There are a LOT of extremely arrogant and ill-informed people who think that they represent "scientific medicine" but sadly (and strangely), they have been shown to have a quite unscientific attitude. These "medical fundamentalists" do not understand homeopathy, and they do not seem to even understand GOOD science. Because I do not want these people to air their arrogance/ignorance, I do not allow such people to post here.
I don't understand why there is so much fuzz about sceptics? Why they even looking at those videos? They can use obamacare as far as I'm conserned.
If people don't care about their own health, if they don't reseach , then go to doctor from their insurance and expect he should care.
I had personal experience with both, I will stick with homeopathy and other natural remedies . I dont even have insurance anymore nor going to get one ever again. They make you pay for your own destruction!
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
Hi, thanks for your video. You know most people who are skeptical about Homeopathy haven't even tried it!!! My partner is a Homeopath and he has healed all his patients so far. I think he is the world's greatest Homeopath! :-)
@den151redbank, you know if treated soon Homeopathy can treat HIV and AIDS. Have you tried Homeopathy? Only people who haven't tried Homeopathy will talk about it like that!!
I've used homeopathy for a dozen years with such great success that I use it exclusively. That's why my posts about homeopathy are positive and support homeopathy.
So imagine I'm in bed, ill. I have a flaming temperature, aversion to light, a stiff neck and a rash on my chest. I've been in bed for four days straight, haven't been eating, vomited three days ago and have been unconcious and unresponsive for the past two days. What does a homeopath do?
Well, the "skeptics" may give these videos a low rating but it hasn't stopped the rest of the world from paying attention to them. The number of views just keeps going up steadily as it always has.
As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Guess the "skeptics" don't know that.)
I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
Homeopathy cures the patient of chronic diseases and STOPS the progress of disease to a deeper level of the body whereas Allopathy suppresses symptoms leading to a metastasis of chronic disease to major organs of the body.
That's one of the reasons I use homeopathy exclusively. Other reasons: it gives beautiful, gentle healing, it improves health in general, it supports the immune system, it ameliorates symptoms without suppression, it improves quality of life and enjoyment of life.
What's the Harm is nothing more than a handful of cases in which someone thinks the patient might have survived if they had used allopathic medicine or more of it. It's filled with anecdotal evidence from friends and family and very little actual substantiated fact. It even includes President Harding. His body was not autopsied so it's not even known how or why he died.
Did you know that conv med is the No. 1 KILLER in the US today? This real fact is based on figures from the CDC and
medical examiners across the country. Google leading cause of death doctors, Death by Medicine and mercola.
Why don't you read the scientific and clinical work supporting homeopathy? Why don't you try it and come to your own conclusions instead of relying on misinformed videos posted here by magicians and other clowns?
Also, please post one verified, documented reference supporting your claim that someone died as a result of refusing conv med in favor of using homeopathy.
@den151redbank Heh.. lack of scientific evidence for the use of allopathy, or serious "side effects" & death from it is never a problem for the wooden headed ones, is it?
Nope! It's never a problem. The only problem for the wooden-headed ones is the fact that homeopathy does not just work but works beautifully (and better than what they claim they'd use). Given the young age of the "scientists" posting here, you have to wonder if they've ever experienced a serious, chronic illness at all.
Sorry to hear about your MS. I certainly hope you're getting a great deal of help from whatever system of medicine you're currently using.
Interesting that you thought our (my) comments pertained specifically to you. Your profile clearly states your age as 39, and you identify yourself as an open-minded skeptic.
I didn't think you were talking specifically to me. Obviously, I am the only I can speak with knowledge on (BEING me, and all ;) ) so I spoke of myself. Thank you for the well-wishes.
For the record, I didn't come here to start a flame war of any sort with anybody. I'm honestly investigating.
A lot is.'kinda' reversible.. I'm going to kill my immune system and replace it with stem cells harvested from my own fat. Admittedly, this is a process that homeopathy really couldn't assist besides perhaps pain management anyway. Thanks for the well wishes.
We could get a table in the corner and discuss gourmet cheeses.
It's easy -- if you don't like homeopathy, don't use it!
My personal opinion after 12 years of homeopathic treatment is that it's the best thing going. My friends and family have begun using it. It's been so successful for them that they've told their friends. And so it goes!
Tens of millions of people around the world use it because IT WORKS!
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
@fireiciclespark My NHS medical doctor first introduced me to homeopathy, because I'm severely allergic to the anti-biotic penicillin. He has prescribed me with several different remedies.
July 26th 2010 the British government emphatically backs the people's choice to seek homeopathy within the NHS, despite the propaganda against it.
A few hours ago Jake claimed to know nothing about h. He even asked for an explanation of it. I suggested he read any one of a number of studies evidencing for h. plus Conte, Bell, Tiller, etc., of Stanford, Cambridge, Penn U, etc. It's now quite clear his post was a ........
I've had 12 years of wonderful success with h. treatment for serious, chronic and acute illnesses. I'm so pleased with it I use it for every illness/injury I get.
Homeopathy is a wonderful system of medicine--gentle but powerful and dynamic. It has been the greatest blessing of my life in my treatment of serious, chronic diseases like neuropathy and high blood pressure. It has been equally effective in acute illnesses like sore throats and poison ivy.
Anyone who finds homeopathy has a friend for life!
Looks as if someone has targetted the hom videos with six different usernames to try and ensure anyone who reports positive experiences of it is not heard.
I thought sceptics were supposed to be into freedom of speech?
Got the sea salt. Tomorrow morning I'll collect the morning dew. Will send you a bottle freshly made by air mail.
Here's another elixir of life: diaphragmatic breathing as practiced in qi gong (foundation of thai chi chuan and the martial arts). Takes place in the lower dan tian (below navel)--a spot called the field of the elixir of life. If you don't know qi gong, I highly recommend it!
Yes, some people are terribly threatened by the fact that h. is a wonderfully healing system of med that does not just work but works beautifully and consistently for both chronic and acute illnesses.
A pity about those people. They are free to use or not use h. as they wish, but clearly that is not enough for them. They want to be sure no one else learns about or uses it either.
We'll just keep putting it out there for the people looking for good medicine.
Look at the 1,200 patients PER DAY getting cancer treatment at Banerji Clinic with 70% benefiting from it.
Homeopathic provings are of higher scientific quality than trials/studies done by drug companies whether you admit it or not. Homeopathic research is of the highest quality done by leading researchers/scientists.
Those who know and use homeopathy know it is the very best medicine.
What you believe is irrelevant to everyone but yourself.
One poster offered to take your case for a mere $400. Take him up on it. It is a remarkable offer considering the number of hours of work which will be needed! In the end, you'll feel a lot better.
H. meds are prepared with 2x distilled water and succussed/diluted to achieve various potencies. This accounts for h.'s curative powers without side effects and iatrogenic diseases or poisoning.
If "this is the craziest stuff [you] have ever heard of" it is because you know nothing about h. Try reading, studying and learning.
I'm quite aware of what the The Lancet said. But they are not critics, either in the singular or plural.
I've read pretty much meta-analysis of homeopathy. They're all negative.
Which is why homeopathy proponents have to try and wring what smidgen of precious comfort they can out of Linde, and why they all ignore the 1999 paper. And, erm, every other bit of evidence. If I need to do homework, why am I the only one bringing up the 1999 paper, and why are you doing your hardest to ignore it?
The "fact" that you think that "all" of the meta-analyses on homeopathy have been negative proves how little you know: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2008), the Cochrane Report on Oscillococcinum (2006), the Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (2003), the BMJ (1991), and the Reilly's allergy trials (Lancet & BMJ). And we are all laughing that you do not consider the Lancet to be critics of homeopathy!!! THAT is how fundamentalist you are. Eeeks
I'm not Dana or responding for him, but: "YES, WIZ IS ALWAYS THIS UNREASONABLE". I've spoken to him/her (as have many others) about his/her postings and certain obsessions and delusions.
wizzardsleeve, go to the Conde experiments. Inhibition of basophil activation achieved with Histaminum in 2006 using nuclear magnetic resonancing.
