Let’s have a talk about homeopathy

A note from the author: As this is an emotive subject, comments are disabled after 4 days. This is because, at this stage, I feel that ongoing discussions tend to stagnate.

 

As my first post in a very, very long while, I thought I’d post an extended discussion about some aspects of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine (as stated in Tim Minchin’s famous song), based on the theory that “like cures like”.(1) This means that “a substance taken in small amounts will cure the same symptoms it causes if it were taken in large amounts”.(2-5)

As I work as a research Chemist, I have to state that I am biased when it comes to alternative medicine. To me, science must be evidence-based to have value; and thus medical practice, which is based on the science, should also be inherently evidence-based. By “evidence-based, I mean there is insufficient scientific research to justify the inclusion of homeopathic method in the standard library of standard medical treatments.(4)

However, in order to fully examine the potential of this theory, I believe it is worth discussing some instances where the homeopathic approach might actually be successful. In doing so, perhaps we can find a reason for the use of alternative medicine by so many people.

 

Successes: X-rays

 

In the modern age, cancer treatment is either through the use of chemicals (chemotherapy) or radiation (radiotherapy). X-rays were discovered in 1895, soon after which scientists unlocked their use in therapeutic applications. In 1986, Emil Grubbé (a physician with training in homeopathy) assembled an x-ray machine and used it to treat a recurrent breast carcinoma.(6)

Though unsuccessful at first, Grubbé’s treatments were potentially more successful than others due to his use of lower exposures for less time, and throughout the rest of his life he taught many others his techniques. X-ray radiation therapy today actually uses a “fractionated” process where low doses are administered over a longer course of time to minimise side-effects.(7)

Homeopathic theory in the case of X-rays works because they kill cells. Therefore it stands to reason that a low dose is best to avoid killing the desired cells. Our intrepid homeopathic physician, Grubbé, unfortunately, fell foul of the damage that X-rays can do at higher exposures, and himself had to undergo many surgeries to treat recurrent cancers.

 

Successes: Hay Fever

 

As another example of homeopathic “success”, let’s look at hay fever.(8-11) The majority of people with hay fever can simply avoid the pollen that triggers it in various ways, or take anti-histamines. Those with more sever allergies may be referred to immunotherapy. Immunotherapy is a treatment where the body’s immune system is exposed gradually to increasing levels of the allergen (pollen), such that their immune cells become tolerant.

The reason to only gradually increase the dose is to minimise side-effects, but this does mean that it takes a long time to reach the point at which the patient is “cured”. At this point, they must take maintenance doses to sustain tolerance. It stands to reason, then, that exposure to allergens (at a homeopathic dose) would potentially reduce the symptoms for some hay fever-sufferers as a form of immunotherapy for those with less severe symptoms.

 

Why successful?

 

So what do these two “successes” have in common? Both are situations where the homeopathic approach happens to coincide with what we currently use in medical practice anyway. They work because exposure to X-rays kills cells, and we want that to happen in cancer treatment. Lower doses result in less peripheral cell deaths and thus less side-effects. They work because pollen induces immune cell responses. Lower doses result in less immune cell responses and thus less side-effects (and thus immune cell tolerance). These are both therapies where evidence exists for their success.

 

As Tim Minchin says, “Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”(1) But that’s not the appeal of homeopathy.

Stripping down the theory, people like homeopathy because it is “natural”, using the same “natural” cause of a disorder to fix it. And they like it because it has few side-effects. Let’s explore these things.

 

The Unfortunate truth

 

Alas, this is where I look less optimistically into homeopathic method. This is because, as a Research Chemist, I am used to spending my days purifying chemicals and diluting them down to acceptable concentrations for use on cells or proteins. Side-effects tend to occur where the given dose of a drug has effects beyond the desirable local effects. The reason that homeopathic remedies have little to no side effects is because the doses are so low as to have no effects in the body.

Dosage

The homeopathic dilution method uses a logarithmic scale, with C being a dilution by 100 and X being a dilution by 10.(12) A 2C dilution is 1 part in 100, repeated twice (so 1 in 1002 final concentration), 6C is 1 part in 100 repeated 6 times (1 in 1006 final concentration). A 10C dilution is 1 part in 10 repeated 10 times (so 1 in 1010 final concentration) etc etc…

As I have never taken a homeopathic remedy, I had a cursory glance at some online shops to see if anything interesting popped up. I found Mercurious Chloride (Calomel, Hg2Cl2 – I will refer to it as Mercurous Chloride, it’s proper chemical name).(14) This is acutely toxic, causes respiratory sensitization and is hazardous to the aquatic environment according to Sigma-Aldrich, but that is not mentioned on homeopathy suppliers’ websites.(13-14) Not to spoil the surprise, but this is likely because of the very small quantities of active ingredients.

