Homeopathy Weirdoes protest in London

Homeopathy is quackery, there is nothing remotely beneficial to their treatments other than it is just water and water is good for you. Their claims are fanciful but it doesn’t stop the lunatics from promoting their snake oil “remedies” to desperate people.

In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority has been whacking the loons hard…and now they are upset….really, really upset.

I’ve always envied reporters who cover big protests. The protests I end up at never seem quite in the same league, be they a group of environmentalists baking bread under a tree in Rothamsted, or, as I witnessed last week, a contingent of miffed homeopaths demonstrating outside the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). While you couldn’t question the zeal of the 20 or so polite men and women who turned up with their banners, it’s difficult to imagine the state being overturned by people who are convinced that putting water in a tube, banging it against something repeatedly, then pouring it over little sugary pills can cure diseases like malaria and typhoid.

Most reasonable people dismissed the idea that homeopathy might be able to benefit anyone years ago. It’s been around since the 18th century, so it’s not quite as old as trepanning, but it’s roughly as illogical as drilling a hole in your head to cure a headache. For some reason, the practice has been allowed to continue. Treating what are essentially placebos as legitimate medicine may be harmless if you’re buying them from an upscale pharmacy like the Boots in Hampstead because your millionaire husband snores too loudly, but it’s more dangerous if you’re a refugee in Nairobi being told that homeopathy can cure your daughter’s life-threatening illness.  

But somewhere along the line, homeopaths may have shot themselves in the foot. A few years ago, critics of homeopathy examined the Code of Ethics published by the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), a professional bodywith ambitions of becoming the statutory regulator of the industry. They spotted an interesting clause in it, in which SoH members were told that they must comply with the British Code of Advertising Practice, as enforced by the ASA, and avoid claiming that their pills could cure specific diseases. As it happens, the SoH aren’t the most enthusiastic enforcers of their own code, but given the ASA’s strong record on tackling bogus remedies, skeptics fresh from battling the British Chiropractic Association sensed an opportunity to take down another foe. Mass complaints were organized, supported by the Nightingale Collaboration, a consumer group set up by the science writer Simon Singh.

A number of punitive rulings later and homeopaths were getting seriously pissed off.

Yeah all 20 of them mounted a protest against the ASA.

William Alderson was leading the protest and displaying plenty of the energy and commitment that had earned him the nickname “homeopathic Duracell Bunny” from the antiquack blogger Andy Lewis. (Alderson was wearing bunny ears in a reference to this at one point, but wouldn’t let me photograph him wearing them.) Every so often, two charming ladies would lead a cheer—“Homeopathy WORKS! Homeopathy WORKS!”—blissfully unaware of the dagger eyes being thrown their way by workers exiting the office buildings nearby.

I spoke to Jennifer, a homeopath who had seen her own ad rejected by the ASA on the grounds that she had failed to provide enough supporting evidence for her claims. To her, it seemed terribly unfair. “What I find a joke is
 I was watching TV with my grandson and a Lucozade advert came on, and it says, ‘Lucozade hydrates better than water!’ So my grandson’s like, ‘Get us some Lucozade, it’s really good!’ and it’s got bright colors and it’s on children’s television. I went into the supermarket and I looked at the ingredients—first ingredient is water, all the other ingredients are chemicals. Nothing that helps the body hydrate. They got away with advertising that—where’s their proof? Where’s their evidence?”

I asked her why she felt there were different standards. “Money!” she replied. Capitalism came up with almost everyone I spoke to in one form or another, with protesters variously criticizing Monsanto, Nestle, and, of course, the pharmaceutical industry. Some of their arguments had merit, and I found myself nodding along in agreement on more than one occasion. It was easy to see why alternative medicine has been so welcome in the anti-big-business Green Party over the years.

Hmmm…interesting, I wonder if our Greens are into homeopathy? It appears they are…with them pushing for homeopathy products to be exempt from product notification.

The people I spoke to seemed very much in favor of science and the NHS, but had to square that with the seemingly inexplicable rejection of their medicine by the world around them. Conspiracy theories offered an attractive way out of their intellectual cul de sac. Alderson connected spurious dots between a Swiss government report that he believes upset “Big Pharma,” the medical journal the Lancet’s rejection of homeopathy in the mid-00s, the creation of Sense About Science and individual skeptics and campaigners. “You can see a whole pattern of using different organizations and individuals to push this attack [on homeopathy] in the public arena. The ASA is just the latest in this line of attacks.”

It’s all very plausible, except that it falls into the skeptic’s fallacy: assuming that beliefs you don’t understand can’t be sincerely held. People campaign against homeopathy because it’s quack medicine, because belief in it can be dangerous and because treatments that don’t work shouldn’t be funded with tax payers’ money. Many of the most prominent critics of homeopathy have also attacked practices in the pharmaceutical industry.

