MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

A series of article in The Times yesterday (to which I had made several minor contributions) focussed on the dangers of homeoprophylaxis/homeopathic vaccinations. Sadly, the paper is behind a paywall. I therefore will try to summarise some of the relevant points.

A courageous Times-reporter went under cover to extract some of the anti-vaccination views from a lay homeopath. This particular homeopath happened to charge £330 from customers who want to protect themselves or their family from infectious diseases (£130 for a homeopathic remedy kit, plus £200 for the compulsory instructions via skype that automatically come with the kit). Here are some of the most obvious porkies uttered by that homeopath:

  • Only 30% of healthcare professionals get vaccinated.
  • Rubella is a very mild disease.
  • Cancer patients don’t get fever.
  • Measles mainly kills children with severe disease.
  • Anything which messes with natural immunity could contribute to autism.
  • Health officials devised a seven-step recipe to scare consumers into vaccinating their kids.
  • Fevers should be celebrated.

This new undercover research by the Times is reminiscent of our own investigation of 2002. At the time, we contacted 168 homoeopaths, of whom 104 (72%) responded, 27 (26%) withdrawing their answers after debriefing. We also contacted 63 chiropractors, of whom 22 (44%) responded, six (27%) withdrawing their responses after debriefing.  Only 3% of professional homoeopaths and 25% of the chiropractors advised in favour of the MMR vaccination. Almost half of the homoeopaths and nearly a fifth of the chiropractors advised against it. (This tiny and seemingly insignificant study almost cost me my job: some homeopaths complained to my peers at Exeter University who then, in their infinite wisdom, conducted a most unpleasant investigation into my allegedly ‘unethical’ research; full details of this amazing story are provided in my memoir.)

But perhaps you think that homeoprophylaxis might be effective after all? In this case, you would be mistaken! As discussed a couple of weeks ago, a recent study demonstrated that such treatments are ineffective. Its authors concluded that homeopathic vaccines do not evoke antibody responses and produce a response that is similar to placebo. In contrast, conventional vaccines provide a robust antibody response in the majority of those vaccinated.

The Times article stated that about half of all new parents have been exposed to anti-vaxx propaganda. Consequently, global measles cases have risen by 300% in the first three months of this year compared to last year. Faced with measles outbreaks across the world, it is hard to deny that homeopaths who promote homeopathic vaccinations are a significant risk to public health.

The Times considered the issue sufficiently important to add an editorial. Its opening sentence sums up the issue well, I think: The evidence supporting claims that homeopathic remedies offer an effective alternative to the measles vaccine can be summarised in one word: zero. And its concluding sentences are even clearer: Tobacco companies are obliged to carry prominent public health warnings on their products. Homeopaths should too.

If one agrees with this sentiment, I suggest, we also consider the same for some:

  1. chiropractors;
  2. doctors of anthroposophical medicine;
  3. naturopaths;
  4. doctors practising integrative medicine.

And furthermore I suggest we disregard the many pro-vaccination statements by the professional organisations of these clinicians – they are nothing but semi-transparent fig-leaves and a politically-correct lip services which they neither enforce nor even truly mean.

 

85 Responses to Homeopaths should carry public health warnings!

  • Indeed.
    As much as they do believe being owners of the thruth, what’s going prevent them to impose it?

  • OK , first of all have no doubt I have vaccinated all my kids and I believe personally that parents who don’t or clinicians that tell them not to should be prosecuted.

    however since Chiropractic was also included in the suggestions, may i just ask… is it true that only 4 (out of 63) Chiropractors in the survey you are quoting advised against MMR?

  • When quoting “25% of the chiropractors advised in favor of the MMR vaccination” that is abit misleading and I will explain why…

    I don’t advise in favor of vaccinations, I advise in favor of consulting with the properly trained and most updated clinicians in that field that are the pediatricians. If a patient asks me I tell them that I for sure vaccinate my kids but if they have any questions they should see my colleagues the pediatricians. Just like I will not consult my patients on whether to prefer an angioplasty verses a bypass.

    Also the ICS has made it clear that it supports the IMA stance on vaccination and when we have guest speakers from abroad coming over we make sure in advance that they do not discuss the issue at all. this is not lip service this is a firm clear message.

    • it’s a lip service because the organisations do not enforce what they sate and many chiros don’t care a hoot anyway

  • We cannot enforce really, this is the MOH duty to do so and they have the legislative power, I will be happy when they start chasing these people whatever their profession may be. As I told you within the ICS this is a non-issue.

