Yes, I know what you will say: homeopathic remedies are all nothing but diluted water. But the ‘diluted water’ remedies that this post is about are different. Even their starting material – homeopaths call it mother tincture – is nothing but water. And what is more, homeopaths are so fond of these ‘diluted water’ remedies that they have more than one of it! One might think that water is water, especially, if you dilute it endlessly with pure distilled water. This may be true for most of us, but not for homeopaths – FAR FROM IT!

Here I present you those commercially available ‘diluted water’ remedies that I have found (I am fairly sure there are more, if you search more thoroughly than I did):

I don’t know about you, but I was impressed to find this big a variety of water – better than in a three-star restaurant! My favourite is not the water from my place of birth, Wiesbaden, but LORDES WATER. I am sure you will ask me what all these waters are used for. Lourdes water is the only water remedy for which we can tell with any degree of certainty:

  • The original Lourdes water is supposed to heal patients of all ills.
  • Now, please apply the ‘like cures like’ hypothesis of homeopathy to this fact.
  • The result is clear: homeopathic Lourdes water is supposed to give you all diseases known to mankind.

And then some nutters try to tell you that homeopathy is not dangerous!!! 

42 Responses to Heedless homeopathy. Part 3: Diluted water remedies

  • The mind boggleth. Are these prepared as remedies in the usual way, by a couple of drops dropped into a little bottle of sugar pillules?

  • I bought and consumed in household use, a large bottle of Zamzam spring water while working in Saudi Arabia in 2015. I can’t say that in material doses it caused any symptoms, so I don’t know what similar symptoms it would be intended to cure in homeopathic potency.

  • Ganga water

    “Pollution of the Ganges (or Ganga), the largest river in India, poses significant threats to human health and the larger environment.[1] Severely polluted with human waste and industrial contaminants, the river provides water to about 40% of India’s population across 11 states,[2] serving an estimated population of 500 million people which is more than any other river in the world.”

    We potentiate the water of one of the dirtiest rivers on earth, which contains countless pollutants, contamitants and deadly bacteria. What do the homeopaths suggest to us?

  • Even if the kind of Platonic ‘essentialist chemistry’ was real, it still presumes an entire non-existent physiology upon which to work and cure illnesses (which themselves also lack an entire alternative biochemistry).

  • So all of these “water” remedies are the same? Would you drink all of these different waters?

  • Another wonderfully irrelevant post. You are outdoing yourself. Go ahead and do a homeopathic proving of some of these water remedies and you can tell us if they have the same effects.

    • This is not how it works. You make an assertion. You must prove that your assertion is correct.

      Go ahead, Roger. Set up your test series about the “waters” and publish your papers in peer-reviewed reputable journals.

      • I would rather that You meet homeopathy on its own terms. We have been giving you a way to test homeopathy for over 200 years and y’all refuse to get off your paradigms and do it. Do a homeopathic proving. There are provings that have been published for 50 different water remedies.

        • Do you really believe, Roger, that different waters, homeopathically potentised, are effective in altering the process of any health condition, to an extent greater than placebo?

    • thanks – but instead of paying me compliments, you could answer the 2 questions I recently asked you.

    • @Roger

      I don’t believe Ernst has ever participated, or will ever participate, in a homeopathic proving. Otherwise, he would have bkigged about his *personal*l experience on this blog long ago. The term paper tiger comes to mind…..

  • @ bjorngeir

    “homeopathic provings are experiments where homeopaths give a (often highly diluted/potentised) substance to healthy volunteers and ask them to monitor all sensations that follow. These symptoms are then recorded and eventually form the ‘drug picture’ of a homeopathic remedy. When prescribing a remedy, homeopaths essentially try to match the patient’s symptoms with the drug picture. This is why provings and drug pictures are so very important to classical homeopaths.”


    I do not believe Professor Ernst has ever personally participated in a homeopathic proving. Otherwise, he would have mentioned it in the cited blog entry above.