Another subtext was the threat of “poison”—a word I heard so many times that it felt like subliminal messaging. Almost every person I spoke to used the word “poison” in reference to real medicine. Alderson himself described Sense About Science’s campaigns on vaccination as “propaganda.” Coupled with the proud boasts of parents who treated their own children with homeopathy (one man asked me to photograph his four children “All raised on homeopathy!”), a disturbing picture began to emerge: a community of people, suspicious of corporations, believing that modern medicine is poison and treating patients and their own families with an array of homebrew “remedies” that are actually nothing but water.

Weirdoes and charlatans.

  • Bunswalla

    Cam I detect from your tone that you’re possibly feeling a bit liverish. I prescribe colour therapy and some chanting – it’ll bring you right in no time.

  • Phronesis

    It was a homeopathic protest made all the more powerful by 1 in every billion people showing up. That’s why there was 7 of them…

  • Polish Pride

    How many people have died from Overdosing or having an adverse reaction to taking a homeopathic remedy? How many have done either with Pharmaceutical drugs?
    If you don’t believe in homeopathic remedies, don’t take them, don’t buy them. But don’t try to tell others what they can and can’t do. At this point people doing so are no better than the PC Brigade.
    But if I want to waste my hard earned money on a homeopathic hay fever remedy because for me it actually works. then that’s my business isn’t it. To many people in this world trying to control what others can and cannot do.

    • Bunswalla

      Like you, just now. “Don’t try to tell others what they can and can’t do”

      Hypocritical much?

      • Polish Pride

        How would you like me to explain – leave my shit alone and I’ll leave your shit alone in a way where I don’t offend you then.
        Feel free to enlighten me.

        • Bunswalla

          Let me explain it to you, since you seem to have had the unintended irony and hypocrisy awareness bypass ops.

          1. You don’t like it when people tell other people what not to do.
          2. So you tell them not to do something.

          Looks like you are your very own circle-jerk.

          • Polish Pride

            So no answer on why you feel the need to control others then Buns….?

          • Muffin

            You don’t personally benefit……. You just think you do. Makes a good argument that anyone using homeopathy is a hypochondriac.

          • Polish Pride

            how do you know whether or not I personally benefit. If I get hayfever and have watery itchy eyes, runny nose sneezing and I take the homeopathic remedy I take and within 10 minutes I’m all clear then I benefited. If I didn’t benefit I’d still have all my symptoms now wouldn’t I.
            At best you can argue placebo. but then I still benefit.
            Care to try again?

          • Muffin

            I know you think you benefit because you said so in the post I responded to……”defending something I personally benefit from”
            The placebo argument is pretty good, as water doesn’t fix jack shit apart from thirst. Try having a glass of water next time your eyes itch and imagine it has some ‘Eye of newt’ in it.

          • Polish Pride

            Ok let me rephrase for you how do you know that I don’t benefit and I only think I do. Is it my hayfever not actually going away at all I just think it has… :)
            Question have you tried homeopathy or are you basing it’s effectiveness (or lack thereof) on what you have read.

          • Muffin

            I have, nothing. My wife is currently in the clutches of one of these charlatans, taking water to help with her anxiety, she thinks it heps but it is actually the talking at each of the sessions I pay for that’s doing it in my opinion.

          • Polish Pride

            Question: how many of these sessions has she had so far?

          • Muffin

            Does it matter? But must be about 7

          • Polish Pride

            yeah it does, one of the things I have been told when it comes to homeopathy is that there are some homeopaths that are very good and very effective then there are others. I would have expected one or two sessions. The first quite long and there is a lot of talking but 7 for the same issue? doesn’t seem quite right to me.

            My homeopath is Janine Taylor. She works out of Wellington and Nelson. I had one 90 minute session. She said at the beginning we might need 2 with the second being shorter but what she sent me after the first session worked so I didn’t need the second. Interestingly she just took the info away and sent me the remedy a week later after looking at all the info I had given her in our session and using that to figure out what to go with.

            7 sessions doesn’t quite reconcile with what I have learned about homeopathy. If you are concerned, give Janine a call and tell her your situation, she’ll be pretty open and honest with you and will tell you if that’s normal.

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

            You drink water and everything is ok?

          • Polish Pride

            If that’s the way you want to put it yep sure. 10 minutes all symptoms gone. For me that is. Not saying it’ll work for everyone.

    • James

      How many people have become seriously ill by taking a homeopathic “remedy” in place of proper drugs? One homeopath in the UK was recently caught selling homeopathic anti-malarials for people to take before heading over to the tropics. That is what is dangerous. If it wasn’t for homeopaths pretending to treat proper illnesses then I wouldn’t have a problem with people being conned into drinking water to stop them snoring.

