Homeopaths have, as I reported previously, claimed to be able to ‘cure’ homosexuality. This is why I was less amazed than you might be when I came across a comment about a woman who tried a homeopathic solution called Dr. Reckeweg R20 Glandular Drops for Women. Nonetheless, the story is so remarkable that I cannot resist sharing it with you.

The solution promises to fix pituitary dysfunction, goiters, obesity, Grave’s diseases, Addison’s disease, and “lesbian tendencies.” The product also brags that it is “derived and potentised from fetal tissues.”

A much more detailed description of the remedy in question can be found here:

Dr. Reckeweg R20 Glandular drops for women, goitre, endocrine dysfunction, Graves disease, addisons disease, Adiposity (Overweight)

Dr Reckeweg R20 Glandular drops are indicated for frigidity in women. Dr.Reckeweg R20 drops treats endocrine dysfunction in women through individual remedies like Glandulae suprarenaises, Hypophysis that is derived and potentised from fetal tissues based on Arndt-Schulz principle. Also indicated for growth disturbances, obesity due to pituitary dysfunction, Goiter (swelling in neck due to thyroid enlargement), Grave’s diseases (auto immune disease from hyperthyroidism), Addison’s disease (due to deficient hormones from adrenal cortex), myxoedema (swelling due to under active thyroid glands), etc.

Introduction The disorders of glands in the human body can affect the physiological functions due to excess or deficient hormones. This occurs when glands like the adrenal or pituitary do not function properly resulting in too much or too little hormones being released. This includes important HORMONEs like cortisol aldosterone and sex hormones produced by adrenal gland and Growth hormone, Prolactin, Adrenocorticotropin (ACTH), Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). For example too much aldosterone increases blood pressure whereas Adrenal insufficiency results in fatigue, muscle weakness, decreased appetite, and weight loss. Pituitary glandtumor is another manifestation of The disorders of glands in the human body and is fairly common in adults.

About Dr.Reckeweg R 20 drops is a popular homeopathic medicine to treat disorders of glands in human body and acts through a proprietary blend of several homeopathic herbs (available in drops). It has key Ingredients like hypophysis, pancreas etc that act on endocrine dysfunction, obesity that is caused due to pituitary dysfunction, growth disturbances. It is also indicated for swelling of the neck resulting from enlargement of the thyroid gland (goiter), swelling of the neck and protrusion of the eyes resulting from an overactive thyroid gland (Graves disease), disease characterized by progressive anemia, low blood pressure, great weakness, and bronze discoloration of the skin (Addisons disease) and swelling of the skin and underlying tissues giving a waxy consistency (myxoedema).

Indicated for following medical conditions Adiposity (Overweight), Disturbances of endocrive gland, Disturbances of gland,Obesity (Overweight)

INGREDIENTS: Dr.Reckeweg R 20 drops for women contains: Glandulae Thymi D12, Thyreoidinum D12, Hypophysis D12, Pancreas D12, Glandulae Supratenales D12, Ovaria D12 In R 20.

How the ingredients in Dr.Reckeweg R 20 drop work? The key properties in Dr.Reckeweg R 20 drops are derived from the following ingredients to treat disorders of glands in women

Glandulae suprarenales – treats abnormal physical weakness (asthenia), reduction of weight and condition causing abnormal weakness of certain muscles (myasthenia). It also treats asthma, allergic conditions, deficiency of glucose in the bloodstream (hypoglycaemia) and abnormal increase in muscle tension and a reduced ability of a muscle to stretch (hypertonia).

Hypophysis – it helps to control internal secretion, contents of the lactic acid in blood, mineralization and fluidic content of body.

Pancreas – treats pancreatic diabetes and stimulates production of the digestive secretions.

Testes (male) or Ovaria (female) – treats disorders of glands in human body such as senility (condition of being senile i.e. old age), inclining potency (male’s ability to achieve an erection or to reach orgasm), faulty memory, functional disturbances of glands. It also treats depression, inferiority complex, and condition in which one or both of the testes fail to descend from the abdomen (cryptorchidism), nocturnal involuntary urination (enuresis) and sexual dysfunction to maintain an erection of the penis (impotency).

Treats the failure of a female to respond to sexual stimulus (frigidity), lesbian tendencies, congestion and faulty circulation

It also reduces the hyperactivity of pituitary (hypophysis).

Glandulae thyme – treats exhaustion and congenital disorder arising from a chromosome defect, causing intellectual impairment and physical abnormalities (mongolism).

Thyreoidinum – it regulates thyroid gland, myxoedema, and interrupted development of the thyroid gland. It also treats condition of having low body temperature (hypothermy), excess of cholesterol in the bloodstream (hypercholesterolaemia) and retarded intellectual development.

DOSAGE: Generally 3 times daily 10 to 15 drops of Dr.Reckeweg R 20 in some water.

Complimentary medicines to R20: R26 drops (to increase reactivity after debilitating illness), R59 (in obesity)

SIZE:. 22 ML sealed Bottle

Encouraged by such scientific-sounding words, the women in question gives the remedy a try. By day four of the treatment, she writes, “At 3 AM, I find myself singing along to ‘You wanna see cunt, you wanna see pussy’ with someone else’s lipstick on my face.”

The conclusion of the author of the article is this: “So it looks like homeopathic fetus water does not in fact cure lesbianism. Still, as far as gay conversion therapy treatments go, it’s pretty tame — there’s no exorcism or electrocution, at least.”

I am sure by now you wonder about the Reckeweg remedy line. Here are two short paragraphs from my book to explain:

Dr. Reckeweg was a German homeopathic physician who practised complex homeopathy and developed homotoxicology as well as homaccorde, i. e. the administration of multiple potencies of the same remedies in one single preparation. He started a commercially successful line of combination remedies. The remedies are recommended for conventional diagnostic indications, but treated with homeopathically manufactured mixtures. According to proponents, they therefore built a bridge between conventional and homeopathic medicine. In the early 1970s, Reckeweg sold 50% of his company to the Delton Group and moved to the US.

Homotoxicology is a method inspired by homeopathy which was developed by Hans Heinrich Reckeweg (1905 – 1985). He believed that all or most illness is caused by an overload of toxins in the body. The toxins originate, according to Reckeweg, both from the environment and from the malfunction of physiological processes within the body. His treatment consists mainly in applying homeopathic remedies which usually consist of combinations of single remedies, because health cannot be achieved without ridding the body of toxins. The largest manufacturer and promoter of remedies used in homotoxicology is the German firm Heel.

And to put some icing on this cake: Heel was, of course, one of the firms who financed a journalist for systematically defaming me (more here, here and here).

129 Responses to Surprise, surprise! Lesbianism is not ‘cured’ by homeopathy (warning: includes very rude language)

  • ROFL!

    A couple of comments. As usual, the poster can’t spell ‘complementary’. The rude language sounds more like an off-the-record remark from the new President of the USA. I await someone informing us that Reckeweg was not a true homeopath and his multi-component remedy is not proper homeopathy.

