surgical fields call a truce, come together, and agree to settle the question definitively, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

How? Simply subject homeopathy to several, high-quality, randomised trials as this one, with the study design carried out by homeopaths, thus rendering the argument that the trial was biased against homeopathy from the beginning obsolete, and supervised by those with training and experience in the administration of clinical trials, thus rendering the argument that the trials were methodologically weak inapplicable. Funding for these trials will not be out of the public purse but can be provided in a transparent fashion by private donors, with the results being completely accessible in the public domain in the same way the full statin trial results aren’t.

If positive results are obtained, well and good. If not, instead of arrogantly dismissing homeopathy and by extension the millions of patients who have benefited from it, even as a placebo, medics can simply declare the debate over — and the real debate as to whether it should be accessible on the NHS can begin.


  • Craig King

    The superstitious will always be with us. Just watch Dan Biggar lining up a kick or any Lotto player to say nothing of psychotherapists or nutritionists.

    Quite frankly at £4m-£12m a year to help a few folk in some small way, what does it matter. We spend tens of billions of pounds on Climate Change every year in the belief we are having an almost unmeasurably small effect on the Earth’s temperature one hundred years hence for entirely psychological reasons why not this?

  • John Dalton

    It is appalling to think the NHS is wasting any money on homeopathy.

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      It’s appalling to think that the NHS spent 2 billion pounds in 2010 on treating the “side effects” (iatrogenic diseases) caused by conventional drugs. Those who choose to use drugs that cause disease should pay for them out of their own pockets instead of putting the burden on other rate payers who choose safe medicine like homeopathy.

      • John Dalton

        Yes, that is appalling, It is important that medical treatment be balanced in terms of the need for thereapy and and the safest and least invasive treatment given.

        Returning to homeopathy, if there are grounds for it being effective there is no certaintly that it will be safe.

      • And how would that change the lack of good… well, you know the rest by now… but you still fail to answer it.

    • Govt launched inquiry into NHS Officials bribed by pharmaceutical companies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12160260/NHS-officials-with-second-jobs-at-drug-firms.html

      • Yes, dreadful, isn’t it? Got nothing to do with homeopathy, though, has it? Absolutely irrelevant. By the way, you’re a practicing homeopath, are you not?

  • SteveGJ

    What a ridiculous article. Properly controlled, randomised double-blind trials are precisely what the homeopathic industry won’t do. All the evidence is that it is the placebo effect.

    In any event, Homeopathy is best characterised as a faith. It shows all the characteristics in that it has a blind belief, ignores all contrary evidence and is highly resistant to rational analysis. There is precisely no credible scientific mechanism, and the one that is stated (memory of water) has failed to be substantiated save be one investigators whose results couldn’t be replicated. Indeed, when the lab tests they carried out were subject to proper scrutiny, then even those couldn’t be replicated.

    This is a pointless discussion. No amount of rational analysis or tests is going to stop the true believers. It’s like creationism, not science. A proper science starts from producing a testable hypothesis and then moving on or modifying the theory if its disproved. Homeopathy with its dilution to the levels of a molecule in a swimming pool runs completely contrary to known cause and effect. It is an extraordinary claim and it really requires similar evidence, and not just anecdotes

    Oh, and it can do real damage as I recall bumping into a nice, middle-class lady from the South East working in Aids clinics in Ethiopia “training” local staff in Homeopathy.

    • rosross

      Ah, the old prejudice and propaganda tactic.

      Do some research into Homeopathic research. And to avoid looking foolish, do some research into Homeopathy so you can at least pretend you have some idea what you are talking about.

      https://www.hri-research.org/

      • Acleron

        For a change, you read some of the magazine articles you tout. They are poor in quality and inconclusive.

      • Tetenterre

        Rosross, you instructed SteveGJ to “Do some research into Homeopathic research.” and cited https://www.hri-research.org/

        This is the homeopathy trade organisation that has recently been claiming, via Twitter (as @homeoinst) in on its website:
        “There have been 6 meta-analyses of homeopathy. Five were positive”
        (Source: https://twitter.com/homeoinst/status/696769513363259392)

        These are the conclusions of the meta-analyses cited by this organsition in its web site:

        * Kleijnen et al. 1991: ‘.. not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.’

        * Linde et al. 1997: ‘… we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.’

        * Linde et al. 1999: ‘We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.’

        * Cucherat et al. 2000: ‘…the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.’

        * Mathie et al. 2014: ‘The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.’

        (Source: https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/essentialevidence/clinical-trials-overview/)

        Remember, these are the best they can find. You really couldn’t make this stuff up!

        And to top it all, this is the outfit that claims on its Twitter profile that it is “dedicated to promoting high quality scientific research in homeopathy.” One can only wonder why it is choosing to tout such low quality research!

        • Tarek

          Compared to the nutritional information leaflets at McDonalds it is high-quality research they are describing. Silly boy.

        • rosross

          HRI keeps up to date with all research available. It does help to read material before forming an opinion.

          • Tetenterre

            Actually, I did read it.

            (Clue: that’s how I managed to quote/cite it.)

          • HRI keeps up to date with all research available.

            So they’re still learning how to filter the good quality studies from the bad then? Because the content on the site suggests they take all studies at face value and if you do that you will end up with a positive effect for homeopathy. It’s only when you filter out the poor quality studies that you begin to see that it is no better than similarly administered placebos.

          • So what? HRI is a trade body with a vested interest in homeopathy, and in furtherance of that vested interest they continually and consistently misrepresent the research with which they “keep up to date”.

            I am sure astrologers keep up to date with the discovery of new celestial bodies, but their views on their meaning is every bit as relevant as HRI’s views on homeopathy research.

      • Research homeopathy? Ironic much?

    • Tarek

      I’ll remind you we’re talking about science not religion. Belief has nothing to do with it

      • Hmm, are you quite sure about that?

      • Homeopathy has all the hallmarks of a cultish belief system and you are dangerously close to becoming a convert.

        • Tarek

          And i’ll bet that observation made you feel warm all over.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            But can you refute it?

          • Tarek

            Why should I refute it?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Because it appears to be true. Homeopathy does indeed depend on faith and homeopathy supporters behave like a cult, remaining completely impervious to reason and the fact that the totality of evidence reveals it to be a crock. In spite of your “disclaimer”, the above article and most of your comments below it suggest that you are on the fringes of that cult. If you are happy to be perceived that way – fine. As long as you’re not my doctor, I’m happy too.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Nope, no faith required. Homeopathy works equally well on those who are desperate and give it a try but are convinced it cannot work as it does on those who are convinced it can work, and everyone in between.

            Nope, the totality of evidence does not reveal it to be a crock.

            Toss the word cult around as much as you like, it just makes you look ridiculous.

            Homeopathy is a medical modality. If it were pure placebo it would not be practised as medicine by MD’s and in hospitals around the world nor taught in some medical schools and universities and it would never, ever, ever be included by any Government in State medical systems – not the use of the word medical – and it is.

          • ‘… it just makes you look ridiculous.’

            Why does it make her look ridiculous?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Bore off, Roslyn. Homeopathy doesn’t work even on those who believe it can. Let me remind you:

            Penelope Dingle, who desperately wanted to live but who was misinformed by those she trusted most and, instead of having the surgery that might have saved her life, she relied instead on homeopathy to treat her rectal cancer. She died.

            Cameron Ayres was taken by his delusional parents to a homeopath instead of a real doctor. He died from a hereditary condition which caused severe nappy rash and a swelling of his liver and stomach. But Coroner Alison Thompson said: “With conventional medicine it would have been diagnosed and the child could have expected a normal life span.”

          • rosross

            Ah, the tragic Dingle case. Well, if we judged Allopathic medicine on the same basis, i.e. error on the part of the doctor and possible malpractice, it would be banned tomorrow.

            Double standards methinks.

            I repeat, if you were correct Homeopathy would not be practised by MD’s and hospitals around the world; taught in some medical schools and universities and included by Governments in State medical systems.

            Ergo, you are wrong and I suspect that frustrates you more than anything.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            No, it’s not a double standard. Science-based medicine saves lives and eliminates disease. The benefits from science-based medicine outweigh the risks. For homeopathy, there are no benefits from the products because they are not medicine.

            I repeat, if homeopathy worked it would be universally adopted. The evidence is that it doesn’t work. Repeating the same old nonsense ad nauseum makes you sound like a fruit cake.

          • sabelmouse

            what happens to the many doctors who kill their patients or to the parents who blindly trust them?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            It varies, I should think. Why are you asking me? If you want to make a point that is in some way relevant to the topic under discussion, just make it. If you can.

          • sabelmouse

            you brought up patients being killed.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            And your point is?

          • Homeopathic medicine is based on the Principle of Similars and a non-toxic system of experimental science of therapeutics. It was discovered by German physician Dr. Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (Date of Birth is 10th April) who received his M.D. with honors in orthodox medicine (now called as conventional medicine) from University of Erlangen. https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            I know all that crap, Nancy. There is no such thing as “the Principle of Similars” outside the imagination of homeoquacks and no logical reason why substances that produce symptoms should cure such symptoms and no good evidence any one of them does.

            But thanks for telling me Hahnemann’s birthday – are you sure it’s not 1st April? And you missed the year: 1755. In a nutshell, he was born at a time when “orthodox medicine” was about as useful as witchcraft – which is exactly how useful homeopathy is today.

          • Flemming Mathisen

            Wichcraft can be very powerful.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Please describe a cult and then make a substantiated case as to how and where Homeopathic medicine fits the description. Otherwise your claim is null and void.

          • “a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices.”

            If you don’t think that’s exactly a description of homeopathy practitioners, then I can’t help you further.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Thank you for admitting you know nothing about Homeopathy. Your failure to make a substantiated case means one cannot be made.

            Homeopathy is not a group anymore than Allopathy is a group. Both are medical modalities.

            And there is nothing socially deviant about it. Homeopathy like any medical modality seeks to heal.

            Neither are the beliefs within Homeopathic medicine novel except to materialist reductionist science – for the moment anyway.

            Homeopathic medical practices would be understood by any medical practitioner seeking to heal even if they did not relate to the theories behind it.

            At the end of the day it is all about healing and it is all medicine and there is nothing cultish about it.

          • The claim that homeopathy is a medical modality is pure nonsense, coming only from the cultish belief system that is homeopathy. It is a placebo.

            Everything else you say follows from your initial nonsensical claim, therefore everything else you say is similarly nonsense

          • Roslyn Ross

            Homeopathy is a medical modality. If Homeopathy is a cult then Allopathy is a cult.

            In reality, neither are cults nor social groups.

            Homeopathy like Allopathy seeks to heal and if you find that to be socially deviant then I suspect you are alone in your view.

            Novel beliefs and practices are only in the mind of materialist reductionist science and the medicine it produces but science will evolve and advance and that will change.

            Homeopathy, for anyone who does some research and you should try it, is a brilliant, advanced and inspired medical modality which is far, far ahead of its time even now, and which heals and does no harm, something conventional or Allopathic medicine cannot claim as it hits number three killer in the US and fourth or fifth in most other developed nations, not to mention the millions it hospitalises every year.

          • Homeopathy is not a medical modality. It is a placebo.

            Everything else you say follows from your initial nonsensical claim, therefore everything else you say is similarly nonsense

          • Roslyn Ross

            Homeopathy is a medical modality. If it were pure placebo it would not be practised as medicine by MD’s and in hospitals around the world nor taught in some medical schools and universities and it would never, ever, ever be included by any Government in State medical systems – not the use of the word medical – and it is.

            Ergo, you are wrong and there is no wriggling out of the reality that it is accepted and practised as a medical modality in many parts of the world, including First World Europe.

          • Ergo, ergo, ergo…!

            Repeat assertion does not make something more true. So why do you keep repeating this ?

          • rosross

            Ergo, is simply a shorter way of saying, therefore.

          • And it really didn’t occur to you that I know what ‘ergo’ means? Or just another deflection?

          • Argumentum ad populum. ie you’re still talking nonsense

          • I once heard religion described as a cult where the leaders had died before telling anyone about the con. So, really, Homeopathy is a religion.

      • SteveGJ

        We would be, if homeopathy had any of the disciplines and hallmarks of a science. For that it needs credible theories of causation, predictions based on those theories, sound, repeatable experiments. It needs robust, peer reviewed studies by independent and respected scientists in related fields. It also has to be prepared to see hypothesis disproved by experimentatal evidence. Frankly it fails on all those requirements. It’s a cult pseudo-science that is wildly incompatible with major scientific disciplines in reoated areas, like biochemistry, physics sn chemistry. It makes wild, and unsubstiated claims for properties like the memory of water for which there is no credible, repeatable evidence and is in direct conflict with known physics (which does have empirical evidence). It rejects contrary evidence whilst cherry-picking annecdotes. The homeopathic “proving” process is a joke, and bears no resemblence to a robust pharaceutical trial.

        Homeopathy is not a science. It’s theories and trials have been stdied independently, and the vast majority of qualified scientists in related areas simply find them unproven. It can’t be said strongly enough, if homeopathy is a scientific theory, it long ago failed. It is a cult, not a science.

        Disclosure. My degree is in physics, and I know a credible, robust experimental syetem and functional mechanism when I see one. Homeopathy does not fall in that group at all.

        • Tarek

          Allow me to clarify my remarks. I’m not talking about homeopathy when I talk about science. I’m talking about debunking or accepting it based on the scientific method. As a physicist you evidently haven’t met enough medics; I say this not to denigrate you but to point out that the purity of research you are exposed / used to does not exist in medicine.

          When it suits them, medics will change practise based on a single study. When it doesn’t, they will demand reams and reams of data before requesting more and delaying practise change if it doesn’t suit the prevailing orthodoxy. The influence of Big Pharma is another subject all together.

          Too many argue about the stats of a paper without themselves having had rigorous in depth training in the field of statistics. As a Gynaecologist I can easily critique a paper published by a group of cardiothoracic surgeons, but I would never claim expertise in that field and neither would I attempt to decide if their paper was clinically useful as simply I lack the knowledge and training in the area concerned.

          Sadly, this courtesy of requiring the investigators to actually have depth training and knowledge of a field mysteriously disappears when it comes to the investigation of homoeopathy and it is this hypocrisy I have major issues with. As a clinician, you cannot arrogantly start investigating fields outside your expertise unless you are doing so as part of a multidisciplinary team involving specialists in the field being looked at.

          Many homeopaths allege obstruction when it comes to their desire to subject their treatments to RCT’s etc; call their bluff. It is that simple. Unless of course mainstream medicine is afraid there might be something in it after all.

          • What is it that obstructing homeopaths from testing whatever they like (other than ethics committees, of course)?

            But how can ‘mainstream medicine’ be afraid of anything? If you are invoking a ‘Big Pharma’ conspiracy, please just say so and we can discuss that.

          • Tarek

            Ask the Homeopaths

          • LOL! But what about what you said about ‘mainstream medicine’ being afraid?

          • Tarek

            Unless you’re a doctor yourself, you won’t appreciate the politics and reality of modern medicine, any more than I could appreciate the same about a field I hadn’t worked in.

          • So, if your hypothesis is correct, does that include homeopaths? But perhaps you can say why you think an appreciation of the ‘politics and reality of modern medicine’ in necessary to discuss the lack of any good evidence for specific effects of homeopathy?

          • Tarek

            Understand the sum to understand the parts

          • And how would any of that change the evidence for homeopathy?

          • Roger Rahmjet

            Are you claiming to be an MD or (US) DO?

          • SteveGJ

            See my other comments and you’ll see I’m fully aware that some physicians, and often very senior ones are full of pet theories and pursue them with dogged determination. My experience of medical doctors are the many are not great scientists, despite their educational background. In many ways they have a vastly more difficult job on that margin between dealing with people in distress and pain and what medicine may, or may not be able to do for them. But the point is modern, evidenced based scientific medicine at least provides some check on that, even if researchers are often loathe to accept how uncertain their results might be. Any scientific subject which has humans at its heart is subject to massive complexity and the potential for confounding factors.

            As such, medical science is incredibly complicated and always results are provisional, and subject to uncertainty. (I have a particular natural scepticism for purely epidimeological studies).

            I Will freely admit that physics is the simplest and easiest of sciences in the sense it’s the least complex and subject to the fewest uncontrolled variables. Yet even there, much is yet unknown or even contradictory. Medical science is so much more complex again. But homeopathy doesn’t come close to being a scientific discipline in the way it is conducted or evidenced. Forminstance, where are the clinical trials such as we get with pharamceuticals? Try and find a homeopath who accepts the very principle on which its based might be fundamentally wrong? There is not a single physics theory which I would think inviolable in that sense. At any point something could disprove (say) the general theory of relativity, butnI doubt you’ll get that reaction from an ardent homeopoath.

          • Tarek

            Then we are in agreement.

          • Andy Lewis

            Except homeopathy makes claims about the physical world even before any clinical matters are considered.

          • Karyse Day

            India leads the world in Homeopathic research and practice. Perhaps the research you suggested might soon come to fruition as per article below. What a pity the UK lags so far behind as India and the US takes the lead.

            India, US partner research on traditional medicines to
            fight cancer news
            http://www.domain-b.com/index.htm
            4th March 2016

            India and the United States will undertake collaborative research on traditional medicines
            to fight cancer, which could pave way for potential breakthroughs. The
            decision was taken at the first meeting of the first US-India Workshop on
            Traditional Medicine (March 3-4) in New Delhi.
            Such collaborate research and development of traditional medicines for preventive
            and palliative cancer care, is move aimed at bringing in more global
            acceptability and credibility for AYUSH medicines.
            The collaboration between the two countries is also expected to open a huge
            market for AYUSH practitioners globally.
            “Globalisation of AYUSH is one of the major policy thrusts of our government. The constructive collaboration between India and US in this field is important for incorporating more scientific inputs from both sides in traditional medicines which can help
            mainstreaming of AYUSH systems in patient health care across the globe,”
            AYUSH minister Shripad Yesso Naik said.
            As part of the partnership, researchers from India and the US will start
            discussions to review and cooperate on methods to reduce morbidity due to
            cancer using AYUSH interventions.
            Representatives from the US department of health and human services, Office of Global
            Affairs, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)
            and US academic institutions will interact with their counterparts from the ministry of ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homoeopathy (AYUSH) and Indian research institutes and universities during and after the workshop. India has already partnered the World Health Organisation (WHO) to spread use of alternative medicines, including ayurveda and homoeopathy.
            “This is a great opportunity to bring to the table from the US side NCI and NIH
            expertise in laboratory and clinical evaluation of traditional medicine and
            from the Indian side an impressive commitment to building the evidence base
            for traditional Indian medicine,” said Edward Trimble, director of the
            US National Cancer Institute’s Center for Global Health.
            ”The workshop supports the important deliverable from the President Obama-Prime
            Minister Modi joint statement and US-India health dialogue, where both India and the US agreed to explore further potential areas of mutual collaboration on Indian traditional
            medicine,” said Richard Verma, US ambassador to India.
            ”This meeting demonstrates the commitment of HHS to support bilateral cooperation
            on cancer and traditional medicine research, with science at the
            cornerstone,” said Ambassador Jimmy Kolker, assistant secretary of global
            affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
            ”This is a great opportunity to bring to the table from the US side NCI and NIH expertise in laboratory and clinical evaluation of traditional medicine and from the Indian side an impressive commitment to building the evidence base for traditional Indian medicine,”
            said Dr.Edward Trimble, Director of the U.S. NCI’s Center for Global Health.
            Secretary AYUSH, Ajit Mohan Sharan, said the international cooperation division in the
            ministry will work proactively to forge collaborations so that large sections
            of people can benefit from AYUSH systems.
            The US delegation also visited several Indian institutes – Benares Hindu University, Jamia Hamdard University, All India Institute of Ayurveda and Medanta – The Medicity, to learn first-hand how traditional and modern medicine co-exist for patient-care.
            Nearly 175 participants, including experts related to both traditional systems and
            modern medicine, biologists, and researchers from India and the US are taking
            part in the two-day workshop.
            These discussions will be strengthened at the next US-India health dialogue this
            year in India.

          • 1973: Govt.of India officially recognises homeopathy and anchored in National Health Policy as a result of Homoeopathy Central Council Act.
            1975: Govt of India establishes Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory
            1978: Govt of India establishes Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy

          • Karyse Day

            Thank you, Dr Mallik, for providing the additional information.
            I wonder if all the debunkers of Homeopathy will now attempt to convince the general public that the US department of Health
            and Human services, Office of Global Affairs, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) and US academic institutions, as well as the World Health Organisation (WHO) which
            has previously committed to spread the use of alternative medicines, including ayurveda and homoeopathy, as well as the additional 175 participants, including experts related to both traditional systems and modern medicine, biologists, and researchers from India and the US, have all been conned and perhaps joined a religious cult?

            Perhaps not, but for the sake of patients everywhere, I hope that this collaboration will provide the called for evidence to settle the case for Homeopathy and put to an end to the relentless tirade that exists against those who choose to use it.

          • Hm, and what should we make of all those nations with a state religion?

            Your bias is clear, as you assume by default that the ‘called for evidence’ will settle the case in homeopathy’s favour. (In disregard of the fact that, to date, it has not.) But to be clear… if you are arguing that the ‘case for Homeopathy’ has not been settled, then why are all these organisations committed to spreading its use?

            Do you see the flaw in your logic?

          • kfunk937

            Jeebus, they’ve had about 230+ years. You’d think they’d have come up with something by now. Or alternatively, might’ve abandoned things that were found to be not efficacious. But no. It’s captured in amber, never moving on.

          • Karyse, you need not worry. This is neither for the first time nor the last time the tirade against Homeopathy. Skeptopaths/bullies/astroturfists will keep on attacking Homeopathy and Homeopaths/patients/supporters of Homeopathy will keep defending it. The important thing is we all need to have patience and determination so that we can counter their arguments with reason and evidence. Together we can. Together we will. Looking forward to see you on twitter on Hahnemann’s Birthday on 10th of April.

          • ‘Skeptopaths/bullies/astroturfists’, you say? Any ‘tirade’ against homeopathy is (as much) to do with the way it is dishonestly promoted; how its products are marketed; its claiming of miracle cures to seriously ill and vulnerable people. In short, it is motivated by the activities of liars and frauds…

            … and you arrive, clearly oblivious to the progressions and regressions of this thread, in order to fleck your irrelevant, self-promoting guano.

            ‘… counter their arguments with reason and evidence.’

            Get on with it, then!

          • Karyse Day

            Fortunately Nancy I was blessed to discover the awesome power of Homeopathy in my late twenties so have been particularly grateful to have been spared the horrors of allopathic medicine for decades as have my children, family and friend and business associates.
            The same old drivel and comments appear in article after article, each claiming to “know”
            what they are talking about. All experts, but no personal experience. All feeling far too superior, far too knowledgeable to step back and ask the obvious question – How is it possible for “NOTHING” to have this dramatic effect on the bodies of so many people world wide? Which of course is the question Tarek was indirectly asking but not
            bothering to check out the latest research on water and the amazing newly researched
            properties which have been identified and then having the ability to put two and two together.
            Isaac Newton said “What we do know is a drop, what we don’t know is an ocean”.
            It is particularly apt/amusing when we consider the part played by water and succession in producing Homeopathic remedies.

            Of course, humble pie is particularly hard to swallow. It’s a shame really for anyone who blindly believes what they read in the UK media and I do have every sympathy for the Skeptopaths/bullies/astroturfists as you call them. So again I agree with you Patience is needed but a fair dose of Compassion and Sympathy as well. I too would be very annoyed if I had been so deceived on such a grand scale for such a long time.

            For those who might like to update their knowledge I would suggest watching the following:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59iuelCL0MQ&autoplay=1 and also

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU

          • ‘All feeling far too superior, far too knowledgeable to step back and ask the obvious question – How is it possible for “NOTHING” to have this dramatic effect on the bodies of so many people world wide?’

            Except it isn’t. The obvious question is: ‘Does “NOTHING” have any dramatic effect on the bodies of so many people… ?’

            Your version is predicated on the belief that it does; the more pertinent version will not accept that belief without evidence – which your unimportant and unverifiable ‘personal experience’ and proffered youtube videos do not constitute. Your anti-medical science bias is obvious, as is your subscribing to the ridiculous homeopathy ritual of ‘succession’ [sic].

            ‘I too would be very annoyed if I had been so deceived on such a grand scale for such a long time.’

            I do have every sympathy for you. It must be hard to let go.

          • rosross

            Those who oppose Homeopathy come from a place of high ignorance and worse prejudice and irrationality on the topic. All of which makes it impossible to have a rational, reasoned, intelligent, substantiated conversation.

            However, those with closed minds will never be reasoned with and information is posted for those of open and curious mind to make of it what they will.

            Those who find Homeopathy and in the doing, find cure and better health, would be foolish to reject it purely on the basis that science cannot yet explain how it works, which is the foundation of the opposer’s case.

            No doubt many people fear embracing things without permission from Science but most do not and are perfectly capable of making up their own minds after doing research and exploring an issue.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Have you ever studied Homeopathy? I mean applied the rigorous research objective approach which science claims to use?

          Have you read any of the thousands of books written over many lifetimes, frequently by people also qualified as MD’s, talked to any practising Homeopathic doctors today, given your background, preferably one also qualified as an MD – they all are in France so you could start there?

          And how about consulting a Homeopathic doctor so you have some understanding of process, methodology and practice?

          You see, Homeopathy for anyone who actually does the research is credible, robust, experimental, functional and in fact remains empirical in ways Allopathic medicine does not.

          Homeopathic medicine is science in the purest sense and also art, as science at its best is also art.

          Let’s hear how you formed your opinions of Homeopathy so we can get some insight into just how much you might actually know and whether your conclusions are based on solid, rigorous, objective, analytical, detailed research, or just the froth and bubble skimmed off the sea of prejudice, ignorance, arrogance and Wikipedia approach to the world.

          • Peer reviewed and Statistically Significant human studies on homeopathy upto the end of year 2010
            1. 297 studies published in 112 journals including 11 meta-analysis and 71 DBRPCT.
            2. 8 out of approx 20 systematic reviews are in favour of homeopathy i.e. 40%
            3. 82 RCT (71 DBRPCT + 1 SBRPCT + 5 DBRCT + 1 RPCT +4 RCT) out of approx 225 RCT are in evidence of homeopathy i.e. 36.45%

      • NotThatGreg

        Belief has *everything* to do with it. It’s not “science” until the day that homeopaths decide they are actually interested in knowing whether it works, instead of just believing that it does. You will be able to tell when this happens, because they will start doing the things that people with intellectual integrity do, when they are genuinely interested in finding out the truth, and not just reinforcing their desired (and income-generating) beliefs.
        But I wouldn’t hold your breath. Any robust belief system has evolved powerful mechanisms to protect itself from the risk of its followers seeing the actual reality of the situation, and homeopathy is certainly no exception.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Funny then how Homeopathy is equally effective on those who are convinced it cannot work as it is on those who are convinced it can, and everyone in between.

          • NotThatGreg

            “Please proceed, Governor….”

    • Tarek

      I find it interesting how you feel that you as an individual can speak on behalf of an entire industry.

      Furthermore what a piteous little definition of “faith”; change the word ” homeopathy” to ” medicine ” or ” nutrition” and it could be applied to either field as the debacle re: the rejection by the medical profession of the discovery that h.pylori causes gastric ulcers or even the demonisation of saturated fat based on nothing more than the wilful misrepresentation of data by a towering egotist.

      The discussion is only pointless when it comes to the arrogant and those insistent on non-engagement with those who wish to believe differently, preferring instead the immature, delinquently invidious approach so beloved of those unable to argue rationally in the face of resistance.

      The idea of dilution sounds I agree, ridiculous. However, were one to approach homeopathy from perhaps the angle of quantum mechanics, a field I would bet money on that most strident critics of it haven’t heard of or perhaps negate to understand, such is their ignorance of science in general, perhaps those truly in search of knowledge instead of being desperate to compartmentalise everything into easily labelled boxes so beloved of the unsophisticated would realise that perhaps a more profound explanation was at work, or as might be the case, the only explanation is the word: bollocks.

      Had you read the article carefully instead of being so desperate to enunciate your views on the issue you would have noted I was not attempting to defend it. Of course homeopathy can be harmful and the example you give is a valid one. Having said that, so can orthodox medicine; iatrogenic medical harm occurs in hundreds of thousands of patients in hospital on a yearly basis so perhaps one should be careful levying particular criticisms.

      • The H. pylori controversy was a medical science one… and medical science resolved it. The homeopathy (non-)controversy is not a medical science one; it is a media-propagated ‘teach-the-controversy’ trap – which you’ve fell for.
        Tell me, who is ‘arrogant’ here? Not those making the outlandish claims? Who is insistent on non-engagement? Not those who stick to their misinformative mantra in the face of correction and rejection?
        And tell us… if you are so healthily clued up on quantum mechanics, why we should approach homeopathy from such an angle? Be careful, as it seems you are veering towards ‘energy medicine’.

        • Tarek

          Quantum mechanics is the best example of how scientific hubris can be very quickly dissipated by the discovery of something unexpected. Furthermore it explain what happens at the atomic / subatomic level which would be the most definitive way of debunking homeopathy as only a fool would argue with it.

          Out of interest, what is ” energy medicine?”

          • “Out of interest, what is ” energy medicine?””

            Bollocks.

          • Is it? But again, it was a scientific discovery. And why would ‘what happens at the atomic / subatomic level… be the most definitive way of debunking homeopathy’ ? Unless it can be shown to definitively work clinically (which it hasn’t), anything else is irrelevant, surely? Invoking it as a mechanistic explanation without any basis for so doing is pseudoscientific obfuscation.

            ‘Energy medicine’? (Shrug) Ask the occasional homeopathy propagandist who claims esoteric knowledge on it. You know, the ones with the New Age tendency towards words like ‘vibration’, ‘resonance’, etc.

          • Tarek

            I don’t move in such exalted circles, thankfully.

          • :o) Be patient – they occasionally pop up at threads like this.

          • Andy Lewis

            Tarek – what quantum mechanical investigation are you proposing that would somehow definitively ‘debunk’ homeopathy?

      • Please tell us about this ‘angle of quantum mechanics’ in relation to homeopathy.

        • Tarek

          I’m afraid I can;t be bothered, especially given that I don’t advocate for homeopathy

          • So did you just repeat something a homeopath wrote? There’s an endless number of ‘explanation’ for the mechanism of action for homeopathy; the problem is, though, there is nothing to explain that hasn’t already been explained. Invoking quantum mechanics is… well, here’s what Prof Jim Al-Khalili said:

            “Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you’d better take a proper course in QM”

          • toots

            Al-Khalili is an authority of QM in living things, of course.

            In terms of basic science lets’ trash this stupidity of QM magically leaving some leeway for homeopathy. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of QM will know that Planck’s constant is fundamental to it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of chemistry will know that Avogadro’s constant is fundamental to it. These two constants have a fundamental reciprocal relationship.

            Homeopathy flies in the face of QM – because it flies in the face of Avogadro’s constant!

          • Tarek

            Completely agree with the logic. I never said, claimed or suggested that QM would validate homeopathy; I merely suggest it as the best way to investigate it comprehensively and irrefutably.

          • toots

            QM underlies basic chemistry. How can QM shed light on homeopathy? The mathematical rules of QM can mean nothing more than that homeopathy must be a placebo. Water plus sugar from a QM point of view = placebo. Basic chemistry and consequently the underlying mathematical rules say so.

          • Tarek

            You just answered your own question

          • Tarek

            Let ME make this clear: I advocate investigating the phenomena in order to irrefutably deny its veracity. Quoting someone else in my experience is usually the last refuge of those lacking in original thought, and I personally don’t care to debate with those individuals. Look up Quantum Mechanics; evidently someone doesn’t appreciate how profound it is.

          • I hope you are able to see your fallacious argument?

            However, you said:

            ” I advocate investigating the phenomena in order to irrefutably deny its veracity. ”

            And, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, homeopathy has been investigated and, considering all the best trials, it is found there is no compelling evidence that it has specific effects over placebo.

          • toots

            There are many trials which contradict what science says about homeopathy. There are many trials which do not. Some of the trials from both sets will be chance results – statistically this is inevitable. The trials most likely not to give erroneous results, rather than chance results, will be those with the best methodology. This is exactly what we find. The best quality trials generally are in agreement with science. Sadly there are a horrendous number of horrendous quality trials. Truly awful waste of time trials.

            Science could always be wrong, of course. But it would be such a massive error as would require a rewriting of everything we know about physics. The odds of this are astronomic.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            You suggested approaching homeopathy “from perhaps the angle of quantum mechanics”. In the same sentence, you also generally insulted its “most strident critics” claiming they were ignorant of science in general. Now, because Alan has exposed the ignorance in your suggestion by quoting a strident critic of homeopathy whose appreciation of the profundity of QM and knowledge of sciencce is, if I may say so, likely to be greater than yours, you spit the dummy, pick up your ball and flounce off with it. Nice one, Tarek.

          • Andy Lewis

            Tarek – you are seriously not one of those fools that thinks because it is profound that it has something to do with your pet mystery?

      • SteveGJ

        The difference is that properly carried out evidence-based medicine will change theories and practices as new information comes to light. It was, indeed true, that some of the earlier epidimeological studies which did blame things like animal fats in the diets as causes of heart disease were often little more than reflecting the analysis of one individual. It is also true that medical orthodoxy can get frozen into some sort of unquestioned truth (such was the case with the accepted cause of gastric ulcers). However, science and evidence catches up with them as we understand more about underlying mechanisms, confounding factors and the like. In short, as we get better at the practice of evidence-based medicine. This is very important as doctors are far from immune from obsessing about a particular cause. Senior doctors aren’t particularly known for being humble in such opinions. But proper mediczl research does, gradually get us closer to what works. It is also, incidentally, revealed the enormous complexity of the human body, and that things are rarely simple.

        • Tarek

          Precisely why I say it is time to live up to those ideals and get rid of this controversy once and for all

          • Then you should be advocating for getting rid of free speech. There is no controversy within the scientific community. It’s only the homeopathy supporters and anti-science crowd that don’t understand how science works making noises that seem like a controversy. The only way that you could stop them would be to remove their freedom to speak their mind.

            How would you propose doing that?

          • Tarek

            I wouldn’t

          • SteveGJ

            But it won’t get rid of the controversy. Like creationism it will live on. The science has really all been done on this and it would require the homeopathic community tomcome up with some very strong evidence to change the scientific consensus on this subject. It would, among other things, mean that the whole basis of chemistry and the quantum mechanics to be fundamentally revised. This is not just a matter of medicine, but a whole causal chain model would be upended. The idea that some sort of memory of persistence could be carried through has so many implications for things like thermodynamics too it would be probably be the biggest scientific revolution ever. Far, far more revolutinary than even what Einstein did Max Planck started.

            So, really, there isn’t any form of scientific controversy going on over this matter. It’s a societal controversy, closest to that of creationists. No amount of evidence is going to get rid of it.

          • Tarek

            Little different to creationism surely . Their advantage is that we can’t ” test for God”. We can however test their ideas provided we give them the chance to express them in a way they agree is accurate. THEN we get the chance to put this to bed once and for all

          • But it’s NOT difference from creationism. That’s the point you have utterly failed to grasp: homeopathy is a religious belief, not a scientific reality.

          • Tarek

            Homeopathy is a religious belief? Dear Lord, what absolute nonsense. Last time I checked, a religion required deities, a code etc and not a simple belief in dilution.

          • Nonsense? Why? It certainly subscribes to the miraculous. Then try cult. For deity, try Hahnemann; you’ll find he is revered in some homeopathy circles (somewhat reminiscent of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard).

          • NotThatGreg

            It even has an origin story, about Hahnemann and the cinchona. Of course, we have no reason to think that did not happen. The question is what followed from it. (a) Cinchona was and is an efficacious treatment for malaria, while homeopathy never has been anything of the sort — only blind faith can ignore that little problem; and (b) the symptoms Hahnemann reported on ingesting cinchona are very atypical, it is reasonable to infer he had something like an allergic reaction. So similia is actually based on a bad observation; homeopaths choose to ignore this and refuse to even contemplate the issue of the validity of ‘similia’, thus making it clear (to anyone not thus blinded) that ‘similia’ is not a principle but an article of faith.

          • You appear to be ignorant about religion as well.

            EVERYTHING you say is wrong at this stage.

          • SteveGJ

            We can’t disprove god of course. However, these are creationists who do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and that eminently testable. It did, for insfance predict there would be a biochemical mechanism for inheritance and mutations. That this mechanism would connect all living things through an evolutionary “tree”, and that more closely related organisms are, the more common the biochemistry. This has, of course, been found through cellular biology and the discography of inheritance mechanisms. We can estimafe how long ago species diverged. We can also look at the fossil record. If we found a fossilised rabbit unambiguously in the same geological context as a dinosaur we know we’d have serious problems with the theory.

            None of the evidence we have is compatible with the ” young Earth” creationists idea of a 7,000 year old Earth. Further, there is no credible evidence of many Old Testament stories. The is no evidence for the Exodus for instance with what is meant to be a couple of million people trekking over the desert. There is no credible evidence Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt, and certainly not in those numbers.

            Of course it is possible to postulate the idea that God created a world complete with fossils and (apparently) ancient geology, but such an idea doesn’t appear in creation myths, nor does it make much sense. Why would a deity do that? To test our faith?

            Of course the sensible creationists back completely away from this literal reading and postulate that the universe was created by a deity and set its direction such that we might appear, but that ultra-metaphorical interpretation is not testable, nor is it creationism in the sense of the controversy over evolution.

            What science can do is notndisprove god, for that is impossible, but it can make a deity unnecessary as an explanation.

            Nb. There are two fundamental natural philosophy questions which do need answering and one is the “fine tuning” quandary over why the physical constants and rules are so precisely right for our existence and, even more fundamentally, why should anything exist at all? Deep questions, and I have my most satisfactory explqnation, but it might be truly unknowable. However, I find it more intellectually consistent than what looks like an arbitrary group of different, and often contradictory ideas that show all the characteristics of being human made and where the literal readings contradict physical evidence.

          • Even assuming there was a controversy, and if homeopaths did fund the robust trials to substantiate the claims they make, and that proved to negative, what do you believe would change?

          • Tarek

            I deal in facts, not belief.

          • And the facts about homeopathy are?

          • Tarek

            You tell me; apparently I’m the one not knowing what i’m talking about

          • Indeed.

          • Tarek

            I never said homeopaths would fund their own research

          • Tarek said:

            “I never said homeopaths would fund their own research”

            I never said you did.

            But if more research was needed, do you agree homeopaths (and manufacturers of homeopathy products) should be the ones to fund it? And I’ll ask again: if that research proved negative, what do you think would change?

    • Flemming Mathisen

      Could it be that science, which obviously is your religion, do not have the right “tools” yet to explain the homeopathic effect?

      • SteveGJ

        Science is manifestly not a religion. Technically it is an organised and systematic method of achieving knowledge through a combination of evidence and generating theories. To be fully scientific theories, they have to be testable and repeatable without “cherry-picking” of results which just happen to support a theory. Science is closely related to the philosophical idea of empiricism which essentially says the only source of any knowledge of which we can be reasonably certain is through evidence from the real world.

        As such, science does not qualify as a religion because science does not contain any axiomatic statements which cannot be disproved (unlike religions which do make untestable statements of truth). Science stands be testability and evidence, not unquestioning faith. Much has been written on the philosophy of science as it had been refined and matured since the ancient Greeks. In essence, the credibility of science is based on its ability to produce working and testable theories. Religion has no such requirement.

        The issue with homeopathy is not that it doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory in principle. It does, The problem is with the adherents and practitioners who refuse to acknowledge failures of that theory, have produced no credible mechanism of causation, the nearest being the “memory of water” claim which is wholly incompatible with the (highly successful) laws of physics. That’s without even considering any biochemical explanation for action in the body. If, in contrast, we take a nominally similar system, vaccination, there is a very credible and studied mechanism of action. Namely the stimulation of the body’s natural immune system to attack infectious agents. We are even in the position for some diseases to engineer vaccines so that the immune system can “recognise” certain known chemical “markers” on an infectious agent. This is a very deep level of understanding and causation which fits into a consistent model of how the body works. Homeopathy has no such biochemical model, just something that is not much more than a statement of faith that an (incredibly dilute) substance causing a similar set of symptoms will repair the body. Utterly no biochemistry in that at all given the stated causative agent.

        If people want to pursue homeopathy, then fine. But it’s not a science, and where it is used as a substitute for medical treatments then it is most certainly not. The nice middle-class lady I came across in Ethiopia promoting homeopathy for Aids patients no doubt intended to do good, but if what had happened was that those patients had forgone the anti-viral treatments that modern medicine has now produced, then it would have been disastrous for them. Imperfect as it might be, modern medicine has produced effective treatments for Aids, something homeopathy claims but has no real evidence for.

        • Flemming Mathisen

          The way you and many others, expresses yourself, it sounds as if science is an omniscient power. And it also sounds as if science has come to an end, there’s nothing more to discover?

          Homeopathy is not science in the sense, homeopaths are busy heal people. There is a great progressively research in homeopathy, but solely to find better techniques, or better knowledge of the different remedies. Homeopathy, I would say, is an art form.
          Funny that you mention homeopathy and Aids. Here you can see how this works
          https://youtu.be/us1DbMgbVAM

          • So, to be clear, you are abusing this platform to promote homeopathy as an effective treatment for HIV and TB? Is that it? Then you are a dangerous, exploitative individual.

