Articles

Homeopathy First Aid Kits

Homeopathy first aid kit

I don’t know how I missed them, but somehow homeopathic first aid kits had not registered on my radar. They’re readily available. Even Amazon.com sells them, for $54.99. They contain 18 vials of tiny sugar pills, all with potencies of 200C, guaranteed by Avogadro not to contain a single molecule of the active ingredient. (For those of you who may not know, Avogadro was the Italian scientist who discovered the Avogadro constant, the number of atoms needed such that the number of grams of a substance equals the atomic mass of the substance.

If that paralyzes your brain, never mind. Just take my word for it that Avogadro’s discovery allows us to calculate that a 13C dilution (a 1 in 100 to the 13th power dilution), is the equivalent of diluting 1/3 of a drop of the original substance in all the water on earth, and to reach a 200C potency you would have to continue to dilute it by 1 to 100 a total of 187 more times.)

What’s in the kits?

On homeopathy websites you can buy special first aid kits for the car, for hiking and camping, for horses, for pets, for pregnancy, for childbirth, and for travel. One website sells a first aid kit that “contains all the major homeopathic first aid remedies which work so amazingly well particularly when given immediately after an accident or injury.” Only $99.95, but you’re also advised to buy a book to explain its use, for an additional $18.95. It contains 15 remedies in a 30C potency:

  • Aconite (the “queen of poisons): for colds, flu, sore throats, effects of fear, fright, chicken pox and croup
  • Apis mellifera (honey bee): for burning and stinging pains, insect stings, swelling of the lower eyelids, edema, swollen joints
  • Arnica: after injury, mental and physical shock, before and after operations or visits to the dentist. Stops bleeding, aids in the healing of wounds and reduces bruising and swelling. Good for general healing and shock, exhaustion, muscular pain, sprains from overexertion.
  • Arsen alb (arsenic): stomach upsets from food poisoning, diarrhea, vomiting and acute hayfever. Good for some dry skin conditions.
  • Belladonna (deadly nightshade): hot flushed face, sore throat, facial neuralgia, throbbing headache, earache, boils, chickenpox, measles and mumps
  • Bryonia (a toxic weed): dry chesty coughs, muscular pains, which is better for resting [sic]
  • Cantharis (a beetle, Spanish fly): burns and scalds before the blisters form, sunburn, constant urge to pass urine, urine passed drop by drop (cystitis)

I’ll spare you the rest, except to note that the list includes poison ivy to use for shingles, mumps, sciatica, herpes, etc.

It doesn’t matter what kind of poison is in them, because it’s all gone at that dilution. Which makes it really silly to choose one, because they’re all the same.

Scary advice

I was reassuring myself that people would mostly use these remedies while awaiting medical care, and then I found a website that horrified me.

For certain illnesses, it said “Depending on severity, seek medical care.” These included anaphylaxis, animal bites, bone injuries, third degree burns, carbon monoxide poisoning, cuts, drug overdose, electrocution, eye injuries, food poisoning, paint poisoning, pesticide poisoning, puncture wounds, and shock. It’s appalling to think that patients are left to their own assessment and might think these conditions were not severe enough to merit medical care.

For dislocated joints and heat exhaustion, there was no advice to seek medical care even if the condition was judged to be severe. What, you just leave your shoulder out of joint and non-functional?

In small print at the bottom you can find this disclaimer: “solely intended to provide a format in assisting the student in learning the principals of Homeopathy. It is in no way to be considered a substitute for a consultation with a health professional.”

No way to stop this dangerous nonsense, so you might as well laugh

The Quackometer was alarmed by the blurb accompanying these kits that said “to be used in even the most severe emergency and accident situations.” He describes the response (or rather non-response) of manufacturers and homeopaths to his concerns about them.

Myles Power has done a hilarious YouTube video about these kits

He says “It makes me so angry that it even exists.” But it gives him a fantastic idea. He goes out to save the world by dropping a pill from each bottle into a local stream that runs to the ocean and will eventually reach everyone on earth in an even more dilute form. He will eliminate all the diseases the kit instructions cover, from heart attacks and strokes to throttling and drowning.

Conclusion

What can I say? “Aarrrgh!” is not very coherent, and “Good grief” doesn’t quite cover it. Treating an emergency with sugar pills that have once been in contact with water that was once in contact with poison is just offensive to all reason and logic.

Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (347) ↓

347 thoughts on “Homeopathy First Aid Kits

  1. Dear Amazon: I accidentally mixed up the contents of the vials. I have put them back, but I am not sure if I have the right pills in the right vials. Can you tell me what will happen if I accidentally take the wrong remedy? For example, if I take a remedy for heatstroke when actually I have hypothermia?

    1. elburto says:

      Good heavens man, do you have a death wish?

    2. ahuszagh says:

      Dear god man! Don’t you know all homeopathy works by the magical force of magic, and therefore uses quantum mechanical interfacial water stress in conjunction with the dynamic equilibrium of the phospholipid bilayer to return you through watery nanostructures to homeostasis. No evidence for the claim and thousands of studies to the contrary? Use it anyway!

    3. Sue says:

      I would LOVE to see the quality assurance tests at the homeopathy factory…this solution contains no detectable Nat. Mur, this solution contains no detectable arnica….etc etc

  2. Jan Willem Nienhuys says:

    Avogadro was the Italian scientist who discovered the Avogadro constant

    Not quite. He formulated (in 1811) the law that equal volumes of gas at the same temperature and pressure contain an equal number of molecules. He applied it to argue that oxygen gas consist of molecules of two atoms. Three years later Ampère formulated the same principle and added that he heard that Avogadro had said the same. The name ‘Avogadro constant’ was given only in 1909 by a scientist (Perrin) who managed to determine the number rather precisely (for which he got the 1926 Nobel prize).

    This homeopathy kit is a very old idea. Such kits were in use in th the 19th century, at that time the containers were just shafts of goose feathers. As homeopathic treatment consisted of giving one 5 mg globule orally and then waiting a few weeks, one such a kit could last a life time in some cases.

    If you spread out the volume of a single proton over the entire visible universe, its only a dilution of slightly over 60C.

    Incidentally, Bach Flower Remedies are a variation on homeopathy, and among these flower remedies there is also a kind of first aid remedy: Bach Rescue Remedy.

    1. Seb says:

      “one such a kit could last a life time in some cases.”

      Dark. I like it.

  3. Stephen H says:

    Thanks for the heads-up, I got to put a review on Amazon. That something like this could be dreamed up in the mind of a man is just terrifying.

    1. Pharmacist-in-Exile says:

      Since medicine mainly consisted of purgatives, bloodletting and heavy doses of opium at the time, I don’t think it is strange to dream up a medical system that mainly consists of doing nothing. However, I am appalled that this system is still around and considered part of the medical care system in several countries more than a hundred years later. Especially with the proven track record of science-based medicine since the mid-20th century…

      1. Sue says:

        I expect that Hahnemann himself, if he lived today, would be appalled that people were discounting the last century of evidence and relying on nineteenth century theory.

  4. Kathy says:

    Coming soon to an ER near you …

    1. elburto says:

      Enjoy!

      youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    2. Kathy says:

      Hilarious! I love it …

  5. All system of medicines are prepared and administered in doses whose ingredients can be quantified to be below Avogadro’s limit except for homeopathic medicine which is available both below (hormetic) as well as above [Beyond the Reciprocal of Avogadro Number (BRAN), also known as avogram) Avogadro's limit. The probability of finding one molecule of the n molecules of the original substance above Avogadro's limit is extremely small, but not zero. 'Super-Avogadro's dilutions' [ref]/’potentised high dilutions’ are aqueous solutions diluted above Avogadro’s limit.

    Ref: Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. 2010 Oct;99(4):231-42. PubMed PMID:20970092

    1. “Dr” Malik I think I speak for everyone (and by “everyone” I mean the voices in my head) when I quote Wayne’s World when I say “As sphincter says what?” Any way, by the by just because you quote a dubious “journal” does not equate validation.

      Ref: Jingleheimerschmidt, JJ: My body lies over the ocean: A meta-analysis: Special Pleading Monthly. 2013 July (7): 125-132.

      1. Pareidolius says:

        Special Pleading Monthly is so expensive. These journals have a monopoly and it’s wrong, I tell you, wrong!

    2. Nancy, I have told you before what’s wrong with that paper: the nanobollockules are impurities in the acid (and actually this blog has already dissected it and shown it to be wishful thinking of the most fanciful kind) .

      I’ve also told you that hormesis has nothing to do with hoemopathy (it’s a temporary inflexion in the dose-response curve, blow whichthe usual exponential decline is resumed).

      Why do you continually repeat points refuted a thousand times? Is it because you know that this is all you have, or is it because you are really trying to discredit homeopathy with your nonsensical claim to be a doctor and your assertion of well-known falsehoods?

    3. “Dr” Nancy Malik is not a medical doctor. It’s doubtful she is a doctor of anything at all in the real world. Nancy Malik is an idiot/fraud (you choose) who turns up frequently on homeopathy discussions to argue the case for water and sugar as medicine. Her knowledge and understanding of science, as evidence by her Internet drivelling, is incontrovertibly zero. Her understanding of what she herself writes is zero… because it is in fact drivel.

  6. The Avogadro’s limit for homeopathic solution is 23X/12C/LM4. Potencies upto 23X/12C/LM4 contains bulk concentration (molecules) of the source material. Measurable quantities of pharmacologically active compounds has a clear-cut objective effect on the human body.

    1. Carl says:

      Well, curse me if it ain’t Nancy freaking Drew hard at work on The Case of the Missing Molecule.

    2. Nancy, the potential of lower ptoency remedies to contain a molecule of the “active” ingredient might be relevant if there were any remotely plausible connection between the remedies and the conditions they purportedly treat – which of course there isn’t, the doctrine of similars being long since refuted.

  7. Morris Rhoades says:

    Homeopathy is pseudoscience. The remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body, called succussion. Each dilution followed by succussion is said to increase the remedy’s potency. Dilution usually continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains. Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham.

    1. Jan Willem Nienhuys says:

      Succussing must be done 100 times, says the master, i.e. hitting the elastic object 100 times. And each time one is supposed to take a new and never used bottle.
      In section 270 of the Organon the master actually describes socalled LM-potencies. After each dilution the fluid is sprinkled over ‘fine globuli’, thse are left to dry, and then one globulus is dissolved in the next portion. This is supposed to represent another factor 500. So LM4 means 50,000 to the power 4, a dilution factor of 6.25 time 10^18, and only LM% is beyond Avogadro.

      Isn’t it exquisite nonsense? Who needs Rowling when we have Malik?

      Why doesn’t Malik or any homeopath do a real simple test to distinguish these high dilutions from plain alcohol or water ot whatever? Their books are filled with about a million ‘effects’ that such high dilutions supposedly have. Just (re)proving one of them would earn them a million.

      Why don’t they do that? Simple. Such a test was done in Nuremberg in 1835. One of the first double blind trials ever. It failed. Since then homeopaths have never dared to answer a similar challenge.

      Put up or shut up.
      One must conclude that they actually don’t believe all this stuff.

  8. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Real medicines have rigorous quality control processes to determine if the correct medicines exist in the right concentrations. They are measurable, and they are not below the limit imposed by Avogadro’s number. It might be on the order of a 1% or 0.1% dilution, but it’s still there and you can still detect it. Low concentraiton medications have nothing to do with homeopathy, and Dr. Malik is merely a sad, deluded woman desperately trying to handwave away the criticisms, and failings of her profession.

    If by “bulk concentrations” you mean the tendency of molecules to glom together when shaken, you’re making your problem worse. Sure, the individual molecules form larger units, which might have a medicinal effect, but you’ve suddenly got fewer of them. If 100 molecules glom into 10 larger aggregates, the individual molecules may be in a single large unit, but there are 1/10th as many and disappear from your solution even faster. That’s not a defence of homeopathy, that’s a failure to admit you’ve just made your problem worse and have to resort to “it’s magic” even sooner. Think critically.

    1. Carl says:

      Isn’t it wonderful how the existence of a single molecule counts as “bulk”? Trips to Costco must be a lot faster in Homeopathy Land.

  9. Sometimes I wonder why real doctors even bother defending real medicine. It all gives me a new respect even for the docs I have not liked or worked well with in the past.

    There are so many negative (evil doctor, evil pharma, evil science) comments over at the NYT today on various medical/health/wellness blogs, that I have worn myself out simply trying to inject a few rational replies here and there among the chelation, gluten intolerance, bioidentical hormone, etc., personal testimonies that supposedly offer proof of the uselessness of medicine. The woo comments get hundreds of “recommends” while the sincere, respectful, fact-based replies from actual doctors get four votes. Go figure.

    1. stuastro says:

      Simple answer irene. You can’t deal with idiots!

    1. The abstract seems to go out of it’s way to NOT tell you the strength of the effect, the sample size or almost anything useful.

    2. qetzal says:

      Without having full text access, it’s hard to judge the validity of that paper’s claims. Nevertheless, it’s quite noteworthy to see this statement in the abstract:

      The maximum protective effect was evident in the crude form at 10mg/kg/day, by mouth.

      So, even if we take the author’s claims at face value, the homeopathic dilutions were NOT more potent, as homeopathic “theory” asserts. The most active concentration was the crude material, consistent with standard drug-like mechanisms.

      1. pharma says:

        Jaja, the pseudoskeptiks is a liars:

        “the homeopathic dilutions were NOT more potent, as homeopathic “theory” asserts.”

        who says that more dilute necessarily more powerful? Is, obvios the pseudoskeptikal connection with James Randi fraud in 2002 (courtesy by Horizon and BBC), and bogus “research” in 1988.

        PSEUDOSKEPTIKAL DOGMA (Paul Kurtz absurd principles of pseudo “critical thinjkers”) and the capitalism of atheism (merchandising atheits).

        1. Chris says:

          Actually, it was Hahnemann who said that they got more potent as they were diluted. It says so right in the Organon, as this article explains:
          http://www.simillimum.com/education/little-library/case-management/dpato/article.php

          1. pharma says:

            Of course, shure, great big liar. The reference do not say any “more potent as they were diluted”

          2. Skepticat_UK says:

            @pharma, the reference says “the effect of a homoeopathic dose of medicine increases the greater the quantity of fluid in which it is dissolved when administered to the patient although the actual amount of medicine it contains remains the same.”

            IOW, ‘more potent as they were diluted’.

            Why split hairs? ‘Less is more’ is one of the tenants of the religion of homeopathy, No point in trying to deny it.

          3. Chris says:

            Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with both a thesaurus and a dictionary.

            And then you can take up the one million dollar prize from the JREF to differentiate the difference between two sets of homeopathic remedies. See if you can find the actual “active” ingredient.

  10. 1. Aconite in Journal

    Pédiatrie
    Aconite in post-operative pain and agitation (1990)
    http://homeoinst.org/node/393
    n=50, 95% found significant relief

    2. Apis in Journals

    STP Pharma Sciences
    Anti-inflammatory action of Urtica Urens 4c, Apis 4c, Belladonna 4c and Pulsatilla 4c (1999)
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1302197

    Journal de gynécologie, obstétrique et biologie de la reproduction
    Treatment of pain due to unwanted lactation with Apis 9c and Bryonia 9c given in post-partum period (2001)
    http://homeoinst.org/node/378

    International Journal of High Dilution Research
    Nephrotic Syndrome in adults (2009)
    Tuberculinum, apis, arsenicum album

    1. None of these abstracts are terribly compelling. Take the Pédiatrie article for instance. Firstly the site you pointed to says is 95% had “good results” not “significant relief”. What is a “good result”?

      There’s no mention of how they measured anything.

  11. Jann Bellamy says:

    “What can I say?”

    I would say “consumer fraud.”

  12. calliarcale says:

    Goodness. I would think a kit like that would be a great test of a person’s fitness to enter a wilderness area unaccompanied by a guide. If they’re carrying that, they’re unfit. It’s main advantage over the local water is that it can be reasonably expected to be free of giardia.

  13. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491611000397

    This is in rats. Thalidomide is safe in rats, even while pregnant, would you take it while you were pregnant? I would refuse to take any medication proven only in rats, since I’m not a rat. There were five rats in each group and seven groups, which is an absurdly low number and an unnecessarily complicated design. The data looks like scatter too, there’s no dose-response effect and a whole fuckton of measures and no graph, just tables (I understand why graphs would be avoided, they would clearly show the data to be an uninterpretable mash). This is the meticulous measurement of nonsense, and those rats died for nothing.

    Aconite in post-operative pain and agitation (1990) n=50, 95% found significant relief

    What was the improvement rate in the children given placebo?

    Anti-inflammatory action of Urtica Urens 4c, Apis 4c, Belladonna 4c and Pulsatilla 4c (1999)

    For one thing, these “homoepathic” products didn’t seem to be particularly homeopathic. Of certainty, they are highly diluted – but the highest dilution seems to be 7C. I thought homeopathic preparations got stronger with increased dilution, where’s the 200C remedy, presumably so strong it’s the equivalent of an anti-inflammatory nuclear bomb, preventing all swelling for a five-mile radius? For another thing, I can’t tell if there was a control group. For a third thing, I can’t see any actual results. For a fourth thing, this is 14 years old. Is this the best you can do? Have these results been replicated?

    Treatment of pain due to unwanted lactation with Apis 9c and Bryonia 9c given in post-partum period (2001)”

    Same criticism – why only a 9C dilution? What was the control group like? Pain is a subjective outcome by the way, even mere extra attention can lead to reduced pain. What sorts of improvements did the control groups get? And as well, 12 years old? Anything newer?

    International Journal of High Dilution Research

    ”International journal of homeopathic research”. Fixed that for you. Why pretend it’s anything but a journal of homeopathy? It used to be “Cultura Homeopathica”, why change the name?
    You didn’t include a weblink, but I think I found it. Its actual title is “A case of idiopathic nephrotic syndrome treated with the homeopathic therapeutic”. It’s actually a case study. Idiopathic means “we don’t know what causes it”. So basically a woman had nephrotic syndrome, they didn’t know why, they gave her homeopathy and she got better. The usual questions – how do we know that it was the homeopathy that was responsible for her recovery? Many of the preparations were at 6C dilutions, which isn’t very strong according to homeopathic theory. Why not 200C? How many people were unsuccessfully treated with homeopathy but didn’t merit a case report? The treatment started on June 8, 2005 and finished on October 18, 2006, I thought homeopathy was powerful, why did it take so long, 17 months? The patient lost considerable weight during that time, was this due to homeopathy? Is it cause or effect? What else was she doing while undergoing “treatment”?

    Also, the spelling and grammar in that article were terrible.

    1. calliarcale says:

      Treatment of pain due to unwanted lactation?