  • “Those who have promoted the anti-vaccination myth are morally reprehensible, deeply irresponsible and have blood on their hands.” to quote Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

    • Yet this Matt Hancock – a mere politician, who wishes the Orwellian scene where vaccination is compulsory – is a doyen of society, n’est-ce pas? An MP from the party that has unquantifiable amounts of Libyan blood on its hands; a party that has failed democracy post-brexit and which has overrseen a collapse in house-building?
      You couldn’t make it up!

    • Posting a link to a rabid anti-vaccination site doesn’t add anything to the topic being discussed unless you are giving us an example of how incredibly stupid and malevolent these people are.

    • 1. You’re a liar.

      2. The dose makes the poison.

      3. You’re a liar.

      4. Manufacturers took thimerosal out of US childhood vaccines almost 20 years ago, precisely in hopes of placating you hysterical loons. Didn’t make an iota difference to autism rates (no surprise); didn’t make an iota difference to your screeching lies (also no surprise).

      5. You’re a liar.

      6. Thimerosal is 100% irrelevant to this post, which is about fraudulent homeoquacks selling fake vaccines to fools.

      7. You’re a liar.

      8. Have I already mentioned how your pants are on fire? Might want to douse that with your nearest diluent.

      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

      • thimerosal is still in influenza vaccinations. Even if they took out the thimerosal they added many other neurotoxins including Aluminum. The combination of Aluminum and Mercury is synergistically much more neurotoxic than either one alone. The synergism of most of these adjuvant toxins is not tested.

        The super-vaxxers who want one-size-all medicine mandated for everyone, are pushing vaccines that are not truly placebo tested for safety (unless you think vaccines are placebos), dont have good efficacy records (10% for some influenza vaxxes, [Snort]). Sign up if you want to be a guinea pig. But dont force it on the those who are wise enough to read past the “[all] vaccines are safe and effective” bull sh*t.

    • 1) Ah, yes. A piece in an august journal by that well-know scientist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Oh.. No.. It isn’t, is it. It’s a piece by antivax loon RFK jr on an antivax loon website.

      2) Thimerosal has been removed from almost all vaccines.

      Made pig-all difference to autism rates. Which is why the antivax loons have had to start flailing around for other excuses to validate their stupidity and have now latched on to aluminium adjuvants.

      • f-ing Read RFK’s Thimerasol book instead of doing character assassination. He worked with a team of scientists to put that book together. He has a large monetary challenge to anyone who can provide a study that shows thimerasol is not harmful. The callous disregard of the establishment with regard to thimerasol’s toxicity is breathtaking and damning. It continues with regard to the current state of vaccines. MMR is “supported” by half a dozen discredited studies and a researcher on the run for fraud.

  • First, a thoroughly appropriate quotation taken from the works of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, whose bona fides we surely agree, outstrip those of any medical “scientist” involved in this unfairly-weighted debate. Steiner, a brilliant philosopher and the most eminent chemist of the 19th and 20th centuries had this to say in the course of warning us seriously and most urgently about the abstract nature of what we have come to call empiricism and its concomitent reductive analysis:
    “Chaos and confusion in Mankind will gradually become ever greater unless people see through the fact that intellectual or modern scientific reasoning can be used both to prove something and, equally well prove its opposite.
    The only way to escape the danger that this situation threatens is to realise that human knowledge must be sought in a stratum deeper than that of the validity of proofs”.
    Placebo effect is a red herring: Clinical evaluation, first hand observation of the phenomenal curative power of correctly targeted homoeopathic remedies proves that there is much to be understood beyond the physical; that homoeopathy in fact offers proof positive of the activity of spirit in our physical bodies. Perhaps (for those who persisit in denying positives) light may be shed upon the subject via a more contemporary quotation, this time from Europe’s most highly qualified veterinary surgeon, George Macleod MRCVS, DVSM,Vet. FF.Hom. who practised homoeopathy exclusively and was indeed a foremost world authority on homoeopathy: “The difference between the conventional approach and the homoeopathic leads to the rejection by homoeopaths of the idea that destruction of bacteria is the main aim of the physician, because it is not the illness as such one has to treat but the patient’s reaction to it”.
    There are authorities …And higher authorities. High time we heeded the latter, in the fuller interests of humanity!

    • Steiner “the most eminent chemist of the 19th and 20th centuries”?
      what have you been smoking?

    • “Steiner, a brilliant philosopher and the most eminent chemist of the 19th and 20th centuries”
      I don’t think he was a chemist at all.

      “modern scientific reasoning can be used both to prove something and, equally well prove its opposite.”
      No it can’t. That shows complete ignorance of the scientific method.

      “human knowledge must be sought in a stratum deeper than that of the validity of proofs”
      I think you are confusing knowledge and faith.

      “Placebo effect is a red herring”
      I think that has been comprehensively addressed elsewhere in this blog.