          • Flemming Mathisen

            No it is you who is dangerous, who use this platform to speak negatively about a treatment that actually works. And you use it to proclaim for the pharmaceutical mafia.

          • You arrive here and berate science, and then – in posting a YouTube video – demonstrate you have no comprehension of it.

            Unless you can provide evidence that your precious actually works, then your assertion can be regarded as untrue and inadmissible. And do demonstrate where I ‘proclaim for the pharmaceutical mafia’, or consider what you have just done.

          • Flemming Mathisen

            I do not need scientific evidense. I am not blind, deaf and dumb, like some.

          • SteveGJ

            It’s absolutely idiotic to interpret what I write as “science is omniscient” or “science has come to an end”. There is not one single part of what I wrote that implies either. Indeed, scientific knowledge is always provisional. It is always open to

            I also have news for you. A YouTube video doesn’t count as scientific evidence. It’s a personal anecdote. For something to be robust evidence, it has to be repeatable under controlled conditions. In any event, she’s been taking anti-virals and anti-biotics for TB, bit of which take time to work.

            There are tens of millions of people with Aids that are alive this very day because a scientist identified the causative agent, because scientists have developed anti-viral drugs, because medical doctors trialled a whole series of treatment regimes under properly controlled conditions. I’ll repeat again, tens of millions of people. Claiming that this woman’s improvement is down to homeopathy when she’s also been taking conventional treatment is, to put it mildly, no evidence for its effectiveness at all.

            So I’m very pleased this lady looks well, but it’s down to the massive effort of teams of scientists and doctors. I would just like to know if you’d recommend Aids patients give up on their conventional medicine if you are so confident her recovery is down to homeopathy.

          • Flemming Mathisen

            As I previously stated, homeopathy is not science in the sense that you and others thinking about science. Homeoapthy is a healing method, which is used by tens of millions of people worldwide. There is research in homeopathy, but then as an attempt improvement,
            development and simplification and also probing of new remedies.

            If
            it is so extremely important for certain that everything, and I mean
            absolutely everything, must be approved by one or another science man /
            woman, or journals etc, I see this as a kind of religious expression. Without science approval stamp, it does not work. Or a kind of fanatical beliefs. Which is not something new, such a view has followed science over the years. Eg
            in hygiene, lots of newborns, and many mothers died as a result of
            this, ridicule and snide remarks, like the later fell on them. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, was the one who was ridiculed at the time.

            One day they will find out why and how homeopathy works, think of how many
            people could have received help for their poor health, and even saved
            lives, but such people like you took this opportunity away from them,
            with your foolish statements.

            What you think about this youtube movie, is completely irrelevant. What we see is a human being healed, not just one terrible disease, but two. Why should science put obstacle to the development of such a wonderful medicine, is a mystery. Well .. maybe not, it’s really about money and power, not to mention a good dose of selfishness.

    • The researchers and scientists all over the world are trying to figure out how ‘super-avogadro dilutions’ in homeopathy which contains extremely low concentration of active ingredients are able to stimulate biological activity (immunological and inflammatory reactivity) and pathways, and restore the homeostatic mechanism https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/how-homeopathy-works/

      • All over the world, you say. Golly! And they’re wasting their time and energy. As are you here.

    • Simon Sharp

      That wouldn’t be anecdotal evidence you were quoting at the end of all that would it? (makes cross sign to ward off vampires).

    • Faceboot

      Your words define you, but they cannot sustain any conversation of substance.

      Are you a robot?

  • Some additional information and corrections:

    The proportion of people in the UK using homeopathy is 15% and has not changed since 2007; the proportion who have used homeopathy in the past 12 months is 6%. [1]

    The proportion of those in GB who trust homeopathy has fallen from 15% in 2008 to 12% in 2013. [2,3]

    In terms of the NHS, prescriptions that were fulfilled in community pharmacies in England has plummeted 94% in the last 17 years. [4,5]

    The number of NHS ‘homeopathic hospitals’ is now just two (Glasgow and London: the ones in Tunbridge Wells, Liverpool and Bristol having closed in recent years), but these have both re-branded themselves as ‘integrative’ rather than than homeopathic. However, even the flagship Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine no longer has a dedicated homeopathy service [6] and most of the building is now used for other purposes, including three floors being being rented out to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children at a cost of over £600,000 per annum. [7]

    The funding for homeopathy from CCGs is falling [8] and many Health Boards in Scotland have also ceased funding homeopathy treatments for new patients. [9]

    Jeremy Hunt recanted his belief in homeopathy on Radio 5 Live in August 2013. [10]

    The most comprehensive review to date, conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, concluded:

    “Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. 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. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.” [11]

    If homeopaths want to conduct further studies, funded by themselves, then that’s up to them – the burden of proof lies with them to substantiate their claims, after all. It’s clear that they could easily find the funding if the will was there: even making some conservative estimates, say, 3,000 homeopaths in the UK with four customers a day, four days a week, 40 weeks of the year, charging £50 a time, a 1% (50p) levy per customer would net nearly £1 million each and every year to fund research. [12]

    However, homeopaths don’t seem very keen on raising money to do this: their track record to date is somewhat poor. [13]

    Alan Henness

    Director
    The Nightingale Collaboration
    Challenging misleading healthcare claims
    http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org

    __________

    1. Health and Homeopathy, Spring/Summer 2015, The British Homeopathic Association.

    2. Global TGI Barometer, January 2008 Issue 33: The lure of alternative medicine, Kantar Media.

    3. Falling trust in homeopathy, http://www.zenosblog.com/2014/08/falling-trust-in-homeopathy/.

    4. Health and Social Care Information Centre: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/.

    5. The (further) decline of homeopathy on the NHS, http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/172-the-further-decline-of-homeopathy-on-the-nhs.html.

    6. Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/ourservices/ourhospitals/rlhim/Pages/Home.aspx

    7. More needling, http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/166-more-needling.html

    8. NHS Homeopathy Spending, http://goodthinkingsociety.org/projects/nhs-homeopathy-legal-challenge/nhs-homeopathy-spending/

    9. NHS Lanarkshire to end referrals to Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/169-nhs-lanarkshire-to-end-referrals-to-glasgow-homeopathic-hospital.html

    10. http://www.dcscience.net/in-memoriam/the-diary-june-2013-may-2014/#060813.

    11. NHMRC Statement on Homeopathy and NHMRC Information Paper – Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions | National Health and Medical Research Council. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02.

    12. Paying the price of homeopathic research, http://www.zenosblog.com/2013/12/paying-the-price-of-homeopathic-research/#how-to-use-the-research-funding-calculator.

    13. For example, see: http://www.justgiving.com/HRIdata, http://www.justgiving.com/HRIIBS, http://www.justgiving.com/HRIphysreview, http://www.justgiving.com/HRIqcd, https://mydonate.bt.com/events/ibs/92910, https://www.justgiving.com/HRIADHD, https://www.justgiving.com/HRIdepression, https://www.justgiving.com/HRIphys-chem, https://www.justgiving.com/HRItheoryreview.

    • Sinceyouask

      Excellent contribution.
      Arguing with homeopathy evangelists is a waste of time; agreement cannot be found on their terms. We live in a free society, and if people want to delude themselves, then we have to live with that. But we should not be using NHS resources to support that delusion, even if high profile self important VIPs lend their support. The pressure to reduce and stop NHS funding for homeopathy is important, and must be seen as being motivated by the desire to apply scarce resource to help those with illnesses we can treat, not by a desire to punish those with whom we disagree.

    • David_Colquhoun

      Thanks Alan for that much needed information. One would have expected a contributor to Spectator Health to have done at least some minimal homework, In this case it seems that didn’t happen.

      • rosross

        Perhaps we should ask Alan why, since scientific research is so effective, that Allopathic medicine, most of it from prescribed medications, is now the third biggest killer in the US and rising and around fourth in most other developed countries.

        After all, if science/medicine gets to be the arbiter, surely we should expect it to have its own house in order first?????

        • Acleron

          One of the sales techniques of homeopaths is the denigration of real medicine. They never mention the number of lives saved by medicine or their own total inability to provide evidence that homeopathy does anything at all.

          So homeopathy which is completely ineffective does kill people. Jeremy Sherr convinces HIV positives to stop taking anti retrovirals, homeopaths recommend against anti-malarials and vaccination. They do harm, all over the world for no gain except of course to their own wallet.

        • Yet ‘allopathic’ medicine doesn’t appear in the top ten causes of death in the US – at number three or anywhere else…

          But please say, even if it were true, how that changes the lack of good evidence for specific effects of homeopathy?

        • Perhaps we should ask you why you persist with this deflection? The issue is the efficacy of homeopathy. Your dislike of medicine (not ‘allopathic’ – there is no such thing) is irrelevant here. This is crass ‘Either/Or’ logical fallacy.

        • Tetenterre

          Rosross, you claimed: ” …Allopathic medicine, most of it from prescribed medications, is now the third biggest killer in the US and rising and around fourth in most other developed countries.”

          Do you have a source for that ridiculous claim (apart from the altmed sources that parrot it)? I guess it just goes to show that if a lie is repeated sufficiently often, people will begin to believe it.

      • Tarek

        Fascinating how you all missed the point. Reminds me of extreme religious zealots so convinced by their own nonsense that they immediately construct a narrative conducive to their own position when challenged, regardless of the fact that the interlocutor was supporting their position

        • Missed the point? Reminds me of author of extremely out-of-date, misinformed and error-strewn, quackery-appeasing article.

          • Tarek

            read the first paragraph

          • I did. Then I read the rest of it. You don’t believe in homeopathy; but you are okay with belief in it? Is that it? Beliefs are not relevant here.

    • rosross

      The UK is not representative. In Europe the percentage is much higher – But then the Europeans are vastly more sensible on many counts.

      My understanding is that in France one cannot train as a Homeopathic doctor without first securing a degree in Allopathic medicine.

      It stretches the realms of common sense to believe that an MD would bother with more than two more years of intensive training to practise Homeopathy if it were pure placebo or not effective. But never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

      Quote: Homeopathy is particularly popular in France, where it is the leading alternative therapy. In 1982, 16 percent of the population used homeopathic medicine, rising to 29 percent in 1987, and to 36 percent in 1992 (8). In 2004, 62 percent of French mothers used homeopathic medicines in the previous 12 months (9). A survey of French pharmacists was conducted in 2004 and found that an astounding 94.5 percent reported advising pregnant women to use homeopathic medicines (10).

      Homeopathy is popular not only among the French public but also among the French medical community. As many as 70 percent of physicians are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective, at least 25,000 physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines for their patients. Homeopathy is taught in at least seven medical schools: Besancon, Bordeaux, Lille, Limoges, Marseille, Paris-Nord, and Poitiers, and there are numerous postgraduate training programs. Courses in homeopathy are taught in 21 of France’s 24 schools of pharmacy, and also taught in two dental schools, two veterinary medical schools, and three schools of midwivery.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-euro_b_402490.html

      • Nigel Tolley

        Do you really need an answer to that?
        Doctors do courses all the time. It’s called CPD – continuous professional development. So yes, if you want more points you do what course catches your eye. Hence courses in homeopathy.

        In unrelated news, you can do courses in sky diving whether or not you believe in gravity.

      • Ron Todd

        They would do two years training for the shed load of money that can be made out of idiots.

      • Yet the article is about the UK…

      • You cite Dana Ullman? A most unreliable witness.

  • Melvintrude

    Truce? F**k no! This quackery should be criminalised

  • OldGit

    I think we need to organise something like a 10,000 strong anti-homeopathy supporters to rally for this. We then half this number of supporters, half again, and again and again till we have something like 5 supporters left. Once we have a number like this then case against Homeopathy will be so strong, no one can deny the arguments anymore.

    • Andy O.

      You’re not nearly going far enough. To be a properly homeopathic rally, you’d need to dilute it until there was 0.00000001 of a supporter.

      • Nigel Tolley

        You’re both wrong. It’s 10x dilution each time. After 23x (“weak homeopathic dilution”) that’s 10^-18 of a low-powered supporter.

        To get him really strong, go to a 30x Because that would be er… 10^-25, (or 0.00000000000000000000000001 of a supporter) or even a 100x (take care not to overdose!) (I don’t have enough zeros)

        That alone should prove why homeopathy is totally made up. If it doesn’t, I suggest you pick up a book on the subject by a homeopathic “doctor” and read it. That should prove it far better than I can. Look for the hand-waving and total BS throughout.

        Also, I’ve yet to find a homoeopathy book that tells you how to make plain water – after a few billion years and umpteen passes through dinosaurs and the sewage systems of the world, how can I start anew to “imprint” essence of Deadly Nightshade?
        They *never* tell you.

        • Tarek

          Maybe the dilution is merely the precursor to opening a portal to another dimension wherein resides healing fairies who cross over and do the healing. Honestly you people have no imagination

          • kfunk937

            This is a Poe, right? It’s almost enough to encourage following you just for the entertainment value.

          • Nigel Tolley

            Can I go on a course about these fairies? I have copious funding available. Would a full year at a high day rate do you?

        • hedgemagnet

          But this dinosaur / effluent water probably hasn’t been been banged twenty times on a horsehair cushion between dilutions, so the magical properties won’t have been transferred.

          • Nigel Tolley

            Pretty sure most of it will have been through a horse that banged (to ensure the continuation of the species), does that count? How does it know it’s horse hair *in* a cushion, versus still on the horse?

            Enquiring minds, etc.

  • “Supporters all have their stories of miracles, of chronic diseases cured or relieved when allopathic medicine failed…” On that basis the NHS should start paying for people to visit Lourdes. FFS! What a dreadfully poorly thought out article.

    • Tarek

      Not as fatuous as the comment that no doubt was prepared and written without reading the rest of the article

      • Nigel Tolley

        And yet he quotes from it, disproving your idea before it was even formed.

        Perhaps he should’ve quoted just a fraction of a letter, then you’d have believed it?

        • Tarek

          Indeed; this is after all homeopathy we’re talking about. Should have been a “non-detectable in this sphere of existence” fraction of a fraction ad infinitum

      • Do you have a point to make, by any chance? Or have you diluted the content of your comment 400x? Try again. But leave some active ingredient so we have at least some idea of what the hell you are whingeing on about.

        • Tarek

          Read the article again , slowly.

          • Is that it? A silly, fatuous reply? FFS! Just the same old “read the article” bullshit. If you have a point make it. Otherwise just go away. I’m not wasting my time with idiots.

    • MC73

      I am sure I have read that faith healing has a slightly better success rate than homeopathy. Why discriminate between different brands of specious nonsense?

  • “Subject homeopathy to several, high-quality, randomised trials as this one, with the study design carried out by homeopaths” – Yes, absolutely. Right after we send the flat-earthers out to study how flat the earth is.

    The abject, unforgivable error in this idea is that “homeopathy is more than a placebo” is not a hypothesis which is still up for debate. The question has been answered as resolutely as the flat earth question. Homeopathy is a placebo, case closed, end of story, nothing more to be said.

    The only debate is whether placebo’s should be funded on the NHS, but that debate has already been had and the answer was no. So homeopathy shouldn’t be anywhere near the NHS.

    • rosross

      Nope. If Homeopathy had been absolutely proven as placebo then not one MD could use it without saying it was pure placebo and neither could it be used in hospitals without clear statements it was placebo. It is used by doctors, it is used in hospitals and it is not pure placebo or they would be engaging in fraudulent behaviour.

      Ditto for the teaching of it in medical schools and universities and incorporating it by Governments in State medical systems.

      • Your fallacies this time are: fallacy from personal incredulity, burden of proof and begging the question. And possibly ad populam and argument from false authority. Phew!

      • This is EXACTLY why the NHS needs to stop providing homeopathy. People like you seem to think it’s a popularity contest, not a well-decided question of fact.

        The existence of homeopathy on the NHS only serves as a vehicle to promote it, not to promote the well-being of patients

      • SteveGJ

        So you think that all MDs are always rational in their views? They can be mistaken to. The fact that a few believe this stuff is not proof at all. The vast majority don’t, although they sometimes find it convenient to pass on a patient whow really needs personal attention more than functional medication.

        In fact scientific medicine is really rather new. It really wasn’t until well into the 20th century before, with a few exceptions, properly evidenced scientific medicine came to dominate the field. Prior to this, all sorts of crackpot ideas were followed. A fewcof those practices have hung around, despite being discredited. Homeopathy is just one of them.

        Current health science including medical science, pharamaceuticals, vaccine, environmental health and improved nutrition work. At the start of the 20th century, half the population died from infectious diseases. Infant mortality was huge, and we were helpless in the face of many maladies. Homeopathy had been around for a very long time yet did nothing for major killers like TB. Now we have very low infant mortality and the highest life expectancy ever seen, and it is continuing to rise.

        • This should strike fear in the hearts of anyone who has an ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings: Homeopathy for Tuberculosis

          http://treatment.hpathy.com/homeo-medicine/homeopathy-tuberculosis/

          Then there’s the homeopaths who think it can treat cancer, HIV/AIDS and the latest craze: Homeopathic Medicines for Zika Virus Treatment and Prevention

          http://www.drhomeo.com/fever/homeopathic-medicines-for-zika-virus-treatment-and-prevention/

          • SteveGJ

            It would be an interesting exercise for anybody to try and get a randomised, double-blinded trial for a homeopathic treatment for TB past an ethics committee. I think even an animal trial would fail that one. Of course what happens in practice, is that people take the homeopathic “treatment” in parallel with a conventional course of antibiotics and then attribute the cure to the former.

          • Indeed. A common ploy by homeopaths is to claim efficacy in an A+B versus B trial design – these will always generate positive results (unless the treatment in question does actual harm).

            Then there was the recent trial where homeopaths claimed success when comparing homeopathy plus antibiotics vs antibiotics. UTRIs are, of course predominately viral…

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          All of this has been pointed out to rosross ad nauseum.

      • “You could argue that it might be in a patient’s interest to lie to them,
        and I think there is an interesting discussion to be had here… If, on the other hand you prescribe homeopathy pills, but you don’t
        know that they perform any better than placebo in trials, then you are
        not familiar with the trial literature, and you are therefore
        incompetent to prescribe them.”

        Ben Goldacre writing in 2007 http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

        Homeopathy is a placebo and some doctors are OK with giving patients placebos, while other doctors are incompetent, and I don’t doubt for a second that other doctors are indeed engaging in fraudulent behaviour

    • Tarek

      I do seek your forgiveness for acknowledging the opinions of patients; I will in future promise to treat them with the contempt they apparently deserve.

      • Your error is in thinking that telling someone they’re factually wrong is the same as treating them with contempt. This suggests you have some personal issues which need resolving and there’s nothing I can do about that.

        You also need to work out why you’ve fallen so easily for the lies and propaganda spewing from the homeopathy industry.

  • When was this article written? Has its author dredged it up from some dusty old file? Catch up, for goodness’ sake!

    ‘… the issue really has to be put to bed once and for all.’

    It has been put to bed! Hence, it’s propagandists rely on media-presented opportunities to present it as an unresolved, balanced, but illusory debate. Congratulations – I predict you’ll get loads of anecdote-laden traffic… including links to quack-claimed cures for all manner of serious disease. You and your irresponsible appeasement.

    • Tarek

      Millions of patients all over the world and several hundred thousand in the UK disagree. Do keep up with the facts, dear boy, or are these patients all deluded and clinically insane in your esteemed opinion?

      • Well done! You recycle the very fallacies – including putting straw man words into my mouth – favoured by homeopathy propagandists (as have arrived here). You produce an article like that, and patronisingly urge me to ‘keep up with the facts?

        • Indeed. Particularly when he’s been shown to be somewhat out of date with the facts.

        • Tarek

          Yes.

      • Let’s quote from the beginning of your article:

        “Opponents can be especially nasty, as I discovered when I mistakenly
        suggested we keep an open mind on the subject, and was rewarded with
        sustained online abuse.”

        As I’ve pointed out to you elsewhere, you seem to have a personal problem with criticism and this confirms it. It seems that any criticism is vitriol and telling someone they weren’t cured by homeopathy is calling them deluded and clinically insane.

        You don’t have to be insane to be wrong. Patients who think they’ve been helped by homeopathy are wrong, not necessarily insane. The reality is they got better on their own, or with the help of real treatment used in tandem with the homeopathy, but they just don’t realise it.

        And I am not abusing them and I am not abusing you by saying quite simply and plainly, that you are wrong. Factually, absolutely wrong.

        • Tarek

          I have no issue with criticism at all. I welcome it and embrace it. I do have an issue with vitriol however, but not as much of a problem as I do with keyboard warriors hiding behind anonymous handles who feel qualified to decide how someone else thinks.

          You say I am wrong. Prove it please, considering that I have not attempted to defend homeopathy in the least. Without resorting to invidiousness , though the temptation is proving almost overwhelming, I will refer you to the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article.

          • You say you don’t defend homeopathy, then proceed to quote all the homeopathy propaganda that there’s doubt over the evidence and that homeopathy has helped millions. This is the intellectual equivalent of saying “I’m not racist, but…” or writing an article saying flat-earthers might have a point and we should call a truce on the “debate”.

            The evidence that homeopathy is a placebo is overwhelming and easily located. Asking for evidence to prove that homeopathy is a placebo merely demonstrates that you are not qualified to write about the topic.

          • Tarek

            I refer to the collective experience of patients, who I will always advocate for even if I don’t always agree with their choices.

            I ask for higher-quality evidence than is available presently.

          • Would you advocate for flat-earthers?

            Do you advocate people who feed bleach to autistic children to “cure” them? There are patients whose collective experience is that this is successful.

            Do you advocate treating HIV with avocado? There are patients who say that works. And patients who say they don’t have HIV at all and it’s a government cover up.

            This is the level you are operating at when you advocate homeopathy. You are at the level of abject nonsense, conspiracy and potentially dangerous anti-science.

            The claim that the evidence isn’t good enough is a common one. The flat-earthers don’t think the evidence is good enough. Nor do the people who think vaccines cause autism. Nor do the young earth creationists.

            This is why homeopathy is a religion: it doesn’t matter how good the evidence is, they will dismiss it, as you have, in favour of their belief system.

            The evidence is high-quality and overhwleming, and you are factually wrong to suggest anything to the contrary.

          • Tarek

            Read. The. First. Paragraph.

          • Already. Explained. Why. Disclaimer. Doesn’t. Absolve. You. When. You. Then. Proceed. To. Promote. Homeopathy

          • Andy Lewis

            Do you ask for high quality evidence for the existance of unicorns or for flying carpets? Of course not, we can accept they are a imaginary creature based on that fact that unicorns are biologically implausible and flying carpets are an obvious fantasy . Why do you ask for high quality evidence for a physcially implausible treatment that is an obvious fantasy?

          • Tarek

            If you can’t prove I’m wrong in my assertions then repeating ” you’re wrong” ad nauseum doesn’t really achieve anything other than show me that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion

            . Please address my specific request and not the request that your wildest fantasies tell you I made. I don’t quote propaganda; I merely refer to the collective experience of patients who publicly state that they found benefit from it.

            If the opinions of patients are beneath contempt to you to the extent that you label them ” propaganda” then we have nothing more to discuss.

          • Nick_Tamair

            nauseam

          • Tarek

            I appreciate the correction, cheers

          • Nick_Tamair

            Very decent of you, Tarek.

          • The worst propaganda from the homeopathy industry you are promoting is the lie that there is insufficient evidence to confirm that homeopathy is a placebo. Only supporters of homeopathy promote such lies.

            If you can’t see that it is a fact that homeopathy is a placebo then there is nothing I can do to persuade you to the contrary. You are a flat-earther, you are a creationist, you are in denial of verifiable fact.

            Only once you accept the fact that homeopathy is a placebo can the issue of “patient choice” be addressed. Because it changes the nature of issue totally. It becomes the question: should placebos be offered on the NHS?

            This is an important question and one worthy of debate as opinions on this matter will change over time. But it is not the question you are asking and not the debate you want to have because you are ignorant of the facts behind the debate and resistant to admitting that ignorance.

          • PS I find it’s a common hallmark of people with no leg to stand on to find ridiculous reasons to reject criticism: hiding behind an anonymous handle? So what? You’re just making excuses because you’re being rightfully criticised for writing about things you clearly know nothing about.

          • So what’s your real name then? What credentials do you have?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            I think you misunderstood vaccinetruth’s comment, Guy?

          • You’ve missed that points that (a) Tarek was engaging in snide personal attacks rather than addressing the issues and (b) it doesn’t matter what my name is.

            I’m not a homeopathy researcher, but then neither is Tarek, the author of this article. Credentials are irrelevant in the face of evidence by people more qualified than either of us who have already demonstrated beyond question that homeopathy is a placebo. I am speaking for those researchers who aren’t here to speak for themselves.

            I’ve never been into space, but nobody would think to ask for my name or qualifications if I was reporting the fact that the earth was spherical(ish).

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            “I do have an issue with vitriol however, I do with keyboard warriors hiding behind anonymous handles who feel qualified to decide how someone else thinks.” Then I expect to see you calling out the homeopathy supporter on this thread who are doing exactly that.

        • Odd, that sounds much more like a description of anti-vaxers.

      • Deluded, yes. Usually it is the homeopaths who are doing the deluding.

    • Tarek

      If the issue had been put to bed, the NHS would no longer fund Homeopathy as a service for a start.

      • Ah, you’re sounding like Ros Ross. Are you advocating, or devilishly advocating? It has been put to bed, scientifically. And the NHS is catching up. If not, it bloody ought to be.

        • Tarek

          Read the first paragraph of the article

  • Just in case the comments are inundated with unverified and unverifiable anecdotes, it’s worth reading what the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council said about them:

    “It is not possible to tell whether a health treatment is effective or not simply by considering individuals’ experiences or healthcare practitioners’ beliefs. One reason personal testimonials are not reliable is that people may experience health benefits because they believe that a treatment is effective. This is known as the ‘placebo effect’. Another reason is that healthcare practitioners cannot always tell whether changes in a person’s health condition are due to the treatment or some other reason. For these reasons, medicines must be tested in a planned, structured scientific research project designed to prevent these kinds of experiences giving the false impression that a medicine is more or less effective than it really is.”

    https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf

    But this placebo effect isn’t the only reason why someone might believe they got better because they took a homeopathy potion. This article explains some other reasons: Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work

    http://www.csicop.org/SI/show/why_bogus_therapies_seem_to_work

    It indentifies the following well-understood possible and plausible explanations:

    The Illness-Disease Distinction

    Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

    Ten Errors and Biases

    The disease may have run its natural course

    Many diseases are cyclical

    Spontaneous remission

    The placebo effect

    Some allegedly cured symptoms are psychosomatic to begin with

    Symptomatic relief versus cure

    Many consumers of alternative therapies hedge their bets

    Misdiagnosis (by self or by a physician)

    Derivative benefits

    Psychological distortion of reality

    Before deciding that it was the magic sugar pills that caused the improvement, all these more plausible and understood explanations have to be examined and discounted with robust reasoning. Just in case the comments are inundated with unverified and unverifiable anecdotes, it’s worth reading what the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council said about them:

    “It is not possible to tell whether a health treatment is effective or not simply by considering individuals’ experiences or healthcare practitioners’ beliefs. One reason personal testimonials are not reliable is that people may experience health benefits because they believe that a treatment is effective. This is known as the ‘placebo effect’. Another reason is that healthcare practitioners cannot always tell whether changes in a person’s health condition are due to the treatment or some other reason. For these reasons, medicines must be tested in a planned, structured scientific research project designed to prevent these kinds of experiences giving the false impression that a medicine is more or less effective than it really is.”

    https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf

    But this placebo effect isn’t the only reason why someone might believe they got better because they took a homeopathy potion. This article explains some other reasons: Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work

    http://www.csicop.org/SI/show/why_bogus_therapies_seem_to_work

    It identifies the following ten errors and biases:

    The disease may have run its natural course
    Many diseases are cyclical
    Spontaneous remission
    The placebo effect
    Some allegedly cured symptoms are psychosomatic to begin with
    Symptomatic relief versus cure
    Many consumers of alternative therapies hedge their bets
    Misdiagnosis (by self or by a physician)
    Derivative benefits
    Psychological distortion of reality

    Before deciding that it was the magic sugar pills that caused the improvement, all these more plausible and well-understood explanations have to be first examined and discounted with robust evidence and reasoning.

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      Interestingly, the results of homeopathic treatment are confirmed through the use of the same objective tests — CT scans, x-rays, blood work, etc. — that doctors of conventional medicine use to determine what
      effect, if any, their treatments have had. The difference is that quite often the objective testings show that the conditions of homeopathic patients have either been cured and improved. Those same tests show that people using conventional drugs have not experienced either. Their symptoms have simply been suppressed.

      • If only you could provide that evidence, Christine…

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          Google “homeopathy cured cases”. The evidence not only exists, it’s overwhelming. You simply don’t want to look at it or acknowledge it.

          • If you are unable or unwilling to provide the evidence for even one of your claims, please just admit it, Christine.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Don’t know how to do a google search or just don’t like what you read?

          • But it’s not me who’s making the claims, Christine, you are and the onus in on you to provide evidence to back them up (if you can), not for me to go searching the depths of Google looking for your evidence. But if you are unable or unwilling, please just say so.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Redundancy is a bad habit. So is asking others to do your homework for you.

          • Redundancy is sometime good and essential. But it’s not my homework, is it? It’s not me who’s making the claims yet failing to back them up, is it? Why do you seem to have such a problem with that?

          • NotThatGreg

            Right. “Do *your* homework”, Alan. Because, that pesky question you keep bringing up, of whether homeopathy actually works? This matter is of no interest to homeopaths or their supporters, they have better things to do. Why would they be interested in any so-called “documented basis” for such a trifle. It’s not their problem.

          • Why is it that, when it is pointed out to you that Google is an unreliable research tool, you simply repeat ‘Google “homeopathy cured cases”.’, every time you descend upon threads like this? Following your mal-advice throws up cures for absolutely anything. And you believe them all, don’t you? This exposes homeopathy, as promoted by you and your coterie of like-minded propagandists, for the cult that it is – the miracle cure-all; no disease irresolvable. That you demonstrate no critical-thinking skills whatsoever ought to be a flag.

        • rosross

          If only you had a mind open enough to do some research.

          http://www.vithoulkas.com/cured-cases-examples-2

          • Acleron

            Always a good laugh to hear a believer talk about open mindedness. Ros, what evidence would persuade you that homeopathy doesn’t work?

    • rosross

      Back with the deeply flawed NHMRC report I see.

      This report for those interested, and let’s take an Allopathic medical modality like Oncology as an example, was akin to doing a study into the efficacy of Oncology without:

      1. consulting any oncologists
      2. having no oncologists on the panel
      3. having panel members with conflict of interest
      4. selectively choosing which data could be studied and omitting the most positive

      The report was and is a disgrace but it hurts those involved with NHMRC and not Homeopathy.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        And on top of all that, had conventional drugs been assessed according to the same guidelines most of them would be found not to work. But we know that anyway since the BMJ did an analysis of 3,000 common treatments offered on the NHS and found that only 11% are actually proven to be beneficial while 51% were found to be of unknown efficacy. The rest were either only “likely” to be beneficial, not beneficial or harmful. Not really scientific is it when the best that can be said for a drug is “likely” to be beneficial?

        • Still not understanding the bmj clinical evidence, Christine?

        • Tetenterre

          Christine, you wrote: “But we know that anyway since the BMJ did an analysis of 3,000 common treatments offered on the NHS and found that only 11% are actually proven to be beneficial while 51% were found to be of unknown efficacy. The rest were either only “likely” to be beneficial, not beneficial or harmful.”

          Would you like to add a bit of context to that, please, by responding directly and honestly to the following questions:

          * Of those treatments “proven to be beneficial”, how many were what is colloquially known as “alternative/complementary/integrative” medicine (including homeopathy)?

          * If any of the above were homeopathy, which so-called ‘remedies’ were they?

          * Did any of what is colloquially known as “alternative/complementary/integrative” medicine (including homeopathy) appear anywhere other than in the “unknown efficacy”, “not beneficial” or “harmful” outcomes?

          Citations of evidence would be useful, but I’m not ‘bating my breath…

      • Tarek

        So it lacked the bias known as “expertise”. First class report

      • Acleron

        Your error is false analogy. Oncologists are required to determine the treatment, the design of the clinical trial and the analysis is performed by those expert in design and analysis of clinical trials. Homeopaths are not experts in statistics, clinical trial designs or even medicine. What could they possibly contribute to high quality work? Cherry picking?

        • Tarek

          You cannot meaningfully investigate a treatment unless you know something about it, its use, complications, contraindications etc hence homeopaths would be needed as part of process, unless of course you want to give them ammunition to use against you e.g. “bias” etc

          • Before homeopaths should be allowed to be part of the process they should probably establish that the founding principals are real. Hint: they’re not. Or at least they’ve never been established to be real to the best of my understanding.

          • Tarek

            SO why not allow them to make fools of themselves publicly and thus seal their own fate once and for all?

          • Acleron

            You are aware that the NHMRC was a metastudy? Why would you want to include a homeopath who cannot even dissociate cause and effect let alone understand the nuances, complexities and maths required for that? What could they possibly contribute except their only research tool, the cherry picker?

            Trying to act the disinterested onlooker may suit you but it demonstrates a deep ignorance of the scientific method and what constitutes scientific evidence. The scientific debate about the effectiveness of homeopathy is long over. The debate should now be how to remove this wart on the healthcare of society. Should we legislate against it? Personally, in the UK I’d like to see more resources put into the ASA to force each homeopath to justify with scientific evidence every single claim they make.

    • Tarek

      Agreed

      • So, given all that, do you still believe there is anything in homeopathy that hasn’t so far been investigated but still needs to be investigated? If so, what and why?

        • Tarek

          I’m not convinced it was investigated properly even though I’ve never been convinced by it to begin with.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Homeopathy works. It works beautifully, safely and inexpensively. It often cures where conventional treatments fail. That’s why it’s the world’s second most used system of medicine (conventional being third) and is growing in use at annual rates of 10% to 30% in countries around the world. The public recognizes that most conventional treatments only suppress their symptoms, never curing them, and quite often create iatrogenic diseases in the people who use them. It isn’t unusual for their use to be fatal. In fact, they’re the third leading causing of death in the UK. Probably the number is similar in the UK and other countries as well.

    Anyone who would like to investigate what homeopathy can do for them and their families will find hundreds of case records of cures of conditions from type 2 diabetes to Grave’s disease to addiction to prescription drugs
    by googling “homeopathy cured cases”. These case records are documented with CT scans, x-rays, histopathological reports, blood work and more plus the comments of the treating physicians and their patients.

    Enjoy good, safe inexpensive medicine and the good health it brings!

    • Any evidence for *any* of your many claims, Christine? Just pick one to start with.

      • Maria_Maclachlan

        I can answer that one – no, she doesn’t. But she does have a proud history of ignoring pertinent questions so don’t hold your breath.

    • Let me help you by breaking it down a bit:

      1. “Homeopathy works.”

      2. “It works beautifully, safely and inexpensively.”

      3. “It often cures where conventional treatments fail.”

      4. “That’s why it’s the world’s second most used system of medicine (conventional being third)”

      5. “and is growing in use at annual rates of 10% to 30% in countries around the world.”

      6. The public recognizes that most conventional treatments only suppress their symptoms, never curing them,”

      7. “and quite often create iatrogenic diseases in the people who use them.”

      8. “It isn’t unusual for their use to be fatal.”

      9. “In fact, they’re the third leading causing of death in the UK.”

      10. “Probably the number is similar in the UK and other countries as well.”

      11. “Enjoy good, safe inexpensive medicine and the good health it brings!”

      That’ll do for starters. Please choose whichever (so far) unevidenced claim you’d like to start with and feel free to provide your evidence and reasoning.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        You’ve acknowledged that you have no training whatsoever in medicine and none in any type of research. That makes your comments extraneous. If you’d like to change your position about your background, we’d love to see your credentials posted here.

        It’s easy Alan, if you don’t like homeopathy, don’t use it. Stick with your toxic drugs. More than 550 million people around the world do like it. They like it so much they tell their friends and family about it. Friends and family try it and like it. That’s how the use of homeopathy spreads and grows.

        • Can you or can’t you provide the evidence to back up what you have said, Christine? If you can’t, just say so.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Don’t know how to do a google search or just don’t like what you read?

          • I don’t have to do anything. But if you want to make assertions but don’t want to back them up, then that’s fine. You don’t have to. People can then come to their own view as to their veracity.

          • A Google search? Seriously?

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          Please tell us about your training in medicine and research, Christine.

      • rosross

        1. “Homeopathy works.”

        Or it would not have survived and thrived for more than two centuries and be practised around the world, including by MD’s and in hospitals or taught in medical schools and universities or be included by Governments in State medical sytems.

        For research which clearly those cited above have seen, begin here:

        https://www.hri-research.org/

        2. “It works beautifully, safely and inexpensively.”

        Research Homeopathic history including some of the many thousands of books written over the more than two centuries and talk to doctors and hospitals who use Homeopathy today. Also talk to Governments which have it in their State medical systems for further information on costing. Study Government records detailing efficacy during epidemics from the 19th century onwards.

        3. “It often cures where conventional treatments fail.”

        See above, Access research sources.

        4. “That’s why it’s the world’s second most used system of medicine (conventional being third)”

        Allopathic or conventional medicine is the most used, Homeopathy is the most popular non-Allopathic in quite a few countries and amongst the top three elsewhere. With billions of Chinese and Indians using Allopathic medicine it is going to be second worldwide.

        5. “and is growing in use at annual rates of 10% to 30% in countries around the world.”

        See research data above.

        6. The public recognizes that most conventional treatments only suppress their symptoms, never curing them,”

        I am not sure the public in general recognises this but certainly many do and increasingly people are looking elsewhere.

        Having said that, if people were satisfied with Allopathy the move toward other medical modalities would never happen. Why would they bother?

        http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/14/Millennials-Embrace-Alternative-Medicine-32-Billion-Business

        7. “and quite often create iatrogenic diseases in the people who use them.”

        There is no doubt iatrogenic – doctor or medical induced, Allopathic of course, is the third biggest killer in the US and rising and fourth in many other developed nations.

        http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/335.cfm

        8. “It isn’t unusual for their use to be fatal.”

        http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

        9. “In fact, they’re the third leading causing of death in the UK.”

        It is third in the US but probably fourth or fifth in the UK. Is that good? Does that make it okay for Allopathy medicine to kill and injure if it is only fourth, fifth, sixth or even seventh?

        10. “Probably the number is similar in the UK and other countries as well.”

        yes, it is.

        11. “Enjoy good, safe inexpensive medicine and the good health it brings!”

        This is where research needs to be done. Let’s collect that data. I doubt people would use anything unless it were effective. I mean, people turn to Homeopathy generally because Allopathy has failed. If Homeopathy failed they would look elsewhere. Generally they don’t.

        But surely we can do some research into the health of those who purely use Allopathy, those who use a lot of it, those who use a little of it, those who use Homeopathy, Herbal or Nutritional Medicine and those who use various medical modalities in moderation.

        I mean, with the kill and injure rate of Allopathy at criminal levels, most of it from prescribed medication, surely gathering that data is crucial?

        • Thanks for at least trying to provide evidence and reasoning for Christine’s claims. You failed, of course. Do you need me to explain why?

        • Tetenterre

          You claimed, without evidence, “homeopathy works” and cited, again, https://www.hri-research.org/. Here are the findings from what it touts as the best supporting evidence:

  • rosross

    I would be prepared to bet the vitriol came from those who oppose Homeopathy where irrational hysteria seems to be the order of the day.

    It needs to be held in mind that any ‘war’ is limited to certain countries, the UK being perhaps the most extreme example and the US, Canada and a few others following behind. There is no ‘war’ in ever sensible Europe, India, China, South America, nor in fact in most of the world where Homeopathy is increasingly used and where it has been used for centuries.

    But good on you for taking a reasonable, reasoned, sensible and balanced stand on the issue.

    There are some salient facts which make the position of those who reject Homeopathy ridiculous and they are, that around the world, particularly in civilized First World Europe, Homeopathy is used by MD’s and in hospitals, taught in medical schools and university, and included by Governments in State health systems.

    There is not a snowball’s chance in hell, given the fear of such bodies of looking stupid, or worse, being sued, that they would touch Homeopathy if they did not have clear evidence that it was effective and more than placebo.

    Those who reject Homeopathy do so from egregious ignorance and worse prejudice.

    Homeopathy is the fastest growing medical modality and the second most used after Allopathy, and when science advances enough to understand how it works and the brilliance of Homeopathy is integrated into general medicine, sure profits, prestige, professions, prejudice, propaganda will come crashing down, but medicine in general will have access to one of the most brilliant medical system ever developed and more than two centuries of invaluable and empirical knowledge of the human condition and health.

    In terms of testing, bear in mind that science as it stands seeks to apply the principles of Allopathic medicine to all research and Homeopathy is nothing like Allopathy and cannot be researched in the same way, simply because Allopathy treats symptoms and Homeopathy treats individuals, whether animal, bird or human.

    But no doubt studies could be devised although one would also hope that more than two centuries of meticulously recorded data in case histories and in Homeopathy would be taken into account given that some of the greatest minds, medical and otherwise, have been involved in the process.

    As an aside, it would be funny if it were not so tragic, that so much faith is put in scientific research when even former editors of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine have stated much of it is wrong, and other research has shown most of it is wrong, and Allopathic medicine, sourced as it is in such research, is now the third biggest killer in the US and fourth in most other developed nations and rising.

    If modern science cannot even get things right for the medicine of its own making, why on earth should it be trusted on a modality it neither understands nor is prepared to accept?