Or check out the Lancet 1997. 89 trials showed homeopathy outperforming placebo 2 and a half times. Later criticism from the Lancet was refuted in JOurnal of Clinical Epidemiology. If the 21 "high quality" trials are assessed, the conclusion is again in favor of homeopathy.
The Conde experiments don't seem to have individualised treatments at all. My impression was that that's a corner stone of homeopathy. So before I read any further, please clarify for me - do you reject that individualisation is central to homeopathy?
Also an explanation of what you personally found persuasive about the Conde experiments.
And a cite to the above refution of the Lancet study, please, and an explanation of your maths re the Lancet study.
"The Conde experiments don't seem to have individualised treatments at all."
No, because they are assessing an acute function of histaminum, which would be applicable to many hayfever sufferers (because they wouold all benefit from the inhibition of basophil activiation).
In complex conditions, you are correct to suggest that individualisation will be required. That's clearly not the case here.
I had no perceptible improvement from histamine for severe allergy. That came with carcinosinum. Swelling reduced & time between relapse increased with each dose for a while, & 10 years later, no relapse. It's not one size fits all, & histamine would not be my first consideration in such cases at all. It's a "small" remedy in homeopathy. Ps carcinosin was not the only homeopathic tried, not by far.
Mind you, antihistamine tablets & Phenergan injections didnt help me at all, was still suffocating. I dont doubt that histamine homeopathic has a place for others, but I needed the carcinosin homeopathic.
I could not adequately describe the wonderful healing I've had with homeopathy. I've been treated for chronic, serious illnesses like neuropathy and high blood pressure and acute illnesses like sore throats and poison ivy with equal success.
H. is gentle but dynamic. It is much less expensive than other types of medical care. I hope many, many more people find homeopathy for themselves.
"False. H. seems to have very real benefits as a placebo"
Why would the best healthcare system in the world mandate that their doctors spend long hours training in placebo? The FMA clearly doesn't think it's placebo.
Still, you seem to have at least moved on from saying
"Homeopathy would be great, if there were any evidences that it worked."
"At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials"
Nearly 20 years ago. So there must be loads of such trials showing homeopathy works since then, yes?
The most current trials tell the same story. When randomized, double-blind, placebo studies with large numbers of participants are used the effect of homeopathy is consistent with the placebo effect. Homeopathy is still looking for that one treatment that they can consistently show is effective. If they had that treatment they would show case it and repeat it and repeat it. That would at least get science to seriously look at it again.
Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
It's interesting to read the study conclusion (via NCBI Pubmed):
"At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of *LOW METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY* and because of the *UNKNOWN ROLE OF PUBLICATION BIAS*. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, *BUT ONLY BY MEANS OF WELL PERFORMED TRAILS*." (EMPHASIS mine)
So, this is the best meta-analysis available on the subject?
"The author indicates why h. medicine is an example of future information medicine, a member of the more general psychophysiologic medicine group." "H. involves the dilution of c and succussion which can increase y; thus when c goes to the ultradilution state the thermodynamic driving force for change does not disappear as is assumed by many and, in fact, can even increase through the y terms."
"I wonder if he's published them?" Is that a real question? Or do you just not know the standards of academia/science? Why don't/didn't you google and read ALL his published work.
Probably for the same reason I don't read "ALL" of the published work of anyone - I don't have time.
I keyed in on his claim of a "thermodynamic driving force" because thermodynamics is a field I'm actually familiar with. I'm not a subscriber to medical journals (if you can call "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" a journal at all), so I can't read the full text, which is why I questioned the actual publication of calculations (which are generally easy to check).
"If you can call 'The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine' a journal at all." Spoken like a true skeptic!
The rest of the world uses all kinds of alternative medicines to good effect. How about TaiChi, QiGong, massage, accupuncture, chiropractic, nutrition--all 'alternative' medicines. Not up to your standards?
I read the FULL TEXT of ALL Tiller's papers right here on the internet--not in medical journals which I don't subscribe to.
Not to mention Ayurvedic, Reiki, herbal medicine and Chinese medicine. Homeopathy and all these other medicines have been used by millions of people around the world for a long, long time for good reason.
I have used h. for many years and will tell you that it is a superior medicine just as so many other people testify, a good many of them right here in these pages.
You are welcome to your skepticism. I am not buying your beliefs!
"What do you think you gain by ridiculing other people's medicine?"
Asking for evidence is ridiculing? Fragile thing, this homeopathy is.
"Did it never occur to you that you could be wrong?"
Yes. Show me.
"A tremendous number of people would say that you are."
A "tremendous number" once thought the earth was flat. A "tremendous number" even now tell another "tremendous number" they're going to hell for not believing their religions. "Tremendous numbers" do not determine reality.
I do see odd claims in his published introduction however, for example:
*Claiming that an Ag "augmented" fluorescent lamp will kill bacteria, without mentioning a comparison of UV emission of a normal (and augmented) lamp. Such lamps normally emit some amount of UV (very good for killing bacteria), perhaps modifying them produced more UV - no controls are mentioned in the intro, which seems suspicious.
BS! No skeptic here has ever accepted, maybe never looked at, evidence against his own beliefs--not even from his own vaunted med sys. When told of the British Med. J. review stating that ONLY 13% of conv meds are proven effective, you posted: ". . .this study of around 2,500 treatments isn't really convincing. . .".
Unfortunately, you seem all too ready to promote only your favorite parts of a story.
The "presentation" you posted is riddled with issues anyone should be skeptical of. The source is irrelevant, science is not based on authority. Critical issues like definitions of "effectiveness", "likely", "commonly used", or "trade offs" are present. That's just a start.
It's as foolish to base a view of modern medicine on such subjective content as it is to believe in psychics or homeopathy.
Sincere apologies if I misquoted you, I had thought you were the one sourcing the so-called "13% hard evidence" material. Must have been the other fellow who posts here.
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even critics have called this meta-analysis "completely state of the art."
Again, the study conclusion is interesting (via NCBI Pubmed):
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."
People please stop believing this rubbish and just look up James Randi. Thanks to him I don't need to get into a religions argument here with you on whether homeopathy works or not. I can just point you to his 1 million dollar prize on the ability to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon (which includes homeopathy). Just choose one of your homeopathic remedies and prove that it does what it says (or that it does anything for that matter). You have got to have at least one that works, right?
There's a problem there: homeopath George Vithoulkas accepting Randi's $1m challenge.
All paperwork had been agreed, then Randi delayed 6 months with health problems. After a further 2 years negotiation, everything was set to go ahead, when Randi backed out of all previous written agreement.
Vithoulkas had put in 5 yrs work by this point and was furious. To make matters worse, Randi then claimed Vit. had backed out.
Im sceptical about trusting any scientific experiment to a magician & television performer. Reminds me of "Dracula in charge of the blood bank" :) Dont any of his one-eyed cult followers get it?
We cant look up Randi's videos on homeopathy in You Tube, cos they've been removed, apparently due to "violation of terms of use.." Can anyone clear this up? Doesnt sound like someone to look up to, hey.. ps, homeopathy is not a religion, unlike the misguided cult of Randi. As for specifics in homeopathy, ive named them before - symphytum in bone fractures, arnica in bruising, add hypericum in nerve injury etc
In past years Cuba used conv. vaccines to defend against leptospirosis during hurricane season with infections in the 1000's PLUS deaths. In 2008 TWO MILLION Cubans used h. nosodes. The results: 10 OR FEWER infec/mth AND ZERO deaths.