      “there is much to be understood beyond the physical; that homoeopathy in fact offers proof positive of the activity of spirit in our physical bodies”
      Are you saying that homeopathy is a religion?

      “The difference between the conventional approach and the homoeopathic leads to the rejection by homoeopaths of the idea that destruction of bacteria is the main aim of the physician, because it is not the illness as such one has to treat but the patient’s reaction to it”
      I’m not sure what your point is here, but you clearly know very little about physicians.

      “There are authorities …And higher authorities”
      How do you identify them?

      • Well, first take a glimpse at the significance of these words written by Russell Davenport, (a very highly-regarded academic and former Managing Editor of Fortune Magazine) in his 1950’s book The Dignity of Man:

        “That the academic world has managed to dismiss Rudolf Steiner’s works as inconsequential and irrelevant, is one of the intellectual wonders of the twentieth century. Anyone who is willing to study these vast works with an open mind (let us say a hundred of his titles) will find himself, or herself, confronted with one of the greatest thinkers of all time, whose grasp of modern science is equalled only by his profound learning in the ancient ones.
        Steiner was no more a mystic than was Albert Einstein; he was a scientist, rather – but a scientist who dared enter into the mysteries of life”.

        In any appraisal of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, (who was most certainly a chemist of renown, an engineer, an architect and uniquely inspired philosopher) we must surely study his works as an antithesis from those of Charles Darwin; Yes, Darwin, whose authority appears academically complete even though his “great piles of words” actually amounted to mere conjecture, later transmuted to theory and now accepted as fact! If someone wishes to seek absolute gobble-de-gook in Darwin’s outpourings, then just research his theories of plant hormones!

        Returning though, to the vexed subject of homoeopathy and its place in modern medicine, one cannot avoid the obvious: There appears to be a concerted, collusive and indeed sinister campaign to denigrate homoeopathy, a campaign that gives the lie to a genuine search for healing medicines and which fails utterly to serve our human right to honest and objective clinical information. “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see” seems an appropriate adage, which underlines perhaps, Steiner’s alluding constantly to what he termed “psychopathia professoralis” amongst his peers. For academics, of course any acknowledgement that homoeopathic preparations truly assert themselves positively, curatively, into the human organism would leave them staring into an abyss!

        I stand on the ground of 25 years’ experience of farming livestock, (cattle sheep, pigs and poultry) working wholly and exclusively with homoeopathic remedies, even in the severest of conditions producing results that our veterinarians called miraculous. This experience gave me the platform of knowledge to help friends and family, whereby viral infection and bacterial disease were rapidly cured. Similarly, swift healing of damaged tissue and broken bones is commonplace. Applications to chronic ulcerative colitis brought about cessation of bleeding within hours. In such serious maladies, one would no more expect a placebo to be effective than one might in cases of pneumonia, cellulitis, necrotising fascitis, haemachromatosis, sarcoidosis, anaemia, asthma, acid reflux, to name but a few in my personal experience.

        The afore-mentioned abyss, must be approached with courage and supreme honesty if the tit-for tat of blogs such as this is to end with a more intuition-based and therefore life-affirming transformation in “scientific” thinking.

        Only cold-blooded bigots, or, those with axes to grind in the evil collective trinity of science, politics and commerce might fail to be aroused in their thinking to a point where demonstrations, outside laboratory confines, of the astonishing efficacy of properly prepared homoeopathic medicines would be found to be exciting, promising certain illumination and possibly, even cathartis for its erstwhile opponents!

        • beautifully written!
          pity that it is mostly nonsense.
          if you have evidence of efficacy of anthroposophical or homeopathic medicines, please show it to us.
          if not, spare us your biased elaborations.

          • Thank you Edzard, first for the compliment and secondly, for a clearly bent diagnosis of ‘nonsense’ provided, (unlike your own platform it seems) with good intent, following years of witnessing remarkable outcomes for homoeopathy.
            Of course, if you wish to set up a challenge by providing a willing patient or patients suffering from some illness(es) that you would not expect to resolve either by allopathy or other means, then I would willingly participate. You might agree to leave behind the true ‘nonsense’ of the double-blind randomness and instead focus on observation of the clinical picture, before and after treatment. How about chronic anaemia for starters? Or osteoporosis? Rheumatoid arthritis? Maybe you’d prefer something of a more prosaic nature, like warts or chicken pox, say?
            If not, then we should abandon any notion that your personal efforts are anything more than a drive to smother the progress that our times demand, never once deferring to a greater man like Rudolf Steiner for encouragement and guidance in this sphere.
            Our ancestors, we have somehow come to view as cretins; our modern, materialistic medical “science” is as yet young, carrying with it little or nothing of the metaphysical wisdom that existed for eons. It is become arrogant in the extreme, despite its myriad failures. It inhabits a commercial citadel, a self-serving commercial fortress guarded by mammon which offers sometimes mighty surgical solutions, themselves enabled by advances in anaesthetics but is overwhelmed by the dreadful limitations (and appalling side effects) of antibiotics, steroids and anti-inflammatory medicines. Holistic approaches to healing are denied by ‘specialisation’, that needs must requires a view of the human being as a mechanism, rather than the organism that he is.
            Have a good weekend!