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      Brava!! Very well said!!! I could not agree with you more wholeheartedly in all that you’ve said.

      Smart people investigate and try homeopathy. When they do, they never go back to conventional treatments except when the body doesn’t make a needed substance like insulin or when surgery is truly needed. In actuality, the use of homeopathy often makes surgery unnecessary.

      • Nigel Tolley

        Yes, I too swear on a glass of water for curing my thirst.

      • More unevidenced assertions, Christine?

    • Tarek

      I completely agree. I cannot abide anyone who holds an opinion based on sheer ignorance, particularly members of my own profession who are basically told what to think by vested interests all the while pretending that they remain the open -minded inquiring youths that got accepted into medical school years before. To then arrogantly pretend that they can debunk something with ” research” when even at a cursory glance that research is biased from the beginning is nonsensical.

      All i ask is for definitive collaborative research be carried out to end the controversy once and for all; pity such a concept is as offensive to detractors as saying the world was not flat was to the Churchy years ago. ( my apologies if I offended anyone with the Church reference)

      • Your own profession? The one that you mistakenly label ‘allopathic medicine’? You do know where that term comes from, don’t you?

        Now, if you’ve any nous for this, you will reject, rather than agree with, the logical fallacy re-pasting of Ros Ross. She has recently been corrected time and again elsewhere on this:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html#gig_comment_id=$commentID$

        But she typifies the typical modus operandi of the homeopathy propagandist: ignore correction; keep re-pasting the same misinformation; keep attacking your critics as ‘ignorant’ (because, of course, none of them have ever looked into this, have they?).

        Why don’t you ask her, if these ‘many’ she offers up is valid ‘evidence’ for homeopathy, why does she not extend such illogic to the ‘many more’ who practice actual (which she disparagingly labels ‘allopathic’) medicine as evidence that actual medicine works? Because she is somewhat anti-science/-medicine. Which ought to bother you, no?

      • What vested interests, Tarek?

        And if you – and homeopaths – think further research is still needed, do you know what is being done by homeopaths to do it?

      • Tetenterre

        Tarek, you wrote: “…pity such a concept is as offensive to detractors as saying the world was not flat was to the Churchy years ago. ( my apologies if I offended anyone with the Church reference)”

        I have no love for the Church and I don’t give a damn about offending it, but I do care about offending reality. Your implicationthere is about as well-reseached as your article: it was never Church doctrine that the world was flat.

        • Tarek

          Remind me what they did to people who suggested otherwise?

    • Acleron

      So homeopathy must work because some MDs use it? That must mean that it works less well in countries where fewer MDs use it. Either homeopathy is a very peculiar thing or your logic is screwed. From your history, I suspect the latter.

    • Tetenterre

      Rosross, you wrote (with delicious petitio principii): “If modern science cannot even get things right for the medicine of its own making, why on earth should it be trusted on a modality it neither understands nor is prepared to accept?”

      The thing is that homeopathy (and much other “alternative” or “complementary” “medicine”) is a modality that is very well understood, both by scientists and by economists. The only thing it has been proven to cure is HWS (*). This is because modern homeopathy is not a health-care modality; it is a marketing modality.

      Oh, and you may want to look up “Shank’s Law”…
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shank%27s+Law

      * Heavy Wallet Syndrome

  • rosross

    Complexity science and homeopathy: a synthetic overview.

    Bellavite P1.

    Author information

    Abstract

    Homeopathy is founded on ‘holistic’ and ‘vitalistic’ paradigms, which may be interpreted–at least in part–in terms of a framework provided by the theory of dynamic systems and of complexity. The conceptual models and some experimental findings from complexity science may support the paradoxical claims of similia principle and of dilution/dynamization effects. It is argued that better appreciation of three main properties of complex systems: non-linearity, self-organization, and dynamicity, will not only add to our basic understanding of homeopathic phenomena but also illuminate new directions for experimental investigations and therapeutic settings.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14587687

    The Emerging Science of Homeopathy, Complexity, Biodynamics and Nanopharmacology, by Paolo Bellavite, MD and Andrea Signorini, MD.

    • Acleron

      So some MDs use words they obviously do not understand and this proves what?

  • rosross

    Researcher

    Dr Steven Cartwright gained his PhD in molecular biology from Edinburgh University, going on to develop techniques in cryoenzymology at the universities of California and Oxford before training in Homeopathy. He is currently heading a laboratory based research project at the Cherwell Innovation Centre outside Oxford investigating the physio-chemical properties of homeopathic medicines using a class of sensitive ionic dyes as molecular probes of diluted and succussed solutions.

    Why is this project important?

    “An understanding of, and explanation for, the action of homeopathic medicines would not only revolutionise the status of homeopathy in the world but also profoundly improve prescribing methods and our ability to treat illness.”

    Dr Steven Cartwright PhD

    https://www.hri-research.org/hri-research/how-do-homeopathic-medicines-work/physico-chemical-properties-of-high-dilutions/

    • Tarek

      What does he know? He’s just a scientist after all. He has a lot to learn from keyboard warriors and other experts.

      • Maria_Maclachlan

        To be fair, Cartwright has, by his own admission, a long involvement in shamanism and is a supporter of astrology (sorry, I mean “medical astrology). So, yes, I think he probably does have a lot to learn from scientists who use their keyboards to comment on homeopathy articles.

    • An alternative explanation of why he found evidence of the original substance in commercially produced homeopathic products (from Helios and Aisnworths, using the Korsakoff method of dilution) that had supposedly been diluted to one part in 10 to the power 100,000 (that’s a one with 100,000 zeros after it), might be that the commercial manufacturing process wasn’t very good and certainly not up to the job.

      If anyone doesn’t know what the Korsakoff/Korsakov method of dilution is, instead of taking one drop of a previous dilution and dropping it into a new vial of water to dilute it, they take the vial, empty it out (but leaving an unquantified and uncontrolled amount of dregs stuck to the sides and rim) and fill the very same vial up with water again. Repeat thousands of times with the same vial. The scope for gross contamination at each stage is huge.

      So, we have the situation where we have a parsimonious explanation that has not been discounted or even considered by the researcher and one that is contrived to explain magic water. Which to choose…

    • Acleron

      Oh please! He has hired a lab and is playing at science. If this technique worked he would be able to publish full details of the experimental techniques and multiple datasets. Needless to say, as usual for a homeopath, he has done neither.

  • Nigel Tolley

    That homoeopathy and other bizarre “treatments” refuse to die is because of the in-built nature of people to want to believe.

    Oh, & also due to all the people getting rich off it. They always push for yet more studies, and stall for time. But as someone once said, it’s very hard to make someone see something when their salary depends on them not seeing it.

  • John Dalton

    If I could find my Bowman and Rand textbook of Pharmacology I would transcribe its superb commentary on homeopathy.

  • Frank van der Kooy

    As long as Universities receive funding from the CM industry these treatments such as homeopathy will stay with us. https://frankvanderkooy.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/homeopathy-why-does-the-national-institute-of-complementary-medicine-continue-to-defend-it/

  • Acleron

    The victim status claims of homeopaths are quite normal when charlatans cannot respond with evidence. We do not require more trials, the evidence is conclusive, high quality trials show that the sugar and water in expensive homeopathic preparations is indistinguishable from sugar and water. Homeopathy deserves the greatest of derision and ridicule and no place in either the NHS or pharmacies.

    • Tarek

      Derision and ridicule are not part of the scientific method. Will we also ridicule patients who say they have benefited from it even if we disagree with it? That is the logical conclusion to what you are suggesting and I would say it would be a very bad idea to do so.

      • “Derision and ridicule are not part of the scientific method.”

        Fortunately this is a comment thread and not a Discussion section on a study.

        • Tarek

          You’re advocating an extension of the conclusion of research which will taint science by extension. I merely wish us all to REMAIN on the moral high ground

          • Acleron

            Homeopath supporters are so low on the moral landscape they are waterlogged. There is no common ground between anti-science promoters and scientists. There is no moral ground for those who attempt to injure and kill for no benefit to either individuals or to society.

          • I’m not. But to follow your line of reasoning through we should probably shut down all comment threads and disallow blog posts that offer commentary on topics that have research associated with them too.

            That’s a stupid suggestion.

          • Tetenterre

            Tarek, you claimed “I merely wish us all to REMAIN on the moral high ground”
            1. Petitio principii
            2. Is that why you nake your inanely juvenile “silly boy” comments?

      • Acleron

        Although homeopaths have a tendency to personalise debates, I am ridiculing an ideological belief system that has been debunked entirely. We know why patients may conclude it was water and sugar that cured them, a natural tendency to confuse cause and effect heavily encouraged by the homeopath selling them the sugar and water.

        Everyone can fool themselves this way and it was for this reason the scientific method was developed to determine what is really happening.

        Homeopaths are to be ridiculed for ignoring that method, patients should be recompensed for being scammed.

  • Andy Lewis

    It is impossible for a clinical trial to provide convincing evidence of a thoroughly implausible treatment like homeopathy. This is because the prior probability of it being effective is close to or at zero. Should a trial show an effect at a significant level it is always more probable that the cause of the effect was due to chance, an experimental artefact, fraud, bias or some other error. A complete waste of time. Plausibility must be demonstrated before the results of a trial can be interpreted.

  • lastlibertarian

    This article attempts to be fair but misses some crucial points:
    1. Homeopathy was controversial in 1948 when several privately funded homeopathic hospitals all over the UK were invited to be part of the health service. There is something immoral in keeping those hospitals, built by benefactors of homeopathy and then getting rid of homeopathy itself.
    2. Not all conventional medicine is ‘evidence based’. Much is not as honest publications such as the BMJ’s handbook, Clinical Evidence, clearly shows. For example the NHS spends more than 20x as much on controversial anti-depressants than it does on homeopathy.
    3.Even if detractors of homeopathy, believe that the ‘placebo effect’ of homeopathy at NHS homeopathic clinics is due to the long, empathic whole person orientated way homeopathic doctors talk to their patients, this surely should be more of a reason to study what is actually happening in the whole process rather than to resort to the snorting derision in which commentators – with no interest in using homeopathy themselves – want to deprive other (less ‘right thinking’) individuals from benefitting from it – however it works.

    • Some fair points there; and some contentious ones. This article is over-reaching in its ‘attempts to be fair’. There is a whiff of ‘offence by proxy’ about it.

      I don’t think any detractors of homeopathy would deny the problems with medicine (there is no need for the qualifier ‘conventional’) and pharmaceuticals. But it is science which addresses and, in time, resolves them (or attempts to). Regardless, that provides no argument for homeopathy; no evidence for its efficacy. The repeated lambasting of medicine and Big Pharma that characterises the comments of the homeopathy propagandists drawn to threads like this is a convenient deflection: “That’s crap, therefore this works.” It’s a deceitful argument.

      Your third point is, I think, interesting. The problem is, if homeopathy concedes this, then it has to admit there is no need for the pilules and shaken water. But if it does, then what is it? Nothing. There is, in fact, no such thing.

    • Acleron

      The placebo effect is rather rare. The response claimed by homeopaths is easily explained by people getting better, all species have this characteristic. If homeopathy has an effect beyond natural repair mechanisms then despite being marketed for over 200 years, homeopaths have failed to find it.

      • rosross

        Wrong again. Homeopathic medicine has demonstrated efficacy during serious epidemics, vastly superior efficacy to Allopathic treatment.

        And any doctor of any kind knows which conditions will improve on their own account and any medical treatment is purely supportive of general health.

        Homeopathic medicine demonstrates efficacy with all diseases, and many who turn to it have suffered years or decades of chronic ill health which Allopathy has failed to cure and yet which under Homeopathic treatment is cured. As you can imagine they tend to become converts.

        • Acleron

          Any evidence that homeopathy has ever been useful in an epidemic. By evidence I mean the scientific kind ie reliable. I don’t mean the records taken by homeopaths when we do not know the selection criteria and we can guess that homeopaths in history are no more trustworthy in recording than they are today.

          Any evidence that significant numbers turn to water and sugar because they are not cured by medicine.

          Finally, any evidence that homeopathy cured anybody, ever?

          I await your evidence with interest.

          • rosross

            Quote: Anyone who adopts an unprejudiced position will discover that immunology and the whole of modern biology in general can offer a considerable contribution to the understanding of homeopathy in a framework that is not very different from the conventional context. In other words, although it is true that some of the most reductionist molecular lines of modern science are ultimately incompatible with the systemic nature of homeopathic thought, it is equally true that many others are perfectly compatible.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297514/

            http://www.the-cma.org.uk/cma_images/Jayney's%20Presentation.pdf

          • And what about the epidemics, Roslyn?

          • A historical review of homeopathy by homeopathy-sympathetic authors, in a CAM journal; and a slide presentation from a homeopathy conference. Brilliant! That’s me (what was your expression? Oh yes… ) ‘converted’, then. I’ll come and be your apprentice. (You are a practicing homeopath, aren’t you?)

          • Acleron

            I am an immunologist you dolt. Sheesh, immunology deals with real materials not imaginary pixie dust. It has real effects which can be measured. It complies with known laws of physics and chemistry. Homeopathy is not explained by immunology, it debunks the scam.

        • Acleron

          Your comment about doctors knowing deserves a comment all of its own for its stupidity.

          Doctors and people in general do not know. Humans in general suffer from cognitive and confirmation bias. We are easily misled by a priori conclusions.

          So how do we know anything? Well, we have developed a powerful system called the scientific method. A result of this method is the clinical trial. You should know about clinical trials, your trade has been failing it for over a century.

          This is why good scientists do their best to disprove their own results, we do not trust ourselves. It is why truly startling results take so long to be accepted.

          The idea that a homeopath or a homeopathic doctor knows is truly ludicrous. How could they? They have no controls of which to base any conclusions. The best they can do is suspect something. Well Hahnemann suspected something. Avogadro made is suspicion silly, numerous high quality studies have ruled it out entirely.

          Here’s an anecdote for you as that’s all you seem to have. My own GP on learning what I worked on proudly told me that he regularly prescribed 500 mg tablets of Ampicillin to patients who had penicillin allergy marked in their records. He had concluded that it must cure penicillin allergy because nobody died. When I explained he was playing with the odds because people were labeled as allergic when often they had a non Type I reaction, he refused to accept it.

          So please don’t tell me that homeopathy must work because a doctor prescribes it, the concept is ludicrous. Get some evidence, show us that the sugar/water that homeopaths have ritually processed is any different from sugar and water.

          • rosross

            Ah yes, the scientific method which through medicine is now the third biggest killer.

            The scientific method which former editors of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine has said gets much research wrong.

            The scientific method which research by Ionnidis shows most research is wrong.

            Ah, that scientific method.

            Why Most Published Research Findings are false.

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

          • “Ah, that scientific method.

            Why Most Published Research Findings are false.”

            You realise that this *includes* research into homeopathy, right? And given the track record of that sort of research it probably fares worse than the average.

          • rosross

            You do realise by avoiding the issue you make Homeopathy look more credible and your case shot to pieces?

            If you want to establish some ground, give me a reasoned, coherent, substantiated argument as to how Homeopathy has been conducted as fraud for more than two centuries, and still, involving medical professionals, academics, politicians and lawyers.

            We both know that if any of the above believed or had clear evidence that Homeopathy was not effective or even pure placebo, they would make themselves liable by embracing it. But they do and that means, guess what? It is effective and it is not pure placebo.

            Unless you can demonstrate how millions of people, professionals and public alike, have been deceived for more than two centuries.

            The evidence has always been there – Homeopathy survives and thrives because it is effective.

            Your comment just reveals your utter ignorance in regard to Homeopathic methodology. You really should do some basic research so you can at least sound as if you know what you are talking about.

          • Still having difficulty with those logical fallacies and errors of reasoning, Roslyn?

          • Religion has been deceiving a whole lot more people for a whole lot longer. But it still hasn’t offered any proof that praying is effective for anything. You’re making no point.

        • Ignorance, or lies? Which is it, Ros Ross? You re-assert statements which are palpably untrue, and which you cannot back up.

          (Sits back, folds arms)

          • rosross

            Make a case or we can take your silence as retraction.

            Homeopathy is practised by MD’s and in hospitals in many parts of the world, particularly in Europe; it is taught in some medical schools and universities; it is included in State medical systems by some Governments; there are more than two centuries of meticulously recorded case histories verifying cure; there are Government records detailing the efficacy of Homeopathy during epidemics.

            Start here and keep going. Research is an invaluable way to gain knowledge and particularly important if you are trying to make a case against something. You should try it sometime.

            https://www.hri-research.org/hri-research/how-do-homeopathic-medicines-work/physico-chemical-properties-of-high-dilutions/

            p.s. try searching on ncbi – also useful.

          • Frankly, I’m somewhat surprised you seem to regard MDs as being incapable of error.

          • Tetenterre

            Shank’s Law applies!

          • Make a case for what? I’ve no work to do here. And I’ll take no lectures on research from a propagandist for quackery. This repeat-ignore mantra of yours has been addressed repeatedly, yet you affect to be blind to it. You do realise that your illogical ‘argument’ must therefore conclude that the medicine (not ‘allopathy’) you disparage works fine, as there are far many more MDs, hospitals, universities and governments practicing/teaching/endorsing it; far more case histories; and far more research in far more bone fide journals.

            Yes, do try NCBI.

        • “Wrong again. Homeopathic medicine has demonstrated efficacy during serious epidemics, vastly superior efficacy to Allopathic treatment.”

          And you can, of course, provide irrefutable evidence to back this claim, yeah?

    • Maria_Maclachlan

      “There is something immoral in keeping those hospitals, built by benefactors of homeopathy and then getting rid of homeopathy itself.”

      Really? What’s immoral about using nice buildings as hospitals but only offering evidence-based treatments in them? I mean, the benefactors of homeopathy didn’t know that homeopathy would be so fully investigated as it is today and would still fail to prove itself.

      • Acleron

        I think that the homeopaths employed at those hospitals and the homeopaths that have benefitted from the marketing appeal of having hospitals funded by the NHS has more than paid for those buildings.

      • lastlibertarian

        The weakness in your answer is the phrase ‘only offering evidence-based medicine’. You have fallen for the propaganda that all conventional medicine used on the NHS is ‘evidence based’. It most certainly is not – see BMJ’s handbook called Clinical Medicine. Big Pharma would be lobbying and screaming in pain if the NHS restricted itself to ‘only evidence-based’ medicine. Quite clearly you have not looked at SSRIs and evidenced or at the publication I’ve mentioned but offer an opinion based on what the detractors of homeopathy have repeated endlessly.

    • rosross

      Conventional or allopathic medicine is now the third biggest killer in the US and fourth in most other developed nations. It kills and injures millions every year, most of it from prescribed medication.

      So much for all those much touted claims of evidence-based medicine, scientific rigour, gold standards, double blind studies when clearly it is all an abject failure in terms of the safety and efficacy of Allopathy anyway, the system which it is actually geared to study.

      Homeopathic medicine offers a non-toxic alternative to deadly allopathic drugs, and a system of medicine, sourced still in empiricism, which offers brilliant and unrecognised insights into human health and disease.

      The hysterical response of detractors, particularly strong in the UK where people are perhaps more easily fooled than they are in Europe and elsewhere, is a sign that this is an orchestrated and paid campaign to attempt to destroy Homeopathy because it is not only effective, it is cheap.

      • Tetenterre

        Roslyn Ross, without providing a shred of evidence you declared, yet again: “Conventional or allopathic medicine is now the third biggest killer in the US and fourth in most other developed nations. ”

        You have been asked several times to provide the evidence for this claim. You have failed to do so. Ar you hoping that, if you repeat the lie often enugh, people will begin to believe it?

  • Acleron

    Prominent supporters? And what would they know about the scientific method? By the way, the Nazis were very pro homeopathy and so was the racist Rudolf Steiner.
    Celebrity endorsement is a marketing tool and nothing else.

  • edzard ernst

    I have written a blog-post about this article, for what it’s worth: http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/really-a-war-on-homeopathy-no-its-a-struggle-against-misinformation/

    • Tarek

      And I have answered it, for what it’s worth

  • Paul Theriault

    The choice of research article in this article is quite odd, considering that Homeopathic research methodology has improved considerably from the days of Remedy X for disease Y studies.

    If anyone would look at randomised, double blinded, placebo controlled trials which are acceptable to Homeopathic Methodology, I would look at Heiner Frei’s work, such as http://www.heinerfrei.ch/s/ADHDRCT-EurJPaed.pdf

    • Contribution from one who recently conducted a homeopathic ‘proving’ of foetal faeces. You’ll forgive me for not taking you too seriously.

    • Acleron

      Improved considerably? Debatable, perhaps by the amount of active material in your sugar and water. But be assured, it couldn’t get worse, could it?

  • Tetenterre

    If the touts for homeopathy want to lay this matter to rest for once and for all, all they need to do is to cite one (yes, only one) replicated good-quality DBRCT that demonstrates that homeopathy is distinguishable from placebo.

    Surely, with a history of over 200 years, it shouldn’t be that difficult, so I begin to wonder why every time this challenge is proposed, it results in one or more of the following responses:
    * Nothing
    * Citing of trials that fail to meet one or more (usually more) of the criteria
    * Special pleading about the use of DBRCTs for homeopathy
    * Red herrings about “allopathy”
    * Claims that the treplicated robust DBRCTs are there if we bothered to look for them

    Then I remember that these are the jokers who would have us believe that, if you take a substance that has a concentration of one molecule of the original “active ingredient” per sphere the size of Earth’s orbit around the Sun and then dilute it even further, so that the concentration is now less than one molecule per known Universe, it has somehow become more potent.

    • Paul Theriault
      • How many papers did Mathie et al. describe as ‘reliable evidence’ and can you cite them?

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          As someone with no training in any area of medicine and none in any type of research your questions are superfluous.

          • Your assumptions are irrelevant, of course.

            But if you don’t know the answer to the simple reading comprehension question I posed, please just say so and I’ll provide you with the correct answer and the exact place in the paper where you can find it so you can check for yourself. No searching of Google required.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            If you do have any credentials, why not post them here?

          • I don’t know why you continue to find this so difficult… they are irrelevant. However, if you ever come across an error in anything I say, you will take the time to politely point it out, with a clear explanation and reasoning as to why I’m wring – backed by good evidence, of course – won’t you?

            Now, can you have a go at answering the question or do you need me to help you out?

          • You don’t need credentials to be able to ask simple and reasonable questions. If the world worked that way no one could ever *become* credentialed because they aren’t allowed to ask questions.

            Your reasoning is simplistic and child-like.

          • I’m quite sure that if Christine was able to find an error I made that she’d be quick to point it out (and provided a cogent argument, backed up with good evidence) and demonstrate her superior knowledge of, say, medicine, science and evidence. But what are we to conclude if she doesn’t?

          • Superfluous?

          • Lee, don’t confuse her. Words are hard.

      • Tetenterre

        Oh dear! Neither is replicated, so both failed the first hurdle.

        Ten years since the Frei one on ADHD and no replication. Now why do you think that is?

        Also, the patient selection was, at best, questionable, so it’s not really a good quality trial, is it?

        From the Mathie conclusion:
        “The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.”

        Why did you think either of those meet the criteria?

        Next, please…

      • Acleron

        Frei et al. They took 83 people and treated all of them with homeopathy and then selected only those that showed improvement at a later date. There is no information of how they subsequently blinded both the homeopaths and the children. The results claim that of 6 indications, 4 showed improvement and 2 worsened. However, actually looking at the sparse data they provide a totally different story is seen. Two of the improvement group are statistically non significant and of the 2 left, the primary endpoint is barely significant at 0.048.

        This is the typically amateurish advertising material put forward by homeopaths as evidence.

        It always raises the question as to why homeopaths are so inept at science. Is it just their self acknowledged ignorance of science? Or could it be that they are aware that well run high powered studies will find no effect?

      • Tetenterre

        Yup, as I predicted:
        “Citing of trials that fail to meet one or more (usually more) of the criteria.”

        I guess you were hoping nobody would bother to check.

  • Darren Woodward

    I agree to some extent, there should be proper trials. But in addition homeopathy should be banned until they are done, and each remedy should be required to have its own high quality replicated dbrct. You know that sounds like the standards real medicine goes through. As it stands homeopathy run from the idea of conducting meaningful trials, relying on marginal evidence in underpowered trials, they conclude more research is necessary, then don’t bother doing it. It is a sanctioned scam and the sooner it is held to scientific standards or banned the better.

    • “I agree to some extent, there should be proper trials.”

      They have actually been done. So many have been done that the body of literature lends itself to meta studies quite nicely and these show that it’s no more than a placebo effect too.

      The better the quality of the trial the more likely homeopathy shows it to be no better than placebo.

      • Darren Woodward

        I know, but what I am advocating is ban it until good quality trials are done and show it works. Of course trials should be funded by the manufacturers, who surely would do it so that they can retain their profits (of course they won’t because they know the trials will come back negative, otherwise they would already have done it to blow criticism out of the water).

        • Acleron

          There is an ethical problem of treating anybody with something we have very strong reasons to believe is totally ineffective.

          • rosross

            Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Absolutely. And in this age of litigation it is impossible that any MD, certainly in a First World country, or hospital, or university, or medical school, or Government, would touch Homeopathy if the conclusive evidence was that it was totally ineffective or pure placebo.

            Ergo, given that it is used, taught, accepted around the world, particularly in First World Europe, the logical conclusion is that it is effective and it is not pure placebo.

          • Roslyn said:

            “And in this age of litigation it is impossible that any MD, certainly in a First World country, or hospital, or university, or medical school, or Government, would touch Homeopathy if the conclusive evidence was that it was totally ineffective or pure placebo.”

            Let me correct that for you:

            “And in this age of litigation it is impossible for me to believe that any MD, certainly in a First World country, or hospital, or university, or medical school, or Government, would touch Homeopathy if the conclusive evidence was that it was totally ineffective or pure placebo.”

          • rosross

            So clearly Alan you have never worked for medical professionals, academics, Government or lawyers.

            My statement is correct for me and your reworking may be correct for you but it is not what I said.

            I know enough about all of the professions, groups, bodies, systems, having worked for all of them and with them in my time, to know that the following is absolutely true:

            “And in this age of litigation it is impossible that any MD, certainly in a First World country, or hospital, or university, or medical school, or Government, would touch Homeopathy if the conclusive evidence was that it was totally ineffective or pure placebo.”

          • By saying ‘clearly’, Roslyn, you illustrate yet again, your lack of critical thinking skills, particularly your ability to jump to conclusions you so dearly want to believe to be true based on little or no evidence. Speaking of homeopathy…

          • Acleron

            You are totally ignorant of science and I strongly suspect that ignorance extends to all the other groups especially the medical ones.

          • “So clearly Alan you have never worked for medical professionals, academics, Government or lawyers.”

            It’s also clear that you haven’t either. And if, perchance, you have, you demonstrate that the experience did not impart any useful knowledge to you.

            “My statement is correct for me and your reworking may be correct for you but it is not what I said.”

            Ah… no. Your statement was factually incorrect. Alan’s correction is the more factually accurate.

          • Acleron

            Ergo? Were you asleep in logic classes?

          • rosross

            Yes, there is, my point exactly and that is why MD’s, hospitals, universities, medical schools, Governments could not touch Homeopathy if it were ineffective.

          • Who would stop them? But if Governments somehow or other knew homeopathy was effective, why don’t they ensure it’s provided across all the NHS and why do they prevent manufacturers from making therapeutic claims on the vast majority of products?

          • rosross

            I have absolutely no problem with regulation which is suited to any system. Homeopathic medicine is accountable in law but I am sure would benefit from more organisation as a system, as indeed would many systems.

            The positive aspect to the controversy, beyond the fact that it enables the dissemination of information about Homeopathy, is that it creates a situation where more research is being done and better systems of organisation are being put in place. That is good for everyone.

            You keep missing the point, although I realise you must, but to repeat:

            In this day and age, particularly in the First World, if there were not significant evidence that Homeopathy was effective and was not simply pure placebo, then it would not be practised by MD’s and in hospitals, taught in medical schools and universities and most definitely not be included by Governments in State medical systems.

            The mere fact that all of that happens means that there is plenty of evidence to counter your claims and those who choose to believe Homeopathy is a fraudulent scam.

            I still await your detailed response describing the more than two centuries of fraud.

          • Acleron

            No, we didn’t miss your laboured fallacy at all.

            However, I am glad you agree that homeopathy complies with all the testing, safety, quality control and labeling of pharmaceuticals. I look forward to the first product labeled Zero Dose.

          • rosross

            You missed ‘suited to the system’ but of course there is a lot of denial at work.

            I await your case for the two centuries and more of fraud.

          • Acleron

            Trying to claim it hasn’t been answered is quite pathetic but carry on, anybody who comes across this thread will conclude you cannot have any evidence if you just repeat the same nonsense ad infinitum

    • rosross

      I await your explanation as to how Homeopathy, as the failure you claim it to be, which would make its use by MD’s and hospitals, fraudulent, as it would the teaching in medical schools and universities, and its inclusion by Governments in State medical systems, all of which happens, often in First World countries with some of the best hospitals and medical systems in the world, can possibly be used, taught and included as it is.

      The reality of the above destroys the position of those who claim Homeopathy does not work and is pure placebo.

      In this age of litigation there is not a chance that any of this could or would happen if Homeopathy were not effective and more than placebo.

      Please explain in detail how this fraud has been maintained, brilliantly, for more than two centuries, involving some of the greatest minds in history, and some of the greatest medical minds in history, and how, in an age where legal teams sign off on anything which might create legal liability, it has been possible to consistently deceive medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians and millions upon millions of people.

      • “The reality of the above destroys the position of those who claim Homeopathy does not work and is pure placebo.”

        Actually, as with anything in science, the reality you refer to is steadily correcting itself in the light of new and better evidence.

        • rosross

          Yes, I agree that science has the capacity to correct itself although less so than perhaps it once had given the levels of profit, prestige and power involved and the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical industry over science/medicine in particular.

          But generally I take the position that science is capable of freeing itself of the limitations of its current paradigm and I do firmly believe there are enough open-minded, brave, intelligent scientists who are willing to rock the boat, and that in time science will be able to understand how Homeopathy works.

          The fact is, everyone who is ever productively involved with Homeopathy would love to know how it works, it is just that they are also more than prepared, logically so, to make use of it in the meantime simply because it is effective.

          • If only there was good evidence that homeopath did work…

          • Agreed.

            Also, I have half an onion and a cocktail stick, how does this free energy machine work? Do I need to send money for some instructions?

          • Acleron

            So despite homeopaths having been found to be fraudulent, to have made up evidence and to have made up claims with no evidence it is the scientific critics who are in the wrong despite absolutely no evidence at all.

          • rosross

            Hmmm, you venture onto flimsy ground there. I am sure some Homeopathic doctors have been less than honest but if you want to compare the charlatan list you will find plenty in Allopathy.

            And at this point in time as the third biggest killer in the US and fourth elsewhere, Allopathic medicine may not be fraudulent but it is incompetent.

          • Acleron

            There are charlatans that sell dodgy led lights, according to your ‘logic’ my free energy machine made from half an onion and a cocktail stick must work.

            But of course, all your nonsense is just displacement activity because you cannot prove any of your claims.

      • Darren Woodward

        Ros, none of that is at all relevant in proving homeopathy works. It certainly does nothing to demonstrate that it works, as someone else has commented religion has the same backing. It is certainly not the case that there is good quality evidence that homeopathy works, and this is evidenced again by your reliance on arguing it’s effectiveness by merely saying some people believe in it.

        You try to claim it works because there is not a chance it could still exist if it didn’t, which is nonsense. With the existence of conspiracy theorists, whose certainty is against the evidence I think it is safe to say that ideas that go against reality often hold out far lo gear than they should. That some people fall for homeopathy despite the lack of good evidence is not surprising at all.

        If you simply don’t have anything but the classiest circumstantial evidence I have yet seen offered, which is what your post amounts to, just say so. If you have actual good quality evidence that has been replicated and does not conclude that more research is necessary please link to it so that you can provide something more than “people believe it so it must be true”.

        I have to wonder why homeopathy fans worry so much about it being banned unless it can provide evidence. It’s like in Switzerland, where a thorough review of the evidence lead to the conclusion that it didn’t work, and political lobbying meant it stayed in the system, but has a time frame to provide some actual evidence. There we have a situation which perfectly highlights that it is reality that it remains in use despite the evidence showing it does not work. Just like the UK, where the Select Commitee report said it doesn’t work,NHS Choices say there is no good evidence, the CMO called it witch craft, and both the outgoing and incoming CSO said it doesn’t work. The evidence based position could not be clearer.

  • An example of why this article is all sorts of wrong:

    What if it were written as an anti-vaccine article – https://www.facebook.com/vaccinetruthUK/posts/1144852685533552

    Note: this is a parody

      • Even if that’s true, which I doubt given the “support patient choice” mantra, I’ve already seen homeopaths putting it out on twitter in support of their cause.

        The author demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of how their propaganda machine operates. Anything positive about homeopathy, including the fact that it’s available on the NHS, is proof that homeopathy works.

        That is just one reason why this article deserves a critical mauling.

        By the way, I do accept that the author did not INTEND to promote homeopathy. This does not change the fact that they have by regurgitating some of the more insidious lies of the homeopaths.

    • And Ben Goldacre’s response to this article was written 9 years ago… he wins for being both significantly funnier and better informed than me

      http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/

  • Acleron

    First trial of homeopathy was 181 years ago. It has been failing ever since.
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/homeopathy-failing-randomized-controlled-trials-since-1835/

    Worth reading the homeopath’s response, the excuses haven’t changed either.

    • rosross

      I await your explanation as to how Homeopathy, as the failure you claim it to be, which would make its use by MD’s and hospitals, fraudulent, as it would the teaching in medical schools and universities, and its inclusion by Governments in State medical systems, all of which happens, often in First World countries with some of the best hospitals and medical systems in the world, can possibly be used, taught and included as it is.

      Game, set, match. The reality of the above destroys the position of those who claim Homeopathy does not work and is pure placebo.

      In this age of litigation there is not a chance that any of this could or would happen if Homeopathy were not effective and more than placebo.

      Please explain in detail how this fraud has been maintained, brilliantly, for more than two centuries, involving some of the greatest minds in history, and some of the greatest medical minds in history, and how, in an age where legal teams sign off on anything which might create legal liability, it has been possible to consistently deceive medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians and millions upon millions of people.

      I await with interest.

      • Roslyn said:

        “Game, set, match.”

        Only if you have a closed mind and can’t think critically.

        • Acleron

          Chess playing pigeons come to mind.

        • rosross

          Then do the following and prove me wrong:

          Please explain in detail how this fraud has been maintained, brilliantly, for more than two centuries, involving some of the greatest minds in history, and some of the greatest medical minds in history, and how, in an age where legal teams sign off on anything which might create legal liability, it has been possible to consistently deceive medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians and millions upon millions of people.

          • As you’ve been told many times before, I and others here have nothing whatsoever to prove – the burden lies with you to provide good evidence to substantiate what you claim to be true. So far, you have utterly failed.

          • rosross

            Plenty of proof evidence and your inability to make any sort of coherent case for your claim that Homeopathy is a fraud and scam just supports Homeopathy. Keep up the good work.

          • You keep saying that yet provide not a jot of good evidence to substantiate anything you claim… What are we to make of that?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Except that a coherent case HAS been made time and time again. This is why I call you a cultist – you are simply too brainwashed to realise how absurd your claims are.

          • rosross

            Nope, no coherent case ever made to support that Homeopathy is and has been a fraud and scam for more than two centuries. In fact no case at all made, just claims and accusations.

            No-one has put forward a credible case for how this has happened and how today, doctors, hospitals, medical schools, lawyers, governments, and the public are still consistently fooled by what must stand, if it were true, as the most brilliant system of fraud ever invented.

            You make the claims – you make the case or the claims fall in a pathetic heap because they stretch credulity and reason.

          • That burden of proof thingy again, Roslyn.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            *yawn* It’s dishonest to act as if this and every other “argument” – for want of a better word – you make for homeopathy hasn’t been addressed time and time again, Roslyn. Try something new.

          • rosross

            Always a good sign when the opposers resort to schoolyard positions. It means they can mount no coherent argument in response.

            I have asked others, perhaps you can put together a case:

            Please explain in detail how this fraud has been maintained, brilliantly, for more than two centuries, involving some of the greatest minds in history, and some of the greatest medical minds in history, and how, in an age where legal teams sign off on anything which might create legal liability, it has been possible to consistently deceive medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians and millions upon millions of people.

          • She did. Here. And you know it.

          • Tetenterre

            I think that’s yet another case of petitio principii but, just in case I’m wrong, would you care to name these “greatest minds in history”?

      • Acleron

        Why are you waiting!

        Your rhetorical fallacies have been directly answered many times but here we go again.

        Homeopathy only gains in countries where authority figures have managed to convince politicians to enshrine homeopathy in law. Even then, in countries with a strong scientific effort prepared to combat it, it is not so popular. Medical establishments around the world are waking up to the damage caused by this charlatanry. Even in Germany, doctors are getting together to criticise the scam.

        Your argument that doctors would not prescribe if it was a scam is absolutely ludicrous. The difficulty of dislodging such prescribing doctors is well known. The UK had a health system, the envy of the world until this Health Secretary started wrecking it and homeopathy was not popular. Popularity is just another fallacy. Oh, and this Health Secretary has supported homeopathy. I don’t think that homeopathy caused him to destroy the NHS but merely that having a belief in homeopathy is not conducive to intelligent thinking.

        It certainly has not engaged the greatest medical minds except, of course, in your imagination.

        So in addition to your total inability to provide convincing evidence, even your rhetoric is pretty poor.

      • Have you actually read anything here? Or here?

        • rosross

          Yes, of course. But I am still waiting for someone to make a coherent argument as to how Homeopathy has been maintained as ineffective fraud for more than two centuries, involving medical professionals, some of our greatest minds in history, academics, Government and the public.

          • Acleron

            Some of your greatest minds, if you don’t mind, not ours. And of course, a great mind in homeopathy isn’t exactly hard.

  • Acleron

    I’d like to see this vitriolic attack that you state you endured. I can easily believe that skeptics became frustrated at someone agreeing with the quacks complaint that we are not open minded when it is they who refuse to accept the best available evidence. I can also see that some who have actually endured vitriolic attacks by homeopaths who have conspired to smear them and tried to get them fired from their jobs. I can also appreciate the anger displayed by some when personal tragedies have been exploited by these homeopaths who have recently hounded a grieving parent who had lost a young child to sepsis and have acted quite despicably to a skeptic on the loss of her father. I own up to my own incredulity at homeopaths who have blamed patients for not getting better and for those who had the temerity to die at the hands of a homeopath.

    But if you feel that skeptics are not open minded, ask a simple question of both skeptics and homeopaths. “What evidence would you accept that would disprove your contention?”

    The answer for a skeptic is easy, sufficient high quality evidence to overturn the existing evidence. From a homeopath- crickets.

  • There is no “war”. All that is needed for homeopathy to die out completely, is for everybody to understand it. None of the gullible worried well would buy this crap if they understood the realities.

    • rosross

      Hmmm, worried well is it? How about years or decades of failed allopathic treatment, a lot of research, an open mind, a capacity to reason and explore because that is the general situation of most of those I know who explore Homeopathy.

      And you don’t explain how those MD’s who take up more than two years further study to qualify as Homeopathic doctors are part of this ‘worried well.’ I await your explanation.

      Oh, and how about Governments who include it in State medical systems, medical schools and universities which teach it and hospitals which allow its practice? How are they part of the worried well?

      • Acleron

        Failed medical treatments? Like vaccines, cures for cancer, cures for diabetes, cures for stomach ulcers. Is that what you are saying?

        And despite your propaganda, the majority of homeopaths are not MDs, they are barely educated in reality let alone able to read a scientific paper, just like you.

        • rosross

          No, that is not what I am saying.

          Allopathy does not cure diabetes and the stomach ulcer theory is on the way out. Do some research. Vaccines do not cure disease and the Allopathic cure rate for cancer is around 3% so hardly impressive.

          I never said the majority of Homeopaths were MD’s, I have said, until the early part of the 20th century they all were and today, many are. In France for instance you cannot train as a Homeopathic doctor without first becoming an MD. So, all French Homeopaths are MD’s.

          Your last comment is excellent – prejudice and ignorance. It works against you not Homeopathy.

          • Roslyn said:

            “the Allopathic cure rate for cancer is around 3% so hardly impressive.”

            No, Roslyn. I’m sure you’ve been corrected on that many times before, but here we go again…

            Don’t believe the hype – 10 persistent cancer myths debunked

            http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/

          • rosross

            The numbers do get crunched to improve them. These days cure is called five years in remission when once it was called remission. The data collectors are very innovative.

            There are lots of fudge factors involved these days, as there must be if the industry is to continue to exploit people. Then again, most people would not even bother with anything non-Allopathic and as their choice, I fully support it, although it seems a little limited and unwise, but to each their own.

            I, like everyone else would be utterly delighted if Allopathic cancer treatment were successful, but it is not – not for the moment anyway.

            The US has a more iniquitous system where doctors are paid for prescribing chemo.

            Here is a more accurate test. Talk to a dozen people that you know and ask them how many people they know who have had cancer in the past ten years and how many are still alive amongst those who followed the conventional Allopathic route.

            I would be prepared to bet if they knew a dozen people there might be one or two alive and just possibly, one who is actually healthy, i.e. cured.

          • But what’s the relevance to homeopathy?

          • None whatsoever.