  • An impressive arproduct! It reminds me of the joke ‘golf ball finder’ that the crook flogged to the Iraqis as a n explosives/arms detector, but which, on insertion of the correct information card, was able to find drugs, elephants, and for all I know undiscovered galaxies..
    They may has well have their money taken off them. They’d only waste it by going to a chiropractor.
    Reminds me of the joke in ‘Viz’ where they suggested that people recreate the experience of visiting a homeopath by drinking a glass of water, then setting fire to a fifty pound note.

  • There’s an item on the Internet by an Italian woman who gave this a try because it was claimed to cure both asthma and lesbianism, and since she suffers from one and is quite ardent about the other she used it and kept a record of the progress. No great differences were reported. As she said, it’s not a recent product, but of course it is still being sold to the gullibles.7

  • I didn’t know that lesbianism was a disease.

    • It’s not. Read the very first link in the post.

      • I am beginning to doubt that he can actually read.

        • He’s akin to a printer: an output-only device that does not incorporate a mechanism to read — let alone interpret — facts; nor a mechanism to update itself in the light of new evidence.

          “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.” — Björn Geir Leifsson, MD.

        • Sarcasm is lost on you and Frank, sadly.

      • Frank Odds- best to ignore him, as I decided to some months back. The most you’ll get, amongst the guff, is the occasional attempt at super- inflated, pompous language to impress the slack- jawed. His ability to misconstrue even a simple straightforward point is nonetheless impressive in its way though. His occasional reference to the ‘leftist media’ provide a bit of a clue though.

        • Yep; agreed. Best rule of a blog: don’t feed the trolls. I shall stick to it punctiliously from now on.

        • @Barrie, Frank

          It is best to ignore my comments unless you have the cognitive ability to be persuasive while feigning knowledge of subjects in which you have little expertise; you have not demonstrated such ability. It’s wiser for you to merely hop and pile on to one another’s snide ad hominems (e.g. 1. “troll” 2. “doubt he can actually read”) as a way of hiding from your inadequacies in justifying/supporting your positions; you seem to appreciate “safe zones.” I would, too, if I were in your places.

          • Logos- Bios
            Proof, man. That’s all we need. Then all this unpleasantness can draw to an end, and we can all join hands and search for the unicorn. Or perhaps jassist those people in India looking for the plant that glows in the dark and is able to bring the dead back to life.

          • @Barrie

            Proof is all you need, Man? Really? This entire thread was based on a ridiculous claim that a homeopathic product could cure lesbians. Of course I fully agreed with Edzard as to the preposterousness of such a claim yet you and others have insulted me, apparently based on my sarcastic comment that I didn’t know lesbianism was a disease; Edzard unexpectedly, perhaps volitionally, took the comment literally….and the insult-dumping process began. For the record, I really don’t care about the insults as long as they are mixed in with occasional cogent debate. There are only a few on this site who apparently are capable of, or willing to engage in, a reasonable argument about issues. The rest simply go along blindly with their camedic buddies no matter where the conversation leads.

          • you seem to have difficulties writing a single comment without overt or covert insults and complain that we did not appreciate your ‘sarcasm’?!?
            do you see the irony?

          • @Edzard

            You wrote regarding me, “You seem to have difficulties writing a single comment without overt or covert insults and complain that we did not appreciate your ‘sarcasm’?!?” The problem with your comment here is that it is simply wrong. The first comment I made insulted nobody on this site; but that didn’t stop you from insulting my reading abilities. The irony in this situation is that you started the deluge of insults toward me and apparently don’t even realize it; and now you state that I have difficulties writing comments without insults.

          • “…you started the deluge of insults toward me …” you seem to have a very short memory.

  • This is obviously another absurd and deceptive claim like all the alternative quacks advertise that con the desperate or just misinformed marks in the world. A similarly disturbing documentary on TV recently exposed occult camps or schools in remote areas of our country where ignorant parents send their gay children to be “cured” of homosexuality. These con artists charge a lot of money to physically and emotionally torture these kids, often in the name of Christianity, since “homosexuality is a sin” in their eyes and beliefs. This one brave teen escaped and helped to legally expose one such group, sending the leaders to prison. Unfortunately there are many others out there.

  • Surprise, surprise! Homophobia is also not ‘cured’ by homeopathy.

  • Well, let me ask you geniuses of unilateral skepticism. . Prof. Ernst in particular . . a fairly straightforward and simple question: If the supramolecular materials in question here, putatively referred to as “homeopathic remedies,” are supposed to be placebos, which I infer you to mean containing no traces of the intended solute . . just pure water . . then why is it that the ionized solute can be detected; or to put it more prosaically, why is it that by different methods with numerous indices homeopathic remedies beyond Avogadro can be biochemically and physico-chemically assayed to contain traces of the solute?

    • [citation needed]

    • Standard flapdoodle bumwash, John. Show us the knock-down evidence that it works. The unassailable, unarguable evidence. The trials which have been ended early because it would be unethical to continue them so effective was the homeopathic arm proving to be. This happens with proper medicines. All the time.


      You can’t. Again.

      Keep dreaming, John. And keep posting. You amuse us.

      • @Lenny

        My takeaway from your post is that, according to you, medicines and procedures must have “knock-down” evidence that they work in order for them to not be considered quackery. Am I correct in my inference?

        • Try looking up “straw man fallacy” and then go back and show me the knock-down evidence.

          • Why not simply answer my question, Lenny? Why did you deflect? There was no strawman fallacy in my post. I only wished to learn if I had interpreted your comments correctly.

        • @Logos-Bios

          No. The inference in my post is that homeopathy is implausible in concept and that it has no effect beyond regression to the mean and placebo and that hence there is no good evidence to suggest otherwise. That you attempt, as ever, to ignore the question and attempt to deflect the argument speaks volumes. Now, instead of flannelling, how about you post a link to that unarguable evidence? John has already failed to do so.

      • Dear Lenny, the question here is no longer if it works, the question here is how it works. Prof. Ernst himself concedes that it works, having been a working homeopath himself, but apparently giving it up when he fell into the belief that it was the placebo effect . . or at least so he said . .
        What challenges the placebo hypothesis are the numerous physical assays and biochemical tests that. . in accord with the ionic theory of infinite dilution . . show the ionized presence of the intended solute in supramolecular solutions. But homeopaths tenuously avoid denying the placebo effect, because it gives them an out should they kill or harm one of their patients by overdosing. Prof. Ernst’s review of the literature, to my knowledge, has excluded physical and biochemical testing. Note that I put the question specifically to him here as to how he explains the results of these tests and he has yet to respond.
        Before staking an opinion on this topic, one should review the literature.

        • “Prof. Ernst himself concedes that it [homeopathy] works…
          oh no I don’t!

          • Yes, of course you conceded that homeopathy works, in more than one way! Here’s an excerpt from your book Trick-or-Treatment:

            “We have no axe to grind and have remained steadfastly open-minded in our examination of homeopathy. Moreover, one of us has had a considerable amount of experience in homeopathy and has even spent time practicing as a homeopath. After graduating from conventional medical school, Prof. Ernst then trained is a homeopath. He even practiced homeopathic hospital in Munich, treating patients for a whole range of conditions. He recalls that the patients seemed to benefit” . .