      • Polish Pride

        And their are no bad doctors…? If homeopathy is explained to the patient properly and they are informed of how it is supposed to work then it is the patients call. It won’t work in every case and when it doesn’t a ‘normal’ individual will try something else. The practitioner can also say still go and see your regular doctor. Just because there’s some idiot homeopaths doesn’t mean it should b banned. If that was the approach we took nothing would be legal at all. Everything would have to be banned.

        • Jman

          All homeopathy is bullshit snake oil, so there aren’t some good and some bad homeopaths. They’re all selling the same crap. Some are just better at being able to convince you that they’re actually doing you some good. They probably use words like “holistic” to fool you.

          • Polish Pride

            And your basing this on what experience….?
            Which homeopathic remedies have you tried?

            Like I said earlier whether you think it works or not doesn’t actually matter. If you don’t like it think its BS, awesome don’t use it. No one is forcing you too. What matters is some people do feel it helps them even cures them and at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

          • Bunswalla

            What are you even complaining about? If whatever hocus pocus works for you – hooray and more power to your elbow. If you want to make spurious claims about the efficacy of such mumbo-jumbo then you’ll feel the wrath of the relevant agencies that prevent quacks from making false claims.

            If however you can prove efficacy with something a lot more substantial than “I took it and it worked for me” – you know, double-blind clinical trials with a cross-section of the population over a long period of time, then by all means present it and we’ll bow to your undeniable genius.

            If you can’t, then you’re just pissing in the wind.

          • Polish Pride

            Nope you have missed the whole point by a stunningly vast distance.
            My point is it works for me and that’s at the end of the day all I care about so leave my shit that I want to use alone. You don’t believe in it cool, I couldn’t give a flying ….anything. Just don’t sit there trying to get something that works for me banned. It is that simple you PC control freak. That’s my point.

          • Travis Poulson

            Are you sure it’s not just the placebo effect….

            We replaced vodka for water in an alcoholics vodka bottle several years ago, he mixed it with lemonade as he usually did and the silly old cunt still got drunk after he’d had a few.

            Just sayin.

          • Polish Pride

            Oh yeah might very well be and I’m cool with that. Whether it is or it isn’t doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that I personally feel better. That’s it. If it was the remedy doing something great. If the remedy did nothing but the placebo effect made me feel better then that’s great too.

          • Travis Poulson

            Just out of genuine interest..of course you don’t have answer for obvious reasons, but what do you take? I couldn’t care less about homeopathy, I think it’s a load of nonsense personally but each to their own, live and let live and all that.

          • Polish Pride

            A hayfever remedy and I used to take one for depression which enabled me to go to work and function. That was in my darkest days too. I found it interesting as I didn’t know what homeopathy was before I tried it. I just new it was natural and I wanted to try a natural alternative. I was at a point where I felt I really had nothing to lose. I remember taking it the first time and something did feel different. I went from not even being able to answer the phone for a work call, let alone being able to deal with any problems that needed to be sorted. To being able to do both within about 10 minutes.

            If I had known exactly what it was and what they do to be honest I probably would never have tried it.

            I’ve tried on (nux vomica?) for nausea after a big night and that seemed to work.

            I have a dog that gets separation anxiety and squeals like a stuck pig for about 10 minutes when we get home. I tried rescue remedy one time when she was really bad and that seemed to settle her down.

            I have given the hayfever ones to another chick and it worked for her. ( this one was my own little experiment as I was curious to see what would happen).

            They are the ones I have found have helped. There are certainly others that didn’t seem to do anything like one I tried for headaches, so I just popped a couple of Nurofen instead. There’s a couple of others for cold or flu which didn’t seem to help either.
            I guess the thing is that with all of them I was pretty open minded with no expectations one way or the other. I just waited to see if anything changed. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

        • Bunswalla

          Wow your logic is unassailable.

          1. Some doctors are bad

          2. That legitimises all quacks

          • Polish Pride

            that wasn’t my logic

            Mine was you get a bad doctor you don’t campaign to get rid of all doctors.

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

          It doesn’t work, it is just fucking water…it is a fraud

          • Polish Pride

            Of course you are basin that on personal experience right Cam?
            Let me put this to you. Remember your deepest darkest time with depression. What if you had been prescribed a homeopathic remedy. You didn’t know what homeopathy was or how homeopathic remedies were made, You took it and within 10 minutes you felt you could start functioning, You felt the very start of your depression lift. Then what, coincidence?
            It is what it is.
            If you found something that helped with your depression and people wanted to take it away. People who had never tried it and never would, not that you cared one little iota if they did or not. Wouldn’t you be like, why don’t you just fuck right off.

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

          I’d like to see you try and run your car on 100C petrol

          • Polish Pride

            Perhaps this might help go someway towards understanding part of the reason why homeopathy might have positive results for some.