          • I see you didn’t read that page, but it’s nice to know you clearly think that Cancer Research UK are lying yet provide not a jot of evidence.

          • Acleron

            Diabetes cured by insulin injection, diet and some drugs. Stomach ulcer theory is on the way out? Lol, I’d rather accept NHSchoices as a source for that one rather than someone who obviously cannot read anything to do with reality.

            Might I remind you, you didn’t write about medical cures but treatment and as you probably don’t know, vaccination is a treatment.

            I have no idea and cannot be bothered to find out which hive of misinformation you get 3% from.

            However, let us examine the homeopaths proven score.

            Zero, which neatly matches the amount of active material you sell in your expensive sugar and water.

          • rosross

            Insulin does not cure diabetes – it manages it. Diet is not a part of Allopathic medicine and in fact dietary advice is more often found in non-Allopathic medical modalities, including Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            Lol, just like a creationist. Sorry your uneducated definitions are not acceptable but then they don’t make any sense either.

            Proper dietary advice is obtained from dieticians who are found in most UK hospitals not from quacks whether you call yourselves homeopaths or nutritionists.

            The success of medicine must really stick in the craw of a lowly homeopath trying to scam vulnerable people with inactive sugar and water.

          • Tarek

            Just on a side issue, I would ignore the “proper” dietary advice in favour of your own careful and considered reading; too many of the “experts” are responsible partly for the obesity epidemic with their nonsensical non-evidence-based advice.

          • “Insulin does not cure diabetes – it manages it.”

            But homeopathy can’t even manage that much. So the allopathy… Sorry, *actual medicine* still comes out ahead here.

          • NotThatGreg

            A well-known, widely-used, efficacious, non-homeopathic treatment for malaria (cinchona) was the original inspiration for the notion of “similium”, which inspired the development of homeopathy, and is of course its core tenet. Yet, more than 200 years later, homeopathy cannot actually do anything to prevent, cure, or even “manage” malaria. This — along with the fact that homeopaths don’t seem to be bothered in the least by this staggeringly embarrassing truth — tells you everything you need to know about homeopathy.

          • Tetenterre

            Roslyn Ross, you wrote: “Diet is not a part of Allopathic medicine”

            That assertion is quite simply not true. I wonder why you made it: it is utterly disingenuous to pretend that dietary advice is limited to quackery (although, to be fair, evidence-deficient dietary advice is).

          • Tarek

            Diabetes is not cured, it is merely managed, often superbly I might add. A cure implies no need for further manipulation whether by diet, drugs or surgery. This has not been possible since Banting and Best discovered insulin.

            Vaccination prevents disease, it does not cure it except in certain limited situations which constitute a mere handful.

            And by the way, the remedies are cheap and taste very nice, even if they do bugger all.

          • Tarek said:

            “the remedies are cheap and taste very nice, even if they do bugger all.”

            Well, there are sweet, but the pellets are still several times the cost of paracetamol. It’s expensive sugar, isn’t it? But that ignores the harmful non-specific effects.

          • Tarek

            Who decided the cost of paracetamol was the denominator of what constitutes expensive?

          • Tarek said:

            “Who decided the cost of paracetamol was the denominator of what constitutes expensive?”

            Bizarre. No one did. You described them as cheap – they’re not; they are very expensive sugar.

          • “No, that is not what I am saying.”

            That doesn’t prevent what Acleron *is* saying still being true.

          • rosross

            It certainly does. He claims I said something I did not.

            And the rest is just insults, hardly a case.

          • What part did you not say?

          • rosross

            The first para referred to me. I think you can work that out.

          • Acleron

            You deny saying this
            ‘How about years or decades of failed allopathic treatment’ ?

          • “The first para referred to me. I think you can work that out.”

            Yeah… nah. I’ve seen you make statements like those.

  • toots

    There is no war. There are true believers. There is science. There are shit-stirrers. Which do you think you are?

  • rosross

    Please explain in detail how this fraud has been maintained, brilliantly, for more than two centuries, involving some of the greatest minds in history, and some of the greatest medical minds in history, and how, in an age where legal teams sign off on anything which might create legal liability, it has been possible to consistently deceive medical professionals, academics, lawyers, politicians and millions upon millions of people.

    • But you just said that further down. This is a saturation strategy, isn’t it? Flecking guano. You dance around, pasting this, get called out on it, then just re-paste it somewhere else, and so on… Idea being that the more it appears, the more it is read by the gullible types you rely on, and you will gain a few more ‘converts’ (your term), right? How has this fraud been maintained? By noisy, media-exploiting propagandists like you?

      • rosross

        I am waiting for someone to answer. Can you do it?

        Make a coherent and credible case as to exactly how such a fraud could be maintained for more than two centuries, involving some of the most brilliant MD’s, converted to Homeopathy, and various medical professionals and hospitals, academics and academic institutions, politicians and Governments and clearly their legal teams who would sign off on anything doubtful.

        What system do you think are in place to allow this to happen, particularly in the First World?

        If you are a Brit, perhaps spend some time describing how the Queen could be so duped, along with her doctors and lawyers, in this day and age.

        • Can you? It has been answered. Repeatedly. And you know it. Yet, you’ve not addressed how your thought processes do not concede that medicine – which you claim is pretty crap – actually does a pretty fine job, given that so many more practice/teach/endorse it.

          The Queen? That’s your resort now, is it? The Queen has a personal homeopath (Peter “Shaken… not stirred” Fisher); ergo homeopathy must work? That’s it? That constitutes evidence to you, does it? I would say – and I would prefer to say – go take a course in logical fallacies. Except that I think you do know what you’re doing.

          • rosross

            Could you copy and paste it for me? I missed it.

            Let me have a look at this coherent and substantiated argument as to how such a fraud could be maintained for more than two centuries, involving some of the most brilliant MD’s, converted to Homeopathy, and various medical professionals and hospitals, academics and academic institutions, politicians and Governments and clearly their legal teams who would sign off on anything doubtful.

          • No you didn’t. Perhaps you will explain how these legal teams sign off on all that medicine that (as you would have it) kills patients? You know, those medicines which actually do something? You see, administering real medicine involves a risk-benefit evaluation. Now, you’re confused and confusing: is it for this reason that homeopathy is legally signed off? But then, I thought homeopathy was safe and side-effect-free. In which case, what would the legal teams have to concern themselves about? (And why, then, don’t more doctors adopt it? You know, from that vast majority that considers it worthless. Because it would be a lot easier for them, surely.) Oh, perhaps ensuring that, in serious cases, proper medicine was co-administered. Because it might be a big risk if a hospital were to administer homeopathic treatment alone for serious disease – because, you know, it doesn’t cure them.

          • rosross

            I see you cannot make a coherent and credible case that Homeopathy is fraud and has been fraudulent for more than two centuries. Thankyou.

            As to legal sign-offs for Allopathic medicine, that is a different matter. Pharmaceutical companies control Allopathic medicine and there is no issue with hospitals and MD’s using it, hence no real need for legal sign-off.

            In the case of any controversial treatment, a wise organisation would seek legal sign-off, as I am sure, in the case of Homeopathy they do.

            You seem to have completely missed the point – needs must I suppose. Or you have a difficulty with understanding.

            The sign-off is purely because of people like yourself and the vocal minority industry which seeks to condemn Homeopathy and so makes it controversial for conventional, Allopathic medicine.

            Homeopathy is safe and while there can be ‘effects’ as part of the healing and cure process, they are not negative side-effects as found in prescribed Allopathic medication and treatments.

            Why don’t more doctors use Homeopathy? For the same reason most don’t embrace Herbal, Nutritional medicine or Acupuncture. A combination of ignorance, prejudice and fear of the powers that be which run medicine – fear of being sued or looking stupid.

            Which is why, since quite a few MD’s do use Homeopathy and some hospitals practise it, logically it is safe to conclude it is effective and not the least bit fraudulent.

          • Acleron

            Oh sure, pharmaceutical companies control medicine. That must explain the massive fines paid by Glaxo and Merck. Lol

            Your argument was blown apart and all you are now is the black knight from Life of Brian.

          • rosross

            Read former editor of The Lancet, Dr Richard Horton and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Marcia Angell, on the power of pharmaceutical companies in medicine.

            Quote: Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.

            http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/18/shocking-report-from-medical-insiders/

            Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies….

            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

          • Acleron

            Yes they do and it is skeptics, not ignorant homeopaths who find this out. That is a long stretch from the silly comment that pharmaceutical companies control medicine.

          • ? But I haven’t been trying to make such a case. Because I have no need to. Because that issue has been repeatedly addressed here (and here) by others. Your crass logic has been blown apart and you are merely bluffing, à la Dana Ullman, in a bid to deflect from the fact that you cannot present the evidence required of you. And then, in a bid to again bat off the sticky point that your personal logic must concede – despite all your reaching efforts to convince otherwise – that medicine works, you re-invoke the hackneyed Big Pharma conspiracy. Your second sentenced paragraph is quite bizarre. I take it, then, you are supportive of the ‘AllTrials’ campaign; you know, that science-led initiative to compel pharmaceutical companies to publish all their trial data. You see, it is science that addresses and corrects such problems. Whilst ‘people like you’ merely carp – ‘because you must’.

            You wrote somewhere here that threads like this serve a purpose for you because they enable the dissemination of information. Rather, you abuse them to peddle misinformation. You attempt to blindside people with the non sequitur that, because it is legally used (you’ve now slipped from ‘many’ to ‘quite a few’ and ‘some’), it is therefore effective. And you’re being sneaky with the ‘fraudulent’ line. In Hahnemann’s time, it was likely as valid an attempt at medicine as anything else; in fact, it was less likely to bring about the death of patients, hastened by the bleeding and poor hygiene which was then convention. But look what has happened in the @ 200 years since: modernity. Science developed leaps and bounds, bringing massive benefit to medicine and public health. It has left your precious in its wake and exposed it for what it is today – a sham. So, you see, it isn’t correct to call it a 200-year fraud, as it was initially developed with good intention; but today, with the knowledge science has accrued, to extol its paid usage is fraud.

            You write, ‘Homeopathy is safe’. I would ask you to explicate on that, but I know that you will dance around the fact that a medicine without side-effects is not. Either you cannot see that your fêted, side-effect-free ‘modality’ is just a too-good-to-be-true sham, or you refuse to admit it. You have repeatedly ducked the question whether you are a practicing homeopath, which I consider pertinent, as you clearly have an axe to grind. So which is it? Are you deceiving yourself, or deceiving others?

    • Acleron

      By recruiting idiots prepared to look like idiots by parroting rhetorical rubbish and ignoring good evidence.

      • rosross

        You did make me laugh. Thanks for making our case.

        • Acleron

          The case for your ignorance of scientific evidence? Actually it is quite sad I know 10 year olds with a better grasp of both logic and science than you possess.

          • rosross

            🙂

  • rosross

    By the way, what is the explanation as to why the Cancer Research UK would be participating in fraud, if indeed, Homeopathy were fraudulent as some claim?

    This is actually quite balanced and leans toward the negative, but that is okay, hedge the bets, but here we have on a credible Cancer site, advice in regard to Homeopathy.

    If Homeopathy is ineffective, and fraudulent, why is it even considered or discussed?

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/homeopathy

    • I assume you mean the charity Cancer Research UK? Do you believe everything they say?

      • rosross

        Yes, that is what I said. And the point was, if you were correct then they would not touch it at all. And they do. Hedging their bets of course and erring on the side of the conventional and biased view, but there it is, advice to patients.

        • Only after you changed it.

          Why do they say this?

          “Homeopathy is used alongside conventional medicine and should not be used instead of conventional cancer treatment.”

          Doesn’t homeopathy work, then?

          • rosross

            Homeopathy treats individuals not diseases and as I said, the site errs on the side of convention.

            However, clearly it does not believe Homeopathy is fraudulent as you claim.

          • Acleron

            It clearly doesn’t represent the view that homeopathy is not a scam. Examine the ‘Research’ page, no effect, poor study, few patients, more work has to be done, effects attributable to placebo, no effect on cancer.

            This is your evidence that oncologists approve of homeopathy?

            Here is an oncologist talking about homeopathy and cancer, he thinks it is a scam.
            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/prior-plausibility-versus-homeopathy-and-an-unethical-trial-at-the-university-of-toronto/

          • rosross

            oh it most certainly does. Such bodies survive on charity. They would not touch anything which might bring accusations of fraudulence and diminish the list of benefactors.

            Nice try. I never said oncologists in any general sense approved of Homeopathy but of course some do which is why they incorporate it.

            If they did not approve they would not allow it. And they most certainly would not allow it near children, as they frequently do in Germany.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958565/

          • Acleron

            All they have done is state the facts that some people waste their money on buying sugar and water. A fact I have mentioned myself. Then they neatly destroy the case for using it by displaying the evidence. That you took that as approval by asking why they had mentioned it at all just shows they went clean over your head, but then most things do.

          • rosross

            I always know you are in desperate mode when you ply the sugar and water theory.

          • Acleron

            If you are denying your nostrums are anything but sugar and water then, as usual, supply the evidence.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            David Gorski (a.k.a Orac / The Nipple Ripper) makes his living doing surgery and promoting conventional medicine and vaccines. He has undisclosed financial ties to big pharma through his vaccine program at Wayne State University. He’s also well known and highly criticized for his attacks on the parents of vaccine-injured children.

            I think I’ll pass him up as an unbiased voice.

          • Acleron

            Your opinion hardly matters, anybody who demonstrates that homeopathy is a scam is corrupt according to you although you have signally failed to ever produce any evidence for your smears.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            I recommend that people who want to know who David Gorski really is google his name.

          • Acleron

            Please do so. Read his blog and see how he deconstructs the ridiculous claims of homeopaths. Of course, to do that you will have to stick to the facts and evidence which appears difficult for you.

          • Acleron

            So a quack quotes delusionists to try and make a point. In an ideal world then Dara O’Briain’s sack could be used for both of you but we have to deal with the misery, injury and death caused by you both while you cackle insanely while banking your ill gotten gains.

          • rosross

            Edited, sure. I had two sites open and used the wrong reference.

    • Tetenterre

      Roslyn Ross, you wrote: “If Homeopathy is ineffective, and fraudulent, why is it even considered or discussed?
      http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/homeopathy

      It says “Although there have been many research studies into homeopathy there is no scientific or medical evidence that it can prevent cancer or work as a cancer treatment. ”

      Were you hoping nobody would bother to check the link?

  • Acleron

    Classical homeopaths have a quaint belief in miasms an imaginary construct. They choose not to believe in germ theory although they will sell you variously labeled vials of expensive water and sugar to kill the bacteria and viruses they claim are not causing disease. They will claim that sugar and water will protect you against malaria even though, according to them, in a healthy individual this same sugar and water should induce the same symptoms as malaria. They claim that after throwing away everything with the faintest chance of being active, their sugar and water will cure disease and that if you throw away the pure water that results from their ritual and add fresh new water, their product will be even stronger.

    One could sympathise with Hahnemann for making an error over his single mistaken observation but who can sympathise with those who make money by endangering patients for no observable benefit whatsoever?

    • rosross

      Getting desperate I see. The sugar and water theme because you cannot make a coherent case to prove the fraudulence of Homeopathy.

      By the way, Homeopathic doctors definitely believe in germs they just believe, as Louis Pasteur finally admitted, ‘it is not the pathogen but the terrain.’

      In other words, bacteria, viruses, pathogens certainly exist but the key question is why do they cause illness in one and not another.

      For example, take Strep throat, well many people have Strep living naturally in their throat and never become ill while others do. Patently Strep per se: does not make people ill or everyone would become ill.

      When you look at ‘germ theory’ you will see the word CAN used, i.e. this can cause such and such. Not this DOES cause such and such. Not everyone with H. Pylori gets an ulcer as an example.

      So, Homeopathic belief is that the individual body, the terrain as Pasteur called it, is where the problem lies, not the pathogen. And all very sensible really and something which Allopathic medicine is being pushed toward as greater understanding develops.

      • Acleron

        Simple nonsense.

        We know that bacteria and viruses cause disease, we can even track their mode of entry. We also know for some diseases why only some people become infected and others do not. Only homeopaths with their general ignorance of all science have to go back to quote mine Pasteur.

        Not understanding that it is the pathogen causi g the disease is lamentable in the 21st century and lethal when you pretend to be doctors.

        • rosross

          No, we know that bacteria and viruses CAN cause disease. What we do not know is WHY they do not cause disease in everyone but only some.

          That was the point I made, which you overlooked, it is the terrain not the pathogen. If germ theory were correct then everyone would get every disease or condition when subjected to the pathogen – they do not.

          We do not know why some people succumb and others do not given that often the less robust do not succumb and the most robust do. Disease is much more complex than that and that is where Homeopathy has its brilliant focus.

          Your last comment is lame. Even doctors know that while the pathogen may be called the cause, it is not a given that it causes disease. They also know that genes may influence disease factors but they do not know why in some people the genes turn on and in others they remain off.

          That is the realm of Homeopathic brilliance – studying the terrain not the pathogen.

          • Acleron

            Go read a book on immunology, it is quite clear why some people become affected by some diseases and others don’t. Unfortunately I don’t think there is an ‘Immunology for Dummies’ to suit your level of comprehension.

            Your staggering ignorance knows few bounds. If someone has a predisposition towards a particular pathogen they don’t get the disease until exposed to that pathogen. The clue is in the name you fool.

            It is ignorance such as this that killed Penelope Dingle and is killing many more Africans at the hands of Jeremy Sherr who convinces them to forego their antiretrovirals so he can sell his worthless sugar and water.

      • “Simple nonsense.”

        +1

        • rosross

          Yes, I agree your position is simple nonsense since you make no case otherwise.

    • William Alderson

      Hahnemann, who discovered homeopathy, was one of the early defenders of germ theory in 1831, arguing that it was the only explanation for cholera.[1] The term ‘miasm’ was adopted by Hahnemann with the meaning we now attribute to the word ‘germ’.

      In the London epidemic of 1854 the most successful treatment against cholera was homeopathy, with a mortality rate of 16% compared with 53% at conventional hospitals – incidentally the mortality rate for untreated cholera is 50-60%. This was recorded in a government investigation at the time, but publication of the full facts was only achieved after a debate in Parliament, since there had been attempts to suppress the evidence of homeopathy’s success.

      Homeopathy was also the first medical system to recognise that those organisms could evolve, some 30 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species.[2]

      [1] Samuel Hahnemann (trans. R E Dudgeon), Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera, (Leipzig: the author, 1831) in The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann, 1851 edition (New Delhi: B Jain Publishers, repr. edn 2002), p. 758.
      [2] Samuel Hahnemann (trans. William Boericke), Organon of Medicine, 6th edn, manuscript completed 1841, 1st English edn 1921 (Calcutta: Roy Publishing House, repr. edn 1972), § 81 p. 160.

      • Acleron

        And more fallacies. Hahnemann invented the marketing term allopathy to denigrate medicine.

        You have no evidence that homeopathy saved any lives during cholera outbreaks then or since. If anything, the 2000 year old practice of blood letting which was not performed by homeopaths may have saved some lives but inert sugar and water? Give us a break, we only have 200 years of real discoveries in chemistry, physics and biology that put the chances of homeopathy ever working in the same ball park as the chances of finding an active molecule in one of your sugar pills, ie zero.

        Homeopathy got there before Darwin? What piffle is this? Next you’ll be telling us they discovered gravity waves.

        • William Alderson

          The reference for the report (not produced by homeopaths) is: Medical Council (1854-55b suppl. II, table III); House of Commons (1845-55).

          You will see there that among confirmed cholera cases 46-61.9% died at conventional hospitals, but only 16% at the homeopathic hospital. The former result is consistent with lack of treatment; the latter is consistent with homeopathy being singularly effective. That is, homeopathy saved lives, and it could have saved more lives if it had been used more widely.

          Vitriol against homeopathy prevented wider use, and still prevents wider use.

          • Acleron

            Dear oh dear, they only had figures supplied by homeopaths, why should they be accurate, did they obey the rules of scientific evidence then but strangely enough when we can check, they don’t now?

            No, that isn’t evidence, it may have been suggestive but more recent real evidence shows homeopathy is nothing other than an elaborate scam. We have a pretty good idea that it shouldn’t work and firm evidence that it doesn’t work. Half baked numbers from history does not change the conclusion.

          • William Alderson

            No. The figures were supplied by an independent medical witness who was hostile to homeopathy … until he saw the effects of its use in this epidemic.

          • Cholera: a bacterial infection yielding symptoms of varying severity, from which, though often lethal, many patients will recover. Consider the state of medicine in Hahnemann’s day, when the world knew little of what actually caused disease, physicians still laboured under the humoral system – and when there was actually no treatment for cholera. There was no trial between the homeopathic and conventional hospitals; so we don’t know the proportion of severe cases in either; we don’t know the state of their overall health before contracting the illness; and we don’t know the relative conditions of the two hospitals.

            Thus, it is highly likely that conventional medical treatment at that time actually did for many patients, who, if they’d been left untreated, may have recovered. But that’s no evidence for homeopathy. It is scientifically baseless to attach higher cholera recovery rates in the homeopathic hospital as attributable to homeopathic treatment – rather, in all probability, they just happened to recover, having not succumbed to the actions of conventional doctors who then didn’t know any better. (Oh, and what, specifically, was this treatment? The causative bacterium had not then been isolated. So, they used, what, low doses of something else thought to cause diarrhoea? In what vehicle? Water, by any chance? Which certainly would not do extremely dehydrated people any harm, I would imagine.)

            And consider also how scientific medicine has moved on in the two centuries since: it has acquired knowledge of the causative agent of cholera; developed a vaccine against it; how to prevent it, and how to treat and cure it when outbreaks occur. Homeopathy? Nada! Any do-gooding homeopath who purports to be able to homeopathically treat cholera today is dangerously irresponsible… and should stay away from disaster zones where it can become a major problem.

          • William Alderson

            We do know the conditions and severity of the cases, because that information was recorded as part of the official monitoring of the epidemic. At this point I should apologise for having earlier used Edzard Ernst as a source, since he was inaccurate.

            The figures show that 18.4% of patients at the Homeopathic Hospital died who were in stages 3-5 of infection. None of these deaths was of anyone in stage 3, and over half the cases were in stages 4-5.

            46% of patients at allopathic hospitals died who were in the same stages 3-5.

            The relative states of health, the relative conditions of the hospitals, and the actions of the conventional doctors are all irrelevant factors since the mortality rate can only be increased from the ‘untreated’ rate by these factors, not reduced, and even the allopathic hospitals showed mortality rates consistent with lack of treatment, not with active harm.

            However you look at it, the mortality rate at the homeopathic hospital was extremely low, and to explain it as “they just happened to recover” is to reject accurately recorded evidence in favour of mystical speculation.

          • ‘The relative states of health, the relative conditions of the hospitals, and the actions of the conventional doctors are all irrelevant factors… ‘

            No, they’re not. If we are to make accurate conclusions, viz that homeopathy cured cholera, then all other confounding variables need to be controlled and/or adjusted for. Otherwise there can be no valid comparison and all you have is, at best, an association… and speculation. And then, what were they treated with? What was the homeopathic remedy that wrought this amazing cure? Has it since been evaluated in properly controlled trials? Because if the homeopathy in the homeopathic hospital was administered by homeopaths, then your assertion is on rocky ground.

            So, you assert that homeopathy successfully treated cholera. Based on what we know and what we don’t know, I reject your assertion. And I hope you do not consider homeopathy a valid treatment for cholera today.

          • William Alderson

            Rubbish!

            I defy you to name a single confounding variable which is a factor in *decreasing* the mortality rate for cholera from that for no treatment. I also defy you to show examples where this factor has been used to decrease mortality rates for cholera elsewhere. All the factors you have suggested can only increase the mortality rate.

            In conflict with the useful rule of ‘Occam’s Razor’, you are multiplying entities without necessity. There exists a simple explanation for what occurred, but you are insisting on multiplying explanations completely unnecessarily because you happen not to believe in the simple one.

          • Acleron

            One single confounding variable?

            Selection.

            But this all relies on homeopaths being a great deal more honest than they are today. Have you any evidence for that?

          • William Alderson

            Selection bias is not a relevant factor.

            The mortality rate for untreated cholera is for those *infected*, not for those at a particular stage of infection, so a larger number of late-stage admission will tend to increase the mortality rate at a given hospital, but admissions of those at an earlier stage will not tend to reduce the rate below that for untreated cholera. The stages were explicitly defined as part of the process of recording the epidemic.

            Quite simply, only successful treatment could have produced this significant reduction in the mortality rate for cholera at the homeopathic hospital.

            As regards intake, the London Homeopathic Hospital was, at that time, a charity treating the indigent poor, situated some 2 miles from the centre of the epidemic.

            You may be amused to know that it is reported that one cholera victim entered the premises and died before he could be treated, but was still counted as one of the deaths from cholera at the hospital.

          • Acleron

            Selecting healthy individuals and claiming they are ill has been seen today.

            People dying for any reason only seems amusing to homeopaths.

            Anyway, you asked for one, Alan Henness gave you several.

            No such effect has been seen against placebo in high quality trials. Strange that the power of homeopathy disappears when reliably examined. Shy is it?

          • Multiplying entities? Oh. Well, I don’t claim an explanation. And I put it to you that yours is invalid. What were the relative hygiene conditions of the two hospitals? What was the relative socio-economic status of the patients in the two hospitals? Where were those who received no treatment? Was the rehydration regimen the same for all? Was a controlled comparison carried out between treated and untreated? Who administered this treatment? I concede that there was a higher recovery rate in the homeopathic hospital. But I’m arguing that there are more parsimonious explanations for it. Are you, then, seriously stating that the simplest explanation, because you happen to believe in it, is that homeopathy cured/s cholera? Rubbish!

          • William Alderson

            Poor hygiene could certainly increase the mortality rate, but good hygiene could not significantly reduce it below that for untreated cholera.

            Socio-economic status might affect the results marginally, except that the hospital was a charity treating the “indigent poor” at the time.

            I am interested that you are suggesting that homeopaths might have been the first to introduce a rehydration regimen – the primary treatment for the condition today – without anyone noticing that they were doing it. Quite simply, there is no record of such a regimen as a mode of treatment, and I suspect that any evidence of such a form of treatment would have been gratefully seized on at the time as an opportunity to claim that the success was not due to homeopathy, just as you wish to now.

            As for the relation between the treated and untreated, you appear to be confusing treatment in the real world with an organised trial. In the real world we already have a mortality rate for no treatment, and the other hospitals roughly conformed to this figure.

          • ‘… good hygiene could not significantly reduce it below that for untreated cholera.’ Why not?

            ‘I am interested that you are suggesting that homeopaths might have been the first to introduce a rehydration regimen – the primary treatment for the condition today – without anyone noticing that they were doing it.

            I’m not suggesting that. And I’m not suggesting it was a (conscious) mode of treatment then. I’m querying whether we can know whether the two hospitals rehydrated their patients effectively and hygienically, and to what extent. As you say, there is no record.

            The reason I reject your claim that the difference in recovery was due to homeopathy, is because you, do you not, attribute it to the homeopathic remedies given? And you have absolutely no basis for claiming so. Therefore, unless you can provide evidence that those homeopathic remedies were/are effective in treating cholera, I will reasonably conclude that the difference in recovery was due to other factors.

      • William Alderson said:

        “In the London epidemic of 1854 the most successful treatment against cholera was homeopathy”

        What homeopathic products were given and in what dilutions?

        • William Alderson

          The doctors used a range of individualised medicines including Veratrum album, Arsenicum album, Cuprum and Secale, given singly. The dose was drops of the first three decimal potencies given every 10, 15 or 30 minutes, or every 1, 2 or 4 hours. In addition tincture of Camphor was prescribed in many cases at the beginning of treatment.[1]

          [1] Shortened from Michael Emmans Dean, The Trials of Homeopathy; Origins, structure and development (Essen: KVC Verlag, 2004), p. 128.

          • Close but not entirely accurate or complete.

            Just so it’s clear, the dilutions used were:

            1d (one part tincture to nine of proof spirit), ie 10% tincture, 90% proof spirit
            2d (one part of the 1d to a further nine parts proof spirit), ie 1% tincture, 99% proof spirit
            3d (one part of the 2d to a further nine parts prrof spirit), ie 0.1% tincture, 99.9% proof spirit

            The records don’t say, but proof spirit is nowadays 50% alcohol.

            The camphor was used in a large number of cases and was made up of one part camphor to six of pure spirit, ie 14% camphor, 86% proof spirit.

            The records don’t show whether any of these were succussed.

            As you say, the camphor/spirit solution was generally used at the commencement of the treatment before anything else and was given in quantities up to five drops as frequently as every five minutes.

            And then there were the instances where the pure, mother tincture, was used.

            You mention Veratrum album, Arsenicum album, Cuprum and Secale and that they were used singly. Other products used include Phosphoric. acid, belladonna, various ,mercury compounds and ipecacuanha. They were used singly, but sometimes two were alternated.

            None of these homeopathic products are currently registered or authorised by the MHRA.

            Perhaps you could say how any of this translates to current day practice of homeopathy?

            __________
            London Homoeopathic Hospital, Returns relating to the treatment of cholera.

          • William Alderson

            What you have demonstrated is the extent to which, even in the urgency of an acute illness such as cholera, individualisation is a primary characteristic of successful homeopathic practice. Indeed, homeopathy differs significantly from conventional medicine in that individualisation of treatment is not an insuperable problem (leading to expensive and wasteful side effects), but is central to the whole system.

            As regards the MHRA, this organisation was established as part a system of checks on pharmaceutical drugs after the disaster of thalidomide. Homeopathy is well known for its excellent safety record (recognised by insurers if not by opponents of the therapy). As a result regulation of homeopathy has appropriately focussed on the maintenance of proper manufacturing processes rather than on spurious relationships of individual medicines to individual diseases.

            In fact, there is no means by which the MHRA could regulate homeopathic medicines in the way it regulates drugs, since homeopathic medicines are not applied generically to diseases, and regulating what individuals should receive what medicine in what circumstances would be absurd.

          • You didn’t answer my question – so we can all understand the relevance of the LHH cholera data, can you please say how the things they did there allow translation to current homeopathic products and practices such that it can be used as justification for efficacy? Perhaps you could also say whether the camphor/spirit solution was homeopathic?

            You said:

            “Homeopathy is well known for its excellent safety record”

            Please provide good evidence for homeopathy’s safety record.

            Let’s not dwell too much on one particular homeopathy manufacturer’s product standards, shall we? You know the one I mean: the one that was found to have shards of glass on their production line and was producing bottles of sugar pellets that didn’t have the magic water dropped onto them – and no one reported any difference…

            “In fact, there is no means by which the MHRA could regulate homeopathic medicines in the way it regulates drugs”

            Indeed. Homeopaths have never been able to provide good evidence their sugar pills have any specific effects at all. That’s why the EU Directives introduced a method of licensing that required none. Are you happy that homeopathic products only have to reach this far lower standard before they can be sold to the general public?

            “homeopathic medicines are not applied generically to diseases, and regulating what individuals should receive what medicine in what circumstances would be absurd.”

            So why are there are 27 homeopathic products licensed by the MHRA with therapeutic indications? And do you think it’s OK for homeopathy manufacturers to sell the 238 homeopathic products that are not permitted indications over the counter to all and sundry without a homeopathic consultation?

          • Tetenterre

            William Alderson, you wrote: ” individualisation is a primary characteristic of successful homeopathic practice”

            So it seems!

      • Acleron

        Actually, you are confusing miasma and miasms. Miasms are a disorder of the body that homeopathy corrects. Sheesh, I cannot keep a straight face saying that load of tripe.

        However, it must be true, a homeopath claimed it. (Now I’ll have to get a face massage to fix it).

        Of course miasmas or bad smells are not the source of the disease merely a side effect and miasms don’t exist at all.

        Science makes sense, it all fits together. Why do believe in all these disjointed imaginary constructs that don’t make sense?

        • William Alderson

          You are right about “saying that load of tripe”. I am laughing myself at your ignorance.

          As I said before, Hahnemann used the term ‘miasma’ or ‘miasm’ with the same meaning as we now give to the term ‘germ’. Previously the term ‘miasma’ had referred to bad air, but Hahnemann discarded the idea that it was a the air that was a problem and recognised that it was something specific in the air: living infectious agents. We call these agents germs (or seeds), whereas he retained a term ‘miasm’ which was already associated with causing illness.

          If you had researched the passage I cited, you would have found this out yourself.

          Hahnemann also established that certain infectious conditions could be suppressed rather than cured, and produce further chronic conditions, not immediately recognisable as related to the original infection. Nowadays homeopaths retain the word ‘miasm’ for these states of suppressed infection, and use the term germs (etc.) for infective agents.

          By the by, I do not notice that you ridicule conventional medicine for saying that we get infected by seeds.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Of course, the war on homeopathy isn’t working. People know good, safe medicine when they use it, and they want it. That’s why homeopathy is growing in use in countries around the world at annual rates of between 10% and 30%.

    Observational studies (although much despised by “skeptics”) are known for their ability to provide evidence about how a treatment works in every day use. This one not only shows that homeopathy works beautifully but that it also works better than conventional drugs.

    It was conducted on 782 patients with conditions of the major organs severe enough in 78% of them to impair daily functioning. Of the participants using homeopathy 52% were able to discontinue their use of one or more of their conventional drugs and lower their health care costs; 89% of patients found that homeopathy improved their conditions; and 95% were fairly or very satisfied with their homeopathic treatment.

    Of those who used conventional treatments 13% found they improved their conditions; 32% found they made no difference at all; and 55% found they worsened their conditions.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14960096

    • rosross

      Yes, and when you ask them to make a case demonstrating more than two centuries of fraudulence, involving medical professionals, academics, politicians, Government bodies there is silence.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        Of course there’s silence. What they’re trying to promote is nothing less than the mother of all conspiracy theories: hundreds of millions of patients and hundreds of thousands of physicians over the course of 200 years are all lying. The results of millions upon millions of objective tests are somehow invalid (but only when those tests are ordered by homeopaths). For what possible purpose would all these millions of people lie about the results they’ve gotten from the medicine they choose to use?

        Whatever happened to their critical thinking skills? A refresher course with the “Good” Thinking Society is desperately needed! Of course, the fee will be paid by big pharma.

        • Acleron

          What objective tests?

          objective
          adjective
          1.
          (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
          “historians try to be objective and impartial”
          synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical
          “an interviewer must try to be objective”

          Impartial, nah, not a homeopath
          Unbiased, lol never a homeopath
          Unprejudiced, only if the patient has money
          Disinterested, crikey ibid
          Open minded, gosh like a clam
          Clinical, hmm, well they do wear white coats and pretend to be doctors.

          No, homeopathy and objective is definitively an oxymoron

        • Oh, come, come, Christine. You’re hysterical (and I don’t mean in the funny sense). Big statements. Gross ‘Either/Or’ illogic. (‘The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.’ – Is that what you’re doing?) Tell us, what has homeopathy contributed to the progress of medicine in the last two centuries?

          • There’s that silence Christine was just mentioning.

          • Yes. Instead she goes to the top of the thread and re-pastes one of her choice anecdotes and logical fallacies. It is a very disingenuous tactic.

      • Acleron

        That is a lie rosros, you condemn yourself.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          So where’s your case proving all the fraudulence “skeptics” like to complain of?

          • Acleron

            Rosros has just proven it for me.

            If you want another example, 200 years of selling vials of sugar and water will do.

            Or perhaps you would like Benveniste falsifying results at the bench by ignoring all results that would not comply with his conclusion.

            How about the infamous Swiss report where the homeopaths tried to ignore all the rules of scientific evidence to ‘prove’ their conclusion.

            And then there are the dozens of homeopaths reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Agency for fraudulent advertising.

            Want anymore because the scab of homeopathy has hardly been scratched so far.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            What you call sugar and water is called nano-medicine by people in the medical field.

            As you well know, Benveniste never falsified anything. The real falsification was perpetrated by high-school drop-out and magician James Randi and a journalist.

            The Swiss report concluded: “Taking internal and external validity into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe.” The 13 members of the investigation team on the Swiss HTA included 10 trained in conventional medicine 6 of whom were also trained in homeopathy, three were trained in physics, electrical engineering and sociology. 8 of the 13 held academic positions 6 of whom had been involved in research. None of them had any vested interest in the outcome.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

            Would you like to give the names of the people you claim ignored the rules along with proof that they did?

            The ASA is a private organization and part of the UK’s advertising industry. They have no legal standing and no independent advisor on medical matters. They should not be making judgments they aren’t qualified to make and should not be accepting claims from people like Alan Henness who have no medical expertise or credentials.

          • Acleron

            Nobody but homeopaths pretend that nothing is nano anything. DUllman jumped on that band wagon as a sales pitch. Neither he nor you understand the meaning of nanotechnology. Come to that, neither he nor you has ever convincingly demonstrated there is anything there at all, let alone nanobollicks.

            You are lying about an investigation carried out by Maddox, then the editor of the journal Nature. I’d rather accept his findings than a mere
            moans.

            The infamous Swiss report was condemned by the Swiss government. The authors of that Swiss report fraudulently stated that they had no vested interest. Sheesh, they all had income from homeopathy.

            The ASA are incorporated by the UK government, do try and learn something before you ignorantly speak. Try ignoring your mentors, they know nothing more than you do. Whether the complaint comes from Alan Henness or any other member of the public the ASA are tasked with investigating it.

            Then of course there was the four homeopathy companies that formed an illegal cartel to falsely smear Edzard Ernst, smears that are still being repeated by homeopaths.

            Want some more?

          • But Christine has been corrected on these points before. Haven’t you, Christine? Repeat-ignore. The modus operandi of the homeopathy propagandist. QED.

          • Acleron

            I suspect they get away with these tactics in their little echo chambers and are unable to change in the big wide world.

          • rosross

            I have always found it amusing that those supposedly supporting rigorous science think a magician is a good front man for them and science.

          • Acleron

            Yes I can imagine you giggling hysterically because you cannot answer the simple request for evidence.

          • “What you call sugar and water is called nano-medicine by people in the medical field.”

            Yeah… nah. That’s a claim made by homeopaths desperate to cling to anything that even vaguely sounds like it may offer a mechanism for their delusion. It took less than a week before articles started coming out proposing a link between homeopathy gravity waves. The whole industry is intellectually bankrupt.

          • “As you well know, Benveniste never falsified anything. The real falsification was perpetrated by high-school drop-out and magician James Randi and a journalist.”

            I didn’t even know Randi was involved with Benveniste’s experiments.

          • Acleron

            I believe it was Randi who asked Benveniste’s technician why she had failed to write down a result. Her reply was immortal. ‘Oh, we know that result must be wrong’. This is the laboratory that homeopaths would have us believe would have supplied the first Nobel prize winner in homeopathy if only those nasty scientists hadn’t found them out.

            Maddox invited Randi onto the investigatory team on the basis that scientists were ill suited to detect dishonesty.

            Benveniste ended up playing recordings of the vibrations of sugar and water down the telephone for money. As clear a fraud as you could get and a homeopathic hero.

          • “The Swiss report concluded”

            The Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Health and Accident Insurance Directorate, Bern, Switzerland concluded that the “Swiss Report” was not a Swiss Report.

            Just more misinformation from people desperate to have validation for their belief.

            http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13723/

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            It was commissioned by the Swiss government. That makes it a Swiss report. As a result of the report and according to the expressed wishes of the Swiss people homeopathy is now included in their national health care program.

          • Remind me what the conclusions and outcome of the Swiss Government Commission were again, Christine?

          • Acleron

            Any evidence the infamous and fraudulent Swiss report had any effect on the vote?

          • It wasn’t commissioned by the Swiss government. That claim got so much attention that the Swiss Government actually went on the record to say that claim was bollocks. This has also been pointed out to you many times before and you still push the lies. This is an example of the level of honesty you have.

            Christine, you are a liar and this is the demonstration of your level of dishonesty.

          • This repeat-ignore tactic is indeed dishonest.

          • (I can’t see my earlier comment here, so I will re-try without the live links:)

            It was not a Swiss government report: http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13723/

            http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13594/

            http://www.zenosblog.com/2012/05/that-neutral-swiss-homeopathy-report/

          • You do know you’re not quoting from the Swiss Government report, don’t you, Christine?

            And it wasn’t a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) either.

          • rosross

            Nice try but not the answer. Make a case explaining how you believe it has been possible for millions to have been deceived for more than two centuries including medical professionals, Government officials, academics and lawyers.

          • Acleron

            Lol, you have neatly moved the goal posts but let in a goal that was kicked a long time ago. Also it becomes yet another example of fraudulence.

            It is a common delusion of Dunning Kruger sufferers that they think everyone else is as inept as they are. For your information, those seeking real facts read past the headlines and will easily see your fraudulence.

          • That Swiss Report was another lie too.

        • rosross

          Please cut and paste and post again your case clearly demonstrating more than two centuries of identifiable fraudulence in the case of Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            Lol, the pereptory command. My comments now include your lie and either you have read them or you are not paying attention.

            However, I will add another one.

            DUllman using a sock puppet to praise himself.

            Do you want anymore, plenty still to come?

      • That is a patent lie.

      • Acleron

        So no evidence, I must be clairvoyant because I thought that as I asked the question. Lol, of course it wasn’t scrying just experience seeing the same squirming from homeopaths over many years.

    • Acleron

      Any evidence for your claim that only 13% found they improved?

