MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

At this time of the year, journalists like to review what has happened during the previous year. I am not a journalist, just an alt med researcher, and I don’t want to review the 10 most important events but the non-events, that is 10 relevant things that should have happened in the realm of alt med but unfortunately didn’t happen. Needless to say: my choice is subjective, personal and highly biased.

Here we go, in no particular order:

WHO

In 2014, the WHO published the WHO TRADITIONAL MEDICINE STRATEGY 2014 – 2023. Amazingly, it has all the hallmarks of a promotional document that lacks critical input: “The strategy aims to support Member States in developing proactive policies and implementing action plans that will strengthen the role TM plays in keeping populations healthy.” In my view, those officials within the WHO who are capable of critical assessment should have spotted the danger of this strategy and, by 2015, have managed to withdraw this shameful paper, as it can only discredit this otherwise reputable organisation.

BCA

After suing my friend Simon Singh and losing the case, lots of money and even more reputation, the BCA and the chiropractic profession at large should have not only apologised to Simon but also taken more decisive actions to ensure that chiropractors around the world stop misleading the public about what they can contribute to human health. Sadly this blog has shown more than once that bogus claims still abound and chiropractors are still unable to criticise even the most extreme excesses of quackery in their ranks.

HOMEOPATHY

The International Council for Homeopathy (ICH) “is the international professional platform representing professional homeopaths and the practice of homeopathy around the world. ICH presently consists of 31 professional associations of homeopaths from 28 countries in four continents, and aims eventually to have member associations in all continents. Through networking and dialogue, members of ICH engage in the promotion and evaluation of the status of homeopathy in every part of the world; with emphasis on the development of international guidelines promoting freedom of access to the highest possible standard of homeopathic care.” With such high, self-declared aims, the ICH would have been in the ideal position to inform its members that the most transparent and thorough investigation of homeopathy concluded that “Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.” Sadly, homeopaths all over the world prefer to go into a state of denial and carry on as before – to the detriment of public health worldwide.

FISHER

Peter Fisher, the homeopath of the Queen, has been shown to have published an important lie about me. In the interest of honesty, of his reputation and that of homeopathy, he should have retracted it and apologised. The fact that he has chosen to remain silent is, I think, a telling tale about the standards of truth in homeopathy.

PRINCE CHARLES

Prince Charles is one of the most prominent promoters of INTEGRATED MEDICINE. He may not have the wit to understand the issues involved but he certainly has access to the best advisors money can buy. By now, he should have realised that the yes-men he has been using are not up to the job of providing reasonable advice on alt med. Therefore he should have recruited proper experts who would have told him that adding unproven treatments to evidence-based medicine is not going to be an improvement. Sadly, Charles’ promotion of quackery continues unabated.

BOIRON

Christian Boiron, the General Manager of the world’s largest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies, ‘BOIRON’, recently stated that the critics of homeopathy are like the Ku Klux Klan. This embarrassing statement reflects a level of stupidity and arrogance that can only be harmful to his firm and homeopathy in general. The fact that it was not withdrawn does not bode well for either of them.

ULLMAN

Dan Ullman is one of the tireless [and tiresome] entrepreneurs in US homeopathy. I recently dedicated a blog-post to him where he commented copiously and was subsequently shown to be wrong on many issues. This would have been the right moment for him to give up selling bogus drugs and misleading literature. Unfortunately, the comments did not offer any hope that fanatics like him can be brought to their senses. This sad course of events suggests, I fear, that homeopathic delusions of this nature are too severe to cure.

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

During these discussions, one commentator provided disturbing suspicions that one of the recent ‘flag-ship’ evidence for homeopathy might be fraudulent. The author of the paper in question, who had been a keen participant of the discussions, should have responded and argued his case. Instead his comments on this blog abruptly stopped, a fact that most experts might interpret as an admission of guilt.

SMITH

My Vice Chancellor at Exeter, Steve Smith, should have read 2015 my memoire, which suggests that he behaved less than honourably, and he should then have responded to it. Instead, Exeter opted to ignore not only my book but also the award of the John Maddox Prize 2015. It is up to the reader to decide how this non-action ought to be interpreted.

PHARMACISTS

The ‘INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL FEDERATION’ has the slogan ‘advancing pharmacy worldwide’ in their logo. Therefore it seems to be the right organisation to remind pharmacists across the globe that they are not shopkeepers but a healthcare profession with ethical codes and moral responsibilities. Therefore they should have reminded community pharmacists, pharmacy chains and other interested parties that selling disproven remedies like homeopathy, Bach Flower Remedies, ineffective cough syrups etc. is a violation of pharmacists’ codes of ethics.

Any post about non-events and missed opportunities is a somewhat frustrating affaire. At the same time, it also offers hope: perhaps 2016 will see (some of) them happening?

83 Responses to 10 things that did NOT happen in 2015 [but should have happened]

  • No. 11: Edzard Ernst did not get proper public recognition for his work. An OBE maybe. Nor apologies from the many organisations that have slandered, libelled, misquoted or otherwise unjustly treated him.

  • The chairwoman of IPF is a spanis pharmacist named Carmen Peña that is owner of a pharmacy in the famous Gran Vía Street of Madrid, especialist in homeophatic formulas and temple of this false therapy. Mr. Ernst, will have to wait at least four years before his last wish come true.
    Thanks for your great job.
    Jesús Fernández. Rialto Pharmacy. Gran Vía Street Madrid. We dont sale homeopathy

    • Edzard Ernst says:

      “Such low potencies are rarely used by homeopaths and should be called PSEUDO-HOMEOPATHIC, in my view.”

      This peer-reviewed research from Institute for History of Medicine says:

      “From a historical perspective, the predominant modes of prescribing have covered the full spectrum from the use of low potencies (including mother tinctures) to the exclusive use of very high potencies.

      In 1948, for example, the German homeopathic physician Karl Saller recorded the most frequently used homeopathic medicines in the Stuttgart Homeopathic Hospital, listing all in all 150 medicines. Many of these (24) were administered as a mother tincture, most commonly low potencies ranging from 2X to 4X were prescribed. Alfons Stiegele (1871—1956), the director of this hospital and a leading homeopathic clinician, usually did not prescribe potencies higher than D 15.”

      How comes “my view” is now more valid than a peer-reviewed historic research?

      What kind of people believe that’s scientific thinking?

      • it is possible that the low potency school dominated German homeopathy in the 1940, but today the most frequently sold potency is C30, which also was Hahnemann’s favourite through much of his life.

        • In lack of proper support of your argument, let’s assume C30 is really the most sold potency currently.

          How do you support your implication of the idea that a less often used part of a therapy becomes pseudo-therapy?

          You also said:

          “Some trials of homeopathy are positive because they use medications which are homeopathic only by name. This regularly creates considerable confusion. In the recent BMJ debate I tried to address this issue head on by stating at the outset: ” Nobody questions, of course, that some substances used in homeopathy, such as arsenic or strychnine, can be pharmacologically active, but homeopathic medicines are typically far too dilute to have any effect.”

