The claim that homeopathy can cure cancer is so absurd that many people seem to think no homeopaths in their right mind would make it. Sadly, this turns out to be not true. A rather dramatic example is this extraordinary book. Here is what the advertisement says:
The global medical fraternity has been exploring various alternative approaches to cancer treatment. However, this exceptional book, “Healing Cancer: A Homoeopathic Approach” by Dr Farokh J Master, does not endorse a focused methodology, but it paves the way to a holistic homoeopath’s approach. For the last 40 years, the author has been utilising this approach which is in line with the Master Hahnemann’s teachings, where he gives importance to constitution, miasms, susceptibility, and most important palliation. It is a complete handbook, a ready reference providing authentic information on every aspect of malignant diseases. It covers the cancer related topics beginning from cancer archetype, clinical information on diagnosis, prevention, conventional treatment, homoeopathic aspects, therapeutics, polycrest remedies, rare remedies, Indian remedies, wisdom from the repertory, naturopathic and dietary suggestions, Iscador therapy, and social aspects of cancer to the latest researches in the field of cancer. Given the efforts put in by the author in writing this vast book, encompassing decades of clinical experience, this is indeed a valuable addition to the homoeopathic literature. In addition to homoeopaths, this book will indeed be useful for medical doctors of other modalities of therapeutics who also wish to explore a holistic approach to cancer patients since this book is the outcome of author’s successful efforts in introducing and integrating homoeopathy to the mainstream cancer treatment.
END OF QUOTE
I do wonder what goes on in the head of a clinician who spent much of his life convincing himself and others that his placebos cure cancer and then takes it upon him to write a book about this encouraging other clinician to follow his dangerous ideas.
Is he vicious?
Is he in it for the money?
Is he stupid?
Is he really convinced?
Whatever the answer, he certainly is dangerous!
For those who do not know already: homeopathy is totally ineffective as a treatment for cancer; to think otherwise can be seriously harmful.
23 Responses to Healing Cancer: A Homoeopathic Approach
Leave a Reply to Björn Geir Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Anyone interested, and who so far has neglected to do so, should investigate the ‘Cancer Tutor’ site. There you’ll find the full panoply- money grabbers, fools, the desperate, angry liars, gullible, etc.
Let’s wait for the usual suspects to turn up and start their wibblings about the Banerji protocol.
Okay, so what about the Banerji protocol?
What is the Banerji protocol, anyway?
Oh. I just read about it. Forget I asked. I think I’ll stick with celery juice.
Applying Hanlon’s razor, I have come to the firm conclusion that this person, along with most purveyors of homeopathic goods and services, must be affected by a severe restriction of intellectual capabilities.
Hanlon’s razor states that one should never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by simple stupidity.
In other words, the application of the term ‘stupid’ may be defensible in such a case. 🙂
It’s a long time since I logged in as it always seems to be ‘bash a homeopath week’ here. How depressing that you need us to feel you are doing something worthwhile. I should like to offer something genuine and conclusive. It could take the form of one or more of you sceptics stepping up to have some treatment from me. We don’t need to meet for that to happen. At least one of you has a troublesome ailment you would like resolved so don’t be shy and don’t make spurious excuses that it doesn’t work. You will be trusted to do as I say and allow factual reporting of changes as they take place. I will have discretion over whether to treat or not depending on my evaluation of your case. You will receive remedies sent directly from a homeopathic pharmacy at your expense so there will be no question as to the authenticity of treatment modality. I will absorb all other costs associated with my time and input to you.
My first reaction: Are you joking? Why would I submit to something so ridiculous?
Then, I thought about it.
My second reaction: Are you joking? Why would I submit to something so ridiculous?
Even in my weakest moment I can’t imagine considering this “treatment.”
“We don’t need to meet for that to happen,” you state. I suppose that’s true. You can probably deliver your “medicine” directly through my kitchen tap.
No, but thanks for the offer. Science isn’t delivered anecdotally. In some cases, it’s not delivered at all. I don’t mean to be hard, but how can you offer this with a straight face?
@Nick Biggins
Is this you?
http://www.positivehealth.com/article/energy-medicine/healing-energy-disturbances-with-encryptograms
I offer this treatment to you because I know Homeopathy works and also because this website is full of ridiculous mud throwing opinions I would like to silence as they do not constitute scientific opinion, (yours included). Following the line of your reply to my post it is obvious you are working hard to talk yourself out of saying yes to some effective help using some quite humorous phrases which have no basis in reality.