            He recalls that the patients seemed to benefit?

            yeah, right, and everybody loves you, the German people, the Pope and Tricia, and you really care about people, especially Margaret, and you were really into homeopathy until you overdosed on Lycopodium 100M and all your hair fell out and you became prematurely old.

            Now comes the funny part: you met a woman, she was Hungarian, you gave her homeopathy and she died. That’s when you went to the dark side. You decided to exact revenge on homeopathy. Homeopathy as a practice, homeopathy as an ideal, and homeopathy as a man, or woman . . whatever the assassination assignment may be.

          • read it again – perhaps when you are less intoxicated? – and discover how wrong you are. I know it: it was/is my life!

          • Oh dear!
            Are you feeling all right dear John.
            One might think you have inadvertently taken Lithium 200C,maybe for several years?

          • John Benneth

            Where did you get information that Edzard knows homeopathy and practiced in a Munich hospital?
            Not true. Read below.

            “Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) at Exeter University, is the most frequently cited „expert‟ by critics of homeopathy, but a recent interview has revealed the astounding fact that he “never completed any courses” and has no qualifications in homeopathy. What is more his principal experience in the field was when “After my state exam I worked under Dr Zimmermann at the Münchner Krankenhaus für Naturheilweisen” (Munich Hospital for Natural Healing Methods). Asked if it is true that he only worked there “for half a year”, he responded that “I am not sure … it is some time ago”!”


            “I have no formal ones in alternative medicine, and I have never said otherwise.

            I am not even sure that such qualifications existed when I was in my ‘qualifying years’ (late 1970s).”

            “The qualification of physicians in homeopathy is regulated since the mid 50’s. Qualifying courses are offered by the DZVhÄ (German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians).”

            In April 2010 the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter where he claimed he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title.”

            In Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, it is a prerequisite to have passed an exam by a governing medical council.

            “GNAHP: “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?”

            ERNST: “I never completed any courses.”

            Began his career at a homeopathic HOSPITAL but never completed any courses in homeopathy in a country that regulates its use?”

          • aren’t you a little dear?
            I have gone over this AD NAUSEAM and will not do so again. that some loons try to twist the truth is hardly surprising, in my view. if you are interested in the story read these posts or my memoir ( :
            but perhaps you are not interested in the truth at all?

          • Edzard-I appreciate your well- meaning strictures regarding ‘ad hominem ‘ attacks and addressing people as they present themselves in their posts, , but as you’ve demonstrated, it’s a difficult not to call a loon a loon. I myself have been called a ‘dimwit’, and I admit that on this blog I have called another fellow a ‘simpleton’. Not as bad as being called a ‘wanker’, as you once were-by a qualified doctor no less, if I remember correctl- or- as I was on a homeopathy site, a ‘twat’, and on another occasion, by a Trump collaborator, a ‘pig’.
            While it’s your blog, and therefore you set the rules, I find that jokes about ‘Doc’ Dale’s name are fairly comparison. And in the case of Iabal and similar, my view is that if it lacts like a loon, and talks like a loon, then it very probably is a loon.
            More tests would have to be done of course, but then in that respect Iqbal’ s own posts and responses would seem to constitute written evidence. John Benneth we’ll take as a given, since not even he can really deny those Youtube posts, fifths of whiskey or not.

        • The evidence to support your assertion, John. The unarguable high-quality evidence. There isn’t any. There is, however, mountains to show that it doesn’t. You wishing otherwise doesn’t alter reality.

        • John zbenneth.
          Cart before the horse.
          1. Does it work?2. If so, then how does it work?
          I know children who can understand that this is the logical sequence of argument.
          No wonder you were granted an ‘award’ by fellow religionists.
          I can’t imagine a world in which any responsible organisation would even let you bake a cake on such a mad basis.

    • Oh John, do you mean this paper: “Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective ?”

      I have told you already that the data demonstrate a quality control problem of the manufacturers. Since the dilution process was not done by the authors, this paper is worthless.We have discussed this already.

      This is what I mean a few weeks ago with being able to interpret a study. If the lowest dilution contains 1.7 times more metal than the highest ….. this is NOT feeding the 5000. This is a quality control problem.

      • Thomas: like the authors of “Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective” you are woefully unaware of the greater body of literature of physico-chemical testing of homeopathic solutions going back over hundred years. You and they are also apparently unaware of conventional ionic theory for infinite dilution.

        • “…conventional ionic theory for infinite dilution” 😀

          Afraid this does not mean what you think it means dear John.

          You can shout, scream and swear all you like dear John. My glass of water is just as potent (or not) as the memory of shake-diluted sulphur evaporated from sugar pills in your vial of fantasy medicine. It has been shaken and stirred vigorously on its way from where it rained down initially and on the way in contact with all kinds of gunk and chemicals. Should be omnipotent[sic] stuff. Wonder why people are getting sick at all?

          Tell us John, where do you buy your remedies? Or do you make them up yourself? What’s your favourite? It would be good to know so we can avoid it. Seems to cause agitation and discontent.

          • “…conventional ionic theory for infinite dilution , ,
            “Afraid this does not mean what you think it means dear John.”

            Well then, Björn, what does it mean?

            your friend, your best friend, your only friend,


          • Since you ask so “nicely” dear John.
            I got all damp on the cheek from your slobbering so first I need to find some tissue, then I will try to explain how you are not even wrong in your blathering this fancy, scientific term that you read somewhere and added to your play-scientist toy chest.

            “Infinite dilution” is a term used in chemistry. It in no way substantiates the homeopath-fantasy that ultra high dilutions have any action, memory, remaining particles or whatever.
            It does NOT apply to homeopathic ultra-dilutions near or past Avogadro’s constant.
            It really is a misnomer as the dilution is nowhere approaching ‘infinity’ at this defined point.
            The term is used to denote a certain point in the behaviour of solutions at decreasing concentration of the solute. For example, if you dilute ordinary salt (“Natrum Muriaticum” I believe the play-pharmacist make-believe name is for table salt, right?) the solution has a conductivity that diminishes as you add more water. At a certain point, the solution gets so weak that the ions of salt do not interact at measurable level any more even if there is plenty of them remaining in solution. This is way before the salt ions disappear as when homeopaths pretend to make medicine by washing the salt completely out with pure water.
            Simplifying, you could say it is when the salt ions no longer touch. In other words it means the stage at which adding more diluent does not alter the properties of the solution any more, in this example the conductance does not diminish with increasing the dilution. It is far from the point where there is no chance any more of any solute remaining, very far.
            It absolutely has nothing to do with the made-up, meaningless term “potentisation” as the measured characteristic does not increase but diminishes with adding more water.

            So your make-believe science words do not mean what you think they do, dear John
            Now go play with your buddies, shake water and count sugar globules or something and let the grown-ups discuss the facts of life. Try not to hurt anyone and remember to rinse and brush your teeth after eating all that sugar.

            Disclaimer: I am not a chemist. My explanation are to the best of my abilities and I will gladly stand corrected if a chemist knows to correct this.

