Many consumers hold a positive or neutral view of homeopathy. This is primarily because they don’t fully understand what it is, how absurd its assumptions really are, and how dangerous the homeopathic approach to healthcare truly is. A very common misconception, for instance, is that homeopathy is a natural and/or herbal treatment. However, both assumptions are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are often not derived from natural or herbal substances (see below), and most are so highly diluted they contain no active substance at all. For those who value rational thought, this characteristic alone renders homeopathy utterly absurd.
The “absurdity” of homeopathy stems from several aspects:
- Claims that defy basic scientific principles: Proponents often assert a belief in “water memory” as the mechanism for remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, meaning not a single original molecule remains. This operates outside the realm of scientific reality.
- Attributing any positive outcome to homeopathy: Homeopathy is often credited with curing serious conditions, despite lacking a plausible mechanism. This ignores natural recovery, the placebo effect, or concurrent conventional treatments.
- Dismissing scientific criticism as “Big Pharma conspiracy”: Some proponents frequently use this trope to invalidate negative scientific findings rather than engaging with evidence.
- Making outlandish claims about what homeopathy can cure: Some proponents claim efficacy for virtually everything, including severe infectious diseases, cancer, or even as a substitute for vaccinations. This is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous.
- Using pseudoscientific jargon: Terms like “energetic vibrations,” “quantum fields,” or “miasms” are often employed without clear, testable scientific definitions.
While it’s difficult and perhaps even unfair to name prominent exponents of these absurdities, certain types of proponents and their arguments are easily identified:
- Those who reject conventional medicine entirely for homeopathy: These individuals promote a “gentle” and “holistic” approach, often viewing conventional medicine as harsh and reductionist. This stance can tragically lead patients to forgo evidence-based treatments for serious illnesses (e.g., cancer, severe infections, diabetes) in favor of homeopathy, which has no proven specific effect. The belief that homeopathy alone suffices for all ailments, regardless of severity, is dangerously unscientific.
- Proponents of “new” or “extreme” provings and remedies: These homeopaths expand the materia medica to include unusual substances. Some conduct “provings” (testing remedies on healthy individuals) with incredibly abstract or implausible “substances” like emotions, dreams, vacuum, X-rays, cosmic energies, or even highly diluted Coca-Cola or parts of the Berlin Wall. The idea that these could be potentized into remedies with specific effects moves into the realm of fantasy rather than scientific inquiry.
- Those making grand claims about “water memory” or “quantum healing”: These individuals attempt to provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy that goes beyond the known laws of physics and chemistry. Their explanations often involve misinterpretations or misapplications of complex scientific concepts (like quantum mechanics or the structure of water) to justify a mechanism for which there is no evidence. They frequently speak of “information transfer” or “energetic imprints” without any empirical way to measure or verify these phenomena. The scientific consensus is that such claims are pseudoscientific.
- Promoters of homeopathic “vaccinations” or alternatives to proven public health measures: Offering what they claim are “natural” and “safer” alternatives to conventional vaccines is perhaps one of the most dangerous forms of advocacy. Promoting “homeopathic nosodes” (highly diluted disease products) as equivalents to vaccines is scientifically unfounded and can put individuals and communities at risk by fostering vaccine hesitancy and reducing herd immunity. Public health bodies universally condemn such practices.
Many homeopaths are, in my experience, entirely sincere in their beliefs and genuinely hope to help people (they will even feel ‘hard done by’ when reading this post). However, it’s crucial to remember, I think, that sincerity does not make a charlatan less, but more, dangerous. I have long felt that, if consumers truly understood what homeopathy is all about, their attitude towards it would dramatically change.
90 Responses to The absurdity of homeopathy, homeopaths and their arguments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Not only is this a clear demonstration that homeopathy is based on nothing but fantasy, but that criticism and a critical mindset are in fact taboo in homeopathy: not a single one of these total cranks has ever been corrected or criticized by other, less extreme homeopaths.
Homeopaths will also keep supporting ‘remedies’ that are clearly completely wrong even by homeopathy’s own tenets.
One glaring example is oscillococcinum, purportedly a ‘remedy’ for flu-like symptoms, created from bacteria called oscillococci, which were the cause of the 1918 Spanish influenza, and which can be cultured in the heart and liver of a particular duck species.
All of which turned out to be utterly wrong. Oscillococci don’t exist, and thus can’t be the cause of any flu. In fact, influenza is not caused by bacteria at all, but by viruses. But even avian flu viruses are not found in the liver and heart of ducks. So oscillococcinum is in fact a huge blunder, even by homeopathy’s own standards.
Yet instead of being pulled from the market as should have been done ages ago already, it is still heavily promoted and sold by quack company Boiron. In fact, it is homeopathy’s biggest cash
duckcow in the world, with sales totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually. And strange enough, SCAM proponents – who are the first scream bloody murder when a real pharmaceutical company sells a flawed product – never criticize this course of affairs.I think that you are being too mild here. Homeopaths KNOW that their ‘sincere beliefs’ go against a large part of scientific knowledge and even common sense. They deal with this not by adjusting or abandoning those beliefs, but by actively ignoring and even rejecting science, logic and common sense. They also fail to address even the simplest, most obvious rebuttals of homeopathy, as demonstrated by Dana Ullman: literally hundreds of times has he been confronted with the fact that there is not a single homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows clear, consistent and repeatable effects in any experiment. Not once has he responded to this simple criticism.
IMO, the basic reason for this is that homeopathy, even though it is an obvious fraud, is an easy and almost risk-free way to get both money and respect from gullible people who trust in what homeopaths say.
Of course not, because their focus is primarily:
QUOTE
Promoters of “alternative medicine” often attack vaccines, “Big Pharma”, “allopathics”, and generally evidence-based medicine, in order to support the idea that their placebos are more effective.
— War on Science, RationalWiki
Whoooops…you got caught in a fib…and not a “little fib.”
According to ChatGPT, when asked “Are avain flu viruses found in ducks?, here’s what was said:
“Yes, avian flu viruses (avian influenza viruses) are commonly found in ducks, especially wild aquatic ducks, which are considered natural reservoirs for these viruses.
Key points:
Wild ducks, particularly dabbling ducks like mallards, often carry low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses without showing symptoms.
These birds can shed the virus in their saliva, nasal secretions, and feces, spreading it to other birds and environments (ponds, fields, etc.).
While most strains found in ducks are low pathogenic, certain strains can mutate into highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), especially when transmitted to domestic poultry.
Ducks can also carry HPAI viruses (like H5N1 or H5N8) and may sometimes show mild or no symptoms, making them a silent spreader to chickens and other species.
The mixing of different avian flu viruses in ducks may also contribute to the emergence of new strains, potentially with zoonotic potential (able to infect humans).”
PLUS, is it “convenient” that the rascal Rasker chose to ignore the fact that multiple clinical trials that the benefits from Oscillococcinum as compared with placebo.
Thanx for the fiction. Do you ever consider trying your hand at non-fiction?
Where did you actually learn to read? At the tree nursery?
Richard Rasker writes: “All of which turned out to be utterly wrong. Oscillococci don’t exist, and thus can’t be the cause of any flu. In fact, influenza is not caused by bacteria at all, but by viruses. But even avian flu viruses are not found in the liver and heart of ducks. So oscillococcinum is in fact a huge blunder, even by homeopathy’s own standards.” But you have to use ChatGPT to answer him, that bird flu viruses can be found in ducks?
What a genius you are!!
Avian influenza is an acute disease of the respiratory tract. Point.
@RPGNo1
It can also be found in the intestinal tract, see e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_influenza#Species_barrier :
“The viral HA protein of avian influenza binds to alpha-2,3 sialic acid receptors, which are present in the respiratory tract and intestines of avian species”
But not the heart or the liver.