Mr. Biggins
You seem to have made a minor mistake when you replied to my question.
I am now replying to a comment of yours that is posted as a reply to my question but it does not make sense as such, it seems to constitute a response to someone else? I simply asked a question. You have however placed a reply to my question a bit further down. No problem, as long as we keep the conversation on topic and civil.
What you say is very interesting. Perhaps not for the reasons you think, but interesting and relevant to this discussion and to the topic of this blog post and the purpose of professor Ernst’s blog.
Therefore I would like you to ask you to answer a few questions.
1. What energy are you talking about and how is it detected?
2. How do you know homeopathy works?
3. What is your education and work experience? (we need this information to be abel to evaluate your credibility).
4. Do you know (are familiar with) Bill Gray (Dr. William Edwin Gray III, MD), who has developed homeopathic sound files that when played can, according to him at least, prevent and cure diverse conditions including but not limited to Ebola, SARS, swine flu, malaria, typhoid, and cholera?
Björn’s helpful web reference to Mr Biggins (who may or not be the Mr Biggins who posted above) is worth checking out, even though it will lead us off topic (cancer quackery by homeopaths).
We are also led to another article which puts the topic in context:
http://www.positivehealth.com/article/back-pain/back-pain-wakes-the-nation-up-at-3am
Worryingly, even companies I thought were reputable get in on the act with a video on the management of back pain. Off topic I know, but Mr Biggins is to be judged by the company he keeps.
“AXA PPP healthcare has created this handy video to show the subtle differences between each profession, in a bid to help the nation solve its ever-evolving back problem.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6dIMDNpg0Q
AXA PPP tries to distinguish between physiotherapist, osteopaths, and chiropractors. It fails. No mention of any significant difference – not even a hint of what one is supposed to do which the others cannot.
No mention of the fundamental principles governing each.
No indication of why a practitioner has studied and ‘qualified’ in any practice, and not another.
AXA claim “physiotherapists may use acupuncture.”
So they might, but to what end, and would AXA pay a claim for such un-evidenced treatment?
And don’t chiros and osteopaths use acupuncture (and anything else which takes their fancy and assists marketing)?
Apologies for being off topic, but when considering homeopathy and cancer care, the context of SCAMs in general is helpful.
I excuse physiotherapists who do their best to be scientific and rational and mostly cut out the wu .
Richard,
What do you mean by this comment? “Off topic I know, but Mr Biggins is to be judged by the company he keeps.” And what use is it to anyone?
The topic of this thread is homeopathic cancer quackery, but as I inquired into a ‘Mr Biggins” professional standing (is this you Nick?), I found he used a site which also promoted chiropractic – and I was perturbed to find even AXA PPP had tried to distinguish between chiro, osteo and physio – without success.
I also note that many physios have been lured by the blandishments of SCAMs – much to be regretted, but as a profession they do try to be evidence based.
I’m afraid Nick, that we all have to be judged by the standards of those we are prepared to be associated with.
A shame you did not develop a career in medicine.
Good luck, and may the wu be with you.
In the Uk I’m not sure physios “do their best to be scientific and rational and mostly cut out the wu”. On the web pages of The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy one finds recommendations for physios to include in their practices acupuncture and dry needling, osteopathy and chiropractic and relfexology. That last one carries the literary hallmark of many sCAM merchants we often see on this blog — an enormous piece of text devoid of paragraphs.
and this:
https://edzardernst.com/2014/10/does-the-chartered-society-of-physiotherapists-promote-quackery/
I offer this treatment to you because I know Homeopathy works and also because this website is full of ridiculous mud throwing opinions I would like to silence as they do not constitute scientific opinion, (yours included). Following the line of your reply to my post it is obvious you are working hard to talk yourself out of saying yes to some effective help using some quite humorous phrases which have no basis in reality.
Nick. “I know homeopathy works” is an opinion. A statement of faith. It is based on your own observations. It is not based on scientific fact.
I can say that homeopathy can not work and does not work as a statement of scientific fact backed by copious hard-boiled scientific facts. This is not an opinion.
