Homeopathy for diabetes?

39 Responses to Homeopathy for diabetes?

• 

  Richard Rasker on Friday 02 October 2020 at 10:23

  Homeopathy for diabetes?

  According to Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, the answer is most probably ‘no’.
  And indeed it is.

  Reply
• 

  has on Friday 02 October 2020 at 13:35

  further studies must be taken up … to assess the effectiveness of homoeopathy

  Uh-huh. Or perhaps they could just accept the answer it already gave them?

  There’s no shame in being wrong about something, only in denying it.

  Reply
• 

  Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH on Friday 02 October 2020 at 14:03

  Do you just condemn a study that you did NOT read? Tell me this ain’t so, Joe…tell me!

  Tell me that you just didn’t condemn a multi-centric double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial as well as the journal that published it WITHOUT READING IT.

  Thanks (again) for showing your true colors. Are you related to Donald Trump? Asking for a friend.

  Reply
  • 

    Edzard on Friday 02 October 2020 at 14:07

    Hello Dullman;
    wipe the foam from your mouth and read my post again. you might find that I did not ‘condemn’ anything.

    Reply
  • 

    Richard Rasker on Friday 02 October 2020 at 14:42

    By now, after more than two hundred years of failure, any single study that finds a positive effect for homeopathy can be blindly rejected.

    Please wake me up if multiple independent studies carried out by reputable scientists (NOT homeopaths or other deluded fools) find the same effect for a particular homeopathic treatment or substance. Or when someone (a homeopath or otherwise) can consistently tell a homeopathic dilution from plain water.

    Reply
  • 

    Björn Geir on Friday 02 October 2020 at 19:40

    I find it interesting to note how our eminent friend regularly appears on a Friday and writes dribble that could easily be interpreted as affected by advancing insobriety. He usually carries on, in a mostly incoherent manner, into the weekend to suddenly pop up on a successive Friday, again.
    ??

    Reply
    • 

      Dana Ullman on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 15:15

      Oh Bjorn…once again I question your abiilty to think and to put together sentences that make sense. I also question your intelligence and your math skills. For instance, you KNOW that I live in California…and so, what may seem like “Friday night” to you is Friday MORNING to me in California.

      Your repeated assertions to ignore the SUBSTANCE of what I wrote and then feign “concern” that I am not sober simply shows the bankrupt and “placebo” response to your comment. It is therefore clear that you too have not even read this report.

      So, thanks for proving your sheer stupidity. I write this on a Saturday morning. Will you now claim that I use vodka in my oatmeal (or some other insane idea)?

      And for the record, I have NEVER been much of a drinker of alcohol, even in my college days. A beer or glass of wine or a single cocktail is as far as I go. In contrast, it seems that you are suffering from that same disease from which Trump suffers: completion projection of your pathology onto others.

      Reply
      • 

        Lenny on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 17:46

        You don’t drink and post, Dana?

        Blimey.

        So what are you under the influence of? There’s got to be some chemical influence which makes you come out with the laughable incoherent nonsense that you spout.

        Reply
        • 

          Edzard on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 18:06

          delusional people need no booze
        • 

          Dana Ullman on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 18:16

          Once again, you can only spout ad homs as just one of many ways that you have avoided saying whether you read the article (or not). So typical.

          Are you sure that you’re not in the Trump family?
        • 

          has on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 23:01

          Dana’s high on himself, Lenny.
      • 

        Björn Geir on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 19:29

        😀
        1. I never said it was Friday ‘night’ and I never said “in California”
        2. I find it interesting not worrying or ominous or disgusting or some other negative notion
        3. I never mentioned you, Dana, I said “our eminent friend”. I am glad you took the compliment to heart
        4. I did not claim you were unsober, when I said “…could easily be interpreted as affected by advancing insobriety.” I was referring to the comments. If I had intended to accuse you of advanced insobriety, I would have said so in so many words
        5. The humorous smiley’s at the end were meant to indicate good humour and jest. I find it interesting how homeopaths do not seem to appreciate satire.
        6. I wonder if “Saunguis Homeopathis” 30C would help? Could you do a proving?