Then there’s this: it is absolutely forbidden by governments around the world to keep or process birds infected with avian flu – any infected animals must be immediately destroyed, not only to protect the poultry industry, but far more importantly to prevent transmission of avian flu to other species, including humans. Which implicitly means that homeopaths (and Boiron!) are not even allowed to mess around with actual bird flu-infected animals.
So Mr. Ullman is just demonstrating his profound ignorance. Again.
I almost feel sorry for the man.
The rascal Rasker strikes again. Excuse me…but the words heart and liver are NOT at the Wikipedia site. You chose to use your own non-poetic license to add those words yourself (whoooops).
The REAL laugher here is that this rascal actually seems to be believe everything that Wikipedia says, even though most colleges do not even allow students to reference Wikipedia as a reliable source. WHOOOOPS again.
Here is the question that I asked ChatGPT…and its answer:
Where in the bodies of Muscovy ducks do they carry avian viruses?
ChatGPT said:
In Muscovy ducks, as in other waterfowl, avian influenza viruses (AIVs) can be carried in several parts of the body, but especially in:
1. Intestinal Tract
Primary site of replication for low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses.
Virus is shed in feces, which contributes to environmental spread — especially in water sources like ponds or wetlands.
2. Respiratory Tract
Especially involved when infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses (e.g. H5N1).
Virus is found in the trachea, lungs, nasal passages, and sometimes even in air sacs.
Shedding occurs via saliva, nasal secretions, and respiratory droplets.
3. Other Tissues and Organs (in HPAI infections)
In cases of severe infection:
Virus can spread systemically and be found in:
Brain
Heart
Liver
Spleen
Kidneys
SLAM DUNK, Mr. Rasal Rasker. Apology noted (whooops, a liar rarely apologies because you can’t trust a liar).
@Dana Ullman
Ah, you finally accepted that your own brain is not up to the task. Well done, that man.
Now do you really think that Boiron is keeping a flock of very sick ducks for use in their nonsensical products?
The word ‘quack’ seems almost inevitable here …
Whoopee shit, Dana. Means nothing.
You suddenly seem awfully keen on Chat GPT and regard it as a beacon of truth. Let’s see what it has to say about Oscillococcinium
>>The homeopathic remedy Oscillococcinum (often marketed for flu-like symptoms) has been the subject of multiple clinical trials — but the scientific consensus is that it shows no meaningful effectiveness beyond placebo.
⸻
🔍 What is Oscillococcinum?
• A homeopathic product derived from Anas barbariae (duck liver and heart)
• Diluted to the point where no molecules of the original substance remain (200C dilution — 10²⁰⁰)
• Claimed to reduce flu symptoms or shorten flu duration
⸻
📊 Clinical Evidence Summary:
✅ Some studies show mild effect:
• A 2005 Cochrane Review (Mathie et al.) analyzed several randomized controlled trials:
• Found some evidence Oscillococcinum may reduce the duration of flu by about 6–12 hours
• No evidence it prevents influenza
• Effects were not clinically significant, and trials had methodological limitations
❌ Major limitations of the research:
• Small sample sizes
• Possible publication bias
• Low methodological quality
• Placebo effect likely explains mild reported improvements
⸻
📌 Position of Scientific and Medical Bodies:
• Cochrane Collaboration:
“There is insufficient good evidence to support the use of Oscillococcinum for the treatment or prevention of influenza.”
• American Academy of Family Physicians:
Recommends against using homeopathic remedies like Oscillococcinum
• NHS (UK) and EMA (EU):
Consider homeopathy to lack scientific plausibility and evidence of efficacy<<
Well that’s your bonfire pissed all over. Off you trot, foolish man. Take your ridiculous babbling elsewhere.
Dana does seem very keen on Chat GPT. Let’s see what it says about him, shall we?
*pastes*
🧭 Final Perspective:
Dana Ullman is a persistent and articulate advocate, but his arguments rely on:
• Selective evidence
• Misinterpretation of science
• Appeals to emotion and anecdote
• Deflection via conspiracy
The scientific consensus remains firm:
Homeopathy does not work beyond placebo, and promoting it as medicine undermines evidence-based healthcare.
*ends*
Seems pretty accurate to me.
From Grok:
Grok describes Dana Ullman very aptly. Surely you agree with me, @DUllman? Don’t you? 😀
Mr Ullman, we’ve not seen you for a while.
hope you might now condescend to answer the question regarding laboratories, with this 89th time of asking.
You will recall how you said some years ago that “only fools or liars” doubt that it’s possible to distinguish homeopathic water from other water. I doubt, and I dislike being called a fool or liar. You also called me a nobody, and doubtless you are entitled to that opinion. You claimed, falsely, to have identified such a laboratory.
Others in this forum kindly took time to provide a list and to suggest possibilities. Their contributions, along with mine, mean that you have been asked about this around one hundred times in this Blog. I am beginning – just beginning, you understand – to suspect that you do not answer because you cannot. (I admit to hyhperbole. I am NOT just beginning, but realised a long time ago).
@DavidB:
In the interest of accuracy, I think you used litotes, rather than hyperbole. 😉
First let me apologise for mis-typing hyperbole – a lapse denoting the greatest moral turpitude…..
I have considered the situation carefully, and concede that your case has merit. However, litotes could also be expressed in hyperbolic terms. No?
Since litotes is emphasis by understatement, and hyperbole is emphasis by over-statement, probably not.
“Since litotes is emphasis by understatement, and hyperbole is emphasis by over-statement, probably not”.
Well, kinda.
One hesitates, of course, to drag this august forum too far into the territory of subtle linguistic badinage, but I respectrfully suggest that “emphasis by understatement” may be an over-simplification. We note the definition in Fowler’s English Usage (4th Ed. 2015): “A rhetorical figure or trope in which an assertion is made by means of understatement or denial of an opposite”.
I suggest that the latter clause above – “denial of an opposite” – might allow for considerations of hyperbole, by virtue of the possible vehemence of the denial.
Thus, if we compare “I won’t be sorry to see him go” with “I won’t be devastated with grief to see him go”, I suggest, with pouting petted lip, that the latter by virtue of its degree of exaggeration, has about it something of a suggestion of hyperbole……
I have recently completed a pilot study Richard. I procured a sample of Berlin Wall D6 a homeopathic remedy well known to Edzard. In this study I consistently and repeatedly read and reread the label 500 times on 3 different occasions. The label read the same every time without exception.
I also had a placebo bottle as a control and the placebo label also remained unchanged using the same methodology. (Thanks Edzard for always pointing out substandard studies with no control)
More research is required of course in order to confirm these results and I am hoping that trusting people on here will help crowd fund the next $2 million phase.
“Water has memory” – but somehow it has forgotten all the poo it has had in it.
( Tim Minchin)
It is so much fun watch Edzard and his cult claim that homeopathic medicines are placeboes, even though studies published in the best medical journals in the world have shown otherwise, including The Lancet, BMJ, Pediatrics, European Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, Cancer, The Oncologist, Rheumatology, Chest, PlosOne, and many others!
Then, there is the FACT that a large percentage of practicing homeopaths typically prescribe just ONE or TWO doses per MONTH for their patients with chronic ailments. THIS regular usage of homeopathic medicines are truly AWFUL ways to “elicit a placebo effect”! In fact, if homeopathic medicines were really placeboes, homeopaths would prescribe them 4 times a day, but truth and reality get in the way of the skeptics’ flimsy claim that these 1 or 2 doses somehow are “enough” to create a placebo effect.
And then, there is this one very inconvenient fact from history:
Homeopathy gained significant popularity in the United States and Europe due to its impressive successes in treating infectious disease epidemics during the 19th century, including typhoid, cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and pneumonia. To confirm this, a book published in 1900, The Logic of Figures or Comparative Results of Homeopathic and Other Treatments, detailed morbidity and mortality rates in American hospitals, penitentiaries, and “insane asylums” [1]. Commonly, the death rate in homeopathic institutions was one-half or even one-eighth of that in conventional medical institutions. These numbers indicate that the death rates in conventional medical institutions were 200% to 800% greater than those in homeopathic institutions.
