A branch of ‘alternative’ medicine that has been gaining prominence in recent years is homeopathy. According to homeopaths, homeopathy is the second most widely used system of medicine in the world. This is indeed cause for worry as the very basic foundations that homeopathy relies on do not stand up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever.
Nevertheless, I personally know of skeptics who still believe that some element of homeopathy still works beyond the placebo effect. The cause of this would probably be the advent of homeopathy into mainstream pharmacies and the offices of qualified medical practitioners. Although nobody denies that there are qualified medical doctors who are also qualified as homeopaths, the very basis of homeopathy doesn’t render it suitable as a replacement or even as an ‘alternative’ to evidence-based conventional medicine.
The three main principles of homeopathy are:
- Like Cures Like
For example, if the symptoms of your cold are similar to poisoning by mercury, then mercury would be your homeopathic remedy. - Minimal Dose
The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water. - The Single Remedy
No matter how many symptoms are experienced, only one remedy is taken, and that remedy will be aimed at all those symptoms.
Let’s take a look at the first principle, the so-called like cures like theory. Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, believed that restoring the ‘vital forces’ of the body is the way to cure diseases that were incurable in his time. He also claimed that the very small doses of a medication would be enough to heal as the potency of a particular substance could be manipulated by succussion (vigorous shaking). He founded the like cures like theory after observing that quinine, which causes fever, cured malaria (in which one of the symptoms is fever).
He expounded further on the like cures like theory, by claiming (without any evidence whatsoever) that diluting the so-called cure minimizes its bad effects but maintains its full ‘curative’ power. Scientifically, this is utter nonsense. Is he speculating that some sort of metaphysical force in the water exists and diverts the harmful effects of the substance while maximizing its healing capabilities? The development of homeopathy has taken place outside science; therefore its claims still lack justification or scientific evidence despite homeopathy being around for more than 200 years.
Some modern homeopaths even go so far as to claim that similar principals form the basis of conventional allergy treatment, where the allergic substance is given in a small dose and in vaccines where an impotent form of the virus is given to bolster the immune system against that particular virus. Again, this is merely a faulty analogy and an overdose of wishful thinking. The dilution process involved in homeopathy causes no active ingredient to be left in the medication itself, making it indistinguishable from plain water or alcohol. You might as well be taking an empty pill instead of a homeopathic tablet. This immediately renders their above claim as false. Firstly, there is no active ingredient entered into the body, or rephrased: NOTHING at all enters the body that triggers an immune response. Secondly, as opposed to the case of immunization, homeopathic medications do not stimulate the body to produce substances that may protect the body from a certain disease. Immunology is a tested, proven, verified branch of medicine, whereas the evidence for homeopathy is still non-existent.
Now, we move on to the second principle of homeopathy, the ‘minimal dose’. According to the calculations done by Dr. Simon Singh, for a homeopathic dilution to have even one molecule remaining of the active ingredient, the pill has to be the size of the planet Earth. Alas, these ever-so-wise homeopaths rush to proclaim that one of the many undiscovered, unproven magical properties is that it has the ability to retain a ‘memory’ of the active ingredient.Jacques Benveniste even claims that a homeopathic solution’s biological activity can be digitally recorded, stored on a hard drive, sent over the Internet, and transferred to water at the receiving end. Some homeopaths also claim that homeopathic remedies have powers to ‘magically’ alter the molecular structure of water. (These were the same homeopaths that claim that homeopathic remedies are merely derived from natural elements around us, right?). Worse, there isn’t any evidence for the very basis of the ‘minimal dose’ theory, where it is claimed that one could minimize the negative effect of a ‘cure’ by significantly reducing the size of the dose. The least they could do is to prove that their fantastic ideas work, and be in the running for a Nobel Prize in Medicine.
The third and perhaps the most outrageous claim is the ludicrous ‘single remedy’ principle. It is a widely known fact that a disease is usually associated with a variety of symptoms. These symptoms help doctors identify the disease and subsequently prescribe a cure. The opposite seems to be the case for homeopathy. A single cure is prescribed (diluted into oblivion first, that is) that supposedly cures one of the symptoms of the disease, thus curing all the other symptoms at the same time. In the homeopaths’ on words, “Homeopathy is system of medicine that targets the symptoms of a disease (as opposed to conventional medicine where the disease itself is targeted”.
Now let’s look at a little gem of contradiction here (from a homeopathy website): Homeopathy is holistic. It treats all the symptoms as one, which in practical terms means that it addresses the cause, not the symptoms. This often means that symptoms tackled with homeopathy do not recur.
Treating all the symptoms with a ‘cure’ directed at merely one of the symptoms addresses the cause of the illness? They contradict themselves in the last line by admitting that they merely target the symptoms, not the disease. Yet this is the exact opposite of what they said in the previous line ‘addresses the cause.’ Are you willing to place your health in the hands of a bunch of people who can’t get their symptoms and causes straight?
If homeopathic remedies seem to work, it is not because of the metaphysical properties of the ‘miracle water’, but the body’s own natural curative mechanisms or the placebo effect. Although most homeopathic remedies are safe and merely ineffective, the real danger is when a patient chooses not to seek proper treatment by a conventional medical doctor in cases where the patient could be helped by such treatment.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Shalini,
I was just thinking about the term ‘bated breath last night, and here you used it. And you used it 99% correctly! Many people think it’s “baited” breath, but it is in fact abated breath, with the a dropped for alliterative effect. The next time you use it, don’t forget to lead with an apostrophe to indicate the missing “a”.
It’s hard to have a discussion about the “peer reviewed” status of homeopathic ideas because the papers cited in Mehul’s replies in post #17, above, are abstracts of papers that may or may not necessarily support the claims of homeopathy. Until we can read the full articles and any discussions about them, we, well, at least I, as a biologist, would have to reserve judgement regarding the quality of the science.