        😀

        Reply
        • 

          Dana Ullman on Sunday 04 October 2020 at 16:39

          Actually, I take all of your comments in jest and satire.

          The fact that I got you to walk back everything you said made it all worthwhile…
        • 

          Björn Geir on Sunday 04 October 2020 at 17:29

          ?
• 

  Lollypop on Monday 05 October 2020 at 06:37

  ” The abstract is unfortunately not very clear, and I have no access to the full text (in case someone has, please send it to me)”

  Ernst, you’re pathetic.

  Reply
  • 

    Edzard on Monday 05 October 2020 at 07:22

    coming from you, this must be one of the nicest compliments I received for a while!

    Reply
    • 

      Lollypop on Monday 05 October 2020 at 20:01

      Take a pill Ernst!

      1994:

      As with clinical studies, the overall quality of toxicology research using SAD preparations is low. The majority of studies either could not be reevaluated by the reviewers or were of such low scientific quality that their likelihood of validity is
      doubtful. The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology. Our independent analysis of high quality studies and metaanalysis of comparable experiments did show some surprising findings, however. First, experiments using the ’high’ dilution range (by our definition those preparations diluted beyond the presence of original substance) had higher quality evaluations
      than experiments in lower dilution ranges, making their validity more likely

      2006:

      Pre-clinical research supports the view that high-potentized remedies can induce measurable effects in living systems. In clinical studies, taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be seen as clinically evident, and certified application as safe. From a methodological point of view positive evidence of homeopathic effectiveness is all the more remarkable, as in most research studies basic rules of classical homeopathy were violated. In
      those studies for purpose of scientific recognition internal validity is often more highly weighted than external validity,
      which may comprise an increased risk of false-negative results. Reliable statements on cost-effectiveness are not possible at
      present. In order to identify context factors, which influence homeopathic interventions, external validity and model validity will have to be considered more in future studies.

      .

      2011:

      Distortion of the evidence is also common in society. The present review is based on a series of blog articles published in 2011 as a reaction to a summer campaign against homeopathy organized by skeptics in Sweden. One claim was that homeopathy is poorly studied. This is not true as the number of RCTs in this area is quite large. Many therapies used in clinical medicine are based on much less data. Another widespread argument, which was even adopted by politicians, is that not a single study on homeopathy shows a positive treatment effect. In reality, the majority of RCTs on homeopathy shows positive effects. A third claim was that the studies are of low quality, which does not receive support frm researchers who have specifically evaluated this issue [2, 10]. A fourth point spread to newspapers by a professional academic was that the analyses by Ernst [7] and Shang et al. [10] demonstrate beyond a doubt that homeopathy is fraud and humbug. As we have seen, these publications represent a biased selection of the literature.

      2012:

      Our study indicates that for C < C trans , in aqueous solutions, QED interactions induce solvated ions to organize into IPD Splasma .This feature of the QED model of aqueous electrolyte solutions enabled us to provide qualitative explanations for a series of conductivity phenomena, which ES theories hitherto have not been able to account for. To enable quantitative confirmation of the phenomena requires additional theoretical and experimental studies.

      2014:

      There was a small, statistically significant, treatment effect of individualised homeopathic treatment that
      was robust to sensitivity analysis based on ‘reliable evidence’. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review of homeopathy RCTs. The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions. New RCT research of high quality on individualised homeopathy is required to enhance the totality of reliable evidence and thus enable clearer interpretation and a more informed scientific debate

      2014:

      In homeopathy, ultra-low doses of drugs at ultra-high dilutions are often used with great benefits to patients
      although at such dilutions physical existence of even a single molecule of the original drug substance is highly improbable.
      Despite serious challenges thrown by scientists and rationalists from time to time, homeopathy has managed to survive
      over 200 years now, and is no more considered a myth. Research activities on homeopathy in recent years, at clinical,
      physical, chemical, biological and medical levels with acceptable scientific norms and approach have paved the way for
      more rigorous research, particularly at the molecular level to understand the physico-chemical nature and mechanism of
      action of ultra-high dilutions.