    • Orange

      I’ve almost got it. You’re trying to teach us the truth about deception that it isn’t worth complaining about but that its worth complaining about the deception that people are damaged by things that are a deception. So your argument is that there is no value in truth for its own sake.

      But I might have just made that up. And if I did it probably doesn’t matter does it?

      • Polish Pride

        So you have tried homeopathy with an open mind yes? I have explained to you that it worked for me so where is the deception. There is value in truth but what you are talking about is not truth it is opinion from one side of a debate on a particular topic. Learn to know the difference. There are millions that believe homeopathy works for them. Who the fuck are you to tell them that it didn’t work. Its their experience not yours. Whether its placebo or not doesn’t matter, what matters is that some feel better and it works for them. But then that’s a convenient part for your side of the argument to ignore isn’t it.

        • Orange

          Who the heck are you to tell me that? Are you a scientist? How do you know that what I know is not truth? Oh your sole determining factor of truth is your own experience is that right? There are literally no atoms at all of said substance and yet you claim that it is that substance that healed you? You don’t have medicine, you have the occult.

          • Polish Pride

            You missed the point the fact that it worked for me is all that matters because my symptoms that were fucking with me went away.

            And no what I have is a basic understanding of energy quantum physics and experience in using homeopathic remedies and you have what?….. let me take a wild guess an opinion and no experience with homeopathic remedies of any kind. Would that be right?

            Its a bit like this. You come on and explain that it doesn’t work (chances are that position isn’t backed up by any experience). I have used multiple and found a couple to work really well for me. I.e. I felt better shortly after taking them. – result it worked.

            I am not the only one with this experience millions of people around the world have had positive results from using homeopathy. That unfortunately makes what you have said not truth but simply an opinion on one side of an argument.
            If it didn’t work for anyone then what you have said could be called truth.
            Tell you what, I’ll give you an out. It might be your Truth, borne out of opinion, but it is not my truth, borne out of experience.

          • Orange

            Like Buns said, you’re a hypocrite, dismissing others ability to have the truth because you’ve already decided only you can have it. Yawn.

            As for enjoying water, go right ahead, just don’t expect me to appreciate the deception of calling that water “medicine” when there are no atoms of the original contaminate present.

            Feelings come, and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving. You really think a little water did it instead of 10 more likely things? How is it less amazing that positive thinking helped you instead of water? Or spontaneous remission, cyclical disturbance, diet, exercise, relationship, guilt, stress, providence, or forgiveness? I don’t expect others to be scientists but I don’t see why some simple math is beyond them showing their trust is misplaced. Of course homoeopathy tries desperately to borrow terms from science language while not actually believing it. There will always be snake oil salesmen. Deception is not good. Homoeopathy is marketed to make money by people who want to deceive others.

            I like reading Quackwatch.com on this and similar topics.

          • Polish Pride

            again your experience in this field is what? Zero. nothing, nadda.
            Oh sorry what you read on the internet. Righto got it.
            See again you missed the point. I’ll type slowly for you.
            It works for me, I feel better. Those to things are all that matter to me on this topic.
            Whether you think it works or not I couldn’t give a flying ……
            If you thought I was trying to convince you that it does then that certainly wasn’t my intention. Again I don’t care.
            Personally I don’t think homeopathy should be marketed. Those that it is right for and that it might help, will find it themselves.

          • Orange

            You cannot have an objective discussion of truth if you deny that it corresponds to reality at the same time as claiming only your view is true because it doesn’t. It leaves you incapable of making any claim. You say it makes you feel better and that’s all there is to it, but its not because you’re trying to argue about it and claiming, indeed, that I’m wrong and you’re right. But you’re doing that by dismissing all opposing viewpoints as just being “opinion” and yours is the only one allowed to be right because of your experience. How do you continue that argument when someone comes along and tells you their loved one died because of a charlatan selling a fake remedy? How would that experience rate alongside your one? How do you engage with the idea that not even one atom of original substance is likely to be in a super dilution and how the whole idea of super dilution is actually opposite to the science of vaccines. This isn’t about the lack of information into which you pour your own imagination, it is the false idea despite clear and contrary evidence and a refusal to accept the truth. Do they poison the well and tell you that you lose the healing if you stop believing in water?

          • Polish Pride

            Watch the vid I posted and give me your thoughts…

          • Bunswalla

            Nah I said you’re a hypocrite because you’re a hypocrite. On the one hand you criticise people for trying to tell others what they can or cannot do.

            On the other hand you tell people what they can or cannot do. That’s hypocritical dude, I looked it up and everything.

            Nobody’s trying to ban homo-eopathy, if you even read the post and the links it’s about the Advertising Standards people saying to quacks “You can’t say this water will cure anyone of anything without proof.” And, since there’s no proof, stop saying it.