      Your reference leads to a magazine article for homeopaths, for such a startling claim I expect a peer reviewed article in a respected scientific journal.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Here’s a study that will interest every athlete and football fan in Europe. It was conducted by Peter Billigmann, sports doctor, lead researcher and head of the Kobling Institute for Performance Diagnostics and Sports Medicine. The study found that 92% of all doctors for German football league teams and the German National Football Team prescribe homeopathy. I bet they use it because it works. Football is big business, and no one is going to risk losing a game because of injuries or illness.

    http://www.thehomeotoday.com/2014/03/the-german-football-team-uses.html

    • Argument from popularity doesn’t validate witchcraft.

      • rosross

        It certainly does not. Allopathic medicine is the third biggest killer and the most popular form of medicine.

        • Yet homeopathy still doesn’t work.

          • rosross

            MD’s, hospitals, medical schools, universities, Government health systems and millions of people around the world disagree with you.

          • Doesn’t make ’em right. Even more MD’s, hospitals, medical schools, universities, Government health systems and millions of people around the world subscribe to medicine. According to your logic they’re wrong about that.

        • Acleron

          The immediate displacement activity on losing a point, drearily predictable.

          Come on Rosros, give a out a reference to Mercola, I need that to complete my homeopathic bingo, you’ve hit all the other scores.

        • Tetenterre

          ” Allopathic medicine is the third biggest killer”

          Yet again, you repeat that claim. Without evidence. Hitchens’s Razor applies.

          • rosross

            Iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, is the third biggest killer in the US and around fourth or fifth in other developed nations.

            Patently this refers to Allopathic medicine and not other medical modalities like Homeopathy.

            Quote: Here’s a ranking of some activities that kill us, followed by the number of people who die in America each year from that activity, the number of those people engaged in or affected by that activity, and the percent who die in that subpopulation each year:

            – Iatrogenic. 190,000 deaths a year. 180 million receive medical attention. 0.105% of them die each year.

            – Smoking. 152,000 deaths a year. 43.4 million Americans smoke. 0.350% of them die each year.

            – Alcohol. 100,000 deaths a year. 60 million Americans drink. 0.167% of them die each year.

            – Automobile accidents. 50,000 deaths a year. 190 million Americans drive. 0.026% of them die each year.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/05/05/whats-really-gonna-kill-you/#4eec93892382

            Quote: In 1999, Americans learned that 98,000 people were dying every year from preventable errors in hospitals. That came from a widely touted analysis by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called To Err Is Human. This was the “Silent Spring” of the health care world, grabbing headlines for revealing a serious and deadly problem that required policy and action.

            As it turns out, those were the good old days.

            According to a new study just out from the prestigious Journal of Patient Safety, four times as many people die from preventable medical errors than we thought, as many as 440,000 a year.

            Back in the old days, the IOM experts had very little concrete information to use in estimating the extent of killer errors in hospitals. But with innovations in research techniques led by Dr. David Classen, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and others, we now have more tools to tell us where the bodies are buried.

            With these latest revelations, medical errors now claim the spot as the third leading cause of death in the United States, dwarfing auto accidents, diabetes and everything else besides Cancer and heart disease. Harvard’s Dr. Lucian Leape, the father of the patient safety movement and one of the experts behind the original IOM report, says the numbers in this new study should supplant the IOM estimates from 1999. That means hospitals are killing off the equivalent of the entire population of Atlanta one year, Miami the next, then moving to Oakland, and on and on.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2013/09/23/stunning-news-on-preventable-deaths-in-hospitals/#73edeabbad08

          • Tetenterre

            Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

            Let’s deconstruct this, shall we?

            #1. You initially claimed: “Allopathic medicine is the third biggest killer”

            I challenged you to back this up with evidence. You then claimed before you cited your ‘evidence’:
            “Iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, is the third biggest killer…”

            Can you see the difference?
            (Clue: Penelope Dingle’s death was iatrogenic; but it was caused by a homeopath – nothing to do with so-called ‘allopathic’ medicine.

            #2. I asked you for *evidence*. You responded by citing two opinion-pieces (the clue is in the disclaimer in the byline) from a business magazine.

            Can you see the difference?

            Why did you choose to cite an opinion piece in a business magazine instead of proper scientific/statistical evidence? Is it because the latter doesn’t actually exist?

            #3. You claimed (again, without evidence): “Patently this refers to Allopathic medicine and not other medical modalities like Homeopathy.”

            No it does not. The statistics for iatrogenic harm misrepresented in those opinion pieces also include things like prescribing the wrong medicine or no medicine instead of the correct medicine (or, in your terms “allopathic” medicine. In other words, giving someone homeoquackery instead of the correct real medicine boosts the “iatrogenic harm” statistics.

            Do you see the problem with what you claimed here?

            #4. Let’s take a shufti at that dire Leah Binder opinion piece. Binder makes exactly the same fallacious misrepresentations as you did (were you just parotting her without thinking?).

            * First off, the “Journal of Patient Safety” is not, as Binder pretends, a ‘prestigious’ journal. (Unless this is some curious new use of ‘prestigious’ of which I was previously unaware.)
            * Secondly, the methodology of that so-called ‘study’ has been justifiably criticised.
            * Thirdly, the torturing of extremely limited data to reach such definitive conclusions is, I confess, a tremendous feat!

            Why do you think she did that?

            #5. Let’s look at the WHO fact sheet on this (I assume that, when it comes to health issues, reasonable people will give more weight to a WHO factsheet than to an opinion piece in a business rag). Oh look, iatrogenic harm doesn’t even make the top ten.

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

            Why do you think that is?

            #6. By the way, homeopathy is not, as you pretend, a “medical modality”. It is a “marketing modality”. For snake-oil.

            Lastly, nobody is pretending that there is not too much iatrogenic harm (which is why real doctors try to reduce it), but blowing its extent out of all proportion to reality does nobody any good (apart from the touts of worthless snake oil, of course).

    • Acleron

      Celebrity endorsement.

      Sportsmen and women are prone to being scammed, kinesio tape, nasal expanders, copper bracelets, they’ve fallen for all of them but like the royals, the moment they are really ill or injured they are being treated by the best medicine money can buy.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        Sour grapes !!!

        • Acleron

          I’ve got sour grapes because you don’t understand logical fallacies or facts? What a peculiar statement.

    • I’m a football fan in Europe. That study interests me nought.

      It is amusing how you pop up with these little cherries as though you would have us believe they vindicate the whole of homeopathy. Even if they were a real finding… you’ve still got a whole lot of catching up to do.

      • Acleron

        I’m just going to meet a group of avid football fans, they travel hundreds if not thousands of Km a week to matches. I’ll greet them with this incredible news.

        Actually, perhaps I won’t. Lol.

    • Tetenterre

      Oh dear, Christine! Sports people also use stuff like “power bracelets” because they believe they work. Sports people are some of the most superstitious on the planet.

  • Acleron

    There is a technique of homeoquacks in a thread such as this one to make a statement, fail to respond to any rebuttal and then copy and paste the statement again while claiming nobody responded.

    There is a name for the behaviour, hmm, propaganda appears to be too mild.
    Ah, I’ve got it, it is called the big lie, promoted in the 1930s by that political party that desperately tried to prove homeopathy and when that failed, buried the results.

    What was the name of that party? Oh, I know, I’ll ask a homeopathy, they should know. Come on Ros or RGM, who was your largest promoter in the 1930s, you should know this one?

  • William Alderson

    Homeopathy costs the NHS about £100,000 per year – out of a medication budget of some £11 billion. After all, the premises and practitioners and their associated costs would remain part of the NHS, even if the treatment used changes. So, yes, that is a 0.0009% saving! Hardly enough to justify such a determined campaign against homeopathy in the NHS.

    At the same time, homeopathy does not come with the 25% surcharge of dealing with adverse effects, as do conventional medical drugs. It does not come with a history of mass injury and deaths, as do conventional medical drugs. It does not come with dubious relatIonships between pharmaceutical companies and those making budgetary decisions for the NHS.

    It does come with a consistently high rate of patient satisfaction with the treatment.

    Conventional medicine claims to be a scientific approach capable of impartially assessing homeopathy, but no-one has satisfactorily explained what scientific theory of health and disease underpins conventional medicine; what the consistent scientific relationship is between treatment and illness; how individual response is scientifically taken into account in determining treatment.

    Campaigners who are seriously interested in saving NHS money should be asking themselves why more than 60 years of an alleged “scientific” approach to medicine has led to continually rising medical costs, increasing rates of complex chronic illness, and the appearance of new, complex and chronic conditions in children.

    The one reasonable expectation of a scientific system of medicine is that it should reduce costs, reduce medication rates, and reduce illness. Instead some 50% of people in the UK are now on regular medication, we are faced by superbugs, and NHS trusts appear to continually go massively over their budgets.

    The vitriol of opponents of homeopathy does not reflect an interest in science, but the scale of the threat homeopathy poses to an unscientific, dangerous, but highly profitable exploitation of illness.

    • Acleron

      Let’s dismantle these fallacies paragraph by paragraph.

      So because homeopathy is only a little fraud it should be left alone. Actually it is a large, multimillionaires pound fraud, the waste in the NHS is only part of it.

      Homeopathy is replete with deaths and injuries. Homeopaths campaign against vaccination. Ask those who were hospitalised if they thought that was injury free. That’s just one of many examples. The bait and switch of homeopaths is well known, they point to their sugar and water and say, look, it is harmless, yes and inactive as well. It is the unnecessary practice of homeopathy which is dangerous.

      High satisfaction rate? Only according to homeopaths and recommendations like that are only the same soap powder advertisements.

      Your lack of knowledge of the science behind modern health care is quite obvious.

      The NHS is cheaper per head than half the countries in Europe including those that have high levels of homeopathy. Success rates have improved across the board. Adding in ineffective treatments such as homeopathy will only increase costs for no benefit.

      Why should advances in medicine reduce costs? There is no logical connection. As the population ages, due in part to the medicine you are so keen to denigrate, then more people will fall ill. This is simple maths.

      Any evidence that any critic of your quackery gains financially from targeting homeopathy? In fact now all your fallacies have been exposed, have you any evidence to support homeopathy?

      • William Alderson

        You claim that my “lack of knowledge of the science behind modern health care is quite obvious.”

        So …

        What is the conventional medical theory of health and disease?

        What is the consistent scientific relationship between treatment and illness?

        How is individual response scientifically taken into account in determining treatment?

        If it is a science, these should be easy to answer, as they are the most basic question any science should be able to answer.

        If you can’t answer them, then study enough medicine to be able to, before arguing about the scientific validity of homeopathy.

        • Acleron

          Although nominally all questions are valid, yours just display deep ignorance.

          There is no one theory of disease. Why on earth would an E coli pneumonia be related to an ingrowing toenail? Only an simpleton would claim that one theory covers both.

          Ever heard of taking of a case history? That is how medicine is individualised. Unlike homeopathy which just sells identical water and sugar for all complaints.

          Until you can supply evidence that homeopathy actually does anything, talking g about mechanism is futile.

          As you obviously have no evidence, you have no argument.

          • rosross

            The Allopathic theory of disease is the ‘anti’ approach – antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, antidepressant, anti-fungal … pick an anti.

            Quote: In the end, conventional medicine is a model that takes an authoritarian approach to the physician-patient relationship, and primarily promotes drugs and surgery to remedy physical symptoms.

            http://www.sott.net/article/280543-Holistic-medicine-vs-conventional-medicine

          • “The Allopathic theory of disease is the ‘anti’ approach”

            No, it is not.

            And from your explanation of how you reach that simplistic position I would guess you think numerology is a valid explanation because numbers are used too.

            Quote: rosross has a child-like understanding of most things scientific, medical, modern, etc.

          • rosross

            Then answer the question asked before – what is the Allopathic theory of disease and if it is not the ‘anti’ approach – remove or repress with knife or drug, what is it?

          • There is not “Allopathic theory of disease”. Allopathy isn’t a real word. It was coined by Hahnemann to describe *all* other forms of treatment that were not Homeopathy. That includes all other forms of alt-med. How do you not know this? You keep claiming to have great knowledge on all things so…

            As for a “theory of disease” that is not something that could be summed up in a post on a comment thread. And if you think otherwise, I think if you bothered with actually learning anything about what you post about, you’d find it’s a little more complicated than that.

          • rosross

            Allopathy is definitely a real word. Check the Oxford dictionary.

            And it has come into common usage:

            Allopathic Medical Schools with Additional Science Course Requirements 2015

            For many U.S. medical schools, the minimum required science courses for admission include one year each with laboratory of general chemistry, organic

            chemistry, physics, and introductory biology. This table lists medical schools that have additional science requirements beyond those core courses. Nearly all

            medical schools encourage applicants to take upper level courses in biology, especially biochemistry, to prepare for medical studies. For students with AP/IB

            credits in biology, a course in biochemistry will not satisfy the general biology requirement at most medical schools. If you have AP/IB credits for science courses,

            be sure to check carefully the policies regarding acceptance of AP credits for each medical school where you intend to apply. Medical schools prefer (and some

            require) that students supplement their AP/IB credits by taking upper level college courses with labs in the same subjects.

            http://www.brynmawr.edu/healthpro/documents/MedSchlAdvanScienReq_2015.pdf

            Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHU)

            Allopathic Medical School

            https://schools.studentdoctor.net/school/jhu/0/johns-hopkins-university-school-of-medicine

          • Hmm… I stand corrected. It is actually a word in the dictionary.

            This doesn’t change it’s origin and how it’s been twisted by the alt-med crowd since it was initially coined.

          • rosross

            No, it is Greek in origin for heaven’s sake. It did not originate with Hahnemann but it did come into more common usage because of Homeopathy.

            And if it is twisted, why are medical schools using it?

          • It’s not greek in origin. The etymology of the word just has greek roots. Hahnemann coined it.

          • Which doesn’t evade the fact that it was coined by Hahnemann and has been perpetuated derogatorily by homeopaths to present homeopathy as a distinct system of medicine – which it is not – to the extent that many doctors / medical schools have succumbed to the propaganda and apply it to themselves – needlessly and mistakenly.

          • rosross

            The term was coined to differentiate. As it does. Allopathy and Homeopathy are two distinctly different medical modalities and the names convey that difference effectively.

            If doctors, medical schools, academia etc., are comfortable defining conventional medicine as Allopathic then why is it such an issue for some like yourself?

          • Answer the ignored question as to whether you are a practicing homeopath, then I’ll explain why.

          • rosross

            Allopathy simply means ‘treatment’ which is ‘other’ than the disease. Homeopathy means treatment which is ‘like’ the disease or the symptoms.

            In fact Stephen Goldssmith, a psychiatrist and homeopath in New York, who wrote the book The Healing Paradox, has coined a better term perhaps than Allopathy – Antipathy. He does this on the basis that modern medicine treats ‘against’ the symptom, disease, condition as we can see from all the anti’s: anti-inflammatory; anti-depressant; anti-biotic (which actually means anti-life and given that it kills all of the good bacteria which keep us well in an attempt to kill the ‘bad’ it is certainly anti-life) …. and so it goes, the long list of ‘anti’s.’

          • rosross

            allopathy

            Line breaks: al¦lop|athy

            Pronunciation: /əˈlɒpəθi/

            Definition of allopathy in English:

            noun

            [MASS NOUN]

            The treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms.

          • Dirk Thrust

            Roslyn

            Would you care to define “disease”?

          • Acleron

            Pure rhetoric and poor as well.
            So homeopathy is prodisease is it? It certainly fails to do anything except line the homeopaths pocket.

            Found this evidence thing yet?

          • William Alderson

            Apologies, but the allopathic approach is not the ‘anti’ approach, it is the approach without any systematic relationship between treatment and illness. ‘Allos’ is Greek for other.

            It gives a name to the ad hoc system used by conventional medicine, where anything goes, so long as it appears to work (in the short term, at least).

          • rosross

            Yes, I do understand it is ‘other’ but as part of the ‘other’ approach, Allopathy takes an ‘anti’ stance more often than not.

            Although ironically, it is not always ‘drugs having opposite effects’ i.e. Ritalin used to treat hyperactivity causes it in healthy people and a number of cardiac drugs cause in healthy people, conditions they treat; not to mention chemo and radiotherapy used to treat Cancer but also capable of causing Cancer.

            Allopathic medicine has some Like Treats Like aspects unwittingly or unknowingly.

    • rosross

      Allopathic medicine now has a kill and injure rate numbering millions around the world every year, most of it from prescribed medication.

      If Allopathic, conventional or modern medicine, as it is otherwise known, were the success it claims to be, people would display better health and less disease. That is not the case. In fact it is quite the opposite.

      We have higher and rising rates of chronic and serious disease in general, and even higher in children, and Cancer rates at levels never seen before in human recorded history. We have brain Cancer as the biggest Cancer killer of children and young people and we have rising rates of heart disease and strokes in the young, again, something never seen before.

      We have epidemics of Autism, Allergies, Asthma, Auto-immune disease, Diabetes in our children and rates of behavioural and learning difficulties, Coeliac disease, and Cancer in children and young people which should make anyone question our reliance on Allopathic medicine.

      We have countless billions poured constantly into a medical system reliant on whizz-bang machines and technology, toxic drugs, and surgery and the end result is not better health, but poorer health.

      Whatever Allopathic medicine is doing, it is not contributing to greater health in the community.

      No doubt there are many other factors at work which need to be studied for the contribution they make to health or the lack of it, but as a medical system which puts the emphasis on removing or repressing symptoms and which rarely cures – cure being complete absence of the disease permanently, not having body parts regularly removed, nor being medicated for life – one could argue there is a chance that Allopathic, or modern medicine, is what is making people sick.

      The most dramatic change to human disease and mortality rates came with improved sanitation, nutrition and hygiene and not with modern medicine. At this point in history, with the kill and injure rate of Allopathy, one of the most dangerous lifestyle choices one can make is to see a conventional doctor, and yet, there are those who seek to entrench toxic Allopathic medicine as the only option, instead of exploring the many non-Allopathic modalities which can heal and cure without killing or injuring, and which, are vastly less costly to practice.

      The future will be Integrative Medicine because even now, people are turning in their millions to explore other options of healing, and there will come a time when the kill and injure rate of Allopathic medicine will simply become intolerable, and a medical system which incorporates all available medical systems will be put in place.

      There will always be a place for the brilliant surgical skills of Allopathy, the useful to some degree, diagnostic skills and the skills in crisis/trauma, but medicine will become a place where the knife and toxic drug are used last, not first, and where holistic and non-toxic medical modalities like Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Herbal and Nutritional Medicines will take their place as equals and often, as first choice.

      • Acleron

        If one were to accept your unevidenced claims then the average life expectancy must be way below a country that doesn’t have access to so much medicine, like India.

        Life expectancy
        India 66
        UK 81

        In fact there is a pretty good regression line between spending per head on medicine and life expectancy. If anything, there is a negative correlation between homeopathy spend and life expectancy.

        Only to be expected when all the reliable evidence shows homeopathy to be nothing but a scam.

        • rosross

          You have to compare apples with apples. You cannot compare a developed nation and its medical options to a Third World country like India.

          What kills Indians at earlier ages is poverty and lack of hygiene, sanitation and often nutrition. I lived there for many years and know well the lack of sanitation.

          There is also no universal health service and drugs are often adulterated which makes them even more dangerous perhaps than they already are.

          When you compare the developed nations with the most access to the most and best of Allopathic medicine, you have a general kill rate of third in the US and around fourth or fifth in other developed nations.

          Then again, the US is the most medicated nation on the planet and the Allopathic kill and injure rate is linked to prescription medicine. Americans consume most of the world’s pharmaceuticals including 80% of the world’s painkillers so they are going to be most at risk of being pill-killed.

          • Acleron

            And yet the higher the spend per head on medicine, the higher the life expectancy. In developed countries the life expectancy has increased significantly since public health and hygiene issues were dealt with.

            Homeopathy has no effect which is exactly what you expect from small sweets and drops of water. Yet the practice of homeopathy kills. So while medicine gives an increased chance of survival over no treatment, homeopathy is increased death rate for no benefit.

          • rosross

            Not strictly true if you look at areas with best longevity but the key factor has nothing to do with what is spent on medicine, i.e. US spends the most and has the worst health and longevity with third world infant mortality rates.

          • Acleron

            Oh, I see, I am not allowed to give specific examples, quite rightly I may add which is why I added regression and correlation but you are allowed to cherry pick. Lol

          • rosross

            http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/

            Quote: The United States healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but when it comes to health outcomes, it performs worse than 11 other similar industrialized nations, according to a new report released today by the Commonwealth Fund.

          • Acleron

            When you are accused of cherry picking, do you know what that means?

  • MC73

    There is no need to subject homeopathy to any further trials. Sufficient have been carried out to prove that it is utter BS. I can see how it can have a placebo effect; a documentary I watched with Richard Dawkins showed a NHS homeopathic doctor with a patient. He had a very soothing caring manner which I suspect would make anyone feeling a bit down in the dumps feel better. However, that is not what the NHS is for! If you feel a bit off, get a massage, stroke a cat, knock one out. That doctor’s excellent manner would be best coupled with real medicine rather than wasted on nonsense.

    • ‘knock one out’ !?!? :o) Hah, I’ve just managed to get up off the floor.

    • Maria_Maclachlan

      Ah, yes. You’re talking about the charming Dr Fisher, former homeopathy to Her Majesty the Queen. An absolute waste of talent.

      • Acleron

        I must disagree with that word talent, either applied to the quagga or Fisher.

        • Ditto. I think he’s shifty.

          • rosross

            Of course you do. You must. If you do not you must deal with the reality of a highly qualified doctor who practises both Allopathy and Homeopathy and for one of the most important people in the UK, if not the world.

          • Acleron

            And one who lies on TV.

            The quagga is not so important these days, mostly just a figurehead.

          • Why must I? Having watched him being interviewed on TV, and giving ‘evidence’ to parliamentary Select Committees, during which he made one of the most ludicrous statements a ‘highly qualified doctor’ could possibly make: “The shaking is important… If you just gently stir it, it doesn’t work” – I find him… shifty. But, of course, as he’s a homeopath, I suppose you must talk him up. Oh, but when he’s in the guise of a doctor and administering actual medicine, I suppose you must find him disagreeable, no? Or you are tolerant and forgiving of your despised ‘allopaths’ when they buy your quackery, also?

            My, what a cheap resort to appeal to celebrity/authority?

          • rosross

            I would not even bother correcting your misinterpretation and misquote. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

          • Misquote? Oh?

            http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7374b758-5e81-430e-8f7b-13d43ec13b9a

            Forward to @ 11:07. And then please do correct my misinterpretation and misquote.

            Oh, and while your at it, please provide example of any propaganda on my part. You dishonest snark.

          • Oh… Bookmarked. 🙂

            Ros, yet again, demonstrated to be wrong.

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          I would call his bedside manner and his ability to convince patients that the sugar pills have worked a talent.

          • Acleron

            An antisocial characteristic?

          • I suspect Acleron was thinking of “talent” being a positive thing.

      • rosross

        Dr Peter Fisher, qualified Rheumatologist and Homeopathic doctor, remains physician to the Queen.

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          Thanks for the correction. I recalled reading he was former something and it turns out he is a former consultant rheumatologist. You’re right – he’s still Queenie’s pet quack.

          • rosross

            Odd isn’t it, how a sensitive PR machine like that surrounding the Royal Family can allow the use of a Homeopathic physician, well, also qualified in Allopathy, so guess that helps, when according to a few, it is all scam and quackery.

            Given the microscopic attention paid to the Queen, it is a tad strange that this has not received more attention and the entire more than two centuries of fraud have not been blown out of the water.

            Oh, but none of the naysayers have made a case for more than two centuries of fraud involving MD’s, hospitals, scientists, politicians, Governments, lawyers, academics, and the British Royal Family – so maybe, just, maybe, the logical answer is that it is not fraud – it is a highly effective medical modality which the Queen and her family sensibly use.

          • It’s a duplicate, but still added that one to the ever-growing list…

          • Acleron

            Except of course when they are ill. Funny that, isn’t it?

          • rosross

            On the very rare occasions when Allopathic intervention is useful, the Queen and her family would sensibly make use of it as advised by their physician, trained in both Homeopathic and Allopathic medicine.

            Given her age the Queen has enjoyed robust health would you not say, compared to the chronic ill health of many others of the same age.

          • Acleron

            For their wealth they are average. I am not aware of any occasion that any of the royals being admitted to any quack hospital, perhaps you can enlighten me.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            What are you babbling on about now? The “sensitive PR machine” doesn’t have the power to tell our sorely under-educated Queen who she may appoint as her personal physician. The fact that whenever any member of the Royal family is genuinely ill, they go straight to a conventional hospital speaks to just how effective a “medical modiality” homeoquackery is.

    • rosross

      Do some research if you want to make a case against Homeopathy. Your ignorance as revealed is simply embarrassing for you, as is the clear prejudice.

      • Acleron

        Point to exactly where you think that MC73 has erred or anybody would think you are just indulging in your normal insults.

        • rosross

          All of it.

          • Acleron

            So it is just your normal response. Thought so.

          • You realise that you just proved Acleron’s point, right?

          • rosross

            wow, that is an impressive leap against logic.

  • Acleron

    According to the homeopaths here the fact that homeopathy is taught at universities proves it must work. A ludicrous piece of logic but there you go.

    A major university in Spain is discontinuing its homeopathy degree. Does that mean that homeopathy suddenly became less effective?

    http://www.thelocal.es/20160303/barcelona-university-scraps-pseudoscience-homeopathy-masters.

    Perhaps the fewer universities that teach it the more powerful it becomes, who knows when chasing down the rabbit hole of homeologic.

    In Spain the universities, doctors and government are pretty much agreed that homeopathy is pseudoscience. So does a patient clutching their expensive sugar sweets in Spain who wants the best effect have to step over the border into France to swallow them? Do they have to stay in France or can they now take a single step back into Spain. Come on homeopaths surely you have the answers to this, after all it’s your logic.

    • rosross

      Quote: The guiding principles of conventional medicine

      The guiding principles of conventional medicine are rooted in ignorance (lack of education), enslavement, and reaction through synthetic measures, through departmentalization of various body parts so symptoms can be treated without recognition of the interplay of the rest of the body for proper balance and functionality.

      The specific guidelines include:

      Embracing synthetic and toxic measures as effective treatment options, in hopes that the “poison” will kill the infectious disease, with collateral damage to the rest of the body considered inconsequential. Education is minimal to non-existent, and lifestyle changes and self care are considered secondary treatment options.

      Preference is to treat the symptoms through drugs and surgery, rather than searching for underlying causes of disease, in order to eliminate physical symptoms.

      Treatment with drugs and surgery is the preferred method of action, with prevention through diet and lifestyle being a secondary option.

      Illness is sequestered and pinpointed in certain areas of the body in order to diagnose and prescribe treatments for a specific organ or function.

      Patients are to be diagnosed and prescribed treatment, with complete authority and decision making lying with the physician.

      Care is considered successful primarily through the absence of symptoms, rather than quality of life.

      The strengths of this system is that it is highly effective in treating both acute and life threatening illnesses and injuries.

      The weakness of this system it is ineffective at preventing and curing chronic disease, and is very expensive.

      http://www.sott.net/article/280543-Holistic-medicine-vs-conventional-medicine

      • Acleron

        I was really showing you the nonsensical and fallacious reasoning you employ, not asking you to exhibit your abysmal ignorance.

        • rosross

          Keep up the good work. Insults make you look bad, not Homeopathy.

          • Homeopathy manages that with no assistance what so ever. For some reason though you and the homeopathic crazies brigade keep helping out.

          • Acleron

            I present a paragraph of yours to justify my statement on your ignorance.
            “The guiding principles of conventional medicine are rooted in ignorance (lack of education), enslavement, and reaction through synthetic measures, through departmentalization of various body parts so symptoms can be treated without recognition of the interplay of the rest of the body for proper balance and functionality.”

            Not one of those claims has any basis in fact, not a single one. And yet you complain at being called a fraud.

  • Philippa Fibert

    Thank you for this article. There are many complex issues surrounding the testing of ‘homeopathy’. The study you reference for example, doesn’t test whether ‘homeopathy’ works, but whether one particular remedy (arnica) out of thousands, is efficacious for one particular situation (muscle soreness after long distance running). And thereby lies the problem. The majority of studies are like this, and yet they are used to justify whether or not ‘homeopathy’ works.
    Only recently have researchers started designing studies testing homeopathy more closely according to its principles, i.e testing individualised remedies. I think the debate needs to be about trial design.
    This provides one explanation for the disparity between survey results, where patients access homeopathy as practised by homeopaths (and tend to show positive results) and RCTs of single variables inappropriately applied (which tend to show no differences between groups).

    • NotThatGreg

      And how do, say, survey results, where patients access reiki as practiced by reiki practitioners, look? What do you think the actual reason for the disparity you mention could be?

    • So, what do you believe would constitute a good trial design and can you cite any examples?

      • Philippa Fibert

        I think there are some interesting examples. The challenge is adequate balance of both internal and external validity. I’m not sure an ultimate design has emerged yet, but here are a few:

        Frei 2005 managed a db placebo controlled cross over RCT of individualised remedies, and showed effects, but the paper states ‘it was at the limits of acceptability for participants’.

        Macías-Cortés 2015 3 arm trial consisted of (1) individualized homeopathic treatment (IHT) plus placebo fluoxetine; (2) fluoxetine (20 mg/d) plus IHT placebo remedies; (3) fluoxetine placebo plus IHT placebo remedies. That is, the trial compared the efficacy of individualized homeopathic remedies with fluoxetine, and controlled for any therapist or intervention effects. Fluoxetine and individualised homeopathy had similar results on depression scales, but only homeopathy also improved menopausal symptoms. Adler 2009 also found individualised homeopathic remedies were non-inferior to fluoxetene.

        Frei, H., Everts, R., vonAmmon, K., Kaufmann, F., Walther, D., Hsu Schmitz, S., Collenberg, M., Fuhrer, K., Hassink, R., Steinlin, M., Thurneysen, A. (2005) Homeopathic Treatment of Children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. European Journal of Paediatrics. 164: p758-767

        Macías-Cortés Edel C et al, 2015. Individualized Homeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, PlaceboControlled Trial. PLoS One;10(3):e0118440.

        U. C. Adler, N. M. P. Paiva, A. T. Cesar, M. S. Adler, A. Molina, A. E. Padula and H. M. Calil. eCAM 2009. Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial. ;Page 1 of 8 doi:10.1093/ecam/nep114

        • I note you don’t cite any of your own trials, but there are a number of criticisms of the Macías-Cortés et al. trial (including the fluoxetine dosage) but can you say whether you believe six weeks was an adequate study period for depression in peri- and postmenopausal women?

          • Dirk Thrust

            I’m no great epidemiologist. Neither am I an expert in the minutae of critical appraisal but even I could rip to pieces the laughable nonesense that was the Macías-Cortés et al. trial. As Alan says, fluoexitine was not used correctly, remaining at the 20mg starting dose throughout the trial on that arm. The non-responding patients in the homeopathic arm – whether on placebo or otherwise – received repeat homeopathic consultations with all the sincere asking and listening that they involve and so on and was not controlled for. These were the gross errors. The more refined errors will no doubt be there for the experts to outline.

        • Acleron

          Starting with post modernistic gobbledygook is not going to impress anyone but the quacks. Was that your intention?

        • rosross

          Good post. Now watch them mount ad hominem attacks on you, resort to mockery, and avoid the substance you have presented. All of which supports Homeopathy and diminishes any case they think they are making.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        You don’t have any medical training and no training in research. Why are you attempting to discuss either subject?

        • How do you know what he is trained in? Do you?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            No, she doesn’t.

        • You’re making assumptions again… But I note you are trying to discuss evidence and science.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You acknowledged that you have no medical expertise. If you do, why not post your credentials here for everyone to see?

          • And yours are…. what? Homeopathy?

          • I can’t say I recall doing that, but of course, it’s irrelevant. But if I make a silly schoolboy error on science, medicine or evidence, you will be sure to point it out, won’t you?

            Perhaps you could outline what you believe would constitute a good trial design? That would tell us a lot.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            If you think “credentials” are so important, why don’t you post yours here for everyone to see? I asked you this yesterday. Why are you ignoring the question?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You also have acknowledged that you have no training in medicine. You and your husband, Alan Henness, are the Nightingale Collaboration. You spend a prodigious amount of your time reporting alternative practitioners and advertisers to the ASA.

            As you well know, I am a very satisfied homeopathic patient of many years.

          • Christine said:

            “You spend a prodigious amount of your time reporting alternative practitioners and advertisers to the ASA.”

            Nope. Another unevidenced – and wrong – accusation. But even if we did, are you appointing yourself as arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable amounts of time that anyone can spend reporting advertisers to the advertising regulator?

          • 1st paragraph: So? All credit to them.

            2nd paragraph: Relevance? Human testimony is a most unreliable thing. Isn’t it? Christine?

          • Acleron

            Define that word prodigious. 10%, 20%, etc. Or are we talking about homeopathic maths where 0/anything = anything you believe in?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            So you don’t have any medical training and no training in research. Why are you attempting to discuss either subject? By your own reasoning, you are not qualified to do so.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            I am not discussing studies. I am posting them here for other readers to look at if they wish. Alan Henness is attempting to discuss details of studies but doesn’t have the qualifications to do that.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            LMAO! You are clearly oblivious to what a ridiculous comment that is. What qualifications do you think you need to discuss details of studies?

          • Oh, how very noble of you! Because you want people to come round to your worldview. Your feigned good intentions notwithstanding, you are a propagandist for quackery.

          • Gawd! This is hilarious!

          • Acleron

            Interpretation

            I am commenting about stuff of which I haven’t the faintest idea.

            Yeah, that’s about the most truthful statement I’ve seen you make.

          • Acleron

            You are a homeopath, by definition you you have no medical training and obviously know nothing about science. So what are you gibbering about?

          • “You and your husband, Alan Henness, are the Nightingale Collaboration. You spend a prodigious amount of your time reporting alternative practitioners and advertisers to the ASA.”

            Yay! At least Alan and Maria have the time to perform good acts of consumer protection. If the alternative practitioners where honest they would have nothing to do. It says a lot about the nature of alternative practitioners because they are as busy as they are.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You are involved with the British Humanist Society. Alan Henness was R&D manager for Honeywell Security and Customer electronics. Alan states that “….the NC was set up to enable my wife, Maria Maclachlan, and I to share our “knowledge” and “experience” in challenging misleading claims in health care advertising……”.

          • Oh dear. You do excel at getting thing wrong don’t you?

          • So, what’s your point?!

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Do you know what the R in R&D stands for? 🙂

          • Acleron

            You did realise you are asking a homeopath?

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          Enough of the silly ad hominem, Christine. It’s pretty obvious that you have zero knowledge of medical science but nobody holds that against you because arguments stand or fall on their own merits regardless of the qualification of the person making them. Your arguments are singularly without merit, therefore they fall.

        • Acleron

          Alan asked a question, obviously you have no answer but like the proverbial vessel you need to make noise.

    • Acleron

      There is nothing difficult about testing a homeopaths claims, except as we have seen to a homeopath.

    • “There are many complex issues surrounding the testing of ‘homeopathy’.”

      No, there’s not.

      • rosross

        There most certainly are. Allopathic drugs are tested for their effect on symptoms and 100 people can be given an Allopathic drug for the same symptom and it can be adequately tested in this way. I say adequately although patently that is not the case since the kill and injure rate of Allopathic medications runs to millions around the world every year, indicating a poor result for science/medical research into such toxic drugs.

        A Homeopathic medicine will be prescribed for the individual and 100 people with similar symptom pictures may receive 100 different medicines with many different dosage and potency applications.

        Science, limited as it is by mechanistic materialist reductionism ‘tests’ Homeopathy in the same way as it tests Allopathy which is about as silly as applying the same sort of test to a living organism as one does to a machine made of metal and plastic. Oh, hang on, that is what modern science tries to do and no doubt why Allopathic medicine is now the third biggest killer and rising.

        • Acleron

          So the pharmacist received the prescription and returns either verum or placebo. This is not rocket science.

          The known dishonesty of homeopaths make it a little more complex.Probably best to get the pharmacist to prepare both a verum and a placebo for each prescription and send them to a lawyer or who roles a die.

          When are we going to see homeopaths criticising Boiron for marketing and selling Oscillococinum for flu? Or in fact any homeopath selling on line. These are not individualised. And when are you going to stop posting your Gish Gallops of trials that are not individualised?

          • rosross

            Quote: Peter C Gøtzsche, MD exposes the pharmaceutical industries and their charade of fraudulent behavior, both in research and marketing where the morally repugnant disregard for human lives is the norm.

            The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs. This is what makes drugs so different from anything else in life… Virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… the reason patients trust their medicine is that they extrapolate the trust they have in their doctors into the medicines they prescribe.

            The patients don’t realize that, although their doctors may know a lot about diseases and human physiology and psychology, they know very, very little about drugs that hasn’t been carefully concocted and dressed up by the drug industry… If you don t think the system is out of control, please email me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death… If such a hugely lethal epidemic had been caused by a new bacterium or a virus,or even one-hundredth of it, we would have done everything we could to get it under control.

            Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.

            – See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/dr-peter-gotzsche-exposes-big-pharma-as-organized-crime/#sthash.Di3arRRD.dpuf

          • Acleron

            That skeptics found out that pharmaceutical companies can act illegally is no reason for homeopaths to act dishonestly.

            It is telling that skeptics have no difficulty criticising wrong doing in many areas including homeopathy and the drug industry but that homeopaths can only criticise the drug industry. Why is that?

          • rosross

            I agree. But Homeopathic doctors do not act dishonestly anymore than Allopathic.

            That does not mean there are not or have not been those acting dishonestly in Homeopathic medicine because such practices exist everywhere, but to make the point that Allopathic medicine is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry which is particularly corrupt on many counts.

            I refer you once again to comments made by Dr Richard Horton, former editor of The Lancet and Dr Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

          • Acleron

            Oh dear, you agree but do not criticise any but one group. Hypocrite.

          • rosross

            I agree with the principle of condemning dishonesty in general. There is a solid case for dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry, that was the topic.

          • Except it’s not the topic. You just keep invoking it to deflect from the issue of evidence for the actual topic. Which is dishonest, is it not?

          • rosross

            I have posted a wealth of evidence and on topic. It is your lot who resort to name-calling, abuse and ad hominem attacks. But, as I have said before, that makes you look bad, not Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            Err, no. The topic was design of clinical trials, you have posted exactly zero about that topic and instead tried your usual tactic of trying to denigrate medicine.

          • rosross

            Err no, the topic is why the ‘war’ on Homeopathy is a waste of time.

          • Acleron

            In which case you are still off topic

          • rosross

            Nope, my topic is that Homeopathy is effective and that follows on from the article theme.

          • Doesn’t prevent both being wrong based on the best evidence we have today.

          • rosross

            It sure does.

          • Acleron

            You immediately and continuously launched into your erroneous and fallacious attacks on medicine. Never once have you presented any reliable evidence that homeopathy does anything to improve the condition of an ill person.

            Quite rightly, Philippa Filbert debated how homeopathy could be tested, that is on topic, you immediately tried to denigrate medicine, that is called trying to derail the thread.

          • Actually, you haven’t. You’ve deflected again and again. As is your strategy here and at other threads.

            And quit whining! What abuse and name-calling? You give as good as you get. Though I for one suspect that your method is a deliberate attempt to draw ad hominem attack, so you can then deflect again by braying about it. However, I admit to deliberately having just used one, in response to your accusation of misrepresenting and misquoting and resorting to propaganda. I called you a dishonest snark. I consider it warranted. Feel free to address.

          • Please show an example of an ad hom attack. I would recommend, again, that you look up the definition of an ad hominem. I say “again” because you’ve had it pointed out many times in other forums that you don’t appear to understand what an ad hominem is.

          • rosross

            I feel quite comfortable that anyone of reasonable intelligence and open mind, coming across this thread and reading the posts will see quite clearly where ad hominem attacks are made on me and others making a considered, credible, informed and useful case for Homeopathy.

          • ROFL!

          • “I feel quite comfortable that anyone of reasonable intelligence and open mind, coming across this thread and reading the posts will see quite clearly where ad hominem attacks are made on me and others making a considered, credible, informed and useful case for Homeopathy.”

            I suspect anyone of reasonable intelligence reading this thread will be wondering what you’re blathering about.

          • “I agree with the principle of condemning dishonesty in general.”

            Yet, when exposed in your pet field of interest you don’t speak up. That is literally hypocrisy. You’re an awful person.

          • Like that time the group of German Homeopathy pill manufacturers were paying €43,000 to a writer who was using his blog to smear and attack Prof Edzard Ernst?

            http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/07/the-dirty-tricks-of-alternative-medicine.html

          • rosross

            Ad hominem makes you look bad, not me.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            *sigh* You still don’t know what an ad hominem is. You appear to be ineducable. 🙁

          • Indeed. Ad homs have been explained clearly and succinctly elsewhere:

            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.”

            http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/05/the-swizz-report-on-homeopathy.html#comment-11623

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            And now the former doctor to the Queen is coming out with his own stance on big pharma. He slams pharma companies for making for profit drugs with little proven benefit, and goes on to say that there is real danger that some current drug treatments are much less effective than had previously been thought. The efficacy and use of drugs, particularly in the elderly, is often based on a weak and murky foundation.

            Of course, that doesn’t prove homeopathy works. It simply emphasizes the fact that freedom of choice in medical care is necessary.

            https://truthkings.com/queens-former-doctor-slams-big-pharma-awesome/#

          • Acleron

            Freedom of choice comes with freedom of information. You will of course be labeling your sugar and water as zero dose and no provable benefit.