So, let me get this straight: Skeptics of homeopathy assume that people committed serious enough crimes to be placed into a penitentiary…and they somehow “knew” that they would go to a penitentiary that had a homeopathic physician in charge of their medical care. And then, the criminal got exposed to a “mild” case of yellow fever, typhoid, cholera, or scarlet fever from which they survived at a rate of TWO to EIGHT times (that would be 200% to 800% increased survival by being placed in a penitentiary where the medical supervisor was a homeopathic MD.
Oh…the places that skeptics go and spin the fabrications that homeopathic medicines are a placebo.
And finally, it can no longer be claimed that homeopathic medicines deny ANY known laws of physics or chemistry. There are now compelling modern-day explanations for how homeopathic nanodoses are made and how they can impact physiology [2][3].
1. Bradford TL: The Logic of Figures or Comparative Results of Homoeopathic and Other Treatments. Boericke and Tafel, Philadelphia, PA; 1900.
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732224005932?via%3Dihub
3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15593258211022983
https://edzardernst.com/2017/02/homeopaths-love-it-the-epidemiological-evidence-suggesting-that-homeopathy-works/
Edzie…so, was this your “placebo” response??? So many of your listings were like this one below (which simply verified the efficacy of the homeopathic treatment…or at the very least, it didn’t provide a scintilla of evidence that it wasn’t true…thanx for this!).
Bernard Leary, Cholera 1854 Update, British Homoeopathic Journal, 1994
Sir William Wilde, the well-known allopathic doctor of Dublin, which in his work entitled “Austria and its Institutions”, wrote: “Upon comparing the report of the treatment of Cholera in the Homeopathic hospital testified to by two allopathic medical inspectors appointed by Government with that of the treatment of the same disease in the other hospitals of Vienna during the same period the epidemic of 1836, it appeared that while two-thirds of the cases treated by Dr. Fleischmann the physician of the Homeopathic hospital, recovered, two-thirds of those treated by the ordinary methods in the other hospitals died.”
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t say that you cleverly avoided responding to the FACT that the vast majority of homeopaths who follow the teachings of Samuel Hahnemann, MD, and James T. Kent, MD, is that we commonly prescribed just 1 or 2 doses of our medicines PER month!
Please eluidicate how these very very small number of doses can have any significant impact on a patient’s longstanding chronic disease???
And please remember that a vast majority of homeopathic clinicians are paid “out of pocket.” Therefore, our patients expect us to perform at a much higher level of therapeutical benefit than those clinicians whose care doesn’t cost them a thing. And please also remember that the vast majority of homeopathic patients know ittle or nothing about homeopathy…EXCEPT that it seems to provide remarkably good results.
Oh, I am now so excited that you will finally answer THIS question!
I hope you don’t wet yourself with exitement – here is my answer to your question (Please eluidicate how these very very small number of doses can have any significant impact on a patient’s longstanding chronic disease???)
THEY DON’T!
Happy now, Dana?
And yet, my book, “The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy,” provides solid evidence to the contrary of what Dr. Edzie claims:
— 11 U.S. Presidents and literary dozens of world leaders
— Charles Darwin and JD Rockefeller
— A huuge percentage of America’s literary greats, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Mark Twain… and European greats such as Goethe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lord Alfred Tennyson, and George Bernard Shaw.
— 6 different Popes, including 4 of whom gave the highest awards that a Pope can give to a non-clergyman for good deeds to homeopathic physicians who successfully treated people during pandemics;
— Numerous leading conventional physicians and scientists who have had extremely positive things to say about homeopathy include Sir William Osler (the “father of modern medicine”), Emil Adolph von Behring, MD (the “father of immunology”), Charles Frederick Menninger, MD (founder of the Menninger Clinic), August Bier, MD (the “father of spinal anesthesia”), C. Everett Koop, M.D. (former Surgeon General, U.S.), Brian Josephson, PhD. (Nobel Laureate & Cambridge professor).
Just for starters.
Famous People and Cultural Heroes are known to make errors, particularly in areas that they are not familiar with.
@Dana Ullman
Even some Nobel laureates started dabbling in homeopathy towards the end of their life. Which goes to show that even very intelligent people can do extremely stupid things.
@DUllman
Are you familiar with the argument from authority? You just used it.
he even published an entire book on it!
Im constantly surprised by those who say things like homeopathy ‘lacks any plausible mechanism’ and at the same time attribute any effects to placebo, a phenomenon which itself has no plausible mechanism.
the placebo effect is better understood than you seem to think (read Benedetti’s work https://edzardernst.com/2022/06/quackery-is-on-the-rise-and-the-placebo-effect-is-part-of-the-problem/)
Moreover, the placebo effect is only one of several factors that can explain; others are regression towards the mean, natural history, etc.
@Dana Ullman
Oh please shut up. You can’t even show us one homeopathic preparation 12C+ that has clear, consistent, and repeatable effects in any experiment that you may care to come up with.
Those positive results you mention are virtually all one-off-results, and very likely the result of botched studies (and yes, I personally had one of those retracted(*)) or statistical outliers. Note that statistics dictate that a small percentage of studies will find a false positive outcome – even if they are set up and executed perfectly, and should be negative.
And just look at the number of RCT’s in homeopathy: just 286 in 45 years. That is on average just a half-dozen studies per year. And most of those with a negative or inconclusive outcome, at that. There is only one word to describe this: pathetic.
So you really believe that a mere half-dozen positive studies prove homeopathy right and a huge part of modern science wrong? Oh man … Ah well … Once a deluded fool, always a deluded fool.
*: And I’m pretty sure that most other positive homeopathy studies can be just as easily shot down. The main reason that this doesn’t usually happen is because scientists around the world have concluded that homeopathy is a WOMBAT. They are simply not interested any more – unless of course homeopaths can come up with at least one homeopathic preparation 12C+ that has clear, consistent, and repeatable effects. So far (and for the past 229 years), the water-shaking boys and girls have failed at this simple requirement.
And so, I assume that YOU believe that plants respond to placebo too? You seem to be THAT crazy.
Here’s what ChatGPT said about research on plants and homeopathic medicines:
The best scientific evidence from Dr. Stephan Baumgartner and colleagues on the effects of homeopathic preparations on plant growth comes from a series of randomized, controlled, and blinded bioassays published mostly in the 2000s. These studies used plant models — such as dwarf peas (Pisum sativum), wheat seedlings, and duckweed (Lemna gibba) — to investigate whether high dilutions (potencies) of plant-active substances (e.g. gibberellic acid, arsenicum album, silver nitrate) produce measurable biological effects.
🧪 Key experimental findings
1. Dwarf pea shoot‐growth (2004 & 2008)
Baumgartner, Thurneysen & Heusser (2004): Seedlings of dwarf peas immersed for 24 hours in homeopathic potencies (12X–30X) of plant growth substances. After 14 days, those treated with gibberellin 17X showed statistically significant shoot growth stimulation compared to controls (p < 0.05) in six independent replications
PubMed
+10
Hpathy.com
+10
positivehealth.com
+10
.
Complementing study (2008): Four seed batches (1997–2000) exposed to 17X and 18X potencies of gibberellic acid. Early batches (1997–98) showed an average ~11 % increase in shoot length, whereas batches from 1999–2000 did not respond, indicating batch or seed variability effects
hint.org.uk
+1
drchristoattokaran.com
+1
.
2. Wheat seedling assays with Arsenicum album 45X
A reproduction trial (Binder, Baumgartner & Thurneysen, 2005) explored effects on wheat seedlings previously stressed with sublethal arsenic dose. Seedlings grown in Arsenicum album 45X displayed a significant reduction in height compared to both succussed water 45X and unsuccussed water controls, across eight independent replicates
homeopathicresearch.eu
+4
MDPI
+4
ankezimmermann.net
+4
.