          • Bjorn, you wrote “In infinite dilution is a dilution in such an amount of solvent that the concentration of diluted material approaches zero” . . Right!
            “Infinite dilution means such a large dilution so that when you add more solvent there is no change in concentration.” .
            The homeopathic solution is an asymptotic dilution, wherein the concentration of the solute approaches zero, but never reaches it. In a supramolecular pharmaceutical solution, complete ionization occurs at the seventh decimal dilution, one part per million, when the solute particulate has gone through a phase change and dissociated into plasma.
            Here is an assay that shows the asymptote beginning at the seventh dilution and evidence of the solute persisting well past Avogadro.

        • Well, John, I *am* aware of the greater body of literature. Like the publication that found silica particles in water kept in glass. I am also aware of the conventional ionic theory for infinite dilution. Apparently you are not.
          As Björn Geir pointed out, you can behave like Rumpelstiltskin as long as you want, you still have no idea about real science. Have you ever learned statistics ? No ? I have and I do it every day, John.

    • John Benneth-
      Dunno .
      Got me right stumped has that.
      Who’s this Avrogado feller?Who’s he play for? What’s his number? Is he any good?

  • The Author may be the expert in his field but knows nothing about homeopathy. How can he speak on a medicine field he does not even know. Its like an arts graduate giving lectures on science. What a pity. My advice- Dude now be a MD in homeopathy then post. Lol.

    • do you have any valid [not ad hominem] arguments?

    • Manish,

      So you think homosexuality can be “cured” by homeopathy?

      Please point out Dr. Ernst’s errors in this post.

      And you might want to spend five minutes researching the doctor’s background before blurting out that he “knows nothing about homeopathy”.

    • Mannish Saha-I am an artist. I’know’ little about homeopathy, and do not intend to waste any time ‘learning’ about it. It’s enough that I can spot lying, obfuscation, cherry- picking, inability or downright refusal to provide evidence, and half-witted attempts to rewrite the laws of science and nature when I encounter them. Good day to you.

    • manish sir, well commented…..good going…..these pity fellows do not know that homoeopathy is a medical science that has been discovered by many of such great allopaths, like them …..
      one day , they will also understand this miracular science. , but only after when they themselves will see that miracle in their own lives.

      • Shweta.. These “great allopaths” of which you speak..

        Name them.

        And we, like all scientists, know that homeopathy is a stack of utterly implausible bollocks. Because it has been proven to be so. Repeatedly.

      • Sheweta-
        That sounds exactly like the religious rubbish that unbalanced people shoutbin town centres as ordinary people go about their shopping.

  • Why is it considered insulting to point out that someone seems to have difficulty reading or comprehending a simple point? It could be considered helpful to do such a thing, since an intelligent person might then be able to address the problem. Or not, as the case may be.

    • Helpful would be the improvement of reading comprehension by many on this site so that sarcasm could be recognized, acknowledged and perhaps appreciated. Perhaps academic studies would bolster an artist’s linguistic interpretive abilities? Might be worth a try, eh?

  • R20 is not a homeopathy drug according to the classical homeopathy. A constitutional treatment is needed for hormonal imbalance.
    Failure of R20 is not the failure of homeopathy

  • Hate it when reactionaries attempt comedy and wit. So often do they miss the target that it simply serves as a reminder of why we get professionals to do it.

  • John’s critique of Edzard is devastating (never mind BG – what does he know about homeopathy?) and, as usual, Edzard deflects and does not answer. Iqbal is not asking more questions, I won’t be asking more questions, and John, you will also get tired of asking more questions. Why? Because Edzard Ernst won’t answer them.

    Have a lovely day everyone.

    • are we reading the same comment? this is what John stated:
      “Yes, of course you conceded that homeopathy works, in more than one way! Here’s an excerpt from your book Trick-or-Treatment:
      “We have no axe to grind and have remained steadfastly open-minded in our examination of homeopathy. Moreover, one of us has had a considerable amount of experience in homeopathy and has even spent time practicing as a homeopath. After graduating from conventional medical school, Prof. Ernst then trained is a homeopath. He even practiced homeopathic hospital in Munich, treating patients for a whole range of conditions. He recalls that the patients seemed to benefit” . .
      He recalls that the patients seemed to benefit?
      yeah, right, and everybody loves you, the German people, the Pope and Tricia, and you really care about people, especially Margaret, and you were really into homeopathy until you overdosed on Lycopodium 100M and all your hair fell out and you became prematurely old.
      Now comes the funny part: you met a woman, she was Hungarian, you gave her homeopathy and she died. That’s when you went to the dark side. You decided to exact revenge on homeopathy. Homeopathy as a practice, homeopathy as an ideal, and homeopathy as a man, or woman . . whatever the assassination assignment may be.”
      no meaningful question here!
      and nothing but very odd lies: my wife is not Hungarian and she is alive and well.
      are you all demented?

  • BG, you stated that you would be happy to have your view questioned/corrected.

    Here is a research paper on the substance referred to in your derisory comment: “Natrum Muriaticum” I believe the play-pharmacist make-believe name is for table salt, right?”

    A Nuclear Magnetic Resonance study of potencies of Natrum muriaticum 15CH prepared by trituration and succussion versus Natrum muriaticum 15CH prepared by succussion alone, by Dorita Hofmeyr

    Edzard writes books about matters he has not studied AND posts PUBMED articles that he has not read. I wonder if you will read and comment on this work by a student. Thank you

    • “Edzard writes books about matters he has not studied AND posts PUBMED articles that he has not read”
      you don’t need to try so very hard to discredit yourself with demonstrably false statements like this!

      • Check the previous posts on Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura that you read a ‘long time ago’ in German (does that matter?).

        Check the recent discussion of paracetamol where you inserted a PUBMED article and I extracted the conditional statements from it to show you the areas of uncertainty and unknown on the action of paracetamol.

        In both of these discussions, you deflected from the questions/did not have a clue.


        • you do not deserve a reply

          • It is more likely that you don’t want to reply. Sometimes people say: Greg, why don’y you respond to this or that question? Reason: because it is not my blog and I am not publishing the material.

            Questions help readers to clarify what the author is trying to say. For some reason Edzard won’t answer lots of questions that have been asked (by myself and others) since I started reading this blog a few months ago.

            Edzard seems to follow the rule: If I ignore them then they eventually go away.

        • Greg
          FAKE NEWS
          A lso, why the quotation marks s in has not ‘read’? They simply demolish any sense your silly, childish point might have had in the first place.

        • @Greg

          The article you linked to about cardiac effects concerned ibuprofen, not paracetamol. You constantly fail to get things like this right, you demonstrably can’t distinguish credible evidence from tittle-tattle, you clearly don’t understand the first thing about professional research and its communication, yet you repeatedly turn up on this blog making insulting comments about people against whose knowledge, intellect and experience your own doesn’t even climb to the first rung of the ladder.

          I don’t usually talk this bluntly, and Edzard has asked us to avoid ad hominem remarks. But you just can’t seem to appreciate the extensive peat bog of your own stupidity. Please remember the adage: if you think you’re good, you’re comparing yourself with the wrong people.

          • I agree: there are people who cross the line and one simply has to call a spade a spade.

          • Brilliant Frank, how many days have gone by until this was noted? 19 – 22 March.

            The only thing is that if you read the whole thread it would make more sense.