Let’s do some Maths. One supplier offers a pack of 160 g of tablets at 6X potency (for £22.35). 6X potency is 1 in 106 – so 0.00016 g of Calomel is in this 160g. From the shop I looked at, each tablet was approximately 0.11 g.

So, per tablet, we are looking at 0.00000011 g of the chemical. This is a tiny, tiny amount.

The amount of mercury in the water supply (determined to be a entirely safe amount that has no effect) is around 1 microgram per litre.(15) So 1 l contains 0.000001 g of the chemical: or, around ten times as much as in a homeopathic tablet. Frankly, this makes it obvious why people claim that homeopathic remedies are placebos (medicines with no therapeutic benefit).

The cost for this 0.00016 g of Mercurous Chloride is also extortionate: considering that 5 g of the pure chemical would cost less than £30, the mark up is therefore more than 2,300,000%. The numbers speak for themselves.

Natural Remedies

I’d also like to briefly step on the issue of “natural sources”. Some Mercury is purified from mined cinnabar (HgS), and this source gives the most “natural” method (the least steps) of Mercurous Chloride production:

Step 1) Cinnabar ore is heated in air and the resulting Mercury vapour is condensed and collected.

Step 2) Mercuric Chloride is formed by adding Hydrochloric acid to this elemental Mercury.

Step 3) This Mercuric Chloride is then reacted with elemental Mercury to form our Mercurous Chloride.

In the modern age, there is an increasing trend to consume “natural” food and to “detox” your body. It therefore stands to reason that people are concerned about putting potentially harmful substances in their body. I completely understand this and I subscribe to keeping a healthy diet. However, it does not apply when it comes to medicine.

Pure chemicals do not occur in nature, and thus natural remedies are not inherently more safe than those prepared in a lab. Chemical intervention is needed in every case to obtain pure substances, whether for purification or (in this case) to actually make the chemical in which we are interested. Regulated homeopathic remedies are always subject to some form of purification before they are sold on. I would be far more concerned about anything unregulated, as you cannot know whether you are consuming something harmful. If the mood calls for it, I’ll be happy to discuss the natural vs. natural debate at another time, but I have no time for it here.

 

But what’s the harm?

 

What is the harm indeed? If people are willing to spend lots of money on something that has no effect, then it is their choice.

This has been discussed before, and I don’t want to retread very well-trodden ground, so I’ll just summarise here. Individuals using homeopathic treatments instead of conventional medicine are spending more money for treatments that, more often than not, do not work.

A good book to read on this issue is “Trick of Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial” by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. There are also other articles on the same subject such as here.

 

What can we learn from homeopathy?

 

So here’s where I go back to my original thoughts. What is the potential in homeopathy?

The inherent value of alternative therapy is that people are different. Not all people like to be told that there is one, and only one, way of curing your disease or disorder. Being treated by alternative medicine is like being part of an exclusive club, like being a medical hipster – and there are huge online communities dedicated to discussing it. These communities have their own “experts” – people who have tried homeopathic treatments and recommend them to others. Obviously people like to feel like they understand what’s going on in their own life, and health is potentially the most important aspect. And subscribing to alternative therapy is one way of regaining control.

Is it really worth it though? Homeopathy becomes most attractive where patients are at their most vulnerable. Where patients are scared to take a nasty treatment with known side-effects, or when they have no other available treatment. Homeopathy cuts through the jargon of complex medical treatment and uses simplistic theories that anyone can “understand”. But, in doing so, the industry takes advantage of a patient’s vulnerability.

It’s easy to blame your condition on toxic chemicals and unnatural sources. It’s hard to admit that sometimes your body needs outside “unnatural” help in the battle against a disease, especially if it’s a battle you’re losing. But if you broke your leg, you would get it fixed. Internal “breakages” also need medical intervention.