Homeopaths always seem to struggle with simple logic. They display very strange thought processes – as one has to in order to contort reality to convince oneself that shaken water dripped on sugar pills and allowed to evaporate can have any theraputic effect on humans.
You carry on, mate. You’ve convinced yourself of the reality of this nonsense. We aren’t going to change your mind. But keep posting. It’s always amusing to to see the futile attempts at self-justification from you lot. If we’re lucky, Dana or Benneth might pop up to provide us with some extra laughs.
Yes Bjorn, that was an attempt to develop a new idea to work with the energy field. A long time ago. My primary interest and involvement has been and remains with homeopathy because it has always yielded such obvious and beneficial results.
I have followed the link to your Web site, and having never heard of encryptograms I am intrigued. You say that one of the principles behind them is light wave frequencies. I was sondering how you deal with the problem of metamerism.
“For those who do not know already: homeopathy is totally ineffective as a treatment for cancer; to think otherwise can be seriously harmful.”
Tell that to Rene Caisse, and the many Md’s who sent to her their sick and dying…. and witnessed many many recoveries, even at late stage.
@RG
1) Rene Caisse was not a homeopath and did not use homeopathy. She used a herbal tincture.
2) From a website about her “No extensive clinical studies have been performed as yet which would provide conclusive evidence that Rene Caisse’s herbal formula will alleviate, cure or prevent any disease or condition.”
So there we go.
@RG
Please show the decency to at least try to study the matter before you once again make an attempt to convince us you are stupid. We don’t think you are an idiot, just mislead and deceived by your faith in delusion.
Now here are all (most of?) the mistakes you make in your short comment:
First. The Canadian nurse Rene M. Caisse died at the age of ninety in 1978 so she cannot be told anything. Most of the doctors who according to the myth are said to have sent her sick and dying patients are dead too.
Second. No one has been able to verify cancer cases cured by drinking “Essiac tea”. This can be easily verified by a simple online search.
Third. The herbal brew for which she held the recipe secret most of her life, the “Essiac tea”, has been tested thotoughly by several major medical institutions and found to be totally worthless. Among them the National Cancer institute, Memorial Sloane Kettering and American Cancer Society. After all, who does not want to know if a simple herbal brew could help for cancer?
Fourth. It is a blatant fallacy not to relise that it would be very difficult to keep an effective remedy for cancer secret for long. And virtually impossible if said remedy was as simple as a brew of some herbs. The “secret” would not survive long, as those who held on to it would want to use it for themselves and their loved ones and make money of discovering and standardising the active ingredients to make it even better.
Fifth. Even if there was a conspiracy going on among american medical institutions for all those decades since Ms. Caisse began brewing tea for patients, the world is a bit bigger than the US of A. Countless independent bodies and individual doctors and healers around the world have tried and tested the brew without finding any use for it.
And sixth… The biggest mistake you make in your inane comment. Essiac tea has nothing to do with homeopathy!!
Now RG…
Instead of making a fool of yourself by yet another mistaken comment, why don’t you sit down with some of professor Ernst’s books and read about homeopathy and other medical make-believe. They can be ordered on Amazon at a very reasonable price. You might start learning something. And they are very entertaining at times.
Bjorn
I just don’t spend much time here any longer, there is just not much value here at this site for me. It’s much more fun for me to hang out here:
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/
However, I will respond to your comments.
Homeopathy and CAM are umbrella terms used by many here to refer to treatments outside allopathic medicine. You are correct to describe her work as Herbology, or Herbal Medicine. I matters little, you still don’t accept her work.
I have read much about the life of Rene Caisse, her work was some of the best verifiable and positive cancer work done in the 20th century, that is before the Canadian Medical authorities destroyed the documented records of her cases. Aside from her personal documentation, her success was documented by numerous reliable news publications. She also documented similar study results from mice studies.
If you think it means anything to me that some various Cancer Societies couldn’t verify her formulas, that does not impress.
Rene Caisse treated thousands of patients over many years, the majority benefited. She never accepted any payment for her work, she even quit her job as a nurse to increase her charity. She turned down a million dollar offer for her formula… among other offers. A clinic site was donated to her for her work, until they finally shut her down for practicing “medicine” (not herbology) … without a license.
http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=9d3b2f27-3212-4296-8600-1f685741e91b&gid=3
Not many quacks get a bronze image
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thehikingfool/5148434383/