Once again, I am indebted to the German homeopathy lobbyist, Jens Behnke (research officer at the Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation); this time for alerting me via a tweet to the existence of the ‘Institute for Scientific Homeopathy’ run by Dr K Lenger. Anyone who combines the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘homeopathy’ has my full attention.

The institution seems to be small (too small to have its own website); in fact, it seems to have just one member: Dr Karin Lenger. But size is not everything! Lenger has achieved something extraordinary: she has answered the questions that have puzzled many of us for a long time; she has found the ‘modus operandi’ of homeopathy by discovering that:

  • Homeopathy is a regulation therapy that acts (and reacts) as per the principle of resonance to deal hypo- and hyper-functions of pathological pathways.
  • As per resonance principle, the fundamental principles of homeopathy have the same frequencies so that the resonance principle can work.
  • Pathological pathways are cured by using their highly potentized substrates, inhibitors, and enzymes.
  • The efficacy of homeopathy now has a scientific base and is completely explained by applying biochemical and biophysical laws.

Progress at last!

If that is not noteworthy, what is?

But there is more!

This website, for instance, explains that Lenger Karin Dr.rer.nat., pursued Diploma in Biochem, studied Biochemistry at the Universities of Tubingen and Cologne. Her research topics revolved around enzymatic gene regulation, cancer research, enzymatic mechanisms of steroid hormones at the Medical University of Lubeck. In 1987 she became a Lecturer for Homeopathy at DHU ((Deutsche Homöopathie Union = German Homeopathy Union). Since 1995 she worked as a Homeopathic Practitioner and developed the “biochemical homeopathy” by using highly potentized substrates of pathological enzymes for her patients. She detected magnetic photons in high homeopathic potencies by two magnetic resonance methods and developed a model of physical and biochemical function of homeopathy.

Karin Lenger detected magnetic photons in highly diluted and potentized homeopathic remedies. Since the living body is an electromagnetic wavepackage (Einstein), the homeopathic law of Similars (Hahnemann 1755-1843) can be expressed as: the frequencies of the patient must match the frequencies of the remedies. Homeopathy is a regulation therapy curing hypo and hyperfunction of a pathological pathway by resonance: highly potentized substrates, inhibitors, enzymes, receptors of the distinct pathological pathways cure according to biochemical rules: A homeopathic symptom picture is obtained by poisoning a volunteer with a toxin. Simultaneously he develops psychological symptoms, the toxicological pathway and e.g. frequencies I-V. The highly potentized toxin has the frequencies I-V. The patient has symptoms as if he was poisoned by the toxin: during his illness he developed the toxicological pathway, frequencies I-V and psychological symptoms. The potentized toxin cures simultaneously the patient’s frequencies by resonance, his pathological pathway and the psychological symptoms. A stitch of honey bee, apis mellifica, causes a red oedema; a patient developing a red oedema at the finger-joint by rheumatism is cured by highly potentized Apis mellifica. Paralyses caused by a lack of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine bound to the acetylcholine-receptor at the post-synapsis can be healed by using these potentized remedies: the venom of cobra, Naja tripudians containing the receptor’s irreversible inhibitor cobrotoxin, the reversible inhibitor Atropine and Acetylcholine, daily applied. The availability of acetylcholine is maintained by glycolysis and fatty acid oxidation. This can be supported by giving these remedies: Lecithin, Lipasum, Glycerinum, Glucosum and Coenzyme A.

And in case, you are not yet fully convinced, a recent publication is bound to ball you over. Here is its abstract, if you need more, the link allows you to read the full paper as well:

Homeopathy, a holistic therapy, is believed to cure only acute symptoms of a beginning illness according to the Laws of Similars; but not deep, bleeding, septic wounds. The homeopaths refuse to heal according to special medical indications. Based on Lenger’s detection of magnetic photons in homeopathic remedies a biochemical and biophysical model of homeopathic healing was developed Biochemical, pathological pathways can be treated by their highly potentized substrates and inhibitors. Three groups of patients with moderate, severe and septic wounds had been successfully treated with the suitable remedies depending on the biochemical pathological state.


Do I sense a Nobel Prize in the offing?