      2017:

      There is now strong experimental evidence that solutions potentised at dilution levels exceeding the theoretical limit of presence of solute molecules determined by the Avogadro number exhibit structural changes compared to
      controls. A particularly consistent body of evidence built over several decades by J-L. Demangeat in the same model
      of nuclear magnetic resonance study of water proton relaxation, as well as numerous other technical approaches by
      other authors, including, UV-spectroscopy, thermoluminescence, dielectric dispersion, conductivity, fluorescence
      microscopy, solvatochromic dyes, converge to substantiate the existence of structural specificities in high dilutions and
      point towards the existence of aqueous nanostructures.

      2018:

      This body of evidence suggests that ASA 15 cH has a strong pro-thrombotic effect, acting through the COX-2 pathway and having a possible therapeutic role in the bleeding complications of liver cirrhosis. This effect may have rele- vance in considering the problems observed after the withdrawal of the higher doses of aspirin used to decrease thrombo-embolic accidents in cardiology, and is a matter of public health importance.

      2018:

      In this manuscript we present empirical evidence of specific biological effects of a homeopathic preparation produced according to Ph. Eur. monograph 1038 when replicated independently. The test system is based on Lepidium sativum seed germination, fingerprint metabolomic analysis and subsequent computerized textural image analysis of the resulting crystallization patterns. These results must either be con- sidered as a scientific anomaly or they are in line with the hypothesis that application of the European Pharmacopoeia monograph 1038 for the production of homeopathic preparations may lead to pharmaceutical preparations with specific biological effects.

      2019:

      The analysed studies have been selected because of their good healing results to find out under which conditions
      homeopathy can have an effect. After evaluating the scientific trials, it can be determined that the measure of cure depended on the selected homeopathic remedy, the pathogen, study conditions and individual conditions of the farm. Homeopathy has shown in some studies that it can have a better effect (partly significant) compared to placebo. The criticism of homeopathy as a placebo effect could be refuted by the results of these studies.

      2019:

      A lot of experimental scientific results related with the use of homoeopathic medicines in plants, besides new results and insights discussed along this chapter, eliminate the principal argument of homoeopathy detractors. Actually, they cannot sustain their arguments in the sense that the suggestion and the placebo effect are the only mechanisms of action of this old, and at the same time new, alternative for organic agriculture. As shown throughout the text, there is sufficient scientific evidence that homoeopathy strengthens the energy and vitality of plants even under conditions of abiotic stress and promotes a dynamic balance of the plant with soil, water and the environment. Homoeopathic dilutions from different origins can be applied by soaking seeds and spraying leaves or directly to the soil or substrate.

      2019:

      We reviewed 134 publications describing 203 experiments in the area of physicochemical research into ho-
      meopathically potentized preparations, which we analyzed in detail with the aim of extracting relevant information
      about what has been learned in the field and which experiments to undertake in the future. To conclude, the most promising techniques used so far are NMR relaxation, optical spectroscopy, and electrical impedance measurements. In these three areas, several sets of replicated high-quality experiments provide evidence for specific physicochemical properties of homeopathic
      preparations.

      2020:

      La physique démontre que les dilutions homéopathiques diffèrent des dilutions au sens de la physicochimie conventionnelle. Il apparaît dans les hautes dilutions des nanostructures (NS), identifiées par des techniques variées (RMN, diffusion optique ou laser, filtration différentielle) qui n’existent que sous condition de forte agitation et ne sont pas observées dans les contrôles. Elles grossissent avec la hauteur de dilution, par apposition itérative de nanobulles et, selon le matériel et le milieu, de silice et d’ions qui joueraient un rôle de consolidation. Ces NS, dès lors qu’elles ont pu être identifiées par microscopie, peuvent être décrites comme nanoparticules (NPs), s’échelonnant jusqu’à plusieurs centaines de nanomètres. Les NS/NPs apparaissent physiquement différenciables selon la nature du matériel initial – à condition d’avoir été dynamisées – et ne sont pas observées dans les basses dilutions, au-dessous de 2-3 CH. La présence résiduelle du matériel initial dans ces NS/NPs a pu être montrée à ultrahaute dilution dans plusieurs études, mais reste toutefois à confirmer.