            I

        • @Ian Bell

          “…might fail to be aroused in their thinking to a point where demonstrations, outside laboratory confines, of the astonishing efficacy of properly prepared homoeopathic medicines would be found to be exciting…”

          Outside laboratory confines, all sorts of things seem to become exciting: ESP, ghosts, astrology, prayer, all kinds of nonsense. Oh, and of course, miraculously curing lots of diseases for which no need is felt to supply any confirmatory detail of diagnosis or outcome.

    • “In my Shamanic work, I ‘tune-in’ to the energy field of the person, I am shown or ask to see imbalances, blockages and areas of lack. And when for the persons highest good healing takes place. The energies that are needed to be removed, are. And energies that are needed to come in, are bought in gently and lovingly.

      The work often involves energetic detoxes, as gunk from eons of time is removed gently and lovingly. It often involves the strengthening of the energetic and physical body so that energetic attachments then leave. And the cause of an imbalance is often traced back to it’s roots, no matter what they are and when they occurred – that cause is then healed and the whole energy is bought forward to the now without that distortion.

      And more often than not it involves soul retrieval – a practice where fragments of self are returned to the whole, and healed. Fragmentation can result from shocks, grief, trauma, from attachments to a relationship in the past that hasn’t resolved itself, from medication or recreational drug use. During these times the vital energies can split from the whole and by traveling to those fragments and returning them to the whole a sense of completion returns, or is felt for the first time, and we then are less open, less vulnerable. We are strong and empowered!

      And of course I don’t do the work, I’m a channel for the work. I work with enlightened beings, with Ascended Masters, with Archangels, with nature spirits, with star beings, with medical specialists all in the unseen realm. I work with whoever comes in to help you. Big picture, I work with God, for your highest good.”

      to quote a homeopath.

      • And none of that has to do with homeopathy. He can call what he is doing there shamanism but not homeopathy. But of course homeopathy takes the blame.

    • why do you post this stuff?

      do you think it is evidence?

      it’s merely evidence for the hypothesis that that you are clueless

  • Edzard blocking post now …

  • so, please imform me, which infraction of the law was I guilty of ? …. so I’ll be sure not to offend again going forward.

    • oh sorry, I didn’t know you were unable to figure this out yourself.
      I will take the liberty of stopping the discussion on any particular topic, if I feel that enough has been said and things are getting boring or repetitive.
      I will not post comments which are overtly nonsensical or in such poor English that I cannot understand them.
      I will prevent commentators from monopolizing the discussion.

  • Mr. Edzard

    Face the truth, you didn’t like the information the post contained

  • C’mon Edzard, you afraid to post my truth ?

  • has

    “4. Manufacturers took thimerosal out of US childhood vaccines almost 20 years ago, precisely in hopes of placating you hysterical loons. Didn’t make an iota difference to autism rates (no surprise); didn’t make an iota difference to your screeching lies (also no surprise).”

    I will spell out the fallacy here in the US with regard to Thimerosol in vaccines. I won’t attempt to speak to what the current policy is in the UK with regard to the same…. your milage may varry.

    From the FDA website:
    Key Points

    “All vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger in the U.S. are available in formulations that do not contain thimerosal.
    Vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative are also available for adolescents and adults.”

    So here is the fallacy that has fooled many, including you. The Key word is “available”. The major organazations (FDA CDC WHO and other…AKA Pharma) will make the public believe that because formulations are available without Thimerosal, that it has been completly removed from all vaccinations, this is simply not the case.
    What exactly does “available” imply ? … it’s ambigious at best.

    So when an unsuspecting parent goes to the doctor to have their child vaccinated, they are already assuming that the vaccine is without Thimerosol. Must the parent request the doctor to supply for use a vaccine that is without Thimerosol ? What if the doctor doesn’t have it ? … does he vaccinate anyway ? Will the doctor lie to the parents and make them beleive that the vaccine is without Thimerosol ? , will the doctor attempt to persuade the parents that it is safe with Thimerosol ?

    Just becaue something is available doesn’t guarantee that you have it in your hands. This is a huge deception that has been played on the unsuspecting public.