Lenger’s clinical trial is baffling. But much more impressive are the ‘magnetic photons’ and the reference to Einstein. This is even more significant, if we consider what the genius (Einstein, not Lenger!) is reported to have said about homeopathy:  Einstein reflected for a little while and then said: “If one were to lock up 10 very clever people in a room and told them they were only allowed out once they had come up with the most stupid idea conceivable, they would soon come up with homeopathy.”

32 Responses to The ‘Institute for Scientific Homeopathy’ and ‘the most stupid idea conceivable’

  • Homeopathy is a regulation therapy that acts (and reacts) as per the principle of resonance to deal hypo- and hyper-functions of pathological pathways.

    As sciency a statement as I have read in a long time.

    I am not sure about the Nobel but does the IgNobel have an award for the best bafflegab of the year?

  • Karin Lenger discovered “magnetic photons” in a homeopathic remedy, did she?

    Let’s quickly look up magnetic photons..

    “In physics, a magnetic photon is a hypothetical particle. It is a mixture of even and odd C-parity states and, unlike the normal photon, does not couple to leptons. It is predicted by certain extensions of electromagnetism to include magnetic monopoles. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this particle, and several versions[1] have been ruled out by negative experiments.”

    So she’s detected non-existent photons in a non-existent remedy.

    Nobel Prize material indeed.

    • Perhaps she might care to demonstrate how she did it so the physics community can verify it and move forwards on the basis of it. She will collect a Nobel in due course.

      As for homeopathy it’s out there with or without her. Impervious to science and ridicule.

    • Hi,
      I realise there is understandable controversy over homeopathy.

      But I take SCIENCE to mean a statistically significant cause and effect observed over more than 300 studies rendering it predictable and scientific. Which to my mind would indicate a need for further study. This is the case of homeopathy. And all controlled for placebo before you lay that claim against it.

      The studies are there too for the honest as opposed to cocky, self assured type to browse through (see Dana Ullman). With cause and effect established beyond doubt, would it not be more rational to conclude we lack a sensitive enough measuring device is a possibility. Hence, a need to focus on that.

      As a humble parent and when all orthodox means of curing my sons chronic asthma were exhausted (just a baby gasping for air) I went alternative. And if you put it down to a 1 year old curing himself with placebo, you’re the crack pots not people like me.

      Dr Jean Elmiger (Lausanne) cured him in 6 months of homeopathic treatment to my amazement. What’s more he had no doubt that he would though a calm and modest man, the queues outside his door said it all.
      I suggest you get off your high horses, if I may, and look outside the world of chemical medicine (which by the way was observed as having up to 28% of scientists involved in “questionable reserach practices according to the Economist (p23) oct19-25, 2013).

      Perhaps, next time you get a mosquito bite(dear doubting scientists) and want to IMMEDIATLY stop the itching… try APIS 9CH and carry out your own “scientific” experiment repeatedly over the summer and perhaps the real scientist, though slumbering, will be stimulated and a spirit of wonder might emerge. Alternatively, regarding slumbering, try ALLUM CEPA 9CH & PHYTOLACA DEC 9CH to stop the snoring you most likely suffer from.

      My apologies but I am exasperated from listening to such “scientists” tearing down the work of others without having studied the research or indeed tried out the medicine themselves.

      And if you botherd to check up CERN research you will find that Karin Lenger is referring to a science already established there. Yes, replication is need by independent researchers but she seems to be onto somthing according to biophysicists I spoke to.

      Both Einstein and Higgs at the outset were derided also by so called scientific minds and just as well both persisted, raising themselves above the chatter.
      Again, my apologies if I sound overly critical but I have had enough.

      Joe Barrett

      PS If placebo is so damned effective, why aren’t you guys proposing opening up a hosptial dealing in just that.

      And bring in homeopathy when you realise placebo doesnt really work.

      • you make many statements here that require some evidence.
        could you please provide it?
        start perhaps with this one: “more than 300 studies rendering it predictable and scientific”

      • @Joe Barrett

        Please enlighten us: which physicists derided Einstein and Higgs? Certainly the nickname ‘The God particle’ for what we now call the ‘Higgs boson’ came in for well-deserved derision, but I’m unaware of any physicists who reacted with derision to either special or general relativity in the case of Einstein or to the PRL symmetry breaking model proposed by Peter Higgs (and at the same time in 1964 by two other groups of theoretical physicists exploring the Standard Model for forces between elementary particles).