      2020:

      It was possible to observe in this systematic review that the studies involving experimental treatment of mice in-
      fected with T. cruzi with highly diluted drugs were planned and conducted in very different ways. Study designs have
      improved chronologically, with better descriptions of methods and standardization of the use of highly diluted compounds; the positive results observed in the use of these drugs in the murine experimental infection by this protozoan are unequivocal. Some of the compounds presented more promising results in terms of fighting the infection, while others added important new information regarding the action of highly diluted drugs

      2020:

      In this study, a range of HDs was analysed to compare them with those used therapeutically, which shows that atropine HDs have aggregates of nanoparticles with different morphological and electromagnetic properties. Therapeutically,our results provide scientific evidence for the use of homeopathic medicine and could be relevant for future approaches focused on the use of atropine in aqueous dilutions..

      2020:

      This study opens new insight into the activation of Argopecten ventricosus self-protection mechanism using HDIC, which allowed answering questions and opening the possibility of generating others about interactions between organisms and their exposure to low toxin concentration, contaminants, minerals, pathogens and other stress factors during a prolonged time. The results of this study implied that lower dilutions activated mechanisms of immune response in a higher level in a shorter period while higher dilutions activated only the first defense mechanisms in A. ventricosus, which may be dependent on the exposure time between the organisms and the HDIC. These results showed the complex dynamics between the non-self recognition mechanisms of A. ventricosus juveniles and HDIC in a long time exposure. Additionally, mitochondria, besides its role in energy production, may play an important role in defense response activation and signalling process when organisms are exposed to HDIC.

      2020:

      This provides clear evidence that our solutions cannot be considered to be pure water and that some dissolved species, nanoparticles and/or nanobubbles, remain at all dilutions. We may call this phenomenon “dynamic pharmacy” because it only occurs when a dynamizationhasbeenperformed.It follows that the existence of a putative “Avogadro’s wall” for homeopathically prepared medicines is not supported by our data; instead, it should be understood that all dilutions may have a specific material configuration influenced not only by the potentized substance itself but also by the manufacturing process, the chemical nature of the containers, the chemical nature of dissolved gases and even by the electromagnetic environment

      2020:

      This systematic review puts light on the methodological quality of previous researches conducted with an aim to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathy in cases of ILI. All the studies included in this review were double-blind placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials. The selected studies showed faster recovery of ILI symptoms with the homoeopathic treatment as compared with the placebo group. This analysis suggests that the ultra-high dilutions of homoeopathy have significant positive impact on the clinical outcomes of the viral respiratory tract infections. Especially considering the current crisis state of the massive outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 and excess of ILI cases, there is need to conduct more clinical trials with standardised methodology to establish the role of homoeopathy in combating such pandemics which is essential for the inclusion of homoeopathy in mainstream healthcare system

      2020:

      The application of homeopathic treatment is remarkably increasing globally day by day for infectious and non-infectious disorders facilitated by scientific evidences (35-36). Moreover, homoeopathic system of medicines offers the sufficient evidences to be used as preventive and as treatment modality in various dreadful epidemics such as typhoid, cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever, meningitis, etc. epidemic cases, there is anecdotal evidence that homoeopathy was successful during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 to 1919, in which least 20 million people died worldwide. According to the historian Julian Winston, the death rates for patients treated with homoeopathy were 1 to 2% compared to a 30 to 60% mortality for those treated with conventional physicians (37). Similarly a study done by Nair et. al. (38) shows that Bryonia alb30C as a genus epidemicus was better thaplacebo in decreasing the incidence of chikungunya in Kerala during the epidemic outbreak in August-September 2007. Recent efforts including the Italian descriptive study (33) have also shown that the rate of hospitalization in group of 50 patients treated with homoeopathically for COVID-19 is zero. The above-mentioned evidences urge further integration of homoeopathy in the healthcare system, which could not only be used as a Complementary and Alternative Medicine but also be implemented as a ‘Bio-medicine’ to combat infectious outbreaks including COVID-19. Current systematic review suggests that the development of new therapies, including homoeopathy, that can prevent and / or treat disease becomes increasingly necessary not only in control of the severity of the infectious disease but also of help in halting the disease to a certain geographical area rather than spreading worldwide.