          So it’s not misinterpretation that you try to confuse “seldom used” with fake.

          It’s ironic and telling that Randi, in his famous Princeton lecture ( analyzed in this article ), makes sure everybody gets Hyland’s Calms Forté is homeopathy prior to discredit and mock it. And Calms Forté has THREE ingredients an 1X, ONE at 2X and FIVE at 3X

          In the referred article is also quoted another research that says:

          “According to the Directive 2001/83/EC, homeopathic medicinal products are medicinal products prepared from substances called homeopathic stocks (mother tinctures) in accordance with homeopathic manufacturing procedures.”

          If a peer-reviewed research says it’s homeopathy, and an European directive proves that’s an broadly accepted definition, and Randi says it’s homeopathy,

          Where does your view come from?

          • that’s precisely the contradiction that I aimed at explaining in my post you refer to.

          • Edzard:

            You cannot aim to explain the contradiction in that post because the arguments in that post is what creates the contradiction.

            And the other question you left unanswered:

            What’s your support for your thesis that a seldom used part of a therapy becomes pseudo-therapy?

          • I don’t think I said that “a seldom used part of a therapy becomes pseudo-therapy”.

          • You don’t think? I’ve just quoted it:

            “Such low potencies are rarely used by homeopaths and should be called PSEUDO-HOMEOPATHIC, in my view.”

            You just admitted that at least in the ’40s low potencies were full homeopathy, but now, “in your view”, they’re pseudo-homeopathy. So you’re saying that: a seldom used part of a therapy became pseudo-therapy.

            Please support that with scientific, sound argument beyond “my view”.

          • sorry, I was unclear:
            “Such low potencies are rarely used by homeopaths and should be called PSEUDO-HOMEOPATHIC, in my view.”
            I meant that because they are low potencies and because the typical potency is high, I suggest to call them pseudo-homeopathic.
            I did not [mean to] say that, because they are rarely used, that should be called pseudo-homeopathic. and I also added IN MY VIEW. don’t you allow mw to have my views?

          • We’re talking science, not barbecue. So “my view” has to be limited to gray areas where no definitive evidence exists.

            So I didn’t come arguing things “in my view”, I came here pointing to a peer-reviewed research and additional coherent evidence that show low potencies ARE honest to God homeopathy. And asked insistently to be sure that “my view” was your ultimate support for the point. Now the question is

            How do you support opposing “my view” to scientific, peer-reviewed evidence? Have you recanted from scientific approach?

          • It’s been two weeks since my last question and it’s still unanswered. That reminds me of an admonition on discussions and general ethics:

            “The author of the paper in question, who had been a keen participant of the discussions, should have responded and argued his case. Instead his comments on this blog abruptly stopped, a fact that most experts might interpret as an admission of guilt.”

            It could be argued that it’s not a paper we’re discussing about and you haven’t been too keen. but nonetheless I think it’s still applicable, specially since it’s your admonition and it’s right in this very entry.

            So, to avoild concluding you’re admitting your guilt in confusing people about the true nature of homeopathy, please respond.

          • Grr said

            In lack of proper support of your argument, let’s assume C30 is really the most sold potency currently.

            Do you believe that is a correct assumption?

        • I like this guy (ernst) is very funny. I need an explanation. Before sentence:

          “Such low potencies are rarely used by homeopaths and should be called PSEUDO-HOMEOPATHIC, in my view.”

          And your new statement in your new book. You quote the Riley article:

          “Jütte, R., Riley, D.: A review of the use and role of low potencies in homeopathy. Complement
          Ther. Med. 13(4), 291–296 (2005). Epub 16 Nov 2005”

          Now, in your book:

          “Most, but not all, homeopathic remedies are diluted several times—homeopaths speak of serial dilution—in a process called potentisation or dynamisation. This means that some homeopathic remedies (the ones that are not highly diluted) do contain plenty of material from the mother tincture, while many more are so highly diluted that they contain only a few molecules, and most homeopathic remedies are far too dilute to contain even a single molecule of the mother tincture.”

          The real irony is all the pseudospektics who applaud Randi for exposing homeopathy as only based on highly diluted then show up at Ronalds Lindsay market church on twitter every day to throw their money in the “Praise Randi!” And contradict the past erroneous and vague sentences in the past months in your blog and articles. What happened with the “pseudo homeopathic potencies”? Well done Ernst!

  • I think we need to be clear about what REAL “low potency” homeopathic remedies actually contain. So this is my basic rule-of-thumb based on so-called homeopathic dilution levels for each component:

    1X to about 5C = tea. Remedy has active component in sufficient amounts to potentially affect a human.
    5C to 10C = pond water. Remedy has measurable component but at levels so weak as to be ineffective.
    10C to 20C = trace contamination. Any active component is probably only a few molecules per liter.
    20C-plus = commercial homeopathic remedy. If made as per homeopathic standards, contains ZERO active component.

    • Nope.

      “According to the Directive 2001/83/EC, homeopathic medicinal products are medicinal products prepared from substances called homeopathic stocks (mother tinctures) in accordance with homeopathic manufacturing”

      European Directive isn’t opinion of Ernst or Criminal Sindycate of Investigation of the Cheats of Pseudoskeptiks.

    • “5C to 10C = pond water. Remedy has measurable component but at levels so weak as to be ineffective.”

      “Superantigens (SAgs) are the most powerful T cell mitogens ever discovered. Concentrations of less than 0·1 pg/ml of a bacterial superantigen are sufficient to stimulate the T lymphocytes in an uncontrolled manner resulting in fever, shock and death” Support

      If you do the math, you’ll see that 0.1 pg/ml is 1/10 of 6C.

      So in real science, what you call pond water can be not only effective but mortal. Unless, of course, you have proof that homeopathic preparations cannot be compared to superantigens.

      ———————————-

      “20C-plus = commercial homeopathic remedy. If made as per homeopathic standards, contains ZERO active component.”

      As I’ve already pointed in this comment, Randi slanders a very commonly used homepathic product called Calms Forté which has THREE ingredients an 1X, ONE at 2X and FIVE at 3X.

      In another case ( analyzed here ), Harriet Hall, another big name in the anti-homeopathic business, talks about a product from Hyland that has THREE componentes at 6X potency.

      There are other examples to show.

      So, contrary to your claims, there are plenty of commercial homeopathy with low potency components.

      —————————————

      It’s pretty obvious then that your so-called “rule of thumb” has nothing to do with science or reality and it’s only deceptive propaganda in disguise.

      • The maximum level of arsenic allowed in apple juice and bottled water is: 10 parts per billion; 10 ug per litre; 10 ng per ml. This is equivalent to 8X and 4C. Obviously, diluting it further *lowers* its potency therefore 12C arsenicum album (Arsen. alb.) does absolutely nothing, other than extract money from the uninformed. The law of similars means: homeopaths rely on clients who are similarly uninformed.

        • Your reply have a number of unsupported ( not to mention illogical ) assumptions.