 

Conclusions

 

What is my conclusion? Listen to your doctor. They are trained in treating human diseases and disorders; in fact, they have dedicated their lives to it. Talk to them about your concerns. If they dismiss them, then speak with them more: it’s their job to listen to you. Nowadays medicine is more patient-focussed and doctors should be willing to work with their patients. Doctors will be able to determine where a homeopathic treatment may be appropriate for you, as in the above cases.

If your condition is beyond help with conventional methods, by all means homeopathy may help you. If your conviction is strong enough that a placebo is sufficient, try homeopathy. But really nowadays homeopathic treatment is best alongside conventional medicine: there’s a reason it’s sometimes called complementary medicine.

If you want to try homeopathic treatment, just make sure it’s from a reputable source, and that it’s safe.

 

 

Postscript:

This blog is my opinion only, and it is largely my personal exploration of homeopathy as a treatment. In the case of X-rays, I have compacted an extremely large amount of information into a short space, so please do have a further look at the literature if you are interested! In particular, I would recommend the book “Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation” by Timothy Jorgensen.

Also, I am aware that I did only one calculation for the homeopathic remedies. So here is another, for fun:

 

Homepathic remedy:

Alium cepa (red onion)

160 g, 3X potency, £22.35

3X potency is 1 in 103

This is 0.16 g onion in the 160 g

Each tablet is 0.11 g; so, per tablet, we are looking at 0.00011 g of onion

 

Tesco medium red onion:

1 onion (according to tesco.com) is £0.16, about 220 g

The amount in one tablet is therefore one two millionth of an onion.

The mark up for this remedy is therefore 19,000,000%.

And another, as requested:

Homepathic remedy: Weleda Sulphur 30c 125 Tablets

125 tablets, at £0.05 per 100 mg tablet
30C potency is 1 in 100 to the power of 30
This is 1 x 10^-61 g of sulphur in each tablet

– Please note that the mass of a proton (the smallest chemical element) is 1 x 10^-23 g. This is less than that. This means that, in one tablet of this stuff, there is not even one atom of sulphur present.

Sulphur from Sigma-Aldrich (chemical company):

This is £26.50 for 1 kg.
The mark up for this remedy is 2.65 x 10^64 %. Which is 265 with 62 zeroes after it %.

References:

  1. Tim Minchin’s song, Storm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk
  2. British Homeopathic Association Website, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/
  3. The Society of Homeopaths’ Website, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/
  4. Science and Technology Committee evidence check on homeopathy, 8th February 2010: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm
  5. Homeopathy on NHS choices, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/pages/introduction.aspx
  6. Nice article on the use of X-rays in radiation treatment: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/emil-grubbe-first-use-radiation-treat-breast-cancer/
  7. The evolution of cancer treatments: Radiation, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-cancer-treatment-radiation
  8. Hay fever on NHS choices, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Hay-fever/Pages/Introduction.aspx
  9. Hay Fever on Allergy UK, accessed 19/06/16: https://www.allergyuk.org/hayfever-and-allergic-rhinitis/hay-fever-and-allergic-rhinitis
  10. Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF (2005). Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation of common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Annals of Pharmacotherapy; 39:617–624.
  11. Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T (1986). Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet; ii: 881–885.
  12. Homeopathic preparations, Wikipedia, accessed 19/06/16: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Preparations_and_treatment
  13. Mercury(I) chloride on Sigma-Aldrich: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/230405?lang=en&region=GB
  14. Helios homeopathy shop, accessed 19/06/16: https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/mercurius-dulcis
  15. Water purification standards, accessed 19/06/16: http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/Standards_Current.pdf or  http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/standards.pdf

67 thoughts on “Let’s have a talk about homeopathy”

  1. Don’t know about other countries, but in the UK there are no registered or authorised homeopathic products any less dilute that 6X and the majority are 30C. It would be interesting to redo your mark-up calculations for these…

    1. This is very true – I did my calculations based on the absolutely strongest concentrations I found. The numbers do quickly get unwieldy at the more dilute end of the spectrum! I’ll add this to the postcript of the blog post as well.

      Here’s another calculation based on Sulphur 30C from Holland & Barrett
      http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/product/weleda-sulphur-30c-60020524

      Homepathic remedy: Weleda Sulphur 30c 125 Tablets

      125 tablets, at £0.05 per 100 mg tablet
      30C potency is 1 in 100 to the power of 30
      This is 1 x 10^-61 g of sulphur in each tablet
      – Please note that the mass of a proton (the smallest chemical element) is 1 x 10^-23 g. This is less than that. This means that, in one tablet of this stuff, there is not even one atom of sulphur present.