      2020:

      In conclusion, evidence for the effectiveness of human and veterinary homeopathy in general, and in particular, of homeopathic treatment for infections, is available. Especially, individualized homeopathy demonstrates effects at all quality levels according to Cochrane criteria, even in the methodologically high-quality studies. As in most areas of veterinary medicine and medicine, further good/excellent studies are necessary.

      Reply
      • 

        Lenny on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 08:13

        The Nobel Prize for medicine was announced this week. What a shock that, given all this ground-breaking research published by homeopaths, that one of them wasn’t nominated for it. As ever, tooth-fairy science shows itself to be just that when the proper scientists look at it.

        Lollypop. Do us a favour and post links to two full-text papers:

        1) One which, to your mind, most convincingly and unarguably demonstrates the in vitro experimental effects of homeopathy and

        2) One which, to your mind, most convincingly and unarguably demonstrates the in vivo clinical effects of homeopathy.

        They’ll make interesting reading

        Reply
        • 

          Dana Ullman on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 14:17

          Ok, Lenny…for starters, here’s a study (the FOURTH in a series!…two of which were published in the BMJ and one in the Lancet):

          Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (This review of FOUR studies on the homeopathic treatment of people with respiratory allergies)

          It is additionally curious that you insisted upon access to the full article. I’m so sorry that you don’t have access to this weird thing called a LIBRARY. Yeah, I’m asking so much from you.

          Oh, and here’s another which is the THIRD in a series of studies on the use of single and individually prescribed medicines for one of the most serious public health problems in the world, according to WHO: childhood diarrhea (which is known to lead to dehydration):

          Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
        • 

          Lollypop on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 17:51

          Just look at the news from the period from 2000 to 2019, where gradually the mass media tended to put more negative notes damaging the public reputation of homeopathy and announcing bans, persecutions and censorship. Given the noisy and contaminated context of “skeptical” journalists and broadcasters sold, it is not surprising that the Nobel Committee is reluctant to nominate someone for a nobel Prize. Now the amount of favorable evidence for homeopathy is overwhelming. Because there is no Nobel category for homeopathy, I hope that in years to come it will be normal to see nominations for the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry and physiology.
        • 

          Edzard on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 19:24

          the media merely tend to reflect the evidence.
        • 

          Lenny on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 19:17

          Dana

          If that’s the best you can come up with, it’s a bit shit. The first is from twenty years ago.

          Twenty years, Dana. Lots of time for the results to be replicated and homeopathy to be accepted as a front-line treatment for allergic rhinitis.

          Hasn’t happened, has it?

          Almost as if it was a load of specious nonsense which was recognised by medicine for the twaddle it was.

          And your series of papers on diarrhoea. From even further back if I recall from the last time you waved them around before slinking off with your tail between your legs following those papers being trashed by the experts on this blog. It’s a short memory you have, Dana.

          You really are pathetic.

          And libraries?

          Grow up you stupid little man. Links to non-paywalled full articles, not abstracts.
        • 

          Dana Ullman on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 19:40

          Oh…so “science” doesn’t count when it is over 20 years old.

          And oh, my comments are “bit shit.” You ARE very funny in your dementia.

          This will be my last comment to you…because you simply are not worth my and anyone else’s time.
        • 

          Lenny on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 21:25

          So there we go.

          With another of his fatuous arguments demonstrated to be false and ripped to bits, Dana does a flounce.