I haven’t done much research of my own into the published works regarding homeopathic claims, so what I’ve found has been just from looking around as a result of this discussion.
Researchers at Bastyr University conducted a study into efficacy of the adminsitration of high dilutions of growth factors and cytokines. A summary of their research and conclusions can be found here:
http://www.bastyr.edu/research/projects/abstracts/bsh.asp
Note the final sentence:
The wording is well within the realm of “good science” in that the “results suggest.” Has anyone followed up on what the results suggest? I do not know, nor do I know an easy way to find out short of contacting the researchers and asking them, and that is more than I want to do now. Perhaps Shalini would like to contact them and wirte a follow up article to this one.
Someone who wants to make the broad claim that here are no peer-reviewed papers discussing effective uses of hoemopathy would have to do more than say, “I looked in PubMed and didn’t find nothin’.” In just a few clicks I found this page of peer-reviewed articles of research into homeopathic cures:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp
I looked at the abstract of one article, “Inhibition of chemically induced carcinogenesis by drugs used in homeopathic medicine.” http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,119
The abstract says, “These studies demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, at ultra low doses, may be able to decrease tumor induction by carcinogen administration.”
Agins, the writing is well within what is considered “good science.” To be able to effectivley dispute this particular study, one would have to pull the article from the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention and explain why the researchers drew conclusions beyond what were merited by the data.
So my conclusion is that, based on my very brief survey of what is available over the internet, there are peer reviewed articles showing the effectiveness of certain homeopathic treatments.
It is a logical fallacy to make the broad claim that homeopathy is a fraud.
It is also a logical fallacy to claim that anything I wrote above is a support of homeopathy.
Mark R. Tonelli, MD, MA Medical Ethics, (whose CV is here: http://depts.washington.edu/mhedept/facres/TonelliCV.pdf) has authored the following comments and articles which were published in peer-reviewed journals:
Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739043?dopt=Abstract
Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16722902?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16722902?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Perhaps Shalini would like to read the actual articles and maybe even interview Mark R. Tonelli, MD and report to us what she learns? Personally, I’m intigrued by whatcoudl be learned froman MD who would write a letter entitled, “Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based.” I hope Shalini is, too.
Poe’s Law anyone?
Nope, he’s for real.
Hi Zé Pedro,
First, I would like to correct your notions about science. You said science can’t prove anything to be true. The way science works (and the reason why it’s so useful) is that first, based on evidence, we make a conclusion. That conclusion is the best idea at the moment. However, once some new evidence comes, we then change our minds and improve our original conclusion.
Now, you say science cannot measure or detect the “vital energy.” My first question for you is: How do you know this vital energy exists?
My next question is: Do you know what energy is? Energy has a very specific definition in physics. Energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. That is all. There are different ways to store energy, but energy is just energy, just how I defined it.
So again, how do you know the vital energy exists? Because I have not seen evidence for it, I have to conclude, based on reason, that it does not exist. But of course, I will believe in this “vital energy” if you give me evidence for it.
Please show me the evidence.
Hi Roy,
as i said before…i cant prove nothing or detect somethig to show u… i dont need to prove nothing.
because its not job or my ittetion… all of us have an opinion, and this is only mine.
i´m showing my opinion based on my little experience… one thing that make me believe on Vital energy is some oriental pratics.. like Reiki Or Tchi Kong ( Tai chi)…
at those praticas, u cannot detect vital energy, u cannot prove…but u can FEEl it….
try to make it…
and besides…as a i told u..the smallest particule of material stuff…are energy particules…like electron, quark mesons…. so is not is not so hard to think that any materia has a commun point…. the energy essence..
Dear Ze Pedro
You make the claim that science has limitations – well done, the first people to say that are scientists. But if science can not answer something, what makes you think anything else can or do a better job?
Also, with regards to this VITAL energy which can’t be measured – you are plainly wrong. As soon as something has an effect on the material/phenomenal world we are able to test it. Science must go back and test something. And in actual fact, scientists are actually hoping that they find scientific claims for psychics, astrology, homeopathy and so on. That would be beautiful, expand our knowledge and get people a few Nobel prizes. In our deepest hearts, we would love to know that there is another aspect of reality we can discern. We dont go in with preconceived notions (bias) but the point is: we attempt to be open-minded about our hypothesis. Our conclusions regarding life-force and other aspects of homeopathy have yielded the same results, time and time again – either placebo or nothing. It must go BEYOND the placebo, it must yield beyond hearsay but, like astrology and other supernatural claims, it does not.
At THIS MOMENT we have not seen these supernatural claims or life-forces. But you have spoken about science not being able to detect life-force YET you say you’ve felt it. If you’ve felt it, we can test it. Its occuring in the material world. In the same way that you can make large, out-of-this world theories at some point they must have an impact on testable “reality” (thanks to Nabokov for pointing out this word must be written with ivnerted commas). And when it does, well we can test it.
Show us something tangible, something we can measure. We’re sceptical only because we have encountered people making the same claims you have and NEVER showing anything beyond hearsay. Even your evidence and links are hearsay – which is not good enough to stand up to the METHOD called science. Its quite beautiful, you should try it out.
Hey Zé Pedro,
You made a claim that something existed. Right?
You made a claim that Vital Energy exists. Right?
You cannot go around and say something exists, then not demonstrate it to be so. You cannot go and say Vital Energy exists and not give evidence for it. It is irresponsible.
Next time, don’t even talk if you are not willing to prove.
The reason why your way of thinking is wrong is that anyone can say anything and then not have to prove it.