Anyone with a genuine interest in whether or not h. works can read about this in many places on the internet. You can also read all the research work evidencing for h.
no. supressing the fatal symptoms help keep you alive allowqing your body chance to fight back. you cant kill the cold using medicine, you can supress the symptoms and allow the body to fight it off. only bacterial infections are cvurable by anti0bacterial medicine.
nintendowns might consider the fact that he/she has been taught only allopathic medicine, not the homeopathic system of medicine as well. JHW is correct when he states that suppressing symptoms pushes disease deeper into the body. Consider the patient whose skin symptoms are suppressed by allopathy but who develops disease on a deeper level because of it. Get all the facts about both systems (and others), then make your choice.
please provide a specific disease and case if you wish your statement to have any credibility. ill repeat my previous statement, if you have a cold, supress the symptoms and the body fights it of on it's on accord. homeopathy is wrong for several reasons, for example, extreme dilution. if you believe that diluting chemicals to the point where not even a single molecule exists provides water with a healing effect, youve just gone against PROVEN scientific knowledge and data.
for your information im perfectly fine. ive survived a pneumonia attack with a 104 fever and i rarely ever get sick.i use regular medicine when neccesary.if you are so sure of homeopathy, then why not give a valid argument? i use science mainly, i dont know how you can argue homeopathy though.
Why not make a simple experiment for yourself? Put some steroid cream (over-the-counter allopathic) on a skin problem. Then observe carefully what happens to your breathing with use. If you don't want to take part in this little experiment (understandable considering the consequences), ask your allopathic doctor what happens. If that fails, read the manufacturer's brochures.
ok , you are being illogical and too obscure. first of all, what is the skin problem you are reffering to. second of all, is steroid cream proven to be effective for that skin problem. finally, the only way to test the effectiveness of medicine is a double blind study. anecdotal evidence does not prove something one way or another, because the placebo effect plays a major role. have you veer taken chemistry btw? if you did, you should know why homeopathy is ridiculous.
P.S. Did you know that only 13% -- yes, 13% -- of conv. med. is proven effective (per BMJ)! Do you take the other 87% if prescribed? Do you always ask doc for a double-blind study when he gives you an rx?
Oh yes, did you know that conv. med. is the THIRD leading cause of DEATH in the US after cancer and heart dis per conv. doc reports in JAMA, 7/26/00? Did you know that the NY Times (12/07) reported similar stats?
no. see if a doctor perscribes medicine that is not proven to be effective, thats called quackery, and is punishable by law. if a homeopath perscribes medicine that has no effect, they are not attacked because of it.
How do you explain that 87% of conv. med. is NOT proven effective but is prescribed anyway? According to your own words above that's quackery AND punishable by law!
GIVE ME A SOURCE that says that. it is quackery to provide inneffective or harmful medicine to a patient. that is true. still, if you claim something like a statistic, provide a SOURCE.
"it is quackery to provide inneffective or harmful medicine to a patient. that is true." Are you campaigning for con. medicine, which kills 225,000 people a year in the US, to be banned?
"homeopathy has no effect except that of a placebo."
Then why does homeopathy so often cure conditions? The placebo effect is palliateive and temporary.
homeopathy doex not cure conditions. please prov ide a case where it does. homeopathy is a placebo. when people continue taking it, obviosuly they continue to believe it works, and so they FEEL better. ARE they better? well, again, thats why we needs a source.
"homeopathy doex not cure conditions. please prov ide a case where it does. homeopathy is a placebo."
Let me explain again. Placebo is temporary and palliative. In other words, it's not strong enough to effect a permanent elimation of symptoms. Homeopathy makes people feel better to the point of symptom elimation.
I can provide 3 cases where it has cured... but will you actually listen?
please provide links to the 3 cases. you forget the fact that people who use homepathy dont only take it once, but continue to take it untill the symptoms dissappear, which means people with chronic pain take it continuously. you laso have to factor in the bodies own ability to fight disease. thats why links to these cases would help.
nin: I meant to say 3 cases in my own life - two cases of infection (one chronic, one acute) and my lady's... but that's a little private.
Actually, in all 3 cases, a single dose of one medicine was used, which completely eliminated all symptoms. One of the doses was taken six months ago, with not a single symptom recurring since then.
your try to prove homeopathy as valid by selecting a few types of conventional medicine and showing their bad side effect. conventional medicine is not perfect, and no scientist claims it is, but it works for a majority of the time. homeopathy on the other hand, has no DOUBLE BLIND studies documented that shows any evidence of homeopathy being anything other than a placebo. you cannot prove homeopathy is effective by proving that conv. medicine is SOMETIMES wrong.
i am not confused. homeopathy has no effect except that of a placebo. it therefore should NOT be an alternative to conventional medicine. that is why it is called ALTERNATIVE medicine, it is provided as a substitute for conventional medicine. there fore, the two are in fact comaprable. my argument is to prove that homeopathy is not an effectiver alternative to conventional medicine. its that simple.
As of this month 40 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed. Of the 40 million women who have been vaccinated 26 have died. If you take any group of 40 million women and track them over the course of 4 years, odds are that some of them will die. There is no reason to believe that the vaccine caused this effect. Moreover, even if it did (which it almost certainly did not), the odds of dying are nearly 1 in 2,000,000. Tiny odds, compared to the odds of getting HPV leading to cancer.
In my opinion the life of every single one of those 26 women was very significant. The lives of other women who will be affected are equally significant.
Another bitterly sad case of making money at the expense of human life and well being!
Homeopathy works -- without side effects or iatrogenic diseases -- whether you like it or not! Homeopathy works on EVERY LEVEL!
". . .there is no reason to believe that the vaccine caused this effect (death)."
Evidence based on gov docs shows Gardasil is linked to 9,000 "adverse events" (including 18 deaths), 140 "serious events" (27 life threatening), 10 spontaneous abortions and 6 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (you wouldn't like having it!) since January, 2008.
Read about it in Judicial Watch. Now they want boys to take this vaccine too!
did you know that nione of your comment makes a difference without a SOURCE or a STUDY. did you know that trying a steroid cream on my skin makes NO difference since it does not prove homeopathy is valid in any way.
You are way behind the times. There is nothing left to argue about. I made a few suggestions. Take them or leave them. I have no interest in arguing anything with you.
Your words: ". . .I'm perfectly fine. I've survived a pneumonia attack with a 104 degree fever and I rarely get sick." That is anecdotal evidence and therefore worthless.
You know nothing about homeopathy, cling to the ignorant and misinformed ideas you've heard from other equally ignorant and misinformed people and attempt to convince others that you are the final authority despite being obviously and totally ignorant!
ok fine. please prove me wrong. see this is what happens, i present my argument, you fail to present a decent one and wind up insulting my skepticism. of course im skeptical of homeopathy, its ridiculous. and i know that its founded on a theory which has no scientific backing at all which is the theory that water has a memory of some sort and that unbelievably high diultions are exponentially more powerful. provide scientific, NON ANECDOTAL, evidence if you want to try to prove me wrong.
and please feel free to point out anything in my argument that mis represents homeopathy. even though i basically repeat what homeopathy says and argue against it, by all means, go ahead.
There you go a study that proves that homeopathy is 100% true;
"Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis with a commercial homeopathic remedy: A single-blinded, placebo-controlled study" Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
Im gonna keep that one too, now the abstract of the research:
"A commercial homeopathic remedy and a placebo were administered orally as individual agents to 18 dogs with atopic dermatitis. The pruritus was reduced by less than 50% in only 2/18 dogs; 1 of these dogs was receiving the homeopathic remedy, the other was receiving the placebo. One dog vomited after administration of the homeopathic remedy."
You are NOT referring to the CVMA trial. You ARE referring to the work done by Scott, Miller, Senter and Cook (Compan. Animal Hosp. Pharm.). AND here are the comments about their work:
1. NOT classical homeopathy
2. A POOR test of hom.
3, Hom. principles NOT followed
Here are comments about the CVMA trial WITH +2 and +3 improvement in 50% of cases:
"I have really enjoyed this, my first direct exposure to scientific evaluation of hom. I have also enjoyed the cooperation of a FIRST CLASS SCIENTIST with a TRULY OPEN SCIENTIFIC MIND. (Unlike your own, jotatsu). I hope the paper will go a long way to supporting what I BELIEVE to be a WONDERFUL MEDICAL THERAPY."