            Ibuprofen was discussed on Fox News. My statement to Edzard is that there are commonly used drugs whose mechanism of action is not completely known. I selected Paracetamol as an example (not Ibuprofen). Edzard posted Paracetamol PUBMED and did not respond by pointing out as you have done that the Fox News story was Ibuprofen and not Paracetamol (through apathy or not carefully reading comments?).

            Here are extracts from Poorly Designed Trials:

            19 March, Greg
            ‘Many pharmaceutical medicines have unknown mechanism of action.’

            don’t you think you discredit yourself by citing Fox News as evidence?
            “Many pharmaceutical medicines have unknown mechanism of action.”
            do you care to name the ones you have in mind?

            Tell me, Edzard, how does the example I cited (paracetamol) actually work and why does it increase cardiovascular risk?

            Enters PUBMED Paracetamol

            Thus, the apparent selectivity of paracetamol may be due
            this hypothesis is consistent
            has been suggested to be the site of action of paracetamol
            The action of paracetamol at a molecular level is unclear
            the mode of action of paracetamol has been uncertain

            Medical pharmacology is a brilliant science and this paper is extraordinary in its complexity. Yet it is precise in its honesty that there are things known and things unknown about the actions of medicines, and as I said earlier: this is the case for many drugs.

            It may well be that the mechanism of action of ibuprofen is better understood but then it should be easier to explain why cardiovascular risk is increased through its use.

          • Frank, Edzard’s website is a continuous ad hominem against millions of people (the most atrocious recent blog was ‘pharmacists are chalatans’.

            Apart from the general ad hominem character of the blogs, almost every blog carries derisory comments by Edzard. Some of Edzard’s recent comments:
            Poorly designed trials
            “Let us stay focused on CAM.”
            Promoting alternative medicine
            yes, he is excellent at missing points.
            Cure for lesbianism
            I am beginning to doubt that he can actually read.
            do you have any valid [not ad hominem] arguments?
            are you all demented?
            I agree: there are people who cross the line and one simply has to call a spade a spade.

            What about adding to this list:
            I agree: one simply has to call a hypocrite a hypocrite.

          • are you sure you understand what an ‘ad hominem’ is?

    • Greg, you can’t seriously expect people to read an 87-page master’s thesis!! This work will or should be written up in a much terser form and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Do you have any idea of how snowed-under scientists are at present just trying to keep up with the latter type of piublication?

      • It’s alright Frank. I have extended experience in finding the important points in papers like this. Here it took all of two minutes.
        This is an unreviewed thesis made by homeopaths eager to find something that looks like it supports their make-believe.
        They obviously have no idea what they are finding and repeatedly state as much. Here’s an example of their feeble attempts at reading something into the results:

        These findings do not provide enough evidence to comment on any of the current theories
        of remedy mechanisms or any of the models of the meta-structure of water (as discussed
        in 2.2). The results do give some indication, however of a substance and dilution related
        change in the molecular and proton environment of the solvent molecules.

        Fools with tools are still fools – homeopaths with fancy apparatus are still homeopaths.

        Greg obviously has no idea either, simply reads the title and thinks it is important.

        • Geir, the pretend theologian, stated, ” It(homeopathy) is by now 200 years old and has never proven itself to be capable of anything but support itself as a religion. Millions are mislead by it, in the same way as millions are led to believe there is a person (or persons) sitting in the sky or somewhere, governing our lives and benevolently bestowing misery, pain and sorrow upon mankind just because it cannot find solace in reality.”

          There are problems with Geir’s comments: 1. The word should be “MISLED,” Geir, not mislead, when one uses the word in the context you did. 2. Homeopathy is not a religion(neither is chiropractic); the profession does not have worshippers. 3. “a person sitting in the sky governing our lives and ‘benevolently bestowing misery'”? Could Geir actually be serious in implying such a farcical attribute to all religions, or is he simply proffering another dullard’s comment into his rant? “Benevolently bestowing misery” is a paradoxical phrase which evinces Geir’s ignorance of both grammatical construction and of the world’s most adhered-to religion, Christianity. Please, Geir, quit posting nonsense on subject matter about which you know little, likely nothing.

        • Geir wrote, “Fools with tools are still fools” in a post regarding non-cures for lesbianism? Priceless! You can’t make this stuff up.

      • It is for BG, of course researchers are too busy to read this paper on a nuclear magnetic resonance study of ‘Natrum Muriaticum’.

        • @Greg

          It’s NOT a paper, for heaven’s sake!!! It’s a student thesis. There’s a wide gulf between a ‘paper’ (which customarily connotes a professional standard, peer-reviewed, succinct publication) and a thesis, which is a very full and detailed account of a student’s work submitted for examination by (in the UK) a minimum of one examiner to the student’s institution and one internal examiner.

          Typically the examiners will find at least weaknesses in the thesis and, often, more serious problems: in the worst case the student may fail to earn the degree they’ve submitted for. Problems normally prompt the student’s supervisor to do further experiments but, because the original student will have done all they can, it will usually fall to a new research student to carry on the work. That’s one reason why proper ‘papers’ often have multiple authors.

          You really haven’t the first clue about how science is done or communicated, Greg. Like Bjorn, I have extensive experience in finding the important flaws in theses, having served as an external and internal examiner of theses on scores of occasions. But I simply resent your linking to a raw thesis as if it provides evidence of anything at all, and I’m not prepared to spend a moment reading it. It is a total irrelevance to any sensible discussion.

          • if the thesis is any good, it would get condensed as a paper, submitted, peer-reviewed, and published.

          • Precisely! That’s what I’ve been saying in other forms of words.

          • Did I say that the study was good?

            I said ‘of course researchers are too busy to read it.’
            It is for BG because he was lampooning Natrum Muriaticum.

            The student was ably supported by highly qualified people: probably more so than a lot of people that comment on this blog.

            I asked BG, ‘to comment on this work by a student’. His comment: its rubbish.

            Thanks, and lol

          • Oh my.

            Greg, you should do something about this hole you are in. It would be better for your mental health and wellbeing to get out of there instead of digging still deeper. Of course I said this thesis is rubbish. It may be gold for homeopaths, who can pretend it proves something. But It is rubbish if you measure it against reality by scientific standards.
            It is sad for the poor author who is misled into thinking her work is remarkable science. Her tutors may be “highly qualified people” as you say, but that does not mean that their qualifications are in genuine science. They seem to be homeopaths and that, as we all know is perhaps the purest of pseudosciences, the “mother of make-believe medicine” if you will. Their qualifications are, like any priest or religious leader, in make-believe.
            I appreciate your woes dear Greg, but there is no escaping the fact that homeopathy is a dead horse. It is by now 200 years old and has never proven itself to be capable of anything but support itself as a religion. Millions are mislead by it, in the same way as millions are led to believe there is a person (or persons) sitting in the sky or somewhere, governing our lives and benevolently bestowing misery, pain and sorrow upon mankind just because it cannot find solace in reality.

            Well, experience tells me it will not happen, but one can always hope you will some day find your way out of your anguishing hole, walled by cognitive dissonance and realise you have been putting all of your money and pride on a lame horse.