For example, I will use your words: I cannot prove this but I don’t need to prove it to you. It is just my opinion that Vital Energy does not exist. Vital Energy does not exist because I feel it doesn’t, it is my opinion and my opinion only. I can FEEL it does not exist. I cannot prove it does not exist, but I feel it does not exist.
There, I used your method against you.
Now do you see what is wrong with how you spoke?
If you are not willing to give evidence, then please, do not talk next time.
Don’t waste your time on him. He is lost.
okey is true… i cant put things like that roy…sorry
Dear Mossa
Science loves to control…and there are stuff that we dont know how to control it…
if u cant control..u cant create a cause effect experiment…
there are some stuff that cannot be meausre in a Scientif Method…cause The scitifc Method is very lmited… IT has some proposes….
that propose of scientfic method is that we control the variable and we can mesure the results…
[#quote]If you’ve felt it, we can test it. Its occuring in the material world[#quote]
Feel it….is not synonim of Control it..
IN a scientifc method u want to rationalize the feelings…. and feeling is not a quantitative Number… no matter how many scales u make…
[#qoute] You make the claim that science has limitations – well done, the first people to say that are scientists. But if science can not answer something, what makes you think anything else can or do a better job? [#qoute]
Science has limits….and is only a part of reality… i see life..as a result of half Science half spiritism… one is not better then other…and one does not exist withtout other… the 2 has reason to exist…and the synergy of the 2 matters explain all questions…
the thing is…. science is rulled by head and we have a great tool for that… that is MATHS…
but Spiritism is rulled by Feelings and heart…. and that is much more subjectiv….and unfortunnatly we dont have the MATHS tool for that… cause feelings dont obbey to any formula or any cause effect law…
but maybe spiritism a a way to strong word for some ppl…i might hurt some feelings…
feel it is not synom of control it…
Dear Roy…
i advice u to make some oriental praticals..and then try to explain the results with your scientifc knowlege..
i made reiki in 2003…and i feel it… the energy flowing on my body…
but if u go there scpetic about all that…u creat a barrage, that rejects all the energy treatment u recieve…. as u see…. faith is a very strong force…
Dear Pedro
Well done for not answering a single question or articulating anything that even conveys a sense of knowledge. You have not said why science’s limitations means we should alternative methods of explanation (I dont discount them I am only sceptical of their applications and their use. Telling me there’s a spirit realm without any corroborative evidence means nothing. What am I supposed to do with this spirit realm?)
How is science DEPENDENT on the spirit realm? You have given no answers, answered no questions and once again referred to hearsay as evidence. Not good enough.
I think that vital energy is a summatory of
the body energy the mind energy and the soul energy..
the body is whetever or not u have a wound or a mecanical disease..
the mind energy is about the way u deal with your emotions…cause some emotions are rude to our mental sanity..
and the soul energy…i think is relationate with our very high moral principle.. is if we vibrate acording to the hightest energy on world…. witch is …LOVE ( the incoddionnal Love)
u see many people doing things imaginable by LOVE…. where do u think they cant such energy?… the are vibrating as the same frequency of LOVE…so they have a mass energy to spent it… even if u are phycical disable…your Soul energy is way to strong..to overwhelming your handicap..
i´m young ..i need to study more about the stuff..
i dont have a knowloge and webbed knowlege about that matters..so good that i can argue with others..
cause is stuff….that is not so objectiv..and dependes..on each life course …
in my life, i deal with situations that apparent…they didnt have a logical explanation..so i went trying to find answers…
maybe is all about in how sensible u are…how your sensitvive can detect things that other ppl cant… for example i was sensible to the flowing on reiki treatment..i felt it… but some ppl might have that sensitive..
so is hard..to argue….or to have a opinion that rules to a law…cause that is not perceptive to many people…
sorry if i dont dispose my text on logic and correct terms… i´m very bad on writting..specially in english..
i dont want to enter in spirits matter…cause is way to exausted… when i talk about spirit..i talk about the soul wich is on each one of us… we are not only a body and a brain… we have soul…and that´s the key of knowloge for all of us..
but…that is other matter… witch i dont want to enter on this forum
i appoligy again, my child way of writing..-.-
i make many mistakes…
“u see many people doing things imaginable by LOVE “– “Inimaginable”
” but some ppl might have that sensitive..” – might NOT have
Dear Pedro
Please don’t apologise for your writing – the fact you’re trying is very awesome. But I would like you to actually engage with what we’ve said here, instead of relying on hearsay and presenting no evidence. There is little to doubt you felt the things you felt, but we must question whether there is anything to THOSE feelings. Feelings coupled with hearsay makes for bad testing.
I guess I’ll have to repost and see if you all will still calim there is “no” research that points to the efficacy of homeopathy in a peer-reviewed journal:
Thanks!
But, was it replicated?
I don’t know.
Do you? Does Shalini? Does Tariq?
If you-all did not know about this research before I posted it, or any of the other papers you listed on the link I posted above, and you do not know the outcome of any follow-up research that was done, then your claim that there is no peer reviewed research showing the effectiveness of homeopathy is false.
I’ve provided a paper that shows an instance where one of the claims of homeopathy (ultra low doses) may have an effect on cancer. Now the onus is on you to rebut the claim That’s how logical debate works when people really want to find out what is “true” or not.
You telling Mehul, “I doubt you’re even a real doctor from a reputable accredited school, are you?” is a triple-whammy of logical fallacy:
1. Non sequitur: Who cares about Mehul’s credentials? They are irrelevant to the discussion. As are yours or those of anyone else posting on this thread.
2. Ad hominem: Your “doubt” about how he/she come by his/her knowledge, stated as you did, denigrates the person delivering the information, rather than dealing with the information.
3. Moving the goalposts: No part of the original claim of “no peer reviewed research” says that such information must be provided to you by a medical professional.