            Keep forking out for whatever diluted batshit you want, it’s no skin off my nose. I never tried to “control” anything, I just pointed out your hypocrisy, and you got all upset, you precious flower. Still, I’m sure there’s something for apoplexy and dyspepsia in your medicine cabinet.

          • Polish Pride

            you looked what up?

          • Bunswalla

            I Googled “hypocrite” and there was a picture of you

          • Polish Pride

            See I told you, you were funny ;)

          • Rebecca

            The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” Engage that simple point and the whole problem goes away one way or another. Also consider that doctors were hammered for “experimenting” on patients using heartfelt but unproven remedies, so now homeopaths are feeling some of that same lash. It’s part of the responsibility of claiming to be a health professional in 2013: rather than resenting review, it should be welcomed as the only way to test beliefs and behaviors. Finally, consider the place of doctors in all this. If patients could be cured by water, big pharma wold not be able to stop doctors proving it and then dispensing the treatment. So you need to explain why there are so few doctors promoting such an inexpensive cure that would remove the specter of Pharmac in their lives and simplify everything. If you accept that most sick people see a doctor, how come doctors haven’t noticed the ability of water to cure disease by now?

          • Polish Pride

            Rebecca like I said all I actually care bout in this debate is continuing to be able to use something that I have found works for me. That’s it. It comes down to my personal choice.

            Whether its placebo or the remedy also matters not to me. All that matters is I feel better.

            Why so many people who have never used and never will use homeopathy care so much is beyond me.
            I welcome any testing on homeopathy, test away. Go hard. But not just standard drug testing. Get some people who claim to have had good results using homeopathy and try to find out why.

            As for
            “nobody could stop doctors promoting it and they certainly wouldn’t cuddle up to big pharma.”

            Doctors have been not only cuddling up to big pharma they’ve been receiving cold hard cash and a number of other benefits for years for promoting Big Phrama products.
            http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

          • Rebecca

            Knock yourself out with personal choice. But if you want to advertize benefit or claim public funds? Now you need to be ready to prove it.

            Re testing- you can’t expect somebody else to do the testing, Those promoting have a duty to test. This is one of the most worrying aspects of alternative medicine. This is not a criminal court where it is innocent until proven guilty, as with all products, promoters need to be able to justify their claims under Consumer Guarantees and Fair Trading Acts in NZ and equivalents abroad.

            Re doctors- the US figures you cte are volunteered by big pharma. Anybody can go online to determine whether their physician has been paid to lecture, teach, research or otherwise promote for big pharma. You will find that perhaps several hundred physicians out of a doctor workforce of tens of thousands have been paid. Obviously this does not extrapolate to a medical workforce incentivized to prefer big pharma, especially in a national scheme like NZ where doctors always are scrabbling for extra dollars to provide more care. Of the US doctors who were paid by big pharma, most is for perfectly respectable research but some physicians are paid to promote medications to other physicians. The ethical basis of that is arguable, but physicians are a self-critical bunch and are at least as capable as you of deciding whether there is a conflict of interest. Usually this boils down to the stature and credibility of the presenter, since pharma is only interested in hirng credible physicians and credible physicians are keen to remain credible. The bit thing is that sunlight is a great disinfectant. I note that homeopathy papers rarely reveal sources of funding so it would not be proper to imply fault because one side is transparent and the other is not.

          • Polish Pride

            Of course you do realize That’s correct the figures do come fro big pharma but this only happened after it was discovered doctors were receiving cash and perks from big pharma and it (unsurprisingly) was a major scandal.

            And of course big pharma want to buy credible physicians. If they are the ones seen to be pushing a particular drug then the public and more importantly other doctors are far more likely to prescribe that particular drug to their patients.
            An article came out in may saying payments to doctors from big pharma now top 1 billion dollars and I’d be willing to bet 1 billion dollars can buy a whole lot of credibility.
            http://digitaljournal.com/article/351251

            http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/investigations/LWRD-Local-Doctors-Get-Big-Bucks-from-Big-Pharma-208255321.html

            Also be sure to read about Ghost writing in this link
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Pharma
            Once you look at the mounting evidence, It’s pretty easy to move from saying that the ethical basis is arguable to saying it is simply unethical.
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Pharma

          • Rebecca

            There is a trend here. Just as homeopathic supporters extrapolate miserly evidence as proof of benefit, lack of medical support is rationalized by extrapolating high-profile delinquents who behaved badly, onto ten of thousands of other doctors. Next we’ll be told that all men are rapists.