          Of course, Dana, you could’ve shut me up and proved me to be wrong by showing how those results were replicated and how homeopathy has been accepted as a front-line treatment for allergic rhinitis.

          But you haven’t.

          Because neither has happened.

          So Dana, you’re wrong. As ever. And have to to resort to some spluttering and name-calling.

          Mr Uncredible strikes again.

          Bye, Dana. Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on your way out.
        • 

          Lollypop on Tuesday 06 October 2020 at 21:31

          Media are prone to manipulation. Until more than 20 years ago the positive news of homeopathy was more than the negative. This trend changed suspiciously when the “skeptical” lobby began to spread the stupid idea of being “the nanny State” and New verifiers like Newtral, who expose obvious nonsense, stand up as new panoptics. You, Ernst, should know it well, there are hundreds of interviews with luminaries like Ben Goldacre, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, etc., who are people who at the research level are irrelevant but sell, while there are few or no interviews with excellent and rigorous scientists like Alexander Konovalov, F. A. Popp, Jean Louis Demangeat, Luc Montagnier, Robert Hahn, Alexander Tournier, Jennifer Jacobs, among others. I know from a good source that journalists who dare to challenge the establishment are afraid of reprisals and that the owners of large newspapers often reject their notes informing research about homeopathy. But not all is lost, given the trend of increasing evidence, it is obvious that “skeptical” lobbies have the battle lost in the years to come.
• 

  Lenny on Wednesday 07 October 2020 at 11:32

  given the trend of increasing evidence

  When are we going to see it, then? The tripe you’ve come up with so far from Konovalov, Popp, Demangeat and all the rest has hardly set the World of science on fire, has it? Are the chemists and biologists re-writing the textbooks on the back of their discoveries?

  Nope.

  It’s curious but Young-Earth Creationists and Flat-Earthers make the same whinges and the same claims. With the same results.

  They get laughed at.

  Homeopathy’s had two hundred years to prove itself and has repeatedly and reproducibly failed to do so. Why is this going to change in the next few years, Popsie?

  It’s got nothing to do with the work of skeptics and everything to do with harsh scientific reality. We’re plainly not going to alter your delusions by neither are your delusions going to alter reality.

  Reply
  • 

    Lollypop on Wednesday 07 October 2020 at 18:32

    Leny, are you always that stupid? Robert Leslie Park, author of Voodoo Science, said that the biophoton was a fantasy and accused of irreproducible findings the work of A. Wurgitsch, while Stephen Barrett rejected the hormesis and ancient authors of the time of Oliver Wendel Holmes came to say that the paradoxical effects of a drug were magic and superstition. Currently, biophoton and hormesis are phenomena that are normally mentioned in articles and scientific reviews of the last 5 years. The memory of water and the model of cellular interaction proposed by J. Benveniste is another example that follows this trend and in the last two years has been mentioned with corrections more often thanks to the works of Luc Montagnier and other great scientists such as Dr. Roberto Germano, Dr. Gerald Pollack and Dr. Igor Jerman. Your comparison with the Flat-Earthers is stupid.

    “Homeopathy’s had two hundred years to prove itself and has repeatedly and reproducibly failed to do so”

    Read again, fool! https://edzardernst.com/2020/10/homeopathy-for-diabetes/#comment-127047

    Reply
    • 

      Dana Ullman on Wednesday 07 October 2020 at 20:19

      Thank YOU Lollypop for ripping the back-side of these flat-earthers who are so arrogant that they are literally deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind..

      Reply
      • 

        Edzard on Thursday 08 October 2020 at 05:42

        anyone who makes such general statements combined with insults has no concrete arguments against the points raised, it seems.

        Reply
        • 

          Björn Geir on Thursday 08 October 2020 at 19:00

          DU is his own worst detractor ?
        • 

          has on Friday 09 October 2020 at 11:25

          Time for Dana to update his profile pic: his grand mal narcissism is now so swollen his head no longer fits in the room.
        • 

          Dana Ullman on Friday 09 October 2020 at 13:36

          And it seem obvious that your photo is BLANK…and that you are a placebo.