          • Quote: Roslyn still wrong on the internet. Not news. Do what every you feel like at 11.

  • NotThatGreg

    “Arrogantly dismissing.” Uh, no.

    What about those who arrogantly claim that they are providing health care, despite that no evidence supports that claim – and worse – that no one in this community shows the least concern about this, nor the slightest interest in improving it in any real way.
    It’s a bloody good thing that buildings, bridges, cars, trains etc are not (or at least, very rarely) designed with the same level of arrogance and contempt, towards the very basis of knowledge and understanding, which is exhibited every day in homeopathy.

    • Acleron

      Homeopathic bridges, what a concept.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    The war on homeopathy has never worked. Although the established medicine of the times has always tried to rid itself of the massive competition homeopathy presents, homeopathy has and continues to flourish around the world. Today it’s the second most used system of medicine in the world (TCM being first and conventional medicine being third) and its use is growing at annual rates of 10% to 30% in countries globally.

    This is one example of why homeopathy persists and grows in use: A seven-year-old child with absence seizures and a diagnosis of epilepsy was brought to a homeopath for treatment. At one point the child had up to 10 absence seizures in a 15-minute period. After homeopathic treatment he was examined by a neurologist who found that all evidence of epilepsy was gone.

    http://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/aranea-diadema-epilepsy/

    No matter how “skeptics” may criticize or scorn homeopathy and its 25,000 volumes of cured case records, you can be sure that this patient and his family were very pleased with the results of treatment. So were the patients and families represented by all the other cured case records.

    • Re-paste the logical fallacy and an anecdote at the top of the thread, eh? Because all that sticky business where your dishonesty has been called out is buried deep within. So, to be clear, do you suggest homeopathy is a cure for epilepsy? Is that what you are promoting here? Is it correct to say, ‘Christine Jahnig states that homeopathy cures epilepsy’ ?

    • Acleron

      Homeopathy may improve in popularity although the numbers change so much every time they are mentioned and no evidence is ever given for these numbers. On one occasion a homeopath had to admit they were just made up, didn’t they RGM?

      If they do increase it is due to advertising with extremely dodgy facts as given above. We have no idea if this patient actually existed or if the incident took place.

      When sufficient detail is given to analyse these stories, there are often glaring discrepancies that destroy the veracity of the anecdote.

      If these stories were true then why does homeopathy so consistently fail when examined in high quality clinical trials?

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        I post links so that other readers here can see the case records for themselves and come to their own conclusions. No one has to accept my word for what homeopathy achieved. Neither do they have to be influenced by your desire to trash a system of medicine which has done so much for so many over so many decades.

        In fact, the “skeptic” platform is so weak a child could push it over with one finger. That platform is: The results achieved by hundreds of thousands of homeopaths over the past 200 years for millions of patients weren’t achieved by homeopathy but came about for some other nebulous reason. Homeopaths (every one of the half million in practice today) are lying about what they achieved for their patients despite all the objective test results proving homeopathy worked. Homeopathic patients (every one of the more than 550 million existing today) have been fooled into thinking that homeopathy helped them. All of the studies, every last one of them, that show homeopathy works are flawed. Not very credible is it?

        550 million satisfied homeopathic patients vs. a handful of “skeptics” — Case Dismissed!

        • LOL!

        • Repeat assertion of your (dubious) argumentum ad populum does not a case for homeopathy make. Moreover, your blatantly dishonest re-attempt to offer up as evidence misrepresented material, on which you have previously been corrected, exposes your unreliability as a witness.

        • Acleron

          And when those anecdotes are exposed as fabrications, such as the time a before and after blood test supposedly taken 14 days apart had the patient age 10 years what do you do?

          You just post another one. So the bedrock of your rather shaky grip on reality is itself fallacious.

          550 million today is it? In the last few months the this figure has been reported by homeopaths as between 1.2 billion and 200 million. It is almost as if you just make it up. And they are all satisfied are they? Just how do you obtain that information, telepathy?

          If one case history is accurate then we have to accept homeopathy works? This is homeopathic logic folks in all its glory.

          In the UK the small group of skeptics closed down the majority of NHS homeopathy, similar things are happening in Canada and Australia. The FDA in the US are investigating it. The medical and scientific communities of Sweden, Germany and The Czech republic are publicising the fraudulence of this scam. Spain’s top university has just announced the closure of its course on homeopathy.

          While the scam is represented by the likes of yourselves, DUllman, Benneth, Fisher, Venkatesh and Malerba, I really don’t see how your assertion can mean anything at all.

          But taking your silly number at face value it means that at least 6.5 billions of people don’t use it. They can’t be all wrong, can they?

          • rosross

            Most people are not vegetarians – does that make it wrong? Ditto for Vegans or footballers or comedians or artists?

            Your populist, majority position hardly equates with rigorous science.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Did you hear that whooshing noise, ros, as Acleron’s point flew right past you again?

            550 million use homeopathy, therefore homeopathy must work.
            6.5 billion people don’t use it, therefore it can’t work.

            We can’t have it both ways, can we? I look forward to your labrynthine explanation as to why the appeal to popularity must stand on this issue but not on others.

            As for your comment about vegetarians etc, please look up the ‘equivocation fallacy’ and see if you can work out just how monstrous is the crime you have committed against reason.

          • I heard the whooshing from here.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            “Whoooooooshhhhhh”. When you see the word “whoosh” you know you’re dealing with pharma types.

          • rosross

            Schoolyard posting. It makes you look silly, not Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            Considering the unnecessary deaths and injuries you cause for no benefit, homeopathy is a grim subject. Occasionally you can inadvertently cause great hilarity.

          • Explain, please. What do you mean by ‘pharma type’?

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Hahahaha – love it!

            Care to explain you’re reasoning on that one – and while you’re about it explain why you put the word ‘skeptic’ in scare quotes.

            Thought not. 🙂

          • rosross

            Erroneous conclusion.

            550 million use Homeopathy therefore many people disagree with your position.

            And many of them are MD’s, other medical professionals, etc.

            Your argument is that because a majority think such and such then such and such must be true although in regard to Homeopathy, worldwide, your views are a minority.

            I never put forward an appeal to popularity – that is your position.

          • Wow… You really can’t logic can you? You don’t even see the fallacious nature of the words you just wrote do you?

            I think you may *actually* be an idiot. I’m not throwing that out there as an insult. It’s an honest opinion. You seem to think those carry weight.

          • rosross

            Keep up the good work. Every time you resort to name-calling and abuse you diminish any case you might possibly have, which isn’t much, but now is even less.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Since they don’t have any good argument — much less a real case — against homeopathy they have nothing left but insults, abuse and name calling. What else can they do but trot out the cyber bullying.

          • rosross

            I consider it a plus. The fanatical naysayers are a minority. Anyone with curiosity and an open mind who reads through the thread is going to see them as poor in argument and more inclined to ad hominem than any sort of coherent, credible case.

          • If you really believe that, then I seriously wonder at your thought processes. Moreover, why would anybody take you seriously when you have been exposed for re-posting busted material here? A deliberately dishonest attempt to sway readers who come to this thread.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Oh dear god. I was trying to get you to think without having to spell it out. Obviously I’ve failed miserably.

            “Your argument is that because a majority think such and such then such and such must be true…”

            That NOT my argument and it is NOT Acleron’s or any other critic’s argument. It is every bit as flawed as your appeal to popularity – that’s why it is described as a *fallacy*. What you are doing AGAIN is using a particular kind of reasoning to make a case while denying that the same reasoning can be used to make the opposite case. Try this:

            ‘6.5 billion do not use homeopathy therefore many people disagree with your position.

            And many of them are MD’s, other medical professionals, etc.’

            By the way, to assert that “in regard to Homeopathy, worldwide, your views are a minority” is a blatant lie, but no matter because what counts is EVIDENCE that has been produced by striving, as far as possible, to eliminate bias – not ‘views’.

            Got it now?

            Probably not. 🙁

          • “Most people are not vegetarians – does that make it wrong? Ditto for Vegans or footballers or comedians or artists?”

            Does it hurt being you?

            “Your populist, majority position hardly equates with rigorous science.”

            Correct. Our majority position has been extablished *because* of the rigorous science. This appears to be the point you struggle with. I know, words are hard for you. But you could try and put in at least a little effort.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Whatever happened to your critical thinking skills? It’s erroneous to conclude that any number of people not using homeopathy is proof that it doesn’t work. We don’t know why they don’t use it — is it not available?; do they have access to it?; do they even know it
            exists?

            Keep this in mind: Hundreds of thousands of people around the world used Vioxx. The U.S. FDA estimates that it killed 27,785 Americans. Does the fact that 27,785 people used it prove it works?

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          What work are the inverted commas doing round the word “skeptic”. I know I’ve asked you countless times before but you’ve never been able to come up with an answer and I wondered if anything had changed? It just that repeatedly doing something you are unable to explain makes you seem a bit daft. Or is it some kind of cult ritual?

          • Acleron

            I think they are scare quotes. She is scared of skeptics.

        • rosross

          Yes, likewise and I am grateful to the anti-Homeopathic brigade because they make it easier to do so.

          And yes, the ‘argument’ against Homeopathy falls mostly into the realm of ignorance, prejudice and childish insults that really, anyone of open mind reading such threads cannot be convinced they have a case. And of course they do not.

          We are at a seminal point in the history of healing and medicine.

          I don’t think anyone can deny Allopathic medicine has skills and reconstructive surgery must be the stand-out skill, but the failure to cure rate remains so high and the mechanical approach so destructive that at some point people must take a stand.

          The problem with Allopathy is that it is committed to the scalpel and the drug and the vaccine for that matter and really there is nothing else. If that approach had been successful we would have more health and less disease but we have the opposite. We would also have more cure but we do not.

          The skills of Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Herbal and Nutritional medicine and the various healing modalities available, when combined with the worthwhile mechanical skills of Allopathy, with toxic drugs reduced to an absolute minimum, will take us into a new era of medicine and healing.

          As it stands, the barbarism of much of modern Allopathic medicine is just a variation on the theme of barbarism of the butchers and snake-oil salesmen who have haunted medicine throughout the ages.

          I am not saying medical professionals do not believe in what they do nor that they do not, in the main have integrity, but I do believe many are compromised and deluded, some are corrupted, and most are simply desperate because they are not allowed to have anything else or even to explore anything beyond the limitations of mechanics and materialist reductionism.

          Much Allopathic treatment works on the basis of ‘nuclear war’ against the body where you seek to kill the symptom and hope you don’t kill the patient in the process. Sadly, the death of the patient is often the result

          • Acleron

            As more evidence accumulates that homeopathy is no more than an elaborate fraud, the homeopath makes even more grandiose claims.

            After 200 years of failure,the conman claims it will be shown to work tomorrow.

            Yeah, suddenly, all these negative results will become positive. Oh, but that’s what the authors of the infamous Swiss report fraudulently tried to do. Didn’t work, did it.

            I suppose science will just have to limp on, sometimes making mistakes but correcting itself and outstripping prescientific belief systems at every turn. The pathetic level of education and intelligence of homeopaths contributing nothing to the process but endangering patients in its proponents greed for money.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        BTW, what you call “anecdotes” are referred to as clinical evidence by people in the medical field. It is published in medical journals and used by doctors to help them determine the best treatments for their patients.

        • Acleron

          No they are not, your anecdotes are so amateurish it is often possible to show they are fabrications from the information provided. A case history is a record of what symptoms are reported by the patient, what is observable by the doctor, what treatments are prescribed and what is the result. They are detailed and accurate.

          Comparing your anecdotes to medical case histories is ludicrous. Using these Just So stories to sell sugar and water is the action of a conman.

          • rosross

            No, they are clinical data.

          • Acleron

            When your anecdotes are shown to be fabrications, repeating the lie is all you have.

            Isn’t there at least one homeopath who finds a disconnect between all these absurd claims and high quality clinical trials?

            I suppose not, anyone with that level of integrity would stop being a homeopath.

          • “No, they are clinical data.”

            I invoke Hitchens’s razor. Back your claim rather that asserting it like a child.

          • rosross

            Pot, kettle, black. Most of your posts lack any substance and are usually ad hominem attacks.

            The evidence has already been posted. Go find it.

          • Acleron

            Ah, the ‘I have no idea, so you prove my silly comment,’ gambit

          • There’s that “I know you are, but what am I?” defence again. And you still don’t understand something as simple as an ad hominem.

            Homeopaths are really good at redefining words for their own ends. You know, “making shit up.” To that end, when you say “Most of your posts lack any substance” do you mean that the following exchange is an example of a “lack of substance”? Because this is how most of my posts go (please note, serious paraphrasing follows (typically that wouldn’t need to be said but your reading comprehension skills have been shown to need pointers on this sort of thing));

            rosross: “Asserted claim with no citation.”
            Gold: “citation please”
            rosross: [
            “Different outlandish assertion with no citation”,
            “Dodge the point”,
            “Change the point”,
            “Assert the same point”,
            “{fingers in ears} Lalalalalalala I can’t hear you”,
            “{…crickets…}”,
            “{flood the top of the comment thread with crap to bury the thread you can’t address”},
            “Quote: irrelevant crap as if prefixing ‘Quote:’ makes it more valid”,
            “Fail at logicing your way out of it”,
            “Misunderstand a logical fallacy you claim was perpetrated against you”,
            ]

        • Ah… in the medical field I think you’ll find them referred to as unverified stories.

  • Acleron

    Ethically I cannot agree with more trials of the effectiveness of homeopathy especially those performed by homeopaths which are just marketing exercises. However, a central plank of the homeopathy process is the area of proving. Proving is the testing of their diluted material to observe the symptoms generated in normals. If homeopathy worked then the symptoms appearing in normals should be consistent and detectable.

    Andy Lewis, a long time ago proposed that we could agree that there was something in homeopathy if homeopaths could reliably determine the starting material by observing the results of proving.

    This would be ethical, cheap, easy to organise and conclusive.

    Here is an example
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1296951/

    Goodyear et al were unable to distinguish Belladonna from placebo so the prospects for success are not good.

    • Acleron

      Here is another test of proving
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652761/

      Again no difference between homeopathic sugar and sugar was found although the authors attempt to avoid that obvious conclusion.

      • Surely a homeopath could determine proven Opossum. I mean, come on.

        http://nyhomeopathy.com/provings/didelphis-virginiana/

        • And lets not forget this gem:

          The Homeopathic Proving of “Venus Stella Errans”

          http://homeopath.x10.mx/venus.htm

          • The prize for dedication surely goes to this self-proving of foetal faeces:

            http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/the-meconium-humanum-trituration/

          • How do they take themselves seriously?

            “C1 – Performed March 11th 2015:
            * I feel very bad about myself
            ** Self disgust. I’m disgusting. I feel very down on myself”

            You are trying to make a profit from the first dump of a new born.

            “Self disgust”: should be an expected response.
            “I’m disgusting”: I couldn’t agree more
            “I feel very down on myself”: So you should. You’re a horrible person.

          • Acleron

            He says he experienced these symptoms at the time of trituration. Well yes, I’m sure he felt bad while shovelling sh#t.

            The dishonesty shines thru when he states this is on sale based on one barking mad claim.

          • It gets dafter: MP3 audio signals as homeopathic remedies for Ebola:

            http://www.emergencydr.org/blog/2014/08/17/ebola/

          • Acleron

            Much of homeopathy is cherry picking out of noise but using just noise? This is insanity.

          • This is what really gets me about homeopathy: we never see its propagandists disowning this kind of palpable nonsense. Because you would think they would find it embarrassing. When do we see them rejecting or disputing any claimed cure for serious disease? Because you would think they would be concerned that it throws their ‘profession’ into disrepute. But instead, they just stay on message – like the members of a cult. It is this, at least as much as anything, that ought to make anybody suspicious.

          • Acleron

            The house of cards would come tumbling down if they disagreed on facts. There have been disputes over bragging rights, the bun fight between DUllman and Benneth is memorable.

          • The only – only – time I’ve afforded Dana Ullman credit is when he rejected the claim, attributed to Benneth, that homeopathy ‘cures’ homosexuality. Otherwise…

          • Acleron

            Yes, but even that was tainted somewhat. They had been competing for who could produce the greatest amount of rubbish between DUllman’s huffpoo and Benneth’s MeTube, I suspect DUllman merely saw that as a convenient tactic.

          • More: The homeopathic proving of “computer emanation”:

            http://www.greatlakesprovings.com/computer-emanation.html

          • Acleron

            I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

            Just one point out of dozens that could be made. These are supposed to be normal healthy individuals. Out of six, two had irritable bowel syndrome and one was hospitalised with pneumonia. What?

            Another one to add to the Silly Things Homeopaths Do folder, thanks.

          • Acleron
          • Or the proving of the exhaust fumes of a 1962 Jaguar E-Type with no catalytic converter…

            http://www.greatlakesprovings.com/car-exhaust-fumes.html

          • Discussed here.

        • Acleron

          This could become my favourite proving for this gem.

          “Prospective provers, rather than feel as if they are about to become guinea pigs, should consider themselves more like Alice in Wonderland ”

      • You might like this one (and recognise some of its authors):

        Dantas F, Fisher P, Walach H, et al. A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 2007;96:4–16. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2006.11.005

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491606001482

        Conclusions: The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required.

        Quite an admission.

        • Acleron

          Thanks for that.

          While their conclusions of their own analysis is correct -GIGO, they did knock the justification for every single homeopathic preparation right out of the window. Amazing!

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    People who would like to know what homeopathy can accomplish for them and their families will be interested to read hundreds of case records of cures of conditions from type 2 diabetes to gangrene to addiction to prescription drugs. They are documented with CT scans, x-rays, blood work, histopathological reports and contain physicians’ and patients’ comments. They can be seen by googling “homeopathy cured cases”.

    • You’re re-pasting recycled misinformation, again. You really are a piece of work. Tell us, is there anything homeopathy cannot cure?

      • rosross

        No medical modality cures. All of them seek to support and assist the body to cure itself. All cure and healing comes from the body and treatments are simply to aid that process.

        And yes, the body has the capacity, in the right circumstances to cure anything and everything.

  • Acleron

    The open mind fallacy.

    Conmen whether selling magic sugar sweets, over unity energy machines, fake bomb detectors or rhino horn will respond to your incredulity with the ‘keep an open mind’ gambit.

    As is so often the case, it is pure projection and easily debunked.

    Just ask the question – “What evidence would you accept that would show your claim is incorrect?”

    Then you can bask in glorious silence until they just repeat their unevidenced claims.

  • rosross

    For all those wedded to the belief that Science is some sort of infallible arbiter, ignoring of course the millions it kills and injures every year in the name of its medicine, perhaps spend some time reading the growing material on why Science is deeply flawed and very unreliable.

    Quote: Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

    One reason is that cash-strapped universities, competing for money and talent, exert huge pressure on academics to publish more and more to meet the box-ticking criteria set by grant-funding bodies. Corners are being cut and mistakes being made.

    But whatever happened to peer-review, the supposed kitemark of scientific integrity produced by the collective judgment of other researchers? Well, that seems to have gone south too. In 1998 Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes to more than 200 of the BMJ’s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

    http://www.sott.net/article/313695-Science-is-turning-back-to-the-Dark-Ages

  • rosross

    Quote: Investigating the physico-chemical properties of high dilutions

    What is this project about?

    During the manufacturing process, homeopathic medicines are repeatedly succussed (shaken vigorously), introducing kinetic energy. This process is thought to be responsible for making the final product biologically active, despite being highly diluted. The question is, what changes does succussion cause in the solution and how does this enable the homeopathic medicines to work?

    This project aims to observe potential physico-chemical differences between succussed solutions and unsuccussed solutions using particular types of highly sensitive coloured and fluorescent dyes (chromophoric probes). Investigations are being carried out using UV/VIS and fluorescence spectrometers to analyse changes in the spectra of the chromophoric probes as a function of succussion, nature of the substance diluted and specific environmental factors.

    Results to date indicate that adding a drop of a liquid homeopathic medicine (or ‘potency’), induces greater ordering in solution and in particular enhance the exclusion zone known to exist adjacent to hydrophilic surfaces – a phenomenon not seen with unsuccussed liquids. These are exciting results and are generating a number of specific and fruitful lines of investigation.

    Researcher

    Dr Steven Cartwright gained his PhD in molecular biology from Edinburgh University, going on to develop techniques in cryoenzymology at the universities of California and Oxford before training in Homeopathy. He is currently heading a laboratory based research project at the Cherwell Innovation Centre outside Oxford investigating the physio-chemical properties of homeopathic medicines using a class of sensitive ionic dyes as molecular probes of diluted and succussed solutions.

    https://www.hri-research.org/hri-research/how-do-homeopathic-medicines-work/physico-chemical-properties-of-high-dilutions/

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      When the action of homeopathic medicines is considered from the semiotic point of view they — high dilutions — become an endless source for studies aiming at therapeutic applications and to achieve a more refined understanding of living beings and their relationships with the environment.

      “Homeopathy Emerging as a Biosemiotic System”

      link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s/12682-014-0191-4

      • rosross

        That link did not work.

        There is some interesting research being done on Homeopathically preparing pharmaceutical drugs to reduce their toxicity.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          Try this link: http://lists.siomi.it/pipermail/omeopatia33/2014-November/001238.html

          I’ve read about the fact that drug companies are using nano-technology to reduce the “side effects” of their drugs. Certainly, synthetics could never be a real substitute for natural materials.

          • rosross

            Thanks. It worked.

          • Acleron

            Your ignorance obviously knows no bounds at all.

            Of course drug companies research reducing risk. All chemicals, because they are active are toxic at dose, even your lactose. For this reason a risk/benefit ratio is determined. Of course, homeopathy with zero benefit is not even part of medicine.

          • rosross

            There is also research being done into reducing such risk through Homeopathic methodology.

          • Acleron

            You actually mean homeopaths making claims, we have seen what you call research and it ain’t.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Samuel Hahnemann beat them to it 200 years ago. Everything old is new again!

          • rosross

            And when science can understand how Homeopathy works the brilliance and advanced nature of Homeopathy will be recognised and its invaluable data base and approach, will form the foundation of new medicine.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            “………Homeopathy……..will form the foundation of new medicine.” Once again, could not agree more — Homeopathy is the medicine of the 21st century and beyond.

          • Acleron

            Hard to determine if you actually believe that tosh, just like the sounds of the words or are copying and pasting. Whatever, it is pure nonsense. Always jam tomorrow.

          • … and you will rule the world.

            You’re frightening me.

          • Acleron

            Sheesh, everybody knew long before Hahnemann that throwing away toxins meant you didn’t suffer from them. The trouble is that any benefit disappears as well. That’s why Darwin was so dismissive of the quackery.

      • rosross

        Have you read The Basic Code of the Universe, by Massimo Citro, MD? He talks about research into pharmaceuticals in a bid to reduce toxicity.

      • Acleron

        You obviously either didn’t read or didn’t understand that word semiotic.

        Needless to say, you need to demonstrate an effect first before venturing into even more insane ideas of mechanism.

      • rosross

        I think there are a number of factors at work which push us closer to Integrative Medicine, of which Homeopathy will be a key and vital part.

        1. the kill and injure rate of Allopathic medicine is shockingly high and still rising and most medical professionals, I believe, work with integrity and it will simply become intolerable for them to not explore other options.

        2. Science does advance and develop, albeit slowly, and despite resistance from the pharmaceutical industry and all those whose power, prestige, profit, profession and ego’s are threatened, the system of Science, by its nature, must evolve. Science will eventually be able to understand how Homeopathy works, it is just a matter of how long it takes to get there.

        3. Technology allows people to communicate and disseminate information quickly and easily and while information is not necessarily correct or valid, anyone of reasonable intelligence can sift through the dross and find health and medical options quickly, in ways simply not possible in the past. The fact that billions of people are turning toward non-Allopathic medicine is hardly surprising and will only increase. It does not take much common sense to realise that medication for life, chronic disease without cure, or regular procedures and surgeries is not health and what everyone wants, understandably, is good and robust health.

        4. The evidence that the materialist reductionist scientific system is not only deeply flawed, but particularly in the realms of medicine, frequently highly corrupt will only increase and we can see already that more and more people are refusing to believe what they are told just because a scientist or doctor said so, and are asking important and sensible questions.

        We live in exciting times.

        • Acleron

          First there was Homeopathy but the medical profession saw through that scam. Then the name was changed to Complementary but again doctors realised what was happening and so the name was changed again to integrative.

          It is still the same scam, trying to get money out of patients for zero benefit.

          • rosross

            Homeopathy remains Homeopathy. The term Complementary is a term currently used on the basis that Allopathy is the major medical system but that will change.

            Non-Allopathic medical modalities are all medicine – there is no Complementary or Alternative Medicine, it is just medicine and that is what the move toward Integrative Medicine recognises.

          • “Homeopathy remains Homeopathy. The term Complementary is a term currently used on the basis that Allopathy is the major medical system but that will change.”

            Yeah! Bring back the pre-scientific era! Can we get blood-letting and trepanation to let the demons out brought back too?

          • rosross

            For what it is worth blood-letting is being revisited as a useful Allopathic procedure and so are leeches and maggots for wound cleaning. Not all are as closed-minded as you appear to be.

            Trepanning was one of the earliest forms of surgical intervention and is still used today, was not about letting out demons but since you don’t research things you would not know that.

            Quote: But all neurosurgeons readily agree on one point: a hole is the starting point for all neurosurgical procedures. Clinical trepanation is performed, for example, to evacuate hemorrhages and to relieve pressure in the cranial cavity caused by cerebral ulcers. But, for neurosurgeons, the hole is a means to an end, and they put the bone back in place.

            http://www.damninteresting.com/the-hole-story-on-trepanation/

          • “For what it is worth blood-letting is being revisited as a useful Allopathic procedure and so are leeches and maggots for wound cleaning.”

            Blood-letting? I’d be interested in the citation to any serious research on that.

            As for leeches and maggots, they were used for a hell of a lot of utter quackery before it was found that they have a very limited practical use.

            If you had any intellectual honesty you’d know that that was what was being referenced.

            “Trepanning was one of the earliest forms of surgical intervention and is still used today, was not about letting out demons but since you don’t research things you would not know that.”

            Historically trepanation has been used for medical intervention, yes. It was also used for ritual purposes, expansion of the “mind”, enhancing psychic ability and other such pseudoscience. But again, in your black and white understanding of things you still focus on just one thing to the exclusion of actual intention of the post.

          • rosross

            See above the revisit to Blood-letting.

            Bloodletting suffered from the same ‘disease’ as antibiotics where it was effective but it became overused and abused as a result.

            The loss of blood, as doctors have known from empirical observation, often serves to ‘kick-start’ an immune response and no doubt this is the source of the practice.

            It was not that leeches and maggots were used for a lot of quackery but that medicine, particularly mechanical medicine, what we now call Allopathic, has always been prone to quackery although I am sure it was more about ignorance than a conscious attempt to deceive.

            Modern ‘snake oil’ approaches include medications for maybe medicine where you take a drug for a disease you do not have and may never get; vaccines, too many, too soon, too often, too experimental; various tests and procedures which research is now showing do more harm than good, and the criminal waste of antibiotics, encouraged by science in agriculture and by doctors for conditions where they were useless and in fact, as research begins to show, did more harm than good.

            The abuse of a medical practice, whether leeches, maggots, Trepanning, vaccines, antibiotics or medication does not make the practice at core, useless or lacking in value in some respects. It is the overuse and the use in ignorance which is the problem.

          • “Bloodletting suffered from the same ‘disease’ as antibiotics where it was effective but it became overused and abused as a result.”

            Ah… no. This is so wrong that there is nothing to be said. Just, no.

            “The loss of blood, as doctors have known from empirical observation, often serves to ‘kick-start’ an immune response and no doubt this is the source of the practice.”

            “no doubt”? That’s quite an assumption.

            “It was not that leeches and maggots were used for a lot of quackery but that medicine, ”

            Ah, no. My reference to the use of leeches was to how they were used in the pre-scientific era. If you want to talk about how they’re used today that is a different topic, grounded in some very good research. You’d have trouble with that though.

            “particularly mechanical medicine, what we now call Allopathic,”

            *Actual* medicine. Not allopathic. That’s a term reserved to the sphere of those that promote alternatives to medicine.

            “has always been prone to quackery although I am sure it was more about ignorance than a conscious attempt to deceive.”

            Agreed. Somewhat. However, I would reserve the term “quackery” for the charlatans that continue to push made up nonsense once it’s been proven to be not a real thing. Like homeopathy.

            The rest, like the start, is so wrong I can’t even be bothered responding to it.

          • rosross

            The modern version of bloodletting is blood donation… there was a method in their madness and bloodletting only went wrong as antibiotics have gone wrong – given too often, too much and for the wrong things.

            http://www.sott.net/article/261464-Donating-blood-at-the-blood-bank

          • Acleron

            LMAO. The modern equivalent of blood letting is blood donation?

            Only a homeopath believer could come out with something as sublimely stupid as this.

            Yeah, sure, the National Blood Transfusion service of the UK have a secret belief in the four humours.

            Blood letting was the correct application of a hypothesis that was plain wrong. Just like homeopathy except when there is money involved you just chuck your precious beliefs out the window.

          • “Blood letting was the correct application of a hypothesis that was plain wrong. Just like homeopathy except when there is money involved you just chuck your precious beliefs out the window.”

            Blood letting is actually demonstrably *better* than homeopathy because of this. As Acleron said, “Blood letting was the correct application of a hypothesis that was plain wrong.” When the hypothesis was realised to be wrong the practice died out with it.

            Homeopathy still holds firm to it’s unproven hypothesis. Sorry, “Laws”.

            So stupid. << Not an ad hom, but a conclusion reached by reading your own words.

          • “The modern version of bloodletting is blood donation.”

            You literally have *no idea* what blood-letting was. That’s not a question, that’s a statement of fact. It also shows your desperation to twist things you’ve said so that they might, _just_might_, sound sound plausible.

            Again, I ask; Does being you hurt?

            *How* do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

          • Acleron

            Vaccines too experimental?

            There has been more research into the vaccination against polio than the whole of homeopathy put together. Same for measles, rubella, herpes, pertussis etc etc.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            “Bloodletting suffered from the same ‘disease’ as antibiotics where it was effective but it became overused and abused as a result.” This has to be right up there amongst the most stupid things you’ve ever said. Mind you, there is stiff competition.

          • Acleron

            Their lack of education of the history of these techniques is quite staggering, especially as they still live in the 18th century.

          • Boris Ogon

            The abuse of a medical practice, whether leeches, maggots, Trepanning, vaccines, antibiotics or medication does not make the practice at core, useless or lacking in value in some respects. It is the overuse and the use in ignorance which is the problem.

            This you think is the “issue” with trepanation? I see no way of interpreting this comment as indicating that (1) you are well – perhaps solely – aware of the popular DIY culture and (2) think that people are doing it wrong.

            By all means, point by point. No ontological bloviating or other of your incoherent evasions.

          • rosross

            Quote: Maggots and leeches probably do not come quickly to mind when you think of medical devices. Yet devices they are, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and they do fit the regulatory definition nicely:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3571037/

            Quote:
            Well, yes. But there are very real reasons why this medical practice is resurfacing in respectable medical circles as an effective treatment for certain ailments. – See more at: http://www.medtech.edu/?q=blog/the-history-progression-and-modern-stance-on-bloodletting#sthash.C56T6eoT.dpuf

          • Acleron

            Maggots and leeches were found to have a use. Homeopathy has been found to be useless.

            None of the forays of medics into quackery is done on the basis of evidence therefore your real reasons are imaginary.

            What vestiges of homeopathy that remain in the NHS are supported by back door communications between that idiot Charlie and ministers anxious to get an invite to the big house. Homeopathy only thrived in the US because a quack Senator slipped in an exemption clause for it into the bill creating the FDA. In India, despite less than 6% of the population trusting it, it thrives because homeopaths have embedded themselves in government. Nowhere do you load of fraudsters produce evidence, nowhere at all.

          • Acleron

            Oh please stop making me laugh so much.

            The aim of quacks is to get their mouths around the test of public health care. Alternative, complementary, integrative are all marketing terms to try to achieve that end.

            Integrative medicine
            https://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          Integrative medicine is spreading here in the U.S. Hospitals now offer modalities like acupuncture and homeopathy. Shore Health Systems, a major U.S. hospital and part of the University of Maryland Medical Center, has added Kali bich to its formulary for critically ill patients because it allows them to be taken off ventilators sooner than would be possible without it. More and more medical practices are adding these modalities plus nutrition to their services.

          I certainly agree with your first point. Doctors of conventional medicine are definitely aware of the effects of conventional drugs and interested in better ways to help their patients. Patients themselves are looking for and investigating every natural modality they hear about.

          Again, I agree with you on your second point. Look at biosemiotics and the theory of resonance.

          And also your third point. All I have to do is visit my local health food store to prove it. I can listen to people talking about why they stopped taking their “meds” and hear them asking about natural treatments.

          Not to mention your last point. Just recently the Queen’s former doctor slammed big pharma for making and selling for-profit-drugs. He believes the efficacy and use of drugs, particularly in the elderly, is often based on a weak and murky foundation.

          Then there’s the recent expose of 130 NHS employees taking money from big pharma.

          http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/Newsletter/articles/uk-national-health-service-officials-on-pharma-cartel-payroll.html

          It’s getting late here……….

          • rosross

            Yes, it must be getting late.

            All good news on changes in the US. I actually find human beings to be relatively sensible. The view of those who reject Homeopathy is that most people are idiots and stupid enough to be fooled, but there is no evidence for that and in this day and age, information, for good and ill, is disseminated quickly.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            In reality, I think there are very few people who can be fooled, fewer who can be fooled all the time and even fewer who can be persuaded that their own experiences are worthless. People catch on to the bad information relatively quickly, and………………they remember where it came from and who gave it to them.

          • Heh, I actually mostly agree with this. The first sentence is patently wrong. But the rest is pretty good.

            I just don’t see how you don’t see yourselves as the one that are spreading the misinformation. Perhaps it’s because you’re not actually spreading real information. You have your unverified stories, sorry, your anecdotes. But every time, without fail, when asked for *real* solid irrefutable data you just pump out the same tired old studies that have been shown time and time again to be flawed to the point of being pointless.

            So, yes, I agree (mostly) with the statement.

          • rosross

            You ignore the data when provided.

          • No, we examine it and find it wanting. You’re willingness to except crap research is the problem here.

          • rosross

            No you don’t or you could not continue to post in such abject ignorance of even basic Homeopathic modality, process and research.

          • Yeahh… nah.

            “Basic Homeopathic modality, process and research” is very poor quality. This is the majority of the problem. The fact that you refuse to even address challenges to the methods on the studies does little but demonstrate to the readers your own wilful ignorance.

            For you to continue to post these things while knowing that you can not address them… The cognitive dissonance must be physically painful.

          • Acleron

            Every skeptic here is more capable of examining homeopathy than you are. You have proved this repeatedly.

          • This, I think, hits on a key point. One of Ros Ross’s deflections is the whine about ad hominems, yet she repeatedly invokes the ‘ignorance’ one, here and elsewhere. It’s a stock-in-trade resort to attack the critic (who is often sufficiently savvy). It’s a subterfuge. And further questions her integrity.

    • Acleron

      So why won’t he publish this work in detail sufficient for experts to analyse it?

      It is straight intellectual fraud to make his conclusions without enabling others to know what he has done.

      • rosross

        Don’t be ridiculous. It is research in progress. Of course when completed the work will be published. I posted it simply as an interesting area of research currently underway.

        • So you’re not promoting unfinished work to back your crazy? That’s… typical actually.

          Research in progress is no reason to not be open about it. Being able to have others examine the methodology early so that problems can be spotted early and corrected is a good thing. Ghods know that research into homeopathy could use some peer-review of the methodology before wasting money on the actual execution of the studys.

          • rosross

            No, I post material of interest on the basis that anyone curious and open-minded who wishes to explore Homeopathy can take advantage of it or not.

          • Wouldn’t it make more sense to post that as a separate blog post somewhere rather than polluting a comment thread with off topic posts with no commentary?

          • rosross

            It is relevant to the theme of the thread – a discussion in regard to Homeopathic medicine.

          • I’d agree if you provided any commentary about it. But you didn’t, you just spammed the thread without contributing to it.

          • rosross

            Please refer me to the relevant section on this thread or any other where it demands that posts have commentary?

          • Oh, there’s nothing to say that you have to do that. It’s just that if you don’t you’re just being an arse.

          • …and now you edit your replies to substantially change what they say.

            To address the new paragraph though: Logic can dictate many things. But logic isn’t your strong suit so you may want to avoid invoking it. It doesn’t change the fact that reposting a very large chunk of text with no explanation, context or commentary is a pointless thing to do because of the lack of a personal contribution. You could just post the link. Perhaps with some commentary about why the reader should go and read it.

            As for the digressions and diversions… You’re the master of posting off topic things and avoiding reasonable challenges to your positions. Glass houses, got rocks?

            Personal attacks? Insults perhaps, I don’t know if they’d count as “attacks”. These also typically come out when you’ve actually been caught lying or misrepresenting something. Or when you double down on an insane position with the equivalent of a child responding with “I know you are, but what am I?” So yeah, if you don’t want to be called an idiot, stop acting like one.

            Pedantic, nitpicking approach? Sure. I’ll own that. Science *is* pedantic and nit picky. I’d have thought you’d have known that after all the studies you keep posting. But then again, these are studies typically excluded from reviews and meta studies due to being of poor quality. So I guess you could be forgiven for *not* knowing that.

            I also get a little pedantic when people read what I wrote and respond to one tiny aspect of it knowing full well that given the context it was presented in that that was not what was being said. These are the actions of the dishonest and the desperate.

            There is only one way to describe the level of discourse that you bring to any comment thread;

            http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/719/509/0ad.png

          • Acleron

            Oh, the irony of a homeopath accusing others of being off topic.

          • rosross

            And you diverted into Trepanning which is completely off-topic but interesting all the same.

            It has saved lives in war many times….

            http://www.medicalantiques.com/civilwar/Civil_War_Articles/Trephining_during_Civil_War.htm

          • Actually I just added trepanning as an item on a list to demonstrate the archaic nature of your profession. You chose to glom on to it.

          • Actually, to Ros Ross, it wouldn’t. Because it is at places like this where they can most effectively sow their seeds of doubt. It’s the ID tactic – ‘teach the controversy’.

          • Yes, of course you do. Your intentions are entirely honourable, aren’t they? You have absolutely no axe to grind, do you?

          • Acleron

            The actualitè is that you post references to rubbish which is regularly debunked. You can never rebut the arguments yet republish the same again. A homeopath trying to publish facts is not a thing. You continually supply evidence of the dishonesty of homeopathy in general.

        • Acleron

          This is work a competent technician can perform in a few days. It is not difficult. He has been banging on about this for years, so what has taken so long?

          Research in progress? Ye gods, it is not research and isn’t progressing.

    • Boris Ogon

      During the manufacturing process, homeopathic medicines are repeatedly succussed (shaken vigorously), introducing kinetic energy.

      Aww, it’s always cute when apologists for homeopathy make physics babby-talk. As with the melting of cheese, “introducing kinetic energy” wipes out information. In homeo-speak, each succussion under this rubric would undo the previous one. After all, it’s trivially obvious that homeopathic “remedies” do not exhibit persistent temperature anomalies.

    • Boris Ogon

      Man, trying to get a reply out of @roslyn_ross:disqus is like trying to set up a “proving” of Gal den.*

      * Real, rather than alchemical, Latin, although with the de rigueur obfuscatory abbreviations. Five Oscilloquatloos for the first correct identification.

  • rosross

    Quote:The Fourth Phase of Water contributes to a much larger paradigm shift that is proceeding across all the sciences, and indeed to a transition in the defining mythology of our civilization. In science alone, the implications of his findings, if verified, are profound, especially in areas like cell biology, plant physiology, chemical signaling, and of course medicine. Beyond that, they erode the story that we live in a dead universe of generic substances, that we, the sole intelligence of that universe, are therefore its rightful lords and masters. Pollack is part of the evolution of science toward a more shamanic worldview that understands that all things possess some kind of beingness.

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/waters-heterodoxy-review-gerald-pollack-s-fourth-phase-water?page=2

    • Quote: Bollocks is still bollocks regardless of being quoted.

      • rosross

        Don’t be so hard on yourself.

      • Acleron

        Being found to be in the wrong when making an accusation I imagine most people’s response would be embarrassment, apology and then keeping quiet for a bit. Homeopaths are really peculiar.

    • You quote from GreenMedinfo? That vestibule to anti-science/-medicine New Age-ism? Well, that fits, as your posting is becoming increasingly of that bent. You keep re-making your trite deflective non-argument about people of intelligence coming to this thread and how they wil perceive it. Well, they certainly will have difficulty getting through your saturation noise, which obscures the questions and points you’ve just simply dropped and left unaddressed. All part of the strategy. But, that’s okay. Because everybody trusts New Age-types, don’t they? They will think that labelling you a ‘dishonest snark’ is just an erroneous ad hominem, won’t they? Well, it is I calling you a dishonest snark, in response to your accusation of misrepresenting and misquoting and resorting to propaganda. I provided you with the source of the quote here:

      https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-war-on-homeopathy-isnt-working-we-need-to-call-a-truce/#comment-2550546389

      and you have chosen to ignore and let it be buried. Is this relevant? Yes, I think it is. Because it exposes your position and your lack of integrity. As does your refusal, when you continually lambast modern medicine, to confirm that you are a practicing homeopath – a ‘modality’ you consider so brilliant, surely you would be proud to declare that it is what you do.