          “The maximum level of arsenic allowed in apple juice and bottled water is: 10 parts per billion”

          I just quoted scientific knowledge about the deadly capabilities of a 1/10 of 6C of certain substance and you simply ignore that to assume 4C is a GENERAL limit because some norm says so. Did you even see the contradiction?

          ——————————–

          “Obviously, diluting it further *lowers* its potency”

          Ever heard of hormesis? Unless you prove that exact concentration does nothing, you’re only making things up.

          • 1) hormesis has nothing to do with homeopathy [only in the vague and wishful thinking of some homeopaths].
            2) how about you first proving to us that highly diluted remedies are more than placebos?

          • I pointed out the allowed limit for arsenic. It is obviously not a general limit because allowed limits depend entirely on the toxicity of the substance. You chose an extreme example of 13X, I chose a well known example of 8X. 24X (12C) and beyond ‘remedies’ contain nothing so they are all equally safe and all equally useless.

            As Edzard stated, hormesis has nothing to do with homeopathy. Furthermore homeopaths are not licenced to provide toxic substances in potencies (concentrations) that are known to be harmful.

            Going back to the rule of thumb that “5C to 10C = pond water; 10C to 20C = trace contamination” the only refutation you’ve offered is implying that pond water contains superantigens. The main reason to avoid drinking pond water is the likelihood that it contains parasites. Speaking of which, homeopathy is a parasite.

          • “1) hormesis has nothing to do with homeopathy [only in the vague and wishful thinking of some homeopaths].”

            My quoting shows very clearly that the point discussed is “Obviously, diluting it further *lowers* its potency” as a general idea ( which comes from the fact it’s not enclosed in any way ).

            “Hormesis, a dose-response relationship phenomenon characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition, has been frequently observed in properly designed studies and is broadly generalizable as being independent of chemical/physical agent, biological model, and endpoint measured.” Reference

            “There is a great deal of current interest in the topics of hormesis and hormetic-like responses. The most effective current proponents of hormesis are Edward Calabrese’s group at the University of Massachusetts who have systematically developed methodologies for evaluating dose–response relationships” Nature

            Good luck arguing to Dr. Calabrese.

            ——————————–

            “2) how about you first proving to us that highly diluted remedies are more than placebos?”

            I can do that but first we’d have to agree on some basis

            You insist in driving this discussion in the typical pseudo-skeptic style, overriding science with “my view”, breaching your own rules ( like the breach explained in this comment ) and knee-jerk reaction ( like the one against hormesis answered above ).

            I insist in science-based discussion, showing peer-reviewed evidence to support points. I believe it’s the only conceivable way to discuss this subject.

            So if you agree to comply with your own rules and answer my pending question, and change the discussion style to science-based discussion, I can answer your question.

          • “You chose an extreme example of 13X”

            One example is enough to prove your portrait of 4C as a limit is a lie.

            ———————————–

            “the only refutation you’ve offered is implying that pond water contains superantigens”

            No, that’s what you wanted to understand from what I said. If I wanted to be so childish, I’d argue you implied homeopaths get their water from a pond. But I’m trying to be serious so I interpreted your sentence in a way that made sense for this discussion.

            ————————————

            “Speaking of which, homeopathy is a parasite”

            That level of hatred is mutually exclusive with scientific thinking.

          • Grr, homeopathists and the manufacturers own the burden of proof for the clinical effects of each vended ‘remedy’ in each of its potencies. By “effects” I mean both the desirable medical efficacy and the unwanted side-effects, i.e., the risks — thereby enabling the due process of risk-benefit ratio assessment.

            If hormesis and hormetic-like responses applies to homeopathy, as you claim, then it is extremely dangerous to have been, and still be, vending tens of thousands of different ‘remedies’ that have no supporting documentation for either dosage or risks. It is both ludicrous and wholly irresponsible to claim that homeopathy is safe while also claiming that hormesis and hormetic-like responses are applicable yet untested. Much of the work of Dr. Edward J. Calabrese was concerned with ionizing radiation dosage levels and the related linear no-threshold hypothesis, I suggest you apply it to ‘remedies’ such as Uranium Nitricum and Plutonium Nitricum.

            As usual, apologists for homeopathy provide nothing but self-refuting claptrap.

          • @Grr,
            “Good luck arguing to Dr. Calabrese.”

            How strange that an advocate of homeopathy would cherry-pick? Apparently, Calabrese isn’t the guru you make him out to be, nor is hormesis what you desperately want it to be;
            http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Commentary/JPM/2006-1005hormesisflawed.html

            You also say;”You insist in driving this discussion in the typical pseudo-skeptic style, overriding science with “my view”, breaching your own rules ( like the breach explained in this comment ) and knee-jerk reaction ( like the one against hormesis answered above ).

            I insist in science-based discussion, showing peer-reviewed evidence to support points. I believe it’s the only conceivable way to discuss this subject.”

            However, you won’t abide by the same rules. Where is the science that shows homeopathy has any efficacious effect, let alone its basic premise is sound? You so desperately want hormesis to be your saviour from the ravages of science, whereas science is only going to ravage the stupidities of it more and more.

            None of your posts show anything apart from an overuse of logical fallacies. When will homeopaths realise that having a placebo response to sugar pills and plain water is not enough to justify its existence?

          • @Atkins:
            “By “effects” I mean both the desirable medical efficacy and the unwanted side-effects”

            If you mean that, you could be accurate from the beginning, instead of presenting misleading examples that confuse ignorant people into thinking beyond 4C there’s nothing that can be biological effective, which is a favorite deception technique among pseudo-skeptics.

            ——————————————-

            @Collins:
            “Apparently, Calabrese isn’t the guru you make him out to be, nor is hormesis what you desperately want it to be;”

            The second quote I provided is from a peer-reviewed article in a journal from Nature group. The fact that you try to portrait what that peer-reviewed article of a peer-reviewed journal says as my invention, severely attacks your credibility, if not your reading skills.

            “However, you won’t abide by the same rules. Where is the science that shows homeopathy has any efficacious effect, let alone its basic premise is sound?”

            I always respond to well quoted statements. Quote me claiming that and I’ll support it. If you can’t quote me, it will be another proof of that you’re responding to claims that only exist in your mind.

          • HORMESIS: reversal of effect at SMALL doses seen with SOME substances.
            HOMEOPATHY: claims effects in the absence of molecules and claims this to be a GENERAL LAW OF NATURE that applies to ALL substances.
            THERE IS NO WAY THE TWO HAVE ANYTHING IN COMMON.

          • @Ernst

            “The author of the paper in question, who had been a keen participant of the discussions, should have responded and argued his case. Instead his comments on this blog abruptly stopped, a fact that most experts might interpret as an admission of guilt.”

            Since I’d call myself an expert ( in pseudo-skeptic behavior ), I think I’m granted by you to interpret your lack of response as admission of guilt.

            In any case, I’ve written an article about your characterization of low potencies as pseudo-homeopathy, with especial emphasis in “my view” as your scientific support for that thesis.