          Thanx for your foolish comment…when you attack without substance, it is because you have no substantative argument.
        • 

          has on Friday 09 October 2020 at 18:09

          Dana: “Thank YOU Lollypop for ripping the back-side of these flat-earthers who are so arrogant that they are literally deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind..”

          Also Dana: “Thanx for your foolish comment…when you attack without substance, it is because you have no substantative argument.”

          Dana gives us all the best irony.

          Alas, that’s all Dana gives us.

          Protip: If you want a substantive argument, you have to present something more substantial than your own swollen ego and embarrassing lack of self-awareness. Else it’s more fun just to use you as sport.
        • 

          Lenny on Saturday 10 October 2020 at 00:33

          And it seem obvious that your photo is BLANK…and that you are a placebo.

          Ooh.

          So just like your mate Lollypopsypoobles

          That’s another hole you’ve shot in your own foot, Dana

          Remind us all how you manage to eat your dinner without taking your eye out with the fork.
        • 

          has on Saturday 10 October 2020 at 11:08

          Lenny: “Remind us all how you manage to eat your dinner without taking your eye out with the fork.”

          Hah, dumb allopath, yet again proving just how ignorant you are!
      • 

        Lenny on Thursday 08 October 2020 at 08:14

        Arrogant?

        So, Dana. I’d say arrogance was thinking a bit of 20 year old unreproduced garbage was “proof” of your idiotic arguments. A “proof” which has been looked ignored by medicine. Because, presumably, all the physicians and surgeons who ignore homeopathy are “deaf, dumb, very dumb, and blind”.

        Remember, Dana. Flat-Earthers are people who hold an insignificant minority belief which science has shown to be false but who refuse to accept this and continue to spout their twaddle and claim that they have “proofs” for it.

        You know, Dana. Like homeopathy freaks. Ignorant fools like yourself who blindly cling to their unevidenced dogma.

        If the Arrogant Flat-Earther hat fits, Dana, you’d best wear it.

        Again, Dana. For homeopathy to be correct, huge tracts of established scientific knowledge, which it contradicts, would have to be wrong. And whereas that science has already given us the microwave oven, cures for plagues, atomic bombs, and so on, all you lot can provide is grandiose delusions, religious handwavium, and the utter, utter unwillingness to consider even the possibility that you could ever be wrong.

        Arrogance thine name is Dana Ullman

        Reply
    • 

      Lenny on Wednesday 07 October 2020 at 23:47

      Popsie

      How remarkable! As well as agreeing on the number of angels dancing on the pinhead, they are now identifying that some are doing a waltz and some a tango!

      I read your “proofs” when you posted them.

      No proofs. Nothing. Nada. Laughable twaddle. Shuffling of a house of cards.

      Science and medicine continues to laugh at you, Pops.

      Beneviste and Montagnier remain the sad cranks they have been ever since their heads were turned. For how long will they beat their dead horse whilst claiming signs of movement?

      It’s all rather sad.

      Reply
      • 

        Lollypop on Friday 09 October 2020 at 04:42

        I have put the conclusions of several experiments and systematic reviews or meta-analyses. I’ve given you examples that Science Advances not by your pathetic and desesperate laughs. You obviously have a character of sectarianism and arrogance. For good fortune, not for you of course, the evidence is available and the government organizations attent it, not to the delusions of an aggressive guy like you, Lenny.

        Reply
        • 

          Lenny on Friday 09 October 2020 at 08:10

          So, Popsykins

          In twenty years time, homeopathy will presumably be established as a front-line treatment for numerous conditions as a result of a raft of overwhelming proof from numerous RCTs, systemic reviews and meta-analyses and the researchers you cite will be awaiting their Nobel prizes for showing us that so much of what we accepted to be the scientific truth was actually wrong?

          And if not, who’s the one suffering from arrogant delusions, my dear Lollywobbles? Because it’s not me.