There are a LOT of extremely arrogant and ill-informed people who think that they represent "scientific medicine" but sadly (and strangely), they have been shown to have a quite unscientific attitude. These "medical fundamentalists" do not understand homeopathy, and they do not seem to even understand GOOD science. Because I do not want these people to air their arrogance/ignorance, I do not allow such people to post here.
HomeopathicDana 6 months ago
I don't understand why there is so much fuzz about sceptics? Why they even looking at those videos? They can use obamacare as far as I'm conserned.
If people don't care about their own health, if they don't reseach , then go to doctor from their insurance and expect he should care.
I had personal experience with both, I will stick with homeopathy and other natural remedies . I dont even have insurance anymore nor going to get one ever again. They make you pay for your own destruction!
Gdaiva1 1 year 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
Wow. Really great video. I love Homeopathy! I am studying it. I hope to become proficient at it one day. :D
Starbat88 1 year ago
Hi, thanks for your video. You know most people who are skeptical about Homeopathy haven't even tried it!!! My partner is a Homeopath and he has healed all his patients so far. I think he is the world's greatest Homeopath! :-)
beachmusic24 1 year ago
Update: NHS homeopathy has now effectively been destroyed by the refusal of Primary Care Trusts to allow referral.
fireiciclespark 1 year ago
@fireiciclespark Dinosaurs yell and scream the loudest before THEIR fall...homeopathy WILL return.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
@maxouwells Can YOU and YOUR medicine cure AIDS?
NO!
I knew you'd agree.
Homeopaths are having remarkable success in treating HIV and AIDS in Botswana. Why not read and learn about it.
den151redbank 1 year ago
@den151redbank "Homeopaths are having remarkable success in treating HIV and AIDS in Botswana."
You know, except that they aren't. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good vibe, eh?
djsmeg 1 year ago
@den151redbank, you know if treated soon Homeopathy can treat HIV and AIDS. Have you tried Homeopathy? Only people who haven't tried Homeopathy will talk about it like that!!
beachmusic24 1 year ago
@beachmusic24
I've used homeopathy for a dozen years with such great success that I use it exclusively. That's why my posts about homeopathy are positive and support homeopathy.
den151redbank 1 year ago
So imagine I'm in bed, ill. I have a flaming temperature, aversion to light, a stiff neck and a rash on my chest. I've been in bed for four days straight, haven't been eating, vomited three days ago and have been unconcious and unresponsive for the past two days. What does a homeopath do?
evildrsimon 1 year ago
Well, the "skeptics" may give these videos a low rating but it hasn't stopped the rest of the world from paying attention to them. The number of views just keeps going up steadily as it always has.
As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Guess the "skeptics" don't know that.)
den151redbank 1 year ago
3 Nobel Laureate scientists have done studies on high dilutions( similar to Homeopathic) and have proven their effects.
1. Hans Von Euler -
Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1929
2. Brian David Josephson -
Nobel Laureate Physics 1973
3. Luc Montagnier -
Nobel Laureate Physiology & Medicine 2009
mohanaturo 1 year ago
I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Homeopathy really helped me to remove symptoms
FrankRC85 1 year ago
Homeopathy cures the patient of chronic diseases and STOPS the progress of disease to a deeper level of the body whereas Allopathy suppresses symptoms leading to a metastasis of chronic disease to major organs of the body.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
That's one of the reasons I use homeopathy exclusively. Other reasons: it gives beautiful, gentle healing, it improves health in general, it supports the immune system, it ameliorates symptoms without suppression, it improves quality of life and enjoyment of life.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Why is it that Homeopathy remedies almost ALWAYS induce the placebo effect in susceptible patients and Allopathy drugs almost NEVER induce it...????
This Homeopathy "placebo effect" cure holds for months or years.
Many Homeopaths in busy clinics with 10 minute consultations are able to CURE their patients with this so called "placebo effect".
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Sorry to disagree. My experience, the experience of millions around the world and the SCIENCE proves that homeopathy works.
It's easy: if you don't like it, don't use it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
What's the Harm is nothing more than a handful of cases in which someone thinks the patient might have survived if they had used allopathic medicine or more of it. It's filled with anecdotal evidence from friends and family and very little actual substantiated fact. It even includes President Harding. His body was not autopsied so it's not even known how or why he died.
Did you know that conv med is the No. 1 KILLER in the US today? This real fact is based on figures from the CDC and
den151redbank 2 years ago
medical examiners across the country. Google leading cause of death doctors, Death by Medicine and mercola.
Why don't you read the scientific and clinical work supporting homeopathy? Why don't you try it and come to your own conclusions instead of relying on misinformed videos posted here by magicians and other clowns?
Also, please post one verified, documented reference supporting your claim that someone died as a result of refusing conv med in favor of using homeopathy.
den151redbank 2 years ago
@den151redbank Heh.. lack of scientific evidence for the use of allopathy, or serious "side effects" & death from it is never a problem for the wooden headed ones, is it?
annesash 2 years ago
Hi, Anne.....
Nope! It's never a problem. The only problem for the wooden-headed ones is the fact that homeopathy does not just work but works beautifully (and better than what they claim they'd use). Given the young age of the "scientists" posting here, you have to wonder if they've ever experienced a serious, chronic illness at all.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Do I CALL myself a scientist, no. But at 39 I'm not exactly young. As for experiencing a serious illness.. does MS count? I joined that club in 2003.
jesterspace 2 years ago
Sorry to hear about your MS. I certainly hope you're getting a great deal of help from whatever system of medicine you're currently using.
Interesting that you thought our (my) comments pertained specifically to you. Your profile clearly states your age as 39, and you identify yourself as an open-minded skeptic.
Best of luck with your health issues.
den151redbank 2 years ago
I didn't think you were talking specifically to me. Obviously, I am the only I can speak with knowledge on (BEING me, and all ;) ) so I spoke of myself. Thank you for the well-wishes.
For the record, I didn't come here to start a flame war of any sort with anybody. I'm honestly investigating.
jesterspace 2 years ago
"I'm honestly investigating." Good for you. I think you can find help in a lot of places.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Agreed if it works for you, by all means, use it. But remember.. millions of people once thought the world was flat, too.
jesterspace 2 years ago
@jesterspace Yep.. thats why there is a book on Homeopathy called "Beyond flat earth medicine"..
annesash 2 years ago
I will check it out.. I'm that rare breed.. open-minded skeptic.
jesterspace 2 years ago
"Open minded skeptic", me too :)
I know that once the damage is done in ms, it's probably irreversible. I hope that it's at least not progressing fast. Best wishes from me.
annesash 2 years ago
A lot is.'kinda' reversible.. I'm going to kill my immune system and replace it with stem cells harvested from my own fat. Admittedly, this is a process that homeopathy really couldn't assist besides perhaps pain management anyway. Thanks for the well wishes.
We could get a table in the corner and discuss gourmet cheeses.
jesterspace 2 years ago
What we need form the skeptic PSEUDO scientists is proof that Homeopathy is indeed placebo effect.......evidence which to date is seriously lacking.
Especially when two REAL scientists - Nobel Laureates Luc Montagnier and Josephson - have shown in their tests that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
Logis is NOT the forte of Skeptics.
The religion of skepticism is!
mohanaturo 2 years ago
It's easy -- if you don't like homeopathy, don't use it!
My personal opinion after 12 years of homeopathic treatment is that it's the best thing going. My friends and family have begun using it. It's been so successful for them that they've told their friends. And so it goes!
Tens of millions of people around the world use it because IT WORKS!
den151redbank 2 years ago
@den151redbank My personal experience of homeopathy is 25 years.. The alternative was Ventolin, corticosteroids and um.. probably death..
annesash 2 years ago
You made the right choice of medicines! We both did. That's why we're still here to talk about it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
British people: you are entitled to FREE homeopathic treatment on the NHS. Most GP's are not aware of this.