      Sulphur from Sigma-Aldrich (chemical company):
      http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/84683?lang=en&region=GB

      This is £26.50 for 1 kg.
      This is where the numbers get a bit more stupid…
      The mark up for this remedy is 2.65 x 10^64 %. Which is 265 with 62 zeroes after it %.

      1. That’s always supposing that the dilutions are strictly controlled and that the dilution factors are correct. It’s unlikely, particularly using the Korsakov method.

          1. None of the patients in the study were given homeopathic treatment alone.

            “After inclusion, patients were randomly assigned to either one of three groups: (1) individualized
            homeopathic treatment (IHT) plus fluoxetine dummy-loaded; (2) fluoxetine (20 mg/d)
            plus IHT dummy-loaded; (3) fluoxetine placebo plus IHT placebo.”

            Alas, I don’t have the time to respond to any more comments on this. Maybe in the future I’ll post a follow up exploring some of these issues.

      2. So, just to be accurate, your research is based on the smallest dilution of homeopathy, when there is actual substance in the “remedy”. Keep in mind that one of the main tenets of Homeopathy is that dilution and succussion potentize the remedy, make it stronger. So the best remedy to research would be the highest dilution, anywhere from 60C to 200C (as in Oscillococcinum). What do you suppose the research shows there?

    2. “but in the UK there are no registered or authorised homeopathic products any less dilute that 6X and the majority are 30C.”

      Sure? In other countries (included UK) pharmacopeas recognized the existence of low potency.

      1. Yes, I’m sure, Egger. Homeopathic pharmacopoeias are books written by homeopaths – what I’m referring to are the registered and authorised products that are sold in the UK.

        1. 1. For only globules: put the stastics and avaliable data.

          2. As example: Vertigoheel is a low homeopathy complex sold in solution. This product is avaliable and registred in UK.

          1. Egger said:

            As example: Vertigoheel is a low homeopathy complex sold in solution. This product is avaliable and registred in UK.

            Nope. Doesn’t look like it. It’s not listed by that name on the MHRA’s website as a registered or authorised product and the sole distributors in the UK, Bio Pathica Ltd, say

            Please note that, with the exception of Neurexan and Zeel Comp N which have homeopathic registrations, Heel products are not available on this site since they are prescription only medicines.

            That’s wrong, of course: as unauthorised/unlicensed ‘medicines’, advertising, supplying or selling it in the UK would be a breach of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

          2. Are you kidding me?

            “but in the UK there are no registered or authorised homeopathic products any less dilute that 6X and the majority are 30C.”

            From the document used by Nightingale Collaboration.

            1. The minimum dilution is 4X , not 6X.
            2. The majority are low potencies in pillules.
            3. Not all homeopathic are a solid pillules. Oromucosal from Weleda is a spray is a mixture of two low potency: 6X.

  2. The most important sentence in this article was : “As I have never taken a homeopathic remedy”. Yet you would deny the experience of 500 million people who did, including hundreds of thousands of board certified medical doctors around the world. You have also never researched homeopathy or learned about it’s use in the most serious illnesses, its ability to cure chronic diseases and it’s astounding success in epidemic diseases. You made what sounds like a logical argument, except it proceeds from the wrong premises. You probably mean well, but you need to study more.

    1. Homeopath Alan V. Schmukler said:

      The most important sentence in this article was : “As I have never taken a homeopathic remedy”.

      Please tell us how that changes any of what was said in the article or how it changes what the best, most robust, least biased evidence says?

      Yet you would deny the experience of 500 million people who did, including hundreds of thousands of board certified medical doctors around the world.

      Non-sequitur, of course, but if you want to pursue a line of argument about people’s experiences and the biases of practitioners, please feel free but back it up with evidence and reasoned argument.

      You have also never researched homeopathy

      Clearly wrong – unless you can point out any errors in the article?

      or learned about it’s [sic] use in the most serious illnesses, its ability to cure chronic diseases and it’s [sic] astounding success in epidemic diseases.

      Difficult to know where to start with that, but please provide robust extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

      You made what sounds like a logical argument, except it proceeds from the wrong premises.

      Which premises are wrong and why? Please be specific.

      You probably mean well, but you need to study more.

      A tad condescending, don’t you think? But I’ll reiterate my request: please point out what the author got wrong and why you believe it’s wrong.