          • “The Chief Medical Officer for England, Dame Sally Davies, has stated that homeopathic preparations are ‘rubbish’ and do not serve as anything more than placebos.” — Wikipedia (and many other sources).

            @Grr, your witterings are likewise “rubbish”. Your ship is sinking, and you are going through the inevitable process of discovering that its homeopathic life rafts don’t actually work in practice.

          • @Grr
             
            “Good luck arguing to Dr. Calabrese.”
             
            Your posts keep insisting on scientific knowledge and peer reviewed papers, yet you seem to think that one publication or one scientist is enough to clinch an argument. Calabrese has a hypothesis that he pushes pretty relentlessly. Very few others accept his view that hormesis is a universal phenomenon applicable to all dose-response situations, and plenty of scientists oppose his views in peer-reviewed publications. Your posts led me to do a bit of reading.
             
            There’s an excellent (peer-reviewed) review from 2009 by Hoffman which was written on invitation from Calabrese. It provides a far less optimistic view of the universality of hormesis. It’s a long article, well worth reading for a scholarly perspective. I shall quote only one sentence: “Hormetic effects tend to be modest, and differences from background levels of the biological effect are small (Calabrese and Baldwin 2001b; Calabrese 2003).” Please note that the sources for the statement are two of Calabrese’s own papers.
             
            Now, if the effects are “modest” and “small”, and if they would need to be titrated for every single substance and response, it seems highly unlikely that they would ever lead to any worthwhile cure of any disease. Even if, by some form of magic, hormesis could be used in some therapeutic manner, for each separate agent and disease there would need to be a complicated set of experiments to determnine precisely the dose needed to achieve the effect. The homeopathic approach of (indescribably stupid) ‘provings’ followed by dilutions involving bangings on leather-bound books to add the appropriate witchcraft is light years distant from the science that would be needed.
             
            On the other topic you refer to: use of ‘low potency’ dilutions (=high concentrations) in homeopathy… I was at first surprised to learn (from Professor Ernst on another thread in this blog) that homeopaths indeed sometimes use ‘mother tinctures’ in measurable quantities (that’s more usually known as ‘herbalism’). But the way in which these are stated is often ridiculous. Take your Hyland’s Calms Forté as an example. The ingredients are listed as “Avena Sativa HPUS 1X Double Strength…Chamomilla HPUS 2X…Humulus Lupulus HPUS 1X Double Strength…Passiflora HPUS 1X Triple Strength”. What in the name of reality is ‘1X double strength’ or ‘1X triple strength’?! I’m astonished that it is considered legal anywhere to market a product that doesn’t list its ingredients in concentration units that can be understood and reproduced.
             
            Whether or not you like it, the two essential components of homeopathy (according to its founder, Hahnemann) are the principles of ‘like cures like’, for which there is no respectable evidence, and that extreme dilution (with succussion — mustn’t forget the essential ingredient!) increases the therapeutic potency of the preparation; once again no evidence. The latter point is the reason you keep talking of ‘low potency’ dilutions. If homepaths wish to include herbalism among their therapeutics, the least they can be expected to do is to provide robust evidence that the ingredients show their effects by ‘like curing like’.

          • @Grr

            May I politely point out that the few discernible arguments in your rambling communications have already been answered here.
            In light of the astronomically remote likelihood that shaken serial water dilutions can confer any health effects and reinforced by the total lack of genuine evidence thereof, your fervent vociferations in defence of your faith and devotion come through as irrelevant and absurd.
            Be it water that once contained a little strychnine, a washed out morsel from the Berlin Wall, a remote remembrance of a duck’s liver, the distant memory of a houseflies arsehole or whatever silly substance your colleagues in faith have concocted, the homeopathic remedy is only inert water or sugar… as long as those who pursue the erroneous path laid out by Hahnemann manage to avoid harm to themselves or others that may result from ignoring the “law of infinitessimals” and omitting to sufficiently “potentise” the poisons.
            You can continue to call out your faith till Hahnemann is reincarnated, but it will not turn homeopathic remedies of any “potency” into medicine, or turn homeopaths into purveyors of genuine healthcare.
            It will certainly take new, unexpected and revolutionary information and lots of independently confirmed and repeated evidence for the scientific community to even consider rewriting current well-established laws of nature to accommodate the two main products of Hahnemann’s misinterpretation, the “law of similars” and the “law of infinitesimals”. Two hundred years later, these main pillars of Hahnemann’s legacy are still not in agreement with reality.

          • Björn:

            What is the exact probability of the imposibility of biological effect of extreme homepathic dilution?

            Please, don’t show me the stupid paper of Robert Grimes. Show me the evidence!

          • Ernst:

            “HORMESIS: reversal of effect at SMALL doses seen with SOME substances.
            HOMEOPATHY: claims effects in the absence of molecules and claims this to be a GENERAL LAW OF NATURE that applies to ALL substances. THERE IS NO WAY THE TWO HAVE ANYTHING IN COMMON.

            Agressive letter. I’m not surprised me. If some sustances show inverse effects, there is a way the hormesis and simila principle have some points in common.

        • The las of Pliguccis-Mahner and another psudoskeptikal pseudophilosopers is:

          Lie, cheat, confusing, deviate the question, smear, ad-hominem fallacy, pseudo debunk (i.e. use straw man fallacy), pseudofalsation (i.e. use irrelevante contraexample), pay más media, control wikipedia, abuse of rethorics and CITES:

          Rationalwiki
          Ernst blog (authority fallacy)
          Guy Chapman Blog
          NHRMC biased report
          Shang debunked metastudy
          Papers of Pligucci of the Skeptiks dictionary
          Science Bases Medicine paradigm inventes by Gorki of Novella quaks.

          The appeal of exclusion of non RCT evidence. (Ernst principle based on religous behaviour)

          Randis Youtube principle: the pseudoskeptik link to some videos of parody as “evidence” against homeopathy

          If walk as Ernst, if spea as Randi, if argument as Pligucci. It’s a Quack!

  • @Frank Odds

    Since you took the time to argue your rejection and not completely resort to straw-man fallacy or simple delusion like the rest of your coreligionists, I will address your response.

    In scientific discussion, you have to be correct and very exact ( degree depending on context ) in your claims. The hormesis point was brought to somebody who claimed “Obviously, diluting it further *lowers* its potency”, which is a false claim in any case and specially in out context. I just mentioned it to show the ignorance behind that parrot line, which is not casual but taught to pseudo-skeptic parrots because convey the same idea as that 4C example: low concentrations are useless, only valid doses are milligrams and above.

    ————————

    “The homeopathic approach of (indescribably stupid) ‘provings’”

    “Phase I trials are the first stage of testing in human subjects. Normally, a small group of 20–100 healthy volunteers will be recruited. This phase is designed to assess the safety (pharmacovigilance), tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of a drug.”

    “Phase 1
    Patients: 20 to 100 healthy volunteers or people with the disease/condition.”