If you contact one of the five homeopathic hospitals in Tunbridge Wells, Glasgow, Liverpool, London or Bristol they can confirm this fact.
The British Homeopathic Association can send you corroborating information. GP's are obliged to refer under BMA guidelines issued in 1999.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago 4
@fireiciclespark So do I, because I have municipal water!
nightmareofsolomon 1 year ago
@fireiciclespark My NHS medical doctor first introduced me to homeopathy, because I'm severely allergic to the anti-biotic penicillin. He has prescribed me with several different remedies.
July 26th 2010 the British government emphatically backs the people's choice to seek homeopathy within the NHS, despite the propaganda against it.
Amygdala100 1 year ago
Homeopathy is fantastic.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago 4
It is certainly the best thing that ever happened to me!
den151redbank 2 years ago
why sugar pills are used in homopathy ?
why directly liquid drops are not given ?
Magarmach09 2 years ago
Both are used...though liquid require an alcohol base.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
Flakingnapstitch, you really have lost it.
I'm almost tempted to start encouraging you, if this is all you have to do in your free time.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
A few hours ago Jake claimed to know nothing about h. He even asked for an explanation of it. I suggested he read any one of a number of studies evidencing for h. plus Conte, Bell, Tiller, etc., of Stanford, Cambridge, Penn U, etc. It's now quite clear his post was a ........
I've had 12 years of wonderful success with h. treatment for serious, chronic and acute illnesses. I'm so pleased with it I use it for every illness/injury I get.
My friends and family are equally pleased with h.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Jake: I had fungal nail infection for some six years. In that time I had 3 treatments:
1) A course of pills that removed the infection temporarily but risked harming my liver. The infection returned once the course was finished
2) A lacquer which held the nail but did not treat the infection
3) 2 doses of pills which eliminated all symptoms permanently, with no side-effects.
Which do you think was the most beneficial treatment?
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Fireiciclespark could not have said it better.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Shame on you: flakingnapstitch, in your obsession to wipe out all honest, positive remarks about homeopathy.
We can see just how threatened you are about the wonderful truth of homeopathy.
Your only response is to spam the board like a ten year old. Quackbusters are a fraudulent organisation. You are their little punk.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Yeah flakingnapstitch, stop deleting these remarks. You're depriving me of so much hilarity.
regi1873 2 years ago 3
Yeah, flakingnapstitch. Quit depriving regi of something to do in life.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Dana,
Can anything be done about these people blanking out all the positive comments?
den151redbank 2 years ago
Homeopathy is a wonderful system of medicine--gentle but powerful and dynamic. It has been the greatest blessing of my life in my treatment of serious, chronic diseases like neuropathy and high blood pressure. It has been equally effective in acute illnesses like sore throats and poison ivy.
Anyone who finds homeopathy has a friend for life!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Den, I'm Jim. My JHW account has a virus.
We appear to be getting spammd, n'est-ce pas?
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Mai ouis! Good to hear from you. Rotten about those viruses.
Homeopathy works -- 100%!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Looks as if someone has targetted the hom videos with six different usernames to try and ensure anyone who reports positive experiences of it is not heard.
I thought sceptics were supposed to be into freedom of speech?
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Den, have you heard of the elixir of life?
Raw sea salt dissolved in morning dew?
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Hello, Jim. . .
Got the sea salt. Tomorrow morning I'll collect the morning dew. Will send you a bottle freshly made by air mail.
Here's another elixir of life: diaphragmatic breathing as practiced in qi gong (foundation of thai chi chuan and the martial arts). Takes place in the lower dan tian (below navel)--a spot called the field of the elixir of life. If you don't know qi gong, I highly recommend it!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Den - someone is doing the same trick again - marking down everything we say. If they do it six times the comment cannot be revived.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
I guess it goes to show how threatened some people are simply by us telling the truth about hom.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yes, some people are terribly threatened by the fact that h. is a wonderfully healing system of med that does not just work but works beautifully and consistently for both chronic and acute illnesses.
A pity about those people. They are free to use or not use h. as they wish, but clearly that is not enough for them. They want to be sure no one else learns about or uses it either.
We'll just keep putting it out there for the people looking for good medicine.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You don't really want ANY evidence do you?
Look at the 1,200 patients PER DAY getting cancer treatment at Banerji Clinic with 70% benefiting from it.
Homeopathic provings are of higher scientific quality than trials/studies done by drug companies whether you admit it or not. Homeopathic research is of the highest quality done by leading researchers/scientists.
Those who know and use homeopathy know it is the very best medicine.
What you believe is irrelevant to everyone but yourself.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Hey, Flakin....
One poster offered to take your case for a mere $400. Take him up on it. It is a remarkable offer considering the number of hours of work which will be needed! In the end, you'll feel a lot better.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Dear Golf God,
H. meds are prepared with 2x distilled water and succussed/diluted to achieve various potencies. This accounts for h.'s curative powers without side effects and iatrogenic diseases or poisoning.
If "this is the craziest stuff [you] have ever heard of" it is because you know nothing about h. Try reading, studying and learning.
Good luck to you.
den151redbank 2 years ago
I'm quite aware of what the The Lancet said. But they are not critics, either in the singular or plural.
I've read pretty much meta-analysis of homeopathy. They're all negative.
Which is why homeopathy proponents have to try and wring what smidgen of precious comfort they can out of Linde, and why they all ignore the 1999 paper. And, erm, every other bit of evidence. If I need to do homework, why am I the only one bringing up the 1999 paper, and why are you doing your hardest to ignore it?
wizzardssleeve 2 years ago
The "fact" that you think that "all" of the meta-analyses on homeopathy have been negative proves how little you know: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2008), the Cochrane Report on Oscillococcinum (2006), the Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (2003), the BMJ (1991), and the Reilly's allergy trials (Lancet & BMJ). And we are all laughing that you do not consider the Lancet to be critics of homeopathy!!! THAT is how fundamentalist you are. Eeeks
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
Dana, wizzardsleeve has just started pming me, telling me to cite some good quality, mata-analyses showing him that homeopathy works.
This after dismissing the Lancet 1997 out of hand, and just ignoring you when you listed five for him to read.
Is he always this unreasonable?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Jim,
I'm not Dana or responding for him, but: "YES, WIZ IS ALWAYS THIS UNREASONABLE". I've spoken to him/her (as have many others) about his/her postings and certain obsessions and delusions.
den151redbank 2 years ago
He's just started pming me saying Dana can't point to any positive homeopathy meta-analyses, and that he's "dealt" with him.
Total lies.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yes...and that is why I have blocked him. Sadly, these people do not want to learn. They have venom and they want to spew it.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
"I'm quite aware of what the The Lancet said. But they are not critics".
Whether they are critics or not, they are the most authoritative medical Journal in the world.
"I've read pretty much meta-analysis of homeopathy. They're all negative."
Nonsense. This just is not true.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
wizzardsleeve, go to the Conde experiments. Inhibition of basophil activation achieved with Histaminum in 2006 using nuclear magnetic resonancing.
Or check out the Lancet 1997. 89 trials showed homeopathy outperforming placebo 2 and a half times. Later criticism from the Lancet was refuted in JOurnal of Clinical Epidemiology. If the 21 "high quality" trials are assessed, the conclusion is again in favor of homeopathy.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
The Conde experiments don't seem to have individualised treatments at all. My impression was that that's a corner stone of homeopathy. So before I read any further, please clarify for me - do you reject that individualisation is central to homeopathy?
Also an explanation of what you personally found persuasive about the Conde experiments.
And a cite to the above refution of the Lancet study, please, and an explanation of your maths re the Lancet study.
wizzardssleeve 2 years ago
"The Conde experiments don't seem to have individualised treatments at all."