  • Addendum. In my last comment, the words “…have no idea what they are finding and repeatedly state…” should read: “…have no idea what they are finding if anything and repeatedly state…”

  • and here ist the list of countries, where one can buy ( but should not) remedies from Dr Reckewegs

    its a big industry without evidence

  • Ps, you guys are so much fun!

  • Oh my Bjorn, that is quite a mouthful of the usual dross. Are you feeling well today?

  • Prof. Ernst: Okay, I am between fifths, so I’m a little more sober now, so let’s go over it again:

    You said you were trained as a homeopath, worked in a homeopathic hospital, treated a number of patients but were not sure why it was they seemed to get better. You speculated that “it was hard to determine whether this was due to homeopathy, the placebo effect, the dietary advice given by doctors, the body’s natural healing ability, or something else”, to which I would add that by your standards it could be due other factors as well, such as Christian Science, sudden onset sobriety, or your fairy godmother.
    In other words, where is this scientific rigor you tout so gloriously? Where is the Inquisition?
    Let’s start with your first assumption: the placebo effect, the hypothesis that the action of these drugs is not due to any relevant chemistry, the action being solely due to psychokinetics.

    Now I could simply destroy the placebo hypothesis by pointing out that if it works on the homeopathic pharmacy, for all the mummery involved it would work on the allopathic pharmacy even better.
    I could also point out that there is no literature supporting the placebo hypothesis. But I won’t. It is just another assumption made by desperate skeptics. These are arguments of belief that are dismissed with a lot of verbal handwaving.
    The skeptic argument killshot are physical and biochemical tests, repeatable experiments that show the presence of the solute where there shouldn’t be any, replicated physical assays and in vitro biochemical studies that demonstrate the ionic law of infinite dilution, some performed by Nobel laureates such as Behring and Montagnier and scientists of high academic and professional distinction, such as Yves Lasne, Rolland Conte, Jacques Benveniste, Rustum Roy, Demangeat, Belon, Ennis. Schwartz, to name but a few.

    This is the question Prof. Ernst hasn’t answered, this is the million-dollar challenge James Randi ran away from: Why is not the physical chemical testing homeopathic remedies that appeared in your systematic reviews?
    I think the answer is a deep psychological one. If it is proven to the public that homeopathic remedies have an identifiable chemistry, an old shroud descends upon the doctrine.

    Here is a quote from the legendary homeopath James Tyler Kent:

    “It might be dangerous to administer these medicines that have a tendency to cause suppuration in such, and you should at least proceed cautiously in using them. After you have seen a great many cases you will find that you have killed some of them. If our medicines were not powerful enough to kill folks, they would not be powerful enough to cure sick folks. It is well for you to realize that you are dealing with razors when dealing with high potencies.
    “I would rather be in a room with a dozen negroes slashing with razors than in the hands of ail ignorant prescriber of high potencies. They are means of tremendous harm, as well as of tremendous good.”

    So you see, what the skeptic is doing calling homeopathic remedies placebos, is unwittingly providing the homeopath with a cover story.

    • “… it could be due other factors as well, such as Christian Science, sudden onset sobriety, or your fairy godmother.”

  • Voila! Eureka Thomas! Bingo Bjorn! You did it! You fell for it! You have admitted the ionizing component to dilution and stopped talking about your missing molecules in homeopathic pharmaceuticals. The camel’s nose is now inside your mental tent.

    A real scientist would call for the assay.

    “It may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but infinite dilution is a concept found in chemistry that is applied to the study of solvents — liquids — and solutes, the substances that are dissolved in solvents. This principle is used to test the properties of solutions and extrapolate or estimate their chemical reactions in varying environments.”
    Read more :

    A real scientist would call for a test.

    What is infinite dilution –
    “Infinite dilution means such a large dilution so that when you add more solvent there is no change in concentration.” › Wiki Answers › Categories › Science › Chemistry

    A real scientist would either accept the published assays that prove it, or run one of his own.
    “An infinitely dilute solution is one where there is a sufficiently large excess of water that adding any more does not cause any further heat to be absorbed or evolved. … The hydration enthalpy is the enthalpy change when 1 mole of gaseous ions dissolve in sufficient water to give an infinitely dilute solution. Hydration enthalpies are always negative.”

    A real scientist would either accept the published assays that prove the ionized solute remains in supramolecular solutions, or run the assays for himself.
    “The law is based on the fact that only a portion of the electrolyte is dissociated into ions at ordinary dilution and completely at infinite dilution.”
    PDF: Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential
    University of Illinois at Chicago
    Fluid Phase Equilibria, 85 (1993) 141-151. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 141. Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential. 

    The null hypothesis for the solute remaining in post Avogadro solutions is crumbling . .

    A search in PUBMED for articles containing “infinite dilution” brought up a dizzying 620 abstracts.

    JERRY BLOWS UP TOM by John Benneth
    This one mere fact, expressed as two words: INFINITE DILUTION, exposes this whole cat and mouse game of gotcha antagonism against the practice of homeopathy to be nothing more than ignorant pseudoscience. This is a monumental discovery. Anybody can look it up online and see it for themselves in a plethora of articles on the subject.
    If infinite dilution is not a chemical fact that refers to the properties of the solute remaining in the solvent after unlimited serial dilutions, then perhaps one of these self-appointed celebrity spokesmen for science, such as Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or James “the Amazing” Randi et al; or caviling professors such as PZ Myers, Edzard Ernst, Joe Schwarc, David Colquhoun or Steven Novella et al can explain to us, in their own pseudoscientific terms, just what it really means. . .

    In the face of dissociation
    and the ionizing pharmaceutical
    Of course they will cry,
    “it doesn’t apply,
    “it doesn’t apply”

    • When and if you sober up, dear John you might find out that you got it wrong. Your references are confirming what I said, not the other way around. But maybe you need to get someone who finished grammar school to read them for you and explain how dilution works?

      • If you can’t accept the results of other people’s physical assays of homeopathic remedies, just run one of your own, Bjorn! But you’ll never do that, will you? Chances are too great that you be proven wrong, aren’t they? That’s the one thing you skeptics can’t stand, is putting it to the test!
        Here’s one by a Nobel laureate that just drives skeptics nuts

        • Dear John.
          The only sentiment this paper brings out in skeptics is the feeling of being caught in a constant game of “Whack-a-mole” and shouting:
          Oh-no, not another homeopathy-idiot trying to tell us about Luc Montagnier’s non-homeopathic experiments!

          At least you should try to read up on the things you write. A simple look in Wikipedia sometimes brings up important information.

          Poor Luc Montagnier and his recordings of static noise he tried to interpret as signals from low dilutions of bacterial DNA. (Not homeopathic ultradilutions mind you). This story is really a sad tale of a fallen scientist but it certainly has been stiffening certain anatomical structures in homeopaths ever since this sorry piece of paper came out and some idiot thought it substantiated the magic of shaken water.
          Dr. Montagnier’s expertise was in virology and as many good researchers he went bonkers after sharing the nobel prize. Their’s was awarded for finding the HIV virus.
          He was the editor of a journal and published this paper on incredibly amateurish experiments without having it peer reviewed.
          In CBC’s documentary on homeopathy, Homeopathy – Cure or con”, he is quoted as saying about his results that one “cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy”.
          You could do well by watching this documentary dear John. Here it is: ”

    • Oh my, John. Homeopathics is *not* infinite dilution. In infinite dilution is a dilution in such an amount of solvent that the concentration of diluted material approaches zero. Let me explain something to you. If you have 1L solution with 1 molecule of something in it and dilute it exactly 1:2, the 500mL containing the molecule will be an indefinite dilution of the substance, whereas the other will be NOT. It will be simply empty. An infinite dilution requires the diluted substance to be present. 200C is NOT an infinite dilution.