      1. Oh heavens. You again, trol Henness.

        “Please tell us how that changes any of what was said in the article or how it changes what the best, most robust, least biased evidence says?”

        Very much. The article only mentions the homeopathy in pill form. Omits the solutions.

        “Non-sequitur, of course, but if you want to pursue a line of argument about people’s experiences and the biases of practitioners, please feel free but back it up with evidence and reasoned argument.”

        Sorry, this is a fact, not a “non-sequitur” fallacy. You need a basic course of logic, reason and philosophy.

        “Clearly wrong – unless you can point out any errors in the article?”

        It’s easy. See my later comment.

        “Difficult to know where to start with that, but please provide robust extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.”

        Please, what is extraordinary evidence? Please, post the peer reviewed paper without conflicts of interests of any pseudo”skeptikal” biased interested and financed organization.

        What is the minimal number for the extraordinary evidence?
        What is the logical demonstration without contradicitions of the extraordinry claims?
        Whay Randi misuse the Truzzi sentence?

        “Which premises are wrong and why? Please be specific.”

        See my coment below.

        “A tad condescending, don’t you think? But I’ll reiterate my request: please point out what the author got wrong and why you believe it’s wrong.”

        See my comment below.

        1. Egger said:

          Oh heavens. You again, trol Henness.

          If all you have are insults…

          “Please tell us how that changes any of what was said in the article or how it changes what the best, most robust, least biased evidence says?”

          Very much. The article only mentions the homeopathy in pill form. Omits the solutions.

          All but a couple of registered or authorised products on sale in the UK are sugar pellet based and are not liquid.

          “Non-sequitur, of course, but if you want to pursue a line of argument about people’s experiences and the biases of practitioners, please feel free but back it up with evidence and reasoned argument.”

          Sorry, this is a fact, not a “non-sequitur” fallacy. You need a basic course of logic, reason and philosophy.

          LOL! Thanks for providing another illustration of my point.

          “Clearly wrong – unless you can point out any errors in the article?”

          It’s easy. Se my later comment.

          LOL again!

          “Difficult to know where to start with that, but please provide robust extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.”

          Please, what is extraordinary evidence?

          Something that is of a far higher standard than that which convinces a homeopath. But if you have some evidence you believe is compelling, please feel free to post it so we can all have a look at it.

          Please, post the peer reviewed paper without conflicts of interests of any pseudo”skeptikal” biased interested and financed organization.

          And you’re trying to correct others on their logic and understanding of evidence???

          What is the minimal number for the extraordinary evidence?
          What is the logical demonstration without contradicitions of the extraordinry claims?
          Whay Randi misuse the Truzzi sentence?

          Yet again…

          “Which premises are wrong and why? Please be specific.”

          See my coment below.

          “A tad condescending, don’t you think? But I’ll reiterate my request: please point out what the author got wrong and why you believe it’s wrong.”

          See my comment below.

          Below? Just like homeopathy: there’s nothing in it.

          1. LOL is yout most intelligent response?
            Again:

            1. What is exact number of evidences for obtaing a extraordinary evidence?
            2. What does mean “compelling evidence”?
            3. How Bunge, Martin Mahner and the fundamental authors of pseudoskepticism expose the “extraordinary evidence” mantra?
            4. What is the exhaustive bibliography of the logical and inqueviocally demonstration of the extraordinary evidence?
            5. What is your opinion of the Truzzi retractation for the extraordinary evidence requeriment?

          2. There is one thing worse than lying, and that is turning a truth into a lie by means of distraction. Could you send me the evidence and inequivocally demonstration of the exact number of “extraordinary claims/evidence”?

  3. Mr. Schmukler nailed it. How can you possibly state something doesn’t work, even though it has so much evidence (that you conveniently deny), without ever having talked to a homeopath or used the modality? You would summarily discount what you feel is unworthy of science, even though it was founded on science, by an MD that did research? That is not very scientific. And, by the way, Mr. Hennass is a paid skeptic.

    1. Renita Herrmann said:

      Mr. Schmukler nailed it.

      Except he provided not a jot of reasoning nor evidence why talking to a homeopath or haven taken some sugar pills is a necessary or perhaps sufficient condition to evaluating the evidence or describing homeopathy. As a homeopath, Renita, perhaps you could try to answer that?

      By the way, what’s your views on aircraft and flying carpets?