No, because they are assessing an acute function of histaminum, which would be applicable to many hayfever sufferers (because they wouold all benefit from the inhibition of basophil activiation).
In complex conditions, you are correct to suggest that individualisation will be required. That's clearly not the case here.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
I had no perceptible improvement from histamine for severe allergy. That came with carcinosinum. Swelling reduced & time between relapse increased with each dose for a while, & 10 years later, no relapse. It's not one size fits all, & histamine would not be my first consideration in such cases at all. It's a "small" remedy in homeopathy. Ps carcinosin was not the only homeopathic tried, not by far.
annesash 2 years ago
Mind you, antihistamine tablets & Phenergan injections didnt help me at all, was still suffocating. I dont doubt that histamine homeopathic has a place for others, but I needed the carcinosin homeopathic.
annesash 2 years ago
say what you want about homeopathy but mainstream medicine is a joke! you would have to be an idiot not to see that.
guidav123 2 years ago
I could not adequately describe the wonderful healing I've had with homeopathy. I've been treated for chronic, serious illnesses like neuropathy and high blood pressure and acute illnesses like sore throats and poison ivy with equal success.
H. is gentle but dynamic. It is much less expensive than other types of medical care. I hope many, many more people find homeopathy for themselves.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"Working as a placebo does not equate to "working" as advertised. Please understand, I don't care what the FMA thinks".
You don't care what the French Medical Association thinks. You don't care what the Lancet thinks.
So why should we care what you think?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
"False. H. seems to have very real benefits as a placebo"
Why would the best healthcare system in the world mandate that their doctors spend long hours training in placebo? The FMA clearly doesn't think it's placebo.
Still, you seem to have at least moved on from saying
"Homeopathy would be great, if there were any evidences that it worked."
That's a start.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
""AT THE MOMENT THE EVIDENCE OF CLINICAL TRIALS IS POSITIVE".
You forgot to post the source of this quote, unless it was your intention to cite your own authority (which isn't how science is done). "
You actually cited the source yourself. But hey, that was like a page ago. I guess it's been a while.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Oops, cherrypick alert!
"At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials"
Nearly 20 years ago. So there must be loads of such trials showing homeopathy works since then, yes?
So, cite them.
wizzardssleeve 2 years ago
The most current trials tell the same story. When randomized, double-blind, placebo studies with large numbers of participants are used the effect of homeopathy is consistent with the placebo effect. Homeopathy is still looking for that one treatment that they can consistently show is effective. If they had that treatment they would show case it and repeat it and repeat it. That would at least get science to seriously look at it again.
1skyhand 2 years ago 3
Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
It's interesting to read the study conclusion (via NCBI Pubmed):
"At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of *LOW METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY* and because of the *UNKNOWN ROLE OF PUBLICATION BIAS*. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, *BUT ONLY BY MEANS OF WELL PERFORMED TRAILS*." (EMPHASIS mine)
So, this is the best meta-analysis available on the subject?
FairCogent 2 years ago 2
Peer-review conclusion of homeopathy:
"AT THE MOMENT THE EVIDENCE OF CLINICAL TRIALS IS POSITIVE".
(emphasis mine)
Thankyou.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Homeopathy would be great, if there were any evidences that it worked. I wish it were true, but wishes don't make reality.
FairCogent 2 years ago
"The author indicates why h. medicine is an example of future information medicine, a member of the more general psychophysiologic medicine group." "H. involves the dilution of c and succussion which can increase y; thus when c goes to the ultradilution state the thermodynamic driving force for change does not disappear as is assumed by many and, in fact, can even increase through the y terms."
W. A. Tiller, Ph.D.
Prof. Emeritus, Materials Sci. & Eng.
Standford U.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Great... "..the thermodynamic driving force for change does not disappear as is assumed by many.."
If thermodynamics are involved, I'd love to review his calculations. I wonder if he's published them?
FairCogent 2 years ago 2
"I wonder if he's published them?" Is that a real question? Or do you just not know the standards of academia/science? Why don't/didn't you google and read ALL his published work.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Probably for the same reason I don't read "ALL" of the published work of anyone - I don't have time.
I keyed in on his claim of a "thermodynamic driving force" because thermodynamics is a field I'm actually familiar with. I'm not a subscriber to medical journals (if you can call "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" a journal at all), so I can't read the full text, which is why I questioned the actual publication of calculations (which are generally easy to check).
(ctd)
FairCogent 2 years ago
"If you can call 'The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine' a journal at all." Spoken like a true skeptic!
The rest of the world uses all kinds of alternative medicines to good effect. How about TaiChi, QiGong, massage, accupuncture, chiropractic, nutrition--all 'alternative' medicines. Not up to your standards?
I read the FULL TEXT of ALL Tiller's papers right here on the internet--not in medical journals which I don't subscribe to.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Not to mention Ayurvedic, Reiki, herbal medicine and Chinese medicine. Homeopathy and all these other medicines have been used by millions of people around the world for a long, long time for good reason.
I have used h. for many years and will tell you that it is a superior medicine just as so many other people testify, a good many of them right here in these pages.
You are welcome to your skepticism. I am not buying your beliefs!
den151redbank 2 years ago
"Spoken like a true skeptic!"
Truly a compliment.!
"The rest of the world uses all kinds of alternative medicines.."
Indeed, people also practice rain dances, animal sacrifices, all variety of mysticism, witch hunts, superstitions, etc.
"..to good effect."
You could be right, but just as with everything else I've listed above, it would be wise to be skeptical.
"Not up to your standards?"
Not without evidence.
"FULL TEXT of ALL Tiller's papers "
Please message me with a link... thanks!
FairCogent 2 years ago
"If you can call The Journal of Alt. & Comp. Medicine a journal at all."
". . .people also practice rain dances. . ."
The real questions are:
1. Who cares what YOU do or don't accept as evidence for or against h.? And there is a great deal of it for h. whether you acknowledge it or not!
2. What do you think you gain by ridiculing other people's medicine?
3. Did it never occur to you that you could be wrong? A tremendous number of people would say that you are.
den151redbank 2 years ago
"What do you think you gain by ridiculing other people's medicine?"
Asking for evidence is ridiculing? Fragile thing, this homeopathy is.
"Did it never occur to you that you could be wrong?"
Yes. Show me.
"A tremendous number of people would say that you are."
A "tremendous number" once thought the earth was flat. A "tremendous number" even now tell another "tremendous number" they're going to hell for not believing their religions. "Tremendous numbers" do not determine reality.
FairCogent 2 years ago 7
"You could be right, but just as with everything else I've listed above, it would be wise to be skeptical."
Tell me... 32 - 40% of French doctors use homeopathy as part of their regular practice.
If they are using snake oil, they are guilty of malpractice. So why has the WHO endorsed French healthcare as the best in the world?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
(ctd)
I do see odd claims in his published introduction however, for example:
*Claiming that an Ag "augmented" fluorescent lamp will kill bacteria, without mentioning a comparison of UV emission of a normal (and augmented) lamp. Such lamps normally emit some amount of UV (very good for killing bacteria), perhaps modifying them produced more UV - no controls are mentioned in the intro, which seems suspicious.
FairCogent 2 years ago
You are referring to Tiller's work on the bactericidal properties of silver, not the paper I referred to.
den151redbank 2 years ago
As far as I can tell, I've been reading the one you cited in the earlier posting:
"The author indicates why h. medicine is an example of future information medicine, a member of the more general psychophysiologic medicine group."
Specifically, the quote re: the silver is in the introduction.
//ww w(dot)liebertonline(dot)co m/doi/abs/10(dot)1089/acm.2006(dot)12(dot)685
FairCogent 2 years ago
"I'd love to review his calculations."
BS! No skeptic here has ever accepted, maybe never looked at, evidence against his own beliefs--not even from his own vaunted med sys. When told of the British Med. J. review stating that ONLY 13% of conv meds are proven effective, you posted: ". . .this study of around 2,500 treatments isn't really convincing. . .".