  • That is very interesting. It seems to be at variance with their publicly stated position on homeoprophylaxis. The sub-text – it’s permitted if you don’t get caught and if you do, it’s not your fault. Those evil journalists, etc.

    Dawn Waterhouse has advertised “workshops” involving homeoprophylaxis for a number of years that overlap the Society of Homepaths’ stated position against it.

    I don’t see how this is going to work out well for either Waterhouse or the Society of Homeopaths.

    • What law is being broken here? Please state the law as this is not clear to me.
      If no law is being broken then please explain how this is not going to work out well for the SoH and the homeopath.

      • Who’s mentioned any laws?

        It’s the stated position of the SoH that it supports vaccinations and that homeoprophylaxis is not an alternative, and its members should adhere to this.

        So if a SoH homeopath is deviating from this line, the SoH should be condemning them.

        But it isn’t.

        So the SoH isn’t adhering to its own position and procedures.

        This isn’t going to work out well well for them.

        This is a simple, logical position. Obviously homeopaths struggle with logic so it will be fun to watch what happens.

      • “The Society of Homeopaths has a clear policy on ‘homeoprophylaxis’ – it does not endorse the use of homeopathic medicines as an alternative to vaccination for the prevention of serious infectious diseases.

        The Society recommends that members of the public seek the advice of their GP, and/or relevant Department of Health guidelines, concerning vaccination and protection against disease whilst travelling.

        Currently there is no homeopathic alternative to vaccination or anti-malarial drugs which has been proven beyond doubt to be clinically effective. It is therefore unethical for a homeopath to advise a patient against the use of conventional vaccines or anti-malarial drugs.

        The Society acknowledges that homeoprophylaxis is a controversial area of homeopathy which differs significantly from usual homeopathic practice and that the current level of scientific evidence on homeoprophylaxis (including historical clinical experience and contemporary research) is insufficient to make definitive claims of efficacy or effectiveness.

        There is sufficient research evidence to suggest that homeoprophylaxis may be effective in certain circumstances and the Society therefore supports further rigorous, ethical research to its use.”

        Other SoH members promote anti-vax tropes as well.

        As for laws broken? Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Human Medicines Regulation 2012.

  • In 1995 I chose to forego taking malaria prevention medicines like chloroquine. At the time malaria was considered incurable with regular relapses. I had talked to a friend who warned me that both he and a travel friend had detached retinas after taking the drugs while traveling. This class of drug is also neurotoxic and causes suicidal ideation.

    In India I contracted malaria as diagnosed by a conventional doctor. I had the typical 24 hour cycle and symptoms of malaria. Many others in my location also caught it. I was in the Nashik district of Maharashtra where Asian Business Week reported that 10k people died that year during that epidemic. I went to a homeopathic MD in Nashik city and he gave me one dose of 200c Rhus-tox and was completely cured in 3 days with no relapse to this day.

    Lets focus the public health warnings where they belong, on the pharmaceutical drugs.

    • nice anecdote, and congrats to being well.
      why do you suppose the efficacy of homeopathy does not show up in controlled clinical trials.
      I have a friend who reports much the same story, except that he did not take any homeopathics.
      spontaneous remissions of malaria are possible
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292897

      • Gosh, these spontaneous cures keep happening. I dont understand it. Dysentery cured twice. Malaria once. Parasites once. Sprained ankle once. Poison oak three times with three different remedies. Burns of many varieties, many times. trauma injuries many times.

        Thats just me. Maybe science should be investigating me as a medical miracle.

        Pseudo-skeptics cherry-pick the studies that show it doesnt work. And then they always accuse homeopaths of cherry-picking the clinical trials that show that it does work. I guess we will never agree on the studies.

        • instead of rambling on, why don’t you answer my question?

        • @Roger

          If you don’t understand it, you may be underestimating the extent to which most diseases resolve spontaneously: and you’re not always giving us essential diagnostic information to judge your medical miracles.

          Dysentery: was it amoebic or bacillary? Both can resolve spontaneously or lead to death depending on a lot of circumstances. Do you know if your ‘dysentery’ was caused by Entamoeba or Shigella? Or was it just uninvestigated diarrhoea? If so did you at least have any blood and mucus in the faeces?

          Malaria: was it falciparium or another agent? From the WHO World Malaria report in 2016, an estimated 216 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide; there were an estimated 445 000 deaths from malaria. So spontaneous remission is far from unusual.

          ‘Parasites’? Sorry, not a scrap of worthwhile information unless you specify which parasite and give us some diagnostic information.

          Sprained ankle: oh come on, many or most of us have had that experience. The remedy is time, not anything magical.