This one is just embrassing:
What game? You-all wanted information about peer reviewed researche, Mehul provided posts with links to articles abstracted in PubMed, you -all followed the links, and you, Roy, admitted that you could not tell if the abstracted articles were peer reviewed or not.
Since you can’t even tell if an article mentioned in an abstract has been peer reviewed, how can you maintain the claim that there is no peer reviewed research with any rational integrity at all?
Yeah, I’m wagging my finger at you. I expect fellow free thinkers to actually use rational arguments.
If that is not your intent, you should let your readers know with a disclaimer such as, “I’m going to make unsupported claims and overgeneralizations about things I don’t like and if you call me on it, I’m going to talk about you, personally, rather than dealing with the issues you raise. Thanks and have a nice day.”
Dear Spike
“I don’t know.
Do you? Does Shalini? Does Tariq?
If you-all did not know about this research before I posted it, or any of the other papers you listed on the link I posted above, and you do not know the outcome of any follow-up research that was done, then your claim that there is no peer reviewed research showing the effectiveness of homeopathy is false.”
- I can not speak for everyone, but as a sceptic I am certainly obliged to keep up-to-date with various testings. I can not afford to read all homeopathic/nutrional/medical journals. I do however regurarly read science magazines that DO have experts who have done meta-analysis and testing ON the tests themselves. I hope you will forgive me for devoting my time to reading EVERY DAMN TEST THEY MAKE.
But i had a look at your links and went to the websites. Quite impressive. A list of over a 100 peer-reviewed papers that apparently support homeopathy. Of course, i cant access any of them but anyways.
Here’s the problem though: to quote from a BBC interview with the Amazing Randi
“How has homeopathy performed in clinical trials?
There have been over 200 trials published that have examined the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines. The majority of these have found some positive effect of homeopathy. However, in such a comparison you have to take into account publication bias: a positive study is more likely to get published than a negative study. Opinions differ as to whether analysing all these studies together is useful and whether the overall evidence comes out significantly in favour of homeopathy.
The critics point to the lack of strong repetitions of studies. For instance David Reilly’s work on allergy is often regarded as the best clinical evidence for homeopathy. However, in a recent attempt to investigate the same condition the results came out negative. Dr Reilly believes this is down to differences in the experimental method. Until a result can be reliably replicated in favour of homeopathy in independent laboratories the scientific community will remain sceptical.”
Its not really the number then and also Roy’s point is a legitimate one – you responded quite brassenly for someone who wants rational debate.
“I’ve provided a paper that shows an instance where one of the claims of homeopathy (ultra low doses) may have an effect on cancer. Now the onus is on you to rebut the claim”
No its not. It’s up to people who are in a better position than us to focus on this ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE (remember the hundreds of others) – since we are not medical researchers we can not give you a better answer. It is unfair on you to say this, since we dont have access to the relevant material, the patients, the techniques, etc. etc. Come on. This is as bad as pointing to an instance where a psychic finds a child and then telling your sceptical friend “well its up to you now to rebut that claim.” Your sceptical friend (those of us here at Edger) were not there at the crimescene, etc.
“Since you can’t even tell if an article mentioned in an abstract has been peer reviewed, how can you maintain the claim that there is no peer reviewed research with any rational integrity at all?”
- how about the constant stream of information regarding homeopathy in the science books and journals we do read? As ive stated elsewhere, its not like we are against these tests. We are genuinely interested in acquiring knowledge. Even pointing out fallacies is a good reason to read an antagonists’ claims: it makes you more refined in argument and holds you up in better light to reason. Therefore, it’s not like we are avoiding or can’t tell what a peer-reviewed paper is, we rely on those whose jobs it is to give meta-analysis (a very powerful tool espcially in psychology testing which I’ve been dealing with for years – and where homeopathy and placebo studies have featured prominently) – and those we rely on tell us nothing positive.
I hope you find this a “reasonable” rebuttal to your claims (reasonable doesn’t mean likable as we both agree).
To Tauriq @ 31,
I’m sure nobody expects you to have read every damn test available, however, Shalini above asserted that no one had provided any peer-reviewed articles. Spike provided one. Accordingly, in that situation, yes, the onus is on you to now come up with a rebuttal. I’m certainly not reading Spike’s responses as an endorsement of homeopathy, but rather as a lesson in debate. Your last response comes across as very emotional – precisely what we find frustrating when arguing with our woo-believing adversaries.
Back to the topic at hand, though, I know some very (otherwise) logical people who believe in homeopathy, and I can’t account for it. If someone is ill, and takes a homeopathic remedy, and is cured, it’s nearly impossible to convince them that a) they may have been misdiagnosed in the first place or b) there might be any number of other more plausible reasons they got better. It’s unfortunate that there are some medical doctors out there who do support this nonsense. When you have MDs hawking it, it’s a little harder to fault the sheeple for believing it.
I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that people will espouse a belief and cite either personal, biased experiences, or will submit websites that are not scientifically peer reviewed, and the effects have not been replicated in a study.
I will say that there are some benefits to homeopathic therapy- it can generate stress relief through means. However, can it cure the measles ? According to the evidence, no.
As for MDs believing it, having faith in an idea that is not provable by science, and using your knowledge in a scientifically proven field are two separate things. As long as my surgeon does not decide that leeches will cure me, I think as long as they keep it separate, things will be good.
Optimus Prime
I thank you for not reading anything I wrote in response and claiming “Your last response comes across as very emotional – precisely what we find frustrating when arguing with our woo-believing adversaries.”