            There have been some bad doctors and they were drummed out by the doctors’ organization. For the rest, I’ve already told you that much of the pharma payment is because trials are needed and big pharma can’t conduct them itself- because it doesn’t have direct access to patients. You want to believe that billions are paid to doctors who promote drugs- but most of it is paid for rigorous trials conducted by credible parties who will publish the results whether good or bad. It’s perfectly legitimate. FWIW there are hospital doctors and surgeons in NZ who have been paid by big pharma on this basis, on occasion yielding enough $ to cover a new piece of equipment that otherwise is unaffordable from the public purse. This in turn increases the prestige of the department and makes it more likely that foreign experts will drop by to share knowledge. It’s a win-win. If pharma couldn’t pay in this fashion, eventually practitioners would be reduced to fervent beliefs rather than proof and would be indistinguishable from homeopaths. The key point is transparency: corruption thrives in the dark so when you see industry and professionals trying to keep stuff under the hood, that’s when you need to dig rather than limiting attacks to those who already opened the kimono.

  • peterwn

    Did you know that one duck gizard is enough for one years supply of a particular remedy throughout the world. And the probability of one molecule of that duck’s lizard ending up in the bottle of homeopathic medicine you buy is pretty small.
    Source – Simon Singh – he is the number one troublemaker as far as quacks are concerned.

  • Rodger T

    I`ve got 10,000 gallons of homeopathic remedy sitting outside me backdoor,it gets piped into the house.
    If I was little less scrupulous I would bottle it and sell it for $25.00 a litre.

    • Polish Pride

      learn more about energy….

      • Rodger T

        Thats right PP, if you can`t blind us with science ,try to baffle us with bullshit.
        Learn more about reality.

        • Polish Pride

          Energy, Quantum Physics, The observer effect.
          That is science you muppet.
          Your version of reality is simply a much more narrow one.

          • Bunswalla

            Your version of reality is truly cosmic…

          • Polish Pride

            And yours is that of one with a very closed mind. But then I’m sure you are happy with your reality as I am happy with mine.
            I prefer to live and let live. You sound like your on the side of always trying to control other peoples shit. Try focusing more on your own for once.

          • Bunswalla

            Don’t you try and control me, hypocrite ;-)

          • Polish Pride

            just making an observation Buns that’s all…. and from the looks of it a pretty good one.

          • Rodger T

            The trouble with your pseudo-science is that when you open your mind your brain falls out.

            Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham, the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and homeopathic remedies have been criticized as unethical.

            Do you understand if your homeopathy could be proved to work it would be accepted as medicine?

            We need a little more than your experience of its possible placebo effect.

            Commonly attributed to Richard Feynman,

            “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

          • Polish Pride

            Don’t worry I don’t think I understand Quantum Mechanics but the observer effect is very interesting and could be the reason that Homeopathy fails in standard scientific testing. Whatever the reason again I don’t really care. Because it seems to work for me, and again to me that’s all that matters.

          • Polish Pride

            perhaps you want to check out Dr.Nancy Maliks post further down.

          • Bunswalla

            HAHAHAHAHAHA – “Doctor” Nancy Malik? You’re having a laugh aren’t you?

            Is this the same “Dr” Nancy Malik that has a “Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery” from ‘Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital’ in some slum in Chandigarh, India?

            She has no medical qualifications that I’m aware of, and the first Google search revealed this gem:”Nancy Malik is a homeopathy shill, fact-blind delusional crank and serial comment spammer.”

            Looks like she’s running true to form, and has sucked you in big time. Oh dear.

          • Polish Pride

            Buns if you want to attack her arguments, the links and the studies she is citing then all good But otherwise resorting to ad hominem is all you have got and character assassination is nothing new in the arena of any form of alternative medicine. More and more people keep turning away from ‘modern’ medicine and this is the tactic that modern medicine has been trying for decades. Nothing new.

            And what was the site you got that little gem from. What you didn’t want to post it? why? It would have been game set and match….. or was their obvious bias on the topic too telling.

            Mocking what you don’t understand nor want to is nothing new either.

            Again though no one is trying to get you to use it though are they.

            Just stick to prescription drugs and just hope like hell you don’t have an adverse reaction or get addicted to them. But hey I’m sure they will cure whatever ails you… or at least treat the symptoms cause then its a win win isn’t it. You get temporary relief rest of your life and they get your money in ongoing installments for the rest of your life too. They of course want to be part of your life and to grow old with you. Its so noble like a good friend…One who sticks around to really cash in in your twilight years. It’s a beautiful thing.

          • Bunswalla

            If you want to find out what site I found the little gem on, here’s a clue: I know you’re a bit slow, probably due to excess hydration, so I’ll spell it out for you, just like I did in my comment:

            “the first Google search”

            That means go to Google and type in Nancy Malik and press the Enter key. Read what it says. Got it? Goooood.

          • Polish Pride

            oh Rational Wiki so like I said a site with bias then Buns. And Buns if I’m slow then by comparison you wouldn’t even be moving in fact anyone seeing you would wonder if you have a pulse… by comparison.