    • what you believe is irrelevant

    • This is an “ok” definition of a homeopathic proving. A single potentized substance is chosen for a proving; not a mixture of various remedies. Almost all provings now are done with highly diluted/potentized substances/remedies to avoid any possible toxicity. The dose is given repeatedly over several days until new symptoms (mental, emotional or physical) are experienced by the prover. New symptoms can be identified because a careful health history of the prover is taken in advance of the proving process by a supervisor. The proving lasts until the last new symptoms wear off and the prover returns to their former state of health. The prover checks in with the supervisor on a regular basis to ensure that a complete case history is taken before and throughout the proving.

      So when the Less-Than-Amazing Randi and his cohort down a single bottle of Calme Forte (which is a mix of various low potency remedies) as a stunt to “prove” homeopathy doesnt work, this is not a proving.

      I wish Edzard would give us the details of the proving that he claims he participated in.

    • ‘Proving’ is utter madness.

      The first an foremost reason is that IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PATIENTS OR DISEASES AT ALL.
      The second reason is that provings involve only a dozen or so people. This tiny group size makes any results meaningless from the onset.
      The third reason is that participants in most cases know what it is they’re ‘proving’, so they know what to expect – and lo and behold: they experience ‘symptoms’ that match their expectations. Duh.
      The fourth reason is that proper scientific experiments with provings have failed invariably, already from 1835 onwards.

      Only idiots believe that this ritual provides any useful information whatsoever.

      (And oh, if real pharmaceutical companies were to ‘test’ their products in this way, they would be forcibly shut down immediately – and rightly so.)

      So please stop insulting our intelligence by going on about how Dr. Ernst (or other people) should do a proving in order to (haha) ‘prove’ that it consistently does something special. It doesn’t, and one person’s experience is useless anyway.

      Come up with real peer-reviewed(*) scientific results or shut up and go away. If you think I’m being rude: yes, I am. I’m getting increasingly fed up with arrogant fools and quacks who spread nonsense with an attitude as if they know better than real scientists and real doctors.

      *: And by peers I don’t mean homeopaths, but people who actually have enough brains not to fool themselves – because fooling yourself and others is what homeopathy is all about.

      • 1) Provings & homeopathy dont have to involve patients or disease. Conventional medicine tortures and leads-on sick people. Not homeopathy. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of it.
        2) Provings involve as many people as are available to do the proving. Even the proving of a single person is valuable and meaningful and provides indications of the medicine’s usefulness. The more people involved the more you learn about the medicine. Just as conventional medicine learns more and more about all the damage they are doing to patients by all the side effect reports (and how to mitigate them), homeopathy learns more and more about all the benefits of their medicine from having more provers voluntarily involved in a proving.
        3) I dont think you would know what happens in Most cases of provings. What is your _experience_ in the area? The recommended guidelines for a proving is that the provers Not know what they are proving.

        Only idiots discount the proving process out of ignorance. Even conventional medicine values the information from all the people they have harmed with their drugs. Pharmaceutical companies DO test their drugs this way, only they get paid to do it by all the unsuspecting victims of their poorly tested drugs.

        I want y’all to do a proving so that from your own direct experience you can _prove_ to yourself that extremely dilute homeopathic remedies have a powerful effect. Get your head out of your arse.

        Shut up about your vaunted scientific results:

        “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, ‘poor methods get results’.”

        Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief
Lancet, Apr 11, 2015 editorial

        • That should read “provings in homeopathy”, or “homeopathic provings”

        • “I want y’all to do a proving so that from your own direct experience you can _prove_ to yourself that extremely dilute homeopathic remedies have a powerful effect. Get your head out of your arse.”

          It did not work when I did provings.
          So, it might be you who has his head in an awkward place.

    • Well, I kind of knew you didn’t know. Funny that you should need to cite a renowned expert in the field rather than tell us your own knowledge. I think you are not a real homeopath, just a fangirl trying to impress, right?

      • @Bjorn

        Ernst is not an independently licensed practicing homeopath. Neither am I. By today’s standards, Ernst is not a ‘renowned expert’ in any field of medicine. He is skeptic with a blog.

        • You don’t have to be a homeopath to know that homeopathy and its rituals are merely a belief system, a sort of religion if you will. In fact, it’s the other way round: as people invest more time, money and (emotional) energy in their belief in homeopathy, it becomes harder for them to abandon it, and look at it with a scientific, more realistic mindset.