Excuse me? I found my response to be focussing on the points he made, as you can tell from the quotes I focussed on. I made points against him and now the argument continues. It is quite telling that you did not read my post by saying”the onus is on you to now come up with a rebuttal”. I did – to the greatest extent I could as I had no access to any of the references. And further elucidated in my following points. What point is your comment making other than to miss entirely my claims against him?
to make it clear to you, here are some of the so-called “emotional” points I made – which for some reason you have not read or even spoken about against me other than calling me emotional. You see how annoying it is to just keep saying emotional, it leads no where. its just emotion. emotionally.
WHAT I SAID:
1. our reliance on science journals which we do read, which claim nothing for homeopathy – though they are investigating
2. putting the onus on us – then I went to the website, investigated and found only a list – I then quoted Randi to show that number is good enough. It must be repeatable, etc.
3. what meta-studies say
4. how we are genuinely interested in acquiring new information, thus attempting to keep track of information regarding homeopathy
those are the points i made against him. Please try reading it again. I’m not quite sure what you meant be emotional – my capital letters? I think you can do better than that.
A homeopath friend sent me a link here. Just a quick note while blowing in and out of this bar rather than brawling!
No point playing music for the deaf cattle as noted, but I shall stand on my quack soap box and rail at the crowd for a moment. Some thoughts for the skeptics in here:
1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.
2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.
3) The world’s wicked and treacherous always propagandize, but they all rot away as forgotten corpses over time. See, men always appreciate the Truth; for even the wicked hear it deep in their souls, and it makes them rile around with a kind of burning inside. And, it has always been the way of prophets to speak Truth — regardless of what stones the world tosses. To lead things (and good conspiracies), however, a leader must also carefully balance Truth with man’s receptivity to it, and so we homeopaths should remember that it can be also a shooting of ourselves in the foot to give away all our magician tricks and trade secrets. It is good to give away our work in the sciences on it, but not all. Let the world beg for that over time. Things peddled directly tend to be rejected while things retained as guarded secret (even if for entertainment’s sake) tend to sell the truth best by the indirect approach. It’s all a selling of ideas. The fight here is about competing ideas and medical philosophies at the core.
3) A wise professor on military history and strategy once taught that evil (and lies — or vile Establishments of all kinds) have a way of sewing widespread resentment and hatred as a direct function of their growth. They become corrupt and tyrannical over time no matter how noble the earlier cause. With growth, the monster moves more slowly. It tramples upon the innocent and creates so much hatred for it that it is easily toppled under its own weight. And homeopathy is just as vulnerable to that as Allopathy’s world has been. Both require a change of way in order to be something better than they presently are and to avoid being that ugly beast of Hell.
4) Now, the below comment (noted in the top of this page) is a rather tyrannical, know-it-all statement and no true scientist or even sane M.D. would ever dare make such a tar-brushing, god-like, pronouncement of what is and isn’t Medical Law:
“The very basis of homeopathy doesn’t render it suitable as a replacement or even as an ‘alternative’ to evidence-based conventional medicine.”
….It’s a repetition of lie and propaganda, but that’s okay; for nobody will remember it just a couple decades down the road. If you want to keep echoing it like one of history’s fools, go right ahead and take your destiny. Doesn’t make me mad. Makes me laugh, but is also very sad.
The Truth that is behind and in homeopathy can never be stopped. It can never be conquered. It will always continue to grow and prosper all the more as a direct function of the tenacity and lies tossed at it. Actually, ignoring the truth is the best strategy our enemies can take. Trying to align with and corrupt it again (as was once done by AMA) is a more effective attack on homeopathy. But, you can’t do that so well a second time around.
We do now have the real world of medical science no longer wanting to stake their credibility on whether or not homeopathy works. You’ll see the claims of Placebo Effect, nonsense, and invalidity as microdoses fading out over time as the sheep continue to smarten up. Allopathy — for all its hatred — cannot fight the truth.
And so where will that allopathic dragon fight and protect next as we raid her nest and smash her eggs?
The issue of “Efficacy” is your only safe ground left, but we’ll eventually burn you atop that defensive postion, too!
Oh, she’ll claim:
“Well, it may be working and there may be something mysterious and fundamental to it that science just doesn’t yet understand. That part is exciting. But, it remains to be proven and documented as a serious medical science. It lacks standardization of practice (of course so does Allopathy). It lacks hardcore, research presentation, archiving, and penetration of technical journals into the common medical community, and so we really can’t properly gauge or understand it. It’s remains as elusive to we in the West as does Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda’s way. We know it often works well — and probably outside of placebo for many cases — but we’re just not yet ready to buy into it. We don’t fully understand it. It needs further study and integration over the years. If it is working, then there would have to be fundamental and exciting new things awaiting to be found in it, so wisdom ought not fully reject it. We, as Conventional Medicine M.D.’s, just are more comfortable in our own backyard. Those people are often fanatical in their way like a medical cult! We can’t fight the reality and reported efficacy of homeopathy anymore, but we can still resist fully accepting it as a replacement or alternative to the things we reliably know within our own scientific framework. Its exploration is best for the more advanced medical research institutions, and maybe they will flow improved practice down to us someday. In the end, we are too humbled as scientists by its continuing evolution to really properly comment, and so choose to wait and see. ”
…And that line, if Allopathy had the smarts to take it up, is the truthful propaganda which most homeopaths wouldn’t disagree with terribly or bitterly resent. It’ll eventually be the last hill any credible M.D. or scientist can stand upon when facing his patients. The future common sense accepted after the radical heresy has conquered.
…Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! There was truly a time when I mocked homeopathy, too, you know.