A further follow-up in 2009 (Homeopathy journal) confirmed isopathic treatment effects of Arsenicum album 45X in wheat trials
Thieme
+6
MDPI
+6
homeopathicresearch.eu
+6
.
3. Duckweed (Lemna gibba) bioassays
Majewsky et al. (2014) conducted a randomized, blinded, and reproducible experiment using hundreds of replicates of duckweed exposed to ultra-diluted gibberellic acid; results showed consistent effects on growth rate versus controls
hint.org.uk
+8
MDPI
+8
PubMed
+8
.
Earlier studies by Scherr, Simon, Spranger & Baumgartner (2007‑2009) tested potencies (14X–30X) of Arg‑nitricum, gibberellic acid, and even diluted duckweed extracts. They observed statistically significant inhibition and stimulation, depending on potency, over 0–7 days relative to succussed and unsuccussed control waters
Thieme
+2
Hpathy.com
+2
Thieme
+2
Skeptics of homeopathy are a cult.
OMG!
Stephen Baumgartner has studied physics, mathematics and astronomy. He has a PhD in environmental sciences. He has been a research associate at the Institute for Integrative Medicine at Witten-Herdecke University since 2011.
Baumgartner is an even bigger bluffer, snake oil salesman and twister of truth than you, @Dullmann.
@Dana Ullman
I assume that this is the totality of all evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy? Just a few positive studies over 25 years, with tiny effect sizes?
Um, not too put too fine a point on it, but I did not mention placebo effects at all in my comment. Which makes me wonder if you even read it.
I said that
– on average only about 6 RCT’s of homeopathy per year take place,
– most of which do not show positive results,
– with the remaining handful of positive results easily explained through scientific incompetence (see those clowns from India that I mentioned), fraud (see e.g. Walach) or simply statistical outliers.
But let’s focus a bit more on the bare numbers: even with on average just 6 RCT’s per year, one would expect at least a few highly convincing positive trials every year, with considerable effect sizes – if homeopathy works as claimed, that is.
Which is not at all what we see.
What we see is maybe one to three positive trials per decade, almost always with tiny effect sizes. Which get smaller still for higher-quality trials. Which is exactly what one would expect for something that does not work.
… by the same bunch of water-shaking fools. And oh, if I interpret the studies correctly, the reagent concentrations used were often in the µM range. Which in my book is not a ‘homeopathic dilution’ at all.
Can we please have proper descriptions of where those papers where published or else links to the full papers so that those of us with experience of reading botanical papers can read them/
Thank you.
It would be interesting to see how they diluted AQUA VICTORIA FALLS (Helios remedy list, page 2).
Does anybody seriously believe that they actually go to the Victoria Falls and fetch water that they bring back to the factory and then actually dilute water with water????????? They also have TAP WATER.
And how do they catch and dilute BIRDSONG? (p. 3) Or BLUE?
In my older version of the Helios list they even had X-RAY, BLACK HOLE, MRI SCAN, ULTRASOUND, VENUS IN TRANSIT and more such nonsense, that they are now hiding from the list.
But they do still have SATELLITE TV RADIO WAVES, STONEHENGE (EMANATION). and VACUUM, etc. …
I would really like to see how they collect and dilute those things. Particularöy the diluted black hole!
from my post https://edzardernst.com/2020/09/heedless-homeopathy-part-3-diluted-water-remedies/:
Aqua Aurum (Gold and sea water)
Aqua Fida Vetusta (Old Faithful Water)
Aqua Hochstein (Spring Source water from the Bavarian Forest)
Aqua marina (Sea Water)
Aqua nova
Aqua Odilien
Aqua Pura Bottled Water
Aqua Schuasta
Aqua Sulis (Water from Bath, Roman Spa)
Aqua Victoria Falls
Aqua XwMuthkwium (Musqueam Creek Water)
Chalice Well Water
Dead Sea Water
Double Helix Water
Ganga water (water from the River Ganges)
Ganga Water (Gaumuk)
Ganga Water (Varanasi)
Gastein (Gastein Aqua)
Geum Rivale (Water Avens)
Halltal Spring Water (Water from Solbadhall in Tirol)
Levico water (from lake in N Italy)
Lourdes Water
Nadana Water
Nigari (Concentrated Japanese seawater)
Nordenau water
Seven Spring Head Water
Severn Water (Source)
Water (Guild)
Wiesbaden Aqua (Wiesbaden Water)
Winchelsea Water
Zamzam aqua (Zamzam spring water [Mecca])
Thank you for confirming how little you know about water, let alone the physics of water.
Sorry, kid, but ignorance is not bliss, even though so many people on this website revel in their ignorance (with huge doses of arrogance)…
Continue deluding yourself, Dana. Nobody is paying you any attention. You remain the pathetic and insignificant figure of ridicule you have always been.
Nothing you have said on here has changed anything. Ever. Not one of the risible studies you’ve waved around has been paid any heed. And yet you continue to stamp and shout and claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
What an odd, hapless and delusional man you are. And, no. This isn’t an ad hom. It is an evidenced statement of proven fact.
@DUllman
Every high school student has more knowledge about water than you. Because they are taught the relevant knowledge in science subjects. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no idea about the natural sciences, as you prove again and again in your comments, much to everyone’s amusement.
You are a blog clown. A troll. A scientific ignoramus. 😀
You wrote “Sorry, kid, but ignorance is not bliss …”
Who is the “kid”?
How about for once try to help us out of our ignorance?
1. Explain in terms consistent with the natural sciences how to collect, contain and dilute such things as a black hole or vacuum, etc.
2. Explain from where you get the huge volumes of water you dilute with, and how you ensure that it does not contain any memory of all the other things it has been in contact with.
3. If water having a memory is a basic tenet of homeopathy, explain how that memory is transferred first to alcohol and then to sugar pills while the alcohol evaporates. Do alcohol and sugar molecules too have such memory? Do you use special enzymes for the transfer? Why don’t alcohol and sugar need succussion?
I’d really like to expand my knowledge with your answers to these questions.
@Olle Kjellin
In order for homeopathy to work, water must not only have a memory, it must also have intelligence to know what to remember – as any solution inevitably gets contaminated with other, unwanted substances from the environment: minerals and metals from the containers used, and dust particles and of course gas molecules from the air. Those substances must NOT get potentized. So water apparently KNOWS what the homeopath wants to achieve …
Then there’s the question of interaction with organisms: this memory you refer to must not only be universal in order to successfully migrate from water to alcohol and lactose, and ultimately to the target organisms, it must also be extremely complex, given the highly specific effects that homeopaths claim to observe.
No-one has ever observed anything remotely complex in a homeopathic dilution. At the very best, they found water with some contaminants – as could be expected. Sometimes, they found particles from the original substance, indicating a botched dilution process.
Then there’s the question of interaction in the body: how exactly does this ‘memory imprint’ has its effects in organisms? And oh, why have organisms evolved to work exclusively through ordinary chemistry (i.e. detectable amounts of substances)? If diluting and shaking substances could activate healing processes through this special memory mechanism, then we would expect evolution to have stumbled upon this mechanism long ago already, as even a tiny beneficial effect on organisms would convey a survival advantage – but it hasn’t. Why do we need homeopaths to do the diluting and shaking? After all, diluting and shaking are extremely simple processes, that happen in nature all the time.
And there are many more similar questions, none of which have ever been answered satisfactorily by homeopaths. They simply mumble something about quantum and nano, do some hand-waving, and that explains it.
Yeah, sure.