          • Polish Pride

            oh Rational Wiki so like I said a site with bias then Buns. And Buns if I’m slow then by comparison you wouldn’t even be moving in fact anyone seeing you would wonder if you have a pulse… by comparison.

          • BR

            So let me get this straight.

            Less than one molecule of the therapeutic substance is needed to cure the ailment.

            If there is a probability greater than zero that there is at least one molecule of a therapeutic substance in a jar water, this probability alone is enough to cure a disease. However the therapeutic power would be extinguished should it become known that there is no molecule present.

            Have I got that right?

            Bill.

          • Polish Pride

            BR I have my own theories as to why it works but they are only theories and I don’t feel the need to prove them. Similarly I don’t feel the need to convince anyone that it works either because even following my own theories it won’t work for everyone.

            I am a firm believer in applying logic and reasoning to most things and without a whole lot more information through experience even homeopathy won’t pass the logic and reasoning test. But it is what it is. Not everything in the world makes sense.

          • Rodger T

            I`m guessing your theory is up there with this one ,

          • Polish Pride

            does it really matter? I am not interested in changing your mind and you are not interested in having it changed…..

    • Bunswalla

      Only a “little less scrupulous”? I think you’d have to have a serious conscience bypass to even contemplate it Rodge.

    • http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/ Dr.Nancy Malik

      Upto the end of year 2010, there have been 11 meta-analysis and 8 systematic reviews including 1 cochrane review published in 14 medical journals in evidence of homeopathy. Out of 11 meta analysis, 5 are comprehensive, 5 on specific medical condition and 1 on super-avogadro dilution effect. http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/meta-analysis-and-systematic-reviews/

    • peterwn

      All you have to do is kill a duck (the Hutt South variety will do), cut out its gizard, put it (the gizard) in a blender then throw it in your rainwater tank. It will not significantly affect its quality as drinking water, but will double as a copious supply of homeopathic medicine.

  • Super Guest

    Homeopathy is bullshit, placebos are not.

    People who take it and think that it’s actually the homeopathic remedy making them better are idiots.

    • Polish Pride

      Again what experience with homeopathy are you basing that on?and what does it matter if they feel better?

  • http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/ Dr.Nancy Malik

    Upto the end of year 2010, there have been 304 studies published in 119 medical journals including 11 meta-analysis, 8 systematic reviews including 1 cochrane review and 94 DBRPCT in evidence of homeopathy. http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/scientific-research-in-homeopathy/

    • Bunswalla

      You call yourself a “Doctor” – please supply details of your qualifications and Doctorate level degree. PS Bachelor of Homeopathy from the Homeopathy School doesn’t really cut it.

      • Phil T Tipp

        Malik unveiled:

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nancy_Malik

        Hmmmmmmm. Quack.

      • http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/ Dr.Nancy Malik

        More about me and qualifications
        http://wp.me/P20P7m-2

        Regular full time 5.5 years graduate medical degree [Bachelors in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS)] that includes one year compulsory internship (approx 4800 hours in total)is absolutely necessary for becoming qualified & to get license to practice homeopathy medicine in India. And to do regular full time M.D. in any one of the 7 specialisations (Medicine, Paediatrics, Psychiatry, Pharmacy, Organon, Materia Medica, Repertory) of homeopathy medicine, you have to spend three more years after BHMS.

        • Bunswalla

          I don’t wish to be unkind Nancy, you’re clearly a well-meaning if misguided person, and your wish to help people is to be applauded. But let’s face it, you have a degree in Quackery from the “prestigious” School of Quacks, and your quack degree is recognised only by the Central Council of Quackery.

          We have a saying on this blog – “explaining is losing” and anybody who has to embellish their bogus qualifications by using such words as “extensive education, specialized degree” and “leading credentialed”, “prestigious” and “a popular name” is shall we say, rather over-egging the pudding.

          I mean, Donald Duck is also a popular name but I’d no more go to him for medical advice than I would for you.

          And having the byline on your website that homeopathy is “scientific, modern and evidence-based” is really taking it too far. The scientific community, which fortunately relies on real evidence and measurable results, utterly rejects homeopathy, as well it should. Wikipedia offers:

          “Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham; the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and homeopathic remedies have been criticized as unethical.”

          You can hardly claim it’s modern, having been made up in 1796, some 217 years ago. And evidence-based? Rebecca has neatly debunked your attempts to show cause and effect where none exists.