      Huh. That pain *goes away on its own* when the breasts finally work out that there isn’t anyone to suckle, stop production, and resorb the milk. And the absolute best treatment isn’t to take *pills* for it. It’s to express the milk. Sure, you feel like a cow, but it does provide a great deal of relief to get the pressure relieved. (Side note, as we move into the traditional time of State Fairs. I always feel sorry for the dairy cows and dairy goats being displayed, because they always time it so their udders are as full as possible, the better to display their milk-making potential. The poor things look rock hard sometimes, and since their mammaries are to the back, they visibly waddle as they walk around the full udder.)

  14. cloie43 says:

    I am curious as to what type of physician is Dr.Malik is?

    1. elburto says:

      Wait for it…

      Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery.

      Ahem.

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        So that’s like, what, very carefully not cutting the skin? Or just shaking someone who doesn’t have any cuts on them?

        1. elburto says:

          Shaking them? Amateur!

          The Patient must be repeatedly thwacked, or concussed ‘succussed’ in order to effect a cure, as any fule kno’ .

          1. elburto says:

            Ah yes, and the succussion must be performed with either a leather-bound copy of the Necronomicon, or the Neverending Story.

          2. Kathy says:

            No. no, no elburto! They must be succussed with a copy of “Peter Pan” while reciting at each succussion, “I do believe in fairies!”

    2. stuastro says:

      What type of physician is “Dr” Malik?
      A quack.

    1. leeann says:

      When did you leave your review? I didn’t see it under the 18 remedy starter kit. One person had a negative review of the 36 remedy kit…gave them diarrhea. Wonder how that happened.

    2. I left one too…also don’t forget to vote up (click the “Did you find this review helpful”) the reviews which tell the truth about homeopathy. They will show up as pull-quotes on the main page.

    3. Denise says:

      Omigod, those reviews are hilarious.

      1. Have you seen the kit review where the person writes about how the more “potent” dilutions (or whatever they are called) like 200C are much too powerful for novice homeopathy users to mess with? Instead the person recommended the “safer” dilutions (or whatever) novices, like 24C or 16C or 8C. So even though those lower numbers allegedly have more of the “active ingredients”, they are safer because they aren’t as strong? Wait…what?

        So less is more? Weaker is stronger? I’m starting to feel like i’m trapped in a really bad kung-fu movie…

        “Batpoop insane” does not even begin to adequately describe homeopathy. I do feel sorry for the people who pay good money for this stuff thinking it will help them…

  15. rork says:

    http://homeopathyplus.com.au/homeopathy-continues-to-punch-well-above-its-weight/
    A web site with stuff so funny that it could not have been written by satirists.

    “Does Homeopathy need the approval of Science? No, thank you. It has been very safely and very cheaply healing millions of people around our planet every year for the last 216 years.”

    “Homeopathy has the strong support of the People who use homeopathy.”

    I thank Nancy Malik for leading me there.
    “Tired of hearing there is no research for homeopathy? Point doubters to the open access International Journal of High Dilution Research (IJHDR).”

  16. Kevin Dearn says:

    Is this the most expensive water on the open market?

  17. windriven says:

    I propose that we bestow a Lifetime Achievement Darwin Award for the buyers of homeopathic first aid kits. Think of it as sort of a ‘class action’ award.

    I further propose a Napoleon XIV Prize for Dr. Malik.

    If that is too obscure, Napoleon XIV is the nom de tune that Jerry Samuels used when he released “They’re Coming to Take Me Away.”

  18. davdoodles says:

    “He will eliminate all the diseases the kit instructions cover, from heart attacks and strokes to throttling and drowning.”

    Throttling (being strangled), and drowning are now “diseases”?

    Can we have a remedy for “being smashed into by drunk drivers while crossing the road” and another one for “stepping in doggy do-doo”?

    Also, a remedy for “meteor strike” might come in handy one day.
    .

    1. No remedy can de-goo your shoe of doggy doo, but as matter of fact homeopathy can cure rabies, Google it. Were I a rabid dog I’d want to sink my teeth into Doc Malik’s butt just to see her heal thyself. Heal, Nancy, Heal ! Heal girl !

      1. cloudskimmer says:

        Actually I used homeopathy to remove dog poop from my shoe; after scraping it off, scrubbing with lots of water finished the job. I hate to think of the memories that water contained….

        Horrifyingly enough, there are idiots who recommend homeopathic treatments for snakebite and rabies, including one deluded vet/homeopath who tells his clients not to vaccinate their dogs and cats. Are there going to be rabid dogs wandering the streets and kids dying because of homeopathy? Maybe the homeopaths could compete with the anti-vax folks to see who can cause more deaths with their proposed return to the dark ages.

        1. Kathy says:

          If you live in Africa, like I do, this just ain’t amusing. Rabies really does happen, and commonly kills people. Snakebite really does happen and not only “out in the bush”. I’ve dodged scorpions in my own bathroom, but if I stood on one I’d want something stronger than this play-play stuff. Footling around with a faux first aid kit is not cool at all when it’s a real necessity.

      2. Cloudskimmer says:

        Thank you Dr. Hall for the link to Myles Power; his website is entertaining and informative.

        By contrast, Sandra Courtney has yet to produce a single fact to support her claim of homeopathic efficacy. It is very sad when people show up here just to make assertions and provide no evidence. Shruti, by contrast, is asking questions and seems somewhat willing to listen. It appears that Sandra values personal experience above all, looks only at negative data about conventional medical practice, and acts as if that alone proves the efficacy of homeopathy. It’ll be interesting to see if she continues to believe in her own infallibility and never recognizes any errors in her own thinking. And in the long term, it would be interesting to see how she acts when she develops some condition readily treatable by modern medicine, but not by homeopathy. When she has severe hip pain, will she get an implant or continue with homeopathy? We’ll probably never know, but even serious believers in woo-woo often go to a real Doctor when they get seriously ill. In the meantime, her one-sentence quips are singularly inappropriate to any reasoned debate.

  19. Carl says:

    Kevin Dearn August 13, 2013
    Is this the most expensive water on the open market?

    Yes, since they are dry pills and the water isn’t even included.

    But don’t you dare call them sugar pills. From the product description on Amazon, they are “sucrose pillules”!

    1. calliarcale says:

      There isn’t even water in them? Dang. They could at least have put salt in them (call it a “binder” or something) so they’d at least be good for treating hyponatremia, which actually can be a serious problem on a wilderness expedition.

  20. ravingdesi says:

    Looks like this product got SBMed (linked to at SBM, inevitably causing people to leave bad reviews – only applies to scammy products).

  21. davdoodles says:

    Not Homeopathy-related, but still interesting (well, “car-crah” interesting anyway). The Australian Chiropractic Board is telling their members to stop being anti-vax too. Without a hint of irony, they say that their members must not:

    ““step outside their primary role as healthcare practitioners and provide treatment that puts the public at risk”… We take a very dim view of any practitioner who does not put the best interests of their patients first.”

    Then again, they make the rather ambiguous (and either way disturbing) comment that “the Board takes a very strong view of any practitioner who makes unsubstantiated claims about treatment which is not supported within an evidence-based context”.

    All of that aside, the article provides an opportunity to mention the appropriately named Australian chiropractor, Nimrod Weiner. His parents, clearly, could see his future from a very early age.

    http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/featured-announcement/chiro-board-cracks-down-on-its-own-anti-vaxers/

  22. lilady says:

    How about a homeopathic tourniquet, until the patient can get to Nancy Malik for homeopathic surgery to stop the arterial bleeding?

    1. David Weinberg says:

      Sandra,

      The study you site is a nerve regeneration study in rats. Three groups of rats received either sham surgery, nerve resection, or nerve resection + treatment with hypericum 30 C. Authors report some evidence of improved recovery in the hypericum treated rats.

      There are some important omissions in the study.

      Since the Methods don’t specify otherwise, apparently surgeons were not blinded to which rats were assigned which treatment. Obviously they would know which rats received sham surgery, but they should have been blinded to whether or not the rats received hypericum.

      Also, it is not stated that the persons performing the assessment of the anatomic and functional endpoints were blinded to treatment group. It is explicitly stated that the muscle mass assessment were made by blinded observers. Such statements for the other assessments are conspicuously absent.

      These are not minor criticisms, and blinding does matter in an animal experiment of this sort.

      1. qetzal says:

        Good points, David. But let’s be fair – even the muscle mass measurements, which were blinded, showed a large advantage in the hypericum group.

        I think it’s fair to conclude, at least tentatively, that there really were differences in the hypericum-treated group in this study. But that’s not proof that homeopathic hypericum caused the differences. If you repeat the study, do you get the same result? Are there any other reasons the hypericum group might have improved more than the control?

        Sandra may object that I’m just looking for reasons to disbelieve. But in fact, I would ask the same questions about a conventional drug-type treatment in such a study. One positive study is only a reason to conduct more studies. It’s not a reason to draw a final conclusion. And that’s before we even consider the maxim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

        So yes, I grant that this looks like an apparently positive study of homeopathy in rats. But there are lots of apparently positive studies of lots of things in rats that turn out to be wrong. One study is not even proof that this particular homeopathic remedy works in this particular rat model, much less proof that any homeopathy works for anything in humans.

        1. “So yes, I grant that this looks like an apparently positive study of homeopathy in rats. But there are lots of apparently positive studies of lots of things in rats that turn out to be wrong.”

          I’d just like to point out (and not necessarily to yourself as you probably know this) that you’re being generous.

          Every piece of new evidence affects the probability of an outcome. In other words the probability that a substance can help a condition is a conditional probability consisting of the predictive power of the test (study) and the evidence leading us in this direction.

          In this sense comparing a replicated drug study to a replicated homeopathy study is not exactly fair because the composition of pharmaceuticals are rarely simply pulled out of a hat. They are based on established knowledge in biology, chemistry and often lab studies. All of these affect the probability of the outcome being correct.

          Homeopathy by contrast is not based on any established principles of science…or perhaps any established principles whatsoever.

          Hence replicating a homeopathic phenomena and replicating a chemical phenomena in the human body absolutely do not carry the same predictive power.

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Plus, with numbers like 5 rats per group (or was it seven? Who cares) a single substantial outlier can skew the entire group into statistical significance.

            Study quality is important, but single studies don’t need to be perfect. But what does need to be clear is a steady convergence on a coherent signal emerging across multiple studies. That’s why meta-analyses and systematic reviews are far more important than these cherry-picked low n animal studies, and why even if this were a perfect study, I wouldn’t give much of a shit.

            1. “Plus, with numbers like 5 rats per group (or was it seven? Who cares) a single substantial outlier can skew the entire group into statistical significance.”

              No kidding.

              I haven’t seen the data or analysis but when you are looking at such a small N I’d be looking ultra-carefully at how far the t-statistic was from the threshold value. N=5 @ 95% means the threshold is around 2? That’s a small target to hit.

              The next thing I’d be looking at is validating assumptions for using a t-distribution in the first place. If for any reason that the null hypothesis isn’t going to have a normal distribution under test conditions your data is going to be useless. One good reason to have a very large control group when studying something where the treated/affected group is very small. Even so, one only has to look at studies where they did just that (IIRC Acoustic Neuromas in cell phone users) to see how easy it is to botch that up.

            2. I Just found that study again. They used Bonferroni and “Dunn” (Which I assume is Bonferroni-Dunn?!). I can think of one possibility that they are showing a significant response.

              Bonferroni assumes that all comparisons are unrelated. I wonder if they analysed each dilution vs. control. If Homeopathy has no effect than each comparison of a homeopathic remedy is essentially the same test. This should, produce an optimistic result rather than a conservative one.

  23. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Sandra, I ask again – are we rats? Why the complicated design? Why is the p value only 0.05 when homeopathy is apparently so powerful? Even if this is a real effect and not an artifact, is it worth the investment of time and money?

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So now we have two position papers from homeopathic organizations that attempt to explain homeopathy and how it works. While the papers cite systematic reviews, they are not systematic reviews, and represent further cherry-picking. Notably, neither include any references to the work by Edzard Ernst, the most prominent critic of homeopathy. There are attempts to wave away criticisms (“The fact that positive results seen in these UHD experiments could not be reproduced every time is not unexpected; it is much easier to detect and measure things which are already understood than to work with new phenomena for the first time.” Which ignores centuries of research and failure to identify a mechanism, or even basic efficacy, they’re still at the hypothesis-generating stage) and there is considerable cherry-picking. Not to mention, the best evidence they can point to are in vitro and rat studies. Old ones at that. There is still no evidence of clinically meaningful benefits. The World of Homeopathy pdf cites studies of things like popularity and patient satisfaction as if it were meaningful. It also claims that a study of 28 people is a meta-analysis, and cites the Jacobs studies in Nicaragua (discussed by Dr. Gorski here).

      It’s desperate and pathetic cherry-picking in two documents that are not peer reviewed. If Pfizer tried something like this the CAM community would collectively shit their pants.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So you’re dumpster diving in petri dish studies now instead of just rats? Labs test thousands upon thousands of chemicals against cancer cells in petri dishes. Many pass with flying colours. It’s easy to kills cancer cells in a dish. Even assuming this were a genuine result and not merely an artifact (which would be extremely interesting if it were replicable) it would still mean that all you can do is kill cells in a dish – not that homeopathy works as a general principle, or that it can kill cancer cells in a body.

    2. xtaldave says:

      Frenkel et al… again? Exactly how many times does that study need slaying?

      http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/

      Turns out – Ethanol kills cells. WHO KNEW?

  24. davdoodles says:

    Being replicable, by other folk in other labs, is the very first baby step. Can’t do that, ain’t got pukkie.

  25. http://alturl.com/gotcc I can only post one line at a time for some reason.

    1. elburto says:

      Are you going to post anything of substance, an original thought, perhaps?

      Or, as I suspect, are you just going to plop out link-guano and expect us to engage with it seriously?

      1. windriven says:

        “Link guano”. Nice. Wish I’d thought of that for the douche on the Irlen thread who posted shopping lists of mostly random links. I guess that was more like link diarrhea but link guano is much more … what? … elegant :-)

        1. elburto says:

          There are so many alternative nouns for what she’s been posting. It seems a shame to stick with the usual ones!

          That’s why, biased as I am, I love the English language. I’m like a Harry little word-pig, rolling around in synonyms!

    2. windriven says:

      “I can only post one line at a time for some reason.”

      Maybe there is a god.

      1. Angus Shepherd says:

        Ha ha ha ha! I laughed so hard, the cat fell off my lap.

    3. Chris says:

      Hit the tab to get the login stuff. It would help if you read the article that has been pinned to the front page of SBM:
      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-help-page-for-commenting-issues/

      Here is an idea, since you are posting rat studies, post the one that proves a statement made by Andre Saine years ago: “He even claims that homeopathy can cure rabies with 100% success.”

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      A. Case. Study.

      It has already been pointed out why these sorts of articles are useless. Stop posting them, it just makes you look more ignorant.

  26. hhttp://alturl.com/dt6sjttp://alturl.com/dt6sj

  27. Oops….Drug companies could be forced to publish secret research to stop them hiding dangerous and unknown side-effects. http://alturl.com/h8pt3

    1. Yeah we agree…in fact medical researchers like Richard Smith beat you to this by almost a decade and he is far from the first. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020138

      Our major point of contention is that Homepathic companies, researchers and cranks should not be able to tout effects which are very likely non-existent.

      How much buried homeopathic research happens…

      1. I’ll just point out that Richard isn’t a researcher but a doctor and editor of the BMJ.

  28. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Yes, I agree completely – drug companies should be forced to publish all relevant research. In fact, I am in favour of taking the research completely out of drug company hands. Instead, if a drug company wants to get something approved, they should have to pay the cost of testing to a neutral third party who can run independent trials.

    But so what? What does that have to do with homeopathy working? Yes, drug companies suck, they will distort research and use all sorts of nasty tricks to try to increase profits, both scientific and accounting. Read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre for a litany and summary of the scientific and medical writers who have published hundreds of articles pointing out these very facts.

    But again, so what? If Big Pharma is crooked, that establishes that Big Pharma is crooked. How does that prove that homeopathy works? Magic? It’s not like Big Pharma is preventing homeopaths from conducting or publishing good research. It’s not like Big Pharma is forcing homeopaths into ghettos of research where they can only work with petri dishes and rats and case studies. It is the homeopaths who fail to do good research, and when good research is published, it is usually negative.

    In fact, homeopathic manufacturers are themselves profit-oriented companies. Last I checked you had to purchase homeopathic preparations, they weren’t simply given away for free. And for that matter, the production of homeopathic remedies doesn’t need to be indistrialized, it’s a pretty simple process; why bother with companies when you can do it in your own kitchen with some bottles, alcohol and some filtered water? The homeopathic manufacturers themselves have tremendous incentives to distort their own evidence, in large part by refusing to produce any. These are multi-million dollar companies that are not required to test or prove any of their products effective, and they don’t even try. Why do you think that is? Why do you think Boiron doesn’t take some of its profits and invest in clinical trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of their products? I suggest two reasons:
    1) They know their products will fail.
    2) Why bother when there are absolutely no restrictions placed on their ability to sell them?

    SCAM proponents love to try to tie “big pharma is mean” to “my favourite woo always fails testing”, it’s a fallacy known as the false dilemma. Creationists love it too. It is an attempt to pretend that there are only two alternatives – either drugs are 100% safe and effective or homeopathy works. Either evolution is true, or the Bible is true. SCAM proponents try to pretend that if they can identify some flaw in science or medicine (usually in the ironic form of a peer-reviewed scientific article published by scientists or doctors in an effort to increase the safety and efficacy of medical practice), that means they automatically win. The reality is totally different. Drugs may be safe or unsafe, effective or ineffective. But that has nothing to do with whether homeopathy works. Evolution may be true or untrue, but that has nothing to do with whether the Bible is true (or a holy book, or God is real, etc.)

    Why would you bother posting a link pointing to corruption in pharmaceutical marketing and research? I thought we were talking about homeopathy? And why would you post it only after your “homeopathic” evidence has been thoroughly debunked? Run out of real arguments? Perhaps you should consider abandoning homeopathy.

    1. weing says:

      @WLU,

      You are amazing. Where do you find the time?

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        I’m not amazing, I merely have no other hobbies :)

        It’s made easier because the SCAM promoters are just so damned repetitive. Despite waxing ineloquent on the failings of medicine and rhapsodizing on the wonders of SCAMs, they’re merely bleating the same lame, tired, easily-refuted tropes. The same talking points. The same cherry-picked evidence. They never innovate, they never evolve, they never change. I often wonder if they even read, or if all homeopathy is actually an elaborate Turing test. It’s so easy to refute them, because their argument never really changes – at best they might vary in the details. But even then, they still point to the same nonsense, which in turn makes it easy to find weblinks. Punch “homeopathy” and the author’s name into SBM’s search field, or Respectful Insolence, or Quackwatch, and normally there is a post that refutes that specific study. There are so few that even attempt to pretend to do science that the SCAMsters have an exceedingly shallow pool to draw upon.