        • Sorry, I can’t seem to dig out the article about Higgs ..(I think it was inThe Economist)…. that mentioned he had been ridiculed…but here is a reference albeit not a scientic journal…

          “Higgs boson: Prof Stephen Hawking loses $100 bet
          When Peter Higgs first proposed that an invisible field strewn across space gave mass to the building
          blocks of the universe, the theory was ridiculed by some of the most respected minds of the time.”

          Again, I was merely making the point that the resistance by some of the best minds does not mean the theory is not worth investigating more…. Apparantly Einstein himself back peddled about Quantum physics conclusions he made that we now generally accept as true… oh please dont ask me to dig that out too.

          Thanking you in advance for your attention and consideration.

      • Yes, I bothered to check up CERN research. What I found was that they had to operate their Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and had to apply some sopphisticated technology to trap and identify some monopole magnets (read this abstract to get some impression of the work: whereas Lenger identified those magnetic photons being around in homeopathic sugar by applying some coil and check for resonances.

        Seems hardly the same, even when Lenger uses similar terms like the real scientists from CERN.

        • I had thought the dog in the street knew about Einstein’s early days.

          Whether Lenger’s work turns out to be worthwhile or not, only replication by a qualified and independent biophysicist will convince me.
          Again, if you are genuinely interested, the best collection of evidence based research I have seen is in Dana Ullman’s book. There is also a doctor called Dr Nancy Malik who seems to be up to date on such research also and a capable scientist – she has a blog, I believe.
          Cause and effect is science if is shown to be statistically significant – surely you go along with that.
          And from my understanding, one does not need to go to CERN to get a a biophoton counting chamber and photomultiplier tube to count photons ….. but I am not a biophysicist so I won’t argue.
          And one of you seems to have biophysicist background and if you are genuinely interested, I actually did find a Phd biophysicist from a leading U.S. university who finds Lenger’s approach interesting but is still studying her work. It seems Lenger’s work holds more water than at first glance.
          I am happy to share this report with you once it is completed and let you see for yourself, first hand, how far or close Lenger is to her goal.
          You see, I know first hand over 10 years that homeopathy WORKS… so now I am dedicating time and money into seeing how to detect it’s subtle energy. Lenger’s work offers some hope at least.
          Forgive the metaphor here but this is what it feels like to me and hence my frustration… A guy hands a radioactive stick to some primitive souls sitting around a campfire and tells them how it’s radioactive. Without relevant knowledge or possession of a Geiger counter they will merely sniff it or bite on it and maybe hit it off the ground. But will certainly conclude it’s only a stick. Any other conclusion will only spark guffaws of laughter and derision. That is where homeopathy is at the moment. The Geiger of homeopathy is not invented yet, that’s the problem. A technique sensitive enough to detect this energy does not exist.
          And until such a device is discovered, people like you guys will go to the trouble of penning condescending articles but not to the trouble of spending a dollar on a basic remedy to see if it works on a basic ailment.
          So try to see if from my point of view – coming from an IT WORKS pov ( since I too had to swallow my pride first day and acknowledge it inexplicably works) I feel I owe this gentle medicine at least an attempt to find an explanation as to why IT WORKS.
          Finally, I am by no means as eloquent or 100% self-assured in biophysics as my peers on this blog (OTHER THAN HOMEOPATHY WORKS) but that does not alter the fact that homeopathy has an inexplicable energy.
          So in the interest of science, good health but not ego, it is hoped – an explanation must be found.
          Joe Barrett

          • @Joe Barrett

            Thank you for providing illumination of the derision Einstein’s special theory of relativity received in 1905. To judge from the Goldberg piece referred to in your link (rather than the link itself — journalists always seem to simplify and exaggerate) the derision seems to have come mainly or even exclusively from physicists in the UK, presuming to know better than ‘Johnny Foreigner’. A sad reflection on British attitudes that are still with us today in the form of the will of half the people in the UK to depart from the EU.

            You’re right to point out that even well evidenced novel ideas take several years (I’d estimate a median of at least a decade) to become universally accepted. I think Darwin and Marshall & Ward might be better examples than Einstein and Higgs. But the history of science is strewn with people suggesting new ideas — even supplying (flawed) evidence in support — which were derided with good reason. N-rays and cold fusion spring immediately to mind in this context.