      Apparently you do not understand chemistry. No amount of Vogon poetry or prose will change that.

      • “An infinite dilution requires the diluted substance to be present.” Right.
        “200C is NOT an infinite dilution.” Wrong.
        A 200C homeopathic solution contains the ionized solute demonstrably in it. This is been proven by a number of physical tests,
        Look, if you can’t accept the chemical assays by Nobel laureates and others of high scientific standing, tests that prove the chemistry of homeopathy, then why not put your doubts to rest by replicating the tests?
        Really, Thomas, there are so many of them now: NMR (Smith & Boericke; Conte & Lasne, Demangeat; et al), EMF (Benveniste; Montagnier) TEM (Chikramane; Van Wassenhoven ) , Dielectric strength (Brucato & Stephson; Gay & Boiron), Beta scintillation (Conte & Lasne), Ramon laser (Boiron plasma/gas discharge (Schwartz), etc. All these tests prove that homeopathic remedies are ionized pharmaceuticals . .
        And now, due to yours truly, there is a scientific explanation for this.

        • Oh John. “ionized pharmaceuticals” ? Your newest hastag ? Surprise, surprise, most pharmaceuticals come in form of ions to increase bioavailability. As for your publications – ask yourself what was really detected. In all of them they detected that water does not come pure. The essence of their findings is that measuring at the lower detection limit is prone to detecting contaminants and false positives. Aside that, even if they detected some residuals, that does not help you. Homeopathy is so fraught with pseudoscience that even Hercules himself would be unable to clean this Augiasstable.

          As for your nobel laureates. Do you know how much that impresses me – on a scale between 1 and 10 ? Minus. five.

          As for your tests, this is YOUR task. Oh, I forgot, you never did real science. Sorry.

          • Here is one example among several different methods analyzing homeopathic pharmaceuticals, this one using spectroscopy:

            A test by Rao, Roy, Bell & Hoover “using Raman and Ultra-Violet-Visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy” to “illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies.

            It should be noted here who the authors are, most notably the late Prof. Rustum Roy, head of the Penn State material sciences department.

            Here are a few more chemical assays of homeopathic pharmaceuticals that the science community needs to be aware of.

            1. NMR (Smith & Boericke; Conte & Lasne, Demangeat; et al),
            2. EMF (Benveniste; Montagnier)
            3. TEM (Chikramane; Van Wassenhoven ) ,
            4. Dielectric strength (Brucato & Stephson; Gay & Boiron),
            5. Beta scintillation (Conte & Lasne)
            6. Plasma/gas discharge (Schwartz & Bell)

            Yes, yes, I know, I’ll live to regret this, the tests are not any good, they’re all frauds, you’ll destroy us all . . I’ve heard all your denials a thousand times before, Thomas, but the edifice of the literature just keeps growing in testimony to your ignorance.

          • John Benneth
            -You’re right, the ‘edifice’ of your ‘literature’ indeed does keep growing, as you say. The fact that it’s nonsense of course does not bother. you.
            I think back a few years to the news story about the American man who had such a huge collection of comic books that one day they all collapsed on him and he eventually died. Still, a number of your ‘fifths’ should numb your pain should all your ‘literature’ fall on you.
            Even your supposed argument- clinchers are an embarrassment. Montagnier? AGAIN?
            And why do you talk about the science community’ as if they’re somehow apart from you? Surely you think of yourself as a scientist? One at the cutting edge? Good grief, man. You were even given an AWARD.

    • John Benneth,

      Thank you very much for demonstrating that, say, a 200C remedy contains the same, or a similar, number of ions as a 30C remedy. In other words, the claimed increasing potency with increasing dilutions is abject bullshit.

      Thank you for also for demonstrating that all of the homeopathic remedies that are insoluble in water are utterly useless homeopathic remedies (because they do not produce ions in water and/or ethanol diluted with water).

      I think that you have also more than adequately demonstrated that 12C, and beyond, homeopathic remedies, that are supplied in the form of pillules, are utterly useless / abject bullshit.

      • You are welcome, Pete, and thank you for proving that homeopathy works with stupid comments like the one you just made!

        • John,

          Thomas Mohr said to you: “Apparently you do not understand chemistry”.

          Very apparently, you also do not understand discrete mathematics and the discrete, quantized, systems to which it applies — such as the serial dilution of ions!

          The glaring divide-by-zero mathematical fallacy contained in your article CHEMISTRY OF HOMEOPATHY and the FDA, and in your comment above (on Sunday 26 March 2017 at 06:35), doesn’t just indicate your failure to properly understand seemingly-complex discrete, quantized, systems; it also indicates your failure to properly apply both fundamental numeracy skills and logic in your arguments/reasoning.

          Björn was correct in stating to you: “Your references are confirming what I said, not the other way around.”

  • John, you are discussing quantum medicine with newtonian thinkers; why don’t you accept that they dislike homeopathy for whatever reason and leave them be.

    If you would like to chat with people discussing your science, there are plenty of them on the internet.

    Iqbal, sent me a message through this site so it can be read by all: do I think Edzard Ernst is relevant to today’s medical science views? Of course he is not and after my interaction and my questions not being answered on this site, I have confirmed: further discussion is pointless because the discussion is across non compatible paradigms, it is like an atheist discussing existence with a theist.

    It is 3hr 20 min since your post and no response. Give them a few minutes and they will deflect from yours and focus on something easier to respond to: my comment. It will be something along the lines of ‘he always missses the point’ (Edzard), ‘that is rubbish’ (BG), ‘more ad hominems’ (Edzard), ‘he has a punchable mouth’ (Barry Lee ‘Wellness’).

    And on it goes, it is moronic.

    • “John, you are discussing quantum medicine with newtonian thinkers”
      THANK YOU!!

      • No, thank you Edzard for making this site freely available for global audience amusement. It is so much fun, that I can tell you.