Get real!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Unfortunately, you seem all too ready to promote only your favorite parts of a story.
The "presentation" you posted is riddled with issues anyone should be skeptical of. The source is irrelevant, science is not based on authority. Critical issues like definitions of "effectiveness", "likely", "commonly used", or "trade offs" are present. That's just a start.
It's as foolish to base a view of modern medicine on such subjective content as it is to believe in psychics or homeopathy.
FairCogent 2 years ago
I did NOT post any such material.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Sincere apologies if I misquoted you, I had thought you were the one sourcing the so-called "13% hard evidence" material. Must have been the other fellow who posts here.
FairCogent 2 years ago
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even critics have called this meta-analysis "completely state of the art."
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Again, the study conclusion is interesting (via NCBI Pubmed):
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."
Not very impressive...
FairCogent 2 years ago 2
People please stop believing this rubbish and just look up James Randi. Thanks to him I don't need to get into a religions argument here with you on whether homeopathy works or not. I can just point you to his 1 million dollar prize on the ability to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon (which includes homeopathy). Just choose one of your homeopathic remedies and prove that it does what it says (or that it does anything for that matter). You have got to have at least one that works, right?
ccristi99 2 years ago
@ccrist99:
There's a problem there: homeopath George Vithoulkas accepting Randi's $1m challenge.
All paperwork had been agreed, then Randi delayed 6 months with health problems. After a further 2 years negotiation, everything was set to go ahead, when Randi backed out of all previous written agreement.
Vithoulkas had put in 5 yrs work by this point and was furious. To make matters worse, Randi then claimed Vit. had backed out.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago 2
How do you explain:
1. the large body of hi-quality scientific lab & clinical evidence supporting h. Have you read any of it?
2. the Cuban success with h. vaccine for leptospirosis. Have you read the reports?
3. the volumes of provings of a higher caliber
than tests done on conv. med. Have you read any of them?
4. the testimony of millions of doctors & patients around the world over 200 years of h. use. Have you read any of it?
den151redbank 2 years ago
Did you know that a great many homeopaths are MD's with an additional 4 years of medical training?
Did you know that h. theory was first described by Hippocrates?
No one takes Randi seriously as a scientist. No one takes his $1m prize seriously.
den151redbank 2 years ago
The prize is serious, no one has the balls to try get it.
Othelie 2 years ago
"The prize is serious, no one has the balls to try get it."
No... Vithoulkas spent five years tyring to "get it". Randi delayed for 6 months, refusing to appoint a rep. in his absence.
Then he told his website the homeopaths had backed out. Vithoulkas finalised all paperwork with Gindis and Oberbaum in Sep 2008.
In Oct. 2008, Randi wrote him out of the blue, telling him to forget the five year negotiation and apply afresh!
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Im sceptical about trusting any scientific experiment to a magician & television performer. Reminds me of "Dracula in charge of the blood bank" :) Dont any of his one-eyed cult followers get it?
annesash 2 years ago
No. They don't!
den151redbank 2 years ago
We cant look up Randi's videos on homeopathy in You Tube, cos they've been removed, apparently due to "violation of terms of use.." Can anyone clear this up? Doesnt sound like someone to look up to, hey.. ps, homeopathy is not a religion, unlike the misguided cult of Randi. As for specifics in homeopathy, ive named them before - symphytum in bone fractures, arnica in bruising, add hypericum in nerve injury etc
annesash 2 years ago
In past years Cuba used conv. vaccines to defend against leptospirosis during hurricane season with infections in the 1000's PLUS deaths. In 2008 TWO MILLION Cubans used h. nosodes. The results: 10 OR FEWER infec/mth AND ZERO deaths.
Anyone with a genuine interest in whether or not h. works can read about this in many places on the internet. You can also read all the research work evidencing for h.
den151redbank 2 years ago
nintendowns,
What games are you into these days?
mohanaturo 2 years ago
We would all love to keep you from dying.... but by suppressing that symptom you will push the illness deeper into the system.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
no. supressing the fatal symptoms help keep you alive allowqing your body chance to fight back. you cant kill the cold using medicine, you can supress the symptoms and allow the body to fight it off. only bacterial infections are cvurable by anti0bacterial medicine.
nintendowns 2 years ago
nintendowns might consider the fact that he/she has been taught only allopathic medicine, not the homeopathic system of medicine as well. JHW is correct when he states that suppressing symptoms pushes disease deeper into the body. Consider the patient whose skin symptoms are suppressed by allopathy but who develops disease on a deeper level because of it. Get all the facts about both systems (and others), then make your choice.
den151redbank 2 years ago
please provide a specific disease and case if you wish your statement to have any credibility. ill repeat my previous statement, if you have a cold, supress the symptoms and the body fights it of on it's on accord. homeopathy is wrong for several reasons, for example, extreme dilution. if you believe that diluting chemicals to the point where not even a single molecule exists provides water with a healing effect, youve just gone against PROVEN scientific knowledge and data.
nintendowns 2 years ago
You clearly made your choice before you posted here. Good luck to you. . . .you're going to need a lot of it!
den151redbank 2 years ago
for your information im perfectly fine. ive survived a pneumonia attack with a 104 fever and i rarely ever get sick.i use regular medicine when neccesary.if you are so sure of homeopathy, then why not give a valid argument? i use science mainly, i dont know how you can argue homeopathy though.
nintendowns 2 years ago
Why not make a simple experiment for yourself? Put some steroid cream (over-the-counter allopathic) on a skin problem. Then observe carefully what happens to your breathing with use. If you don't want to take part in this little experiment (understandable considering the consequences), ask your allopathic doctor what happens. If that fails, read the manufacturer's brochures.
Good luck to you!
den151redbank 2 years ago
ok , you are being illogical and too obscure. first of all, what is the skin problem you are reffering to. second of all, is steroid cream proven to be effective for that skin problem. finally, the only way to test the effectiveness of medicine is a double blind study. anecdotal evidence does not prove something one way or another, because the placebo effect plays a major role. have you veer taken chemistry btw? if you did, you should know why homeopathy is ridiculous.
nintendowns 2 years ago
As I said, you made your choice before posting here! Good luck to you. . .you're going to need a lot of it!
den151redbank 2 years ago
P.S. Did you know that only 13% -- yes, 13% -- of conv. med. is proven effective (per BMJ)! Do you take the other 87% if prescribed? Do you always ask doc for a double-blind study when he gives you an rx?
Oh yes, did you know that conv. med. is the THIRD leading cause of DEATH in the US after cancer and heart dis per conv. doc reports in JAMA, 7/26/00? Did you know that the NY Times (12/07) reported similar stats?
den151redbank 2 years ago
no. see if a doctor perscribes medicine that is not proven to be effective, thats called quackery, and is punishable by law. if a homeopath perscribes medicine that has no effect, they are not attacked because of it.
nintendowns 2 years ago
How do you explain that 87% of conv. med. is NOT proven effective but is prescribed anyway? According to your own words above that's quackery AND punishable by law!
den151redbank 2 years ago
GIVE ME A SOURCE that says that. it is quackery to provide inneffective or harmful medicine to a patient. that is true. still, if you claim something like a statistic, provide a SOURCE.
nintendowns 2 years ago
That is YOUR claim -- NOT mine! Why don't you provide the source since you're making the claim?
den151redbank 2 years ago
i am not making a statistical claim. i am not stating cases. you are. give a source.
nintendowns 2 years ago
@Nintendowns,
"it is quackery to provide inneffective or harmful medicine to a patient. that is true." Are you campaigning for con. medicine, which kills 225,000 people a year in the US, to be banned?
"homeopathy has no effect except that of a placebo."
Then why does homeopathy so often cure conditions? The placebo effect is palliateive and temporary.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago 3
homeopathy doex not cure conditions. please prov ide a case where it does. homeopathy is a placebo. when people continue taking it, obviosuly they continue to believe it works, and so they FEEL better. ARE they better? well, again, thats why we needs a source.
nintendowns 2 years ago
"homeopathy doex not cure conditions. please prov ide a case where it does. homeopathy is a placebo."