    My hypothesis is you got the idea that provings are stupid from Randi or one of his parrots. There’s that famous Princeton speech ( analyzed in this article ) where Randi mocks provings hoping his public is stupid enough to not know anything about drug development process, which seems to be also your case.

    ————————————————-

    “I was at first surprised to learn (from Professor Ernst on another thread in this blog) that homeopaths indeed sometimes use ‘mother tinctures’ in measurable quantities (that’s more usually known as ‘herbalism’).”

    The peer-reviewed research from IGM I already pointed to, says:

    Homeopathy versus herbal medicine

    When medicines are used in mother tinctures, one could argue that this is phytotherapy (herbal medicine) rather than homeopathy. This touches on a long-standing debate about the distinction between homeopathy, anthroposophical medicine, and phytotherapy, which is particularly an issue when medicines are prescribed either in mother tinctures or in low potencies.

    In order to clarify this debate, it is important to distinguish homeopathic medicines in their own right from the clinical context in which such medicines are applied. A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure as defined by the European Pharmacopoeia or recognised national homeopathic pharmacopoeias. In these pharmacopoeias, the manufacturing of homeopathic mother tinctures is defined following specific manufacturing pro-
    cedures, which differ from the manufacturing of phytotherapeutic tinctures.

    So this confirms you’re learning your concepts from deceiving sources.

    —————————–

    There are more point in which you’re wrong, but these are enough to show you need to correct your facts from reliable sources.

    • @Grr
       
      “In scientific discussion, you have to be correct and very exact ( degree depending on context ) in your claims.” Thank you for explaining to me how to work in a field in which I have been a professional for 45 years.
       
      “My hypothesis is you got the idea that provings are stupid from Randi or one of his parrots.” No. The idea they are stupid first comes from Hahnemann’s Organon. It is echoed in Dan King’s Quackery Unmasked, a book published in 1858 (!) which details the reasons why homeopathy is nonsense: reasons that remain perfectly valid in 2016. If you want to see direct evidence of the stupidity of provings, try dream provings and meditative provings: you can read about them here or here. Just google ‘homeopathy dream provings’ if you enjoy good comedy. (I regret I don’t have the time to explore the peer-reviewed Big Snakeoil lliterature for this rubbish, but the first link is to the Society of Homeopaths; if they don’t know what they are talking about they should.)
       
      “Phase I trials are the first stage of testing in human subjects.” Yes, I know that: but they’re the first stage of testing in what you call allopathic medicine, not homeopathy. I understand perfectly well what are phase I, II, III and IV trials. There have been very few trials of homeopathy that get anywhere near the quality of such trials in reality medicine: when they do they usually show zero therapeutic effect. “Randi mocks provings hoping his public is stupid enough to not know anything about drug development process, which seems to be also your case.” You are talking to someone who has worked extensively in the drug development process. Your assumptions are arrogant, not perspicacious*.
       
      “A homeopathic medicinal product (at any potency level) is clearly and unequivocally defined as a product that has been prepared in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure…” ROFL. OK, likewise a unicorn steak is a meat product prepared in accordance with a unicorn butchery procedure. Have you never heard of ‘begging the question’?
       
      At first I thought others who have been responding to you were perhaps being a bit tough on you. I was wrong.
       
      *Footnote to those who say: there it is — you’re a paid shill for Big Pharma… No way! I have worked in academia and Big Pharma and am well aware of the worst excesses of the latter. I am retired and receive no money from pharma that influences my opinions of Big Snakeoil.

      • @Odds.

        “Thank you for explaining to me how to work in a field in which I have been a professional for 45 years.”

        Then how is it you come up with “it seems highly unlikely that they would ever lead to any worthwhile cure of any disease” when the topic is biological effectiveness of a dilution? 45 years should have taught you that’s straw man fallacy.

        ——————————–

        “Yes, I know that: but they’re the first stage of testing in what you call allopathic medicine, not homeopathy.”

        Somebody who knows it’s the first stage ( and have 45 years of experience ) doesn’t call it “indescribably stupid”. He calls it incomplete and proceeds to discuss if there are equivalents of the rest of stages in homeopathy or how do they apply, unless he’s so blinded with hatred he can’t think.

        ——————————–

        “ROFL. OK, likewise a unicorn steak is a meat product prepared in accordance with a unicorn butchery procedure. Have you never heard of ‘begging the question’?”

        45 years of experience should have taught you definition of target is paramount to study and understand anything. A peer-reviewed historical research shows definition of homeopathy sets it apart from phytotherapeutic tinctures. Instead of learning that you, with 45 years of experience, were deceived into thinking it’s the same, you resort to scientific sarcasm.

        ——————————–

        I don’t have 45 years of experience in pseudo-skeptic behavior, only 3. And in only three I came to recognize some patterns.

        You see Ernst admission of guilt ( as per his own standards ) in deceiving people regarding homeopathy and instead of running to recheck all you’ve heard from him, you come to mock a peer-reviewed historical research just because it shows your ignorance.

        Somebody that mocks peer-reviewed evidence and defends Randi’s frauds, has no place in scientific discussions.

        • @Grr
           
          “Then how is it you come up with “it seems highly unlikely that they would ever lead to any worthwhile cure of any disease” when the topic is biological effectiveness of a dilution?” The topic is homeopathy. You came up with hormesis as an implied explanation of how low dilutions might be clinically efficaceous.
           
          “Somebody who knows it’s the first stage ( and have 45 years of experience ) doesn’t call it “indescribably stupid”. He calls it incomplete and proceeds to discuss…” Total obfuscation. You referred to ‘provings’ as phase I trials. But they are not trials at all. They are incredibly stupid and have been so for hundreds of years. They bear zero resemblance to any kind of genuine science.
           
          “A peer-reviewed historical research shows definition of homeopathy sets it apart from phytotherapeutic tinctures.” I have no issue at all with the historical article you cited, nor with regulatory definitions of what does and doesn’t constitute a homeopathic product, except that neither recognizes the inadequacy of those definitions. A better parallel example to mother tinctures vs. herbalism would be halal vs. shechita (kosher) meat. Islam and Judaism will firmly assert that these differ, because the people who conduct the procedures hold different beliefs and say different prayers. A dispassionate observer would reasonably say that both forms of slaughter involve slitting the throats of conscious, sentient animals. A similarly dispassionate observer (perhaps a medical history scholar who is not afraid to draw conclusions and analyse what they write) would similarly point out that the homeo/herbal distinction is similarly semantic rather than real.
           
          On the topic of dispassionate observation, please note that your responses to people on this thread almost all accuse those you are referring to of fraud, hatred, ignorance and similar derogatory terms. Your own comments, written in relatively violent language, with phrases and sentences frequently shouting in bold type, suggest someone quite incapable of engaging in reasonable discourse. You might consider thinking a little harder about what people are saying before so rabidly screaming back at them.

          • “The topic is homeopathy.”

            No, your topic is homeopathy. If you read my comments, all regard to very specific points, adequately quoted to avoid confusion or excuse. Knee-jerk reaction is what brings efficacy of homeopathy in, which I have never touched because it’s ridiculous engage in 6th degree topics when introduction lecture is not learned.