          This works just like any other religion, where e.g. converts are taught to see their god in everything around them: in the end they honestly can’t imagine that there are people who fail to see this ‘ubiquitous proof’ of their god’s existence. Thus the unbelievers are deemed blind and deaf, instead of realistic. And oh, just as with homeopathy, evidence contrary to the belief system, no matter how abundant, is simply ignored or handwaved away.

        • What are your credentials Sandra?
          What gives you the right to vigourously promote a certain “system of medicine” that can be easily shown to be completely out of tune with science and established principles of nature? You keep up an aggressive social media presence to drive this agenda, where you even systematically block those (like me) who question your claims. Futhermore, you aggressively question those on this blog that disagree with you, including professor Ernst, who is a medical doctor also educated in homeopathy and has an unpralleled academic career in scientifically studying so called alternative medicine. I do not think there is anyone who has published more on the subject than he, so for all practical purposes he is a recognised expert in the field. If you disagre, you have not only to support your opinion with evidence but also why you are in a position to offer such an opinion. What says you are an expert in the field?

          Also, what do you mean by “licensed” homeopath?

          • @Bjorn

            At least it’s not the “family” homeopath she normally bangs on about.

          • Thank you Björn Geir for saying just what I was thinking while driving home today, and for saying it better than I could.

            Sandra you do no service at all to homeopathy when you write in such an ignorant and impolite manner.

  • @Bjorn How much time did you spend composing that pompous jibberish? It was a wasted effort.

    Anyone visiting Ernst’s blog can see a short bio about the author of a comment by clicking on the image of the author. Try it. You’ll see the words: “View Complete Profeile.” Yours is blank. Mine is not.

    Edzard on Friday 04 September 2020 at 16:25

    you are adorable, Sandra … to think that you can ruffle anything … just adorable!

    • If this is your reply, Sandra, then I take it that this part is what constitutes your credentials:

      …transcribed husband’s PhD thesis in pharmaceutical chemistry.


      If transcribing text is your road to education, try transcribing the following words, attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

      Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt

      • “If transcribing text is your road to education…”

        A good friend of mine has a disability and in the 1970s worked from home typing student dissertations and theses, transcribing from handwritten copy. He learned a little about the Swedish social security system, Arianism and the Donatist Controversy in the 4th Century, and many other things. But he isn’t an expert in any of them……

    • How much time did you spend composing that pompous jibberish?

      Sandra. The spelling is “gibberish”. I’d have thought that as a transcriptionist you’d at least be able to spell.

      You also appear to be unclear on the meaning of the word. Let’s look it up, shall we?

      “Definition of gibberish

      : unintelligible or meaningless language:”

      Well. How strange. I find Björn’s post to be completely intelligible and the meaning is easily understood. How strange.

      Merriam Webster also contains another definition:

      ” : a technical or esoteric (see esoteric sense 1) language ‘The doctors spoke to one another in their medical gibberish that I was unable to follow.’ ”

      This is probably closer to what you meant. Perhaps it’s the big complicated words in it which are are confusing you. Let us know which ones you don’t understand, Sandra, and we’ll help you look them up since you have already demonstrated your inability to use a dictionary.

  • I had seen that aphorism attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) but I have found this web page and enjoyed it, because it is a nice example of tracking down and examining/evaluating evidence!

  • Looking forward to Edzard doing a piece about light as homeopathic remedies:

    (1) There are actual products on the market, see here: Please note: Gudjons is considered a high quality manufacturer of homeopathics in Germany, often featured on TV, selling Luna C1000 – which is moonlight diluted 1000 times at the ratio of 1 by 100. Sells at about € 30 for 1.5 grams, that is € 20,000 per kilo.

    (2) lists 29 different remedies of “light”, like light of Jupiter, of rainbow, ligh of Black hole, light of total eclipse of the sun etc. 16 of them actually come with homeopathic provings. Link (scroll down to “Lux …”):

Leave a Reply to Sandra Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

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

Subscribe to new posts

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

Recent Comments

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

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