      How can you possibly state something doesn’t work, even though it has so much evidence (that you conveniently deny)

      Yet you fail to provide this evidence nor say why you believe it’s compelling to you or should be to anyone else.

      without ever having talked to a homeopath or used the modality?</blockquote?Modality? That almost makes it sound as if it efficacious…

      You would summarily discount what you feel is unworthy of science, even though it was founded on science, by an MD that did research? That is not very scientific.

      I’ll leave that to the author to answer whatever question that was…

      And, by the way, Mr. Hennass is a paid skeptic.

      Now, now, Renita, please try to keep it civil. And if you have any evidence that I’m paid to comment here, please feel free to provide it.

      1. Dear Mr. Chemist,

        Your reference is biased:

        “Science and Technology Committee evidence check on homeopathy, 8th February 2010”

        The “Science Tech report” is not a government report. The report is based in flawed definitions, misunderstanding and poorly evidence. The lack of any rigour methodology (comparted with the German-Swiss Report) is evident.

        1. Biased: the “HTA” report cover definition of homeopathy only as “ultra highly diluted”. Well, most homeopathic is low potencies.

        2. Conflicts of interests: The “HTA” is funded by corrupted charity named “Sense About Science”, part of “American Humanists”, “Good Thinking Society” and “Nightingale Collaboration” think thanks.

        1. The Science and Technology report was put together by a select committee of MPs within the house of commons. This report investigated the evidence behind homeopathy

          The definition of homeopathy in the report is the use of highly diluted substances. There do not exist homeopathic remedies that are not highly diluted by conventional science standards.

          None of those charities you mention are corrupted. Just because you do not agree with their aims does not mean they are acting dishonestly.

          1. The panel was made up of 13 people. Of them only 3 voted against homeopathy. A very strange “majority” view! None of them has any knowledge of homeopathy and all three were voted out of their seats in Parliament. Some of the people on the panel did not attend any of the hearings. The report did not adequately acknowledge the factual research evidence and dismissed the patient outcome studies. The government failed to respond to the report so it has no legal status.

            Freedom of choice in health care is a human right. The UK government doesn’t just support the right of people to use toxic drugs, it even pays for those drugs plus the cost of treating the iatrogenic diseases they cause. People who use safe, effective, inexpensive medicine like homeopathy have the same right.

        2. Egger said:

          Your reference is biased:

          “Science and Technology Committee evidence check on homeopathy, 8th February 2010”

          The “Science Tech report” is not a government report.

          Do you actually know what it is, Egger?

          The lack of any rigour methodology (comparted with the German-Swiss Report) is evident.

          1. Biased: the “HTA” report cover definition of homeopathy only as “ultra highly diluted”. Well, most homeopathic is low potencies.

          2. Conflicts of interests: The “HTA” is funded by corrupted charity named “Sense About Science”, part of “American Humanists”, “Good Thinking Society” and “Nightingale Collaboration” think thanks.

          The ‘German-Swiss’ report? What on earth is that?

          What HTA?

          Most homeopathic is low potencies? What do you mean by ‘low potency’?

          And yet more nasty accusations, Egger? And what HTA was funded by those organisations and why do you believe it was?

          I look forward to reading your replies…

          1. “Do you actually know what it is, Egger?”

            Yes. Why not?

            “What HTA?”

            Health Technology Assement. Ok?

            “And yet more nasty accusations, Egger? And what HTA was funded by those organisations and why do you believe it was?”

            Yes, the difference is big. Pan Foundation collaborates with KIKOM Institute in Bern University. Sense About Science collaborates with some organizations. The difference? SAS is a agresive lobby against any kind of homeopathic expresion. SAS is the most corrupted organization. I will prepare a post for this. Cooming soon.

            “I look forward to reading your replies…”

            Ok.

    2. Mr. Henness has acknowledged that he has no credentials or training whatsoever in the fields of medicine or medical research. Given that, his views are no more than personal opinions based on no experience and no expertise.

      1. Christine Jahnig said:

        Mr. Henness has acknowledged that he has no credentials or training whatsoever in the fields of medicine or medical research. Given that, his views are no more than personal opinions based on no experience and no expertise.

        As ever, Christine, if you manage to spot any error I’ve made, please feel free to point it out, backing it up with reasoned argument and evidence, of course.