            —————————

            “You referred to ‘provings’ as phase I trials”

            Quote me saying that. In the mean time, I remind you your words:

            “suggest someone quite incapable of engaging in reasonable discourse. You might consider thinking a little harder about what people are saying before so rabidly screaming back at them.”

            —————————

            “They are incredibly stupid and have been so for hundreds of years. They bear zero resemblance to any kind of genuine science.”

            “please note that your responses to people on this thread almost all accuse those you are referring to of fraud, hatred, ignorance and similar derogatory terms.”

            —————————

            ” I have no issue at all with the historical article you cited, nor with regulatory definitions”

            “ROFL. OK, likewise a unicorn steak is a meat product prepared in accordance with a unicorn butchery procedure. Have you never heard of ‘begging the question’?”

            —————————

            “A better parallel example to mother tinctures vs. herbalism would be halal vs. shechita (kosher) meat.”

            One day ago you showed you didn’t know how homeopathy was defined and thought it was same as herbalism because Ernst said so. Now you’re capable of giving a better example to model the definition? Really?

            ————————–

            ” Your own comments, written in relatively violent language, with phrases and sentences frequently shouting in bold type…before so rabidly screaming back at them”

            “All capital letters essentially means you are “shouting.

            Instead of using capital letters to emphasize a point, use italics, underline, or bold text to draw attention to words, phrases, or points.Reference

            ————————

            I don’t know what Ernst is afraid of with this method of delaying discussions. If you’re really interested in discussing scientifically this matter, I can avoid strong expressions if you avoid straw-man fallacies, dick waving and focus instead of trying to relate anything and everything to clinical effectiveness in the same sentence.

          • Grr wrote: “Knee-jerk reaction is what brings efficacy of homeopathy in, which I have never touched because it’s ridiculous engage in 6th degree topics when introduction lecture is not learned.”

            You have just illustrated the pseudoscientific method. 1st degree topics are about definitions and methods of action. 6th degree topics are about whether or not there is any effect/efficacy. In other words, the complete reverse of the scientific method.
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

            I’m still waiting for you to provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence that diluting arsenic below the WHO and FDA upper limit of 10 parts per billion increases its potency.

            Note to readers: Homeopathic arsenicum album (Arsen. alb.) at 6X and 3C potencies is 100 times above that upper limit. This fact alone refutes claims that homeopathy is safe.

          • @Atkins:

            “@Grr, your witterings are likewise “rubbish”. Your ship is sinking, and you are going through the inevitable process of discovering that its homeopathic life rafts don’t actually work in practice.”

            “You have just illustrated the pseudoscientific method…. In other words, the complete reverse of the scientific method…I’m still waiting for you to provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence”

            Last thing you said was that incoherent babble full of hatred but now you’re the champion of scientific discussion and demand proper response. That double standards behavior is also mutually exclusive with scientific discussion.

            Make up your mind between troll and participant in a definitive, non-hypocritical way and then I can respond.

          • To readers:

            Whether or not Mr. Attkins recant from his double standards and engage in serious scientific discussion, I want to point out something about his “scientific” reference, RationalWiki.

            As anyone can quickly see, RationalWiki promotes Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, a.k.a. James Randi or Randi. He has a very famous Princeton speech where he “explains” what the homeopathy is, incurring in the following lies and frauds ( among others ):

            1- Claims lactic acid is the same as lactose.

            2- Claims a homeopathic “1 solution” is made with one part of substance and ten parts of water because he doesn’t understands a decimal solution must have ten parts in total, including solute.

            3- While “explaining” decimal solutions, omits centesimal ones completely, even when Hahnemann ( who Randi mentions several times ) never used decimal solutions.

            4- Claims sucussion has to be done in the three spatial dimensions, which is completely false.

            5- Claims 1X potency is never used and then shows a product ( Calms Forté ) which has three components at that potency.

            6- Shows an unnamed 30X product and then switches to Calms Forte to mock it in the same way as substance-free without saying this product has three components at 1X, one at 2X and five at 3X.

            7- Jokes about the ridicule of a sleeping pill like Calms Forté having caffeine even when Calms Forté doesn’t have it as component.

            8- Mocks warnings in product’s package that are required by law in any pharmaceutical product portraiting them as part of the fraud.

            The analysis of this speech can be found here.

            It’s only one of cases where this person takes advantage of his believers’s gullibility to misinform and advance his anti-homeopathy agenda.

            Having an organization that promotes this fraudster as scientific reference would be a bad joke if it was harmless, which is not.

          • @Grr
            As a matter of simple reading fact, the only person in this thread to have mentioned Randi is… YOU!

          • “… As the last two examples illustrate, pseudoscience and anti-science are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Promoters of some pseudosciences (notably homeopathy) tend to be ambiguous between opposition to science and claims that they themselves represent the best science.” — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

          • @Odds:

            “As a matter of simple reading fact, the only person in this thread to have mentioned Randi is… YOU!”

            “I want to point out something about his “scientific” reference, RationalWiki.

            RationalWiki promotes Randall James Hamilton Zwinge

            Having an organization that promotes this fraudster as scientific reference would be a bad joke if it was harmless, which is not.”

            “You might consider thinking a little harder about what people are saying”

            ——————————-

            You don’t even decline my offer, you simply ignore it, either because you find those conditions unacceptable or because you don’t want to dig more into it and prefer to keep believing in what Ernst and Randi say.

            PS: I read the part about provings in that King book. Sorry you refuse to seriously discuss it.

            *********************

            @Attkins

            Good you changed reference. That means even playing troll, you learned something. Hopefully you will never promote Randi’s accomplices that openly again

          • NSFW You won’t believe what happens when Science Babe swallows 50 homeopathic sleeping pills:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rd3Saoktc0

          • I swear I haven’t bribed Mr. Attkins into playing my minion in disguise.

            Having said that, you can notice in the video Attkins offers to promote his cause that this woman chooses exactly Hyland’s Calms Forté as his target, the same product Randi slanders in his talk.. She doesn’t even know what the ingredients are ( 2:25 ), only thing she knows is it means “No fucking medicine”.

            It happens ( as explained in the analysis of Randi’s talk and you can check directly in Hyland’s page ) that ingredients of Calms Forté are:

            Avena Sativa HPUS 1X
            Chamomilla HPUS 2X
            Humulus Lupulus HPUS 1X
            Passiflora HPUS 1X
            Biochemic Phosphates (Calc. Phos. HPUS 3X, Ferrum Phos. HPUS 3X, Kali Phos. HPUS 3X, Mag. Phos. HPUS 3X, Nat. Phos. HPUS 3X)

            So what this woman does is repeating exactly Randi’s fraud, which consist in making gullible people think that not getting poisoned by oats, chamomilla and passiflora means there’s nothing in those pills.

            Note they don’t try to argument against thos components as sleeping aids. They want people believe there’s literally no active substance in homeopathy, even when all the components are in the milligrams.