    • Rebecca

      Yes, but there are several consistent themes. Firstly, if you compare (for example) study design between homeopathy for influenza and pharma anti-viral medicine studies, key differences are immediately apparent. Usually homeopathy papers are very sparse on measurement and do not control variability, reveal vested interest/funding sources or present rigorous recognizable tests to show benefit. This is a big reason why those who would love to see homeopathy medicines succeed, such as doctors, do not generally respect these sorts of results. Secondly, half-truths are not acceptable in healthcare. E.g. you say there has been a Cochrane review of homeopathic medicine- but then you should reveal the finding, which was that their review of published homeopathy literature does not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo. To simply mention Cochrane is to attempt to derive credibility that is opposite the conclusion the reviewers intended to publish themselves. These sorts of behaviors cast doubt on the whole proposition, as they would in any scientific endeavor.

      • Bunswalla

        An excellent analysis, Rebecca, and I commend your diligence and thoughtfulness in dismantling the claims one by one. It doesn’t take very long for these quasi-scientific “proofs” to lead inevitably into a cul-de-sac, and good on you for having the patience to expose this.

        I predict nothing of value from PD in rebuttal, and as for “Dr” Nancy Malik? Well, it’s clear what side her chappati is buttered.

      • http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/ Dr.Nancy Malik

        Homeopathy for Influenza
        British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
        Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza (1989)
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1379831/pdf/brjclinpharm00089-0054.pdf
        Oscillococcinum 200c twice daily significantly increased the rate of cure within two days, (237 treated and 241 on placebo)

        • Rebecca

          Your conclusion is not supported by the authors: “It would be unwise to claim that the study has demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between the drug and the recoveries. The positive effect of the homoeopathic (sic) preparation cannot be explained in our present state of knowledge, and thus calls for further investigation. The effect was modest (the increase in proportion of recoveries within 48 h was less than 7%), but nevertheless is of interest.”

          I agree that the apparent 7% improvement is of interest and I agree with the authors’ call for further investigation- in 1989, almost quarter of a century ago. What follow-up happened since then? It’s an own goal to quote a paper from decades ago if it says your conclusion is unwise and advocates further investigation that apparently never occurred or has disadvantageous results.
          For those who are interested, Cochrane specializes in evidence-based medicine, conducting detailed reviews of literature looking for best practice. Cochrane’s study on homeopathy found no evidence that homeopathy is better than placebo. They will have looked at this paper and every paper since then. QED.

          • http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/ Dr.Nancy Malik

            Cochrane Review
            Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments (2010)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004845.pub2/full
            8 Randomised Controlled Trials with n=664
            Homeopathic medicines for the prevention or treatment of adverse effects of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and menopausal symptoms caused by hormonal therapies or oestrogen withdrawal.
            “Compared with trolamine, calendula reduced the incidence of acute dermatitis of grade two or above in women undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer in one clinical trial involving 254 participants.”
            “Based on a single trial involving 32 participants, one particular homeopathic combination (Traumeel S – a proprietary complex homeopathic medicine) appears to show promise in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis.”

          • Rebecca

            Totally unconvincing in medical terms. “Based on a single trial involving 32 participants” and “appears to show” are slap down in medical parlance. Put another way, of all the assembled evidence, just one paper with a tiny cohort “appeared” to show benefit. If you relied on such tenuous results in traditional medicine, you could expect to be disciplined the first time a patient did badly.

  • James

    I’ve been thinking about setting myself up as a homeopathic drug dealer. I can sell heroin and coke at 100C dilutions which would make them extraordinarily potent – which would mean that everyone would know that I was selling the good stuff.
    And not only will cost me absolutely nothing other than a slightly higher Watercare bill but if the police raid me all that they will find is water so I won’t be doing anything illegal.

    Sounds like the perfect ruse!

    • Bunswalla

      Don’t be silly, nobody in their right minds would ever buy a product labelled as something, but with only a concentration of 100C.

      I’m sorry but there would be nobody gullible enough to fall for that! Unless….PP?

      • Polish Pride

        I’m telling you Buns, your probably wasting your time in some dead end job day in day out. You could be the next Dave Chappelle ..well perhaps without as good a tan but still you are a comic genius. I’m sure you could forge half an act on your views on the effectiveness of homeopathy alone. You get to work your own hours and most of the gigs are at night so you can spend all day, every day on WO if you want to. Rhys Darby has nothing on you big (or medium or small – haven’t met you so don’t know) fella. Comedic gold.

        • Bunswalla

          And….bingo! RIght on cue.

          Going to call you PD now – Pavlov’s dog!

          Complete with drool…

          • Polish Pride

            Ahhhhh an insight into a narrow mind. yep just as I thought nothing to see here, move along folks.

      • James

        Which ought to be true; and the fact that it isn’t is a sad indictment of our education system!

  • Phil T Tipp

    This’ll help the discussion no end:

    Enjoy! :)

  • Kopua Cowboy

    I used to have an open mind, but I got sick of my brain falling out…

    • Polish Pride

      Interesting that the only people who ever come out with this seem to have very closed minds.

  • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

    While we’re at it, would anyone like to buy some magic beans?

95%