“Homo pathy what?!!! The hell you say?!!! Isn’t that some hokus pokus of those hippie flakes — no good, stinkin’ commies and pot smokers — with all their wellness jive. Those stinkin’ be well and be centered fruit loops?! Those organic yoga sissies! ”
No, I wouldn’t spend a dime on the snake oil even when sick, but one day did and I oddly felt better. It tickled my interest from there. A whole, exciting new world opened up to my eyes. Old questions resolved. New mysteries and questions to answer. Vast new medical powers possible for self and country. Overlapping science and technical realms just waiting to be discovered among that mysterious reason it DOES work. Billions to trillions of dollars there just waiting to be harvested like a great gold mine — for the nation which has the stones to explore the materials science & pharmacology mystery. Real, affordable, health care and contributions to genuine cancer R&D which can stand-alone or compliment nicely Allopathy (and, so far, India leads the way there!).
That’s about all I’ll warn to the skeptics. Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts. History and good in the world never takes the side of those who arrogantly opposed anything which greatly aided and cured ailing human life. It never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the end, in this world and the next. The people of the future — and in Eternity, especially — don’t even care to remember your name. Your life in this world becomes as trivial over time as it deserves to be. Nothing but forgotten dust in the wind is your way when your hearts are so darkened and your minds so cemented. To be on the wrong side of history is nothing at all to keep as a vanity, and you’re welcome to it all you like!
It’s really ashame to be a slave to one’s emotions rather than reason, though. Before allowing oneself to be enslaved like that, ask yourself:
“What do I fear most here? Why am I so threatened at the possibility that homeopathy may be real? Is it because I have invested too much in being a proud skeptic? Am I afraid to be humbled? Do I have personal insecurities which compel me to be a know-it-all? Have I lost touch with my earlier love of mystery and being humbled? Being amazed? What has so killed my soul caused by my own corruptions and the world’s tainting of me? If this thing makes me angry and jealous, then I fear it for some reason. What is that reason? How did it come to enslave and threaten me among my own surrender of Free Will? Why does it so offend my own VANITY?!! I want to believe in it deep down. I can feel it and hear the truths and sincerity they speak, but something just stirs my divided and burning soul. I have a compulsion to attack at it for reasons I can’t explain. It is as if my mind and actions are not really even my own, and so how did it get that way?!!”
Next:
“Hmmmm….perhaps there is something to what Dr. Quack said about ample time spent in the sin of Vanity leading to partial possession? I am defending Ego/ Power and Property issues here at the core of my resistance to homeopathy’s truth. In these sins I have perhaps invested too much and given myself over to temptation too long, and so I am now a slave of them to the point that my lies, hostility, arrogance, and resistance to Truth is a compulsion? Is he right? On this issue and on many others in life, have I become a compulsive liar to even myself while not really being so; for I see those lies as truth? Am I really that blind? I am not stupid or an idiot, but have I really flowed down that path among the course he outlined? And why should Truth be offensive to my soul? I act so arrogant, and yet, in my behavior, it is I who fears them. Why?”
Fear not, lost sheep. We here at the Church of Homeopathic Scientoquackology shall save your almost damned soul with our quack voodoo!
Vade Retro Satana!! Nunquan Suade Mihi Vana!! Sunt Mala Que Libas. Ipse Venana Bibas!!
Take care and may you find the peace of Revelation and Reason someday! Attention to the truth really is one’s salvation, but first one has to have the humility to get there and the eyes to see. Skeptics are never the enemy of homeopathy; Just the stubborn, malicious, and foolish ones. Skeptics who value truth are very easy to convert whenever they feel like waking up, and their presence as the nemesis of our craft is what sharpens us for the present and future as the effective medical science and art we are.
– Doc Quack
Dear Dr Quack
I am uncertain on your stance: do you like us sceptics or loathe us? Are those threats or are they playfully sarcastic over-indulgent, pseudo-passionate talk about “dust” and “enemies of history” and so on?
You made some terrible statements.
“1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.
2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.”
You begin with the Schopenhauer 3 stages: ridicule, opposition and acceptance. You think that because its “hated” because its “radical and shaking to establishments” that somehow there is some truth in it. Consider this: consider the billions of ideas that were mocked and have no passed into “dust”, as you like to say. Do you know about them? Of course not because they were mocked, opposed and so on. That holds nothing to its validiity. They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Copernicus but they also laughed at Bugs Bunny.
Also you speak of truth as though you know what it is. Well sir/ma’am we are attempting to get to the truth, using scientifically verifiable and objective means. It is as Einstein called it “the most precious thing we have”. And though as I’ve said we remain open to what results and evidence tells us, so far it has said nothing about homeopathy to “shake the grounds of establishments”. It might shake it in that it is annoying and, worse, that people can die unnecessarily from CAM, but otherwise nothing that shakes the medical establishment – except only a good way if they find anything.
“3) The world’s wicked and treacherous always propagandize, ”
- which is not at all what you are doing … but regardless we look at what you have to say regarding evidence and good reasoning. so far i have seen no example of it.
“3) A wise professor on military history and strategy once taught that evil (and lies — or vile Establishments of all kinds) have a way of sewing widespread resentment and hatred as a direct function of their growth. They become corrupt and tyrannical over time no matter how noble the earlier cause.”
two number 3’s? very impressive. but what are you alluding to here? the medical establishment? the sceptic movement?
“If you want to keep echoing it like one of history’s fools, go right ahead and take your destiny. Doesn’t make me mad.”
- no, but some of your views certainly do. you have said nothing that can actually contribute to this discussion so far.
“Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! ”
- its actually quite nice thank you.
“No, I wouldn’t spend a dime on the snake oil even when sick, but one day did and I oddly felt better. It tickled my interest from there. A whole, exciting new world opened up to my eyes”
- anecdotes are not evidence and do nothing to show its efficacy. once again people keep bringing up anecdotes as evidence and it just won’t stand.
“Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts. ”
- says who? I certainly won’t keep that in mind. There is no reason at all to accept this sentence.
“History and good in the world never takes the side of those who arrogantly opposed anything which greatly aided and cured ailing human life. It never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the end, in this world and the next.”