            But so what? To throw back your well-coined phrase: I had thought the dog in the street knew by now that homeopathy is total rubbish. To cite Dana Ullman’s book as your “best collection of evidence based research” tells us a lot about your ability to think critically. The man is a scientific illiterate, as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this blog. And if you don’t want to believe anything you read on this blog, try this and this and this. (That last one merely features our Dana in the opening sentence: it goes on to mention more pro-homeopathy loons, e.g. John Benneth and Amy Lansky.)

            “You see, I know first hand over 10 years that homeopathy WORKS”. That’s a plain statement of your uncritical self-delusion. Lots of people know the same thing about astrology, extrasensory perception, christianity, buddhism, cold fusion, fake bomb detectors and ponzi schemes.

            “…people like you guys will go to the trouble of penning condescending articles but not to the trouble of spending a dollar on a basic remedy to see if it works on a basic ailment.” But you see, Joe, some of us practise what’s known as scholarship. We read widely about a subject, and mainly in the professional, peer-reviewed literature. OK, I accept that peer review nowadays often seems to be broken and that shysters are flooding the scientific literature with new journals that are prepared to publish nonsense; but even these sources are still preferable to newspaper reports, books written with an agenda that leads to cherry-picking [see Ullman D, for example], claims on websites and, especially, videos.

            Why so? Because even the worst examples of authors in professionally published papers are at least obliged to tell you why they did their study, how they did their study and exactly what they found. What they think it means (discussion/conclusions) is less important than the hard facts. It’s by no means unusual to find a study was done with inadequate methodology and/or the results have been misinterpreted.

            “Cause and effect is science if is shown to be statistically significant – surely you go along with that.” No, sorry, that’s just plain naive. Have a read of this article to understand why I say that. Your statement covers only associations, and you’d perhaps be surprised to learn just how many statistically significant correlations are clearly spurious.

            “So try to see if from my point of view – coming from an IT WORKS pov”. Oh dear! That’s not how to do science. Science is merely a tool and it works most effectively when you design an experiment to falsify your subjective point of view (aka ‘hypothesis’). That’s applied , self-critical thinking at its best.

            “homeopathy has an inexplicable energy.” OK, if that’s your hypothesis, how come the huge body of objectively obtained evidence fails to support it?

            Please do try to compare your subjective “I know it works” attitude with Carl Sagan’s quote: “Science is a way to not fool ourselves”.

          • @ Joe Barret,

            seems you should be a little more particular in reading. “Not understood” or “ignored” seems hardly the same as “riduculed” and I am not so sure, if deriding a theory is the same as deriding the person behind it.

            If you want to check out on Dana Ullman’s expertise in research you should just search for his name on this blog to find a lot of what other people say. You should check other sources, like the new book of Natalie Grams, a former homeopath, recently published in English (

            And then: “biophoton” is not the same as “magnetic photon” Lenger claimed to have discovered. Of course, she talks about biophotons too occasionally, but this is not the part where she refers to CERN.

            If you argue, that Lenger’s work is accepted by modern physics, then why Lenger was never awarded a single scientific price for her outstanding work? Why is her work not replicated or taken up by others for over ten years now? If you count how many people find her work “interesting” (n=1 I understand), do you have an idea how many scientists discarded her work as nonsense?

            Your example with the radioactive stick is lacking in relevance for the current situation with homeopathy. Of course, your “primitive souls” are not able to detect radioactivity, when they first see it. But we had a thing called science for quite some time now to figure out how our world works. We found some principles, which hold true everywhere else only homeopathy being the exception. You see, physicists are able to detect gravitational waves, which includes to measure if the distance between two objects spaced two or even four kilometers changes by minute fractions of the diameter of a proton. So it is not a group of ignorant “primitive” people that tried to recognize something that is beyond their five senses, it is a scientific community, able to look deep inside matter, that discarded homeopathy.

      • By the way, you should check up Einstein’s biography. “By 1908 he [Einstein] was recognised as a leading scientist and appoited lecturer at the University of Bern …” Does not sound like the description of a laughing stock.

        “On 3 July 1913, he was voted for membership in the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin. Max Planck and Walther Nernst visited him the next week in Zurich to persuade him to join the academy, additionally offering him the post of director at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, which was soon to be established”


        Please indicate at what point in time Einstein and his theories were derided by proper scientists.

        • I take you point about statistical correlation, Frank …its just a pity your tone is so mocking and superior….distracts from some sound observations made….perhaps mine comes across as condescending too….but I hope not….
          And thanks for the link on statistical sig effects… very interesting
          Here is a link for you: It seems to be for a government by a government.
          INTRO: The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the ‘Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’.

          You will probably find a way to take down the Swiss government too but I’m sure it will at least intelligent…if not entertaining too.
          Regarding statistical significance …in spite of your fair point made, do you really think that if the visible effect (as observerd by an independent doctor for example) is a cured chest infection …over an adequate number of patients and time (as decided by the said doctor/s ) so as to call is statistically sig… why in your book is it not fair to conclude the remedy indeed works and is indeed statistically significant? Do you not think that the doctors have controlled for other possible variables, placebo etc? Is this not how they test orthodox medicine. Do you reject them too?
          Another list of research down: (to be rejected by you)

          But you seem to pounce with self styled impunity as if coming from a premise that nothing exists unless it has been proven already to exist… can you not leave room for the inexplicable … at least it is for now unexplicable, until its secrets are uncovered over time.
          You want more research and perhaps some honest reflection. … perhaps this link – British Homeopathic Association – suits your scalpel of an intellect better (meant as a compliment) and should clarify the state of the research and other issues behind homeopathy.

          Is there room for scientific vision in your philosophy of science?
          Your high horse is getting higher, it seems, with each reply I get.
          You mockingly present some of my words back to me (IT WORKS) asserting as if I were presenting it as critical science…when I was not….My emphasis of the worlds in bold IT WORKS was not an attempt to present science…or scold you….it is merely emphasizing a fact that I and many more behold daily in their lives…. It is in bold only by way of encouraging you to try it. Just that. To try a remedy.
          And what is wrong with the claim that something indeed works and for now there is no explanation as to why but it works anyway? …
          Hence the need for study as to why it works….(i.e.) people like Lenger.
          You pick hole with this off-putting superior tone… as if it were all so personal – though I feel sure your heart is in the right place – such a pity your mind is so closed off.
          Wouldn’t a more conscientious scientist have bothered to ask more about the independent study being carried out by a Berkley phd graduated biophysicist on Lenger’s work. It didn’t peak your interest in the least.
          I only persist because of my personal ( yes personal)observations over the years of homeopathy working are unshakable as qualitative research has its place too when combined with thousands more….when a child stops screaming with an earache within twenty minutes, even the most skeptical have to pause to think…even you if you bothered to use a remedy … I could provide a long list but you would pick holes in that too, no doubt.
          The spirit of wonder is dead if people like you run the show, though your motives are pure and sublime.
          And what kind of a hearing do you think homeopathy gets anyway….in the media…by you guys for example…. with such folk like your good self around, discarding whatever study is presented it is no wonder the homeopathic community doesn’t waste much time conversing with the likes.
          I do because I see it as very insular and selfish not to make an effort to turn some of those minds to at least try it. I persist because someone persisted with me in spite of my arrogance at the time.
          Ullman’s book presents a concise list of the studies out there…that is why I mentioned it….yet you demonize the man and mock him and hence the studies he cites…what kind of scientific approach is that…you don’t read the book because you don’t like the writer….. Like saying “I don’t like the editor of the dictionary so I reject all the definitions in the book!”
          He is listing studies… a useful list, is all. Cause and effect studies. Dip in and them criticize.
          You wrote a lot and I should give it more than one reading out of respect for you but time is a problem. But I appreciate you giving it the time. And I also see where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. I have to. I was there too. …until I had to use the remedies as a last ditch effort to cure my kid when I had exhausted the scientific route. And from there on it has become part of life.
          I again persist here only as an effort to open up your scientific horizon a tad and soften a little your rigid scientific restraints – to approach the topic with the spirit of wonder rather than annihilation.
          Because with all your intelligence (no cynicism intended here) and intelligent observations you are missing out big time in a little understood medicine. Why don’t you just swallow your intellectual pride and try a few remedies…then apply that able brain you have to figure out WHY it works rather than WHY IT SHOULDN’T WORK and thereby have a less toxic solution to your own and your families ailments.
          And regarding Lenger’s work, someone commented about the large number of scientists rubbishing her work… and then someone of you asked why she is not sharing it (hence you seem to be rubbishing it without first studying it)…
          I spend a year asking scientists to study it but it seems its not sexy enough or just a hot potatoe for people to sit down and take it seriously. I mean what scientist would want to draw this plethora of derision down on him if he were to discover some sound science here. You would annihilate him before he could get to the podium, it seems to me, and would seem to any kamikaze scientist wanting to wreck his career, no?
          Time will tell either way regarding Lenger. She said she would cooperate with the scientist in the USA. Lets see what happens. I will keep you updated when the biophysicist has completed the project and if Lenger’s science holds up and an attempt at replication is considered worthwhile. If it turns out to be a farce, I will throw my hands in the air and admit it and take what is coming. And contact every blog I ever mentioned it in to correct my error.
          Again I am trying to find a way to prove homeopathy works and is a natural science as…. IT WORKS. It HAS energy. Sorry guys to insist but it does.
          WHY? Is my quest to discover.
          In spite of your tone, thank you for your comments. Trusting I have not offended you and I continue to look forward to any new comment you may have on the above.

          • I think that most if not all your links have been discussed on this blog

          • They are new links but ok…. your reply is sound evidence of the hearing homeopathy gets…

          • new?
            2004, 2011
            are you sure?

          • “IT WORKS…”. I dare say every believer, devotee or proselyte in every arcane religion says the same thing. Can you imagine the nuts flying passenger-filled airplanes into buildings on 9/11 NOT screaming that?? Don’t make it true would be my point….

          • To quote the most patient, non-superior-sounding, kind and gentle person who comments regularly on this blog: “I’m getting rather fed up with commentating on this thread – it is like playing Whack-a-Mole.” []

            Sorry to cause offence Joe, but the points you’re making are far from new. Like Edzard just told you, most if not all of your links and certainly most of your arguments have already been discussed to death previously on this blog.

            I shan’t bother to remount my high horse with you any more. You’ve already attracted similar reactions to mine from other people but you write them all off as the response of people lacking scientific vision. So be it.

          • Here is a link for you: It seems to be for a government by a government.
            INTRO: The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the ‘Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’.
            You will probably find a way to take down the Swiss government too but I’m sure it will at least intelligent…if not entertaining too.

            For a government, yes. By a government, no.

            And do you know what conclusion the PEK reached after this report was submitted to it?

          • Joe Barrett said:

            It seems to be for a government by a government.
            INTRO: The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the ‘Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’.
            You will probably find a way to take down the Swiss government too but I’m sure it will at least intelligent…if not entertaining too.

            It was by a bunch of altmed supporters, not the Swiss Government. In fact, Dr Felix Gurtner of the Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Health and Accident Insurance Directorate in Bern, Switzerland, had to point out:

            This review was declared to be an HTA by the authors (the final PEK [5] report does not classify the literature reviews as HTA reports) and published later as a book [7] under their responsibility without any consent of the Swiss government or administration. Source

            As for taking it down, Sven Rudloff and I have already done that: That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report

          • when a child stops screaming with an earache within twenty minutes, even the most skeptical have to pause to think.

            I wouldn’t have to pause to think whether a child gets tired of screaming after twenty minutes. Did you ever reproduce this effect? How many times did you successfully treat such a strong earache with a specific homeopathic preparation, without the child knowing what it was being given, of course?

            I would not call this very strong, even as an anecdote. Your problem, as I have stated elsewhere, is that you have only given homeopathy a chance to succeed. You have never given it a chance to fail, to observe you yourself how it fails, rather miserably, time after time, when you try to reproduce your findings. Choose just about any principle you know about homeopathy. To name a random example from what you have already mentioned, take Apis 9CH… choose a few people that have NO idea about homeopathy and, when bit by mosquitos, give some of them Apis 9CH, and give others something else, say Allum Cepa 9CH (which, by the way, is Allium Cepa, it’s the onion). See if your purported effects are consistent.