      So, to be clear: are you a practicing homeopath? Do you charge people money for your services, and provide those people with the type of information you provide here? These things matter.

      • rosross

        The material matters more than the source. You come from a place of egregious prejudice and even greater ignorance.

        You need to apply a rigorous scientific approach and read material for its own value and not from a place of deep and ignorant prejudice because you dislike the source.

        No, I am not a practising Homeopathic doctor. I am someone who has found Homeopathic medicine invaluable for the past 15 years, seeing cure where Allopathy failed, and someone with a deep and abiding curiosity in regard to medicine in general and the human organism in particular.

        I have been studying Homeopathy, along with other medical modalities for a decade now and remain impressed with it in practice at a personal level and in terms of its methodology and history.

        I have in the past written material for major hospitals, researched and written and I have a good and solid understanding of Allopathic medicine and science.

        How about you? What are your credentials in terms of knowledge and understanding?

        I have absolutely no idea what a New Age type is but it fits with your general practice of judging from a place of prejudice and ignorance and is just as meaningless as the name-calling it is.

        • Acleron

          The source is derided because of its material. If a decade of studying produces such nonsense as

          “Quote:The Fourth Phase of Water contributes to a much larger paradigm shift that is proceeding across all the sciences, and indeed to a transition in the defining mythology of our civilization. ”

          this new age stream of conciousness that was old 40 years ago is a clear indication that homeopaths should not be let anywhere near healthcare.

        • The material? If you say so. I dislike the source because of the material it posts – I’ve read plenty of it. Much like the material you post here and elsewhere. You have no idea what ‘place’ I come from. You label me prejudiced and ignorant because I disagree with and reject your statements and claims? And you offer up ‘evidence’ from a blatantly anti-science New Age site that promotes quackery? Pur-lease.

          My credentials? Well, as I am not making any big claims, nor promoting anything, nor grinding any axe here, they are irrelevant. However, as you have asked, I will not repeatedly ignore and evade as you have done. So: a background in engineering preceded a degree in genetics, Ph.D. in developmental and molecular biology, M.Sc. in science communication, and thirteen years in biomedical research. I do not claim to have been very good at the practice of it; but I can claim a scientific education and, having worked in a medical school for ten years, a reasonable appreciation of its application and translation to medicine. Concomitantly, I have followed, written on and developed an increasing aversion to pseudoscience and quackery – particularly homeopathy: on which I claim no expertise; but I’ll take no lectures from you on the ‘need to apply a rigorous scientific approach’ to it.

          Because I disagree with, and challenge your statements at places like this, you deflect by labelling me (and all your critics) ‘prejudiced’ and ‘ignorant’. But really, what do you base that on? Though your motivation is abundantly clear, you have no idea what motivates me. Contrary to what you and others like to portray, I do not assume that all people who subscribe to homeopathy are by default stupid, bad people. I actually think the opposite: they are often decent, intelligent and well-meaning. What I object to are its practitioners and propagandists who abuse media platforms to exploit them and attempt to ‘convert’ (your term) others; people who disseminate egregious misinformation; people who make unscientifically-founded, potentially dangerous claims; people who misrepresent and post blatant untruths; people who attempt to smear; people who refuse to accept, acknowledge and correct their exposed mistakes and false accusations. People like you.

        • “The material matters more than the source.”

          That must explain why you don’t care about wikipedia links.

    • Acleron

      Clicked on your link and :-

      Fatal error: Call to undefined function wilderness_select_local_or_cdn() in /home/gmi/public_html/sites/all/modules/greenmed/greenmed.module on line 888

      Describes the level of ignorance perfectly.

      • rosross

        It works fine when I click on the link. The problem is with your system.

        • Acleron

          Read the error message, it is generated from the server.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Works fine for me too.

          • Acleron

            Perhaps it was temporarily fed up with the mass of stupidity it has to carry.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Don’t be so hard on yourself. I am sure it can deal with stupidity.

          • Boris Ogon

            @roslyn_ross:disqus

            Test, will be deleted.

          • sabelmouse

            works for me.search for it.The Waters of Heterodoxy: A Review of Gerald Pollack’s “The Fourth Phase of Water” – Page 2

        • “It works fine when I click on the link. The problem is with your system.”

          Ah, no, the error was at the server side.

      • It’s looking like a transitory error. It worked for me when I initially checked.

        I do note that the site is running Drupal 6.38. That software has been EOL’d. No security updates there any more. That module also appears to be a custom module so no community based peer review on that codebase either.

        • Acleron

          Yes, it was an transient issue. Probably caused by Ros putting up the link and causing excess traffic.

  • Acleron

    Homeopaths feared the public realising that their sugar and water concoctions were just sugar and water. DUlman tried all the chicanery he knew to prevent that information being clearly shown on the Wikipedia article on homeopathy.

    Having lost that argument they are now trying to claim that something is present in the water. Memory, quantum flapdoodle, nanobolecules. Lol,you name it, some homeopath has tried to claim it somehow. Many esoteric and not so complex techniques have been applied to cherry pick results from below the level of sensitivity, UV absorbance, mystical patterns of dried water, fluorescence, atomic spectroscopy etc. None of these are ever reported in sufficient detail to enable others to attempt replication except one where an idiot was found to be measuring impurities in the diluent.

    However, there is an easy way to determine this for a few of their labels, radioisotopes. DUllman tried to cash in on the Japanese nuclear accident scares by selling homeopathic potassium iodide. I-131 could easily be diluted by their ritualistic procedures and if anything is still present then a rather accurate and precise estimation can be made.

    This raises the question of why they chose the methods which involved testing below the levels of sensitivity than a simple method? Any ideas you homeopaths?

  • Thomas Mohr

    There is no need for a truce. The battle has already been decided. Quote: “How? Simply subject homeopathy to several, high-quality, randomised trials as this one”. Mr. Arab, that has already been done, see the huge metastudy carried out by the Australian government. It covers more than 1800 scientific publications and the verdict is clear: Homeopathy has been found NOT to work. Period.

    • Ames

      It’s funny how you would close blog comments in trying to get the
      last word. Your comments on the “A toddler dies from menigitis,
      governments need to block naturopathic pediatrics” CANNOT be far from
      the truth. A lot of those therapies have worked even to this day. Of course you wouldn’t believe it because you haven’t seen it in action for yourself.

      “Sure, nothing is perfect. However, given the estimated correctness of
      what you study (homeopathy 0%, herbal medicine maybe 20%, [there are
      studies about that], nutrional thingies maybe 15% given how much
      Naturopaths dig into detoxing etc.) the probability that you as ND
      misdiagonse and mismanage a patient is by far greater compared to a
      proper MD. This is not restricted to infectious or life threatening
      diseases. This goes for everything.”

      Do you have proof on those ridiculous claims??? You don’t. They are coming out of thin air.

      “Finally, you are NOT a new profession. Naturopathy is at least 200 years
      old and if you study the history of naturopathic medicine you will see
      that many fields have made no progress whatsoever despite a huge leaps
      forward in our understanding of pathology. What you are learning are
      treatment modalities dated back to the 19th, 18th and even older
      centuries baes on the fallacy of an argumentum ad traditionem”.

      WRONG!
      The word “naturopathy”, if you would have learned naturopathic history,
      was coined under Lust, which was 1920. NOT 200 centuries old. Also,
      please learn now to spell.

      I am not going back and forth with you and I have read your comments. You have no life and want to argue. You should like a bitter man with an awfully miserable life who has pleasure with arguing online. How BORING of a life. I pity you. Just because naturopathic medicine did not
      work for you, don’t spoil it for those where it did had an impact on
      their lives. Your comments are not going to change my opinion. Go
      outside and get some fresh air!

      • Thomas Mohr

        First, I can not turn comments off. That was Britt Hermes in anticipation of a rant like yours. It “happened often enough.

        Quote: “A lot of those therapies have worked even to this day. Of course you
        wouldn’t believe it because you haven’t seen it in action for yourself.” The Problem is not seeing a therapy in action, but determining that this effect is greater than a placebo – and so far many naturopathic modalities have failed in this respect. If they are so successful, quote the studies.

        I have proof to my “ridiculous” claims. For instance: Cravotto G, Boffa L, Genzini L, Garella D )(February 2010). “Phytotherapeutics: an evaluation of the potential of 1000 plants”. J Clin Pharm Ther 35 (1): 11–48.They found 8 (in words eight) plants displaying sufficient pharmaceutical activity to warrant further research. Since roughly 200 plants had clinical trials, the number of 10 to 20% is not too far off. The Australian metastudy on homeopathy has decided the matter on homeopathy once and for all. Re detoxing techniques, ask any *real* nutritionist. Re history of naturopathy – your own people claim following: “The principles of Naturopathy were first used by the Hippocratic School of Medicine in about 400 BC.” (http://www.naturopathy-uk.com/home/home-what-is-naturopathy/)

        Let me explain something to you: I am a scientist in medical science with a work experience of over 25 years. 2015 I have published as many scientific papers as your entire alma mater.

        Quote: “I am not going back and forth with you and I have read your comments.” Of course you are not, because you have no arguments as your lack of credible citations and even more so next sentence clearly shows: Quote: “You have no life and want to argue.”

        Quote: “Your comments are not going to change my opinion.” This is exactly the reason why naturopathic doctors should not be allowed to practice as primary care physicians.

    • Ames

      It’s funny how you would close blog comments in trying to get the
      last word. Your comments on the “A toddler dies from menigitis,
      governments need to block naturopathic pediatrics” CANNOT be far from
      the truth.

      “Sure, nothing is perfect. However, given the estimated correctness of
      what you study (homeopathy 0%, herbal medicine maybe 20%, [there are
      studies about that], nutrional thingies maybe 15% given how much
      Naturopaths dig into detoxing etc.) the probability that you as ND
      misdiagonse and mismanage a patient is by far greater compared to a
      proper MD. This is not restricted to infectious or life threatening
      diseases. This goes for everything.”

      Do you have proof on those ridiculous claims??? You don’t. They are coming out of thin air.

      “Finally, you are NOT a new profession. Naturopathy is at least 200 years
      old and if you study the history of naturopathic medicine you will see
      that many fields have made no progress whatsoever despite a huge leaps
      forward in our understanding of pathology. What you are learning are
      treatment modalities dated back to the 19th, 18th and even older
      centuries baes on the fallacy of an argumentum ad traditionem.

      “WRONG!
      The word “naturopathy”, if you would have learned naturopathic history,
      was coined under Lust, which was 1920. NOT 200 centuries old. Also,
      please learn now to spell.

      I am not going back and forth with you
      and I have read your comments. You have no life and want to argue. You
      should like a bitter OLD man and just because naturopathic medicine did not
      work for you, don’t spoil it for those where it did had an impact on
      their lives. Your comments are not going to change my opinion. Go
      outside and get some fresh air!

      • Thomas Mohr

        For the efficacy of homeopathy vz. the recent Australian metastudy. For herbal medicine: Cravotto G, Boffa L, Genzini L, Garella D (February 2010). “Phytotherapeutics: an evaluation of the potential of 1000 plants”. J Clin Pharm Ther 35 (1): 11–48. Eight plants showed pharmaceutical effect large enough to warrant research. As for naturopathy a new profession:
        “What is Naturopathy?”. College of Naturopathic Medicine website. East Grinstead, England. Retrieved 16 September 2015. Quote: ”
        The principles of Naturopathy were first used by the Hippocratic School of Medicine in about 400 BC.”

        This, Ames is arguing. People arguing like in your last paragraph is akin to admiting defeat.

    • Ames

      Bitter OLD loney man actually.

      • Thomas Mohr

        Better a looney old scientist than someone adhering to pseudoscience. Why do you think NDs would not be admitted to a PhD course in any European University ? Why do you think Britt Hermes has to do an MSc ?

  • Karyse Day

    Your disclaimer suggests that you have not used Homeopathy as prescribed by a professional
    Homeopath but rather as a teenager might use a prescription drug for a weekend high, for the sugary taste. Unfortunately unless you have first hand experience on any subject, your comment is rather like asking a five year old virgin to describe an orgasm.

    Having got that out of the way, we can begin.
    You are quite right. Homeopathy is indestructible. No matter how often the so-called experts decry it, to paraphrase your words: It remains the treatment of choice for approx one billion patients across the planet, sales of Homeopathic remedies appear to be increasing and hundreds of thousands of practitioners are registered in very many countries of the world.

    Again you are quite right when you say that opponents are especially nasty – open to abuse and vitriol. (Frustrated Homeopathic virgins at best, health fascists at worst)
    And you are right yet again when you say that supporters come to Homeopathy having been miserably failed by allopathic doctors for many years.

    Sadly at this point, we are going to disagree. You quote “experts” as saying it is all a bunch of fluff. Who is more expert in saying whether a treatment has worked or not than a patient? Not only is the suggestion made that Homeopathic patients are simpletons for believing the treatment works, but that like Oliver Twist, they want some more! Why can’t they just be like everyone else? Go to a “proper” doctor get an allopathic prescription, probably suffer side effects, get even more pills to counter the side effects of the previous prescription/s and end up like many of the patients in the UK, enduring polypharmacy which is decimating the NHS?. They might well suffer a serious adverse reaction and die, but what the hell, we all have to die sometime and they could be making doctors paid to prescribe toxic drugs very happy/wealthy at the same time? Refer http://www.
    telegraph.co.uk-tests-and-drugs-do-more-harm-than-good http://www..telegraph-officials-with-second-jobs-at-drug-firms

    The unbiased and informed scientists who first wrote of evidence based medicine BMJ 1996;312:71 made the following points:
    Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.
    Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients’ predicaments, rights, and preferences
    in making clinical decisions about their care.

    Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannised by evidence, for even excellent external
    evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient.
    Without current best evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients.

    In calling for a truce I suspect you have been reading the survey published in the most respected public health
    journal in the USA, “The American Journal of Public Health.” The authors of this survey were from Harvard’s School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital. This
    survey noted that homeopathic studies “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals. And control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba. Two-thirds of homeopathy users ranked homeopathy as one of their top three CIM therapies. This new survey found that in 2012 the usage of homeopathy had grown approximately 15% to 2.1% of U.S. adults. Much to the chagrin of the health fascist this survey, like dozens before it, have found that people who were more educated were more likely to use homeopathic medicines than people who were less educated.
    The researchers concluded, “Because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted.”

    In the UK we do not only need a Truce and a Declaration of Peace, but for the sake of all patients and the future good financial health of the NHS, we need a Truth and Reconciliation commission where experienced Homeopathic patients are given a public opportunity to voice the orgasmic potential of Homeopathy.

    • Acleron

      The ‘if you don’t pay me money then you cannot try it’ gambit. We look at the reported results by homeopaths and still conclude it doesn’t have any effect over placebo.

      Evidenced based medicine involves the use of evidence, the best evidence shows that homeopathy has no effect over placebo.

      The motives of the author are unknown but if they are based on less than the best evidence available they can be safely ignored.

      Control of Leptospirosis? Are you joking? That farrago of a clinical trial had no controls, the authors made up an expected death rate and concluded that sugar and water was effective from no evidence at all.

      Argumentum ad populum, a favourite fallacy of homeopaths. Advertisers and marketeers know that if you can lie convincingly you can sell. That is what homeopaths do continuously and then squeal loudly when their lies are pointed out.

      In the UK it would be an advantage to the public if homeopaths understood what truth was. Labeling their nostrums as zero dose and of no discernible benefit would be a start.

      Also, homeopaths can stop endangering the public by telling lies about medicine. We don’t need them advising against vaccination, advising against known prophylactics to malaria or claiming that chemotherapy only kills. In fact, we don’t need homeopaths profiting from the public for no benefit.

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      Regarding your reference to and for the sake of other readers here who may be unfamiliar with homeopathy and/or the wonderful results homeoprophylaxis achieved in averting and then all but eradicating leptospirosis in Cuba, these are the facts which are in stark contrast to what some “skeptics” claim:

      The homeopathic nosode was developed at the WHO-recognized and world renowned Finlay Institute by a team of doctors including Drs. Bracho and Huergo who are respected world-wide for their excellence and diligence to the scientific method and as experts on leptospirosis. Their papers have been published in respected medical journals for more than 20 years.

      The nosode was prepared and delivered in 2007 because Cuba was facing the threat of an epidemic. The conventional vaccine could not be prepared in a timely manner, and its high cost prevented it from being given to anyone but those at high risk, i.e., children, the elderly and pregnant women. The Finlay Institute delivered the nosode in three weeks and treated 2,500,000 people for $200,000. There was a control group of 8.8 million people who did not receive the nosode. In the case of these people the infection rate rose as predicted.

      When Cuba used its conventional vaccine Vax-Spiral there were about 2,000 infects and 100+ deaths.
      With the homeopathic nosode there were 10 or fewer infects per week, and the death rate dropped to zero.

      http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba

      In 2008 the effect was sustained with an 84% reduction in infection among those given homeopathy. In the same year the incidence rose by 22% in those not receiving homeopathy.

      • Acleron

        The evidence shows that the infection and mortality rate varies wildly from year to year. Any dishonest idiot can take a series of numbers and then weight them according to some undisclosed system, yes, they did that! and pull any figure they like from their nether regions.

        5000 health workers were trained in telli g the population how to drink the water drops and as the Cubans have a good health system they would obviously have warned the population on how to treat cuts and to drink only bottled or boiled water which would be far more effective than drops of water from a homeopath.

        Despite this, there were outbreaks of Leptospirosis. How was that treated? Oh, by vaccination and antibiotics.

        This work was hawked around respectable journals and ended up in a homeopathy magazine.

        RGM knows all this, it has been explained to her before but she trots it out yet again to try and get some new converts.

        • ‘RGM knows all this, it has been explained to her before but she trots it out yet again to try and get some new converts.’

          There’s a pattern.

          • Acleron

            I think it is general with all who fail to provide reliable evidence. The same behaviour is found in creationists, AGW deniers, cold fusion enthusiasts etc.

            Part is from the desire to collect up anybody who is unaware of the reality of the situation. I think some of it comes from discussions in their own forums where such tripe is accepted quite uncritically.

  • Acleron

    It is hard to pick out the silliest assertions of homeopaths but up there is the claim that homeopathy is like vaccination. They avoid any discussion on the fact that homeopathy vials contain no active material while vaccines contain measurable amounts of well characterised material.

    Nevertheless they have a group of labels they call nosodes. They take bacteria and virii and throw them away. Vials are filled with water or sweets and labeled.

    These nosodes are sold as prophylactics. This produces a bit of a problem. Homeopathic nostrums are supposed to replicate the symptoms of disease in normal individuals so how come in that disreputable Leptospirosis trial, millions of Cubans didn’t report infection by Leptospirosis?

    Nosodes also blow away this pretence that homeopaths treat with individualised medicine.

    Hahnemann recognised these problems and spoke against nosodes. However I was informed by a homeopath that he later relented on his stance. One of the first examples of a homeopath throwing away logic to sell some more sugar and water.

    • Did this homeopath back their assertion with any credible evidence that Hahnemann changed his position on nosodes?

      • Acleron

        No, honestly I wasn’t particularly bothered about it

        • Fair enough. Would be handy to know if any of Hahnemann’s writings are around. A site like the Darwin Correspondence Project for Hahnemann would be quite useful.

          • Acleron

            There are reprints of his Organon (not a shy bunny comparing himself to Aristotle).

            Here is one
            http://www.amazon.co.uk/Organon-Medicine-Hahnemann-Samuel/dp/8131902234/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457216272&sr=8-1&keywords=hahnemann+organon

            I cannot see which edition it was.

            It is turgid writing. When I complained about it I was told that it was best read in the original German. When I explained that my German wasn’t good enough, the answer was a laconic ‘Yes’.

            Never occurred to me before but why was it written in German? The language of medicine at the time was Latin. Was he already aiming his quackery at the mass market?

          • I was more thinking of his letters. Then claims like that which you saw (Hahnemann changing his position on nosodes) could be established beyond hearsay.

          • Acleron

            I had assumed it came from differences in the editions of his Organon but I cannot remember if it was in the edition I read, or even which one I read, it was not a labour of love. Whether he agreed or not with nosodes appears irrelevant as they are used and are inconsistent with their so called scientific approach.

          • Indeed.

          • That’s an interesting point. As I was reading that I was thinking “because he was from Germany” but you raise a good point on the Latin issue.

          • See: http://organonofmedicine.com/

            The 6th edition was put together from his notes on the 5th and published long after his death. Most homeopaths seem to use the 5th edition.

            Read them if you can bear it…

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      Please learn something about homeopathy before trying to discuss it.

      “………..how come…millions of Cubans didn’t report infection by Leptospirosis?”. Firstly, since “skeptics” love to claim about homeopathic medicines “There’s nothing in it.” my question to you is how could sugar and water infect anyone with leptospirosis? The reality is that millions of Cubans didn’t report being infected because it would be impossible for homeopathic medicines to infect anyone with anything since they’re rendered sterile during the process of potentization. Additionally, they contain nano-particles of substance. That’s why they’re effective but don’t harm.

      “Nosodes also blow away this pretense that homeopaths treat with individualised medicine.” Didn’t you know that when they’re used to prevent epidemics of diseases they are not individualised for each person? Both single remedies and nosodes can be used preventatively. The correct remedy is chosen based on the symptoms that already infected people are displaying. Additionally, nosodes and single remedies can be used in an individualised manner to treat people who have been infected.

      • Acleron

        Why don’t homeopaths know anything about homeopathy?

        It is you idiots that base your trade on proving, not scientists.

        And yes, I know full well all your pious nonsense about individualisation gets thrown away when convenient, but it is your nonsense, not ours.

        Wow, they contain nothing but they contain nanoparticles. Obviously you can prove this superposition, which Hamiltonium did you use? Or perhaps you can’t.

        It’s a scam and you confirm that with these evermore stupid justifications.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          Didn’t you know that homeopaths were the first to conduct RCT’s? Apparently, not.

          No, it isn’t your “nonsense”. Your nonsense is the desire that good, safe medicine which people deserve and need should be withheld from them on the NHS. This is despite the fact that toxic drugs continue to erode the health of the people who use them and often
          bankrupt individuals. Apparently, they’re bankrupting the NHS as well.

          Why not do some research and read the material on nanodoses and nano-medicine?

          • Acleron

            Carry on making it up as you go. You are obviously unaware that your misnamed proving is not a clinical trial, it is a nonsense that is part of your ritual, a nonsense that you chuck away in the pursuit of somebody else’s money. BTW, the first reported clinical trial predated Hahnemann by just a few years, about 3000 years to be precise.

            And immediately, like a deer caught in the headlights of a car, your displacement activity starts up. Keep to the topic. Are you denying that your proving shows symptoms in healthy individuals and that you use those symptoms to choose which lable to use?

            Read about the highly complex nanostructures created by pharmacists in drug delivery systems? Let me tell you an open secret, they ain’t made by grinding up any old rubbish and then throwing it away and they ain’t made by homeopaths. They are discrete and reproducibly measurable. Now back to your evidence. Where is it?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            We are discussing not a proving but an emergency project carried out by the Finlay Institute to prevent an epidemic of leptospirosis in Cuba.

            So you know about nano-structures and yet you’re asking me to provide evidence to you that they exist in homeopathics. Again, my advice is to do some research. You will find a number of articles discussing the subject.

          • Acleron

            No, the topic is how homeopathic provings should give symptoms in healthy individuals and mysteriously they didn’t. As you have shifted from that discussion I’ll conclude that I know what your proving nonsense actually does and you don’t and your silly comment about learning homeopathy is nonsense.

            Your the one claiming that insanely diluted materials contain nanobollicks, you supply the evidence. Neither you nor your mentor, DUllman has shown the slightest understanding of the concept of nanotechnology so I won’t hold my breath waiting for evidence.

            I can also conclude you know 5/8ths of nothing about the history or practice of clinical trials.

            Cue the displacement activity.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Get a good night’s sleep. You’ll feel better in the morning.

          • Acleron

            Like clockwork.

            No answers, no evidence but a request to buy some expensive sweets, just like a scam artist.

          • This is scary:

            ‘Homeopathy is also becoming known for its successful treatment of cancer.’

            That’s you. Here:

            http://www.thequint.com/health-fitness/2016/02/24/if-homeopathy-is-hogwash-why-are-millions-still-buying-it

            You are despicable.

  • indevoc

    At last! an almost balanced article about homeopathy. The last two paragraphs make a pragmatic proposal APART from the fact that the trial given as an example is not the way to research homeopathy AND, if this model were to be followed, sets a similar trial up to produce negative results . The example trial is based on the standard medical model of one medicine for one symptom. The essence of homeopathy is and always has been treating each individual according to the distinct symptom picture of their condition, not according to the diagnosed condition which is based a narrow set of common symptoms that lead diagnosticians to name it. If a trial is to be launched it should be based on individualised prescribing for patients, with a common diagnosed condition OK, but not on one condition-one medicine.

    It’s interesting to see the Cuban leptospirosis research referred to. The results of this paper were published in 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839 and it has been distinctly noticeable that the attacks on homeopathy have been more organised, more frequent and more widespread since then.

    If you were sitting in the financial department of a big pharma company that produces vaccines looking at those results wouldn’t you be extremely worried by them ?? and more to the point, act to stop any further advance of homeopathy?

    • Acleron

      Vague ramblings ignored

      No answers to the heavy criticism of the leptospirosis non trial

      The obligatory swipe across the stupidity that Big Pharma is bothered about water and sugar sellers.

      Yep, a homeopath.

      Will probably claim the just a happy customer status, yeah!

    • Maria_Maclachlan

      So where do you practise?

  • Andy Lewis

    I suggest that a good test to see if you are right and to look at the comments and see how many homeopaths have agreed to your suggestions.

    Homeopaths have not changed any aspect of their practice as a result of a clinical trial in 200 years. Trials are for advertising not for answering clinical questions. Nothing is going to change real soon.

    • And no one should be under any illusion that the arguments – such as they are – presented here are simply the ramblings of a few deluded homeopathy fans who couldn’t construct a valid syllogism if their life depended on it. A moment’s thought and you will realise the Dunning-Kruger effect at play – these fallacious and nonsensical mutterings and protestations are not invented by the fans here but are simply repetitions of the utterings of the leading lights of homeopathy. Their arguments are just the same old fallacious nonsense, regurgitated ad nauseam by their acolytes. They too, repeat the same nonsense that has been refuted a thousand times before, never understanding or learning from the criticisms.

      • Acleron

        There is a difference between the cannon fodder we see here and their puppet masters. I suspect that these have invested so heavily in their belief system that being found continually wrong is instantly forgotten, being embarrassed has no effect on them because they believe it is only for the good of their beloved belief.

        Their leaders operate differently. Being found wrong would be a blow to both their ego and their authority and they know that will happen. This is why the likes of Vithoulkas, the Bannerjis and Dullman are seen so infrequently.

  • Acleron

    There is no debate over the validity of homeopathy it is now a question of demonstrating the dangers posed by such a prescientific belief system.

    The progress of science is salutary in determining the dangers.

    Although it had been derided since it’s invention it really came to most scientist’s attention with the publication by Benveniste in Nature. The editor of Nature insisted that Benveniste get the results verified in independent laboratories and only published when the paper included such results. The outcry from mainstream scientists instigated an investigation which disclosed the egregious errors of Benveniste.

    Since then the stream of articles pretending to be scientific, printed in alt med magazines has been enormous.

    The next major event was the publication of Shang et al. Although it demonstrated a fat zero for sugar and water it uncovered a new phenomenon, most of the low quality trials were positive for homeopathy but the high quality trials showed no effect. Linde et al who had previously published a faintly positive result for homeopathy, rechecked his results and found the same effect. Incidentally, he became a pseudoscientist, in the pay of big pharma etc, such is the fury of homeopaths facing up to reality or not!

    At this point, those funding these trials would be expected to promote large high quality trials. They haven’t.

    The question is why haven’t they? Well the answer is dishonesty, no other explanation fits their behaviour but a wish to continue their trade and use low quality rubbish as advertising material.

    So we have dishonesty stretching back as far as Benveniste and these people want to take money from our healthcare system.

    This on its own precludes them from any involvement, the deaths and injuries they cause is on another level.

  • Anne

    I agree with the suggestion this writer proposes.

    • Acleron

      Welcome to Disqus, don’t worry, we get a lot of pro homeopath new accounts set up at the end of a long thread. Lol.

  • Acleron

    Call a truce?

    Arguments can be embarrassing but I’m a little surprised that anybody in academia is not used to them.

    If the argument was about something inconsequential then we could forget it and spend time on other things but this is not a little squabble.

    Homeopathy has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective. The arguments over their individualisation ritual have been answered. If it was important then why are so many low quality clinical trials performed by homeopaths without this ‘essential’ procedure? Individualisation is thrown away when homeopaths ‘treat’ prophylactically. It is thrown away when homeopaths venture into farming. In their own forums you can often see a homeopath declare they like x and use it for everything. The individualisation issue only appears when they argue that homeopathy is somehow special and cannot be tested scientifically.

    So we have a sham healthcare treatment that defrauds the public. The homeopaths then argue they should be allowed to continue because they do no harm. Hmm!

    Homeopaths have a delusional belief system, to maintain their delusion they reject various parts of reality. Thus they argue and convince people to forego treatments necessary for their health. There are numerous recorded cases of people and children being severely injured and dying because of the advice of homeopaths. They are not content to act against individuals, Africans are advised by homeopaths to stop antiretrovirals when infected by HIV, patents in the UK are advised against vaccination. Children in a cholera outbreak in Haiti were treated with sugar pills and water drops. In India patients suffering from cancer are being treated with homeopathy.

    If a truce is called, does anybody realistically expect these homeopaths to stop their activities?

    A very small group of skeptics have lobbied, educated and publicised the sham of homeopathy. Without their activities the homeopaths would prefer and get an 18th century medical system with tens of thousands of children dying unnecessarily from diseases that medicine has banished.

    • Roslyn Ross

      More propaganda and misinformation.

      Homeopathy has survived and thrived for more than two centuries because it works. It is practised by MD’s and in hospitals, around the world, particularly Europe; taught in medical schools and universities, particularly in Europe; included by Governments in State medical systems and is the second-most used medical modality after Allopathy and the fastest growing.

      In this age of litigation none of the above would happen if Homeopathy were either ineffective, or worse, pure placebo used in secrecy. Not one legal team for the above groups would ever sign-off on it because it would be fraudulent and they would lay themselves open to lawsuits.

      Ergo, Homeopathy works and is used by many millions of people around the world because it works.

      • Boris Ogon

        In this age of litigation none of the above would happen if Homeopathy were either ineffective, or worse, pure placebo used in secrecy. Not one legal team for the above groups would ever sign-off on it because it would be fraudulent and they would lay themselves open to lawsuits.

        I guess that’s why Heel bravely remained in the North American market.

        Oh, wait: heel[.]com[.]co/heel-com-news-May2014.html

        Ergo, Homeopathy works and is used by many millions of people around the world because it works.

        Your whole “it would be fraudulent” robotic babbling item has always struck me as being so painfully clueless as to not even merit a reply. But howsabout you just put all your cards on the table, eh?

        Anything that has not been sued out of existence [sic] works as well as homeopathy, period. Congratulations, you have been insisting over and over again that homeopathy should be considered to be precisely on par with letters from Koot Hoomi falling from the ceiling.

        The I Ching is laughing at you, not with you.

        • Roslyn Ross

          @ Boris,

          There is a lack of logic, not to mention coherence in your post but you seem to have completely missed the point of mine. Whether this is an unconscious refusal to see the point or a lack of knowledge of the organisations about which I speak, I do not know.

          However, to clarify and correct your misunderstanding, while ignoring the silly and childish attempts at what I suspect you mean to be humour.

          Would you agree we live in an age of litigation where lawsuits are common, particularly in regard to controversial actions? I think you would.

          There are various organisations, industries etc., which are highly sensitive to being sued or looking foolish and this includes academia, medicine, Government, the mining industry and many others.

          If you have not worked for Government, academia, medicine, as I have, and mining for that matter, you might be unaware that whenever something controversial is considered, there is comprehensive research done and lawyers are called in to sign-off before actions are taken in order to protect both prestige and profits, i.e. to avoid lawsuits.

          I think you would agree that Homeopathic medicine is controversial and that any medical professional or medical organisation, academic institution or Government which embraced it would need to be very sure they were putting neither prestige or profit at risk?

          Ergo, the mere fact that Homeopathic medicine is used by many MD’s around the world, and in hospitals, and is taught by some medical schools and universities, particularly in First World Europe, and included by Governments in State medical systems, means that there is substantial evidence available to prove it is not pure placebo, it is effective, and embracing it will not bring any risk of acting fraudulently. That is pure logic.

          If you were correct and Homeopathy were ineffective and no more than pure placebo that would and could never happen. Ergo, you are wrong.

          p.s. the I Ching does not laugh with or at anyone. But I bet your level of knowledge on the I Ching is as minimal as it is on Homeopathy.

          • Acleron

            I note you were unable to back up your assertions. This is normal for you.

            Your witterings about litigation have been answered by everyone bothered to respond to you and your only response is to repeat them. I doubt you even understand those replies and certainly know nothing about logic. In fact your logic can be expressed as a suffusion of yellow.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Because they are a reality and one which cannot be denied by anyone of sound mind.

          • Acleron

            So you are still unable to produce anything to justify your accusations of misinformation etc.

            Everyone with a sound mind would either rebut the criticisms or admit they were wrong. Mindlessly repeating the same nonsense over and over again just indicates that it is an evidence and logic free delusion. But then in your ‘reality’ a delusion counts for far more than hard facts.

      • Acleron

        Name one piece of misinformation, just one.

        You are full of these baseless accusations and yet you have never managed to find anything you can point to.

        Your fallacious Argumentum ad Populum is easily answered, when you get away with lying then you can sell sugar and water and pretend it cures anything you can name. When you cannot lie as in the UK, your sales drop like a stone.

      • Yes, do detail this ‘propaganda and misinformation’; and at the same time address where yours has been called out. You are coming over like a loop-locked robot. I note that you have also re-commenced with this zombie argument over here, now it has gone quiet.

  • Picklet

    Now why would this author choose to illustrate this opinion piece with a bit of research that comes to the conclusion that a homeopathic remedy is ineffective? When there is another, actually randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled one (the Gold Standard of this kind of research), on the same remedy, coming to the conclusion that it has a “positive effect on muscle soreness after marathon running”? Here it is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14587684

    • Acleron

      Which respectable peer reviewed journals was this published in?

      • Let me guess…was it a comic?

      • Picklet

        Please forgive the delay in relpying, for some reason I had not been notified of your comment.
        The study I quoted was published in the US Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

        By the way, I had a look at your activity online, Acleron, you seem to spend a lot of time slandering homoeopathy.
        And those who question the safety of vaccines.

        Please do not start your usual ping-pong game of name calling (“dishonesty of homeopaths’, ‘quackery’, etc), the citing of carefully selected studies that ‘disprove’ homoeopathy and vaccine damage, or some buddy of yours coming in, backing you up and trying to keep this discussion going.

        I am not not that naive any more, and this is my one and only reply to you.

        • Acleron

          The article was not published by the US Library of Medicine merely referenced in PubMed. It was printed in the homeopathy house magazine a non peer reviewed accumulation of claims. That was my reason for asking you to see if you would be honest enough to own up to that simple fact. You failed and your poisoning the well tactics cannot surpress that information.

          The trials themselves show nothing. Various outcomes were examined and only one showed an almost insignificant difference. This is why they published in an alt med magazine, nobody else would touch it.

          • Picklet

            Bulls. Here is the link, read what it says at the top: “US Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health”.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539394/

          • Which refers to the reference database. Suggest you read the paper you’ve just cited… because it doesn’t serve the purpose you think it does.

          • Picklet

            Woops, you’re right, Lee, I just googled trying to find it again with the heading of the US National Library (I had it printed out in front of me), and jumped without making sure by reading it.
            My bad, thanks for pointing that out.

            Here’s the link I meant.
            You will see the heading of ‘US Library of Medicine’ at the top.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=14587684

            and just for good measure, let’s throw in a Meta-analysis published in the prestigious Austrian ‘Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift’
            Enjoy.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9381725

          • I’m sorry, but would you kindly clarify your point in repeatedly drawing attention to the organisation that maintains the database? And what are you seeking to demonstrate with your pathetic cherry-picking? You might, for whatever reason, be convinced by homeopathy. But you’re going to have to work a lot harder to sway those who aren’t. What’s your point here?

          • Acleron

            You don’t like being called dishonest yet you lied over the provenance of your reference and have now done it again with a totally different reference. This one shows there is no difference between placebo and homeopathy and is not published by the US Library of Medicine.

        • By the way, I had a look at your activity online, Acleron, you seem to spend a lot of time slandering homoeopathy.

          And those who question the safety of vaccines.

          Pointing out facts, asking for facts, calling out people making claims and ignoring requests for evidence… These things are not slander.

    • Arnica does indeed work, when used in pharmacologically active doses. At homeopathic doses this would presumably cause rather than cure soreness, according to homeopathic “logic”.

      • Picklet

        This is great! Somebody who has obviously at least made an effort to understand homoeopathic principles.

        Yes, you are absolutely right.
        We are talking here about the ‘paradox effect’, a principle well-known in mainstream pharmacology, which also applies to homoeopathic remedies.
        Just like a medicine like Ritalin, which is actually a substance some use as ‘speed’, acts as a tranquilising agent in hyperactive children, the same principle applies to homoeopathic remedies.
        They can have opposite effects, depending on the dosage or on the patient.
        (just think of all those antidepressants, that also have ‘suicidal thoughts’ listed as one of their side effects).

        There is, for example, a homoeopathic remedy called Hepar sulphuris, which, depending on the strength of it, can either mature an abscess and get it to drain, or it can be used in a different potency to have the abscess absorbed – the Paradox Effect.

        And, coming back to Arnica and the possibility you raised, that is exactly what can happen!
        Our literature is full of cases where a patient appears with black and blue bruising all over, and after a bit of digging, we find out that some idiot advised them to keep taking homoeopathic Arnica, and they’ve been on it for months. Just like you stipulated, it ends up giving them sore bruised muscles.
        And when they stop the Arnica it all resolves.
        Great, isn’t it!

  • Boris Ogon

    Let us* never lose sight of the wisdom embodied in Aphorism 7 of the Organon (footnotes omitted, boldface added):

    Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, § 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy – and thus, in a word [sic], the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health.

    * Especially @rosross:disqus and sidekick @roslyn_ross:disqus .

    • Roslyn Ross

      Yes, enormously wise, extremely sensible and highly effective as an approach.

    • Roslyn Ross

      If Hahnemann were developing Homeopathy today he would have used the term ‘epigenetics’ instead of ‘miasm.’ He was brilliantly inspired to have such concepts more than two centuries ago. Now we wait for science to catch up.

      • Acleron

        Ha, ha, ha. Epigenetics must sound sciency to you, it certainly has nothing to do with the delusion that sugar and water treats disease.

        Hahnemann had a hypothesis that he copied from ancient history, it was improbable at the time and completely destroyed by Avogadro.

        • Roslyn Ross

          There is no word ‘sciency.’ And any study of the theory of epigenetics reveals it is an interesting area of research and anyone with any real understanding of Homeopathic methodology and theory can see the links.

          Nope, not destroyed by Avogadro because Avogadro is limited to the purely material, within the limitations of science then and now.

          • Boris Ogon

            There is no word ‘sciency.’

            The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees:

            public[.]oed[.]com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/previous-updates/march-2014-update/new-words-list-march-2014/

            You’re not even trying.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Oh I am sorry. I thought we were using good English not colloquial slang.

            ‘Sciency’ may well appear as a ‘word’ in updated slang but it is not a word in any credible dictionary.

          • Boris Ogon

            ‘Sciency’ may well appear as a ‘word’ in updated slang but it is not a word in any credible dictionary.

            Yes, the OED is not “credible” in the world of @roslyn_ross:disqus and @rosross:disqus. The truly magical part is that you have bumbled into deciding to add to your list of ways of making a fool of yourself with someone who actually understands lexicography.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Hmmm, following your link to updates and it is not there either.

            http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-list-june-2015/

            Perhaps post a link to the actual definition. I am fascinated with etymology and always looking to understand slang.

          • Boris Ogon

            Hmmm, following your link to updates and it is not there either.

            If you had, y’know, actually followed the link, you wouldn’t be pretending that the one you substituted from a year later was that provided.

          • So what if it is slang? You know full well the intended meaning.

          • The usual shifting of the goal posts, I see…

          • ‘… anyone with any real understanding of Homeopathic methodology and theory can see the links.’

            And anyone with any real understanding of gravitational waves can see the links, eh? More misleading nonsense for swaying the lay reader. So, are you gonna paste a link to a pseudoscience paper that purports to demonstrate the effect of homeopathy on gene expression, then? You know, this individualised ‘modality’ that has an effect on cells in culture?

      • Boris Ogon

        If Hahnemann were developing Homeopathy today he would have used the term ‘epigenetics’ instead of ‘miasm.’

        There’s something one doesn’t hear every day.

        Why would you advance such a facially incoherent statement? Please be sure to break your analysis down into “psora,” “sycosis,” “syphilis,” and “tubercular miasm.”

        • Roslyn Ross

          I am sure there is much you do not know. There is no need to break anything down.

          It would be useful for you to understand Miasms in the particular but understanding in the general is enough to help you make the link with epigenetics.

          • Boris Ogon

            I am sure there is much you do not know.