    • in case someone is not as highly educated as Greg, here is an explanation what QUANTUM MEDICINE is (
      We cannot refute the undeniable existence and importance of quantum physics, but for some reason the medical field has been slow to embrace the revolutionary and important discoveries that directly impact health.
      For over 100 years Quantum physics has detailed the energetic aspects of all matter. Albert Einstein famously came up with his equation E=MC² which describes matter and energy as two sides of the same coin. Extensive research into the field of bioenergy has revealed that all cells in living organisms communicate with each other and have the ability to store and emit particles of light called biophotons (named by the German biophysicist, Fritz A.Popp, of the University of Kaiserlautern). Many other researchers in the last century including Prof. H. Frolich (Nobel Prize), Prof. Lund, Dr. Pilla, Dr. D. Gabor (Nobel Prize), Prof. I. Prigogine (Nobel Prize) declared that life cells emit electromagnetic fields. Then why have these Nobel Prize winning findings been ignored by the medical field? Let us look at those that have embraced these discoveries and applied them in a medical sense.
      Bioenergy can be described as any method of treatment that addresses the energetic aspects of biological organisms. Biological organisms give off and absorb energy at various vibratory frequencies and qualities.  The Hermetic Laws have proven this as a universal truth. This energetic aspect of biological organisms is the most important aspect of health and yet is almost entirely ignored by mainstream allopathic medicine and science. For thousands of years Eastern cultures and societies (most prominently Chinese and Indian) have used the truth that our bodies are composed of energetic systems radiating at various vibratory frequencies to heal and bring about total health in people. Acupuncture, Ayurvedic, Rekii, and other well known Eastern healing modalities are based upon the functions and workings of the body’s biological energy pathways.
      The energy healing modalities of the East that have been around for thousands of years, now have legitimate scientific justification and support in the form of quantum physics. More modern energetic modalities such as those introduced by European Complementary Medicine include Voll, Vega, Mora, Biocom and others. In the USA, kinesiology testing by Drs. Goodhard, Williams and Klinghardt, the O-Ring method by Omura, Bioresonance Analysis of Health by Dr. Szulc, and computerized techniques (eg. QXCI, Zyto, etc.) were successfully introduced to energy medicine holistic/alternative practices. Despite these advances, orthodox medicine has still failed to embrace the concept of energy in biological organisms and ignores its vital importance to health and healing.
      Bioenergy’s popularity is increasing, and with good reason. Why not embrace the truth that our cells vibrate, and can give off important information as to how to best heal ourselves? Some of the greatest minds of all time spent their lives to prove this, and now that their results have proven what centuries of other cultures have always believed in, we shouldn’t overlook the importance of bioenergy in healing and wellness.

      • It is unsurprising, to me, that many of the studies that you have reviewed led you to your conclusions that x hypothesis was not supported by the data obtained in the studies.

        Your answer to this question will be interesting. Do you think that the experimental model that is used for pharmacological medicines (‘gold standard’ RCT’s) is suitable for application to a number of TM fields including homeopathy and acupuncture?

      • “Albert Einstein famously came up with his equation E=MC²”

        Whoever wrote that, and whoever believes it, doesn’t begin to understand basic physics. The symbol for mass is “m”, not “M”; the symbol for the speed of light is “c”, not “C”.

        E=MC² is a:
        1946 poem by Morris Bishop;
        1958 album by Count Basie (aka The Atomic Mr. Basie);
        1961 poem by Rosser Reeves;
        1979 album produced and composed by Giorgio Moroder and Harold Faltermeyer;
        1986 song by Big Audio Dynamite;
        2008 album by American singer and songwriter Mariah Carey;
        2008 song by Ayreon.

        • Pete Atkins- I beg anyone who already hasn’t to check out ‘Dr Charlene Werner on YouTube taking on Einstein, going 7 goals down in the first minute or two, but the plucky lass stumbles on, not realising she’s metaphorically got her boots on the wrong feet, the fact that she’s introduced by ‘Dr’ Edward Kondrot of ‘Haling The Eye’ infamy doesn’t augur well, and t she goes on to lose by a world record score,, not helped by her inexplicable decision to stand there for five minutes head butting her own goalpost somebody in the audience really should have stepped in, but it seems as though they’d all agreed to be stunned as a condition of entry. If you read the comments underneath, you’ll find that most of the viewers experienced much the same afterwards.

      • Sounds to me like you took it right out of Montagnier and Benveniste’s playbook. If I had written that, your sycophants would have torn it apart limb from limb!
        Montagnier and Benveniste defy skeptics

    • Greg, unlike you and John, we do *real* research. You know the thingie with doing experiments and data analysis. That also takes some time.

  • Björn Geir- Once again, John Benneth, having failed with his attempt at persuasion, resorts to outright lies, claiming that sceptics are afraid of testing homeopathic ‘medicines’ because they’re afraid they’ll be proved wrong.
    He is of course a comedy figure, but so have been many dangerous people throughout history. I watched the documentary you urged on him- nothing dramatically new, of course, but a neat encapsulation of the state of things. The open claim to be able to start the reversal of cancer was pretty shocking though, even if we know that there are crooks and criminals out there trying such cons all the time. The claim that these things do work, but science hasn’t yet developed the methods to detect why, is just another way of saying what a couple of people said recently-I.e. that the rest of us will never be convinced until we experience these ‘miracles’ for ourselves
    The woman who claimed that her child had been vaccinated against a whole range of serious ailments, including polio- an illness which caused my Aunt to spend more than sixty years in a wheelchair- even though the child had merely been fed sugar and water, simply backed up my belief that some people are beyond being educated.
    I’ve said before that EE occasionally breaks his own ‘ad hominem’ rules, referring to people asv’loons’ when they’ve shown themselves to deserve it.
    To the same extent, John Benneth, treated on this blog as a comedy buffoon who admits he likes a few ‘fifths’ while posting his comments, is a demonstrably dangerous liar.

    • “… a demonstrably dangerous liar,” stated Barrie about another poster. Yet this is the same Barrie who is loathe to engage in conversations regarding limited-evidence medical procedures which garner huge amounts of patients’ and insurers’ monies. Instead, he prattles on about limited evidence of paramedical procedures and deflects or retreats from conversations which expose the inconvenient truths within the domain of “modern medicine” which don’t reconcile with his own meta-narrative. He feigns reticence but his (lack of) responses to legitimate criticisms evince his fear of confronting facts he doesn’t like.

  • …that sceptics are afraid of testing homeopathic ‘medicines’ because they’re afraid they’ll be proved wrong.

    I am a skeptic and I test homeopathic ‘medicines’ everyu day. Actually I am enjoying one right now. The tap water here in Iceland is the best, fresh and non-chlorinated.

  • Dear Barrie Lee-
    Your claim that “these things do work, but science hasn’t yet developed the methods to detect why” is a dangerous lie! There are now numerous methods to identify them as ionized, actinic chemicals.
    Knowing this, YOU would be a dangerous liar to suggest they are inert.
    Your friend,
    your best friend,
    your only friend,

    • John Benneth
      Then I suggest you explain that to the homeopath in the documentary who claimed otherwise.
      As has been pointed out before, homeopaths are their own worst enemies.
      I believe for instance that cheese exists, and can be proven to exist.
      I know that you are engaged currently in dogged efforts to prove that whiskey also exists.

  • Greg- what would qualify me in your view to be allowed an opinion on this subject, other than simply the ability to spot nonsense and daft arguments?
    A n ex-friend who lives in France, where belief in this flapdoodle is sadly rampant, told me that one has to do an extra two years on top of a regular medicine course in order to obtain a homeopathic ‘qualification’. I have neither the talent nor the inclination to pursue the former, nor the religious gullibility necessary for the latter.
    And anyway, as I told.him, it wouldn’t matter if it were 20 years or 200. It would still be time wasted. I made the point some time ago that there’s a large number of areas in which I have no expertise, including wife- beating and child pornography.Does that equally preclude my right to an opinion?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.