- this world and the next? whoa whoa, who said anything about an afterlife? and “greatly aided and cured ailing human life” – i assume you mean the medical establishment? why would we oppose the medical establishment? and if you are referring to CAM or homeopathy, that’s not true. if it was, the beauty of it is that it would then simply ALSO be part of the medical establishment. we want to help people, save them, why would we reject something which heals great numbers of people – but it does not do it repeatably and does not stand up to the rigorous medical trials (which any form of medicine undergoes why should there be special case for homeopathy? we do it this way to save people which you don’t seem to understand).
it makes no sense for us to oppose the medical establishment so this point does not make sense. you are fighting strawmen.
“It’s really ashame to be a slave to one’s emotions rather than reason,”
- the first time we agree. exactly.
“Your life in this world becomes as trivial over time as it deserves to be. Nothing but forgotten dust in the wind is your way when your hearts are so darkened and your minds so cemented. To be on the wrong side of history is nothing at all to keep as a vanity, and you’re welcome to it all you like!”
- this is the kind of talk i was asking you about. seems to be more emotional than dealing with reason. hypocrisy i say.
“Skeptics who value truth are very easy to convert ”
- tell you what, you convert the medical field. then you have a higher chance of convincing me (and us as sceptics i think). but for now, im going to go with what the medical establishment says.
Quack:
“1) There’s an old Hebrew saying that one of the many names for God is “Truth”. Therefore, that which is Truth can never be destroyed no matter how hard the world tries. And that which tries always becomes the forgotten ash heap of history.”
- You’re implying that there is a god and that there is some kind of merit in a Hebrew saying. Evidence or GTFO. Pointless point by you.
“2) The truth we know is always first hated — especially where radical and shaking to establishments. It is even violently opposed. Eventually, it becomes common sense and the heretics of previous decades and centuries are heralded as pioneers usually long after they’re dead.”
- Wrong. Some theories which turn out to be correct are ridiculed at first. Some theories which turn out to be incorrect are also ridiculed at first. Some heretics of previous decades are eventually vindicated. Some heretics of previous decades are not. This “truth” we know – please provide a definition, because I’m pretty sure the truth I know is very different from what you perceive truth to be. Another pointless point by you.
[blah blah blah...too many retarded, meaningless comments not worth remarking on individually...]
“…Oh you Allopaths and skeptics!!! How miserable must be the collapsing world for you?! There was truly a time when I mocked homeopathy, too, you know.”
- And then what, did you receive a brain injury?
“That’s about all I’ll warn to the skeptics. Just keep in mind that there is always something more to human life in this world than our material bodies and our being the sum of mere parts…”
- O rly? Again, evidence?
“History … never remembers well those who lied and conspired in hatred of the truth; for Justice does prevail in the end, in this world and the next.”
- Your definition of truth really does need clarification, as does your definition of “well”. Either way, history remembers Hitler and the Nazis well, in the sense that history books are full of mentions of him. They are also fondly remembered by those who continue to follow their creeds (and let me say here I am not one of them). Justice prevails in the end? Ha, I bet all the victims of the concentration camps would be pleased to know that. If they could know anything, which they can’t, because they’re dead (omg!).
““What do I fear most here? Why am I so threatened at the possibility that homeopathy may be real? Is it because I have invested too much in being a proud skeptic? Am I afraid to be humbled? Do I have personal insecurities which compel me to be a know-it-all? Have I lost touch with my earlier love of mystery and being humbled? Being amazed? What has so killed my soul caused by my own corruptions and the world’s tainting of me?”
- Nothing. I’m not, because it isn’t. I haven’t invested anything but a working brain and a bit of time using it. No. No. No. No. Nothing has killed an imaginary soul which has never existed.
“The Truth that is behind and in homeopathy can never be stopped. It can never be conquered. It will always continue to grow and prosper all the more as a direct function of the tenacity and lies tossed at it. Actually, ignoring the truth is the best strategy our enemies can take. Trying to align with and corrupt it again (as was once done by AMA) is a more effective attack on homeopathy. But, you can’t do that so well a second time around.”
- It’s your own delusions that will never be stopped or conquered and your own stupidity that will continue to grow and prosper. There is no evidence in support of homeopathy. Just because you think it works, doesn’t make it work. How does one corrupt homeopathy? By pissing in the water?
“We do now have the real world of medical science no longer wanting to stake their credibility on whether or not homeopathy works…”
- The real world of medical science has spent enough time on this horseshit and it doesn’t work. Now is the time for the real world of medical science to use its resources researching actual effective remedies.
“…Skeptics are never the enemy of homeopathy; Just the stubborn, malicious, and foolish ones. Skeptics who value truth are very easy to convert whenever they feel like waking up, and their presence as the nemesis of our craft is what sharpens us for the present and future as the effective medical science and art we are.”
- Skeptics are easy to convert to this gutter nonsense you’re trying to sell? Do you perform lobotomies, too?
Fag.
Homeopathy IS Fake I’ve sufferd from R.A my whole life ( I’m 25) and I’ve had people tell me to do the DUMBEST stuff when it comes to this junk, it does NOT work I’ve tried it for years ( because Im in so much pain I’ll try anything) and tried more “treatments” that I can’t even count and none of them made me feel better..
The fact it this stuff only works on people who have 1) no real pain and t’s all in their heads, 2) have such minor pain that a advil could fix and 3) people who feel better for a while becaue they willed themselves and hopesooo much that that adriniline takes hold and then in a week they are in worse pain then ever! Take it from someone who is is extreme pain this stuff is cruel and the people who advertise it should be fined .
and also how many times have we all seen commecials and even on the blasted bottles these fake pills come in say , this drug is not intended to diagnose, TREAT, or cure ANYTHING!! that is that. if you’ve tried it and it works for you then great you werent sick to begin with or give it a few weeks then you’ll be worse then ever.