            Yes, you’ve tried this line before, but I haven’t had time to take the original apart. The great irony, of course, is that you consistently demonstrate no understanding of (or complete indifference to) what your comments directly imply.

            This instance, as it stands alone as an addendum to your incoherent “defense” of your invocation of epigenetics, is merely a sad attempt to merge stupid insult with an earlier, similarly worded ad hominem.

            Perhaps you should check into some sort of homeopath-endorsed hardware that could provide quantitative analysis of the frequencies in your Vital Force. I’d pick one that offered at least a built-in FFT for analysis of the signal in the time domain, as well.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Quote: Epigenetics is a new stream of science which deals with the effect of environmental and other factors on our genetic phenotype. It basically studies the heritable effects of what we do and experience in this life time in our future generations and has strong parallels with Hahnemann’s theory of chronic miasms.

          http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/miasms-a-new-look-through-epigenetics-i/

          • Boris Ogon

            Quote:

            This seems to be an odd time to try to retreat into “materialist reductionist science.”

          • Roslyn Ross

            I am not sure what point you are trying to make but it’s a tad obscure. If you want a response, clarify. If not, no matter.

          • Boris Ogon

            I am not sure what point you are trying to make but it’s a tad obscure. If you want a response, clarify.

            Priceless. I actually wasted 20 minutes composing a reply before some sort of survival instinct kicked in.

            I’m genuinely amazed that your lack any sort of mental checkpoint when it comes to pseudophilosophical emanations extends to pretending that you are for G-d knows what reason being entreated. Maybe it’s some sort of rear-guard action having to do with your generally running away from pointed questions. I don’t ultimately care. I have no compunction about observing, though.

            You have made two mutually contradictory assertions. I actually doubt that this observation is “obscure” to you, given that you’ve advanced a mental spectrum with “a tad” as an established qualitative gradation.

            What part of epigenetics is not “materialistic reductionist science”?

          • Roslyn Ross

            I cannot see the point of resorting to personal attacks. It is a waste of your time. You sound frustrated. But seeking to insult others does not actually make a case.

            Do you think I said this?

            Quote:

            This seems to be an odd time to try to retreat into “materialist reductionist science.”

            I don’t recall doing so and it does not sound at all like me but no-one is perfect so please copy and paste the entire comment including my name and we can go from there. Otherwise I think you have mixed things up.

            Epigenetics is a part of materialist reductionist science. However, that is in terms of application, not theory. The theory of epigenetics has been around for a long time, simply explained in the language and understanding of the times, as in Hahnemann’s use of the word ‘miasm.’

            What we know as Epigenetics today is the theory as studied and currently explained by materialist reductionist science, but of course that is simply one view of the theory and one method of exploring it.

          • You quote, as evidence, from an online homeopathy-promoting web-rag? That’s your ‘ignorance’ and ‘prejudice’ demonstrated. Right there. And the hypocrisy of the science-denigrating homeopath (propagandist), who is happy to invoke it in order to impress the feck out of the gullible.

  • More reasons why this article is all sorts of wrong

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/timothy-caulfield-dont-legitimize-the-witch-doctors

    “Homeopathy is a faith-informed practice and, as such, largely impervious
    to rational argumentation. No amount of evidence (and there is a
    mountain of it) will convince advocates that homeopathy is merely water.”

    • Roslyn Ross

      No faith required. Pure empirical demonstration of efficacy and an understanding of the methodology.

      If it required faith then it would not work equally well on those who believe it cannot work as on those who believe it can and it does.

      Neither would it demonstrate effect on plants, cells, body tissue, months after being taken and unconscious animals and humans and it does.

      • The nonsense of your system of belief is evidenced by your mutually contradictory claims for homeopathy.

        Homeopathy is said to treat the whole body, therefore it cannot have an effect on individual cells separate from the body, yet you claim an alleged affect at the level of the cell is evidence that homeopathy works. All it is evidence of is that homeopathists are truly appalling scientists who keep on trying the same experiment until, by the law of averages, they get a result which appears to support them and claim eureka, ignoring the 99% failure rate that preceded the false positive.

        Only the fervently religious are so inconsistent in their attempts to rationalise reality with a disintegrating belief system.

      • Acleron

        Just a minor point, you lot have never reliably demonstrated any effect on anything.

        Learn how to produce evidence first, then draw conclusions.

      • Boris Ogon

        Neither would it demonstrate effect on plants, cells, body tissue, months after being taken and unconscious animals and humans and it does.

        Almost word-for-word from Benneth, eh? To wit (although the originals of his increasingly deranged and less groomed ramblings are of note in and of themselves):

        www[.]youtube[.]com/watch?v=A8imJm0xFeA

      • Acleron

        Then empirically demonstrate the benefit. You are aware that you are talking about a clinical trial by that nasty reductionist science, aren’t you?

    • Roslyn Ross

      If Homeopathy is a cult then so is Allopathy. Fact is, neither are cults nor social groups. Both are medical modalities which seek to heal.

      What you call novel beliefs and practices are only from the view of materialist reductionist science. There should be nothing novel about seeking to heal and doing so from an individual perspective with medication which can do no harm.

      Allopathy has a lot to learn from Homeopathy in regard to its sensible views that it is the individual which must be the focus, not the disease or symptom, and in terms of doing no harm. Conventional or allopathic medicine is now the third biggest killer in some countries, fourth or fifth in others, killing and injuring millions every year with its toxic and often ineffective drugs.

      If you think it is novel to heal without harm then you have a rather odd view of medicine.

      • Acleron

        Material reductionist science keeps you fed and allows you a life expectancy that your delusional belief system would destroy if it was universally employed.

        • Roslyn Ross

          No, materialist reductionism does not keep me fed, nature does that and where materialist reductionist science interferes, the food is of poorer quality and possibly detrimental to health.

          And materialist reductionist science does not give me a greater life expectancy, in fact, it damages it with too much medication, vaccination, antibiotics, overly processed food, inhumanely produced food, and the cavalier and irresponsible use of things like C-section, IVF, electronics, wi-fi etc.

          Materialist reductionist science is brilliant with machines, equipment, mechanics, buildings – that which is made by humans – but it is not good with the natural world of which the human organism is a part.

          And, even with the clever stuff like technology, planes, trains and automobiles, buildings and equipment, it would still do less harm if it were not so trapped into a materialist reductionist belief system.

          My belief system would bring more health and do less harm to humans and our world. It is a belief in respecting the natural world and working with it, taking the best of mechanical science but understanding that it can never be effectively applied to the natural world.

          • ‘My belief system… ‘

            Yes.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Ah, you need to keep up. I don’t have a particular belief system but the reference I made here was in response to Acleron’s comment. Read back and gain perspective.

          • Oh, I read it. You need to keep off the GreenMedInfo.

          • Roslyn Ross

            You miss a lot. I meant read what Acleron said.

          • Acleron

            He did, you may have read it but you certainly cannot understand it.

          • I did. Why don’t you cut down on the snark and address one or two of the comments you’ve let unmet and buried? My ‘requirements’ are of you: to quit your dishonest deflection and stop abusing this thread as a platform for promoting your fallacious worldview.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Oh I think the contributors to GreenMedInfo. have enough MD, Science, PHd and various other academic credentials to meet even your requirements if you were not so prejudiced.

          • Boris Ogon

            Ah, you need to keep up. I don’t have a particular belief system….

            *koff*

            My belief system would bring more health and do less harm to humans and our world.

            It’s practically unbelievable to me that a real person would hold herself out as such a fantast.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Read in context. The belief system referred to was that which Acleron inferred existed.

            I hold very diverse views across a broad spectrum so I don’t have a fixed belief system per se:

          • Health is not just merely an absence of disease but a state of equilibrium of the Homeostasis that keeps the constitution of an individual whole in harmony. https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/

          • More non-evidence, Nancy?

          • Acleron

            That definition would apply to a dead body in a freezer.

          • Acleron

            You have demonstrated your ignorance of both homeopathy and science in this column.

            You have taken the fact that science disclosed, epigenetics, and then claim that science is only good in other areas, you are laughable.

            Your belief system is a scam to take money, by necessity it is anti-science and anti medicine, you only use sciency words to sell your sugar and water.

            If it had any benefit then we would see it when comparing its use and non use. By the way, that comparison is at the heart of science. We don’t see it and can safely conclude that sugar and water undergoing your ridiculous ritual is no different from sugar and water. People are dying after being convinced to forego medicine in favour of paying you money. There is no rational reason to allow your cult to continue.

        • Roslyn Ross

          In fact, materialist reductionist science has been an ecological vandal.

          We have our food chain and our waters full of chemicals, toxins, medications, synthetic drugs, additives and a host of materials which are not just destructive to nature they are destructive to human health.

          We have forced development through materialist science which is creating waste mountains of throw-away and often toxic waste at levels never seen before in our history – fridges, television sets, computers, batteries, mercury-ridden LED globes, packaging, plastics, choking our oceans and rivers as often as not and filling our soil with rubbish.

          Your materialist reductionist science has brought some material benefits at a very, very high cost simply because it has no sense, no soul, no connection with or respect for the natural world.

          • Acleron

            Your use of the facts established by science are your concern. Nevertheless, without science you would starve.

      • Allopathy is a word made up by Hahnemann, homeopathy’s cult leader/founder and source of all knowledge which can never be disputed or changed.

        Medicine is an ever changing system of evidence-based treatments where mistakes can and will be made and where disputes will be common, but which, for the main part, works and saves millions of lives each year. It is potentially harmful for the very reason that it has an effect on the human body.

        Homeopathy, meanwhile, is merely sugar and water and does nothing, so cannot directly harm. Homeopathy and real medicine are not comparable in even the smallest respect.

        Calling homeopathy a medical modality is nonsense straight from the heart of your belief system. You will never accept that you are wrong, even though all the credible evidence shows that you are, because that would force you to reject your belief system. The cult of homeopathy must therefore, as an insular, impenetrable group of adherents, ignore and reject all the evidence that runs counter to their core beliefs.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Allopathy is a term coined by Hahnemann sourced in Greek and German etymology. It is perfectly valid and a good description of the modality. You will find it is now commonly used within conventional, Allopathic medicine and I direct you to the Johns Hopkins Medical School site where they use it in describing available courses.

          Allopathy is now the third biggest killer in the US and fourth or fifth in other developed nations. Most of it from prescribed medication. The US consumes most of the world’s pharmaceuticals including 80% of the painkillers so the kill-rate is logically higher there. Although the Allopathic kill and injure rate continues to rise, affecting millions around the world every year.

          Bollocks that it is potentially harmful because it has an effect on the human body. That is just a problem with the medication and the modality. True healing does no harm.

          MD’s, hospitals, medical schools, universities and Governments around the world recognise Homeopathy as medicine. You are just wrong and won’t admit it.

          • Creation of a false dichotomy and an “ad hominem”-like attack against real medicine. Fails to give any support to homeopathy since homeopathy does nothing.

            Falsely setting up real medicine and homeopathy as two sides as the same coin (they aren’t) and attacking real medicine with misleading statistics is an action taken only by those with no leg to stand on. Your actions are comparable with creationists whose only argument is to try to pick apart evolution but never come up with any credible evidence to support their own nonsense ideology.

      • UK can save lives & billions of £ if Spurious Conventional Allopathic Medicine (SCAM) is removed from NHS https://in.pinterest.com/pin/26951297748995503/

        • Dear oh dear, Nancy. Are you saying the NHS should be ran soley on a homeopathic basis? Do please confirm… without ignorance and prejudice?

          • NHS should run on science-based medicine. And Homeopathy is at forefront of evidence-based medicine.

          • Or rather, you like to present your belief that homeopathy is evidence-based? So, are you saying the NHS should be ran soley on a homeopathic basis? Do you use it?

          • ROFL!

          • Acleron

            Not a doctor Malik disclosing her ignorance of the meaning of the word, evidence.

          • About Doctor Malik
            PROFESSION: Medicine
            SPECIALITY: Homeopathy
            EDUCATION: BHMS
            More details at https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/about/

          • Acleron

            No qualifications worth anything, still not a doctor and still doesn’t understand the meaning of evidence.

          • Mike Stevens

            You aren’t a medical doctor, Nancy.
            Stop pretending to be one.

          • Yep. As Acleron said, not a doctor.

          • well.ian

            Please follow @DrNancyMalik on Twitter. The funniest site on the internet. Including such evidence-based sources as Pinterest and Pinterest.

          • Mike Stevens

            I think she is.
            Just like here:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

        • Acleron

          That is a straight lie. That it is clearly dishonest is shown by your attempt to have a poll to support you.

    • What convincing evidence would skeptics need to see to change their mind about homeopathy?
      For them the problem is not that it doesn’t work,the problem is that it does.
      Ask for the evidence of Homeopathy because scientific evidence matters https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/ask-for-evidence/

      • Acleron

        Convincing evidence would be high quality trials that clearly support your claims. They would have to be published in respectable journals and repeated by independent groups. They will have to be pre-registered and published in sufficient detail that allows full analysis of the data.

        Homeopaths will have to produce many of these to counterbalance the evidence that shows it has no effect over placebo.

        All of this you should be aware of, it has been published many times.

        However, real scientists will ask the more important question, what evidence would disprove the claims. So which evidence would you accept that shows homeopathy doesn’t work?

      • What would convince you, Nancy, to change your mind?

      • I would happily change my mind with sufficient evidence, just as I would be willing to challenge evolution if a precambrian rabbit was found. Would you?

        From my perspective, I would need to see the following evidence to start accepting that homeopathy is a “medical modality”:
        (a) that our current understanding of biology, chemistry *AND* physics are so fundamentally flawed that homeopathy’s basic principles are even plausible.

        (b) a sufficient number of large scale studies showing an effect for homeopathy beyond placebo. Several hundred such studies at the very least would be necessary given the existing balance of evidence from studies that have already been performed.

        (c) credible reasons why the existing studies which overwhelmingly show that homeopathy is a placebo are all flawed.

        With that level of evidence, I might start recommending homeopathy for generally non-lethal diseases such as the common cold or even the flu.

        The facts are that the evidence is that homeopathy is utterly implausible and has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but placebo.

        So the question is really why you ignore the overhwelming evidence that already exists and cherry-pick the outliers and poor quality studies that support your preconceived beliefs.

  • Acleron

    It has recently been announced that some cancers propagate by producing a ligand on the cell surface that alerts a T cell that this is a ‘friendly’ cell. It has taken years of painstaking research to find this out and to produce monoclonal antibodies that cap both ligand and T cell receptor and show they allow the immune system to attack the cancer cells. Years more research and development are required to see if this will be a useful treatment. How long will it be before some fraudulent homeopath starts claiming that homeopathy works this way and that homeopaths knew this already? After all, it only took a few days for the scam artists to try and claim gravity waves explained homeopathy.

  • olavius

    First rule of any treatment should be treating man in sick not sick in man, ie treat the patient and not the disease.

    In classical homeopathy you do not treat disease x with remedy y. Treatment is individualised for each patient, thus research should take this into account as the review below.

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

    The problem still remains though as many of the included trials targets just one diseease failing the first rule. So besides RCTs other evidence such as clinical outcome studies and patient surverys needs to be taken into account.

    Regarding your example from the Independent I will point out that other researchers with the same data available has arrived at a different conclusion:
    http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2-page-evidence-summary.pdf

    • Homeopathy is wholistic medicine. It agrees with the fact that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Jan Smuts, 1926)]. Homeopathic medicine is for the patient/sick person/individual not just for the disease. https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/

      • Acleron

        Homeopathy is holistic only in so far as it extracts money by any technique the homeopath can think of.

      • Maria_Maclachlan

        Nancy said: “It agrees with the fact that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Jan Smuts, 1926)”

        I’m surprised Roslyn hasn’t already posted “sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!”.

        Just kidding – she only does that when she’s wrong. 😉

        As far as I can see, Smuts – a South African – had nothing to say about homeopathy and you should be glad that he didn’t because he was “a vocal supporter of segregation of the races, and in 1929 he justified the erection of separate institutions for blacks and whites in tones prescient of the later practice of apartheid'” (wikipedia). He coined the word ‘holism’ but defined it as the “fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe”. Nothing to do with treating people with quack ‘therapies’.

        “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” is attributed to Aristotle not Smuts.

        You’re welcome.

      • Homeopathy is wholistic medicine.

        No, it is not.

    • Acleron

      Read the comments below, homeopaths discard this individualisation whenever convenient.

      Nosodes are not individualised, homeopathy in farming is not individualised and whenever homeopaths think a clinical trial is positive they ignore any lack of individualisation.

      In fact, the only time homeopaths whine about lack of individualisation is when the vast preponderance of evidence is against them.

  • Out of 164 high quality papers published between 1950-2011 (inclusive) on RCT in 89 medical conditions

    1. 137 are placebo-controlled & 27 other-than-placebo controlled studies
    2. 71 (43%) papers reported +ve findings, 9 (6%) were negative; 80 (49%) were non-conclusive; 4 (2%) contained non-extractable data.
    3. Out of 137 placebo-controlled studies, 41 are on individualised homeopathy and 96 on non-individualised homeopathy
    4. In 32 out of 89 disease conditions, there has been replicated research (2 or more RCT).
    5. In 22 out of 32 disease conditions, the results of replicated research were statistically significant.

    Check for 168 full text papers at http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/scientific-research-in-homeopathy/

    • Acleron

      And when examined in detail we find conclusions not warranted by the data, articles printed in alt med magazines and generally appalling quality.

      High quality evidence has consistently shown no difference between homeopathic sugar and water and sugar and water.

      • But nobody’s standards are lower than Nancy’s.

        Ans she fails to grasp what a null hypothesis is and what that means to those so-called non-conclusive trials – they are all negative.

        • Roslyn Ross

          Keep up the Ad Hominem. It reflects on you.

          • Acleron

            When you don’t even know the definition of logical fallacies it is hardly surprising that you make so many of them.

          • Ad homs have been explained to you on many previous occasions: yet you still cannot accurately identify one. Why do you continue to fail at that?

          • Repeat-ignore…

          • Repeat…ignore…divert…

  • Acleron

    Homeopaths think that putting on a white coat makes them scientists and doctors thus neatly avoiding the years of effort required to become adept in those disciplines.

    Unfortunately, patients are especially vulnerable and trusting and the homeopath knows that false titles such as Dr will impress. Those with degrees awarded by homeopathy organisations literally have qualifications in nothing.

    • Roslyn Ross

      What a silly comment. Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats and even those MD’s who are also Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats either.

      • Acleron

        Easily disproved, just Google ‘homeopathy’ images.

        Four out of six first adult images had white coats and the other two were of Hahnemann.

        • sabelmouse

          that’s your proof? what pics internet articles use?

          • Acleron

            Are you saying that homeopaths lie in their adverts and are only dressing up in white coats for pictures?

          • sabelmouse

            it’s adverts now?

          • Acleron

            So are you saying these are real homeopaths now? Make up your mind.

          • sabelmouse

            i don’t know! you brought it up. are you talking abut advertising done by homeopaths or random websites [ who are known to use the most ridiculous pictures] or what?

          • Acleron

            I don’t care if they are real homeopaths or are the ridiculous pictures that homeopaths use to advertise themselves.

            If as I suspect they are representations of homeopaths my criticism stands. If they are advertising stunts then my criticism stands.

          • sabelmouse

            you still haven’t told me what kind of sites these are.

          • Acleron

            What?

            Sites tagged as homeopath, rather obviously.

          • sabelmouse

            tagged???

          • Yes.

          • sabelmouse

            ???

          • Correct.

          • sabelmouse

            unless you tell me what sites i can’t possibly know if it’s they themselves or articles about them or what.

          • You can’t internet can you?

          • sabelmouse

            the internet won’t magically tell me which sites he means, will it?

          • Roslyn Ross

            Acleron is stretching the boundaries even more. It is actually so funny I could not help chuckling every time I thought about it. His ‘argument’ against Homeopathy is that he saw, so he (or she) said, a photo, of a Homeopathic doctor in a white coat. Quelle Horreur!

          • @roslyn_ross:disqus, that’s not @Acleron:disqus’s argument. And you know it.

          • Are you sure she knows it?

          • Roslyn Ross

            You guys get funnier and funnier and your already flimsy ‘case’ becomes laughable. The depths to which you have to descend to try to make an argument against Homeopathy??? I mean, honestly, white coats????????????????

          • Unlikely.

          • Roslyn Ross

            So, what do you believe is Acleron’s argument?

          • You claimed “Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats”, Acleron disproved that with a simple search. You then attempt to fumble your way around it to dismiss it. Acleron didn’t find “a photo, of a Homeopathic doctor in a white coat” they found lots. You misrepresent is position by claiming they held it based on one photo.

            That’s just a little dishonest.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats. Acleron found images of Homeopathic pharmacists in white coats and that is a different matter entirely.

            Most pharmacists, when preparing medicine, wear white coats. Nothing unusual about that. Although in this day and age, in any chemist shop, you are more likely to see someone not wearing a white coat.

            Acleron also said do a search on Homeopathy and you get white coats – you do not. Do a search on Homeopathic doctors and you still don’t. Do a search on Homeopathic pharmacists and you get some white coats and most not.

            The dishonesty is Acleron. You do the search on Google – not sure what he used, and the result is not as Acleron’s claims.

            Not that it matters. I mean, honestly, is this the best you can do to try to discredit Homeopathy. It really is quite hysterical and the joke is on you.

          • Acleron

            You have evidence that my casual search through Google brought up homeopathic pharmacists? I’d be interested in seeing this.

          • Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats. Acleron found images of Homeopathic pharmacists in white coats and that is a different matter entirely.

            “Homeopathic doctors” aren’t a real thing. That’s an oxymoron.

            The rest of what you wrote is you twisting things to make you not look like an idiot for defending an indefensible position.

          • sabelmouse

            yes.

        • Maria_Maclachlan

          Homeopathy pharmacists who are also homeopaths wear white coats too even though they are not compounding stuff on the premises. It’s funny that the pharmacists in retails chemists don’t wear white coats and the ones selling sugar pills produced and delivered by wealthy manufacturers do. All part of the deception.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Can you name the Homeopathic pharmacies where you found people in white coats?

            I have been to them in the UK, Europe, North America, Australia, South Africa and never spotted a white coat. I will say, in Pharmacies in France, where they also sell Homeopathic medicine, the chemists often do wear white coats but they sell Allopathic medicine in the main.

          • I have been to them in the UK, Europe, North America, Australia, South Africa and never spotted a white coat.

            Wait… your argument is that you’ve never seen it so it’s not a thing? Your understanding of evidence is child-like.

          • Roslyn Ross

            No, my argument is that based on experience, unless the Pharmacy is a general one which sells Allopathic medicine as well, and certainly in the First World where such practices are less common, white coats in general are less common.

            Although it really is hilarious that anyone thinks it is strange that a pharmacist in a Homeopathic Pharmacy should wear a white coat anyway. I imagine some do and some do not. In my extensive experience around the world it is less than common but then in the developed world, Chemists wearing white coats in general is less common.

            MD’s used to wear them all the time and now, most do not. In times past when all Homeopathic doctors were also Allopathic doctors and when white-coat wearing was common, I am sure many did wear white coats, but not anymore.

            I have no doubt, given the practice of wearing white coats in hospitals still that Homeopathic doctors in hospitals do wear white coats just as Allopaths do.

          • No, my argument is that based on experience…

            Again, you are basing this on what you’ve seen.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Here’s the thing, I believe we can logically assume I have visited more Homeopathic pharmacies than you have done.

          • You don’t understand logic. This is why you don’t see the logical fallacy in your last claim.

          • Here’s one of several people in white coats in Ainsworths Homeopathic Pharmacy in London:

            http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/nodeimage/public/blogs_2014/09/medicine.jpg?itok=h_WnCzeZ

          • Roslyn Ross

            Oh heavens and here in Boots chemist we have, drumroll, a white coat….dah,dah.,

            http://www.ilac.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Boots-Team-May-2014.jpg

          • Roslyn Ross

            p.s. if you want to keep up your white-coat fix do a search on pharmacists – white coasts from top to bottom, side to side.

          • Acleron

            Gosh, real doctors and pharmacists wear white coats.
            Your perspicacity knows no bounds.

            Of course they do, that’s why quacks wear them to con the public.

          • Roslyn Ross
          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Yes, when I went into Ainsworths to ask about a treatment for a wart on my finger, a woman in a white coat tried to persuade me to book an appointment for a consultation at a cost of £75 with the intent of ‘removing it constitutionally’ because the thuja ‘remedy’ they sold off the shelves at £13 ‘may work or it may not’. Scamsters, quacks and beneath contempt – like all homeopaths.

          • rosross

            Ainsworths, as British, and as one of the oldest Homeopathic pharmacies in the world does maintain traditions. I repeat, however, those serving in Homeopathic pharmacies are not necessarily white-coated although the pharmacist may be, just like any Allopathic pharmacist, and the only Homeopathic doctors I have seen wearing white coats are those working in hospitals where, surprise, surprise, the Allopathic doctors also wear white coats.

            As to your wart, the Ainsworth’s attendant gave you the correct advice because Homeopathy at core treats the individual, not the condition.

            It is possible to treat symptoms, conditions, for minor ailments but the most effective Homeopathy is for the individual.

            You would probably find the cost of your consultation, being initial, would involve an hour to an hour and a half. I bet you would not get to see an Allopathic doctor for so long for so little. Follow-up consults, and they would likely only be couple, would be much less than that. I find my Homeopathic costs are around $300 annually, of which private health cover gives me back about $100 and if you weigh up salaries in the UK, just over half the minimum wage to Australia, you would find Homeopathy equally economical.

            Again, what strikes me is your level of egregious ignorance about Homeopathic modality. Do you make it a habit to reject things with such passion and conviction when you know next to nothing about them? A little research goes a long way. If you had done some you would have understood why the attendant recommended a consultation and you would also have known that there might be a dozen or more different Homeopathic medicines for your wart – why Thuja?

          • sabelmouse

            60 euro for 2 very pleasant hours for me. and the remedies.40 for the next one. the latter is as much as people pay for 10 or 15 minutes with a regular doctor without the possible medicines.

          • Roslyn Ross

            Pharmacists preparing medication will often wear white coats, one presumes it is a health and safety issue. Those selling goods in Chemist shops generally do not.

            I think what astonishes me is the level of simplicity at which naysayers operate. You seem to think, a bit like a seven year old using magical thinking, that if you keep repeating sugar pill it will be true.

            This white coat distraction is ridiculous and more of your magical thinking.

            Here is the reality, if Homeopathic medicine were simply a sugar pill there would not be one MD or hospital in the world using it, not one medical school or university teaching it and definitely not one Government including it in their State medical systems.

            You know that as well as I do and I am sure it frustrates the hell out of you given your irrational obsession with eradicating Homeopathy, but the sugar pill, white coat, and all of the other childish slights just make you look ridiculous.

            Keep up the good work.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Your first paragraph does nothing to undermine what I said. The wearing of white coats in a chemist shop is about deception, not health and safety – which is why they are not worn by chemists who, unlike homeopaths, have no need to deceive.

            Your second, third and fifth paragraphs are devoted to silly gratuitous insults – somewhat ironic from someone who is constantly falsely accusing others of ad homming.

            Your fourth paragraph has been debunked more times than I’ve had hot dinners and you sound more desperate every time you repeat it even as universities are closing down their homeopathy courses due to protests by medical scientists. (See Barcelona). If homeopathy worked, every doctor and hospital in the world would be using it. They don’t because it doesn’t and repeating the same bad argument over and over proves only that you are cerebrally challenged but not that homeopathy works.

          • Maria_Maclachlan

            Oh dear god, Roslyn! Of course I know why the attendant recommended a consultation! Why do you assume that I don’t? Why do you repeatedly leap to insults and ad hominems? “A little research goes a long way.” I’ve been researching homeopathy for years. I’ve read the Organon, I’ve read countless articles by homeoquacks, I’ve attended a conference of homeoquacks. There’s nothing significant about homeopathy that I don’t know but I do know that it doesn’t work, which is one more thing than you know because you’re approach to the acquisition of knowledge isn’t based on robust evidence but on personal anecdote.

            Why thuja? Because that’s the only “remedy” the quack mentioned and it was mention with the proviso that it “may not work” so instead she wanted to scam for up to a couple of hundred pounds. No, of course I wouldn’t get a real doctor to spend so long or CHARGE ME SO MUCH for something so little. But NHS doctors aren’t scamsters, unlike homeopaths.

          • So, is that you acknowledging the sugar pills as irrelevant, then?

        • Roslyn Ross

          This really did make me laugh. I was so curious I did a search and Homeopathy brings up in the main pics of the medicine and pharmacies. Then I did a search on Homeopathic doctors and yes, a few in white coats, probably the ones who are also MD’s, but most, like Allopathic doctors today, in ordinary clothes.

          • Acleron

            Ros Ros:Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats and even those MD’s who are also Homeopathic doctors don’t wear white coats either.

            Ros Ros:Homeopathic doctors and yes, a few in white coats, probably the ones who are also MD’s,

            Sighs.

          • Roslyn Ross

            This direction you have taken is a bit too silly Acleron. I shall leave you to it.

          • Acleron

            We already know, showing you evidence is very silly but I couldn’t resist it.

          • ‘I shall leave you to it.’

            Except, you haven’t. You went on to post another six comments on ‘this direction’, which suggests what… that you’ve been happy to use it to again misrepresent your critics, and as opportunity to manipulate it into another of your deflections?

            Your favoured logical fallacy has been addressed repeatedly (here and elsewhere). I note that where your misinformation and attempts to smear have been exposed, you move away, feign oblivion… and re-paste the fallacy ad nauseam. Which suggests a number of things – not least your level of dishonesty.

          • rosross

            Leaving Acleron to it does not prevent replying to others on the same silly issue.

            I have never consulted a Homeopathic doctor, and I have done so in half a dozen countries, and found them in a white coat.

  • Acleron

    The University of Barcelona is closing its masters degree in homeopathy, a decision welcomed by scientists and doctors. Naturally, the homeopaths are squealing like stuck pigs and the Homeopathic Medical Academy of Barcelona have produced a gem of a response. X people use it, the WHO recommend it, some EU committee said it should be done, choice of patients… In fact they have used every fallacious argument we have seen over and over again.

    Nowhere do the quacks offer any reliable evidence that homeopathy has any effect beyond placebo.

    http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/homeopathy-masters-degree-to-close-because-of-lack-of-scientific-basis/

  • Acleron

    Far below and days ago Nancy Malik asked what evidence would skeptics accept that would show that homeopathy works.
    https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-war-on-homeopathy-isnt-working-we-need-to-call-a-truce/#comment-2566808492

    She was promptly answered and the answer to the question that all scientists ask about their own work was requested. It was :-

    What evidence would you accept that showed homeopathy not to work?

    After three days there has been no answer, so here you are Nancy, another opportunity to give a response.

    • Or in fact any other homeopathy fan?

    • rosross

      It is impossible to provide evidence Homeopathy does not work against more than two centuries of evidence that it patently does work.

      The only ‘evidence’ and it is dubious because of the limitations of the current scientific paradigm, mechanical materialist reductionism, you could provide would be how science cannot explain how Homeopathy works.

      You would then need to make a case for why everyone should reject anything which science cannot explain and also why the scientific belief system and process should be held as an absolute arbiter on anything.

      But work it does and there are more than two centuries of meticulously recorded case histories demonstrating that fact; copious Government records in a number of countries showing its efficacy in epidemics over the more than two centuries, and the fact that it is practised by MD’s and in hospitals around the world, including the most developed, Western world; taught in some medical schools and universities and included by some Governments in State medical systems.

      None of that would or could happen if it did not work because if it did not work, as you claim, its use would be fraudulent and it would be the longest lived, most clever and effective fraud in human history, and that, certainly in the modern age, given the involvement of Allopathic medicine, academia and Government, is quite simply impossible.

      The only case you can seek to make, given that patently Homeopathy works and is effective and non-fraudulent is a case explaining to the public, and to MD’s, hospitals, academic institutions and Governments, why they should reject it out of hand and refuse to have anything to do with it.

      Off you go.

      • Acleron

        In short, you cannot answer. What a surprise.

        Nobody but you mentioned mechanism, itis nota requirrment for formulating an answer.

        Also your plaintive claims are also rather off topic and haven’t been proven.

        • rosross

          I feel very comfortable allowing others to reach their own conclusions in that regard.

          Except I cannot be wrong, or, as you know, there would not be one, not one hospital, university, medical school, Government in the world, certainly not the developed world embracing Homeopathy and there would not be thousands of MD’s who bother spending another two years and more training to practice Homeopathic medicine.

          Those facts alone destroy any case you might have that Homeopathy does not work and is pure fraud.

          I suggest you do some research and then put your effort into the only case you might make – why people should reject anything which Science cannot at this point in time explain.

          Except of course Science cannot explain exactly how Gravity works, nor what it is and Science cannot explain what Love is and Science cannot explain or even accurately predict the weather and Science cannot explain what turns Genes on and off and well, lots of things. But do your best.

          • Acleron

            ‘Except I cannot be wrong’
            Lol, even though all you have are spurious arguments that you cannot debate and no evidence that is reliable.

            We may not know how gravity works, although we have a pretty good idea, but we know beyond any doubt that it does work. We have repeatable reliable evidence of it working. Homeopaths have zero reliable evidence that their scam works. That is why you have to produce tired rhetoric that would only convince somebody who was easily deluded by nonsense.

  • Roslyn Ross

    Quote: Since 2010, when the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report saying that homeopathic remedies were no better than placebos, the homeopathic profession has had to face increasing criticism and hostility. Despite only four of 15 members of the committee bothering to vote, one of whom voted against the report’s findings, and the government rejecting the report, this badly considered decision was adopted by some as the definitive judgement on a therapy that millions of people around the world find beneficial to health.

    http://www.hippocraticpost.com/integrative/dont-hate-homeopathy/

    • Since 2010, when the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report saying that homeopathic remedies were no better than placebos, the homeopathic profession has had to face increasing criticism and hostility.

      Could this be due to the insistence that they continue to ignore the well established fact that homeopathic remedies are no better than placebos?

      If it wasn’t for the fact that homeopaths continue to make claims of being able to treat real illnesses that can have fatal consequences if left unaddressed you’d only be facing increasing criticism. Just saying.

    • Acleron

      Since Hahnemann invented homeopathy it has faced criticism.

      All other hypotheses faced with such criticism will either find evidence to support them, in which case they become part of our expanding knowledge base, or they remain unproven.

      Homeopaths have consistently failed to provide evidence for their claims, they just make more claims.

      Hence the unproven claim that millions have benefitted from drops of water and pure sugar sweets.

      Homeopaths will also play the victim card, the observation that homeopathy is no better than placebo is considered by them as an attack. Well, if reality attacks you then you are not dealing correctly with reality.

      • rosross

        Criticism from pharmacists. Not a lot has changed and for the same reasons. Homeopathy from the beginning was vastly more effective and did no harm and the Pharmacists saw their business threatened.

        There is plenty of evidence for Homeopathy including more than two centuries of empirical evidence, case histories and records, much of it compiled by Homeopathic doctors who were also Allopathic doctors.

        You do realise every time you play the ‘sugar’ card you reveal prejudice to others.? Keep up the good work.

        There is plenty of evidence that Homeopathy is more than pure placebo although I should be fascinated to hear your theories on how pure placebo can work with cells, body tissue, plants, animals etc., as Homeopathy does.

        But the resounding blow to your position is the fact that if Homeopathy were no more than sugar pills and pure placebo it would be fraudulent for any MD to practise it, any hospital to touch it, any medical school or university to teach it and any Government to include it in State medical systems.

        Ergo, since thousands of MD’s practice it, and some of the world’s top hospitals and it is taught in some medical schools and universities and included by some Governments in State medical systems, logic and common sense dictate that it is not pure placebo and neither is it fraudulent.

        You case is in ruins and remains so.

        • Acleron

          Who mentioned pharmacists?

          All your other statements have been refuted, without cogent reply from yourself or any other woo merchant bar one.

          What evidence do you have that your sugar and water has any effect over placebo in any system? We can ignore all the claims made in your magazines which leaves only the pathetic piece published in Langmuir that your prophet Ullman is hawking around. This is the incredible ‘flotation’ hypothesis. Easily dismissed because most materials are actually denser than water.

          But let us examine this claim. After adding water to a glass tube, mixing it and throwing it away then repeating this process 29 times you have something left do you? The process is called washing and if you have something left then homeopaths are even incompetent at washing glassware. Not something to be proud of.

        • Criticism from pharmacists.

          Well… yes. Pharmacists, chemists, biologists, physicists, general scientists, mathematicians, school kids that have had it explained to them… Anyone with basic schooling really.

    • Roslyn said:

      “the government rejecting the report”

      Don’t be silly, of course they didn’t.

    • Since 2010, when the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report saying that homeopathic remedies were no better than placebos, the homeopathic profession has had to face increasing criticism and hostility.

      How would you feel after finding out that the person you’d been seen for health advice was actually a charlatan? Personally I think “increasing criticism and hostility” should be expected.

      • rosross

        You missed the important part, of course, hardly anyone voted and it was rejected anyway.

        And as for seeking health advice, I would advise anyone to follow the same course as I do, intensive research into whatever the problem is, comprehensive across the spectrum research into whatever medical modalities might be of use; becoming informed as to how a modality works if I choose to see someone who practises it, and the first visit being in essence to interview or assess the doctor involved, whatever medical modality they might practice and always three opinions at least from each medical practitioner if the problem is potentially serious.

        On that basis I can safely say I have never met a charlatan in any medical modality.

        Perhaps you are easily fooled.

        • And as for seeking health advice, I would advise anyone to follow the same course as I do…

          But you aren’t qualified for making assessments like that. The bulk of people aren’t. This is why we have trained and educated professionals.

          To think you know better than these people suggests you’re easily fooled. You likely also suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your comments do tend to support that idea.

          • rosross

            I most certainly am qualified. I am a human being who believes in getting more than one opinion and in being open to all medical modalities. Pure common sense.

          • That doesn’t make you qualified. Your inability to address challenges to your position demonstrates that.

          • Acleron

            Commonsense would be getting the opinion of qualified people not those who lie to you. Commonsense would be understanding the simple rules of logic. Commonsense would be realising that personal experience rarely relates to reality. You therefore have little commonsense. Ergo you are a fool.

  • Acleron

    Sepsis is a serious and lethal disease. Without treatment, death can occur very quickly. A speedy diagnosis is necessary and to that end an initiative has been started in the UK and in Wales Dr Paul Morgan has been appointed lead in sepsis. Homeopaths, never slow to jump on a bandwagon that can make a profit have claimed that homeopathy cures sepsis. They point to a paper that claims that homeopathically treated patients are more likely to survive at 180 days than placebo. The paper has all the marks of the complete scientific illiterate and what do you expect, it was written by a homeopath.

    This goes further, homeopaths have been annoyed that as senior a doctor as Morgan has discarded their money grubbing attempts and reported him to the GMC. The crime? Not wasting time administering useless sugar pills while he is saving lives.

    Homeopaths are just frauds who should not be let near any healthcare situation. Their evermore strident attempts to endanger the public should be met with legislation that at the least promises jail time for any of them making unsupported medical claims.

    • Mike Stevens

      Absolutely correct. I don’t personally care if someone spends their money consulting a homeopath for some inconsequential problem, but to have homeopaths insisting their magic water is used for serious medical conditions that require conventional medical therapies is criminal.

      Which homeopath has stated sepsis needs to be treated with his nostrums, and which one has been reported to the GMC, Acleron?

      • Acleron

        Benneth tweeted the GMC and Brown Bag Pantry has been promoting homeopathy for sepsis for months, amongst others.

    • rosross

      Nope, Homeopathy is practised by MD’s and in hospitals, in the First World, particularly Europe and has been for more than two centuries and proven effective for minor and serious conditions.

      In addition, if it were fraudulent as you claim, this could never happen without them being sued, and that does not happen, and neither would or could Homeopathy be taught in some medical schools and universities or included by Governments in State medical systems.

      You can bleat fraud all you like but the simply realities stated above, categorically demonstrate you are wrong.

      • Acleron

        Using silly rhetorical argument rather than hard evidence just shows that you are indeed fraudulent.

        Your claim only comes down to ‘it works because it is used’, an argument that was applied to every wrong idea the human race had until science showed how to distinguish your fiction from fact.

        If and only if your fellow fraudsters can produce good, reliable, robust and reproducible evidence will you convince doctors in general that your claims are correct. With the level of thinking, amply demonstrated by yourself it is doubtful that you even know how to achieve that aim.

        • rosross

          Nope, my claim is that because it is used in Allopathic hospitals, by Allopathic doctors, taught in Allopathic medical schools and in some universities and included in State medical systems by some Governments, patently it is effective, it is not pure placebo and there is nothing fraudulent about it.

          You are running with balls not thrown but of course you must in seeking to defend your indefensible position.

          • Acleron

            Your fatuous claim is that because some qualified doctors use quackery it must be effective. So why was bleeding of ill people not effective? Many used it and they were qualified at the time so according to your logic it must have been effective. So it stopped being effective because fewer doctors used it? This is your logic remember.

            Get some evidence showing more people get better by treating with sugar and water than with placebo.

  • rosross

    The Europeans, enlightened, open-minded, sensible and leading the way.

    Quote: Homeopathy, holistic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine will acquire the same status as conventional medicine by May 2017. After being rejected in 2005 by the authorities for lack of scientific proof of their efficacy, complementary and alternative medicines made a comeback in 2009 when two-thirds of Swiss backed their inclusion on the constitutional list of paid health services.