          Poison oak: normally heals spontaneously; may take a few weeks.

          ‘Burns of many varieties’: for goodness’ sake, you’d be hospitalized and undergoing plastic surgery if these were anything beyond the typical, self-healing burns we’ve probably all experienced from times
          to time.

          ‘Trauma injuries’: apart from the tautology of this description, what were the injuries? once again, we all typically experience injuries of one kind or another. A plaster or a bandage are all that’s usually required. You’ve got to specify something very serious, or your remission is entirely unremarkable.

          I think you might have recovered equally well from all these conditions you list if you stood on one leg every night in a bucket of fresh horse excrement instead of using homeopathy. You don’t even state that you think homeopathy cured all your terrible conditions. Please just read up about the natural history of a disease before you enter into the world of post hoc, ergo propter hoc explanations.

          • No, you dont understand because you have never even tried to experience it, like most pseudo-skeptics.

            Most chronic diseases do not resolve spontaneously. That is the definition of chronicity. Parasites dont resolve spontaneously, they only get worse. Malaria rarely resolves spontaneously; usually it relapses. Just because they didnt die doesnt mean they are cured.

            Second time I had dysentery it lasted a month. I couldnt get the right remedy. Mucousy diarrhea several times daily. When I was finally able to get the remedy, it resolved in a day.
            Poison Oak – took remedy 2nd day each time. itching gone in half an hour; as if it never happened by the next day. Now I am immune to it. Normal history two weeks of spreading misery.
            Sprained ankle – pain gone in half an hour after remedy, one hour after the injury; as if it never happened by the next day.
            Burns – pain gone instantaneously after remedy; sunburn turns to tan; 2nd degree burns never blister; healthy skin the next day.
            trauma injuries – (as opposed to cutting or puncture injuries. duh) pain gone instantaneously after the remedy, resolves with little or no bruising or what bruising occurs disappears very rapidly even as you watch it.

            Next time you have any of these conditions I recommend you stand in that bucket of sh*t and see how quickly they resolve.
            Or you could learn a little about homeopathy and treat these “simple” acute conditions yourself and with your “skeptical” mind you could rule out placebo effect.

          • if you are correct, then controlled clinical trials would clearly support your views. but they don’t! how come?

          • As I said before , the clinical trials that the pseudoskeptics cherry-pick dont support homeopathy, whereas the clinical trials that do support homeopathy are ignored. We are never going to agree on the studies. Pseudoskeptics are going to have to suck it up and actually try homeopathy for themselves.

          • show us a trial that you think shows what you claim, please.

          • Roger,

            “Most chronic diseases do not resolve spontaneously.”
            Chronic diseases don’t generally resolve spontaneously, but they do usually wax and wane in severity. People generally seek help when their symptoms are particularly bad, and when they return to their more usual state there is a tendency to look for reasonas other than the natural history of the disease.

            “Malaria rarely resolves spontaneously; usually it relapses.”
            That depends on the type of malaria. Two of the four species of plasmodium have a liver cycle which requires different treatment to clear it and is a cause of relapse. The other two don’t. And of course if you remain in the malarious area then reinfection is common.

            “Second time I had dysentery it lasted a month. I couldnt get the right remedy. Mucousy diarrhea several times daily. When I was finally able to get the remedy, it resolved in a day.”
            Or you took the remedy a day before it was going to resolve anyway.

            “Sprained ankle – pain gone in half an hour after remedy, one hour after the injury; as if it never happened by the next day.”
            Sprains vary in severity. Personally I have had sprained ankles that incapacitated me for weeks, but on other occasions I have thought I had sprained my ankle and yet was better in an hour or two.

            “2nd degree burns never blister”
            Then by definition they weren’t second-degree burns.

            “trauma injuries – (as opposed to cutting or puncture injuries. duh)”
            I have no idea what you are referring to. Cutting and puncture are certainly trauma.

            You have listed a series of apparently self-diagnosed conditions which seem to have behaved in a way that surprised you (or maybe not, since you seem to have been expecting them all to respond to homeopathy). I’m afraid I can’t regard that as evidence of anything much.

            People have said a lot of strange things to me over the years (“I always thought the bladder was on the left until I recently found out that it was really on the right.” “Doctor, every time I have a heart attack I go yellow” etc.). I don’t doubt that you believe what you are saying, just as they did, but I don’t think you are making a very convincing case.

        • The water must have been shaken all those time I sprained an ankle 😀

          The late Barry Eyerstein wrote a classical essay on why worthless make believe is often believed to work on diseases and ailments. It is well worth reading and can be readily found by Googling “ Why bogus therapies often seem to work”.
          Here is a good resume for those who are unable to read and understand complicated explanations. It might give you an idea why you are constantly fooling yourself Roger.