Thanks go to the author for bringing this up. The obvious conclusion is, people like Mehul, Spike, Similima, and Dr.Quack, are inherently evil. I don’t want to discuss them. Others like Ze Pedro, have trouble differentiating between reality and video games. It is indeed difficult for them to recognise, appreciate, or value the nature of Science. They need to understand that “SCIENCE IS NOT FEELINGS”. Feelings are easy to create, replicate and modify. Feelings can make you FEEL better. They don’t make your life any better. These concepts like “Vital energy”, “vibrations”, “energy flow”, etc., are the trademarks of modern day mystics that cash out innocent people like Ze Pedro. There’s no doubting your “spirituality” makes your lives better. It sure does, as you people are not designed to accept reality. Ze Pedro, I’ve got nothing against you, your intentions were honest, only we must disagree. What has science got against Humanity that you’re afraid to accept it. Science is a way of learning. It’s not to proclaim something and then vouch by it. It’s just a way of learning, differentiating between true and false. Or right and wrong. Shall I suggest something to all those people like Purushottama or some other retards that were flaming Science and Rationality. Go take your lazy arses to any scientific laboratory, see what the people there are doing. No, I don’t expect you to actually understand what they do. It just gives you an idea of what these men are all about. They are the real men working toward your bloody distant dream you fondly call “TRUTH”. They make this world a better place, EVERY SINGLE DAY. They research, they invent, they test, and they test again to make sure no one’s hurt. They spend their whole lives devoted to their profession, MAKING THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE. That’s their profession, that’s all they do. They do all the hard work, you sit and enjoy the fruits of it. They invented the bulb, the electricity, the motor car and the mill. They did the vaccine to your modern medicine. The aeroplane, the telephone, the computer and what not. Aren’t they plain stupid. Isn’t it because they can’t FEEL the needs of this world. They can’t LISTEN to you? They’re not like your arse-father of homoeopathy, “inventing” 3 clever laws without proving anything and then proclaiming it’s going to cure the world of all disease. And you retards, please, for your God’s sake, spare these people like Shalini or Roy or Tauriq. They didn’t want to attack you, they wanted to make you UNDERSTAND. They wanted to save you and your poor childrens’ lives from following a dangerous cult. That was their mistake. So I’d like to warn 1)the retards: leave them alone, ignore these people telling you homoeopathy doesn’t work, don’t at least argue with them. 2)the evil guys: go sell your homoeo medicines as usual, don’t even try spamming here. If you disturb the peace again, someone like me is gonna kill you all regardless.
Peace.
Krishna Teja,
You r really idiot n dumb. Open ur Eyes & just dont try to spit on sky so that it will come back again on your bloody face. How poor you are here while commenting. First try to kill your inner conflicts so that you can even stand.
Wow this is a quite a debate! i was browsing through this mainly to find out if homeopathy works or not. i am not a scientist, and the first medicine that i have for any illness is an alopathic one. bt sometimes one may be suffering from a disease so badly that he or she is willing to try anything that claims to work. i had chronic urticaria, one of the most annoying and irritating allergies one can have. i ws one allopathic drugs for a long time prescribed by one of the best hospitals in India, ws also given steroids (expensive and DID NOT work). so basically the treatment went on and on for mnths bt absolutely no improvement coz the effects would last as long as i take the medicine and next day it would be back to square one. anyway, i thot of trying homeopathy too as a lot of ppl said it’s ‘good’ for allergies. and it worked. what else can i say, it just worked. i dnt know know what is ‘dilution’ ‘energy field’ blah blah. bt i can’t deny the results. even now i use only alopathy drugs for any illness. bt ws i plain lucky or my body started to heal just at that moment, i dunno. bt maybe we can’t explain evrything bt that doesn’t mean it doesnt exist. any alternative medicine is bound to raise questions. the basic princliples of homeopathy do seem to defy logic so i dnt know what to believe. i think there should b more research on this, so that if homeopathy claims to do what it does they should show more tangible observable proof, and not base it on ’successful’ cases like mine. (bt m glad it worked anyway…so, there is something about homepathy…
)
allopathic medicine has gov’t money and personel in their pockets. that’s why you have them saying evidence based philosophies are it and if its unexplainable its no good. These allopathic orginazations are pissed that there loosing money to alternative medicne. Lets face it, who wants to take a drug that cures frequent urination, but can cause heart attack, kidney failure, HBP, liver problems, ect>>> I’d rather take a homeopathic medication, that could cure the cause, not the symptom. Why do you think that pharmaceutical companys are buying up small, but large homeopathic companys. Example Dolisos was bought out and many more supplement companys. Don’t be tricked by big goverment money!!!!!
NEXT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY GOD IS NOT REAL GOD IS FAKE LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE ITS NOT UP TO U SOCIETY IS BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE WHATEVER YOU SAY HOMOEOPATHY IS FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE WE DONT RELY ON CHEAP PUBLICITY STUNTS TO EXCEL OUR ADVERTISEMENT IS OUR WORK WE CURE CASES AND ONLY AFTER A CURE ANOTHER CASE IS SENT TO US NOTE SEND NOT BY CHEAP PUBLICITY ONLY AFTER A PERSON IS CURED LAST OF MY CASE WAS A CA LIVER WHICH WAS CURED BY HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICATIONS AND NOW I AM TREATING FIVE MORE AFTER CUREING MY LAST CASE SEE RESULT SPEAKS U KEEP ON BARKING I WILL JUST SMILE FOR AT LAST HOMOEOPATHY TIUMPHS ABOVE OTHER SYSTEMS DONT BELIEVE ME ASK THE PEOPLE WE ARE FOR THE MASSES.