@Richard,
I know all that. Now I wanted the answers from @Dana for me to finally get more “educated” …
1. Edzard is neither a physicist nor a chemist nor an engineer. As usual, Edzard continues to ignore the body of research that convincingly proves that the formation and presence of nanoparticles at high potencies is possible. It also goes on to say that the memory of water “operates outside of scientific reality”, when the concept simply refers to structural changes. This does not negate atomic theory or chemistry, in fact it is quite consistent with quantum fields in liquids (interestingly, Ersnt never gets into this part due to his lack of knowledge in physics).
2.Again, Ernst does not prove that homeopathy is “implausible” when in fact, the proposed mechanisms are both physically, chemically and biologically plausible. Also, the presence of specific effects in homeopathy does not exclude the intervention of contextual effects, as in “conventional” medicine.
3. That a few homeopaths or proponents talk about “Bigpharma” is not representative. There are also pseudoskeptics who accuse third parties of “being paid by Boiron” without providing any proof. Besides, the term “BigPharma” is not so wrong, since Edzard Ernst has been part of Sense About Science, which ironically was proven to receive money from big pharma. Therefore, using the trope, with context, that anyone who talks about the influence of BigtPharma is “a conspiracy theorist” is an ad hominem.
4. That some homeopaths claim to cure everything does not imply that all do. It is like condemning the entire medical profession because some psychologists and doctors apply methods to convert gays into heterosexuals or apply trans treatments, despite the fact that both procedures have a very poor level of evidence. Curiously, many pseudoskeptics condemn gay to cis reconversion treatments, but few condemn trans treatments as quackery.Making outlandish claims about what homeopathy can cure: Some proponents claim efficacy for virtually everything, including severe infectious diseases, cancer, or even as a substitute for vaccinations. This is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous.
5. The miasms are a concept that does not have the same meaning as the one given by the Greeks, and that concept is not used by all homeopaths. That of “energetic vibrations” is very vague, in literature it is used in “New age” works as in engineering manuals (since all vibrations carry energy, that is basic). The concept of quantum field is in fact testable, that Ernst ignores a fundamental concept in quantum theory is another matter.
6. Because, in fact, “conventional” medicine is reductionist and this is not only said by homeopaths, but even by physicians and other professionals. That Ernst is so ignorant in that, says a lot about his lack of knowledge.
7. To say that “patients miss out on being treated with evidence-based medicine”, when in fact homeopathy is of a similar standard, if only high quality studies are considered, and with a similar reporting bias, speaks volumes again about Ernst’s lack of knowledge.
8. That some homeopaths propose absurdities does not imply that all agree. Materia Medica as well as Pharmacopoeias in general still do not incorporate Coca Cola, the Berlin Wall, or the light of Venus as valid provings.
9. The memory of water does not go beyond the known laws of physics and chemistry. Rather, it can be supported by well-known knowledge such as biophotons, hormesis, clusters, coherence domains, and various concepts that are not at all alien to what is seen in general and advanced quantum courses. Ernst is simply lying, there is evidence that he continues to ignore.
10. Ernst speaks of a “scientific consensus” but does not say what it is. No, information transfer in the case of water memory is not implausible at all, it is in fact quite plausible in light of information theory (which Ernst obviously ignores but ironically uses to write and send messages over the Internet) and theory of complex systems.
11. Nosodes are under test and must remain under rigorous tests, because if they are valid, they have the enormous advantage that they do not need a cooling chain. Although they are not really the same as “traditional” vaccines. Ernst offers no compelling argument that nosodes and “traditional” vaccines can coexist.
References:
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0217984909020138?srsltid=AfmBOooenY-ptACuYXguf_BKL2qKqYX3MazAqnwsY7MXDUe2Y_R7IVCx
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qua.22140
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asp/jnn/2015/00000015/00000006/art00003?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491615000041
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732222010388
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/7/3846
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0044-1787782
“Edzard is neither a physicist nor a chemist nor an engineer.”
Sandbox is either an ignoramus or lazy. Otherwise, he/she would have had the sense to click on “ABOUT” above and seen this:
“Edzard Ernst was born in 1948. He went to school in Germany and the US and studied psychology and medicine at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich. In 1977, he qualified as a physician in Munich where he also completed his MD and PhD theses.
…
…
…”
I was so impressed that I stopped reading after the 1st stupid sentence.
Edzard Ernst:
You are proving my point, in your about section it doesn’t say you are a physicist or engineer, you studied “psychology and medicine”. I have checked in your many works that you show a total ignorance in fundamental physics and chemistry subjects. Your authority in these fields is totally irrelevan!
did I say I understand physics or engeneering?
No I did not; yet, my understanding might still be less poor than yours.
So your opinion on research that does not concern you remains irrelevant. Thank you for agreeing with me that you are not an authority on physics, engineering, or chemistry!
Dear persistent troll,
“Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.”
— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
[my emphasis]
Wall of text? Goes to the trash can.
@Sandbox
Contrary to what you may think, your sciencey-sounding word salad does not make you look knowledgeable. Instead it betrays the profound ignorance as well as arrogance that characterizes many homeopaths and their following.
(E.g. biophotons are not evidence for the notion of ‘water memory’ at all. They don’t even have anything to do with water period. They are simply the byproduct of relatively rare but highly energetic chemical reactions, mostly involving reactive oxygen species.)
Riuchard Rasker:
I never said that biophotons ‘are proof of the memory of water’. But they do have a lot to do with it, as they are part of the information transmission process, you would know that if you had read the references. In fact, if you want it more explicit:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491605001177
G. polyedra expresses, in its biophoton emission, differences between succussed and unsuccussed samples of its medium
https://www.amazon.com.mx/Biophotons-Jiin-Ju-Chang/dp/9048150337
Also JIBU et al (1996) estimated a very high critical temperature for the BOSE-condensation of massive
photons by studying the interaction between radiation field and the electric dipole field of intra- and extracellular water
@Sandbox
Biophotons are simply byproducts of chemical reactions, and have nothing whatsoever to do with any transfer of any ‘information’, for a host of reasons. But I know that people like you want to hold on to your fairy tales like grim death, so I’m not going to waste any more time on this trying to explain things.
It is evident that you did not read the references. Biophotons do have something to do with the transfer of biological information, even at the cerebral level (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1011134413002881). Given that biophotons manifest themselves in various parts of the body, and that the body is made up of a large percentage of water, it is not at all implausible to consider that there are water memory effects even within the body (obsiously, this assumption need be tested).
@Sandbox
So what you say is that because phenomenon X is observed in the body, then that makes it plausible that water has a memory, as the body contains 70% water.
This is the stupidest feat of ‘reasoning’ that I have encountered in a long time.
hear, hear!
The phenomenon occurs in living beings and is a proven, replicated and confirmed fact, even if you don’t like it. Ironically, right now your cells may be emitting biophotons, and when you die, your cells will no longer produce them!
No, what makes it plausible that water can have memory are the replicated experiments, including high-quality ones, and the most robust theory of QED in liquids, as there are several predictions that it makes and that have been confirmed. The only ones who have tried to refute that theory were some Poles who criticised the size of the domains, when the authors of that theory had already made the corrections since 1994 (but the Polish ‘geniuses’ did not think to look for and read more).
What I said is that it is plausible to consider that water in the body can transmit information, but this is only a hypothesis (I never said that this has been proven).
So that your little brain can understand:
-The ‘water memory’ effect has been confirmed in numerous experiments.
-My hypothesis that water in the body may have memory is nothing more than an idea, but one that could be tested.
As you can see, you misunderstand things and distort my words.
Ernst, stop making a fool of yourself. When you lose, you spend your time writing ‘hear, hear.’ When most of your assistants are not scientists and have never published anything, your other blog contributors rarely interact in the comments. And the few who usually do so are academics who are practically unknown or have little or no reputation. You, for example, are not qualified or trained in basic physics or engineering concepts. I have read some of your critical comments, and it is truly embarrassing to read them. You should have taken a basic physics course; perhaps then you would not have made such a fool of yourself in your books.
“You, for example, are not qualified or trained in basic physics or engineering concepts.”
did I ever claim otherwise?
does it matter?
stop sprouting irrelevant nonsense, annonymous imbecile!
@Sandbox
I don’t contest that biophotons originate in living tissues. As the name already says.
Yes, this is correct.
This is mostly correct. After death, reactions involving reactive oxygen – the biggest source of biophotons – mostly stop, as oxygen supply stops.
Sorry, but this is nonsense
And yes, it does, mostly as a solvent for signalling chemicals such as hormones and peptides. But it is NOT PLAUSIBLE AT ALL that pure water has any kind of memory.
This is a lie.
Well, then test it, and come back when you have actual evidence to this extent. The first scientist to clearly and repeatably demonstrate any persistent memory of pure water will a) unleash a HUGE shake-up in science, and b) almost certainly receive a Nobel prize.
This is not true. I call you out on your pseudoscientific BS. But I’m used to this kind of response – most homeopaths and believers in homeopathy are arrogant imbeciles who find it utterly unthinkable that they might be wrong, and instead tell critics that they “don’t understand it(*), and that those critics are fools for rejecting proven science(**) etcetera etcetera.
*: The irony of course being that, yes, I don’t understand – as there is nothing to understand. Homeopathy is a kind of cult, a system of belief for people who are too stupid to understand real science.
**: The irony of course being that the scientific world has long ago rejected homeopathy as pseudoscience, so making out critics for fools is in fact saying that all scientists are fools for not believing in homeopathy.
Never mind the biophotons and memory effects, it’s the tides that are the real problem.
Rasker:
1. So we agree that biophotons exist, and that the “skeptics” (such as Robert Park) who denied and continue to deny (there are many) the existence of biophotons are cranks or quacks. I want to see your honesty and dare you to tell the Skeptical Inquirer to offer a public apology for denying homoeopathy and biophotons, which they described as “magic.
2. Homeopathy does not use “pure water”, in ultra-pure water there are no long-term memory effects no more than a few picoseconds (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491607000550), so it makes no sense for you to ask for a test under those conditions to win a Nobel Prize. But in solvents containing impurities, there can be a memory effect. And this effect has been confirmed in numerous experiments, including high-quality studies! (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2019.0064?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed)
3. I have not insulted you, Rasker. But I see you are very tense and aggressive. First you say that I am talking “nonsense,” but then you agree with me about biophotons!
4. You are wrong, Rasker. I have read your book and many “skeptical” books, and at first I thought I was wrong. But since “skeptical” books often spread obvious lies that anyone can verify by doing basic research, the honest thing to do is to label those books as quackery and denounce their authors as quacks or cranks (they shouldn’t mind this label since they use it against others).
5. Saying that homeopathy is a “kind of cult,” without evidence, makes you sound like a religious fanatic. You say it’s for “people who are too stupid,” but you’re no genius yourself. Many studies have shown that homeopathy is generally used by people with a high level of education. In fact, you know that there are emeritus professors and a couple of Nobel laureates who talk in favor of it. There are many counterexamples that refute your prejudices.
6. The irony is that you suddenly join “the scientists” when you have not produced any original research (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=richard+rasker+&hl=es&as_sdt=0,5) or even articles in peer-reviewed journals. You say that “the scientific world rejected homeopathy” a long time ago, but you provide no evidence of this. I, on the other hand, see that there are more and more high-quality studies in mainstream journals, which you are eager to retract because you are, basically, a frustrated technician who has never been able to publish or contribute anything original.
*It’s ironic because your only publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a letter to the editor in which you demanded the retraction of an article you didn’t like, purely due to lobbying pressure. And even more ironic is that you complain about complementary medicine journals, while these journals (such as the Global Journal of Health Advances) opened their doors to publish your complaints, while you hypocritically and cynically spend your time speaking ill of these journals. Ironically, once again, the only thing you can boast about on your CV is a letter in one of those journals you hate so much, while some homeopaths or pro-homeopaths have even been able to publish in highly prestigious journals such as Nature, The Lancet, BMJ, or Chest!
“stop sprouting irrelevant nonsense, annonymous imbecile!” E. Ernst, the “first complementary professor”.
Well, Ernst, if you’re so angry, it’s because you’ve lost your temper (again). Did I say something that hurt your pride and ego? I didn’t think you’d be upset that I questioned your authority on subjects that are not your area of expertise (physics, chemistry, and engineering).
It’s very curious. Many “skeptics” question whether Montagnier will address “high dilutions” because “he is not a physicist but a virologist” (ignoring the fact that the co-authors of Montagnier’s articles are physicists, chemists, or biologists). But if a “skeptic” expresses an opinion on subjects that are not within his competence (even if he has a Nobel Prize), he is applauded in the mass media and social networks as if he were a “genius.” This “skeptic” seems to be an “expert” in physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, sociology, anthropology, engineering, mathematics, linguistics, etc., but he usually uses Wikipedia as his source.
Oh, dear Ernst, in your books you do the same thing, except that in your case you oscillate between rejecting homeopathy and accepting that there is some evidence (you say “mixed,” “promising,” “high quality JADAD = 5”). So you yourself have found the black swans, but you don’t like them and you kill them!
Mojo:
You don’t seem to understand that your meaningless jokes are not proof of anything.
Dear persistent troll,
I’ve corrected you on this before:
“Using ultra-purified water as the solvent…”
https://www.boironusa.com/info/
“since all vibrations carry energy, that is basic”
Fundamental category error.
“The concept of quantum field is in fact testable,”
Fundamental category error.
These fundamental errors, and the other errors in your word salad, make it abundantly clear that it is YOU who is “neither a physicist nor a chemist nor an engineer”, nor an educated
sciencecommunicator.Your writing style (I use the term loosely) is remarkably similar to that of the nymshifting troll:
• Astro [𝟏]
• Censored by Ernst
• Liquid
• Lollypop
• Now!
• Ocean
• Sunbead
• Yung bae et al.
𝟏. This is what it needs to get banned from my blog
Published Friday 27 August 2021
https://edzardernst.com/2021/08/this-is-what-it-needs-to-get-banned-from-my-blog/
You say you don’t like to read what you don’t like, it’s very easy to detect your psychological biases. I’ve read comments of yours where you never, ever, contribute anything to the discussion. You just spout insults and pointless questions.
did I say that?
no I did not – I implied that I refuse to read nonsense.
Pete Atkins:
In wave mechanics, it is known that mechanical vibrations transfer energy but not their mass. That’s basic physics!
The concept of quantum field refers to the framework of Quantum Field Physics. If you think it’s not testable, you don’t know anything about fundamental physics!
oh dear!
Thank you for proving (yet again) that you don’t know enough about core subjects to begin to know what it is that you don’t know.
You clearly demonstrate that your understanding of energy, and fields, is amateurish at best.
I responded to two of your bald assertions:
Each of your bald assertions contains a fundamental category error. A conclusion can be true irrespective of the truth of its supporting premisses. I never stated that your conclusions are false per se. Your error is that your premises are in a different domain (a different dimension; a different fundamental category) from your conclusions. You would have been made fully aware of that had you received formal education in physics.
I’m not going to engage further with a troll who not just ignores the red banner, but deploys the antithesis of evidence: changing their original statements, followed by an ad hominem. And who misspells my name.
Love it when halfwit defenders of homeopathy like to invoke quantum mechanics because they think it validates their fantasies.
As physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili has said: “Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you’d better take a proper course in QM”.
“You don’t need to be a critical thinker to provide a persuasive argument for intelligent design, a young earth, or homeopathy; you need an audience that is ignorant of science and medicine.”
— Robert T. Carroll
https://skepdic.com/ignorance2.html
Anton Zeilinger, Nobel laureate in physics of 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/umstrittenes-heilverfahren-homoeopathie-missbrauchte-studien-1.1267699
Anton Zeillinger’s work is admirable, but his comments on subjects he knows nothing about are irrelevant and, in any case, an example of the pseudoskeptic syndrome. He simply states that ‘homeopathy does not work’ but does not provide a single reference. Anton also says that if you want to understand quantum physics, you should study it seriously. Several physicists, including those with doctorates, have taken an interest in homeopathy, and they must understand the fundamentals of quantum theory, so in this case, what Anton says is totally irrelevant. Anton has not done any research on the physics of water, so he is not an expert on this either. I’m sorry, RPG, your comment does not refute the available evidence, and you are only resorting to two fallacies: the fallacy of authority (in the field of quantum physics) and the fallacy of false authority (Anton claiming that ‘it doesn’t work’ without substantiating it).
Homeopathy does not work, ignoramus. An entire Wikipedia page deals with this, including the relevant evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_and_efficacy_of_homeopathy
“Argumentum ad auctoritatem”
RPG:
It’s very curious how you accuse me of falling into the fallacy of authority (no, I haven’t) when you’ve just done so yourself by citing Anton as an ‘authority’ when he hasn’t done any research into the physics of water and doesn’t cite anything to back up his claim that ‘homeopathy doesn’t work’! Furthermore, Anton has declared in media to be a believer in God. It’s curious that I haven’t seen any pseudoskeptic saying that Anton has ‘Nobel disease’.
Oh dear, if your source is Wikipedia, you’re in big trouble. That Wikipedia entry is controlled by ‘guerrilla scepticism,’ a group of pseudoskeptics who are so useless that they confuse a proving with an in vitro study! If you don’t see it, here’s the paragraph:
“While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes including the growth of grain,[102] histamine release by leukocytes,[103] and enzyme reactions, such evidence is disputed since attempts to replicate them have failed.[104][105][106][107][108][109]”
Reference #104 es “Walach, H; Köster, H; Hennig, T; Haag, G (2001). “The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers – a randomized, double-blind experiment”.
Not to mention that while you complain about complementary medicine journals, Wikipedia clearly shows a pattern of bias in conveniently citing some negative articles published in complementary medicine journals while omitting the rest of the positive results! Just look at how the useless people at Wikipedia only cite Texeira’s article in the Homeopathy Journal, but not the rest of the articles that appeared in that 2007 edition! Or how useless they are, citing Anick’s research in BMC Complementary, but not mentioning Louis Demangeat’s research at all!
Other paraghraps:
” A 2007 systematic review of high-dilution experiments found that none of the experiments with positive results could be reproduced by all investigators.[110]”
That article does not say that. It says that several experiments could be replicated, but no research model (at that time) could be replicated by all researchers. If the useless people at Wikipedia make such silly mistakes, how can you expect me to believe you?
There are more errors. The useless Guerrilla Skepticism folks say that some of Ernst’s non-quantitative systematic reviews are ‘meta-analyses.’ Several of the reviews they cite as ‘negative’ often only say that there was insufficient evidence or that they did not reach a definitive conclusion due to the small number of trials available. Only manipulative sectarians with a clear hidden agenda transform such conclusions into negative results.
“In 2001 and 2004, Madeleine Ennis published a number of studies that reported that homeopathic dilutions of histamine exerted an effect on the activity of basophils.[113][114] In response to the first of these studies, Horizon aired a programme in which British scientists attempted to replicate Ennis’ results; they were unable to do so.”
Ennis’ results were published between 1999 and 2004. The BBC Horizon experiment was conducted between 2001 and 2002. How can the useless people at Wikipedia believe that an ‘experiment’ (the data from which Martin Bland never wanted to release, as he only shared an article recounting his experience and showing graphs without the raw data) from 2001 can refute experiments such as the 2004 multicentre study, which was published by experts in a reputable immunology journal? Interestingly, those experiments have never been refuted by Ernst or any other pseudoskeptic.
But the best part is the ‘lack of efficacy’ section, where most of the citations are ‘what Ben Goldacre said in a comment’ or ‘what Sally Davies said.’ The sources for that entry are Shang’s meta-analysis (refuted since 2008), Ernst’s 2002 review (refuted by Hahn since 2013), the second Australian report from 2015 (the same CEO in 2019 had to come out and say that ‘it does not conclude that it does not work’), some reviews by Ernst for specific conditions with ambiguous and mixed conclusions (such as when Ernst finds high-quality trials, according to the old JADAD standard, but rejects them because ‘they are implausible or there are too few trials’, while in other modalities such as yoga he talks about ‘promising results’ even though there were no high-quality trials), and the Russian memorandum (which is not from the Russian Academy of Sciences but from a group of pseudoskeptics).
Don’t make me laugh, RPG!
Memorandum submitted by Dr Peter Fisher HO 21
Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research
November 2009.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm2102.htm
Hirst SJ, Hayes NA, Burridge J, Pearce FL, Foreman JC.
Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE.
Nature. 1993 Dec 9;366(6455):525-7.
doi: 10.1038/366525a0.
PMID: 8255290.
Homeopathy does not work beyond context effects – not even in Switzerland!
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/homeopathy-does-not-work-beyond-context-effects-not-even-in-switzerland/
Pete Attkins.
Hirst’s study is quite old, but they say they found a strong variation that they could not explain, but ‘not consistent with previous claims (Davenas)’. They analysed three groups (dynamised antiserum, non-dynamised antiserum and control buffer) from 10^-2 to 10^-60. They combined the data from the three to conclude that there were only differences at 10^-2 (p<0.0001), and that if there were more differences at ‘high dilutions,’ they were “subtle” but explainable by ‘artifacts.’
They then analysed whether there was an oscillatory phenomenon (as reported by Davenas), and this occurred in the control, which would be ‘inconsistent with Davenas but also with conventional scientific theory’. In another test, they found that there are differences between potentised antiserum and non-potentised antiserum, but they noted a ‘regular or reproducible pattern’, and that these differences could not be explained by potentisation.
I have always found this study very curious. Somehow, they combined (without a compelling reason) the three initial treatments to conclude that ‘there are no differences.’ But in the same text, they admit that the buffer (control) behaved abnormally and that there were differences between the dynamised and non-dynamised groups. In other words, it is as if they combined three NSAIDs and said that ‘they found no significant differences.’ If the results of Hirst et al are correct, then the only legitimate conclusion (from their text) is that they did not observe (with the tests applied) an oscillatory pattern like Davenas, and that the behaviour of the buffer also showed activity (or is an artefact) and the remaining two show differences (or their test is wrong).
If the study is correct, then the control treatment (dynamised buffer) is consistent with the results of Samal and Geckeler: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2001/cc/b105399j
Furthermore, it should be noted that Hirst's study was not a good replication of Davenas's, as there were at least 15 differences and Hirst et al did not contact Benveniste before attempting to replicate it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/370322a0
Vecchi, a physicist, managed to get the article by Hirst et al. deleted, which mentioned that there were differences, but Nature did not include that part. In addition, Vecchi reanalysed the data and showed that Hirst's data actually behaves as Davenas mentions
https://www.weirdtech.com/sci/expe.html#qui
You ignored my main point, which I previously made to Mr Ullman. Let’s make it crystal clear…
Is it ethical for a homeopath, or a homeopathics manufacturer, to vend products that have been claimed to modify blood cell counts, especially considering that homeopaths do not take nor analyse samples of the client’s blood.
Yes or no?
If “yes”, what are the risks? Are these risks explained to the client?
If “no”, have the products been proscribed?
I shall ask follow-up questions based on your answers.
Dana Ullman can defend himself.
1. You brought up Hirst’s study as supposed evidence against Davenas’ experiments and the subsequent ones by Ennis et al. However, if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that Ennis’ experiments do not test Davenas’ main model (of metachromasia with goat antiserum) but rather the secondary experiments (which the Nature team never replicated) in which they measure histamine release by manual counting (a technique used by Davenas) and by cytometry (a more objective technique). Hirst attempted to replicate the first model with antiserum but with an additional control group. They clearly mention finding differences in their own tables and data, but they grouped the data from the three treatments together to eliminate the differences. When asked for the raw data, lead author Jim Burridge refused to share it. However, a physicist, despite his limitations, reconstructed the data and observed that there is an oscillatory phenomenon as reported in Davenas. Burridge insisted that this was ‘mere noise’ but provided no evidence.
2. Udo Endruscheit’s article is his opinion on Switzerland. And remembering that he praises the meta-analysis by Shang et al, his comment is irrelevant since there is consensus that the meta-analysis by Shang et al committed data dredging and is of low quality, and even so, they admits that the homeopathy trials (at that time) were of better quality than those of ‘allopathy’.
3. Homeopaths are generally doctors, so they don’t have to take blood samples; that’s done by a biochemist or pharmacist. Apparently, your knowledge on the subject is very limited; many homeopaths send diagnostic tests to laboratories. Ernst knows this because he has worked with many homeopaths, but he always ‘forgets’ it. So you can’t ban products just because of your ignorance. Furthermore, it is absurd for you to say that homeopathy is ‘just a placebo’, but now complain that it can have adverse effects if it modifies the body’s biology.
Dear persistent troll,
Not in my locale (UK).
Also in my local, and in many others, it is the remit of hospital haematology departments — not “homeopaths who are generally doctors” — to deal with such matters.
At least your practical knowledge of homeopathy and medicine is a good match for your practical knowledge of science, which is pathetic. You couldn’t even follow my algebraic substitution that children in the UK should understand by age 12. I’ve had to correct you again about the water that is used in the manufacture of homeopathics.
It’s useful to have an anonymous ignorant nymshifting persistent troll lash out at people:
Pete. I understand your argument perfectly. And I’ve answered you, but I’ll do it again. Even if Boiron uses ultrapure water, during the dynamization process it will undergo chemical changes due to the dissolution of oxygen, gases present in the atmosphere, bacteria (if present), etc. That’s why it’s correct to say that liquid homeopathic medicines are not “ultrapure.” And even so, dissolved gases like bacteria are, if anything, cofactors, but they don’t explain or rule out a memory effect.
Dear persistent troll,
As usual, I simply pointed out the error in your statement.
You make so many errors that nobody can be bothered to highlight them all, but it’s great fun observing your bizarre overreactions to having your nose rubbed in your ineptitude. It seems that, like Dana Ullman, you have an alarmingly fragile ego🤣🤣🤣
Anyway, as you seem to have lost the ability to post your reply to the correct subthread, I shall disengage with your imbecilic behaviour towards the salient points I have raised in my comments on Edzard’s article.
I thank you most sincerely for being such a wonderful exemplar of:
The absurdity of homeopathy, homeopaths and their arguments
Dana wrote:
“Skeptics of homeopathy are a cult.”
What a totally upside-down concept of reality!
This reminds me of the hillarious story in “Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams where a lunatic is under the impression that he is the last sane person left in the world. Accordingly, he locks the rest of the world up in an asylum. He does so by building himself a house which is completely inside out – wallpaper and furniture on the outside and exterior paneling on the inside. When he enters his house and locks the door he feels that he is locking all of the madmen up inside the asylum.
This is Dana in a nutshell! (Pun intended. :-D)
Don’t you have another appointment, Lenny? Jim is a good science communicator and may be an expert in his field, but he is not a physicist experienced in fluid behaviour or nanotechnology. Furthermore, he has never conducted experiments with homeopathy. So, once again, how does Jim’s quote refute the studies I have provided? Well, I’ll tell you: it doesn’t, and neither can you, a dentist.
Neither of which have any relevance whatsoever to the supposed effects of homeopathy.
You wish, Sandbox. You’re just another of the inconsequential loons who periodically crops up on this platform quoting all sorts of esoteric sciency-sounding words because you imagine they lend credence to your favourite quackery.
They do no such thing.
Before explaining HOW something works, you first have to demonstrate THAT it works. You know. Via some decent, well-conducted RCTs which, given that homeopathy is supposedly so miraculously effective, will show overwhelming positive results.
You won’t be able to do so. Because no such studies exist. Because each and every properly-conducted trial of homeopathy has shown it to have no effect beyond placebo. And don’t come back to us citing bits of nonsense from more Indian idiots who’ve shaken some notionally positive data out of statistical noise. Homeopathy is bunk, science knows this, medicine knows this, we know this. You don’t and that’s your problem. Run along, now.
1. Exactly, Lenny, Jim has no relevance to the case of hypotheses about water memory! But Jose Texeira of the CNRS does, and he has already approved the results of Van Wassonhoven et al!
2. Lenny, you’re always angry, apparently. But your ad hominem attacks and insults are irrelevant, coming from a loon dentist who has never published anything!
3. You know very well that homeopathy has been proven to can work better than placebos. Remember? This is in a reputable Q1 journal, based on a rigorous protocol and meta-analysis effect estimates.
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02313-2
Oh, dear. And don’t give me that ‘Ernst said in his blog…’ The authors of the meta-analysis have already debunked Ernst’s nonsense, and your hero has never retracted his statements despite the gross errors he made!
https://www.ifaemm.de/forschung/comment-on-blog/
4. 4. You’re a dentist, Lenny, you’ve never published anything, not even clinical trials. All you can do is use vague terms like ‘overwhelming and decent.’ But there is a way to resolve this according to your own rules of the game. Barker Bausell, a pseudo-sceptic quoted in the blog ‘Science Based Medicine,’ says in his book that he considers a clinical trial plausible if it is double-blind, has low attrition (<25%), is of high quality, and has been validated by other researchers. It turns out that this has already been demonstrated by Hamre et al in their umbrella review, as the effect estimates on which the meta-analyses are based, including those of high quality, confirm that there may be an effect greater than placebos.
5. Apparently, you are also xenophobic and racist towards Indians. But it turns out that the experiments in India with nanoparticles have already been independently replicated in Germany, the USA, Greece, Belgium, and Germany. This directly debunk the ‘prediction’ Ernst made years ago on his blog, saying that ‘it's just a theory’ (in a derogatory sense).
Since you like to use the fallacy of authority, you have no relevance in scientific research. You have nothing published under your name, and you are not even a reputable dentist. Your disparagement of physical-chemical research stems from your frustration at your lack of basic knowledge of chemistry and physics, which is quite ironic on your part since you accuse others of being ‘ignorant.’
Oooh see those little hands wave, see the ad homs fly, see the self-contradictory straw men get hoisted all in an attempt to validate your pathetic belief in magic shaken water.
Ha. You wish. A bunch of your fellow loons torturing statistical noise. That piece of junk is from two years ago. Has anyone paid it any heed? Nope. It’s seen for the garbage it is. It changes nothing.
And how do you know that I’ve never published anything, SB? Have you done a literature search? No. You’re just making shit up. And what has the publishing history of anyone got to do with their ability to correctly evaluate scientific evidence? Nothing whatsoever.
You’ve posted here previously under many guises using the same ludicrous arguments and in all that time, what has changed?
Nothing. Homeopathy remains utter bunk that it is and always has been and you remain the insignificant and ill-informed loon you are and always have been, howling your inanities into an uncaring and unresponsive void.
Dana Ullman has a financial interest in Oscillococcinum.
“Oscillococcinum 6 Doses — for flu/influenza! [#QOSC6]
Ingredients:
Active Ingredient: Anas barbariae hepatis et cordis extractum HPUS 200CK.
This ingredient is derived from the heart and the liver of a duck.”
— Dana Ullman. Homeopathic Family Medicine.
How surprising! Not really. 🙂
https://edzardernst.com/2025/07/the-absurdity-of-homeopathy-homeopaths-and-their-arguments/#comment-156775