            Homeopathy having to be individualized is identical, as a statement, to homeopathy not being scientific. You can always have an excuse for when it doesn’t work.

          • “when a child stops screaming with an earache within twenty minutes, even the most skeptical have to pause to think”

            I remember one night, quite a number of years back, when my young son aged three at the time woke up crying for pain in his ears. He could not be comforted and reluctently I set out at three o’clock in the morning to the pediatric on night duty. Whe we entered his rooms my son found alll the things there so interesting that he forgot crying, before we had exchanged a single word. His pain was gone for good. I felt part happy as there was nothing sincere but felt a little stupid as well. The pediatric comforted me, that such things happen on occasion.

            Any idea of what I should pause and think about as no homeopathic preparation was involved?

          • Joe Barrett: “You see, I know first hand over 10 years that homeopathy WORKS… so now I am dedicating time and money into seeing how to detect it’s subtle energy.”

            I was pleased to hear that you are willing to spend time and money to, ostensibly, try to help people. Fantastic.

            However, even at the level of common sense—let alone peer-reviewed science—homeopathy makes no sense. My pet bunny has more healing power than any homeopathic remedy you can name. Please don’t waste another minute thinking about homeopathy.

            I say this in all seriousness. Instead, grab your calendar (time) and wallet (money) and head out to find some research you can do that will mean something, that will help people. Please. After all, the life you save, may be mine.

  • Oh no! Dr.(?) Karin Lenger beat me to it! I was just about to launch my fully science-based Colorivitreous Nasal Therapy, which has a remarkable similarity to Dr. Lenger’s discovery.

    Just read my introductory explanation and judge for yourself:

    “First, the patient’s ailment and mood are charted to produce a spectral map, combining ancient knowledge about the influences of colours on human health and emotions with the latest insights in Colour Theory.

    Then, a carefully selected globular translucent element with precisely matching spectral properties is introduced into the nasal passage; this location is chosen for its proximity to the brain’s frontal lobe. Here, it exerts its beneficial effects, its spectral profile resonating with the body’s energy field, damping out the negative frequencies through effective interference. During this process, biophotons are exchanged with the surrounding tissues in accordance with Feynman diagrams, which are of course well known from quantum mechanics. The resulting collapse of the multipath quantum state to a single, well-defined optical path guarantees the precision required for optimal efficacy.”

    Admittedly, my research focuses more on the quantum effects of resonance with biophotons instead of enzyme activation as discovered by Dr. Lenger, but the exact same basic principles seem to apply!

    Woe unto me!

    • I know, it hurts when someone snaps up a Noble that should have gone to oneself!

    • Norbert Aust – “I remember one night….. “ I also remember a time nearly 40 years ago when my three year old was screaming and clutching an ear indicating pain for a couple of days. I decided to visit a well known homeopath who was also a GP. My only experience of homeopathy had been a few years earlier when I followed a recommendation, not expecting a result but obtained an instant cure. There was no long consultation as he was also a GP.

      So hedging my bets for my child we went to see a homeopath knowing he was a medical doctor too. Again very GP like, having carried out a thorough examination, there were very few words except to confirm a severe ear infection, administer a remedy and extracted a promise from me to see our GP in a day’s time if no improvement. I left with no expectation,but the recovery was swift, just as I had experienced before.

      There was no thought as to whether it would work or not. Just a remedy and advice received.

      It was difficult to deny the effectiveness of homeopathy. Through many decades of use, the efficacy lies within the remedy – either it works or it doesn’t. It is not dependent on the listening ear, the length of consultation, the perceived counselling element. I learnt that very early on.

      Undoubtedly homeopathy along with many other complementary/alternative medicines/therapies (trying not to get entangled with FO again over word choice) are popular :200 million Homeopathy users worldwide. I am one of those, and these are two examples of my early experiences.

      Experience is the cogent point : as I have said many times that your accusations :it’s just an anecdote, it’s unscientificly evidenced, do not change the experience.

  • In 2014 Karin Lenger published junk science in “Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics” ( Maybe since then she believes herself to be a real scientist.

    My comment (in German):

  • I couldn’t get past “Scientific Homeopathy.” As soon as I gain control of myself and get up of the floor, I will read the rest of this satire.

    You are such a joker, Edzard!

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.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
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.