            Thanks to Mr. Attkins to help me prove anti-homeopatic propaganda is targeted at stupid people, incapable of recognizing frauds this size.

            PS: HPUS, the term this fraudster tells people mean “No fucking medicine”, means Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, which tells it’s an ingredient prepared according to official homeopatic rules in USA.

          • Peter Atkins:

            The Stanford enciclopedy of phylosophy?

            Massimo Pligucci, Martin Mahnner, S Hanson and Mario Bunge are fraudsters. They never deline a clear difference between science and pseudoscience. Mr
            Bunge (friend of Mahner) one day say stupid discourse in argentinian media newsweek. Bunge attacks homeopathy with pathetic ad-hominems. I.e. Bunge confused David Maddox with John Maddox.
            Massimo Pligucci is another ideological slave of Randis Marketing. The papers of Pligucci is very limited discussion. His contribution ignores the experimental work and the falsability nature of some propositions in homeopathy.
            Forma me, Pliguccis is a Quack pseudophilosopher. I’m sorry.

          • @Grr, Show us the ingredients of the original version of Calms Forté, not the current version that is completely different. You own this burden of proof, I do not. I shan’t hold my breath while waiting for you to provide it.

          • @Egger wrote: “The Stanford enciclopedy of phylosophy?”

            Congratulations on getting 2 out of the 4 words of its title correct; and on getting 0 out of the 2 words in my name correct.

          • CranKO:

            In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hansson cites two works against homeopathy: Jerkert, Jesper and Smith, Kevin.

            The lack of consensus in demarcation criteria is extremely stupid! From Jesper Book:

            “Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we fi nd rmarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healScience and Pseudoscience, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously”

            In “Why Alternative Medicine Can Be Scientifically Evaluated?”. The author never cites any experimental work with ultra high dilutions. Why? My response is: cherry picking.

            Latter in book:

            “We have absolutely no reason to believe that pseudosciences such as homeopathy, astrology, or psychokinesis can even ar- ticulate an alternative theoretical system, let alone fi nd evidence for it.”

            Really? It’s amazing the bad arguments of the contributors in the Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry book. The lack of any rational argument, the biased papers and ad-hominem attack’s.

            LOL!

      • Just a reminder for rest of readers regarding IGM research about homeopathy:

        As I already said in this comment, an European Directive 2001/83/EC is congruent with the research of IGM. Title 1, Article 1, part 5, pag 11:

        “5.
        Homeopathic medicinal product:
        Any medicinal product prepared from substances called homeopathic stocks in accordance with a homeopathic manufacturing procedure described by the European Pharmacopoeia or, in the absence thereof, by the pharmacopoeias currently used officially in the Member States. A homeopathic medicinal product may contain a number of principles.”

        You can verify it here

        So, the conclusion is obvious: the definition by IGM is so recognized it’s incorporated into law. How is it Ernst and many others teach otherwise?

        • But you know, some law are stupid and not motivated by good sense or scientific truth.

          Can you tell me what is your point in one sentence ? – What are you disagreeing with – because you are not very clear and you sound very confused about a lot of thing.

        • @Grr
          What is IGM??

        • @Quark

          “But you know, some law are stupid and not motivated by good sense or scientific truth.”

          “So, the conclusion is obvious: the definition by IGM is so recognized it’s incorporated into law. How is it Ernst and many others teach otherwise?”

          I’m convinced the point here is absolutely clear: it’s not the law validates “scientific truth”. law validates a definition of homeopathy and it’s coherent with IGM’s paper, which gives more credibility to it.

          —————————–

          “Can you tell me what is your point in one sentence ? – What are you disagreeing with – because you are not very clear and you sound very confused about a lot of thing.”

          I can do that if you tell me where and how I do sound confused, preferably with well exposed contrast between my “confusions” and peer-reviewed evidence. Otherwise, my “confusion” is just slander and/or delusion.

          **************************

          @Odds

          IGM: Institut für Geschichte der Medizin, Institute for the History of Medicine, part of the Robert Bosch Foundation,authors of the definitive paper about definition of homeopathy.

          • I don’t know how this would give more credibility to it. That was the point. Law can support or validate stupid thing or wrong fact/definition.

            Now, go on, state clearly what is your point, don’t get dodgy : I really want to hear it.

          • Quarck:

            The point is ver y clear. The cheats and lies of Randi.

  • One more thing that should’ve happened:

    Since Edzard Ernst has a personal grudge “Not long ago, Peter Fisher fired me from the editorial board of ‘his’ journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’.”, and since almost everything this site stands for is against what people REALLY want and need, THIS SITE should have been close in 2015.

    Sorry, I hurt your already hurt feelings.

    • I don’t think this site should be closed. This site is the only pseudo-skeptical site I know about that doesn’t practice a fascist censorship. That has to be recognized to Ernst: he may deceive ignorant people about the real nature of homeopathy, but is brave enough to let arguments flow.

      That bravery has allowed me to prove one of the two main lies of pseudo-skeptical propaganda: there’s no scientific basis for denial of homeopathy below Avogadro’s limit. If Ernst has to admit guilt by not responding and hiding behind trees while requested to support “his view” with peer-reviewed evidence, it’s conclusive.

      Why is it so important? Because pseudo-skeptic propaganda is based in three points:

      1- There’s no homeopathy below Avogadro’s limit That’s why Ernst try to convince ignorant people low potencies are phytotherapy.

      2- Biological effect of high potencies is not possible Skeptics try to stupidize science and slander people to discredit even the most solid institutions and scientists ( while Ernst’s pal, Singh, accepts millions of pounds from Coca-Cola to defend sweetened beverages ).

      3- There’s no clinical evidence They can even discard Cochrane reviews with the most idiotic excuses. People who believes Randi will believe anything.

      If point 1 has been proven a lie beyond doubt, we have not only reduced pseudo-skeptics’ arguments by 33%, we’ve also proven the sentence to NCAHF by Court of Appeals of California applies to them all:

      “NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility

      • keep on dreaming!

        • Come on, I’m praising you for bravery of letting me prove you’re deceiving people and you show up to say that? You’re ruining my compliments!!

          Since you’ve finally addressed me , another question:

          ¿Why do you think there are so much fraudsters in top levels of organized skepticism? You’ve accepted you’re lying, Randi is snake oil seller, your pal Singh receives millions of pounds from Coca-Cola to fight its enemies, Novella uses your trick of pretending he writes explanations ahead of the phenomenon to explain…¿How is it falsehood and deception is “needed” to support science?

        • Dreaming????
          Fact!

          Those excuses (i.e Grimmes pseudopapers about anti “conspirancy” mathematical mooodelsss or “proposed mechanisms of homeopathy are physically imposible”)
          are a fiction. You Those excuses of ‘implausibility of Ultramolecular doses’ are a fiction. You apparently have ‘good reputation’ amongst pseudoskeptikal think thanks por cheats (Randi James). .
          You’re believer of trickery and quackery of Multibillon dollar bussiness of James Randall. You’re site is only marketing of pseudoskeptik agenda.
          You’re science “philosophers” as Massimo P and Martin Mahner are only little childs playing with olds arguments based on the Kevin Smith cries in Bioethics.