        Forming the arguments takes no time at all, at this point I spend more time on composition and proofreading, hell and blood, I spend more time in a thesaurus, than I do on my argument. If SCAMsters ever managed to read the comments I wrote in past articles, understand them and bothered to take them into consideration, I wouldn’t need to be here.

        It helps that I find the process relaxing, therapeutic and gratifying to my ego. That makes it fun rather than work.

  29. It does not matter what the skeptics think or say about homeopathy. It will continue to grow in popularity worldwide unless those who oppose it can carry out book burnings, shut down the newspapers and magazines, fire all the judges, attorneys, stop social networking through the internet, and imprison people who spread the news of homeopathy through contact from friend to friend, family member to family member, co-worker to co-worker, club members to club members, church group members to other members. Not going to happen.

    1. Isn’t it more accurate to say that it’s people like you who advocate keeping people in the dark? Homeopathy isn’t found wanting merely in the opinion of critics. It is found so in the harsh light of mathematics – the queen of the sciences.

      …or are you just saying that you simply don’t care if it works or not. If so, isn’t promoting it kind of negligent?

    2. weing says:

      I simply prefer to expose what you are selling for all to see. There is nothing there. P.T. Barnum spoke about suckers being born every minute. So, yes, you will find followers.

    3. Chris says:

      So, Ms. Courtney, where is that verifiable scientific evidence that it can prevent measles or treat the symptoms of measles pneumonia without any other real medical intervention?

    4. qetzal says:

      It does not matter what the skeptics think or say about homeopathy. It will continue to grow in popularity worldwide unless those who oppose it can carry out book burnings, shut down the newspapers and magazines, fire all the judges, attorneys, stop social networking through the internet, and imprison people who spread the news of homeopathy through contact from friend to friend, family member to family member, co-worker to co-worker, club members to club members, church group members to other members.

      Wow! Can you say “persecution complex?”

      I mean, I don’t know about anyone else here, but I haven’t burned a homeopathy book in weeks, and it’s been ages since the last time I helped imprison someone merely for spreading the news about homeopathy. I guess it must still be happening regularly wherever Sandra is, though.

      I wonder what color the sky is there?

      Besides, Sandra, we don’t need to do any of that. We could just contaminate Boiron’s water supply with some vitamins & nutrients. Since those improve health, then by homeopathic law they will become deadly poison once they go through the dilution/succussion process. Much easier than trying to round you all up for imprisonment.

      Ooh. I probably shouldn’t have told you about that. Lord Draconis is gonna be pissed at me….

      1. Harriet Hall says:

        I don’t think anyone on this blog imagines homeopathy could ever go away, at least not while human brains continue to work the way they do. Abolishing homeopathy is not my goal. I have no objection to patients using homeopathy. What I object to is the spreading of false information so potential users aren’t able to make informed choices. Especially when that false information endangers people (homeopathic first aid for serious conditions) or our public health (homeopathic vaccines).

    5. Actually Sandra Courtney you can’t produce a single person that you can show to have been incontrovertibly cured of anything by homeopathy. Not a single person.
      Of course you could produce very many who say they have been cured… so could I. But you can’t actually show that they have been cured incontrovertibly by homeopathy.

      In the 200+ years since Hahnemann foisted homeopathy on the world, not a single fully documented, evidenced case study of homeopathy incontrovertibly curing anything at all has been produced. It is very weird considering the incontrovertible claims made for efficacy in curing everything. You do know what “incontrovertible” means I suppose?
      Or maybe you don’t.

      Anyway, I have a question or two for you.
      Since the homeopathic theory of disease clearly implies the germ theory of disease is wrong, why do you bother washing your hands ever – particularly after going to the toilet and before touching food? What’s the point of that? According to homeopathy germs and bacteria don’t cause disease.

      And since homoeopathic remedies are supposedly based on the symptoms the raw ingredient produces in a healthy person, how do you manage to describe homeopathy as “holistic” when it plainly isn’t and cannot be?
      And how do you explain homeopathic prophylaxis if homeopathic remedies are based on existing symptoms?

      Why, if you splash acid in your eyes, would you immediately use copious amounts of water to wash them out with when you know full well that the more you dilute the acid the more potent it becomes? Why wouldn’t you simply take a sugar pill that had been standing next to a container of water that once had a molecule of acid in it?

      I expect in real life you might be a very nice person. But I’d say, Sandra Courtney, that you aren’t too bright. You know very little about anything to do with biology and medical science. Practically nothing about any science at all. You don’t appear to know what science is. Actually you don’t even seem to know too much about homeopathy.

      You are a champion and purveyor of superstition, woolly mindedness and ignorance, from which you are clearly proud to profit. And that’s not nice at all.

  30. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Sandra, do you realize that your statement is essentially saying you don’t care whether homeopathy works, as long as it’s popular? In other words, as long as you can sell homeopathic remedies and consultations, you don’t care if it actually does anything. Given your criticism of Big Pharma for putting greed before patient health, don’t you think that’s a bit hypocritical?

    One must also note that it was quite popular to believe the sun orbited the earth, and that the world was created in 7 calendar days, and that the brain was merely a cooling device for the blood, and that Africans were less intelligent than Europeans. One must take care when suggesting popularity of a belief is the same thing as accuracy of a belief.

    Also, can you point to any skeptics advocating book burnings, closure of newspapers and the internet or the imprisonment of proponents of homeopathy? All we’re asking for is honesty. All we want is for homeopaths, and in particular their customers, to recognize that the theory and testing of homeopathy is rather flawed. Regarding imprisonment, there is definitely a push for incarceration of those who cause harm due to their ignorance, but don’t you think that is rather a valid approach when someone dies because a homeopath told them they didn’t need a vaccine or adequate treatment for malaria? I know SCAM proponents love to proclaim persecution, but as is frequently noted – homeopaths, orthomolecular practitioners, acupuncturists and herbalists are actually protected from scrutiny, criticism and prosecution by a series of laws. They are actually rather privileged in their ability to make unwarranted claims and avoid testing of their medications, it’s actually quite unfair. While Big Pharma is forced to spend millions on research and efficacy testing, homeopathic preparations were grandfathered and the DSHEA precludes any need to actually prove herbs or vitamins do what they are promoted and sold as doing.

    You seem like a nice, happy lady, do you feel bad that you are basically guessing your products work?

  31. “Are Prescription Drugs Safe? Not necessarily”
    http://alturl.com/muk5e
    I’ll stick with homeopathy, thanks. Con med has a much worse track record.

    1. Chris says:

      No, Ms. Courtney, the question is homeopathy effective? You cannot prove it works by telling us there are issues with something else. You need to provide real verifiable data that homeopathy works for non-self-limiting conditions.

      Show us how it cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

      Explain to us how well homeopathy worked Penelope Dingle, Isabella Denley, and Gloria Thomas.

      Give us the evidence that sugar pills work better than a mother’s kiss.

    2. Chris says:

      Also, some interesting reading from that same magazine, Consumer Reports:
      http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2008/03/homeopathic-remedies-can-cause-confusion/index.htm

      Note that it says:

      The most comprehensive analysis of homeopathy we know of—a 2005 review published in The Lancet of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials matched with 110 conventional-medicine trials—found that any benefit from homeopathic remedies was “compatible with” the placebo effect. An accompanying editorial, “The End of Homeopathy,” said that the findings were less surprising than the fact that debate over homeopathy continues “despite 150 years of unfavorable findings.”

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Pete Moran, please expand on my first supplementary point. I know there are some horrifying pictures on your website.

      1) Smallpox

      2) Gloria Thomas Sam

      For context, “smallpox” is a virus nobody has to worry about anymore because it was driven to extinction by prescription medication (a vaccine).

      Gloria Thomas Sam is the name of the 9 month old Australian baby who died because her homeopath parents decided to give her homeopathy. What did she die of? Eczema. Do you know what treats eczema? Lotion. Over the counter allergy pills. Vaseline. Gloves. Long baths. Do you know what doesn’t treat eczema? Homeopathy.

      Please, tell me again about how effective homeopathy is, and how bad the track record for real medicine is. Do you know anybody else who has died of eczema?

      Would you like some more examples?

      Skin cancer (excision)

      Rabies (vaccine)

      Infection (antibiotics)

      Kidney failure (kidney transplant)

      Heart attacks (clotbusting drugs)

      Heart attacks (aspirin)

      Scurvy (oranges)

      Blindness (betacarotene)

      Influenza (ventilator)

      Throat cancer (trachea printed with stem cells)

      Quadriplegia (fucking robot arms)

      Please, tell me what homeopathic remedy will cure these conditions?

      It’s so hard not to resort to name calling and belittling, but I don’t think I need to at this point.

      Do any of the doctors in the house want to throw down some more examples for Ms. Courtney to choke on?

      1. elburto says:

        Ooh you’ve made Other Mrs elburto mad! 3am is settling down time, not “de-choking the wife, lest her last words be ‘fuc<ing robot arms'"-time.

        I'd swallow any number of bull$hit remedies if they'd make my arms and legs work. To be honest, I'd eat actual bull crap, but until then? I'm waiting for medical science to design me a purple carbon-fibre exoskellington.

        With LED mood lighting.

        And lasers. Wooligans, for the education/killing of

  32. Chris says:

    One of the comments in of a review for that kit included a link to this review:
    Homeopathic First Aid Kit.

    He reads the manual on what it is good for, which is priceless.

  33. davdoodles says:

    The Martyr card: last refuge of a scoundrel.
    http://fighting-for-homeopathy.blogspot.co.uk/p/editorial-comments.html
    Ms Courtney is fighting, you see, the good fight against the evil (even worse, uncivil) “skeptics”.

    That’s her thing. So hard being a comfortable westerner in the 21st century who can live a safe, long and healthy life among all that science and medicine provide, all the while whinging about how Big-Pharma-Bad = Magic Water Good.

    But remember this: Neither Sandra’s lazy, well-fed, egocentric armchair pontifications about medicine, nor her favoured nostrums themselves, have ever saved the life of a single child, nor man, nor woman, on the face of this planet. Ever.

    But, I’m impolite, so, with a dismissive wave to rival the power of her silly magic water, she wins, or some sh*t like that.

    Medecine Sans Frontiers might as well go home and leave all those wretched brown people to their grisly fates, because I’ve been rude to poor, pure, Sandra.
    .

    1. Lynn says:

      “But remember this: Neither Sandra’s lazy, well-fed, egocentric armchair pontifications about medicine, nor her favoured nostrums themselves, have ever saved the life of a single child, nor man, nor woman, on the face of this planet. Ever.”

      She believes that homeopathy saved her life. My friend at the gym saw a UFO, too.

  34. Homeopathy is not the problem. Con med is. For example, it is pure idiocy to defend the hit and miss approach in the research and development of mainstream drugs. Drug researchers combine any number of chemicals hoping for an accidental eureka moment that the gullible who kneel at the alter of pseudo-science will believe. Money and politics are cozy bed-fellows while the diseased continue to suffer and die. That is, thankfully, changing as health care consumers are finding out that con med and their drugs are a big FAIL

    http://www.gsk.com/research/how-we-discover-new-medicines.html

    1. rork says:

      Perhaps the trick to use no methods, and learn nothing, ever. It’s an lean and elegant solution, I admit.

    2. Lynn says:

      “http://www.gsk.com/research/how-we-discover-new-medicines.html”

      An excellent article detailing the long and painstaking process through which drug companies develop new drugs. Thank you for posting it. Now, perhaps you could provide a similar explanation of the process by which homeopathy develops treatments for new diseases?

      1. elburto says:

        You want to know how they invent new fairy potions? They dream them up, literally. That’s how you end up with extract of Berlin Wall, and other such rubbish.

        Here’s how they dreamed up extract of petrol:

        interhomeopathy.org/a-dream-proving-of-petroleum

        Enjoy!

    3. elburto says:

      No Sandra – the problem is that efficacy has to be shown in medicine, and that you still haven’t explained where proof of homeopathy’s efficacy is.

      I’ll make it easy Sandra – Where is proof that homeopathy works?

      That’s all we want. No gish gallop, no diversions, no slamming medicine*, no vacuous waffling. Just give us proof that homeopathy WORKS, as per the content of the post.

      Show. Us. The. Money. Or. GTFO

      *There’s no such thing as “con. med”. There’s ‘medicine’ (substances with proven efficacy) and “bollocks’ (like your magic sugar pills),

    4. elburto says:

      OK, I’ll try a new line of questioning.

      Sandra – medication keeps me alive and comfortable. Suggest homeopathic remedies for the following conditions, bearing in mind that some are potentially lethal without treatment. My COI is that either me or my wife suffer from these conditions.

      Here we go:

      Pernicious anaemia
      Crohns Disease
      Asthma
      Atrial fibrillation
      Peripheral neuropathy

      I’ve given you the five easiest ones there. The other conditions are a) impossible challenges and b) potentially identifying.

      I’m particularly interested in how homeopathy will restore my sight, and adequately replace Matrifen patches.

      Bring it on. I’m waiting. Don’t forget to provide proof of efficacy for each proposed remedy.

      I’ll wait over here.

      1. Arrogance on full display. Ask your own family homeopath.

        1. Chris says:

          No, she was asking you! You are making claims that medicine is bunk so therefore homeopathy works. Now you provide the evidence homeopathy is effective for those conditions.

          1. elburto says:

            Labradors will master space flight before Sandra provides evidence.

            Our “name-calling” (truth and direct questions) has probably scared poor Sandra out of her wits.

            She knows she cannot answer our questions, that the examples you’ve provided and the life I’ve lived would end painfully if not for medicine.

            I’d love to see how she might respond to WLU’s glorious fact-slam up there. Not gonna lie, I’d probably wet the bed with glee to see a knock-down, drag-out rumble between them!

            Terribly ladylike, I know. I’m usually so dignified too.

            Ahem.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Elburto likely lacks a family homeopath. Just so you know. It’s hardly arrogant to ask for your professional opinion, but you seem to be using this accusation to avoid dealing with any of the substantive issues raised in the comments.

  35. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Homeopathy is not the problem. Con med is.

    I was always under the impression that disease, disability and suffering were the problems, and medicine was an imperfect but at least evidence-based attempt to alleviate these burdens. But then again I’m not trying to defend a fixed ideology in the face of a rapidly eroding evidence base.

    Homeopathy is neither a problem, nor a solution (unless you’re a diabetic, in which case it’s both depending on if you’re hypo or hyperglycemic). It is a failed system of medicine based on a false appreciation of how the body and disease works, that serves little purpose beyond lining the pockets of homeopaths and soothing the worried well. Except for when someone tries to use it to treat a real medical condition, in which case it can be deadly.

    Sandra, what do you think of little Gloria Sam’s death due to eczema by the way? Treated with homeopathy, yet still died. Are you going to concede that homeopathy was useless in this regard, or are you going to blame the parents for not using the “right kind” of homeopathy, despite them being professional homeopaths?

    For example, it is pure idiocy to defend the hit and miss approach in the research and development of mainstream drugs.

    Do you have a better option? And what does this have to do with homeopathy? I wasn’t aware that homeopathy was only effective if conventional drug development techniques don’t work. Do you think homeopathy’s answer to drug development, provings, are superior? If so, how can you explain the failure of homeopathy to effectively treat any condition?

    Money and politics are cozy bed-fellows while the diseased continue to suffer and die.

    That is a problem. But again, what does this have to do with homeopathy? Perhaps you would like to make your complaints on one of the posts about the failures and shortcomings of doctors, like perhaps this one. Criticizing the shortcomings of the modern medical and research systems are irrelevant to any discussion of homeopathy, I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up except perhaps as a distraction from your failure to demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy.

    That is, thankfully, changing as health care consumers are finding out that con med and their drugs are a big FAIL

    Citation needed.

  36. No one who has posted their “opinions” here can speak from a position of authority. None have said that they have been treated by a qualified homeopath, are homeopaths, pharmaceutical chemists, physicians or hold a professional position within any of the health care based science fields. The example of Mrs. Dingle is a fail. No one who parrots the same old phrases and disinformation tactics, combined with ridicule and cyber-bullying is believable. This type of childish school yard stomping feet type of commentary continues to be shallow and ineffective. I actually enjoy seeing how the skeptics struggle to post something even remotely plausible. Fortunately, the health care consumers here in the United States at least are not ill-educated numbskulls. And, they “get it.” Your opinions are as dilute as you think a 1M potency of any homeopathy remedy is.

    1. ‘No one who has posted their “opinions” here can speak from a position of authority. None have said that they have been treated by a qualified homeopath, are homeopaths, pharmaceutical chemists, physicians or hold a professional position within any of the health care based science fields’

      So arguments don’t stand on their own merits where you live?

      As an aside I’d argue that I’m as effective as a homeopath as you are when measured by large sample, well-blinded and well-controlled methods.

    2. elburto says:

      My mother is a “qualified homeopath”.. I bear the scars to prove it.

      However, one needn’t have disinfect experience of horse $hit to know that it stinks.

      Now why do you keep avoiding the real question Sandra;

      Why can’t you show us proof of efficacy for homeopathy?

      Why do you keep dodging that question? Anyone would think that you had something to hide. Something like.., I dunno… the knowledge that there is no proof, that homeopathy is superstitious nonsense, and that you’re just one more $CAM artist hiding behind weasel words and a laughable sales pitch.

    3. Chris says:

      Explain how mentioning what happened to Penelope Dingle is a “fail.” Tell us how she was treated adequately by a homeopath.

      Correct our “opinions” with some pertinent verifiable facts.

  37. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    No one who has posted their “opinions” here can speak from a position of authority.

    And here is where your ignorance shows. Science is not based on authority; next to anecdotes, expert opinion is perhaps the lowest tier of evidence. Science demands proof, in well-controlled conditions, before it accepts that there may be reason to believe. Homeopaths, with their fetishization of Hahnemann, relies upon authority.

    None have said that they have been treated by a qualified homeopath, are homeopaths, pharmaceutical chemists, physicians or hold a professional position within any of the health care based science fields.

    One doesn’t need to be a qualified chemist to understand that homeopathy doesn’t work. However, if we wanted to, we could rely upon the opinions of numerous organizations and actual chemists (and doctors, and quantum physicists, and biologists, and philosophers) who repeatedly and consistently state that homeopathy can’t work. But we don’t even need to do that – we can look at the repeated well-designed clinical trials that consistently fail to find any evidence of homeopathic efficacy (which is to say, efficacy of homeopathy, though “homeopathic efficacy” is also accurate). Further, one doesn’t need to be a cancer patient to investigate cancer. One doesn’t need to be an Egyptian Pharaoh to study the Pyramids. One doesn’t need to be a heart attack victim to study cardiac surgery. One doesn’t need to be a quarterback to watch (or comment on) football. And one certainly doesn’t need to be a doctor to point out that homeopathy makes no sense, is based on discredited principles of vitalism, and has no record of efficacy beyond anecdotes. With real studies, one can tell what benefits are due to placebo and what are due to specific effects, and further, one can tell who wasn’t helped by the intervention. How many people took homeopathic preparations and weren’t helped by it? Do you ever keep track of your failures, or do you just ignore them?

    Incidentally, were Gloria May’s parents qualified homeopaths? How did she do? She died, didn’t she? Of a condition treatable with moisturizer. Why didn’t homeopathy work for her?

    The example of Mrs. Dingle is a fail. No one who parrots the same old phrases and disinformation tactics, combined with ridicule and cyber-bullying is believable.

    That’s rich coming from you. You are the one parroting fallacies like “big pharma sucks so homeopathy works”. You are the one relying on assertion. You are definitely getting ridiculed, but that’s because you are saying ridiculous things and don’t even recognize your own ignorance.

    I actually enjoy seeing how the skeptics struggle to post something even remotely plausible.

    The most plausible thing said in this comment thread is “homeopathy is a placebo and nothing else”. You assert that this is wrong, but you back it up with terrible science and your own experience. You have struggled to post anything credible, and failed every time. That’s on you, it’s not our fault that the evidence base for homeopathy is terrible.

    Your opinions are as dilute as you think a 1M potency of any homeopathy remedy is.

    That’s not a very good analogy. It makes a homeopathic amount of sense.

      1. Chris says:

        The height of arrogance is you not answering our questions with real scientific data. Instead you keep claiming “homeopathy works because real medicine is not perfect.”

        Show us how it cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

        Explain to us how well homeopathy worked for Penelope Dingle, Isabella Denley, and Gloria Thomas.

      2. elburto says:

        Put up or shut up, Sandra.
        I don’t have a “family homeopath” because:

        a) I require actual medical support to stay alive, not unicorn farts

        b) You’d have to have the cognitive skills of soup to believe that sugar pills sprayed with magic water had any value whatsoever. Even religion seems a hair more plausible than that.

        So, fount of sugar pill “knowledge”, proof – or GTFO because I have really bad secondhand embarrassment for you now. You couldn’t be flatter on your face if you were a manta ray,

        1. More childish schoolyard name calling and senseless gibberish. Not my fault that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            More childish schoolyard name calling and senseless gibberish. Not my fault that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            It’s funny you claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about. Arguably, we’re better informed not only than most of your customers (who tend to think homeopathy is the same thing as herbalism) but we’re also better informed than most homeopaths (because we actually understand basic chemistry, biology and physics). For instance, I know that you make a mother tincture out of an herb (or bit of the Berlin Wall, or, FSM forbid, moonbeams), dilute it at a specific ratio, then succus it and repeat. I know that there is a debate between individualized homeopathy versus “mass” homeopathy. I know that you can make homeopathic remedies out of non-liquids by grinding them with a fixed quantity of sucrose or other fine powder, then repeating the dilution process. I know homeopathic preparations are based on “like cures like”, as tested by provings – if a compound produces a symptom in a healthy person, it is believed that preparing it as a homeopathic preparation is thought to suppress or cure the same symptom in a sick person. I know some variants of homeopathy choose remedies based solely on symptoms. I know homeopathic preparations are grandfathered in under the FDA rules, and don’t actually need any proof to be used so long as they are manufactured under good manufacturing practices. I know that “healing crises” are expected. I know that homeopathy works on vitalist principles – assisting the body’s natural healing energies by butressing them against disease, believed to be caused by disruption of the body’s normal healing energies.

            I also know that homoepathy can’t work through their alleged mechanism because there is no such thing as a “vital energy”, life is merely long chains of molecules reacting according to an ordered structure requiring no magical energy to exist or reproduce. I know homeopathy at most dilutions used can’t work biologically since there are essentially no molecules left that could act as locks in enzymatic or cell receptor keys. I know that it doesn’t work by quantum physics because quantum reactions are only meaningful in scales of nanometers and for durations of femtoseconds (pick your prefix, I just like “femto-”). I know that symptoms abate in humans in the face of compassionate inquiry. I know that many diseases get better with time, no matter what interventions you choose to use, including none at all. I know that in randomized, controlled trials with adequate control groups, the group that gets just lactose pills fare no better or worse than those with lactose pills sprayed with a homeopathic preparation. I know the human mind is prone to cognitive distortions, and resists change, that for the most part evidence is at best icing on the cake (and the cake is made up of whatever decisions you have made in the past that you are trying to justify). I know that water has no memory that lasts longer than picoseconds. I know that even the purest water is filled with non-water molecules which also get succussed. I know that customers don’t want to feel like fools, and homeopaths want to feel like they’re doing good.

            I think I know what I’m talking about, and what I’m saying is that homeopathy doesn’t work. It can’t work. There’s no reason to think it works beyond a form of health-specific emotional coping.

            I also know that you have shown yourself unable to identify what good quality evidence looks like, or at minimum you are unwilling to acknowledge that such evidence is usually negative. I also know that you are quite willing to cherry-pick evidence as long as it supports your points, and ignore whatever does not.

            Have I missed anything? Is my gibberish clear enough?

          2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Well that’s delightful, my threading finally works!

          3. Chris says:

            How is asking you to provide evidence a “schoolyard name calling.”

            Again, I ask you to provide verifiable evidence for your claims. In case you missed the first two times:

            Show us how it cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

            Explain to us how well homeopathy worked for Penelope Dingle, Isabella Denley, and Gloria Thomas Sam.

          4. Calli Arcale says:

            But it *is* your fault that your only response is insults. If anyone had any doubt that you lacked any real evidence, you’ve done a great job of removing it.

      3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        I shouldn’t have been so abrupt in my last reply. What I should have done is ask a question: what part of my statement didn’t you understand? Perhaps I can explain it in shorter sentences, and simpler words so it’s not gibberish to you anymore.

      4. windriven says:

        Look, you can’t seem to play on our field so let’s play on yours.

        Homeopaths claim that water ‘remembers’ substances previously dissolved in it, correct?

        Water is, if not a universal solvent, a quite good solvent, correct?

        The water that has been used to succuss duck penis or whatever has been in contact with uncountable numbers of things including, quite probably, the bladders of any number of creatures, minerals, plants, and perhaps even unicorn farts, correct?

        So how the hell does the water know what to remember and what to forget? Do they use that little pen thingy from MIB before succussing the bejesus out of eye of newt? By now a glass of tap water ought to be able to cure every-frigging-disease known to man. Do you understand that homeopathy fails the stink test even using your own puerile logic? Bullshit is bullshit. You can’t wrap it in a mink jacket and call it Marilyn.

  38. Shruti says:

    Homeopathy should not be dismissed outright as a treatment option. But I am surprised (just read up on the Gloria Thomas Sam case) that two aspects of this treatment are not as well-understood as I thought.

    One, homeopathy is decelerated treatment, so anything severe or urgent cannot be treated by it. And secondly, while it can work wonders with some severe illnesses, its effectiveness cannot be relied upon in this day and age when the frequency and extent of exposure to potentially harmful/toxic substances is so much greater. And with children, it’s even more ludicrous that people would take the risk of

    That being said, my own grandfather was a homeopathic doctor, and as a child he used to give me a combination of meds for my excruciatingly painful stomach pains. It would take a few hours before the pain subsided, and I would generally sleep off. Within 4 years, with no change in exercise regime, diet, menstrual cycle, location/living space, mental environment (all of which were fantastic), the pain was gone. It’s been 10 years since.

    When I moved from a desert environment to east coast Canada, I was ridden with cramps in my calves. I’d wake up at night sometimes because I was in such terrible pain. My torso would shoot up even as my legs were frozen in pain. Again, without changing much, and with no allopathic meds to intervene, I drank water left overnight in a copper glass every morning. And I had this medicine called Ruta (200C) for a year. Never had cramps in 8 years and enjoying the midwest winter thoroughly.

    I don’t believe in “having faith in homeopathy” when it comes to the treatment path taken for urgent or severe illnesses, for the 2 reasons I outlined above. For instance, I do not know if there are any proven cases of homeopathy treating an allergic reaction, but I am 100% sure that it does not have the potency to deal with an ONGOING allergic reaction!

    But I recall the case of my diabetic grandmother who had edema, and for some reason I fail to recollect, the water was not being discharged from her swollen legs. Homeopathic treatment over a week or two worked.

    Therefore, I’d like to just day that the story with homeopathy is not black and white, and should therefore not be treated as such. The concept of a first aid kit however, scary.

    1. windriven says:

      @Shruti

      Are you related to Dwight Shruti?

  39. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Shutri, Gloria Sam had eczema. It’s not an urgent condition. If homeopathy does indeed work best for slow cures of minor conditions, don’t you think eczema would be an ideal condition to test it on? And why do you think her eczema was caused by toxins? With homeopathic parents, wouldn’t they understand the need to protect their daughter from “toxins”? Or, if toxins are as ubiquitous as you seem to be claiming, wouldn’t that render all homeopathy moot? Perhaps that’s why clinical trials all seem to fail when testing homeopathy. Are you aware of homeopathy’s consistent failure in well-designed clinical trials? Is there any reason for homeopathy to work during day-to-day treatment but not during clinical trials? It’s trivial to have a placebo arm, since homeopathic preparations are indistinguishable from each other. I don’t “have faith” in medicine, I trust that the science used to test medical efficacy will be a valid, but imperfect, representation of reality. No faith needed, merely good methods and replication.

    If your stomach pains went away a few hours after you took the homeopathic remedy, how do you know the homeopathic remedy was responsible? Perhaps what you were experiencing was regression to the mean. Perhaps you have fructose malabsorption and it went away as your liver gradually cleared the fruit sugars.

    Of course, the real problem is – you fail to consider as an explanation that homeopathy might be worthless. A perfectly valid explanation is that Gloria Sam died of untreated eczema and homeopathy did nothing because homeopathy doesn’t work. All of the claims about homeopathy being “gentle” and “slow-acting” really seems like special pleading to handwave the fact that symptoms resolve on their own and patients regress to the mean. Regards your diabetic grandmother, don’t you think it’s possible her legs simply resolved of their own accord? Was she taking any other medication? If so, why attribute the improvement to homeopathy rather than conventional care? Your curious double-standard regards homeopathy-as-medicine-but-not-first-aid is, well, a curious double-standard.

    1. Shruti says:

      Firstly, I mentioned earlier that I would never recommend trying homeopathic treatments in seclusion (i.e. without a preceding/simultaneous allopathic treatment) when it comes to children, be it for urgent/non-urgent or severe/non-severe conditions.

      Second, I never mentioned the toxins in relation to her eczema. The reference to Gloria’s case was only to emphasize that I’m surprised people use homeopathic remedies (1) on infants (2) in seclusion. The reference to toxins (and other substances…toxins are greatly a matter of 1. dosage and 2. combinations of substances) was in order to emphasize this: treatments like homeopathy [probably] worked a “100 years” ago in those hefty dilutions because the human body was subjected to a less-complex cocktail of substances- again in small doses and when not considered in synergy with each other- in its natural environment than it is today. So the same dilutions, or the same combinations used today may not effect the same results they did a century ago. Now that’s assuming that the prescriptions made today are the same as those made a century ago, and I do not know if that is or isn’t true.

      As for the clinical trials, I do not know the details to those and I would love to look into them if you have any that you can direct me to? I’ve always been interested in this subject.

      Fourth, when I used the terminology “faith”, it is the jargon used very often in India when discussing homeopathy, and being a scientist I do not prescribe to that manner of thought. Which is where I agree with you.

      As for the contention that all homeopathic medicines are indistinguishable, I am not certain about that, and if you have some articles explaining those, I’d love to be directed to those as well.

      As for my responses to the homeopathic remedies- I looked up fructose malabsorption and I can tell you I was not suffering from that based on: (1) the only symptom I had was the stomach cramps (2) the recommended dietary restrictions for this condition that I never prescribed to and (3) the fact that it is incurable because I stopped the medication over 10 years ago, and have never suffered from cramps since. Did I miss something? Perhaps a tangent of thought not afforded to me due to my non-medical background? I understand that there could be N number of ailments that could have resulted in my stomach cramps, but no allopathic doctor I went to had a diagnosis. Perhaps I could have suffered from some ailment whose only symptom was stomach cramps and that it disappeared over it’s own course of time?? I never said that the remedy caused the pain to stop within hours, just that the occurrences of pain stopped altogether after 4 years of using it with no other treatment and no change in exercise regime, diet, menstrual cycle, location/living space, mental environment.

      As to my diabetic grandmother, perhaps I should not have mentioned the case because I am not aware of the details enough to be able to have a tangible discourse on it to determine- to any extent- the success (or not) of the homeopathic treatment extended to her. I do know she was not taking any other medication or physiotherapy. I am objective enough to not attribute the success of one remedy (i.e. homeopathy), if there are other remedies being delivered to that individual simultaneously.

      And lastly, let me explain why I do not have a “double standard” with regards to homeopathic treatment using my own experiences as examples. Homeopathy did nothing more that assuage the pain from my cramps in the short-term. If my cramps were any worse or if I was not a pre-teen with a light school schedule that allowed me to take a day off whenever the cramps had the better of me, I would have taken allopathic medicines to do the job expeditiously. In the long-term of 4 years, the stomach cramps stopped without any other intervention that could have effected this sort of change. Did I miss anything when I included “allopathic medicines, exercise regime, diet, menstrual cycle, location/living space, mental environment” in this list? This was the exact situation with my leg cramps later on. Therefore, I would not recommend it as a first-aid because I know from my experience and my discussions with homeopathic doctors that it never works like that. I also used the example of the allergic reaction saying” I do not know if there are any proven cases of homeopathy treating an allergic reaction, but I am 100% sure that it does not have the potency to deal with an ONGOING allergic reaction!” Isn’t that the very point of “first-aid”…that it is immediate, an attribute which is not true of homeopathy, a fact I repetitively said.

      I would also like to clarify one thing. I am NOT a proponent or opponent of this science (or pseudoscience, if you feel more comfortable with me using that term), so it is unlikely that I am prescribing to a double standard purely based on my experiences. I am merely exploring it with objectivity, so if that fact isn’t coming out in my explanations, I apologize.

      1. Chris says:

        One thing you must remember: Gloria Sam’s father was a homeopath. He treated her, and refused to do what real doctors said to do. What is even worse her mother got real medicine for some ailment while they were in India. Watch this video.

        Now you say:

        As for the contention that all homeopathic medicines are indistinguishable, I am not certain about that, and if you have some articles explaining those, I’d love to be directed to those as well.

        First there are some homeopathic remedies are can be distinguished, they are the ones from 1X to about 2C dilutions. An “X” means that it was a one in ten dilution, and the “C” means a one in a hundred dilution. The number in front in the letter means how many dilutions are done.

        So a 200C (like in the kit) starts with one part remedy (like salt for “Nat Mur), into a 99 to 100 parts of solvent (often water, sometimes alcohol). Then one part of that result is added to another 99 to 100 parts of solvent. Repeat until a total of 200 dilutions. Then take a drop of that result and place on a sugar pill. What you get is one part of remedy to 10^400 parts of solvent (that is a one with four hundred zeroes after).

        In short one part of the remedy diluted to something that is more than the number of atoms in the known universe (about 10^80, or a one followed by eighty zeroes). Homeopathy is literally nothing… or just very expensive sugar pills.

        Now the reason that anything less than 12C or 23X are likely not indistinguishable is because of Avogadro’s Number. What it means is that you might actually find one molecule of the remedy in the solvent. And in the case of 1X, about 10% of the remedy in the solvent.

        So if you poured out a bottle of 30C Nat Mur and a bottle of 30C Nux Vomica, then mix them up, you will probably not be able to separate them. Even with advanced detection equipment.

        Also, most of the claims of cure are for things that usually get better on their own. I have had horrible menstrual cramps that disappeared on their own. Sometimes it just happens. Leg cramps are often short term, so not really a good example. I have allergies that seem to come and go. Transient symptoms only pretend to be cured.

        What you need to show is that homeopathy works for something that is non-self limiting. The reason I am asking for rabies is because that is a specific claim by Andre Saine. Ms. Courtney posted an Amazon review claiming that homeopathy was great for measles, so I am asking for her evidence. One of Hahneman’s “miasms” was called “syphilis”, a very real disease in his day, so I want to know if homeopathy works better than antibiotics.

        Or, at a minimum, orive the claims included in the box of “homeopathic first aid.” One of those claims is that it is good for choking and drowning. Do you see a problem with those claims?

        1. Shruti says:

          Yes, I agree completely. And that is why I am invested in exploring my experiences with homeopathy through such discourse.

          And an addendum to my 200C: it was actually 200X. I don’t know how I missed that.

          What I would like to understand is this: is it possible that the regular, long-term intake of such miniscule dilutions may have a role to play in the disappearance of the ailment altogether? I know you said that some ailments die out on their own, and that was a consideration I made as well. Which is why I never claimed outright that “homeopathy was the cure”. I just said that there were no other changes made that could have effected the disappearance of the ailment, and I cannot claim to know that the ailment disappeared in the natural course of things either. So I cannot discount the POSSIBILITY that homeopathy worked for me as a long-term cure.

          And lastly, I do not understand where I am failing to explain my opposition to using homeopathy on children/infants. The narrator in this Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8XYUixuw8g) states that he doesn’t mean to hold anyone responsible, but I would go a step further and support the charge of criminal negligence with the 10 year prison sentence. Homeopathy was never my first course of action because there is no immediate effect in my experience (hence my non-support of the “first aid kit”), it was never my course of action for any prolonged ailment that required urgent care or that had potential of doing me permanent (not just including fatality) harm if left untreated, which is very clearly what has been stated about eczema when left untreated.

          1. Chris says:

            “And an addendum to my 200C: it was actually 200X. I don’t know how I missed that.”

            Because it is very seldom used, if at all?

            Let’s do the math on that. So a one in ten dilution done two hundred times. That would be one part to 10 raised 200 times. Even though it is the square root of 200C, it is still one part of remedy to more parts than there are atoms in the known universe (which is “just” 10 raised 80 times).

            Since you made that slight error, and thought it made a huge difference that you may have forgotten how exponents work in math. You might want to review the laws of exponents.

            [ 200C = 100*100*100, two hundred times, 100 = 10^2, so it is 10^2 * 10^200 = 10^400...
            200X = 10*10*10, two hundred times, 10 = 10^1, so it is 10^1 * 10^200 = 10^200
            Avogagro's Number = 6.0221413 * 10^23 ]

            What I would like to understand is this: is it possible that the regular, long-term intake of such miniscule dilutions may have a role to play in the disappearance of the ailment altogether?

            No. Especially since “miniscule” would imply there was something other than sugar in those pills. “Miniscule” is huge compared to one part in more atoms in the all of the known universe. And “nano” (on billionth) is gigantically humongous compared to one part in more atoms in all of the known universe. There is literally nothing in those pills but the contents of the original pill (usually lactose).

            The disappearance of the ailment is just it doing what it was going to do anyway. It would have done the same if you had just popped cake decorating nonpareil sugar balls instead of the stuff claiming to be homeopathic meds.

            This is why proponents of homeopathy must prove their claims that it is effective for non-self-limiting conditions. This includes Andre Saine’s claim that it cures homeopathy, and Ms. Courtney’s claim it is effective fore measles (which is self-limitiing, but she has to tell us why it is better than vaccinating for measles), or the claims on the instructions posted for the “homeopathy first aid kit), like choking, seizures, etc.

          2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            200X is still 20C, still sufficiently dilute that one can question whether there is even a single molecule left of the mother tincture (and keep in mind that the mother tincture is itself is not 100% made up of the starting substance, it is a dilution of the starting substance in water or alcohol). If you believe that the initial substance has an effect, why not simply use the initial substance as a form of herbal medicine? Though that itself has its own problems. Plus, the substance would have to survive digestion by the carbohydrate-digesting enzymes of the mouth, the protein-digesting enzymes of the stomach, the stomach acidity, the alkalinisation of the duodenum, the fat emulsifiers of the pancreas, the first pass effect of the liver, random bumping within the blood and all these other fluids, and digestion by phagocytes or other immune effects. If 23C means you’ve only even-odds at having a single molecule, 20C means you’d have at best 1,000 molecules in the total volume of fluid sprayed on the pellets. How many molecules would you get with each pellet? Maybe, being generous, 20? Diluted throughout an entire body? Assuming any survives the above challenges? If you assume a molecular mechanism for homeopathy to work, it’s basically untenable. That’s why practitioners handwave explanations like “water memory” or “quantum” or “nanowhatever” or some other such nonsense. Never considered are placebo effects (its own complicated discussion, it doesn’t mean “patients are stupid” and it doesn’t even mean merely “endorphins”), regression to the mean and the therapeutic effects of talking to someone about your illness. If you’re asking about the effects of miniscule dilutions, one must understand how truly miniscule the dilutions are – at which point one must see the likelihood of the molecule itself having an effect is essentially zero (let alone 23C+ dilutions where there’s nary even a single molecule involved). So, is it possible that the low dilutions found in some homeopathic remedies could have an effect? Yes. Is it likely they do? No. And why wouldn’t one restrict oneself to simply eating a leaf of the plant rather than a pill 23 orders of magnitude removed from the plant? And that’s not even going into ridiculous preparations like “moonlight” and “the Berlin Wall”. And once one gets past 23C, then we’re no longer talking about individual molecules, we’re talking about frank magic. Finally, one must take into consideration the large number of well-designed clinical trials in which homeopathy fails to offer any benefits. Sure, in poorly-designed trials and case studies homeopathy appears to have benefits, but put in randomization, blinding and proper control groups, and the result is a p-value >0.05. So, chances are, talking to your grandfather made you feel better about your illnesses, it reassured you, it gave a bit of time for your pain to ease, and it did nothing else.

            Keep in mind that in most cases the homeopathic preparation is also diluted, sucussed, repeated, then sprayed on sugar pellets, meaning it would have to survive desiccation as well.

            Why do you think homeopathy would work on adults but not children? Why is it safe in adults but not children? Why is it negligence in children but not in adults?

          3. Chris says:

            Math Fail by myself (I blame lack of coffee this morning). I said:
            [ 200C = 100*100*100, two hundred times, 100 = 10^2, so it is 10^2 * 10^200 = 10^400…

            It is actually (10^2)^200 = 10^400.

            Basically 10 squared raised by 200 is an incredibly large number that has 400 zeroes.

          4. Kathy says:

            @Chris – “This includes Andre Saine’s claim that it cures homeopathy, and Ms. Courtney’s claim it is effective fore measles ”

            How I wish such a cure could be found!

      2. Chris says:

        By the way “allopathic” is a stupid and derisive term. It is used by alternative medicine to insult real medicine. Try to avoid using it in the future if you wish to be taken seriously on a blog called “Science Based Medicine.”

        More information here:
        http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

        1. In my experience instilling doubt and distrust about medicine is the most common and insidious side-effect of alternative medicine whatever the modality. Brandishing the term allopathy gives the initiate and practitioner one of the keys to the kingdom of superior knowledge that is alternative medicine.This unfounded feeling of superiority will screw with a person’s thinking for years. The foolishness on display whenever homeopathy is the topic is but a tip of a fairly large iceberg.

          1. Chris says:

            “one of the keys to the kingdom of superior knowledge that is alternative medicine.”

            Which, of course, made them not even take the medical board tests, much less pass them. Perhaps because they also failed high school algebra and chemistry.

            Because it is only with their “magic” knowledge that diluting something makes it stronger. Oh, wait, that also means failing tenth grade English.

        2. Shruti says:

          My apologies if the use of the term “allopathic” was derisive. I can assure you I was not aware of that.

      3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Firstly, I mentioned earlier that I would never recommend trying homeopathic treatments in seclusion (i.e. without a preceding/simultaneous allopathic treatment) when it comes to children, be it for urgent/non-urgent or severe/non-severe conditions.

        Why bother with the homeopathic preparations at all? Why not just use conventional care and that’s it? Why attribute any effect to the homeopathic remedies when the person is always getting conventional care anyway?

        Second, I never mentioned the toxins in relation to her eczema. The reference to Gloria’s case was only to emphasize that I’m surprised people use homeopathic remedies (1) on infants (2) in seclusion.

        That sounds an awful lot like special pleading to excuse the failure of homeopathy in what would seem to be an ideal test case.

        worked a “100 years” ago in those hefty dilutions because the human body was subjected to a less-complex cocktail of substances

        Do you know what ergot is? Not to mention humans were exposed to orders of magnitude more bacterial and viral agents, since we lacked sanitation and vaccination. There seems to be this perception that somehow humans are more exposed to toxins now than they were in the past, and I very much doubt that. Perhaps some toxins are novel, but toxic substances certainly existed before industrialization. Nature, after all, isn’t optimized for human, or even animal health. Both adapted as best they could to survive in set environments. Only a thin skin of the earth is readily inhabitable by us (the rest being solid rock, black caves or ocean) and much of that skin is similarly hostile (too cold, too hot, too dry, too wet). Nature is indifferent to us, it does not exist to please or punish humans.

        Now that’s assuming that the prescriptions made today are the same as those made a century ago, and I do not know if that is or isn’t true.

        Actually, the assumption is, and always was, that homeopathy works and isn’t merely a placebo.

        As for the clinical trials, I do not know the details to those and I would love to look into them if you have any that you can direct me to? I’ve always been interested in this subject.

        My standard recommendations for reading are:
        - Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell (this one specifically discusses researching CAM)
        - Trick or Treatment? by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst also discusses CAM specifically, and the steps involved in a clinical trial
        - Homeopathy, how it really works by Jay Shelton is the most comprehensive review of the theory and practice of homeopathy that I’ve ever seen from a scientific perspective
        - Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (though the one by Gary Taubes on cold fusion is interesting)
        - Mistakes were made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and some other guy is pretty much must-read in terms of opening minds

        Fourth, when I used the terminology “faith”, it is the jargon used very often in India when discussing homeopathy, and being a scientist I do not prescribe to that manner of thought. Which is where I agree with you.

        But where we part is in pretending homeopathy is anything but faith-based. There is no proof it works. There is no reason for it to work. The only “good” proof is from anecdotes, and those are only good at convincing people to ignore the objective evidence. I don’t know what kind of scientist you are, but if you are not aware of the Hawthorne effect, that’s a good indication of why your scientific training didn’t prepare you for medical research.

        As for the contention that all homeopathic medicines are indistinguishable, I am not certain about that, and if you have some articles explaining those, I’d love to be directed to those as well.

        I’ve never actually seen any scientific articles in either direction, it’s more the recognition that serial 1:100 dilution will render homeopathic preparations to be little more than your solvent within 12 steps, and any meaningful amount will have disappeared long since. Further, it violates many principles of chemistry and biology to believe that such low dilutions can have any effect in the first place. It’s why the prior plausibility of homeopathy is such nonsense. Before you discuss homeopathy much further, I would suggest getting a copy of Mr. Shelton’s book because your assumptions about what homeopathy actually is might be incorrect. For instance, it’s not the same thing as herbal medicine, despite starting from herbs.

        Perhaps I could have suffered from some ailment whose only symptom was stomach cramps and that it disappeared over it’s own course of time?? I never said that the remedy caused the pain to stop within hours, just that the occurrences of pain stopped altogether after 4 years of using it with no other treatment and no change in exercise regime, diet, menstrual cycle, location/living space, mental environment.

        Many conditions get better on their own without intervention. Others require interventions. It is far more probable that your condition, whatever it was, got better on its own than that homeopathy had anything to do with it.

        And lastly, let me explain why I do not have a “double standard” with regards to homeopathic treatment using my own experiences as examples. Homeopathy did nothing more that assuage the pain from my cramps in the short-term.

        Then why mention them? Why not discuss the choice of your shirt colours, or how you tied your shoelaces, or if you stopped listening to classical music? That’s rather the point – humans are terrible at inferring causation in many cases, particularly for medical issues. Assuming it was the homeopathic remedies is irrational if you understand the principles involved.

        … I know from my experience and my discussions with homeopathic doctors that it never works like that.

        Again, an issue that is rarely explicit in these discussions is that homeopathy did simply nothing. That it’s little more than an elaborate placebo, and that it is at best a form of emotional coping, to make it feel like you’re doing something, while you get better as you would have anyway.

        I would also like to clarify one thing. I am NOT a proponent or opponent of this science (or pseudoscience, if you feel more comfortable with me using that term), so it is unlikely that I am prescribing to a double standard purely based on my experiences. I am merely exploring it with objectivity, so if that fact isn’t coming out in my explanations, I apologize.

        Pseudoscience is indeed the more accurate term. If you are relying on your own experiences, you are not relying on anything objective. I’m curious what kind of scientist you are; “scientists” are not a uniform group, and may have different perceptions of what constitutes good research and a valid control condition, for a variety of reasons.

  40. “Poisonous snake bite victim cured with homeopathy when anti-venom was unsuccessful.

    7/10/89 —- Patient, a 32 year old male, was traveling on a remote highway in West Florida when he saw a Diamond-Back rattlesnake lying in the road. He often picked up freshly killed rattlesnakes along the highways which he would skin and sell for a good price. He usually picked up the snakes with a stick, but he was certain this one was dead so he grabbed it with his left hand. To his horror, the snake bit him. He knew that if he let it go it would strike him again at another site, so he let the snake inject all of its venom and then threw it into the woods. He then drove for thirty minutes to the nearest hospital.

    His entire left side was swollen and by the following day, the skin of his left arm was beginning to crack. His hand was totally stiff and he was unable to bend it. He was given anti-venom which had no effect. A friend of his, who was also a patient of mine, contacted me noting her friend’s symptoms which I then entered into the Radar computer (See repertorization). Lachesis scored as the top remedy, so I sent the 200C/1M/10M potencies by the friend who then drove four hours to the hospital to see the patient. She was instructed to give the 200C potency and then wait five minutes. If there was no change, she was to then give the other two potencies. She gave the remedies in a clandestine manner, not wishing to provoke the allopathic doctors, since she knew that homeopathy was her friend’s only hope for survival. The 200C and 1M potencies did nothing, but within five minutes after taking the 10M potency, the patient was able to move his fingers. The next day he was released from the hospital and fortunately (or unfortunately) the allopaths never knew why their patient recovered so quickly!

    Up until that time, the patient had been uncertain about his direction in life and had tried many occupations. Shortly after this incident, he entered a massage school, graduated and is now a massage therapist.

    2/15/93 Follow-Up I spoke to him by phone and he told me that during the first Winter after the snake bite he had a residual effect of poor circulation in his third and fourth fingers, but after that incident he had no further symptoms. He said that he was in perfect health and that his life was in good order.”

    I personally edited and transcribed all of the 8 volumes (over 3,000 pages) of this homeopath’s case histories, over a 10 year period..

    1. Chris says:

      So? How do we know it is not all fiction? Where are the third party confirmations? The peer review? PubMed is not perfect, but it is a starting place.

      And really, where is the irrefutable evidence that homeopathy cures rabies? How does it prevent or cure measles? What PubMed study shows homeopathy works better than antibiotics for syphilis or a strep infection?

      And do tell us how to administer one of the pills from that homeopathy first aid kit to someone who is choking or having a seizure?

      Otherwise, you are just continuing to show the lack of integrity of all homeopaths.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Two points:

      1) If the patient got conventional care, how do you know the homeopathy was the cure?

      2) How many of those case histories documented treatment failures by homeopathy? How often do you document a case history where the homeopathy didn’t work?

      If you answer “never” to point number two, you illustrate why anecdotes are not data. One easily have a 100% success rate if one never counts the misses.

      How would you feel if Pfizer said their medication was 100% safe, but only when you ignored all the people that died from it? And if you find that statement offensive to reason, please explain how it is different from your 3,000 pages of case studies?

      1. Shruti says:

        I would be curious to know these aspects too, if you have any data?

    3. Shruti says:

      Interesting. My (few) experiences with homeopathy had made me think that it’s not a recourse for immediate action, but rather a potential long-term healing.

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        If you are being fair, if you are interested in what is real and what is not, you have to consider, you have to keep as an option, the idea that homeopathy may simply not work at all beyond placebo effects. If you refuse to entertain that thought, if nothing can convince you that homeopathy is ineffective, you aren’t doing science and you are wasting everyone’s time.

        If you can’t get to those books, then reviewing the “homeopathy” category or the homeopathy reference index on this website might help.

    4. Calli Arcale says:

      Some people do survive snakebite* without treatment. But I’d like to point out that he did in fact receive treatment. You report he receive antivenin. Antivenin is not magic; it takes time for symptoms to subside, especially when they had so much time to develop. This story reminds me of the fellow who came on Respectful Insolence to talk about how he had so much success using alt med to treat his gout. Every time he had a flare up, he’d try stuff until he found the thing that worked for that particular flare-up. It would take a few weeks, but eventually he’d be fine again. Never mind that his attacks of gout were lasting about as long as untreated gout attacks normally last. “I gave X and patient got better. Therefore X worked.” Good luck with your next trip through snake country.

      *Specifically, venomous snakebite; it’s obvious he didn’t get a dry bite.

  41. windriven says:

    “He was given anti-venom which had no effect.”

    On what basis is this claim made? Are you under the misapprehension that injection of the antivenin instantly reverses the effects like naloxone and opiates? Not so. The correct explanation is that the antivenin behaved exactly as anticipated.

    1. weing says:

      “Are you under the misapprehension that injection of the antivenin instantly reverses the effects like naloxone and opiates? Not so.”

      But I’ve seen it in the movies. The shriveled arm becomes whole before your very eyes. So, it must be true. :)

  42. Another snake bite homeopathic treatment case history you can pick apart. “Holistic approach may be best cure for snakebitten pets”

    http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130816/NEWS13/308160360/-1/rss28

    1. Chris says:

      Why should we bother? It is most likely another fiction, especially since it is an advertisement pretending to be an article:

      Helped by Lillian Quartuccia, his marketing director who has also worked with homeopathy, they tested several homeopathic remedies on the ailing dog, a different one every 20-30 minutes to see which had a positive effect.

      Ms. Courtney, where is the PubMed indexed study by a reputable researcher (and not a marketing director) that shows homeopathy cures rabies without any intervention with real medicine?

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So you have given up on citing petri dish and rat studies, and are now delving into…newspaper articles. Truly, you haven’t the faintest clue.

      And even if this were a case study in the peer reviewed press, it could still be picked apart by a single sentence:

      “It’s a case study.”

      Regards the details of the news story, it’s the exact same issue as a previous comment – patient gets regular care and homeopathy, attributes recovery to homeopathy rather than regular care.

      Here’s an idea – take 10 dogs. Get all 10 bit by rattlesnakes. Give 5 antivenin and 5 homeopathy. See how many die, and see what they got. You may have 5 dead dogs (who died for nothing since homeopathy is water, sometimes sprayed on sugar pellets), or you may not since snake bites are rarely deadly.

      1. Foolish arrogant analogy.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          How is this an analogy? Are you a Turing engine or something? Because you don’t seem to know what English words actually mean.

  43. Splinter in everyone’s eye am I? Treating hot flushes in menopausal women with homeopathic treatment–results of an observational study.

    The results of this observational study suggest that homeopathic treatment for hot flushes in menopausal women is effective. Further studies including randomized controlled trials should be conducted.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194760

    The skeptics failed over 250 years ago. History is repeating itself and I’m loving it!

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      My word you are ignorant.

      “Observational study” means no control group. You can prove precisely nothing with this study. All you can say is “438 women with menopause were tracked over time and their symptoms improved”. How do you know they wouldn’t have improved anyway? Do you have any clinical trials with control groups? Can you explain why homeopaths do such poor studies? The only explanation I can think of is that they know their remedies are worthless, so they’re trying to conjure the social capital and status that science has, hoping nobody notices the are the Ashlee Simpson of medicine. Also, here is a systematic review by Edzard Ernst, a former homeopathic physician, concluding homeopathy doesn’t work. Have you heard of Edzard Ernst? He started his career as a homeopathic physician, then once he started investigating the evidence base for it, realized there wasn’t one and stopped. He though long and hard about why homeopathy appeared to work, then concluded it couldn’t and didn’t and was purely due to nonspecific effects. He was one of you. He was convinced. He was a practicing dispenser of sugar pills and he stopped. It must sting – he knows what homeopathy is, he knows every rationalization and trick you use to try to pretend there is something other than an echoing void, and he doesn’t fall for it – because he was there and realized there was nothing.

      Why can’t you prove that homeopathy works, using proper randomized, controlled trials? Why does homeopathy fail every time there is a control group? Is it quantum? Or nano?

      You’re less a splinter in everyone’s eye than you are a fart in a crowded elevator.

  44. Okay, happy to be the proverbial fart in a crowded elevator just to continue annoying.all the skeptics. Skeptics such as yourself are batty and arrogant (Jerome Burne) enough to believe think they can change the course of homeopathy. Your groups continue to look past the fact that millions of people worldwide seek homeopathy after conventional medicine has failed. When conventional medicine steps up to the plate and cures ANYTHING (which they have not and will not, ever), perhaps the health care landscape will change. Until then, the skeptics’ rants against homeopathy are as dilute as they think a 1M potency of any homeopathic remedy is. Sorry I made you wait so long to read this post. It’s somewhat flattering that you want to waste your time waiting, reading and posting a dilute response.. .

    1. weing says:

      If a billion people do something foolish. It is still foolish. 1 billion times 0 is still 0.

    2. “Skeptics such as yourself are batty and arrogant (Jerome Burne) enough to believe think they can change the course of homeopathy. Your groups continue to look past the fact that millions of people worldwide seek homeopathy after conventional medicine has failed.”

      This is a non-sequitor. The alleged fact that a lot of people do X because Y can’t help them doesn’t say anything about Homeopathy’s effectiveness.

      People also frequently die because medicine can’t help them. Would you also recommend death for it’s curative properties?

      Whether we can stop homeopathy is actually beside the point most of us are making. We are saying that Homeopathy is very likely utterly without beneficial effect. It is simply wrong. Can we stop people wrong believing wrong things? Hopefully. We stopped (an awful lot) of people from thinking that people of a particular ethnicity were inferiors to people of another particular ethnicity. If racism, which is a form of ignorance be largely halted by education. Then hopefully Homeopathy, which is also a form of ignorance can be prevented too.

  45. “The Growth of a Lie and the end of Conventional Medicine”

    Med.Sci.Monit, 2005; 11(12): SR27-31 PMID: 16319808

    Within the conclusions, partial quote regarding the threat to drug companies posed by the growth of homeopathy:

    “The growing popularity of homeopathy and complementary medicine represents the most serious challenge and is a constant threat (to pharmaceutical companies – my insert) to their multi-billion dollar business. No wonder, therefore, that they would invest considerable amounts of money in detractive campaigns against homeopathy, even with poor results.”

    1. You lost every argument you mounted. Homeopathy looks as ineffective as ever. Cost us not one cent.

      1. Your opinion does not matter.

        1. We are your marionettists. String theory.

          1. Childish school yard name-calling when one has nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

          2. Chris says:

            And yet you have also added nothing of value, specifically real evidence.

            You have been asked multiple times to prove Andre Saine’s claim that homeopathy works for rabies. Plus how homeopathy can prevent measles, or at least cure pneumonia from measles. And also how homeopathy is better than antibiotics for syphilis and strep infections.

            Where is that evidence?

          3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Meanwhile, “your opinion does not matter” is a sound refutation and convincing to all? Man, you are terrible at this.

        2. windriven says:

          If devoutcatalyst’s opinion does not matter, why are you here?

          Is it that you are just a garden variety troll, too brittle to have a meaningful life intellectually or otherwise, so you fritter away your hours delivering fusillades of spittle speckled half truths, quarter truths and fantasies to good-natured people who invest hours of their time trying to teach you shit that the less benighted of us learn before leaving secondary school. You are a waster of other people’s time and energy, an intellectual black hole, a living instantiation of the fact that ignorance is one of the many things that homeopathy can’t fix.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Wow, that’s pretty damning. Geez, and conventional medicine really has collapsed in the past 13 years. I mean, the last time I went to a doctor, he wasn’t there and my condition didn’t get treated successfully.

      Domenico Mastrangelo’s career seems to have ground to a halt since then. Is it the same D. Mastrangelo who published all those articles on ophthalmology over several decades? That’s quite the fall from grace.

      Anyway, the quackometer has an article debunking Mastrangelo’s claims. I’ll make a few more observations:

      1) Real medicine obviously hasn’t collapsed since that article was published. It has, however, gotten closer to curing fucking quadriplegia. How’s homeopathy’s record vis. quadriplegia? Anybody started walking yet?

      2) An assertion that homeopathy is criticized because of fears for Big Pharma’s profits is not proof that every critic of homeopathy is in the employ of Big Pharma. That is a trick used by homeopaths to avoid having to engage with or acknowledge the points of critics. If you can pretend someone disagrees with you out of bad faith, you can ignore their arguments. Those arguments don’t go away of course, you just rationalize your inability to refute them.

      3) That’s no proof of homeopathy’s effectiveness. Even if real medicine collapsed tomorrow, that is not proof of homeopathy. That’s merely proof that real medicine collapsed. Homeopathy still needs separate proof of its own effectiveness. This is, yet again another false dilemma on your part.

      Do you have any good-quality evidence that homeopathy works? Because so far you still haven’t provided any randomized, controlled trials to that effect despite numerous requests. You have changed the subject many times though.

      Hey, does Bioron pay you to make these comments? I mean, why else would you keep showing up here to make the same nonsensical points and logical fallacies? Is Big Water shoveling checks into your bank account so you’ll troll blogs like this one?

    3. You left out the amusing parts…

      “a) CCT methodology cannot b. e applied to homeopathy”

      If by that they mean that large controlled trials can never reliably detect the effects of homeopathy. This is the same thing as saying that you can never have statistically strong evidence.

      “b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs”

      The important question is are they as common as wrong statements by homeopaths. Evidence says “no”.

      “c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT methodology is deeply flawed”

      Every study is going to have limits of detection either for positive or negative effects.

      “d) an accurate testing of homeopathic remedies requires more sophisticated techniques”

      Wrong and contradictory. If Homeopaths say: “I’ve seen this work countless times without fail” then it will be detectable in a well-designed study. Furthermore well-designed studies can detect things that no human could do reliably just by instinct.

      “e) the placebo effect is no more “plausible” than homeopathy, and its real nature is still unexplained”

      Actually this is entirely wrong. Placebo, when compared to no-treatment arms can be explained using reporting bias. Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, M.D., and Peter C. Gøtzsche, M.D. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105243442106 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554

      “f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a “cure” and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis.”

      Again, not necessarily.

    4. Chris says:

      (on previous commnet): “Okay, happy to be the proverbial fart in a crowded elevator just to continue annoying.all the skeptics.”

      You not really annoying, more like a source of laughter. Just remember we are laughing at you, not with you. Oh, so now again you post a six year old editorial that claims homeopathy works because convention medicine has issues? Now, that is hilarious!

      Seriously, where is that definitive study showing laboratory animals with rabies surviving by just being treated with homeopathy?

  46. Aconitum napellus produced a response in heart rate variability (HRV) with 30c potency and in blood flow variability with 1M potency. Sulphur 200c and 1M, Gelsemium 200c and Pulsatilla 200c, produced a 62.5% response in HRV against the placebo response of 16.6%. Gelsemium, Phosphorus, and Sulphur produced a response in blood flow variability with a 1M potency, similar to the response of Aconitum napellus 1M.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    These data suggest that it is possible to record the response of homeopathic medicines on physiologic parameters of the autonomic nervous system.

    http://currenthealthscenario.blogspot.com/2012/08/homeopathy-bhaba-atomic-research-centre.html

    1. Chris says:

      So what? It does not show it cures rabies. Try again.

    2. Chris says:

      By the way, it is just another that tries to find meaning in random anomalous readings from medical monitoring equipment. Much like the ones that try to find meaning in ransom spectral readings from a spectrograph.

      It is very similar to ghost hunters claiming their EMF meters. Wonderfully demonstrated by the paper that found a reading from a dead salmon in an fMRI: Dead Fish Wins Ig Nobel.

      It is all just random noise. Much like all of your comments.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      You can actually get the full text results here. You missed the part where a meaningful difference was 100% for increases and 50% for decreases. This test showed neither, the results were not significant. What really happened, by the way, was subjects were wired to a machine and given placebo on day 1, and one of a multitude of different interventions on the remaining several days. Placebo appears to have always been given on day 1, which means right away the people interpreting the data were not blinded. The data is, bluntly, a mess, with different numbers of subjects in each group, and different responses per subject. The paper gets some facts rather wrong (“the autonomic nervous system is not under voluntary control”, which is somewhat true in that one can’t normally stop one’s heart, but one can influence it). It measured a highly liable parameter in ten different groups, of different sizes, found a single difference, and proclaimed it a win. It proves nothing, it barely tests anything, and it certainly doesn’t do a good job of clarifying anything.

      Assuming this is a real effect, and not merely spurious noise, what is its clinical significance?

      Why such a complicated protocol instead of this fishing expedition?

      If this were real science, conducted by real scientists, they would take the one result where a difference showed up, and re-test it focusing just on that single result. And do you know what they would find? Nothing. Not a damned thing.

    4. So as I sense is a pattern with homeopathy trials. The abstract isn’t much more informative than the title. What was the sample size? Was it blinded? How was heart rate measured and over what period? Eleven homeopathic solutions were tried and only one showed a response that they wanted to put a number on.

      Ever wonder if you’re reaching a bit there?

  47. Fart in the elevator here, reporting another testimonial to the power of homeopathy. The world is going to end if homeopathy is not stopped….Get used to it, homeopathy is alive and well.

    http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/valley-41835-walk-apple.html

    1. Chris says:

      Wait! Do you even the replies to your spurious, data free and hilarious comments?

      Newsflash (when this gets out of moderation): testimonials are not data!

      Especially for credulous news reports that are thinly disguised ads for practitioners of nonsense.

    2. Someone had multiple medical interventions (including physiotherapy) and homeopathy but homeopathy is the only thing that could have helped this person?

      This is called a “complex cause” fallacy.

    3. Harriet Hall says:

      Yes, homeopathy is alive and well. It will prosper as long as scientifically illiterate people prefer belief-based placebos and anecdotes to scientifically tested treatments.

    4. Kathy says:

      @Sandra, are you trying to be annoying? So you can go back to your homeopathy group and get lots of warm fuzzy sympathy for your brave defense of the “one true medicine” against those nasty rude skeptics, hmmm?

  48. Lynn says:

    Found this interesting article on-line: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/apr/03/homeopathy-why-i-changed-my-mind

    In it, Prof Edzard Ernst, describes how he changed his mind about the efficacy of homeopathy. And, for those not familiar with Ernst, I’m including his wiki bio.

    “Edzard Ernst (January 30, 1948 in Wiesbaden, West Germany) is an academic physician and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medicine. Ernst was appointed Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, the first such academic position in the world.

    Ernst served as chairman of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) at the University of Vienna, but left this position in 1993 to set up the department of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter in England. He became director of complementary medicine of the Peninsula Medical School (PMS) in 2002. Ernst was the first occupant of the Laing chair in Complementary Medicine, retiring in 2011″

  49. Kathy says:

    “Mommy, mommy, the Emperor hasn’t got any clothes on!”

    “Shhh, darling, he’s wearing Homeopathic clothes, made out of almost nothing”.

  50. For your enjoyment, a thorough well researched list of good quality independent evidence for the successes of the pharmaceutical industry’s drugs that have cured scores of deadly and chronic diseases in the past 150 years:

    None have been omitted.

    1. Lynn says:

      First you tell us tht no one here is qualified to comment on homeopathy because we are not trained homeopaths. Then I cite Erst … is he not qualified to comment, either?

      1. NO Professor Ernst is NOT qualified. Edzard Ernst failed to pass the homeopathic examination in order to practice homeopathy. It has been all sour grapes since then. No one on this forum is qualified to speak with any authority, period.

        http://www.truthwillout.co.uk/edzard-ernst-the-quack-professor-retires-defeated/

        1. BatP says:

          (…hmmm. I wonder how a homeopathic examination works. Assuming this is referencing some kind of board or certification examination, might correctly answering fewer questions actually result in a superior certification? Does one succuss the test packet between questions? Hmmm…)

          1. Ask Professor Ernst about the exam. He will remember it, since he failed it.

          2. Chris says:

            So what exactly are you qualifications, Ms. Courtney? What is was the last chemistry class you took? What was the highest level of math you have taken? Was it 9th grade algebra, or did you manage to graduate from high school without taking any math?

            Why can’t you give us the evidence to prove Andre Saine’s claim that homeopathy cures rabies?

        2. Chris says:

          And what are qualified to do? It is obvious it is not un anything that requires medicine or basic math. Nor anything that requires basic reading comprehension. I know this because you seem to think advertisements that are thinly disguised as news stories are evidence, and you have refused to answer my questions.

          Please post the PuMed indexed studies showing homeopathy cures rabies, measles, syphilis and strep infections. Failure to do so will prove you have nothing. Just like homeopathy.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      You appear to have forgotten to paste your list. I’ll add a couple starting points:

      Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, fucking quadriplegia, bacterial infections, syphilis, chlamydia, leukemia, scurvy, beriberi, hemorrhoids, asthma, allergies, childbirth, skin cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, bone cancer, hypercholesterolemia, chronic hypertension, diabetes, hyponatremia, meningitis, and if I were a real doctor, I’d know more (and more specific) diseases.

      If you deliberately left that list blank, they you’re just demonstrating your unwillingness to recognize that medicine is actually effective, which itself reveals that you are more interested in confirming your own opinions rather than what the actual objective evidence is. It might also indicate some sort of mental illness, where you think saying something makes it true, in which case may I suggest a visit to a mental health specialist. You may have some sort of cognitive delay which prevented you from moving out of one of the earlier stages of cognitive development.

      If your hands slipped and you meant “homeopathic preparations”, then you’d be right.

      And, of course, as usual, this has nothing to do with whether homeopathy actually works. Drugs could be 100% effective, drugs could be completely ineffective, and either outcome has no bearing on whether homeopathy works.

      1. Wrong, again. Cite the proof. You will not find it, anywhere..

  51. David Doran says:

    Malik and Courtney’s lack of outright condemnation of these ‘first aid’ kids has further lowered my already poor opinion of them both.

    1. Guess what. this “fart in the elevator” does not care what your opinion is. I just love making you waste your time. How many people are you batty arrogant (Jerome Burne quote) folks planning on saving from homeopathic medicine….10, 1,000, 10,000 a million? Get a life, or are you getting paid to hound supporters of homeopathy?

      1. David Doran says:

        So, despite prompting, no condemnation. Nice. If even one person sees the light it’s time well spent.

        The buffoon Burne is also, like you and Malik, poorly regarded.

        Paid? Don’t be silly. I suspect I speak for many in saying I do it for the public good.

        Oh, and you ignored my ever so polite request to be added to your enemies of homeopathy list. Pretty please?

  52. weing says:

    @Sandra
    You won’t find the authority you seek here. Prince Charles is in England and your masters at Boiron are raking in the dough.

  53. @Sandra
    You won’t find the authority you seek here.

    So true, none of you posting here in the comments have a clue what you’re talking about. Go after the real threat to worldwide health care….the pharmaceutical companies. Or, are you also getting paid to bash homeopathy? Remember, please, the reason homeopathy is popular is that conventional medicine has FAILED, miserably. Most homeopathic patients have already TRIED conventional medicine as their first choice. Everyone’s batty arrogant (Jerome Burne) comments are ineffective and frankly b-o-r-i-n-g. Everyone getting over-time pay on a Sunday perhaps?

    This fart in the elevator (as I was so affectionately called by someone here) is now leaving the room.

    1. elburto says:

      So once again you’re claiming medicine has failed, but you still never answered my question about how to replace my life-saving medications with homeopathic alternatives, while staying alive.

      Tell you what – you seem to find English comprehension somewhat difficult, so I’ll only ask for help (presuming you are a “qualified homeopath”) for the two simplest conditions.

      1. Asthma.
      Name a homeopathic replacement for inhalation of terbutaline. Please provide PubMed citations for proof of efficacy.

      2. Pernicious anaemia
      Name a homeopathic replacement for subcutaneous or intramuscular hydroxocobalamin.
      Again, please cite proof of efficacy in the form of PubMed indexed studies.

      There – two commonplace conditions that medicine has rendered fairly trivial in comparison to their former status as death sentences. PA, especially, is ultimately fatal if left untreated, and while medicine can’t yet replace missing parietal cells, it has turned a formerly devastating condition into a minor annoyance for most patients. Even those of us with lasting neuropathy make gains and cheat death with every glass vial of beautiful red b12.

      I’ll be waiting eagerly for your recommendations!

    2. Chris says:

      “(Jerome Burne)”

      I had no idea who this person is. So I looked him up and found this:
      http://www.skepticat.org/2013/07/a-bad-week-for-homeopaths-but-a-great-one-for-the-nightingale-collaboration/

      He is essentially a “health journalist” who cannot get simple facts straight. As noted in this paragraph:

      We just thought this was funny. Of course, as many commenters beneath Jerome’s article pointed out, it was not Nightingale but the homeopathic group called HMC21 who staged a protest outside the ASA.

      Sorry you have to leave, Ms. Courtney. If obvious that since you refused to answer my questions that homeopathy is worthless compared to real treatments for rabies, measles vaccines and antibiotics.

  54. Arrogance on full display. Ask your own family homeopath.

  55. weing says:

    We don’t need to see a homeopath to see arrogance on display. We have you here displaying it perfectly.

    1. elburto says:

      Sorry weing – it won’t let me reply to her. This is in response to her dodging demands for proof with “Blah blah arrogance wah wah family homeopath blah bollocks”

      So you can’t provide proof then Sandra? As I thought. Bless your woo-addled little head.

      1) It’s not arrogant to ask someone provide proof of their chosen woo. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There’s evidence up use wazoo to show that inhaled bronchordilators cause relief of bronchospasm. The same can be said for using IM/SQ hydroxocobalamin in pernicious anaemia. The fact that you cannot provide one line of evidence in support of your magic sugar pills speaks volumes. Something’s failed alright, but it isn’t medicine.

      2. I do not have a family homeopath, primarily owing to the fact that my cognitive function is higher than that of cat hair.

      Also, if I were impaired enough to think homeopathy was anything more than unicorn queefs, the following issues would prevent me from accessing the services of a “family homeopath”:

      a) I cannot physically leave this house

      b) Homeopathic “treatment” is expensive. Medical services cost me nothing. As someone surviving solely on disability benefits I’m not about to choose between rent, or food, or utilities to pay for chalky little placebos.

      Next time honey, stick the flounce.

      1. From one fart in the elevator to another….Lame excuses are not accepted..If you cannot leave the house, you can consult with a homeopath over the phone. Payment plans can always be worked out. Or, learn homeopathy and treat yourself. I survived the ravages of mercury poisoning with homeopathy alone. I can assure you that what ails you cannot be much worse, .

  56. weing says:

    “none of you posting here in the comments have a clue what you’re talking about. Go after the real threat to worldwide health care….the pharmaceutical companies.”

    I beg to differ. It’s the greed of the pharmaceutical companies that is a threat. They are not getting a pass by any means. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Those of us practicing in real-life want reliable data and information. Homeopathy is just a waste of resources.

    1. ” It’s the greed of the pharmaceutical companies that is a threat”. The two of us can agree on that, for both mainstream and homeopathic marketing. Sadly, big pharma only funds drug companies and not homeopathic research. That is about to change, however. Some drug companies are researching homeopathic remedies now..

      1. weing says:

        “Sadly, big pharma only funds drug companies and not homeopathic research.”

        Boiron is big pharma and makes millions every year.

        “Some drug companies are researching homeopathic remedies now.”

        Yeah, researching how they can make money selling just water. Why wouldn’t they?

  57. Cancer of the tongue cured with homeopathy. Before and after treatment biopsies confirmed the effectiveness of treatment. Many here will not understand the use of repertorization based on the symptom picture No matter. Just scroll past that and read the entire case history.

    http://alturl.com/mrqc9

    The “fart in the elevator” is leaving the room, again.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      There is no reason to think that patient had cancer. His biopsy only showed atypical squamous cells. This is classified as a precursor which may or may not progress. In many cases, it resolves spontaneously.

      1. Your ignorance is showing. Mainstream medicine bases chemotherapeutic and radiation treatment protocol(s) on this pathological diagnosis. I was employed as a medical transcriptionist for 4 years in a major U.S. cancer research and treatment center. Your experience is medicine is….what?

        1. Dick Harper says:

          Holy crap, this is getting good. Sandra, may I presume that your expertise in pathophysiology was obtained at the infamous and world-renowned Stanislaw Burzynski clinic of cancer quackery and pseudoscience?

        2. Chris says:

          She is a retired Air Force flight surgeon. She has spent a bit more being a real doctor than your experience as a glorified typist.

          1. A cut rather than cure expert then. Not impressed. Sorry.

  58. weing says:

    Cancer of tongue in early stages is usually treated with surgery or radiation therapy. If the patient had conventional treatment, then it sounds like the patient had had RT and mucositis and all they needed was time. The biopsy report also sounds funny. Atypical squamous cells do not necessarily mean cancer.

  59. weing says:

    “Your ignorance is showing. Mainstream medicine bases chemotherapeutic and radiation treatment protocol(s) on this pathological diagnosis. I was employed as a medical transcriptionist for 4 years in a major U.S. cancer research and treatment center.”

    Your arrogance is showing. Listening to dictations obviously does not confer understanding of medicine. You can look up Dr. Hall’s bio yourself.

    1. I did not post my other qualifications and expertise in the medical field which equals 25+ years. Your experience in the medical field again is what? So, patients faced with similar circumstances should chose cancer inducing radiation, chemotherapy and surgical mutilation per your thought processes? Most well informed patients will choose homeopathy. Conclusion: The dunce cap is all yours. You deserve to wear it proudly.

      1. Harriet Hall says:

        Please do post your other qualifications. If you don’t, I will assume they have taught you less than your experience as a transcriptionist, or you would not have mentioned that first.
        Also please tell us how many patients choose homeopathy over proven cancer treatments. And what the outcomes are.

        1. Do your own research for a change. Try Google first. Did you cheat in high school and college by asking others for answers, or copying from their papers during exams? Lazy minds are such a waste..

          1. Chris says:

            When you make claims you must provide the actual evidence, and not from Google. You need to provide the PubMed indexed study to support your claims.

            And why you are at it, show us the evidence that support Andre Saine’s claim that homeopathy cures rabies.

            Also show us that homeopathy works better than antibiotics for syphilis and strep infections.

            Plus, support your claim homeopathy works for measles.

          2. Harriet Hall says:

            This really doesn’t deserve a reply, but… You are asking me to do my own research because you don’t have an answer to my questions. The last refuge of a “true believer” is to personally attack the messenger because the believer is unable to refute the message itself. I have repeatedly called for civility in these comments. Insults do no good and only degrade the person doing the insulting.

            I have done my own research about homeopathy, and the inescapable conclusion is that any apparent effects are due to placebo effects, misperceptions, and to fluctuations in the natural course of illness. “Try Google first”? I did. I found no credible evidence that homeopathy was effective in cancer, for instance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16376071 I found plenty of evidence that conventional treatments could cure some cancers and prolong life in others.

            Cheating? Do you somehow think that asking for evidence from the people making the claims is “cheating”?! For the record, I got straight A’s in high school, and graduated magna cum laude from college, so I had no motivation to cheat; it could only have lowered my grades. :-)

      2. Chris says:

        You really did not stick the flounce.

        By the way, where is the evidence the homeopathy cures rabies?

        Or prevents measles?

        Or is better than antibiotics for syphilis and strep infections?

        1. Ask your family doctor and or homeopath.

          1. Chris says:

            I am asking you. You need to convince me that homeopathy works for those conditions before I pay good money to a homeopath. Now provide the PubMed indexed studies to answer those questions.

      3. Sandra, you don’t have 25+ years experience in medicine. You certainly exhibit no expertise. Far from it. Your job is/was basically a glorified audio typist. This is not experience in medicine. You may know the words but you clearly don’t understand the meaning.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_transcription
        The dunce cap is firmly planted on your head.
        Dunning-Kruger effect personified.

  60. weing says:

    “I did not post my other qualifications and expertise in the medical field which equals 25+ years. Your experience in the medical field again is what?”

    Do you mean after college and medical school? 33 years of practicing medicine. Damn, I’m getting old.

  61. Sales of herbal and homeopathic remedies top $6.4 billion

    http://www.naturalnews.com/040718_homeopathic_remedies_homeopathy_sales_trends.html

    So much wasted time trying to “save” people from those “sugar pills.” What now?

    1. Lynn says:

      sigh… another hit and run but very little verifiable data.

    2. Chris says:

      Appeals to popularity are lame. You are the one who is spending lots of time with the lamest reasons to use homeopathy. But you are not providing one important thing: real evidence.

    3. I noticed today that Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is amazingly free of false information about homeopathy. Pretty big loss of an opportunity to persuade minds, wouldn’t you say ?

  62. Out of curiosity…can somebody, anybody point out any place where Sandra Courtney has made an actual argument. As far as I can see she often makes unsubstantiated assertions and posts articles when people criticize an *implied* argument from either of these her response is “you don’t know anything”.

    However clearly none of these things are actual arguments. While they have different writing styles both Sandra and OpenMind share one thing in common. They don’t actually seem to know how to argue their point.

    1. Lynn says:

      “can somebody, anybody point out any place where Sandra Courtney has made an actual argument.”

      No… nor has she answered questions from other posters.

  63. weing says:

    @Sandra,

    I believe that homeopathy saved your life. You had a psychosomatic illness, mercury poisoning from dental fillings, and saved you. I don’t deal with psychosomatic illnesses for the most part.

    1. Batty arrogance yet again.

      1. weing says:

        “Batty arrogance yet again.”

        Yeah, but you really shouldn’t denigrate yourself like that.

      2. Chris says:

        Ms. Courtney, why do you think insults are a valid substitute for evidence?

        I am sorry, but it does not provide the scientific evidence that homeopathy is good for rabies, measles, syphilis, strep infection or cancer. You should do better next time.

  64. davdoodles says:

    Seriously? This whackallon thinks she had mercury poisoning from dental fillings that (and I’m quoting her here) she “can assure [elburto] that what ails [him] cannot be much worse.”

    I acknowleged De Hall’s call to civility, but holy crap. What a lazy, conceited, utterly grotesque person.
    .

    1. elburto says:

      Psychosomatic death-by-dentistry is the #1 killer on the face of the planet!

      I can’t walk, move unaided, or be hoisted from this bed without the assistance of two people, but *sniffle* at least I… at lea… at least my fillings haven’t gone rogue!

      *sobs hysterically*

      WHYYYYYY? This is why I’m an atheist. What benevolent deity could allow innocents to suffer in such a way?

      We must form a charitable foundation henceforth. I shall call it GOBMANK. Giving of Beneficence to Mercury Amalgam Nastiness Kases.

      Oh, and elburto is deliberately neutral, but I’m definitely some kind of woman-thing. I’d be a rubbish bloke, I detest barbecuing.

  65. BatP says:

    Hey! Let’s not forget the forest for the trees example. Sandra is wasting her time getting us all to waste our time! Time is not a renewable resource. I mean, her tirade has had me in complete stitches…wicked fun to read, but c’mon, cut her loose! She’s a TB’er.

    Nani nani, boo boo…you can’t get meh! Ahhhhahahaha!

    (crickets)

  66. Lynn says:

    I vote for benign neglect unless, by some fluke, someone presents an actual argument in support of homeopathy.

  67. Jem says:

    Blog owners should be wary of Sandra Courtney. She’s already been exposed as barefaced liar for what she tried to pull here: http://www.skepticat.org/troll/

  68. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    It’s rather obvious that Ms. Courtney and her horrifying, clown make-up grimace are not to be swayed into an intelligent discussion, so I’m not going to bother. Since I have already refuted her few substantive points above, please refer to my earlier posts in reply to her claims. You’ll find the answers there.

  69. It’s been fun ladies and gentlemen and girls. Do let’s chat again sometime. In the interim, try to come up with some concrete evidence that conventional medicine is superior to homeopathy in curing chronic diseases. News of the effectiveness of alternative health care options, including homeopathy is winning the race.

    Oh, before I leave. My best wishes to Dr. Barrett and Quackwatch. News flash from the Bolen Report: “Barrett’s fabrications and obfuscations have been called to task. Innuendo is looking down the gun barrel from the receiving end.”

    1. “try to come up with some concrete evidence that conventional medicine is superior to homeopathy”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22568455

      Done. Now can you provide high-quality evidence that homeopathy actually cures anything…other than thirst?

      1. That’s your evidence that conventional medicine is superior to homeopathy? Read the TITLE of the abstract and oh, the author is a sour grape wanna-be homeopath that failed to pass the exam. Why was the good, ahem, Pro-fess-or forced to retire early? I suppose that even academia was embarrassed by his behavior. Perhaps he should study and try to pass the homeopathic examination again.

        I may be “just a glorified typist”, but I’m not stupid.

        1. elburto says:

          Wow, you even flounce homeopathically.

          Try Stickius Flouncianus 200x

        2. Jem says:

          You say you’re not stupid but the evidence against you. All your comments bear witness to this fact but the ones I linked to below take the biscuit.

        3. Eczema is a chronic condition. The evidence says that homeopathic remedies used for it is useless.

          QED.

          Again let me know when you have some high-quality evidence for homeopathy curing anything.

        4. cloudskimmer says:

          Evidently, German companies are paying to have false information posted about Dr. Ernst, so this claim is probably false.
          See: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/07/german-homeopathy-companies-pay-journalist-who-smears-uk-academic.html
          Boiron is a large pharmaceutical company that produces many homeopathic products, and evidently they are worried about losing money if people realize that they are only buying sugar pills, water, or ethanol.

    2. BatP says:

      Patrick Timothy Bolen is a crackpot. Ahhhhahaha…I can’t believe you even threw that out there. But thanks for the laughs…(tries to catch breath)

    3. Chris says:

      “In the interim, try to come up with some concrete evidence that conventional medicine is superior to homeopathy in curing chronic diseases.”

      Cute way to move the goal posts by using “chronic.”

      Well, for one thing if syphilis is untreated it becomes a chronic disease (which includes insanity during the tertiary stage). It can be cured with antibiotics. Therefore real medicine works better than homeopathy.

      Also untreated strep infections can cause rheumatic fever, which can become a chronic inflammatory disease because it permanently harms several systems, including the heart. It is also easily treated with antibiotics, which are superior to homeopathy.

      Measles can cause permanent chronic conditions like blindness, deafness, paralysis etc. It can be easily prevented by a couple of MMR vaccines. Again, that is much more superior to homeopathy.

      Then there is type 1 diabetes which can be treated with insulin. Definitely better than homeopathy.

      And leukemia is a chronic condition that often leads to death. Treatment with real chemotherapy is far superior to homeopathy.

      Now do you consider “death” to be chronic? Because the rabies vaccine works much better than homeopathy in making sure someone does not die from rabies.

      All in all, homeopathy is pretty worthless for real diseases.

  70. Correction of typo…strike out the word “girls” in the last posted comment. I originally had typed “boys and girls”, but you are adults after all.

    1. Agreed. Now stay well and keep out of trouble.

  71. therealdoctorT says:

    as a practicing family physician, I find the comments put forth by most in this commentary to be well thought out, based on easily available scientific evidence, and based on scientific facts proven my multiple studies over many years.

    I would like to offer a diagnosis of Ms. Courtney based on the available evidence in these posts:
    ‘delusional disorder’
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview#aw2aab6b4
    this provides a brief overview.

    as a physician and scientist, I don’t know of any other reasonable diagnosis.

  72. therealdoctorT says:

    more info, maybe in more layman’s terms
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview#a1

  73. seadeer says:

    As it is well-known, Trollus vulgaris is a parasitic species. This species thrives on mental energy and attention generated by its host, Homo sapiens. T. vulgaris employs a mixture of questing and mimetic techniques to secure a host. It lurks in public forums waiting for an unsuspecting victim and for a subject that will draw H.sapiens’s attention. At the right moment, T.vulgaris engages H.sapiens into an escalating argument, stimulating their victim’s production of energy and attention by producing meaningless, controversial and offensive utterances. Lacking in intelligence and reason, T.vulgaris is unrivaled in its mimetic abilities, being skilled in generating utterances almost indistinguishable from the ones made by H.sapiens, which are capable to elicit ample outbursts of mental energy and attention from the host. The more reasonable and detailed responses H.sapiens provides, the more meaningless and absurd utterances T.vulgaris generates in order to continue uninterrupted consumption of H.sapiens’s attention and energy, ultimately leaving H.sapiens drained and disappointed.

    In this case, we have witnessed a rare instance of a representative of of T.vulgaris subspecies, T.vulgaris homaeopathicus, abandoning its normal habitat, shady, humid and slippery homaeopathy bogs, and venturing into the wide-open sun-lit skeptic savanna. As we all can see, this venture was rewarded by a disproportionate trophy of attention and mental energy.

    1. Jem says:

      Excellent, thanks for taking the time. Another one for your collection, Sandra.

  74. “In retrospect, there is nothing puzzling about the stunning success of homeopathy when it was introduced by Samuel Hahnemann in the mid-nineteenth century. Homeopathy was based on two notions, neither of them supported by any kind of science, both pure speculation on Hahnemann’s part. The first was what he called the Law of Similars, that “like cures like.” If a drug caused symptoms resembling those of a disease–fever or vomiting, for example–then that drug should be used for treating that disease. But it was his second notion that assured his success and that of his practice: the drugs should be given only in fantastically small amounts, diluted out to one part in 10 billion or more. In effect, homeopathic therapy was no therapy at all beyond reassurance, and a great many patients were thus protected against the conventional medicine of the day. No doubt they felt much better, and had a considerably improved prospect of recovery.”

    From “The Fragile Species” by Lewis Thomas, former president of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had held multiple professorships, in pediatrics, medicine, pathology, and biology and had been dean of both the NYU and Yale schools of medicine.

    1. Chris says:

      Dr. Thomas was explaining the placebo affect of remedy that is literally nothing, was better than the unscientific nostrums offered over a century ago. That is what this part of the quote means: “diluted out to one part in 10 billion or more. In effect, homeopathic therapy was no therapy at all beyond reassurance, and a great many patients were thus protected against the conventional medicine of the day “

  75. alicia says:

    Arnica works, and has been known to work for hundreds of years. When I take it I get relief. When I give it others who doubt it could work , well they are amazed and ask about getting more.
    After suffering with hemorrhoids for years I had a friend with a homeopathy kit, and I was trying all the recommended till I was going to be done with the idea completely. But with only two remedies left to try, I suddenly felt nothing. Relief , real- repeatable results.
    All I am saying is try it before you knock it.
    Science says bumblebees can not fly too.

    1. elburto says:

      The placebo effect is a powerful thing. That’s what made you feel better, not the tiny sugar pills with nothing else in them.

      There’s a difference between arnica and a homeopathic preparation of arnica, the difference being that the latter contains no arnica extract whatsoever. So, even if arnica does have therapeutic effects (got any citations to back that up?) you’re not going to get those same results with a tiny sugar tablet that’s been sprayed with water.

      Homeopathy does not and can not work. Science does not say that bumble bees cannot fly, we have evidence that they can, we can see them flying, but there’s no evidence for homeopathy, no active compounds can be detected. Look upthread for discussion of Avogadro’s number to see why it’s impossible.

      Homeopathy is pure placebo, wrapped in layers of nonsense, and sold en masse to the scientifically illiterate.

    2. xtaldave says:

      He’s the problem I have with Arinica – herbal Arnica (not homeopathy) is supposed to help with bruising. Homeopathic Arnica is also supposed to help with bruising.
      But with homeopathy, ‘like-cures-like’ – so shouldn’t homeopathic arnica CAUSE bruising?

      Either way, Science has never said that Bumblebees cannot fly.
      http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

    3. Skepticat_UK says:

      No, ‘science’ doesn’t ‘say’ that and bumblebees obviously do fly – the evidence for it is indisputable That’s where the analogy between bumble bees and homeopathy falls down. Only some people think homeopathy works but when it’s put to the test under controlled conditions that strive to eliminate bias, we see that homeopathy doesn’t in fact work.

      Arnica’s potential effect is immaterial if it is diluted so that there’s nothing left of it in the ‘remedy’.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Arnica may help with bruises but that doesn’t help with homeopathy. The lesser problem is, homeopathic theory states that it would require something that causes bruises to heal them. the greater problem is, homeopathic arnica would contain no actual arnica.

      I used to get hemorrhoids all the time (still do, must stop reading on the toilet). I have had surgery to correct them once. I have had them reoccur many, many times, and in most cases, they disappear after a day or two. The intestinal tract heals remarkably quickly. So if you had hemorrhoids, and you decided to do something about them, and they went away after trying a variety of remedies – you healed yourself when you happened to be taking some sugar pills. Did you follow some other regular-advice-disguised-as-CAM at the same time, like increasing your fiber intake?

    5. The skeptics’ arguments are still DOA (dead on arrival). From a lengthy treatise the following quite (link below):

      “Homeopathic treatment of cancer is so effective that this fact can no longer be hidden from the public. More and more patients around the world are choosing homeopathic treatment,8-27 either complementary, or as an alternative, to conventional therapy. Studies have shown that when homeopathic cancer treatment is unavailable, patients obtain homeopathic remedies and attempt to treat themselves, or their families, even without proper training.28 In India, where homeopathy is a medical therapy sanctioned by the government, clinics report2 thousands of cancer patients are regularly being treated with homeopathy, and around one fifth are reported to have complete recession of tumors and other improvements under homeopathic treatment.”

      http://www.thehomeopathiccollege.org/cancer-treatment/homeopathy-effective-cancer-treatment/

      1. I should have included this quote in my comment (from same treatise)

        “One of these clinics has been conducting case studies that led to the publication of their treatment results. In 2008 researchers at the PBH Research Foundation (PBHRF) in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, published their findings from several case reports on treatment of lung and esophageal carcinoma patients they had submitted more than a decade earlier to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series (BCS) Program for review. The reports contained records including pathology and radiology reports for 14 patients with malignant tumors treated according to Banerji’s protocol until there was complete regression of the tumors.:

        http://www.thehomeopathiccollege.org/cancer-treatment/homeopathy-effective-cancer-treatment/

        1. weing says:

          You’re the deluded one that was saved by homeopathy from the mercury poisoning you got from your dental fillings. Here is some reading for you.

          http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/04/a-homeopathic-bit-of-breast-cancer-scien/

          http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/

          1. @weing And the ridicule adds what to the discussion? Better stop worshiping at the alter of the pharmaceutical companies and invest in homeopathic stocks instead. Health care is a market driven entity and the health care consumers are demanding and buying what works. Heard the phrase “Sex Sells” ? Well, so does homeopathy. All those stupid people Worldwide….better work harder to stop them cause you’ve not done too well for the past 250+ years. I’m sure many of you will continue the ridicule of me and my position. Doesn’t matter. Go on….give it your best shot…

          2. Chris says:

            “Better stop worshiping at the alter of the pharmaceutical companies and invest in homeopathic stocks instead.”

            Yes, the is a huge profit margin when you can charge lots of money for sugar pills. It is exactly like stealing.

          3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            We’ve tried having a rational discussion with you Sandra. You proved yourself quite unable to hold up your end. For instance, you can’t tell the difference between “effective medicine” and “consumer demand”. Bloodletting was in tremendous demand, as was prayers to Thoth. Laetrile was too, and it just gave people cyanide poisoning. You are confusing marketing with efficacy.

            Can you explain why scientific testing consistently finds that homeopathy is ineffective?

          4. weing says:

            BTW, you spelled altar wrong. You buying stock in Boiron?

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Did they get any case reports from people who tried to treat their cancer with homeopathy and died?

  76. Marta Brysha says:

    If someone dies from a serious disease because they chose to treat with natural/homeopathic remedies rather than seeking legitimate health care then that’s what I call natural selection.

    1. Chris says:

      I am sorry, but that is an unfortunate attitude. Especially if a parent is “treating” a very ill child with homeopathy. Some of those parents are now in jail (like those of Gloria Sam).

  77. Woo Fighter says:

    Yeah, and homeopathy to “treat” cancer worked so well for Penelope Dingle in Australia. Poor woman listened to her homeoquack’s orders to avoid real doctors and died a horrible, painful, disgusting death.

    Her homeoquack should have received the death sentence herself. Too bad that doesn’t exist in Australia.

    This is what Sandra condones, endorses and supports. Is she even embarrassed by Ms. Dingle’s story?

    She’s sickening.

    1. Chris says:

      So? How does that prove homeopathy works?

      Some of the medications were for diabetes. What is the homeopathic treatment for Type 1 Diabetes? Then others were on antibiotics. So, do tell how homeopathy works for strep infections, or even syphilis.

      Actually try answering that question instead of posting nonsense and running away, again.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I’m not fighting to maintain that system – I’m fighting for a better one. But the reality is, Americans are getting older, and aren’t taking particularly good care of themselves. More effort could certainly be put into improving preventive health behaviours like exercise and proper diet, but what I really think might help are more economic changes – a health care system, not health care insurance reform. A more equitable distribution of wealth. Adequate, high-quality child care. A school system that places more emphasis on physical activity. In fact, a better economy overall would probably be a good thing, probably cut down on depression (any studies on the links between depression and economic downturns? Seems an obvious link).

      Of course, 100% of Americans could be on prescription medication, and that wouldn’t mean that homeopathy works. It doesn’t.

      1. arsawyer says:

        Hey now, our school systems do plenty to encourage physical activity, especially the ones that teach alternative medicine. As Sandra just demonstrated, homeopaths have ample experience carrying football uprights from one location to another. Why aren’t more mainstream schools encouraging this sort of activity?!?

      2. Here’s another glimpse of conventional medicine…..helpless.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/health/attention-disorder-or-not-children-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.html

        Homeopathic research results in treatment of ADHD look promising (link to abstract and conclusions below). Food for thought….If only the pharmaceutical companies would invest their money in this type of research trials. .

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16047154

        1. Chris says:

          Sandra, you posted how it was horrible that people needed antibiotics, insulin, etc. Now try again to actually answer the question I gave almost a month ago, and just today:

          Show us how it cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

          Why are you ignoring this direct question and going off on other silly tangents?

    3. weing says:

      I’d rather not have anyone on any medications. What you are doing is setting up a straw man to knock down. Who in their right mind wants people to be on meds if they don’t have to be on them? Maybe pharmaceutical companies, Boiron, etc.

  78. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Sandra, in your scientific illiteracy you have once again given an example of the willingness of homeopaths to ignore genuine science in favour of cherry-picked examples that support their argument. I will direct you to this far more comprehensive document, specifically a Cochrane review of the use of homeopathy to treat ADHD. As a 2009 review, it incorporates the 2005 article you cited, yet still finds no evidence to support your assertion that ADHD is amenable to homeopathic treatments. It is not a “promising” treatment in any way, and for you to push your treatment onto people is unethical. Ironically despite criticizing the pill-based approach of mainstream medicine – you are merely pushing another pill. Further, your approach would give a false sense of security, pushing parents away from attempting behavioural interventions which could actually help their child. Meanwhile, sub-optimal as it is, medications are effective.

    This is how your sugar pills cause harm.

    1. I do not believe everything that “genuine science” publishes. For example:

      “False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

      1. Chris says:

        Your beliefs are not our concern. We are only concerned with actual evidence.

        Though do answer the question I have been asking for almost a month: Show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        I do not believe everything that “genuine science” publishes unless it supports my pre-existing beliefs, in which case I will happily splash selective citations all over the page and brag about them, while ignoring any contradictory information, because I am a scientifically-illiterate hypocrote

        Fixed that for you.

        Also, I welcome the added scrutiny of scientific research. Hopefully it will reveal cheaters and deceptive scientists, driving out false research results and bringing a higher standard to the work. Since science is based on reality, not fantasy, then removing fake results will improve our understanding of the universe, including human health.

      3. Really, you don’t seem to have a clue as to what science is.
        Science is a methodology, an investigatory discipline. It is dependent only on the latest evidence. When new evidence is discovered results and conclusions are revised. Nothing about its results can be deemed to be absolute. It is a permanent work in progress.

        You will note that fraudulent science is uncovered by scientists. Fraudulent medical claims by pharmaceutical companies are uncovered by medical scientists – that’s why you know about them. They aren’t brought to light by pretend scientists or medical fraudsters (like homeopaths) because they generally don’t know too much about it.
        Homeopaths only jump on the bandwagon afterwards to claim that the entirety of their particular brand of medical fraud is ok on the basis that some pharmaceutical companies have made some dodgy claims about particular medications (that medical scientists have brought to light).

        Science has an inbuilt self-correcting mechanism that anyone can contribute to. Claims for the efficacy of all homeopathic “remedies” on the other hand have nothing whatsoever to do with science (except insofar as homeopathy is scientifically implausible) and everything to do with the perpetration of fraud.

    1. Chris says:

      Oh, my. That website is a barely literate laugh riot.

      Still, it has been a month and you have not provided evidence to show homeopathy works for certain things. Why is that? Please try:

      Show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

    2. Woo Fighter says:

      Your editorial denounces childish insults, ad hominems and you appeal for civility. Fair enough, but then you go and quote lunatic Tim Bolen, who has called ALL skeptics (no exceptions–check it out yourself) homosexuals and pedophiles. He is an angry homophobic, racist and sexist piece of garbage who jumps on every alternative bandwagon but has no influence or power in the real world outside of his little blog. He’s got the same credibility as Alex Jones or David Icke with a fraction of the audience.

      Were you aware of Tim Bolen’s odious reputation? If so, are you still confortable quoting him and linking to him?

      You were informed of this on the comments on The Montreal Gazette’s homeopathy story by Dr. Joe Scwarcz, and yet you seem to have ignored it. Do you align yourself with anyone who supports your beliefs regardless of that person’s own, very public beliefs?

      Hypocrite.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      See, you keep claiming skepticism has something personal against homeopathy. That is not the case. If there were good-quality evidence for homeopathy, it would be amazing, revolutionary, astonishing. It would serve to uncover wholly-unappreciated aspects of the universe that we previously were not aware of. It would revolutionize physics, chemistry, biology, possibly more. It would be exciting, billions of dollars would pour into funding to try to figure out how it worked, how to harness the effect, how to better understand the human animal and the principles involved. Skeptics would be far, far more excited than homeopaths; the former have whole new vistas of knowledge to explore while the latter merely happened to have a pre-existing belief, one not based on evidence in the first place, justified.

      Unfortunately, no such evidence is forthcoming, merely the same tired, repeated cherry-picking, irrelevant tangents and hollow finger-pointing. The same attempts to co-opt science without really understanding it. The same loud shrieking from the nude regarding the wonderful warmth of their absent clothes.

      Homeopathy doesn’t work, and your monotonous, clueless braying doesn’t change that. The fact that you don’t understand why your claims are worthless is a little pathetic.

      1. Who do you think could have been the inspiration for this sketch! :)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok

        1. weing says:

          I read a poster recently that illustrates Sandra. It goes something like

          “When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.

          It is the same when you are stupid”

  79. james ainoris says:

    They should be put in prison its like selling empty fire extinguishers.frauds!

  80. I know this will fall on deaf ears, however, I no longer care. The following is just one example of good quality evidence for homeopathy. There are many more, if the skeptics would just look, instead of depending on other skeptics’ talking points. If someone in your family has cancer and have been told there is nothing more that can be done, what would you think after reading the published results below? .Source to article is below the quoted material.

    “The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – The US department of alternative medicine followed the cases presented in Corfu with lab trials using Banerji’s homeopathic medicine on cancer cells at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) in Houston. Dr. Sen Pathak, Prof. of Cell Biology & Genetics, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, collaborated in this joint research between the PBHRF and the MDACC. The research work is now complete and published. An in vitro study with the medicines has shown brilliant results in killing brain cancer cells while activating the normal cells. The paper entitled “Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer” was jointly published with Pathak S, Multani AS, of the Department of Molecular Genetics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA., in the October 2003 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. (PBHRF and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA conducted jointly an in vitro research study on the effectiveness of the medicines Ruta 6 and Calcarea Phosphorica 3X in destroying brain cancer cells while activating the normal cells. The research study was published in the form of a paper in the October 2003 issue of the International Journal of Oncology.)”

    http://www.ayudacancer.com/foro/viewtopic.php?id=7778

    1. Chris says:

      “I know this will fall on deaf ears, however, I no longer care.”

      We noticed you don’t care about real evidence. The five year old random website is not real evidence.

    2. “I know this will fall on deaf ears,”

      I think you mean…thinking minds…which are probably a bigger problem to you than people who can’t hear.

      Well as usual you’re pretty under-informed…

      So despite a terribly uninformative abstract we see that this is Pathak and Multani once again. This time doing in vitro on brain tumor cultures. Likely this isn’t “homeopathy” in the sense of diluting something in water. It’s likely the “Banerji Protocols” again using 87% alcohol. So the in vitro work is probably both meaningless and useless. They mention 15 patients who were treated with this and recovered but they made no mention of what tumors they had, their severity and if they were using standard interventions as well….

      So again, at least from the abstract. This is useless…but you didn’t know that…

    3. Chris says:

      “I know this will fall on deaf ears, however, I no longer care. The following is just one example of good quality evidence for homeopathy.”

      Then why bother? Especially since a five year old random website is not really “good quality” evidence of anything.

      With real scientific evidence (use PubMed) show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      My first question would be “does it work in humans”? Because it’s actually pretty easy to kill cancer cells. A wood chipper, a vat of sulphuric acid, a pot of boiling water, a freezer, a blowtorch or a nuclear bomb would work. Killing the cancer while not killing the person, that’s a trick.

      My second question would be, if this was discovered in 2003, why are there still people dying of brain cancer now that it’s 2013?

      My third question would be, have you reconsidered your choice of lipstick, or is that picture from a time when it was fashionable?

      1. ‘My first question would be “does it work in humans”?’

        I couldn’t find a full text but the abstract http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/23/4/975. Attempts to imply that very thing.

        “We treated human brain cancer and HL-60 leukemia cells, normal B-lymphoid cells, and murine melanoma cells in vitro with different concentrations of Ruta in combination with Ca3(PO4)2. Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors.”

        Similar to the other homeopathic cancer treatment article from IJO Sandra endorsed. The abstract leaves out most of the important things. If the last full IJO article I read (by the same authors) is any indication then the full-text is probably no more enlightening.

        “My third question would be, have you reconsidered your choice of lipstick”

        One of the things I’d most like to see diluted at 10X

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          They should sell that mofo to Pfizer, which would pay a pretty penny for anything guaranteed to cure 50% of patients with brain cancers, and 85% of gliomas.

          Holy balls, is this one of those cases where we’ve discovered a cure for cancer and it’s being held back? Except instead of Big Pharma, it’s Little Sugar? KEVIN TRUDEAU WAS RIGHT!!!!

  81. windriven says:

    “The following is just one example of good quality evidence for homeopathy.”

    Have you read the article? What on earth is homeopathic about Ruta 6 and tricalcium phosphate?

  82. Ruta refers to Ruta graveolens. Makes no sense to argue that because a study is more than 5 years old it is not reliable.

    http://fighting-for-homeopathy.blogspot.com/p/editorial-comments.html

    1. windriven says:

      Sandra, I know what Ruta refers to. There is nothing homeopathic about ruta graveolens or tricalcium phosphate.

      That said, the authors published in a very low impact journal published in Greece. In their article they make the almost fantastic claim that 6 of 7 patients with gliomas who were treated experimentally responded with complete remission.

      Now Sandra, this article was published in 2003. Why hasn’t the world beaten a path to this treatment? Why haven’t the authors established a glioma treatment center that achieves complete remission in 6 out of every 7 patients? Where is the Nobel Committee?

      In fact S Pathak, the lead author of the article YOU linked to is a named author in more than 30 papers – but only that one regarding Ruta 6. Knocking down gliomas like bowling pins, where is the follow up?

      Does it strike you that something may not be quite right here?

    2. Chris says:

      With real scientific evidence (use PubMed) show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

      1. james ainoris says:

        שלום American nut bars…who believe in middle age witchdoctory…..Salk and Sabin r flipping in graves…I bet these types don’t use microwave ovens or get vaccines either..if they get hurt or sick will they call 911 or pop a pill diluted ten to the thousandth to one with water?meshuga…probably a pets member and vegan also…להיטרט

        1. Chris says:

          Excuse me? What makes you think I believe in middle age witchdoctory? Did you not understand the question I was posting to the woman who will not answer them?

          And last I checked, the American homeopathic medical colleges were closed by the Flexner Report about a century ago. It was only because of a silly politician, Royal Copeland, that the FDA could not completely remove it from existence. Though the UK still has a few homeopathic hospitals, and homeopathy seems to be quite active in France (Boiron), Germany and India. But all of those countries do have those working to rid the nonsense from medical practice (like Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst in the UK).

          I suggest you try actually reading the comments you are replying to, and to not make blanket assertions based on nationality.

          1. Jem says:

            I don’t think James intended to direct his comment towards you, Chris.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      …and tricalcium phosphate is bone ash. There’s no reason to doubt a five-year-old study (but my reading suggests it’s more like ten). It could be valid. However, without any replication, there’s a good chance it’s merely a fluke. When you’re pretending to do science, you should learn what it is and why it uses the methods it does. Of course, that might lead to realizing your pretend science is worthless, so I understand why you would resist new learning.

  83. All of you are preaching to the choir. Funny that you think you are stopping the growth of homeopathy. Whatever is keeping you going, financial or otherwise, must be worth the time and effort.

    http://fighting-for-homeopathy.blogspot.com/p/editorial-comments.html

    1. Chris says:

      And yet you never attempted to respond to this:

      With real scientific evidence (use PubMed) show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Sandra, do you give away homeopathy for free? Do you provide consultations gratis? Does Boiron make a profit every year? You’re a bit of a hypocrite then, aren’t you?

      What keeps us going is a common contempt for the irrational reasoning of homeopaths and their proponents. People like you drive us. Not for your sake, we realize you are a waste of time, space and breath in virtually every way. But there are often many lurkers, who read the comments, who might wonder about your points. I post for the lurkers and fence-sitters who, like so many members of humanity, might be convinced by logical fallacies and cognitive biases if they weren’t identified and addressed.

  84. I am not a homeopath. No one pays me anything. I post because I know the value of homeopathy in my personal life and want to share my knowledge. I have an extensive homeopathic text library, have transcribed an 8 volume set of books for a noted homeopath, I have two blogs, one that informs the public about homeopathy, the other to fight the skeptics. Between the two blogs, I have had 30,000 viewers in just one year. And you folks here have done what? Copied and pasted the same old now DOA comments and opinions. Not original and no longer effective.

    You ask if Boiron makes a profit every year. Of course they do. So does Merck, Pfizer and all the other drug companies. They produce products, not opinions.

    I maintain that the skeptics benefit in some way, financially or otherwise. Let the “fence sitters” and lurkers decide.

    Oh, and when someone here comments about the color of my lipstick….that’s supposed to be encourage people that they should choose conventional medicine over homeopathy? You’re actually doing homeopathy a favor. You see, each time a skeptic comments, I have a chance to post something positive. That’s a good thing.

    1. windriven says:

      Gee, time and again we’ve asked you to comment substantively or to cite some peer reviewed evidence supporting homeopathy. You are long on rhetoric but awfully short on facts. But then you really don’t have any facts to marshal for your position, do you?

      So many words Sandra, so little meaning. What up with that?

    2. weing says:

      We know. We know. Homeopathy saved your life. You were dying from mercury poisoning due to your dental fillings and it saved you. You don’t have to tell us any more. We believe you. You have a right to your opinion, no matter how uninformed. We have the right to ignore it. If anyone is stupid enough to accept your opinions as valid, that is their prerogative.

    3. Chris says:

      ” want to share my knowledge.”

      Any reason why you have not given me an answer in over a month for these:

      With real scientific evidence (use PubMed) show us how homeopathy cures rabies. Show us how it prevents measles. Explain how it cures syphilis or strep infections better than antibiotics. Show us that taking sugar pills is an effective treatment for type 1 diabetes instead of insulin. Explain how homeopathy stops seizures instead of phenobarbital or other anti-convulsant. Provide the evidence that homeopathy cures leukemia.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Nobody pays us either, so why do you keep accusing us of financial conflicts of interest? I mean, you say “skeptics benefit, financially or otherwise”. Well duh, otherwise we wouldn’t do it. I personally like the challenge of learning about CAM and thinking about it critically, and in particular I enjoy honing my ability to identify logical fallacies (for instance, saying you look like you put on your lipstick in 1982 with a tattoo gun, is ad hominen). So when you say “skeptics benefit, financially or otherwise”, the exact thing can, and in fact must, be said of you. So you are essentially saying nothing. That’s one reason why we keep asking you to point to the scientific literature, which you only do so in a cherry-picked, nonselective, in fact outright distorted fashion, only pointing to single studies while ignoring the many meta analyses that consistently find it ineffective.

      Since you’ve shown repeatedly that you are unable to understand science and why it’s better than “your personal experience” (and further, why your personal experience is deceptive), I’m making fun of your clown makeup degree of lipstick to indicate my personal distaste for you and because frankly it’s the only way I can keep this interesting. Plus, it’s so easy.

  85. james ainoris says:

    Naturopathy is indeed effective and scientifically verifiable. Why not exhaust such remedies first before relying on plaecebo induced witchdoctory….any person whould charge money for sugar water claiming it could help a sick person is evil a רושה……..שלום James ainoris

    1. windriven says:

      What a perfect cap to our weekend! I haven’t laughed so hard in days. The astrologer chastising the alchemist! Priceless :-)

Comments are closed.