  • Thank you UK Homeopathy Regulations for stating two sets of regulations that homeopaths have to abide by.
    We don’t yet live in a world where Lenny’s logic and Edzard’s ethics, however well meaning, rule over law.

    The Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Human Medicines Regulation 2012 are enforced by Trading Standards and the MHRA respectively. These are not two shy organisations with little power. They are both well known to act quickly and efficiently in the cases of risk to the public.

    So UK Homeopathy Regulations where are TS and the MHRA now in this? How have your complaints to TS and the MHRA gone?
    Not well it seems.
    Where are the prosecutions against these homeopaths?

    I can only suggest that both TS and the MHRA have investigated these allegations and found little of any significant risk to the public.

    Plenty of hyperbole though and enough material for another Edzard blogpost to entertain us.
    At least we can thank UK Homeopathy Regulations for that.

    • Dendra

      As far as I know, neither Edzard (GP) or Lenny (dentist) have any qualifications in homeopathy or any of the other SCAM’s that they critique.

      As far as I know, neither of them are legally qualified either.

      As far as I know, Edzard does this site for entertainment and hilarity (he stated the other day that he thought I did not get the spoof that he is conducting here.

      Advertising Standards are pussycats and they get walked all over, but Trading Standards are serious people.

      One has to assume that if x practitioner is practicing then the law is ok with it. If they have been referred and no action taken even more so.

      Don’t waste your time on Lenny, Bjorn, Frank; they just seem to enjoy winding commenters up and will never admit the countless times that they are found out to be wrong, especially Bjorn.

      They just return later and hope new readers won’t know.

      I agree with your statement: ‘Plenty of hyperbole though and enough material for another Edzard blogpost to entertain us.’

      • it is amazing how many things about me you manage to get wrong.
        I’m not a GP
        I am ‘legally qualified’

        • You are not a GP? Apologies Sir, what is you medical specialism?

          You are legally qualified, good grief, double apologies. Are you on the Barristers Register. I looked you up and got this:
          ‘Sorry we can’t find a record that matches your search. This does not necessarily mean that the Barrister is not eligible to provide legal services. Please check the name and try again. Alternatively please email us at records@barcouncil.org.uk or call the Records Office on 0207 242 0934.’
          https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/

          Perhaps in Germany then?

          Oh hold on I get it, are you ‘legally qualified’ just as you are ‘homeopathy qualified’?

          Sorry, I forgot the hilarity and spoof of the site.

      • Greg

        I have no qualifications in the sociobiology of sylvan species either. But I can still tell you that fairies don’t exist.

        You need no qualifications in homeopathy to demonstrate its nonsense. Merely a decent grounding in science and an ability to evaluate evidence. That you would wish this to be otherwise is your problem, not ours.

        Now if you would be so good as to demonstrate some of the “countless times” we have been found out to be wrong. I can’t remember any off hand

        • Lenny

          I expect that you also have no qualifications in theology but can you still tell me that God does not exist? Please would you use your grounding in science and your capability to evaluate evidence to put forward your alternative hypothesis for how the Universe came into existence, and how this Earth and everything in it came into existence? If you choose to deflect from this question then would you consider the next question?

          If God is too nebulous an idea for you, can you tell me that YOU do not exist independently from your time limited body known as Dr. M L L? Rene Descartes: ‘Cogito, ergo sum’?

          Thanks

          • The existence of God is a matter of faith and can neither be proved or disproved.

            There are a number of theories about how the Universe came into being and astrophysicists are keenly looking for evidence to rule as many of these out as possible. Unfortunately our current theories of quantum mechanics and relativity break down at the extreme conditions of the very early Universe. To use God as an explanation is a bit of a cop-out, but a lot of people are happier with this than to admit (as scientists do) that there are things that we don’t understand.

            How Earth came into being is a completely different sort of question. The broad picture of how stars and planets are born is not particularly contentious, though there are a lot of details to be worked out.

            The origin of life is another question which has not so far been answered. However, once life has got going, the Theory of Evolution gives a very satisfactory explanation of everything that happened after that, which is consistent with all the evidence.

        • Oh dear!
          I think our Greg may be losing what little contact he still had with Earth-base.

  • Dr Julian Money-Kyrle

    I did allow for Lenny to sidestep the issue of God (Universal Creator/Great Architect/ Divine Intelligence / etc) as this is often too much for materialist minds to cope with.

    Life and spiritual being (the obsolete ‘theory’ of ‘vitalism’, according to Edzard Ernst) is essential to accepting/understanding homeopathy. Scientific materialism and homeopathic spiritualism can never agree.