      • You still forget the fact that a lot of homeopathic remedies use dilution (or potency, whatever) coming from material that have no rational at all.

        Oscillo is a ‘virus’ that doesn’t even exist. Berlin wall dust for depression. I even saw black hole extract (don’t ask how). Venom to treat ebola. And so on.

        And a lot of ‘homeopathic remedies’ are sold under dilution going lower than Avogrado’s number everyday, most of Boiron’s one in my local farmacy are 30C. You can choose to no look at it, but they are still real and sold as medicine. Then you can call low diluted material ‘homeopathic’ or ‘herbal remedies’ or whatever semantic than can please you…

        • Well, Oscillococcinum is manufactured with the duck virus. Berlin Wall isn’t recognized by Homeopathic Pharmacopeas.

          “most of Boiron’s one in my local farmacy are 30C.”

          Only by Boiron? Your fantacism against Boiron is amazing! (Like as Monsanto) What happen with the other homeopathic laboratories and pharmacies? What is the exactly number of sales with high and low potencies?

          I need this numbers.

          • ‘With the duck virus’ ? What is it ? Berlin wall isn’t recognized ? -> https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/berlin-wall Sold by Helios(Murus Berlinensis) and other site like ainsworths. Oh look, you can choose the potency, it can go to 30C and higher. Would you want me to found the Black hole one for you ? I also know one made with ‘vacuum’ (don’t ask how !). All sold by big company of homeopathic remedies, not some weird lone homeopath.

            I took Boiron, but any other one is good too. The point is : there is homeopathic remedies, sold as medicine, by one group or another, with dilution going below the Avogadro’s Number. Are you denying it ? Is there no 20C or 30C ‘remedies’ ever ? Why there is the option to order them on commercial homeopathic remedies website then ? ? ?

            What is the link between Monsanto and homeopthy ? ? ?

            Then, who cares about the exact number of sales ? Because there is less plane crash than car crash, plane crash doesn’t count and doesn’t need to be investigated ? What is this kind of reasonning ?

            And you are missing the main point (on purpose i guess because there is no good answer) : You still forget the fact that a lot of homeopathic remedies use dilution (or potency, whatever) coming from material that have no rational at all.

  • We have a new master of circular reasoning, even worse than Dullman. 🙂

    • Björn, in the absence of both robust empirical evidence and epistemic logic to support a belief system, the belief system has to rely on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning as its core tenet, and on the plethora logical fallacies that result from having this fundamental fallacy as its core tenet. Circular reasoning and the pseudoscientific method are synonymous and inseparable — isomorphic partners.

      • “Circular reasoning and the pseudoscientific method are synonymous and inseparable — isomorphic partners.”

        Not. BGWP offer me an example of the circular reasoning.

    • “Dullman” typical ad-hominem attack.You’re just lying.

      • Hehe,,,
        If we didn’t all love Dullman, albeit in a rather “feel sorry for the poor sod” way, we wouldn’t have given him such a sweet little nickname.
        He represents the very essence of why we are fighting this war on health related malign stupidity and he keeps us in good fighting spirit by being one of the silliest soldiers of circular reasoning and childish rants. His Silly-talk (compare Silly-walk) is incomparable, but I see he is getting contenders to the prize.
        Ad-hominems…? Dullman is a master of fallacies, ad-hominems are just warm-up stuff for him.
        You’re not such a bad player yourself in the fallacy league:

        Björn:

        What is the exact probability of the impossibility of biological effect of extreme homeopathic dilution?

        This is from a post of yours earlier in this thread and I hereby nominate it for the prize of “quack quote of the year”.
        Never mind the spelling errors, my nomination is for the elementary ignorance revealed by such a question.

        If you really want to an answer I can calculate the exact what the probability of the impossibility of biological effect of extreme homeopathic dilution. We will of course have to disregard the minimal hydrating effect of water intake or the insignificant nutritional effect of taking in a minute dose of lactose, depending on the remedy form.
        The exact answer also depends of course on the degree of dilution potentisation.
        For a very popular dilution potency of 30C , the exact probability is: 0,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

        and for a dilution (Rats!! I keep forgetting to use homeospeak) potency of 200C like in Oscillococcinum, the exact answer to your question is:
        0,99999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        999999999999999999999999999999999999
        99999 (that’s 400 nines following the decimal point)
        I do not even have to use a calculator as the math is extremely simple. You just put as many nines following a 0 and a decimal point, as the zero’s are in the number denoting the degree of dilution sorry potentiation.
        Why do I keep forgetting to use the proper homeospeak term? I hope no one takes offence at my disregard of Hahnemann’s legacy.

        If you have proof or just reasonable evidence that I am wrong, by all means let us hear it.

        And BTW… thanks for telling me about David Robert Grimes. Which one of his many good articles on homeopathy was it you were thinking of? I couldn’t find any that provided an answer to your question. Or is it perhaps this excellent article. I find it an important addition to our understanding of the subject of paranoid delusional beliefs.

        • BGWUP, you insistence is awful!
          You need read again with carefully mi question. You never offer an exactly answer. You response is arithmetic argument, not biological.

          From the iconmath

          “The probability of an impossible event is always zero (0)”

          Wow. Now that’s what I call Circular Logic!

          “the exact probability is: 0,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999”

          Again, this is a matemathical argument, not biological. I’m sorry, try again!

          “excellent article”

          No, no, are you kidding me? It’s a matemathical model without take the complex social perspective (and the influence of Big Businees of Randi CEO)! Check the responses:

          http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

          LOL!

  • Ernst:

    How does explain this statement in (I)rational Wiki?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homeopathy

    “While some “homeopathic” medicines are simply herbal supplements labelled as homeopathic, true homeopathic remedies are so greatly diluted that they contain no active ingredients”

    Comparing with your arguments in Int J Cli P:

    “Although most homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, direct adverse effects (AEs) have been reported”

    If some remedies are extreme homeopathic dilutions and if this remedies is highly implasuble to elicit any biological response. Why extreme homeopathic dilutions can cause direct harms in only four dead people? Ok, direct adverse effects it’s not explained with placebo hypothesis (indirect harms).

    In Ernst letter:

    “Then the total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy would have amounted to 3293”

    In fact, 94.7% of the remedies is in the reviewed reports were administered in material dilutions lower to the Avogadro number. If this true, this is a pseduo homeopathic remedies. But, in another letter:

    “As well-known proponents of homeopathy, Walach et al. know, of course, that not all homeopathic remedies are highly dilute. A mother tincture of arsenic, for example, is pure arsenic and thus highly poisonous; yet it would technically be a homeopathic remedy. There is therefore nothing surprising about the fact that, in principle, homeopathic remedies can cause adverse-effects”

    If this sentence is true, how does explain the contradiction in the review?

    “Although most homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, direct adverse effects (AEs) have been reported”

    “Skeptikal” circular logic!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: *

Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories