Hanuman used alcohol. How can water have the same effects as alcohol ? How can a mechanism that works in water also work in alcohol ? is this documented ?
@skulptor Where is the claim that water has the same effets as alcohol? Could you try asking an intelligent question? I don't know what you're talking about.
Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone
@simcult Here's a hint back, actually they do. Benveniste, a renowned immunolgist, was a critic of homeopathy. He was challenged by homeopaths to prove them wrong by attempting to REPLICATE A PREVIOUS BIOCHEMICAL TEST. He did& was astounded by the results. The rest is history. This same test has now been rep'd 24 times by non homeopaths, such as pharma prof. M. Ennis of Queens Univ., Belfast. And how "independent" was the testing for Avandia and other killer drugs on the market? Wrong tree.
@Bandershot Were you going to include the follow up to Benveniste's "results" in your response to me? You know - the independent DOUBLE BLIND experiments that conclusively showed that it was a crock of shit? I don't get why people like you meddle in misinformation like this, oh, that's right, it's about ripping people off isn't it.
@simcult You'd be much more convincing if you hurled science at us instead of insults. Cite a peer reviewed published replication of the biochemical test Benveniste did, then I'll respond with one that validates it, & we'll go back& forth like that until one of us runs out of ammo, fair bet? You present yourself as knowing more about this subject than I do, so it should be EZ4U & a learning experience4me & U2b readers 4U2prove it. Give us author&title, 2B read online please. - John Benneth
It's not that the "effects of homeopathic remedies are imaginary", rather it's that the brain's expectations can produce actual, non-imaginary effects in the body and on the CNS. This is not to say that the placebo effect is a consistently reliable medical tool, only that occasionally it can produce beneficial effects in people if their expectations are strong. Modern science based internal medicine produces consistent results regardless of expectations, shown by double-blind controlled studies
@D119heavy Which studies would that be? I keep reading you guys referring to RCT's, but when I look at them the evidence is squarely in favor of verum, not placebo. I challenge you, cite a study that proves its placebo for every study I cite give that shows the action homeopathics on NON HUMAN SUBJECTS. Metas & reviews excluded, you must cite the exact study, quote results& conclusions of "placebo," which can be verified in PUBMED or elsewhere online. (you're gonna get creamed) GO:
the bottom line is is that homeopathy relies on the memory of water and the imprint that is make on it. Does anyone actually belive that water has a memory? Tell me how a homeopath can make a 30C dilution. Do you have any idea what mass of water is needed for that? Do the maths
"Simple-minded analysis suggests water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind (homeopathy) demands. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account."
well a liquid crystal has a totally different molecular structure to that of water. Water takes the shape of the container that it's placed in. Whereas liquid crystals, well the clue is in the name.
Look at clathrates in guest host chemistry. There's models and even photos of these things online. Just google clathrates and you can begin to see what these things look like and maybe get an idea of how they work. Google Endler, clathrates and read the article by Anagnostatos. There's no question about a lattice like polyhedral structure that entraps the "guest" molecule in water. There are other aps that overshadow homeopathy, but the phenom is real.
Bill, it is important for the objections to homeopathy to be answered in detail soothers can see the truth. Although those who post objections may not want to concede they didn't know something, but there are many others who read the ansers who are informed. But more importantly for me, much of what I know on this subject I owe to responding to the challenges posted here. My detractors are my best teachers.
Thanks! I'll check it out. I'm glad to see you're using cites instead of just uninformed opinion. Keep it up. Now look at some of the positve studies you said didn't exist, such as this one: Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial. Adler UC,
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Aug 17.
Why are you so angry about homeopathy when there are studies, like this one, that support it?
I'm not angry about homeopathy, i'm amazed that people believe to be honest. If you look at the underlying principles on which it's based then the effects can be explained away (mainly.mostly) by the placebo effect, regression to the mean etc. I really don't see how water can have a memory. if it did then underground water, esp from hydrothermal vents would surely cure all known ills. And also a lot of desperate people spend a shed load of money on it trying to cure terminal sickness
You've got the principles wrong. What's amazing is that you can issue a statement about honesty after seeing how much science there is in support of it, contrary to what you've been told by hucksters. You said "there isn't any science." But now, not only have you been presented with links to dozens of studies, cited & quoted here, supported by material scientists & Nobel laureates, YOU'RE citing studies that SUPPORT THE USE OF HOMEOPATHY then trying to interpret them to say "it doesn't work??"
I read the abstract to the anxiety disorder RCT. Contrary to your claim that "homeopathy doesn't work," the study reports: "The improvement in both conditions was SUBSTANTIAL. Improvement of SUCH MAGNITUDE may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice." So, by admission of YOUR EVIDENCE, homeopathy DOES work, even though the conclusion was by placebo effect, which could have been from epitaxial contamination of the placebos.
if you use your logic that homeopathy works by the placebo effect then why go through all the effort of making dilutions? Again i urge you to research the concept of placebo effect. And i hope you are honest and tell all your "patients" that it#s the placebo effect and not homeopathy at work. I really can't get my head around your "logic" claiming homeopathy is valid even only by virtue of the placebo effect.Surely selling expensive homeopathic dilutions are medicine is immoral then?
Wait a sec, I've never believed that homeopathy works solely due to a placebo effect. You're jumping to too many conclusions about both the subject and me. And common logic should make you suspect that something isn't quite right with your argument. Hasn't it occured to you that just about everyone who studies this has the same doubts? I read daily by others what you're saying. So unless there was compelling evidence to think otherwise, why would I use something so improbable to fool people?
If I was a psychologist and I read the anxiety study, I'd say "who cares if it's a placebo, it's better than anything we've got. All we can do is try to talk them out of being anxious."
But I'm suspicious. During the duration of the study did the patients know what their remedy was and that they might be getting placebo? If they knew, why wouldn't they take the remedy available outside of the study to insure getting verum? You can see how difficult this is to test, how many factors are involved
well yes of course there are many factors involved that's why tests have to be randomized and double-blinded. So people don't know what they are getting. Read up about Walter Pahnke's "Marsh Chapel Experiment" and you'll see how peoples perceptions are influenced by their beliefs and expectations. And i'#ve noticed you haven't clarified whether your challenge is for $1000 as your video states or the $100 000 as you claimed on here
And they are! Where do you get the idea that they aren't? & what makes you think that any of these challenges are for real? You're committing exactly the same errors in thinking that you're accusing me of! You're basing your conclusions first on assumptions that you now try to validate rather than falsify. Attack your own assumptions 1st. You said there was no science, now you say it isn't good science. Then 2 Nobel laureates pop up, RCTs, invitros. All you thought turns out to be wrong.
here's something for you to ponder do you know what size a 30C dilution relates to? that's a sphere of water with a diameter of 150 mill km i.e from the sun to planet Earth with only one molecule of homeopahtic substance yet you expect me to believe 1stly that it can be make on planet Earth and 2ndly it actually works? Even someone as one-sided as you must see the flaw in that
What you're repeating was made up by those threatened by hpathy to dissuade you from trying it. Hpaths know the lack of orthomolecular content in their preps. Hpathic meds operate through the flow of free electrons. Look at Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier's recent work in which he studies the electromagnetic signal from hpathic solutions. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 8190 "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures"
i';ll have a look at that paper later, but you should bear in mind tht just because someone has a Nobl;e Prize it doesn't make them correct in all their other research or beliefs. And as you (should) know Montagnier has a patent application with regards to "biochemical element presenting a biological activity through the analysis of low-frequency electromagnetic signals." so he may have a vested interset in the research. But that's just speculation on my side. I'll read the paper later though
Yes, its the totality of evidence which besides two Nobel prize winninig scientists includes personal experience, an extensive literature, clinical reports by medical doctors, worldwide popularity, (#1 in India, 2nd most popular in the world) biochemical assays, double blind studies pub'd in peer reviewed journals. I have to reject the placebo theory for it. Also, the only mention of a patent in M.'s work is Benveniste's on the detection equipment used by M. Please cite M.'s patent if I'm wrong.
@KalahariSurf 1. thats not how homeopothies work at all. they work by being carried to the intended site via the bloodstream not water. 2. the mediacl industry is lying to cover their asses and cover up their goofed up sciences and chemicles they have put in otc medication.
i see oyu like to use Benveniste's work yet no one else has been able to replicate it in a lan , is it becasue the homeopahtic fairies only work for the ones that TRULY believe? Give me science don't try and feed me BS
I wonder if you'd be able to post at least one comment here without stating a lie. Could you at least TRY? Not only has it been replicated, the basophil degranulation test for which Randi and Maddox attacked Benveniste is the MOST replicated in vitro test for homeopathy. If he lives long enough Randi'll have to debunk every science fair project, too. Read WItt's review of in vitro homeopathy experiments, 2007. Do you know what in vitro means? Or do I have to explain that to you too?
Well, thank you Bill, that's very kind of you to suggest that. I'd love to go on the Jay Leno show. Maybe I could do a homeopathy comedy routine. I could just sit there and say nothing. It would be "homeopathetic."
@Bandershot Happy New Year to you too.yes you should think about going to jay or better yet do you know bill maher?,he has a show in L.A called RealTime with bill maher he focuses always on the well being of us and he's againts pharma drugs
@Bandershot Happy New Year to you too.yes you should think about going to jay or better yet do you know bill maher?,he has a show in L.A called RealTime with bill maher he focuses always on the well being of us and he's againts pharma drugs
my claims are empty? i think you've lost your temper yet again. Take a homeopathic dilutoin of LSD that should retore your mind set to normal, according to the principles of homeopathy. I've cited 2 papers yet you seemed to have ignored them both i can only assume its's due to your lack of scientific basis. play the ball not the man, i'm still waiting for you to provide one scientically sound paper that proves the efficacy of homeopathy, yet you haven't. You are a waste of time and VERY deluded
The only paper I've seen from you is the one on the placebo effect in animals, which concluded THERE IS NONE! So the other paper must be toilet. All you can do now to disprove homeopathy is to insist that animals are affected by the homeopathic consultation, and how basophils are degranulated by sweet talk! This is hilarious! Please keep posting, you're wonderful! Say hi to Randi for me when you call. Tell him I got a nice test waiting for him. If Randi's got the money, Benneth's got the time.
surely with such weak dilutions all water is "homeopathic" as plants would decay in rivers etc and people that have taken homeopahtic solutions would urinate and that would finnd it's way back into the water cycle, so if it really worked as claimed there'd be no need to make more solutions
That doesn't happen because even if homeopathics did form naturally the UV would burn it off. Read the literature on the subject instead of listening to hucksters.
It's easy enough for you to put to the test. Set up an experiment using seeds as your test subjects, measuring coloeptile growth. Keep your test subjects out of the light. Prep your controls first to avoid contamination. Prep 2 homeopathic solutions, but leave one out in the sun. See how simple it is to test hypotheses?
should i use a homeopathic sleep rememdy for this experiment? Again you fail to address the connection between plants and humans.. If a plant is not getting enough food one would apply fertiliser to its roots does that work for humans too?
No, use Staphysagria. It's a growth stimulant. The point is, if homeopathy had no intrinsic efficacy, if it only acted psychologically, as a placebo, it wouldn't have an effect on plants &animals (Brizzi, Jonas), and its action couldn't be seen biochemically (Boyd, Belon). But since it does have an effect on those subjects, we know it isn't just a placebo. H'pathic solutions emit an electromagnetic signal (Montagnier, Benveniste). Beta scintillation has also detected it (Lasne, Conte et al).
The placebo effect has been proved to work on animals so there goes that claim of yours. And what strength is this electromagnetic signal? i bet it would not be there in a proper double blind test. and what's this energy that's suppose to be imparted into homeopathic solutions? Remember nergy is the ability to do work , as any high school physics student will tel you
You've yet to cite any references to back up your allegations. What peer reviewed pub did the animal placebo effect study appear in? Was it double blinded? Or did you hear that one from Randi too? Even if animals were subject to placebos, what about plants, non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, basophil granulocytes, neutrophile granulocytes, & lymphocytes? Better call Randi & ask him how you're supposed to respond to that one. Read Montagnier's EM study for more info on signal.
"i had better call Randi"? Fuck no wonder you believe your own BS you're about as mature as a school kid. Here's one paper McMillan, FD. The Placebo Effect in Animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 215(7): 992-9. So back to the case at hand show me one scientifically sound paper that proves homeopathy. Quit the insults, grow up and supply me with one sound paper that proves your assertions
Very good, you finally posted a reference. Congratualtions! Unfortunately, you should have read it first, because here's what was said in "Regardless, whether or not placebo effects exist in human medicine, there is little evidence that they exist in animals." (ScienceBasedMed)
So you just proved my point!
I've given you access to dozens, but you haven't read them either. Use the cites I posted 24 hours ago below, read the pharmacists report. Read the Witt review of in vitro studies. -more-
Benveniste doesn't count as a source none of his work has been duplicated. Yet all proper sciencitic tests have the smae conclusion - homeopathy can't be distinguished from the placebo effect and patients regressing to the mean. So again i challene you to give me one scientically sound paper that proves homeopathy works
Benveniste's basophil degranulation test for homeopathy has been successfuly replicated 23 times. So anyone who says Benveniste hasn't been replicated is a liar. In fact, what Benveniste did was a replication. Google Inflamm Res. 2004 May;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21. "Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation." Belon P.
The problem with all skeptoid arguments is that they don't cite what it is they're trying to dismiss. If they did, that would present positive evidence for it. Look how your argument is breaking down. First you said there's not one scientfic study in support of homeopathy, now when finally challenged to cite your claim, you list the failed study in Nature that was in response to a previous article in the same magazine, cited in the next comment, i.e. a study you said didn't exist:
Davenas, "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE," Nature, Vol. 333, pp. 816-818, 6/30/88 This is the study that started the attack on Benveniste; he was the renowned immunologist who led the investigation. But what most people don't know is that Davenas was a replication of previous h. basophil trials, and at last count there've been 23 successful rep's of it. Also, most people don't know that Randi et al winesssed a successful replication of Davenas.
no i said when they tried to replicate the findings of that paper they could not. You must surely appreciate the need for peer reviews, not only in homeopathy but in science and research in general. Many people have a vested interest in a certain outcome so peer review is an excellent mean s of weeding out and exposing such bad research. I'm a Geologist so often rely on and read other research papers and reports and i know how much BS there is out there even in an acturial science like geology
I should also point out to you that the Placebo Hypothesis contradicts the It Doesn't Work Hypothesis for homeopathy. Think about it. The placebo argument is about how it works, not if it works. Remember, you're the one who claims that the placebo effect WORKS on animals. So if it WORKS on animals, it also WORKS on humans, So choose one and get back to me, okay?
No you are trying to claim homeopathy works when in fact it's merely the placebo effect at play. Go look up the placebo effect and what a placebo is. it's inert so if that's in the same league as how effective homeopathy is, then enough said. So can i take this as an admission that homeopathy is purely effective sa a placebo? The placebo effect isn't really understood but we do know that it does work so aggain you seem to have it arse about face
No, any comprehensive review of the literature reveals numerous objective tests for homeopathic verum. In vitro alone there have been six different types of tests, which i list here with the number of pub'd positive and negative outcomes: non cellular systems (15/3) cultured cells (5/8) ertyhroytes (2/0), basophile granulocytes (23,5) neutrophile granulocyctes(1/1) lymphocytes (3,1). So, the totality of in vitro evidence stands at 46positive tests for homeopathy, 18 negative. (Witt, 2007)
lol but is that a review of ALL the literature or is it cherry-picked like my ccomments that you choose to allow on here? let me guess this comment, like many others, won't make it on your page
Here's a good one. It was funded by the German health ins. industry: BMC Public Health. 2005 Nov 3;5:115. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients.
Here's another good one, the 1st study of homeopathics in an AMA journal: "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study"
Arch.Otolary. Aug.'98, 124:879-885 Since you don't read the studies you ref, you probably won't mine unless I post it here.
Here's a summary of the type of study you've been begging for: The hpathic vertigo study pub'd by the AMA was done with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo. Half were given a homeopathic complex medicine and half were given betahistine hydrochloride, a leading "conventional" drug. The homeopathic medicines were found to be SIMILARLY EFFECTIVE AND SIGNICANTLY SAFER than the betahistadine! Now, when you call Randi, please don't tell him, unless you call 911 first.
Benveniste's work on bsophils hasn't been replicated so i think you should admit it's BS and move on. Furthermore, with regards to your claim that homeopathy works on animals why does the "EBVS only recognises scientific,
evidence-based veterinary medicine complying with animal
welfare legislation. Specialists or colleges practising or supporting
implausible treatments with no proof of effectiveness run the risk of withdrawal of their specialist status." Homeopathy is pure fantasy
As you can see in another commnet, Benveniste has been replicated a couple of dozen times. Sorry, you lose. Also, read this: "Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue." Jonas WB, Dillner D Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 3552, 2000. Sorry, you lose again! Tons more where that came from, my larder is full of good studies on homeopathy. Post some more!
The strength of the h. signal has been shown to increase with succussion, which accounts for the energy put into it (Conte). Since you have failed to respond to repeated requests to reference your claims (ibid.), I think its safe to assume you don't have any.
I think you're finished here. Thank you for showing the world how empty the argument against homeopathy is.
What you're suggesting has been done numerous times with vairous methods, physical, in vitro and in vivo. You can even conduct your own experiments on plants and yeast. I've tried it and got amazing results in stimulating the grwoth of seeds. I've also used beer bottles with yeast solutions and balloons to measure the gas output.
Beta scintillation measures also work. So do spectroscopic, both EM and optical, as do dielectric stress measures.
and that relates to humans on what level? Playing music to plants has increased their growth in numerous experiments. But unfortunately most experiments have improved growth results with different types of music, ranging from classical to hard rock - so that seems to suggest there's SOMETHING at work. i still don't see the colleration between plants outputting more gases and homeopathy working on humans
Because in attacking homeopathy, the opposition sets up another hypothesis, that homeopathics are placebos; therefore they can only have an effect on humans. Seeds and yeast provide easy, objective test subjects by which to falsify the placebo hypothesis. Once it can be seen to have an effect independent of placebo, you can see what effects it has on humans. Extensive clinical trials have been done, & you have yourself as a subject, and others you know. Put it to the test and see for yourself.
a friend at school used homeopathy for years to fight allergies until he went to a Doctor that diagnosed an allgery to mica and he got one injection evrey 3 months which cured him unlike years of homeopathic treatments. James Randi has taken boxes of homeopathic "sleeping pills" and neither overdosed nor fallen asleep. The proof is in the pudding
Then why doesn't your beloved Shang reference Randi? What a hypocrite! For ever case you've shown me where hpathy failed, I can show you a thousand DOCUMENTED cases that succeeded when "regular" toxicology failed. But these are dismissed by you as unscientific and anecdotal, until you start ref'ing Randi's stunt, which turns out to be your only "science." If you're going to test homeopathy, & want to be taken seriously, put it to a real test using scientific standards, not some stunt by a clown.
and i bet you none of the cases you submit are based on sound scientific testing. The placebo effect and regression to the mean. Why don't you do the scientific test and take the $ million challenge. If you're that confident homeopathy can stand up to scientific vigour take the test and win yourself a million. Money talks BS walks as they say:)))))
I applied for Randi's challenge and he ran away from it. ANd there's a good reason for it. He knows he'd lose. Randi's NEVER conducted a formal test of homeopathy . . Horizon's was a "preliminaries." In fact, under the terms of his challenge, Randi's never conducted a formal test of anything . . everything is dismissed unilaterally. To make the point, I've offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove under the same terms as Randi's, that his offer is valid. No one has accepted this challenge.
And it's rather ironic that you bring up Randi in the middle of a tirade about rigourous scientific standards. Randi's idea of scientific testing is to literally have it conducted by a three card monte dealer. There has never, to my recollection, been a scientific trial of Raadi's "ideomotor" theory, yet that appears to be the basis forhis explanation of how homeoapthy works. But let's get down to business. You said you bet there's no sound scientific testing of h'pathy. Care to clarify that?
see that's the problem, it's not attacking it's merely asking questions about it, but it seems many people, yourself included, are paranoid and hence take everyting as a personal attack. That's not science it's protecting a BS con that steals money from people, and i think you should be ashamed of yourself. If you get cancer would you stick to your "medicine" or would you see a real Doctor?
Read what you just wrote. In one comment you stated you're not attacking but merely asking questions, then you concluded I'm paranoid and that I'm stealing money from people.Then you ask about cancer. Yes, if I had cancer, I would use homeopathy, and I base that assertion on pub'd reports, including peer review. But let's get back to your bet. How much do you want to bet, what are the terms and how do I collect?
Einstein was also seen more than once in a Christian Science Reading Room. But what does that prove? The point is that science is on the side of homeopathy, and the crednetials of the many scientists and MD's who have supported it and used it is testimony to it. The oppostion can't explain why it is so popular. There is no science to back uyp their pacebo hypothesis. The only study to do conclude homeopathy is no better than placebo was Shang, which has been thoroughly discredited.
if you think Shang was the only one i suggest you expand your reading material. And as for its popularity sometimes people are just idiots and easily fooled. And i'm still waiting to read one scientific paper that "proves" the efficacy of homeopathy. And most of the scientists, MDs and pharmacists i have asked about homeopathy state there's no evidence for it's effectiveness so while there are some that side with homeopathy most don't. And there's NO WAY science is on the side of homeopathy
What material? Cite something. Shang was dismissed for the same reason you are; not referencing anything! I am. I'm quoting Nobel prize winning scientists and hundreds of studies to back up my points, you're quoting nobody . . except maybe your buddy and a three card monte dealer (Randi). So in the end , what conclusion do you think reasonable, intelligent INFORMED people are going to make? This is why homeopathy has lasted for 200 years. The opposition has nothing but clowns and hecklers.
Astrology has lasted for 200 years, but that doesn't make it a science. The bottom line is homeopathy supposedly works because water has a memory. And if that's one of the foundations of of "your science" then so be it. As for quoting otehr believers that means nothingAll well designed studies into homeopathy have concluded that's it's NOT statistically more significant than the placebo affect. A 30C homeopathic dilution is meant to cure people. Do you know what size that is?
Alright, let's take the clearest assertion you've made here and put it to the test. You've say "All well designed studies into homeopathy have concluded that's it's NOT statistically more significant than the placebo affect." How do we know that's true? Because some anonymous commentator on Youtube says so, or because a known authority says so? How can we verfiy your assertion? Without looking it up, can you name a peer reviewed pub'd meta-analyses of homeopathy that concludes placebo?
And speaking of M.D's & pharmacists, if homeopathy is the fraud you want it to be, then why have so many M.D's, such as Sen. Royal Copeland, M.D. (founder of the FDA) been HOMEOPATHS?! !! Google The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years, 1820-1935 JAMA. 2006 295:1590-1591. Then read the pharmacist's report on it: Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 Also Google JAMA's Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885
The last point is that you're living in the dark; if you're still waiting to read a science paper that proves the efficacy of homeopathy, its your own fault. Your problem is that hucksters like Randi have convinced you they don't exist,when in fact there are hundreds and the number is growing. Check PUBMED. There are thousands of articles that ref homeopathy. Start with the pharmacist's report I gave you, or goto my website, scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. i can also send you a huge ref base.
lol, i'm living in the dark, you're basing your medicine on something that's over 200 years old yet you have the audacity to say i'm living in the dark. Where do you keep you blood-letting leeches? And what's wrong with wanting proof of something.Surely if it works, as you claim it does, then it would be easy to prove its efficacy. But that hasn't been done in over 200 years, so that speaks for itself. Delude yourself as long as you want, i just think it's immoral to charge people money 4such BS
Yeah, you're uninformed. Here's what's going on: Your hero, James the Amazing Randi, has been lying to you. It's like he handed you a gun, and pushed you into a knife fight, but the gun is loaded with blanks. You thought it would be easy. But now your in serious trouble, because your assertions are based on false assumptions. You demand proof but when given you won't look at it. Google the cites I've provided you with. Be assured other people reading this will and see how wrong Randi is.
Thank you for commenting. It shows how quick the opponents of homeoapthy are to make a statement without checking its accuracy 1st. Josephson won the the Nobel for physics in 1973 for the effect named after him. If hyou had taken a few moments to check it out . .
Likewise, what I'm presenting here re: homeopathy can be verified online in a minute or two.
So, like you say, check your statements before you post, or you might end up looking like you don't know what you're writing about.
i've done my research on this as well... the most that it's capable of is the same kind of results you could gain from a faith healer.
i think it's entertaining though... there are more cases of it being scientifically debunked since it's inception and yet people still "believe"
but again, people will grasp at whatever gives them comfort regardless of efficacy so i guess it's not 100% useless. still, if there are other more effective treatments available, one should seek those out first.
You haven't done any research. You've already demonstrated to us that you don't. If you did, not only would your statements be accurate, you'd give us the name of at least one pub'd study that hasn't been discredited, i.e. Shang.
Shang was a metanalysis pub'd in the Lancet that resonded to the Linde meta analysis. Linde reviewed 189 studies, used 87 & concluded that homeopathy isn't placebo; Shang rev'd 110 studies, discarded 102, and concluded that it is, but refuses to name the 8 studies.
You're doing exactly what Shang did, you're not naming your refs. Your statements are only interpretative. Be specific. I'm not saying that negative reports don't exist, but as Roy says, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, & pos. results in the physical & invitro tests far outweigh the negs. It's passed rigorous, double blind testing, & it's been replicated. Read the pharmacist report online:Google Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 or goto scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com
Unlike you I'm not just expressing my opinion here, I'm reporting on the observations of top physicists. Read up on it. There's no doubt that water used in processing homeopathic remedies is structured & has nanobubble cavitation. Nobel prize winners Luc Montagnier & Brian Josephson are supporting these observations; Montagnier has confirmed Benveniste's claim for EM. Investigate it instead of desperately trying to discredit the reports. Hpathic remedies can be physically ID'd in 2X blinds.
You're saying nanobubbles exist (they exist in more than just homeopathic remedies, mind you). What does that mean for whatever thesis you're saying?
"increasing internal surface area that emit EM". I assume you mean electromagnetic radiation, and this is absolutely nothing special. As an wild understatement: MANY things emit electromagnetic radiation. "Nanobubbles" are a new discovery that is not only not well understood, but is just unrelated to what you're talking about.
Not according to material scientists who are saying that itappears they are relevant, and these are real people with real credentials who have published papers on the subject on which they attach their names, unlike you, who is just an anonymous troll with nothing better to do than try to mock and discredit others while not referencing anything. There's nothing mockery hates more than the truth and now you're faced with some real data and you don't know what to do except to deny its relevance.
And here's something else to consider while you're at it. There are some people out there who can't afford to treat this as a game, like you do. Pharmacists for example have to know what the truth is about the products they're stocking, because people have questions about them, and we increasingly are finding them just about everywhere. So unlike you, phamarcists have taken a look at the literature and reported on it. Read it for yourself at the scienceofhomeopathy (dot) com.
Your picture is on this website. Are you serious here? You're referencing yourself? Also, seriously clean up this layout. I can't follow anything on this page, it looks like a Geocities page from 1996.
You're absolutely right about the layout of my website & I thank you for pointing it out. However, I think you should examine your theme of relentless condemnation that winds its way through your correspondence. Whereas I do express my own opinions and designs, the information I am presenting doesn't originate with me. Just about every critic of homeopathy begins his criticism of homeopathy here with an attack on me; but when it's revealed top scientists concur, the attack on me continues.
Thepoint here is that comments here usually aren't about homeopathy, not really. They're about something else. I think its about disillusionment and the inability to reconcile the world as it is with the world as you thought it was. Repeatedly I am receive commentary from people who I think are struggling with a deep disappointment over having been deceived, and subsequently they have a difficultly trusting the world andt their perceptions of it.
You also didn't allow my comment which had many links to hundreds of studies that directly conflict what you're talking about. The misinformation you spread is not only repugnant, it is dangerous. I doubt you'll allow this comment too.
Having a system when you deny comments at your whim just screams someone who, what was it you said? "people who I think are struggling with a deep disappointment over having been deceived".
I'm not trying to block you. SOmetimes I get overwhlemed by comments on my vids, so I put the comments on "Pending Approval" so as I make sure I review and potentially respond to each one.
I hve yet to see your comment with many links. Sometimes the system loses a comment, esp. from repeat posters. If you got some studies, get them up here. But so far, I don't see how studies that didn't produce results necessarily discredit those that did. One good negative study was Hirst. Check it out
Okay, but notice once again, that you have are failing to abide by the standards you set. You began by claiming that there is no science supporting homeopathy; I provided online links to reports from the material sciences, numerous physicists, M.D.'s, two Nobel laureates, pharmacists, common usage, meta analysis, a complex literature, epidemiology, the law, & all you can do is criticize the layout of my website? And if God appeared B4U you'd also complain about the way his churches are built.
No. I begin by claiming that one statement you made was nonsensical technobabble that proves nothing, and you go on a four post diatribe about... whatever it is you wanted to talk about. Now, instead of responding or allowing my posts again, you're just pretending I said whatever you wanted me to say.
Here's the '07 pharmacist hpathy report: "In the last 3 decades, a number of high-quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled homeopathic studies have reported that homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions such as acute hayfever, rheumatoid arthritis, primary fibromyalgia, allergic asthma, influenza, childhood diarrhea, and primary fibromyalgia." Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
See, the problem isn't that homeopathy doesn't work, the problem is that it does and you don't want it to, because it makes you look stupid.. You're embarrassed by it because you've expressed such strong opinions about it that you now can't retract them. That's why you guys always remain anonymous.
Well, now that you've been educated a little on nanobubbles, read about clathrates
I'm not embarrassed by anything I said because you didn't actually respond to it, you just deflected and changed the topic. You have no idea what "nanobubbles" means and how it relates to homeopathy at all. It's just magic to you. And congratulations on finding one physicist that thinks homeopathy is real. If we go by that argument, I can certainly find more people with credentials that agree with me wholeheartedly, and I can find many double blind studies that show homeopathy as a placebo.
Okay, but the failure of one study to find results doesn't explain why another did. Again, please read the pharmacist's review of it. And I can name more than one physicist. The list of people that you have to discredit to make your point is getting bigger and bigger. Although I know you don't want to hear this, you're not just just challenging my perception of it, you're challening the perceptions of highly credentialed people supported by millions of users. The argument against it breaks down.
I very much appreciate the work of Mr Bandershot in investigating the work of Homeopaths. I am shortly to begin studying as a H.Path. & have been following his fastidious work with great interest.
I started as a non-believer myself. The high dilutions hit me like a train. Before I knew what a 'high dilution' was! Also I know of too many other people who have also experienced 'these' effects.
Finally, people will vote with their feet! As they have done forever. And they do!
The law require that certain products bear the label, "have not been found effective for the treatment of any disease." This was after a famous lawsuit. Do any of the products you sell contain the same disclaimer, or even just a similar disclaimer?
No. Despite 200 years of oppositional medical doctors claiming that homeopathy does not work, such a lable, to my knowledge, has never been required for homeopathic products, even though classical homeopathy does not technically treat disease conditions; it treats the individual symptomatically. Homeopathic products are FDA regulated and controlled.
Thanks for bringing up that question. If homeopathy didn't work, it would require that label, wouldn't it?
I took a look at the papers to the right, and they are absurd. Some (all?) of the references are real papers, but they don't support the conclusions at homeopathic sites.
You claim there is a conspiracy against homeopathy by the established medical community. That idea makes no sense because there is big money in homeopathy, and so if the medical establishment 'was' corrupt, then they would want some of that money too, and they wouldn't need to make expensive drugs, they could just sell water.
You're vague about the negative you're trying to prove. Are you saying that the action of high dilutes can't be detected in vitro or physically? Are you saying their only action is placebo? Really, all you're doing it seems is ruffling your feathers. The fact of the matter is that forensically the burden of proof is on you. Homeopathy is a protected dcotrine, supported by mass usage, science & law. If you had any provable complaint, it would have been ignored long ago. Read what it did in 1918.
"...there is big money in homeopathy....". Where did you get that very bizaare idea? Do you know how much a homeopathic remedy costs? $6 for a tube of 80 pellets which in some cases can last a lifetime. $15 a bottle if you ask the pharmacy to make up a liquid remedy for you. Either way a stored remedy lasts for many years and remains effective. As to a homeopath's fees, he/she is very unlikely to become wealthy from his practice as allopathic doctors have done and still do.
Considering how much it costs to bring a new drug to market using evidence based medicine, no big-pharma penny pincher in his right mind would turn down a drug that could be cheaply manufactured and required NO R&D or testing even if it sold at a significantly lower price point. The net profits would be substantially higher from homeopathic treatments thanks to the total absence of any research or testing.
Well, I certainly appreciate that you're asking questions rather than coming in here and shooting your mouth off like most skeptics do. Theoretically, the mechanism for homeopathy is the van der waal bond that acts like a crystal to rectify background radiation into the h. signal. W/O fixing it in alcohol it dissipates within 24 hours, & step dilution is not the only part of the h. process. But don't make theory 100% of your inquiry. Look at the evidence from in vitro & in vivo studies
wow, but really... why the "secrets"? I mean when a polio vaccine was invented, people accepted it as it worked. If it's to be treated as a science, then it needs to adhear to scientific testing. Go for the million dollars, but more than the JREF test, go for it because once it is PROVEN then like the polio vaccine it will be widely accepted
Ok, so, following the rationale of homeopathy, if I indefinitely dilute anything that is good for health and I drink it, then I would instantly die? Well, sucussion reverts the effect of what is being diluted, doesn't it? This explanation makes no sense. Chemicals (be them good or bad for health) do not work because of their "radiation", but because they react with other molecules present in our organisms, through many chemical forces other then van der Waal bond (although this too).
Why do the homeopathic remedies retain the 'memory' of only the thing that has been deliberately diluted? No water is pure. So surely it retains as much of the 'memory' of the cup or tap or bladder it may have once passed through. How is it able to suddenly forget all the other substances and molecules that were once in it and only (conveniently) remember the thing the remedy maker put in it? I need a logical answer to this to even begin taking this subject seriously.
Ralph- Read the Structure of Liquid Water by R Roy, the head of the material sciences department at Penn State & physicist W Tiller of Stanford. Google nanobubbles. What is found in homeopathic remedies is being used now for industrial aps to sterilize and clean. The polymer nanostructures formed by these "nanosuds" are increasing internal surface area that emit EM. Check it out. There is a lot more to this than people who don't want it to work would have you believe, a flood of data.
why do you get so defensive when defending this farce? You're just upset you couldn't be a real doctor so you claim this bullshit actually works which it does not.
Well look who's getting his panties all in a bunch. I'm not a professional homeopath. I'm a writer. Now will you answer a few questions? Have you read the latest studies from Penn State and Stanford? Anything? Are you really familiar with what you're bad mouthing? Where are you getting this attitude? You just make this stuff up in your head? And YRU doing it? Do you write your lies2look tough or something? I mean come on! If u want 2get2 the truth, Y can't we have a normal conversation?
I have not read any of these studies. I do however, know the tenets of homeopathy and based on my background in chemistry, I know that water does not have any sort of memory, once a solute is removed from the sample, it is gone from said sample and the water does not know it was ever there, this is why water purification is possible. This can also be determined from any number of methods such as Mass Spec, and IR where water has a definite fingerprint and impurities show up very easily as well
Then that means you haven't looked at the spec studies recently done by Baumgartner, or Roy, or the NMR by Conte, or beta scint by Lasne. You don't know the "tenets" of homeopathy. When did you upgrade the 1st grade chemistry set you got for your birthday? 1962?Typical. You haven't read Hahnemann, & you certainly aren't aware of the work of Witt, Boyd, Ennis, Brucato, Stephenson, Gay, Boiron, Jussal, Bournemann, Tafel, Boericke, Kolisko, Kent, & 100's more.
ok old man, I know chemistry and physics, and from your red herring arguments about other bullshit studies that defy the laws of chemistry it is quite apparent you don't know what you're talking about. There is no need to look into these studies since the "principles" of homeopathy go against KNOWN laws, therefore the results of these studies don't matter.
Material sciences now provide an interdiscip. information base on the structure of homeoapthic remedies.
The physical structure has been determined. But you don't want to read that, because it shows how dumb arrogance has made you. You're not just stupid, you're a walkin' health hazard. Instead of flaming out, why don't you cool down a little bit, read the articles linked in the vid desc., investigate, get an education, then come back here & apologize to everyone for trolling.
Tens of millions of people around the world testify to the wonderful healing powers of h. I am just one of them, and I can tell you that it has been the greatest blessing of my life in serious, chronic illnesses. It is equally effective in acute illnesses.
There are volumes of provings of higher scientific quality than drug co trials and a large body of lab and clinical evidence for h.
Records prove it has been used successfully against epidemics since 1918.
Well, if we're going with an argument from popularity, then we should go back to bleeding people to balance their humors, as FAR more people have used that treatment throughout history than use science based medicine today!
When did we ever stop? The U.S. has Big Pharma and health insurance that tacks on a 30% profit for $100 per pill medicine that doesn't do anything but put you in a coma . . these guys are making trillions. More people go bankrupt from health bills than anything else, how much are you paying them? Properly done, homeopathy requires requires a skilled practitioner to identify the right remedy, which costs a fraction. It's not that homeoapthy doesn't work, you just don't want it to work.
I also have a science background, and the theory of homeopathy makes no sense!
Sometimes, when something doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't make sense! And, randomized double-blind trial do confirm homeopathy doesn't work.
If you have real PubMed data you offered above, send it to me here, or to my youtube mail account. I doubt that any real evidence exists, but will check out what you send me.
YOU'RE FLAT OUT WRONG! I've been reading similar LIES now for years, sometimes on a daily basis, and the ignorance is bizarre! Here you're asking me to send you information that's right in front of you? LOOK AT THE VID DESC FIELD TO THE RIGHT! Homeopaths were 1st among MD's to employ double blinds. THEY HAD TO in order to determine the specific action of remedies!
There's now 100's of in vitro, in vivo, 2X blind studies from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, Stanford, MD Anderson
I have a challenge for you. I challenge to seriously investigate the allegation you just made, because it is an extremely serious one. If it's true, then there's something terribly wrong with the way millions of people think. I know, I've heard the charge before, but every time I've heard it, the person who made it has inevitably fallen silent to the rebuttal of science.
So I challenge you to submit your evidence in the teeth of mine.
The onus is on homeopathy to prove efficacy not me and no such proof exists. Some parents are awaiting sentencing for allowing their daughter to die in Sydney by sticking to homeopathy instead of proven medicine. I know a lot of very nice people who believe this woo and yes there is something wrong with their thinking.
Okay, here's your big flagon of STFU, but all you'll need is a sip. As of this moment there are 3,894 references on Pubmed when you type in "homeopathy," in re mostly to in vitro, in vivo, clinical, animal, botanical, & physical studies, such as "Homeopathic Preparations Assessed by UV-Spectroscopy," now available online. People who say there's no science of homeopathy are lying. Use your keyboard. Investigate it. The database is now in front OF you and the
I entered "magic" it gave me 6426 hits wow you might be onto something. Which of those papers gives a better than placebo result and has stood up to review. Maybe you should mix your STFU a bit stronger.
Hahaha, very good. But that's the best you can do? Show me something real. 100's of in vitro, in vivo and physical studies are now online re: the action of homeopathic remedies, & you still believe in magic. Good! Look, you can burn an impression on xray film with these substances. What should that tell you? Maybe you haven't put enough money into this game, or MAYBE you should JUST stick with COMEDY and leave SCIENCE to people who are willing to put their REAL NAMES on what they believe!
I ALREADY DID! The UV, the latest h. physical study on Pubmed! But you missed it, same way you've been missing everything else on this subject. Wake up, Pollyanna! You're missing the parade! What do I have to do for you, come over there and push your fingers onto the keys? Just start going back through the Pubmed articles. And check out Roy's material sciences on "Structure of Liquid Water" from Penn State and Stanford. Then as a rational human being you'll feel compelled to apologize . .
Yeah I'm sorry sorry for you. I've spent the last 2 hours looking into Mr. Royston Roys' insanity and then about 20 minutes seeing him kicked from pillar to post by the scientific community. He is a nutter mate.
Excellent! Grenangle the Troll says there's no science to h., then when shown a science report he calls the lead author, who is the head of the material sciences dept. at Penn State, "a nutter." Roy is joined by Prof Tiller, former mat. sci. head of Stanford, Prof Hoover of PSU and Dr. Bell, MD, head of the psychiatric dept at U of Arizona. Read what Nobel prize nutter Brian Josephson has to say about homeopathy.
Getting to be quite a bag of nuts & this is just the intro! What about the UV?
You're absolutely right. Thanks for bringing it up. I've also noticed that the WIkipedia article omits many of the studies now listed in Pubmed, whereas it references non science commentators who have no credentials, like high school drop out James Randi. Wikipedia is going to have a hard time defending itself against the anti homeopathy bias charge as the article currently stands.
I'd change it but I don't know how to add to the footnotes in order. Can someone show me how?
"peer-reviewed, double-blind medical papers by top scientists that have shown the physical, biochemical and biological evidence for homeopathy"
If you cite references here, and I'll check it out. All I see at you site, and hear here, is anecdotes, and use, and misuse, of scientific terms in those anecdotes.
The double-blind studies, done with a control group, that I have read, contradict your assertion that homeopathy is effective.
Has anyone commented on the oxymoron of your name? You seem to be demonstrating it here.
As I mentioned in the previous response, there are numerous links to studies listed online now through PubMed. I can PM you a larger list, as the vd field is too small for it.
You're like so many others who would not be so brainwashed by the patent medicine industry that is threatened by homeopathy if you had investigated a little deeper. Ask reasonable questions and use your periphreal vision.
I've read several double-blind studies that show that homeopathic remedies don't do better than placebos, and in many situations, placebos don't work.
It's bunk.
Mr. Bennet, the science has shown that homeopathy doesn't work, and some people have died because they trusted homepathic remedies over established methods, i.e. method tested with double-blind studies, and control groups.
You haven't even bothered to look at the video description field of this video. A cursory examination gives any reasonable person enough information to see why homeopathy's popularity is growing. There are now physical, botanical, biochemical, biological and clinical studies coming out of Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, Penn State and and U of Arizona that validate its use.
I have yet to meet anyone who can discredit the literature. Investigate before commenting again.
You state that skeptics call homeopathy a placebo and therefore the responses imaginary. This is not true. The placebo effect may be based around some of belief or a conditioned response, however the effects are real and measurable.
Secondly on a inquiring note, if water has a memory, why would it simply remember the substance you put with it? Surely it would remember it whole life cycle... millions of years long. Does homeopathy have a selective memory? Are you saying water chemically changes?
Placebo here means not efficacious. Physical, biochemcial, agronomic, biological, clinical studies disprove it.
The H2O memory question is based on presumption. Homeopathic solutions are created in vitro and stabilized using alcohol. Even so, they are delciate and can be affected by UV and magnetic fields
Where in nature do you find these conditions?
To get a better understanding of the physics involved, read "The Structure of Liquid Water" by Roy et al & check out the links in the vd field.
Bandershot, you listed a lot of sources which show homeopathy works, but none of the countless papers which show it doesn't. As well, there are many meta-analyses of these studies which come to the conclusion that the methodology in studies which showed statistically significant results in favour of homeopathy was seriously flawed. Here's one if you care to investigate:
Jonas W, Kaptchuk T, linde K. A Critical Overview of Homeopathy. Annals of Internal Medicine. March 04, 2003;138(5):393.
Yeah, placebo was not being addressed in those studies, yet that was the question being explored in the metanalysis. The question should be: "What evidence is there for the in vitro, in vivo, physical & clinical action of h-pathic remedies?" For example, 45 of 60 in vitro studies have reported observable action, many of them reps. The 15 or so failures could be due to all kinds of reasons, such as contamination or inexperience in the prep of dilutes.
I did what Randi claimed to have done..that is intentionally overdose on a homeopathic sleeping aid whose áctive ingredient¨so to speak, was caffeine. NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME. I didn´t sleep.I didn´t get jumpy from the 2 or 3 molecules of caffeine coursing through my veins. I didn´t feel ill. I definitely didn´t die. How do you explain that? mohandumbass (who I see has posted here) told me it was because I didn´t really have insomnia..then said it was because I took too much.
most of the curing requires not only wanting but believing in themselves from the patient, so it doesnt matter how good of a doctor or homeopath you are. Most if not all things, require always two parts of an equation, not just one
It's "Hering's Law of Cure", and it's not an actual scientific law, just homeopathy doctrine.
Lots of doctors have cure many horrible diseases. Chronic or otherwise. There's no evidence homeopathy ever has. Sure people have probably had their morale raised through the care and attention received from many "alternative" practictioners, but that's not evidence that their medical theories are anything more than folklore and legends, or in the worst cases downright quackery and fraud.
Want to know why many chronic diseases are treated by suppressing symptoms? Because we have no reliable cure.
Some people get better while taking homeopathic medicine. Others don't. Lots of people take it in conjunction with real medicine.
Mainstream medicine may be stubborn at times, but time and time again, when real, solid evidence comes out that a new treatment works, they adopt it, and don't deny its effectiveness. When the evidence suggests its nothing more than placebo, they don't.
Isn't it a little bit suspicious that in 200 years no single piece of evidence (peer-reviewed, double-blind medical paper) has been published to support these claims?
Furthermore, isn't it even more suspicious that the same modern science that has proven to actually cure sicknesses (some of them believed "incurable" before) qualifies homeopathy as "peudoscience" and bullshit?
Jenny-You aren't aware of the peer-reviewed, double-blind medical papers by top scientists that have shown the physical, biochemical and biological evidence for homeopathy, and have even shown structural anomalies in the remedies. So before taking a position on this, look at some of the evidence. I can send you the links. Watch the rest of the series. What's suspicious is that the evidence is routinely overlooked by people who have already made up their minds. Oddly, they are usually atheists.
Hanuman used alcohol. How can water have the same effects as alcohol ? How can a mechanism that works in water also work in alcohol ? is this documented ?
skulptor 8 months ago
@skulptor Where is the claim that water has the same effets as alcohol? Could you try asking an intelligent question? I don't know what you're talking about.
Bandershot 8 months ago
Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone
DrNancyMalik 1 year ago
Here's a secret: homeopathic institutions don't do independent double blind experiments.
simcult 1 year ago 13
@simcult Here's a hint back, actually they do. Benveniste, a renowned immunolgist, was a critic of homeopathy. He was challenged by homeopaths to prove them wrong by attempting to REPLICATE A PREVIOUS BIOCHEMICAL TEST. He did& was astounded by the results. The rest is history. This same test has now been rep'd 24 times by non homeopaths, such as pharma prof. M. Ennis of Queens Univ., Belfast. And how "independent" was the testing for Avandia and other killer drugs on the market? Wrong tree.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Were you going to include the follow up to Benveniste's "results" in your response to me? You know - the independent DOUBLE BLIND experiments that conclusively showed that it was a crock of shit? I don't get why people like you meddle in misinformation like this, oh, that's right, it's about ripping people off isn't it.
simcult 1 year ago 7
@simcult You'd be much more convincing if you hurled science at us instead of insults. Cite a peer reviewed published replication of the biochemical test Benveniste did, then I'll respond with one that validates it, & we'll go back& forth like that until one of us runs out of ammo, fair bet? You present yourself as knowing more about this subject than I do, so it should be EZ4U & a learning experience4me & U2b readers 4U2prove it. Give us author&title, 2B read online please. - John Benneth
Bandershot 1 year ago
It's not that the "effects of homeopathic remedies are imaginary", rather it's that the brain's expectations can produce actual, non-imaginary effects in the body and on the CNS. This is not to say that the placebo effect is a consistently reliable medical tool, only that occasionally it can produce beneficial effects in people if their expectations are strong. Modern science based internal medicine produces consistent results regardless of expectations, shown by double-blind controlled studies
D119heavy 1 year ago
@D119heavy Which studies would that be? I keep reading you guys referring to RCT's, but when I look at them the evidence is squarely in favor of verum, not placebo. I challenge you, cite a study that proves its placebo for every study I cite give that shows the action homeopathics on NON HUMAN SUBJECTS. Metas & reviews excluded, you must cite the exact study, quote results& conclusions of "placebo," which can be verified in PUBMED or elsewhere online. (you're gonna get creamed) GO:
Bandershot 1 year ago
the bottom line is is that homeopathy relies on the memory of water and the imprint that is make on it. Does anyone actually belive that water has a memory? Tell me how a homeopath can make a 30C dilution. Do you have any idea what mass of water is needed for that? Do the maths
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
"Simple-minded analysis suggests water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind (homeopathy) demands. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account."
Brian Josephson, Nobel prize for physics
Bandershot 2 years ago
well a liquid crystal has a totally different molecular structure to that of water. Water takes the shape of the container that it's placed in. Whereas liquid crystals, well the clue is in the name.
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Look at clathrates in guest host chemistry. There's models and even photos of these things online. Just google clathrates and you can begin to see what these things look like and maybe get an idea of how they work. Google Endler, clathrates and read the article by Anagnostatos. There's no question about a lattice like polyhedral structure that entraps the "guest" molecule in water. There are other aps that overshadow homeopathy, but the phenom is real.
Bandershot 2 years ago
mr. benneth stop fighting with unknowledge people look all you type and they are still not believing in homeopathy
billtheman100 2 years ago
Bill, it is important for the objections to homeopathy to be answered in detail soothers can see the truth. Although those who post objections may not want to concede they didn't know something, but there are many others who read the ansers who are informed. But more importantly for me, much of what I know on this subject I owe to responding to the challenges posted here. My detractors are my best teachers.
Bandershot 2 years ago
science shows homeopathy doesn't work. don't shoot the messenger:)))
J Clin Psychiatry. 2003 Mar;64(3):282-7.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of classical homeopathy in generalized anxiety disorder.
Bonne O, Shemer Y, Gorali Y, Katz M, Shalev AY.
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Thanks! I'll check it out. I'm glad to see you're using cites instead of just uninformed opinion. Keep it up. Now look at some of the positve studies you said didn't exist, such as this one: Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial. Adler UC,
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Aug 17.
Why are you so angry about homeopathy when there are studies, like this one, that support it?
Bandershot 2 years ago
I'm not angry about homeopathy, i'm amazed that people believe to be honest. If you look at the underlying principles on which it's based then the effects can be explained away (mainly.mostly) by the placebo effect, regression to the mean etc. I really don't see how water can have a memory. if it did then underground water, esp from hydrothermal vents would surely cure all known ills. And also a lot of desperate people spend a shed load of money on it trying to cure terminal sickness
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
You've got the principles wrong. What's amazing is that you can issue a statement about honesty after seeing how much science there is in support of it, contrary to what you've been told by hucksters. You said "there isn't any science." But now, not only have you been presented with links to dozens of studies, cited & quoted here, supported by material scientists & Nobel laureates, YOU'RE citing studies that SUPPORT THE USE OF HOMEOPATHY then trying to interpret them to say "it doesn't work??"
Bandershot 2 years ago
I read the abstract to the anxiety disorder RCT. Contrary to your claim that "homeopathy doesn't work," the study reports: "The improvement in both conditions was SUBSTANTIAL. Improvement of SUCH MAGNITUDE may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice." So, by admission of YOUR EVIDENCE, homeopathy DOES work, even though the conclusion was by placebo effect, which could have been from epitaxial contamination of the placebos.
Bandershot 2 years ago
if you use your logic that homeopathy works by the placebo effect then why go through all the effort of making dilutions? Again i urge you to research the concept of placebo effect. And i hope you are honest and tell all your "patients" that it#s the placebo effect and not homeopathy at work. I really can't get my head around your "logic" claiming homeopathy is valid even only by virtue of the placebo effect.Surely selling expensive homeopathic dilutions are medicine is immoral then?
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Wait a sec, I've never believed that homeopathy works solely due to a placebo effect. You're jumping to too many conclusions about both the subject and me. And common logic should make you suspect that something isn't quite right with your argument. Hasn't it occured to you that just about everyone who studies this has the same doubts? I read daily by others what you're saying. So unless there was compelling evidence to think otherwise, why would I use something so improbable to fool people?
Bandershot 2 years ago
If I was a psychologist and I read the anxiety study, I'd say "who cares if it's a placebo, it's better than anything we've got. All we can do is try to talk them out of being anxious."
But I'm suspicious. During the duration of the study did the patients know what their remedy was and that they might be getting placebo? If they knew, why wouldn't they take the remedy available outside of the study to insure getting verum? You can see how difficult this is to test, how many factors are involved
Bandershot 2 years ago
well yes of course there are many factors involved that's why tests have to be randomized and double-blinded. So people don't know what they are getting. Read up about Walter Pahnke's "Marsh Chapel Experiment" and you'll see how peoples perceptions are influenced by their beliefs and expectations. And i'#ve noticed you haven't clarified whether your challenge is for $1000 as your video states or the $100 000 as you claimed on here
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
And they are! Where do you get the idea that they aren't? & what makes you think that any of these challenges are for real? You're committing exactly the same errors in thinking that you're accusing me of! You're basing your conclusions first on assumptions that you now try to validate rather than falsify. Attack your own assumptions 1st. You said there was no science, now you say it isn't good science. Then 2 Nobel laureates pop up, RCTs, invitros. All you thought turns out to be wrong.
Bandershot 2 years ago
here's something for you to ponder do you know what size a 30C dilution relates to? that's a sphere of water with a diameter of 150 mill km i.e from the sun to planet Earth with only one molecule of homeopahtic substance yet you expect me to believe 1stly that it can be make on planet Earth and 2ndly it actually works? Even someone as one-sided as you must see the flaw in that
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
What you're repeating was made up by those threatened by hpathy to dissuade you from trying it. Hpaths know the lack of orthomolecular content in their preps. Hpathic meds operate through the flow of free electrons. Look at Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier's recent work in which he studies the electromagnetic signal from hpathic solutions. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 8190 "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures"
Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Bandershot 2 years ago
i';ll have a look at that paper later, but you should bear in mind tht just because someone has a Nobl;e Prize it doesn't make them correct in all their other research or beliefs. And as you (should) know Montagnier has a patent application with regards to "biochemical element presenting a biological activity through the analysis of low-frequency electromagnetic signals." so he may have a vested interset in the research. But that's just speculation on my side. I'll read the paper later though
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Yes, its the totality of evidence which besides two Nobel prize winninig scientists includes personal experience, an extensive literature, clinical reports by medical doctors, worldwide popularity, (#1 in India, 2nd most popular in the world) biochemical assays, double blind studies pub'd in peer reviewed journals. I have to reject the placebo theory for it. Also, the only mention of a patent in M.'s work is Benveniste's on the detection equipment used by M. Please cite M.'s patent if I'm wrong.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Can you elaborate on the claim "(h)pathic meds operate through the flow of free electrons". I thought it was basically like cured like
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
@KalahariSurf 1. thats not how homeopothies work at all. they work by being carried to the intended site via the bloodstream not water. 2. the mediacl industry is lying to cover their asses and cover up their goofed up sciences and chemicles they have put in otc medication.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
i see oyu like to use Benveniste's work yet no one else has been able to replicate it in a lan , is it becasue the homeopahtic fairies only work for the ones that TRULY believe? Give me science don't try and feed me BS
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
I wonder if you'd be able to post at least one comment here without stating a lie. Could you at least TRY? Not only has it been replicated, the basophil degranulation test for which Randi and Maddox attacked Benveniste is the MOST replicated in vitro test for homeopathy. If he lives long enough Randi'll have to debunk every science fair project, too. Read WItt's review of in vitro homeopathy experiments, 2007. Do you know what in vitro means? Or do I have to explain that to you too?
Bandershot 2 years ago
mr.benneth you should go to the jay leno show to prove ONES and for ALL to all this non believers that homeopathy works.what do you think?
billtheman100 2 years ago
Well, thank you Bill, that's very kind of you to suggest that. I'd love to go on the Jay Leno show. Maybe I could do a homeopathy comedy routine. I could just sit there and say nothing. It would be "homeopathetic."
Happy New Year Bill.
Bandershot 2 years ago
@Bandershot Happy New Year to you too.yes you should think about going to jay or better yet do you know bill maher?,he has a show in L.A called RealTime with bill maher he focuses always on the well being of us and he's againts pharma drugs
billtheman100 2 years ago
@Bandershot Happy New Year to you too.yes you should think about going to jay or better yet do you know bill maher?,he has a show in L.A called RealTime with bill maher he focuses always on the well being of us and he's againts pharma drugs
billtheman100 2 years ago
my claims are empty? i think you've lost your temper yet again. Take a homeopathic dilutoin of LSD that should retore your mind set to normal, according to the principles of homeopathy. I've cited 2 papers yet you seemed to have ignored them both i can only assume its's due to your lack of scientific basis. play the ball not the man, i'm still waiting for you to provide one scientically sound paper that proves the efficacy of homeopathy, yet you haven't. You are a waste of time and VERY deluded
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
The only paper I've seen from you is the one on the placebo effect in animals, which concluded THERE IS NONE! So the other paper must be toilet. All you can do now to disprove homeopathy is to insist that animals are affected by the homeopathic consultation, and how basophils are degranulated by sweet talk! This is hilarious! Please keep posting, you're wonderful! Say hi to Randi for me when you call. Tell him I got a nice test waiting for him. If Randi's got the money, Benneth's got the time.
Bandershot 2 years ago
i believe in you sir bandershot
billtheman100 2 years ago
surely with such weak dilutions all water is "homeopathic" as plants would decay in rivers etc and people that have taken homeopahtic solutions would urinate and that would finnd it's way back into the water cycle, so if it really worked as claimed there'd be no need to make more solutions
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
That doesn't happen because even if homeopathics did form naturally the UV would burn it off. Read the literature on the subject instead of listening to hucksters.
Bandershot 2 years ago
that's assuming all homeopathic compunds are equally suspectible to UV light
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
It's easy enough for you to put to the test. Set up an experiment using seeds as your test subjects, measuring coloeptile growth. Keep your test subjects out of the light. Prep your controls first to avoid contamination. Prep 2 homeopathic solutions, but leave one out in the sun. See how simple it is to test hypotheses?
Bandershot 2 years ago
should i use a homeopathic sleep rememdy for this experiment? Again you fail to address the connection between plants and humans.. If a plant is not getting enough food one would apply fertiliser to its roots does that work for humans too?
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
No, use Staphysagria. It's a growth stimulant. The point is, if homeopathy had no intrinsic efficacy, if it only acted psychologically, as a placebo, it wouldn't have an effect on plants &animals (Brizzi, Jonas), and its action couldn't be seen biochemically (Boyd, Belon). But since it does have an effect on those subjects, we know it isn't just a placebo. H'pathic solutions emit an electromagnetic signal (Montagnier, Benveniste). Beta scintillation has also detected it (Lasne, Conte et al).
Bandershot 2 years ago
The placebo effect has been proved to work on animals so there goes that claim of yours. And what strength is this electromagnetic signal? i bet it would not be there in a proper double blind test. and what's this energy that's suppose to be imparted into homeopathic solutions? Remember nergy is the ability to do work , as any high school physics student will tel you
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
You've yet to cite any references to back up your allegations. What peer reviewed pub did the animal placebo effect study appear in? Was it double blinded? Or did you hear that one from Randi too? Even if animals were subject to placebos, what about plants, non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, basophil granulocytes, neutrophile granulocytes, & lymphocytes? Better call Randi & ask him how you're supposed to respond to that one. Read Montagnier's EM study for more info on signal.
Bandershot 2 years ago
"i had better call Randi"? Fuck no wonder you believe your own BS you're about as mature as a school kid. Here's one paper McMillan, FD. The Placebo Effect in Animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 215(7): 992-9. So back to the case at hand show me one scientifically sound paper that proves homeopathy. Quit the insults, grow up and supply me with one sound paper that proves your assertions
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Very good, you finally posted a reference. Congratualtions! Unfortunately, you should have read it first, because here's what was said in "Regardless, whether or not placebo effects exist in human medicine, there is little evidence that they exist in animals." (ScienceBasedMed)
So you just proved my point!
I've given you access to dozens, but you haven't read them either. Use the cites I posted 24 hours ago below, read the pharmacists report. Read the Witt review of in vitro studies. -more-
Bandershot 2 years ago
Benveniste doesn't count as a source none of his work has been duplicated. Yet all proper sciencitic tests have the smae conclusion - homeopathy can't be distinguished from the placebo effect and patients regressing to the mean. So again i challene you to give me one scientically sound paper that proves homeopathy works
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Benveniste's basophil degranulation test for homeopathy has been successfuly replicated 23 times. So anyone who says Benveniste hasn't been replicated is a liar. In fact, what Benveniste did was a replication. Google Inflamm Res. 2004 May;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21. "Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation." Belon P.
Bandershot 2 years ago
here's another paper that could NOT replicate Benveniste's 1988 work.Nature. 1993 Dec 9;366(6455):525-7.
Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE.
Hirst SJ, Hayes NA, Burridge J, Pearce FL, Foreman JC.
Department of Pharmacology, University College London, UK.
Comment in:
Nature. 1994 Aug 4;370(6488):322.
Nature. 1994 Aug 4;370(6488):322.
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
The problem with all skeptoid arguments is that they don't cite what it is they're trying to dismiss. If they did, that would present positive evidence for it. Look how your argument is breaking down. First you said there's not one scientfic study in support of homeopathy, now when finally challenged to cite your claim, you list the failed study in Nature that was in response to a previous article in the same magazine, cited in the next comment, i.e. a study you said didn't exist:
Bandershot 2 years ago
Davenas, "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE," Nature, Vol. 333, pp. 816-818, 6/30/88 This is the study that started the attack on Benveniste; he was the renowned immunologist who led the investigation. But what most people don't know is that Davenas was a replication of previous h. basophil trials, and at last count there've been 23 successful rep's of it. Also, most people don't know that Randi et al winesssed a successful replication of Davenas.
Bandershot 2 years ago
no i said when they tried to replicate the findings of that paper they could not. You must surely appreciate the need for peer reviews, not only in homeopathy but in science and research in general. Many people have a vested interest in a certain outcome so peer review is an excellent mean s of weeding out and exposing such bad research. I'm a Geologist so often rely on and read other research papers and reports and i know how much BS there is out there even in an acturial science like geology
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
I should also point out to you that the Placebo Hypothesis contradicts the It Doesn't Work Hypothesis for homeopathy. Think about it. The placebo argument is about how it works, not if it works. Remember, you're the one who claims that the placebo effect WORKS on animals. So if it WORKS on animals, it also WORKS on humans, So choose one and get back to me, okay?
Bandershot 2 years ago
No you are trying to claim homeopathy works when in fact it's merely the placebo effect at play. Go look up the placebo effect and what a placebo is. it's inert so if that's in the same league as how effective homeopathy is, then enough said. So can i take this as an admission that homeopathy is purely effective sa a placebo? The placebo effect isn't really understood but we do know that it does work so aggain you seem to have it arse about face
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
No, any comprehensive review of the literature reveals numerous objective tests for homeopathic verum. In vitro alone there have been six different types of tests, which i list here with the number of pub'd positive and negative outcomes: non cellular systems (15/3) cultured cells (5/8) ertyhroytes (2/0), basophile granulocytes (23,5) neutrophile granulocyctes(1/1) lymphocytes (3,1). So, the totality of in vitro evidence stands at 46positive tests for homeopathy, 18 negative. (Witt, 2007)
Bandershot 2 years ago
lol but is that a review of ALL the literature or is it cherry-picked like my ccomments that you choose to allow on here? let me guess this comment, like many others, won't make it on your page
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Here's a good one. It was funded by the German health ins. industry: BMC Public Health. 2005 Nov 3;5:115. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients.
Here's another good one, the 1st study of homeopathics in an AMA journal: "Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study"
Arch.Otolary. Aug.'98, 124:879-885 Since you don't read the studies you ref, you probably won't mine unless I post it here.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Here's a summary of the type of study you've been begging for: The hpathic vertigo study pub'd by the AMA was done with 119 subjects with various types of vertigo. Half were given a homeopathic complex medicine and half were given betahistine hydrochloride, a leading "conventional" drug. The homeopathic medicines were found to be SIMILARLY EFFECTIVE AND SIGNICANTLY SAFER than the betahistadine! Now, when you call Randi, please don't tell him, unless you call 911 first.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Benveniste's work on bsophils hasn't been replicated so i think you should admit it's BS and move on. Furthermore, with regards to your claim that homeopathy works on animals why does the "EBVS only recognises scientific,
evidence-based veterinary medicine complying with animal
welfare legislation. Specialists or colleges practising or supporting
implausible treatments with no proof of effectiveness run the risk of withdrawal of their specialist status." Homeopathy is pure fantasy
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
As you can see in another commnet, Benveniste has been replicated a couple of dozen times. Sorry, you lose. Also, read this: "Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue." Jonas WB, Dillner D Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 3552, 2000. Sorry, you lose again! Tons more where that came from, my larder is full of good studies on homeopathy. Post some more!
Bandershot 2 years ago
The strength of the h. signal has been shown to increase with succussion, which accounts for the energy put into it (Conte). Since you have failed to respond to repeated requests to reference your claims (ibid.), I think its safe to assume you don't have any.
I think you're finished here. Thank you for showing the world how empty the argument against homeopathy is.
Bandershot 2 years ago
i suggest a double blind test having both pure water and homeopathic solutions and seeing if there's a major difference in the effects
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
What you're suggesting has been done numerous times with vairous methods, physical, in vitro and in vivo. You can even conduct your own experiments on plants and yeast. I've tried it and got amazing results in stimulating the grwoth of seeds. I've also used beer bottles with yeast solutions and balloons to measure the gas output.
Beta scintillation measures also work. So do spectroscopic, both EM and optical, as do dielectric stress measures.
Bandershot 2 years ago
and that relates to humans on what level? Playing music to plants has increased their growth in numerous experiments. But unfortunately most experiments have improved growth results with different types of music, ranging from classical to hard rock - so that seems to suggest there's SOMETHING at work. i still don't see the colleration between plants outputting more gases and homeopathy working on humans
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Because in attacking homeopathy, the opposition sets up another hypothesis, that homeopathics are placebos; therefore they can only have an effect on humans. Seeds and yeast provide easy, objective test subjects by which to falsify the placebo hypothesis. Once it can be seen to have an effect independent of placebo, you can see what effects it has on humans. Extensive clinical trials have been done, & you have yourself as a subject, and others you know. Put it to the test and see for yourself.
Bandershot 2 years ago
a friend at school used homeopathy for years to fight allergies until he went to a Doctor that diagnosed an allgery to mica and he got one injection evrey 3 months which cured him unlike years of homeopathic treatments. James Randi has taken boxes of homeopathic "sleeping pills" and neither overdosed nor fallen asleep. The proof is in the pudding
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Then why doesn't your beloved Shang reference Randi? What a hypocrite! For ever case you've shown me where hpathy failed, I can show you a thousand DOCUMENTED cases that succeeded when "regular" toxicology failed. But these are dismissed by you as unscientific and anecdotal, until you start ref'ing Randi's stunt, which turns out to be your only "science." If you're going to test homeopathy, & want to be taken seriously, put it to a real test using scientific standards, not some stunt by a clown.
Bandershot 2 years ago
and i bet you none of the cases you submit are based on sound scientific testing. The placebo effect and regression to the mean. Why don't you do the scientific test and take the $ million challenge. If you're that confident homeopathy can stand up to scientific vigour take the test and win yourself a million. Money talks BS walks as they say:)))))
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
I applied for Randi's challenge and he ran away from it. ANd there's a good reason for it. He knows he'd lose. Randi's NEVER conducted a formal test of homeopathy . . Horizon's was a "preliminaries." In fact, under the terms of his challenge, Randi's never conducted a formal test of anything . . everything is dismissed unilaterally. To make the point, I've offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove under the same terms as Randi's, that his offer is valid. No one has accepted this challenge.
Bandershot 2 years ago
And it's rather ironic that you bring up Randi in the middle of a tirade about rigourous scientific standards. Randi's idea of scientific testing is to literally have it conducted by a three card monte dealer. There has never, to my recollection, been a scientific trial of Raadi's "ideomotor" theory, yet that appears to be the basis forhis explanation of how homeoapthy works. But let's get down to business. You said you bet there's no sound scientific testing of h'pathy. Care to clarify that?
Bandershot 2 years ago
see that's the problem, it's not attacking it's merely asking questions about it, but it seems many people, yourself included, are paranoid and hence take everyting as a personal attack. That's not science it's protecting a BS con that steals money from people, and i think you should be ashamed of yourself. If you get cancer would you stick to your "medicine" or would you see a real Doctor?
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Read what you just wrote. In one comment you stated you're not attacking but merely asking questions, then you concluded I'm paranoid and that I'm stealing money from people.Then you ask about cancer. Yes, if I had cancer, I would use homeopathy, and I base that assertion on pub'd reports, including peer review. But let's get back to your bet. How much do you want to bet, what are the terms and how do I collect?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Nobel Laureate Scientists who acknowledge Homeopathy high dilutions:
Hans Euler -
Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1930
Brian D. Josephson -
Nobel Laureate Physics 1973
Luc Montagnier -
Nobel Laureate Physiology & Medicine 2009
Richard Dawkins???? Why hasn't he won a Nobel prize???..... I wonder?????
mohanaturo 2 years ago
and what does this proof? Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics, but that doesn't mean quantum physics doesn't exist
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Einstein was also seen more than once in a Christian Science Reading Room. But what does that prove? The point is that science is on the side of homeopathy, and the crednetials of the many scientists and MD's who have supported it and used it is testimony to it. The oppostion can't explain why it is so popular. There is no science to back uyp their pacebo hypothesis. The only study to do conclude homeopathy is no better than placebo was Shang, which has been thoroughly discredited.
Bandershot 2 years ago
if you think Shang was the only one i suggest you expand your reading material. And as for its popularity sometimes people are just idiots and easily fooled. And i'm still waiting to read one scientific paper that "proves" the efficacy of homeopathy. And most of the scientists, MDs and pharmacists i have asked about homeopathy state there's no evidence for it's effectiveness so while there are some that side with homeopathy most don't. And there's NO WAY science is on the side of homeopathy
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
What material? Cite something. Shang was dismissed for the same reason you are; not referencing anything! I am. I'm quoting Nobel prize winning scientists and hundreds of studies to back up my points, you're quoting nobody . . except maybe your buddy and a three card monte dealer (Randi). So in the end , what conclusion do you think reasonable, intelligent INFORMED people are going to make? This is why homeopathy has lasted for 200 years. The opposition has nothing but clowns and hecklers.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Astrology has lasted for 200 years, but that doesn't make it a science. The bottom line is homeopathy supposedly works because water has a memory. And if that's one of the foundations of of "your science" then so be it. As for quoting otehr believers that means nothingAll well designed studies into homeopathy have concluded that's it's NOT statistically more significant than the placebo affect. A 30C homeopathic dilution is meant to cure people. Do you know what size that is?
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Alright, let's take the clearest assertion you've made here and put it to the test. You've say "All well designed studies into homeopathy have concluded that's it's NOT statistically more significant than the placebo affect." How do we know that's true? Because some anonymous commentator on Youtube says so, or because a known authority says so? How can we verfiy your assertion? Without looking it up, can you name a peer reviewed pub'd meta-analyses of homeopathy that concludes placebo?
Bandershot 2 years ago
And speaking of M.D's & pharmacists, if homeopathy is the fraud you want it to be, then why have so many M.D's, such as Sen. Royal Copeland, M.D. (founder of the FDA) been HOMEOPATHS?! !! Google The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years, 1820-1935 JAMA. 2006 295:1590-1591. Then read the pharmacist's report on it: Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 Also Google JAMA's Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885
Bandershot 2 years ago
The last point is that you're living in the dark; if you're still waiting to read a science paper that proves the efficacy of homeopathy, its your own fault. Your problem is that hucksters like Randi have convinced you they don't exist,when in fact there are hundreds and the number is growing. Check PUBMED. There are thousands of articles that ref homeopathy. Start with the pharmacist's report I gave you, or goto my website, scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. i can also send you a huge ref base.
Bandershot 2 years ago
lol, i'm living in the dark, you're basing your medicine on something that's over 200 years old yet you have the audacity to say i'm living in the dark. Where do you keep you blood-letting leeches? And what's wrong with wanting proof of something.Surely if it works, as you claim it does, then it would be easy to prove its efficacy. But that hasn't been done in over 200 years, so that speaks for itself. Delude yourself as long as you want, i just think it's immoral to charge people money 4such BS
KalahariSurf 2 years ago
Yeah, you're uninformed. Here's what's going on: Your hero, James the Amazing Randi, has been lying to you. It's like he handed you a gun, and pushed you into a knife fight, but the gun is loaded with blanks. You thought it would be easy. But now your in serious trouble, because your assertions are based on false assumptions. You demand proof but when given you won't look at it. Google the cites I've provided you with. Be assured other people reading this will and see how wrong Randi is.
Bandershot 2 years ago
p.s. Luc Montagnier was awarded the nobel for the discovery of HIV and Brian Josephson did not win a nobel prize at all.
please get your facts straight before using them to back up claims. it will only to make you look silly.
WMBrown 2 years ago
Thank you for commenting. It shows how quick the opponents of homeoapthy are to make a statement without checking its accuracy 1st. Josephson won the the Nobel for physics in 1973 for the effect named after him. If hyou had taken a few moments to check it out . .
Likewise, what I'm presenting here re: homeopathy can be verified online in a minute or two.
So, like you say, check your statements before you post, or you might end up looking like you don't know what you're writing about.
Bandershot 2 years ago
i've done my research on this as well... the most that it's capable of is the same kind of results you could gain from a faith healer.
i think it's entertaining though... there are more cases of it being scientifically debunked since it's inception and yet people still "believe"
but again, people will grasp at whatever gives them comfort regardless of efficacy so i guess it's not 100% useless. still, if there are other more effective treatments available, one should seek those out first.
WMBrown 2 years ago
You haven't done any research. You've already demonstrated to us that you don't. If you did, not only would your statements be accurate, you'd give us the name of at least one pub'd study that hasn't been discredited, i.e. Shang.
Shang was a metanalysis pub'd in the Lancet that resonded to the Linde meta analysis. Linde reviewed 189 studies, used 87 & concluded that homeopathy isn't placebo; Shang rev'd 110 studies, discarded 102, and concluded that it is, but refuses to name the 8 studies.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You're doing exactly what Shang did, you're not naming your refs. Your statements are only interpretative. Be specific. I'm not saying that negative reports don't exist, but as Roy says, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, & pos. results in the physical & invitro tests far outweigh the negs. It's passed rigorous, double blind testing, & it's been replicated. Read the pharmacist report online:Google Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 or goto scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com
Bandershot 2 years ago
You're not my best or only friend :(
JunkerJames 2 years ago
"The polymer nanostructures formed by these "nanosuds" are increasing internal surface area that emit EM."
This is honestly a comment from someone who has no idea what they're talking about, and even a poor knowledge of metaphysics.
shuttehface 2 years ago
Unlike you I'm not just expressing my opinion here, I'm reporting on the observations of top physicists. Read up on it. There's no doubt that water used in processing homeopathic remedies is structured & has nanobubble cavitation. Nobel prize winners Luc Montagnier & Brian Josephson are supporting these observations; Montagnier has confirmed Benveniste's claim for EM. Investigate it instead of desperately trying to discredit the reports. Hpathic remedies can be physically ID'd in 2X blinds.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You're saying nanobubbles exist (they exist in more than just homeopathic remedies, mind you). What does that mean for whatever thesis you're saying?
"increasing internal surface area that emit EM". I assume you mean electromagnetic radiation, and this is absolutely nothing special. As an wild understatement: MANY things emit electromagnetic radiation. "Nanobubbles" are a new discovery that is not only not well understood, but is just unrelated to what you're talking about.
shuttehface 2 years ago
Not according to material scientists who are saying that itappears they are relevant, and these are real people with real credentials who have published papers on the subject on which they attach their names, unlike you, who is just an anonymous troll with nothing better to do than try to mock and discredit others while not referencing anything. There's nothing mockery hates more than the truth and now you're faced with some real data and you don't know what to do except to deny its relevance.
Bandershot 2 years ago
And here's something else to consider while you're at it. There are some people out there who can't afford to treat this as a game, like you do. Pharmacists for example have to know what the truth is about the products they're stocking, because people have questions about them, and we increasingly are finding them just about everywhere. So unlike you, phamarcists have taken a look at the literature and reported on it. Read it for yourself at the scienceofhomeopathy (dot) com.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Your picture is on this website. Are you serious here? You're referencing yourself? Also, seriously clean up this layout. I can't follow anything on this page, it looks like a Geocities page from 1996.
shuttehface 2 years ago
You're absolutely right about the layout of my website & I thank you for pointing it out. However, I think you should examine your theme of relentless condemnation that winds its way through your correspondence. Whereas I do express my own opinions and designs, the information I am presenting doesn't originate with me. Just about every critic of homeopathy begins his criticism of homeopathy here with an attack on me; but when it's revealed top scientists concur, the attack on me continues.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Thepoint here is that comments here usually aren't about homeopathy, not really. They're about something else. I think its about disillusionment and the inability to reconcile the world as it is with the world as you thought it was. Repeatedly I am receive commentary from people who I think are struggling with a deep disappointment over having been deceived, and subsequently they have a difficultly trusting the world andt their perceptions of it.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You also didn't allow my comment which had many links to hundreds of studies that directly conflict what you're talking about. The misinformation you spread is not only repugnant, it is dangerous. I doubt you'll allow this comment too.
Having a system when you deny comments at your whim just screams someone who, what was it you said? "people who I think are struggling with a deep disappointment over having been deceived".
shuttehface 2 years ago
I'm not trying to block you. SOmetimes I get overwhlemed by comments on my vids, so I put the comments on "Pending Approval" so as I make sure I review and potentially respond to each one.
I hve yet to see your comment with many links. Sometimes the system loses a comment, esp. from repeat posters. If you got some studies, get them up here. But so far, I don't see how studies that didn't produce results necessarily discredit those that did. One good negative study was Hirst. Check it out
Bandershot 2 years ago
You just linked me to your own site, which is just a hodgepodge of links everywhere with no rhyme or reason. Real compelling.
shuttehface 2 years ago
Okay, but notice once again, that you have are failing to abide by the standards you set. You began by claiming that there is no science supporting homeopathy; I provided online links to reports from the material sciences, numerous physicists, M.D.'s, two Nobel laureates, pharmacists, common usage, meta analysis, a complex literature, epidemiology, the law, & all you can do is criticize the layout of my website? And if God appeared B4U you'd also complain about the way his churches are built.
Bandershot 2 years ago
No. I begin by claiming that one statement you made was nonsensical technobabble that proves nothing, and you go on a four post diatribe about... whatever it is you wanted to talk about. Now, instead of responding or allowing my posts again, you're just pretending I said whatever you wanted me to say.
shuttehface 2 years ago
Here's the '07 pharmacist hpathy report: "In the last 3 decades, a number of high-quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled homeopathic studies have reported that homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions such as acute hayfever, rheumatoid arthritis, primary fibromyalgia, allergic asthma, influenza, childhood diarrhea, and primary fibromyalgia." Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Bandershot 2 years ago
See, the problem isn't that homeopathy doesn't work, the problem is that it does and you don't want it to, because it makes you look stupid.. You're embarrassed by it because you've expressed such strong opinions about it that you now can't retract them. That's why you guys always remain anonymous.
Well, now that you've been educated a little on nanobubbles, read about clathrates
Bandershot 2 years ago
I'm not embarrassed by anything I said because you didn't actually respond to it, you just deflected and changed the topic. You have no idea what "nanobubbles" means and how it relates to homeopathy at all. It's just magic to you. And congratulations on finding one physicist that thinks homeopathy is real. If we go by that argument, I can certainly find more people with credentials that agree with me wholeheartedly, and I can find many double blind studies that show homeopathy as a placebo.
shuttehface 2 years ago
Okay, but the failure of one study to find results doesn't explain why another did. Again, please read the pharmacist's review of it. And I can name more than one physicist. The list of people that you have to discredit to make your point is getting bigger and bigger. Although I know you don't want to hear this, you're not just just challenging my perception of it, you're challening the perceptions of highly credentialed people supported by millions of users. The argument against it breaks down.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I very much appreciate the work of Mr Bandershot in investigating the work of Homeopaths. I am shortly to begin studying as a H.Path. & have been following his fastidious work with great interest.
I started as a non-believer myself. The high dilutions hit me like a train. Before I knew what a 'high dilution' was! Also I know of too many other people who have also experienced 'these' effects.
Finally, people will vote with their feet! As they have done forever. And they do!
GW Mr.B!
misterpaulrussell 2 years ago
The law require that certain products bear the label, "have not been found effective for the treatment of any disease." This was after a famous lawsuit. Do any of the products you sell contain the same disclaimer, or even just a similar disclaimer?
technoway 2 years ago 2
No. Despite 200 years of oppositional medical doctors claiming that homeopathy does not work, such a lable, to my knowledge, has never been required for homeopathic products, even though classical homeopathy does not technically treat disease conditions; it treats the individual symptomatically. Homeopathic products are FDA regulated and controlled.
Thanks for bringing up that question. If homeopathy didn't work, it would require that label, wouldn't it?
Bandershot 2 years ago
I took a look at the papers to the right, and they are absurd. Some (all?) of the references are real papers, but they don't support the conclusions at homeopathic sites.
You claim there is a conspiracy against homeopathy by the established medical community. That idea makes no sense because there is big money in homeopathy, and so if the medical establishment 'was' corrupt, then they would want some of that money too, and they wouldn't need to make expensive drugs, they could just sell water.
technoway 2 years ago
You're vague about the negative you're trying to prove. Are you saying that the action of high dilutes can't be detected in vitro or physically? Are you saying their only action is placebo? Really, all you're doing it seems is ruffling your feathers. The fact of the matter is that forensically the burden of proof is on you. Homeopathy is a protected dcotrine, supported by mass usage, science & law. If you had any provable complaint, it would have been ignored long ago. Read what it did in 1918.
Bandershot 2 years ago
"...there is big money in homeopathy....". Where did you get that very bizaare idea? Do you know how much a homeopathic remedy costs? $6 for a tube of 80 pellets which in some cases can last a lifetime. $15 a bottle if you ask the pharmacy to make up a liquid remedy for you. Either way a stored remedy lasts for many years and remains effective. As to a homeopath's fees, he/she is very unlikely to become wealthy from his practice as allopathic doctors have done and still do.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"they would want some of that money too"
Considering how much it costs to bring a new drug to market using evidence based medicine, no big-pharma penny pincher in his right mind would turn down a drug that could be cheaply manufactured and required NO R&D or testing even if it sold at a significantly lower price point. The net profits would be substantially higher from homeopathic treatments thanks to the total absence of any research or testing.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
Well, I certainly appreciate that you're asking questions rather than coming in here and shooting your mouth off like most skeptics do. Theoretically, the mechanism for homeopathy is the van der waal bond that acts like a crystal to rectify background radiation into the h. signal. W/O fixing it in alcohol it dissipates within 24 hours, & step dilution is not the only part of the h. process. But don't make theory 100% of your inquiry. Look at the evidence from in vitro & in vivo studies
Bandershot 2 years ago
wow, but really... why the "secrets"? I mean when a polio vaccine was invented, people accepted it as it worked. If it's to be treated as a science, then it needs to adhear to scientific testing. Go for the million dollars, but more than the JREF test, go for it because once it is PROVEN then like the polio vaccine it will be widely accepted
kittinh 2 years ago
Ok, so, following the rationale of homeopathy, if I indefinitely dilute anything that is good for health and I drink it, then I would instantly die? Well, sucussion reverts the effect of what is being diluted, doesn't it? This explanation makes no sense. Chemicals (be them good or bad for health) do not work because of their "radiation", but because they react with other molecules present in our organisms, through many chemical forces other then van der Waal bond (although this too).
vrcota 2 years ago
Why do the homeopathic remedies retain the 'memory' of only the thing that has been deliberately diluted? No water is pure. So surely it retains as much of the 'memory' of the cup or tap or bladder it may have once passed through. How is it able to suddenly forget all the other substances and molecules that were once in it and only (conveniently) remember the thing the remedy maker put in it? I need a logical answer to this to even begin taking this subject seriously.
ralphlundun 2 years ago 2
Ralph- Read the Structure of Liquid Water by R Roy, the head of the material sciences department at Penn State & physicist W Tiller of Stanford. Google nanobubbles. What is found in homeopathic remedies is being used now for industrial aps to sterilize and clean. The polymer nanostructures formed by these "nanosuds" are increasing internal surface area that emit EM. Check it out. There is a lot more to this than people who don't want it to work would have you believe, a flood of data.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Nice article. Thank you for taking the time to post it. You are obviously very well read.
misterpaulrussell 2 years ago
Thanks Paul!
Bandershot 2 years ago
why do you get so defensive when defending this farce? You're just upset you couldn't be a real doctor so you claim this bullshit actually works which it does not.
drin2014 2 years ago
Well look who's getting his panties all in a bunch. I'm not a professional homeopath. I'm a writer. Now will you answer a few questions? Have you read the latest studies from Penn State and Stanford? Anything? Are you really familiar with what you're bad mouthing? Where are you getting this attitude? You just make this stuff up in your head? And YRU doing it? Do you write your lies2look tough or something? I mean come on! If u want 2get2 the truth, Y can't we have a normal conversation?
Bandershot 2 years ago
I have not read any of these studies. I do however, know the tenets of homeopathy and based on my background in chemistry, I know that water does not have any sort of memory, once a solute is removed from the sample, it is gone from said sample and the water does not know it was ever there, this is why water purification is possible. This can also be determined from any number of methods such as Mass Spec, and IR where water has a definite fingerprint and impurities show up very easily as well
drin2014 2 years ago 2
Then that means you haven't looked at the spec studies recently done by Baumgartner, or Roy, or the NMR by Conte, or beta scint by Lasne. You don't know the "tenets" of homeopathy. When did you upgrade the 1st grade chemistry set you got for your birthday? 1962?Typical. You haven't read Hahnemann, & you certainly aren't aware of the work of Witt, Boyd, Ennis, Brucato, Stephenson, Gay, Boiron, Jussal, Bournemann, Tafel, Boericke, Kolisko, Kent, & 100's more.
You don't even know when to STFU!
Bandershot 2 years ago
ok old man, I know chemistry and physics, and from your red herring arguments about other bullshit studies that defy the laws of chemistry it is quite apparent you don't know what you're talking about. There is no need to look into these studies since the "principles" of homeopathy go against KNOWN laws, therefore the results of these studies don't matter.
drin2014 2 years ago
Material sciences now provide an interdiscip. information base on the structure of homeoapthic remedies.
The physical structure has been determined. But you don't want to read that, because it shows how dumb arrogance has made you. You're not just stupid, you're a walkin' health hazard. Instead of flaming out, why don't you cool down a little bit, read the articles linked in the vid desc., investigate, get an education, then come back here & apologize to everyone for trolling.
Bandershot 2 years ago
My dear drin,
Tens of millions of people around the world testify to the wonderful healing powers of h. I am just one of them, and I can tell you that it has been the greatest blessing of my life in serious, chronic illnesses. It is equally effective in acute illnesses.
There are volumes of provings of higher scientific quality than drug co trials and a large body of lab and clinical evidence for h.
Records prove it has been used successfully against epidemics since 1918.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Well, if we're going with an argument from popularity, then we should go back to bleeding people to balance their humors, as FAR more people have used that treatment throughout history than use science based medicine today!
halleyscomet 2 years ago
When did we ever stop? The U.S. has Big Pharma and health insurance that tacks on a 30% profit for $100 per pill medicine that doesn't do anything but put you in a coma . . these guys are making trillions. More people go bankrupt from health bills than anything else, how much are you paying them? Properly done, homeopathy requires requires a skilled practitioner to identify the right remedy, which costs a fraction. It's not that homeoapthy doesn't work, you just don't want it to work.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I also have a science background, and the theory of homeopathy makes no sense!
Sometimes, when something doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't make sense! And, randomized double-blind trial do confirm homeopathy doesn't work.
If you have real PubMed data you offered above, send it to me here, or to my youtube mail account. I doubt that any real evidence exists, but will check out what you send me.
technoway 2 years ago
YOU'RE FLAT OUT WRONG! I've been reading similar LIES now for years, sometimes on a daily basis, and the ignorance is bizarre! Here you're asking me to send you information that's right in front of you? LOOK AT THE VID DESC FIELD TO THE RIGHT! Homeopaths were 1st among MD's to employ double blinds. THEY HAD TO in order to determine the specific action of remedies!
There's now 100's of in vitro, in vivo, 2X blind studies from Harvard, Cambridge, Penn State, Stanford, MD Anderson
USE PUB MED!
Bandershot 2 years ago
People die from this rubbish. Not directly as it has no affect. But when they ignore other possible treatments.
grenangle 2 years ago
I have a challenge for you. I challenge to seriously investigate the allegation you just made, because it is an extremely serious one. If it's true, then there's something terribly wrong with the way millions of people think. I know, I've heard the charge before, but every time I've heard it, the person who made it has inevitably fallen silent to the rebuttal of science.
So I challenge you to submit your evidence in the teeth of mine.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The onus is on homeopathy to prove efficacy not me and no such proof exists. Some parents are awaiting sentencing for allowing their daughter to die in Sydney by sticking to homeopathy instead of proven medicine. I know a lot of very nice people who believe this woo and yes there is something wrong with their thinking.
grenangle 2 years ago
Okay, here's your big flagon of STFU, but all you'll need is a sip. As of this moment there are 3,894 references on Pubmed when you type in "homeopathy," in re mostly to in vitro, in vivo, clinical, animal, botanical, & physical studies, such as "Homeopathic Preparations Assessed by UV-Spectroscopy," now available online. People who say there's no science of homeopathy are lying. Use your keyboard. Investigate it. The database is now in front OF you and the
onus is back ON you.
Cheers!
JB
Bandershot 2 years ago
I entered "magic" it gave me 6426 hits wow you might be onto something. Which of those papers gives a better than placebo result and has stood up to review. Maybe you should mix your STFU a bit stronger.
grenangle 2 years ago
Hahaha, very good. But that's the best you can do? Show me something real. 100's of in vitro, in vivo and physical studies are now online re: the action of homeopathic remedies, & you still believe in magic. Good! Look, you can burn an impression on xray film with these substances. What should that tell you? Maybe you haven't put enough money into this game, or MAYBE you should JUST stick with COMEDY and leave SCIENCE to people who are willing to put their REAL NAMES on what they believe!
JB
Bandershot 2 years ago
Pick one. Name it and we will see.
grenangle 2 years ago
I ALREADY DID! The UV, the latest h. physical study on Pubmed! But you missed it, same way you've been missing everything else on this subject. Wake up, Pollyanna! You're missing the parade! What do I have to do for you, come over there and push your fingers onto the keys? Just start going back through the Pubmed articles. And check out Roy's material sciences on "Structure of Liquid Water" from Penn State and Stanford. Then as a rational human being you'll feel compelled to apologize . .
Bandershot 2 years ago
Yeah I'm sorry sorry for you. I've spent the last 2 hours looking into Mr. Royston Roys' insanity and then about 20 minutes seeing him kicked from pillar to post by the scientific community. He is a nutter mate.
grenangle 2 years ago
Excellent! Grenangle the Troll says there's no science to h., then when shown a science report he calls the lead author, who is the head of the material sciences dept. at Penn State, "a nutter." Roy is joined by Prof Tiller, former mat. sci. head of Stanford, Prof Hoover of PSU and Dr. Bell, MD, head of the psychiatric dept at U of Arizona. Read what Nobel prize nutter Brian Josephson has to say about homeopathy.
Getting to be quite a bag of nuts & this is just the intro! What about the UV?
Bandershot 2 years ago
You're absolutely right. Thanks for bringing it up. I've also noticed that the WIkipedia article omits many of the studies now listed in Pubmed, whereas it references non science commentators who have no credentials, like high school drop out James Randi. Wikipedia is going to have a hard time defending itself against the anti homeopathy bias charge as the article currently stands.
I'd change it but I don't know how to add to the footnotes in order. Can someone show me how?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Someone needs to go to the wikipedia Homeopathy page and remove the statement that says:
"Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence."
notbendable 2 years ago
Bandershot wrote:
"peer-reviewed, double-blind medical papers by top scientists that have shown the physical, biochemical and biological evidence for homeopathy"
If you cite references here, and I'll check it out. All I see at you site, and hear here, is anecdotes, and use, and misuse, of scientific terms in those anecdotes.
The double-blind studies, done with a control group, that I have read, contradict your assertion that homeopathy is effective.
technoway 2 years ago
Has anyone commented on the oxymoron of your name? You seem to be demonstrating it here.
As I mentioned in the previous response, there are numerous links to studies listed online now through PubMed. I can PM you a larger list, as the vd field is too small for it.
You're like so many others who would not be so brainwashed by the patent medicine industry that is threatened by homeopathy if you had investigated a little deeper. Ask reasonable questions and use your periphreal vision.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I've read several double-blind studies that show that homeopathic remedies don't do better than placebos, and in many situations, placebos don't work.
It's bunk.
Mr. Bennet, the science has shown that homeopathy doesn't work, and some people have died because they trusted homepathic remedies over established methods, i.e. method tested with double-blind studies, and control groups.
technoway 2 years ago 2
You haven't even bothered to look at the video description field of this video. A cursory examination gives any reasonable person enough information to see why homeopathy's popularity is growing. There are now physical, botanical, biochemical, biological and clinical studies coming out of Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, Penn State and and U of Arizona that validate its use.
I have yet to meet anyone who can discredit the literature. Investigate before commenting again.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You state that skeptics call homeopathy a placebo and therefore the responses imaginary. This is not true. The placebo effect may be based around some of belief or a conditioned response, however the effects are real and measurable.
Secondly on a inquiring note, if water has a memory, why would it simply remember the substance you put with it? Surely it would remember it whole life cycle... millions of years long. Does homeopathy have a selective memory? Are you saying water chemically changes?
Watkivs 2 years ago
Placebo here means not efficacious. Physical, biochemcial, agronomic, biological, clinical studies disprove it.
The H2O memory question is based on presumption. Homeopathic solutions are created in vitro and stabilized using alcohol. Even so, they are delciate and can be affected by UV and magnetic fields
Where in nature do you find these conditions?
To get a better understanding of the physics involved, read "The Structure of Liquid Water" by Roy et al & check out the links in the vd field.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Bandershot, you listed a lot of sources which show homeopathy works, but none of the countless papers which show it doesn't. As well, there are many meta-analyses of these studies which come to the conclusion that the methodology in studies which showed statistically significant results in favour of homeopathy was seriously flawed. Here's one if you care to investigate:
Jonas W, Kaptchuk T, linde K. A Critical Overview of Homeopathy. Annals of Internal Medicine. March 04, 2003;138(5):393.
skierdoug 2 years ago
Yeah, placebo was not being addressed in those studies, yet that was the question being explored in the metanalysis. The question should be: "What evidence is there for the in vitro, in vivo, physical & clinical action of h-pathic remedies?" For example, 45 of 60 in vitro studies have reported observable action, many of them reps. The 15 or so failures could be due to all kinds of reasons, such as contamination or inexperience in the prep of dilutes.
See the following videos w/links.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I did what Randi claimed to have done..that is intentionally overdose on a homeopathic sleeping aid whose áctive ingredient¨so to speak, was caffeine. NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME. I didn´t sleep.I didn´t get jumpy from the 2 or 3 molecules of caffeine coursing through my veins. I didn´t feel ill. I definitely didn´t die. How do you explain that? mohandumbass (who I see has posted here) told me it was because I didn´t really have insomnia..then said it was because I took too much.
mapache11 2 years ago
To all Homeopathy skeptics/detractors, if you want me to take you seriously:
A)Prove that you know what a chronic disease is.
B)Prove that you know how diseases progress in the human body.
C)Prove that you know Nature's Law of Cure
D)Finally CURE a patient of a chronic disease. (symptom suppression with drugs don't cut it!)
mohanaturo 2 years ago 3
most of the curing requires not only wanting but believing in themselves from the patient, so it doesnt matter how good of a doctor or homeopath you are. Most if not all things, require always two parts of an equation, not just one
juanjose00 2 years ago
It's "Hering's Law of Cure", and it's not an actual scientific law, just homeopathy doctrine.
Lots of doctors have cure many horrible diseases. Chronic or otherwise. There's no evidence homeopathy ever has. Sure people have probably had their morale raised through the care and attention received from many "alternative" practictioners, but that's not evidence that their medical theories are anything more than folklore and legends, or in the worst cases downright quackery and fraud.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
Isn't it a bit suspicious you say there are none when in fact there have been hundreds of trials done to prove that Homeopathy is not placebo effect?
mohanaturo 2 years ago 3
Hundreds, really? Could you link to a few? Double blind of course, and I mean ones that successfully show its better than placebo.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
What diseases has Allopathy cured?
Nothing!
As far as chronic diseases go, when you suppress symptoms with drugs it is not cure.
Homeopathy CURES chronic diseases.
mohanaturo 2 years ago 4
Want to know why many chronic diseases are treated by suppressing symptoms? Because we have no reliable cure.
Some people get better while taking homeopathic medicine. Others don't. Lots of people take it in conjunction with real medicine.
Mainstream medicine may be stubborn at times, but time and time again, when real, solid evidence comes out that a new treatment works, they adopt it, and don't deny its effectiveness. When the evidence suggests its nothing more than placebo, they don't.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
Isn't it a little bit suspicious that in 200 years no single piece of evidence (peer-reviewed, double-blind medical paper) has been published to support these claims?
Furthermore, isn't it even more suspicious that the same modern science that has proven to actually cure sicknesses (some of them believed "incurable" before) qualifies homeopathy as "peudoscience" and bullshit?
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
Jenny-You aren't aware of the peer-reviewed, double-blind medical papers by top scientists that have shown the physical, biochemical and biological evidence for homeopathy, and have even shown structural anomalies in the remedies. So before taking a position on this, look at some of the evidence. I can send you the links. Watch the rest of the series. What's suspicious is that the evidence is routinely overlooked by people who have already made up their minds. Oddly, they are usually atheists.
Bandershot 3 years ago