    However, as I asked Lenny, do you believe that you exist as a being IN a physical body or a being that IS a physical body (or as Professor Dawkins contends, your consciousness ’emerges’ from your brain)? What do YOU say?

    Thanks

  • @Greg: you make a very compelling argument. But I’m now in the sticky dilemma of trying to pick which of the 10,000 gods I should focus my attention to. Don’t want to piss any of them off giving my adulation to their competitor. Since you seem to have a complete understanding of such things perhaps you can give me some direction? Go with my gut or flip a coin?

  • Julian, it is weekend now, but it would be really good of you if I could continue this discussion with me next week.

    I am very interested to know what yours view are on this topic.

    Thanks

  • Julian, Isn’t that funny. ‘I could continue this discussion with me’

    If you could continue this discussion with me, I would really appreciate it.

    Thanks

  • What is the matter with Dr M. Lenny L.?

    He is normally so quick to pipe up with a witticism of some sort.

    It is a simple question that I asked him: doe she think that is he a piece of thinking meat that fills dental cavities or a living conscious being?

    Edzard’s website has been running for 7 years, and this topic of homeopathy is getting to be way to tedious dealing with morons. Let’s get it sorted out.

    • “What is the matter with Dr M. Lenny L.?
      He is normally so quick to pipe up with a witticism of some sort. ”

      I have been having cancer treatment today and I am not feeling very well.

      • In that case I will email Dr Julian Money-Kyrle should I decide that it is actually worthwhile to have a discussion online with him.

        I find it hard to believe that an oncologist would disclose personal information to the world regarding the health condition of a patient.

  • Julian,

    It would be a lot simpler for you to admit that you have no evidence for the atheist version of existence.

    Please would you provide some evidence, anything at all to support your contentions.

    Thank you

    Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Friday 10 May 2019 at 12:19
    The existence of God is a matter of faith and can neither be proved or disproved.

    There are a number of theories about how the Universe came into being and astrophysicists are keenly looking for evidence to rule as many of these out as possible. Unfortunately our current theories of quantum mechanics and relativity break down at the extreme conditions of the very early Universe. To use God as an explanation is a bit of a cop-out, but a lot of people are happier with this than to admit (as scientists do) that there are things that we don’t understand.

    How Earth came into being is a completely different sort of question. The broad picture of how stars and planets are born is not particularly contentious, though there are a lot of details to be worked out.

    The origin of life is another question which has not so far been answered. However, once life has got going, the Theory of Evolution gives a very satisfactory explanation of everything that happened after that, which is consistent with all the evidence.

    • I really think that you have not read my post properly, or that you have not understood it. I am not proposing an atheist version of existence, and I specifically said that it is not possible to disprove the existence of God.

      I also feel that you are targeting me with multiple posts. I have already said that I didn’t respond earlier because I wasn’t feeling very well after my cancer treatment. You followed that by making what I construe as an accusation that I have posted confidential patient information online. In most countries the legal position is that I am the owner of data concerning my own health, and as such I am free to communicate it to whomsoever I wish.

      I am not interested in discussing religion with you or anybody else as in my experience it is never very fruitful. On the basis of your previous posts I don’t think I would find it very enlightening, either.

      • Julian, I only contribute comments on this site that I believe makes people aware that Edzard’s view of homeopathy is not homeopaths view of homeopathy.

        As far as religion s concerned, or belief in spiritual life, it is an essential component of homeopathy because the view that life force, or vital force, that constitutes what a living person is. Homeopathy is based on the notion that highly diluted medicines have an effect on life force and not only the physical body directly.

        Edzard’s studies revolve mostly around clinical homeopathy that has tried to frame homeopathy in the medical perspective and it has failed.

        I am sorry to hear that you have a health condition that you have disclosed, you did so of your own volition in response to a question that I asked Lenny. I never had a discussion with you until you chipped in. Got that?

        Your initial intervention and linking of your disclosure with a quote from me written to Lenny is a odd as far as I am concerned and you can expect no further response from me.

    • @Greg:

      It would be a lot simpler for you to admit that you have no evidence for the atheist version of existence.

      Are you prepared to admit that you have no evidence for the lack of fairies at the bottom of your garden?

  • In some jurisdictions, such as Norway, lay quacktitioners are forbidden to advertise beyond the contact details and the name of the therapies they use. To do so would be a criminal offence.

    In other jurisdictions, lay quacktitioners must reveal the nature of their qualifications ie that they aren’t medical practitioners of any kind.

    I’ve never managed to track it down again, but do remember reading that somewhere in Europe in the past, quacks were allowed to practice but had to have a Quacksalver sign displayed outside their premises.

Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel 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.

Categories