          1. Yep!
            It’s funny.
            What is your strech relation with Ronald Lindsay and Fernando L. Frías? Can you show me the tax payers of your bussines?

          2. Egger said:

            Yep!
            It’s funny.
            What is your strech [sic] relation with Ronald Lindsay and Fernando L. Frías?

            No, it’s you who are funny!

            I have no idea what a ‘strech’ relation is, Egger, or who Ronald Lindsay is (and you’ve not said, despite being asked), but I believe Fernando and I follow each other on Twitter. You probably knew that already because it is, of course, public information. Do you want a list of the other accounts I follow?

            Can you show me the tax payers of your bussines [sic]?

            Why on earth would I do that? Anyway, what has any of that got to do with the homeopathy article above? Another of your silly attempts at a diversion to hide that you can’t answer simple questions?

  4. Trying to equate a medicine based on quantum mechanics with medicine based on chemistry and then claiming it can’t work because it doesn’t follow those dictates just doesn’t work. There are many high quality studies published in peer-reviewed journals of conventional medicine (some are Cancer, Pediatrics, Rheumatology and the International Journal of Oncology) which show it does work and does have biological effects. Some of those studies show it is more effective than conventional treatments. They all show it works beyond placebo. There are also 25,000 volumes of cured case records spanning 200 years of clinical use among hundreds of millions of people around the world. For hundreds of contemporary case records google “homeopathy cured cases.”

    1. Based on quantum mechanics? Wow.

      But please stop beating about the bush and provide a link to whatever you believe is the best of those studies you mentioned so we can all have a look at what convinces you.

        1. Why not quote the whole abstract and give everyone a good laugh?

          We propose mathematical models of information processes of unconscious and conscious thinking (based on p-adic number representation of mental spaces). Unconscious thinking is described by classical cognitive mechanics (which generalizes Newton’s mechanics). Conscious thinking is described by quantum cognitive mechanics (which generalizes the pilot wave model of quantum mechanics). The information state and motivation of a conscious cognitive system evolve under the action of classical information forces and a new quantum information force, namely, conscious force. Our model might provide mathematical foundations for some cognitive and psychological phenomena: collective conscious behavior, connection between physiological and mental processes in a biological organism, Freud’s psychoanalysis, hypnotism, homeopathy. It may be used as the basis of a model of conscious evolution of life.

        2. Cherry pick? Not, evidence. I’ve read the full paper. You’re a lawyer. I’m trained in sciences. Can you explain me the most inequivocally evidence against for the existence of water memory effect in homeopathic potencies?

          Note: I need your answers.

          1. Egger

            I’ve no idea where you got the bizarre notion that I’m a lawyer. Perhaps you could provide some evidence? But reading your comment again, I really doubt you know very much about evidence – certainly not of a scientific nature.

      1. Thanks! And thank you for the excellent article 🙂

        It’s disheartening though.

        You wrote an excellent article that gently but firmly shows there are circumstances where one could easily fool oneself to believe homeopathy “works”, and it is almost immediately misconstrued and repurposed for propaganda purposes by the quacks.

        Anyway – thanks for the article – I enjoyed it 🙂

        Roland

        1. Roland Bouman said:

          You wrote an excellent article that gently but firmly shows there are circumstances where one could easily fool oneself to believe homeopathy “works”, and it is almost immediately misconstrued and repurposed for propaganda purposes by the quacks.

          C’est la vie.

        1. Oh heavens, you’re a false skeptic trol and member of the lobby “nightingale collaboration”. You know’s, corruption and industrial interests as the business of Ronald Lindsay with the biotech-agroindustry.

        2. Egger said:

          Oh heavens, you’re a false skeptic trol and member of the lobby “nightingale collaboration”.

          As you well know, I’m Director of the Nightingale Collaboration, but please define what you mean by ‘false skeptic trol [sic]’

          You know’s, corruption and industrial interests as the business of Ronald Lindsay with the biotech-agroindustry.

          That makes no grammatical sense, but I have no idea who Ronald Lindsay is or why you think he’s at all relevant here. Bizarre.

          1. “define what you mean by ‘false skeptic trol ”

            You know’s.

            ” but I have no idea who Ronald Lindsay is or why you think he’s at all relevant here. Bizarre.”

            Ah, so your point is you can ignore the part of the your “comando” troll actitives in web in facebook, twitter, disqus, wikipedia and the financial interests in your “independent charity”.

Comments are closed.