Let me explain again. Placebo is temporary and palliative. In other words, it's not strong enough to effect a permanent elimation of symptoms. Homeopathy makes people feel better to the point of symptom elimation.
I can provide 3 cases where it has cured... but will you actually listen?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago 2
please provide links to the 3 cases. you forget the fact that people who use homepathy dont only take it once, but continue to take it untill the symptoms dissappear, which means people with chronic pain take it continuously. you laso have to factor in the bodies own ability to fight disease. thats why links to these cases would help.
nintendowns 2 years ago 2
nin: I meant to say 3 cases in my own life - two cases of infection (one chronic, one acute) and my lady's... but that's a little private.
Actually, in all 3 cases, a single dose of one medicine was used, which completely eliminated all symptoms. One of the doses was taken six months ago, with not a single symptom recurring since then.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago 2
what infections did you have?
nintendowns 2 years ago
1) Ear infection (acute)
2) Fungal nail infection (chronic)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Did you know that if you take:
Vioxx - you die of heart attack or stroke
Xanax - you become an addict
Enbrel - you get TB or lymphoma
Gardasil - 26 young girls dead
hi blood pres med - you get gout
anti-depressants - 63,000 young people dead
Ambien - you sleep-drive, hit and kill pedestrian and are charged with veh. manslaughter - if you doubt it, ask your doc
corticosteroids - you get adrenal exhaustion
Do you understand now why conv. med. is not just ridiculous but downright dangerous?
den151redbank 2 years ago
your try to prove homeopathy as valid by selecting a few types of conventional medicine and showing their bad side effect. conventional medicine is not perfect, and no scientist claims it is, but it works for a majority of the time. homeopathy on the other hand, has no DOUBLE BLIND studies documented that shows any evidence of homeopathy being anything other than a placebo. you cannot prove homeopathy is effective by proving that conv. medicine is SOMETIMES wrong.
nintendowns 2 years ago
I presented the facts about conv. med. and the facts about homeopathy. The two are different forms of medicine and therefore not comparable.
Your arguments and thinking is confused!
den151redbank 2 years ago
i am not confused. homeopathy has no effect except that of a placebo. it therefore should NOT be an alternative to conventional medicine. that is why it is called ALTERNATIVE medicine, it is provided as a substitute for conventional medicine. there fore, the two are in fact comaprable. my argument is to prove that homeopathy is not an effectiver alternative to conventional medicine. its that simple.
nintendowns 2 years ago
As of this month 40 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed. Of the 40 million women who have been vaccinated 26 have died. If you take any group of 40 million women and track them over the course of 4 years, odds are that some of them will die. There is no reason to believe that the vaccine caused this effect. Moreover, even if it did (which it almost certainly did not), the odds of dying are nearly 1 in 2,000,000. Tiny odds, compared to the odds of getting HPV leading to cancer.
doublebitaxe 2 years ago
So 26 deaths are insignificant? Here is the truth about Gardasil FROM THE FDA:
1. Since 2003 the FDA has known that HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer
2. As of 2003 the FDA has not considered HPV to be a hi-risk disease
3. The FDA classifies HPV's as self-limiting and not needing intervention
4. The FDA knows that Gardasil actually appears to increase precancerous lesions in certain women by 44.6%
Google Gardasil hoax and learn the truth.
den151redbank 2 years ago
In my opinion the life of every single one of those 26 women was very significant. The lives of other women who will be affected are equally significant.
Another bitterly sad case of making money at the expense of human life and well being!
Homeopathy works -- without side effects or iatrogenic diseases -- whether you like it or not! Homeopathy works on EVERY LEVEL!
den151redbank 2 years ago
". . .there is no reason to believe that the vaccine caused this effect (death)."
Evidence based on gov docs shows Gardasil is linked to 9,000 "adverse events" (including 18 deaths), 140 "serious events" (27 life threatening), 10 spontaneous abortions and 6 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (you wouldn't like having it!) since January, 2008.
Read about it in Judicial Watch. Now they want boys to take this vaccine too!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Look at it from a personal point of view. . .is your life insignificant because you are going to die someday somehow anyway?
den151redbank 2 years ago
Did you know there is a large body of lab/clinical trials evidencing for hom.?
Did you know Cuba was averted an epidemic of leptospirosis with h. just as epidemics or flu, yellow fever and cholera have been avoided with h.?
Did you know that The Lancet concluded that 89 placebo-controlled studies of h. showed it to be 2.45 times more effective than placebo?
You're not even willing to do a simple experiment with an over-the-counter drug. Science should do it for you! Grow up!
den151redbank 2 years ago
did you know that nione of your comment makes a difference without a SOURCE or a STUDY. did you know that trying a steroid cream on my skin makes NO difference since it does not prove homeopathy is valid in any way.
nintendowns 2 years ago
The discussion was of conv. med. and steroid cream, not h.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You are way behind the times. There is nothing left to argue about. I made a few suggestions. Take them or leave them. I have no interest in arguing anything with you.
den151redbank 2 years ago
very well, but a bit of advice, find backup for your arguments... if you can.
nintendowns 2 years ago
Your words: ". . .I'm perfectly fine. I've survived a pneumonia attack with a 104 degree fever and I rarely get sick." That is anecdotal evidence and therefore worthless.
Your arguments are as confused as you are!
den151redbank 2 years ago
that was a response to your comment "Good luck to you. . . .you're going to need a lot of it! " and was not relating to my argument.
nintendowns 2 years ago
You skeptics are truly the zealots of this world.
You know nothing about homeopathy, cling to the ignorant and misinformed ideas you've heard from other equally ignorant and misinformed people and attempt to convince others that you are the final authority despite being obviously and totally ignorant!
Do you really think no one notices?
den151redbank 2 years ago
ok fine. please prove me wrong. see this is what happens, i present my argument, you fail to present a decent one and wind up insulting my skepticism. of course im skeptical of homeopathy, its ridiculous. and i know that its founded on a theory which has no scientific backing at all which is the theory that water has a memory of some sort and that unbelievably high diultions are exponentially more powerful. provide scientific, NON ANECDOTAL, evidence if you want to try to prove me wrong.
nintendowns 2 years ago
and please feel free to point out anything in my argument that mis represents homeopathy. even though i basically repeat what homeopathy says and argue against it, by all means, go ahead.
nintendowns 2 years ago
There you go a study that proves that homeopathy is 100% true;
"Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis with a commercial homeopathic remedy: A single-blinded, placebo-controlled study" Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
;)
jotatsu 2 years ago
Thank you, jotatsu! I was not aware of this work by the Canadian Vet Med Assoc and am glad to hear about it. A blessing for the animals!
den151redbank 2 years ago
im gonna quote you just for the sake of keeping it safe:
den151redbank
"Thank you, jotatsu! I was not aware of this work by the Canadian Vet Med Assoc and am glad to hear about it. A blessing for the animals!"
Now you can go and read the results of the research , its availble on the internet from pubmedcentral (dot) nih (dot) gov
:D
jotatsu 2 years ago
+2 and +3 improvement in 50% of cases!
Thank you!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Cherry pick all you want!
:D JAJ)
den151redbank 2 years ago
den151redbank
"+2 and +3 improvement in 50% of cases!
Thank you! "
Im gonna keep that one too, now the abstract of the research:
"A commercial homeopathic remedy and a placebo were administered orally as individual agents to 18 dogs with atopic dermatitis. The pruritus was reduced by less than 50% in only 2/18 dogs; 1 of these dogs was receiving the homeopathic remedy, the other was receiving the placebo. One dog vomited after administration of the homeopathic remedy."
XD
jotatsu 2 years ago
JAJ)
den151redbank 2 years ago
jotatsu,
Try to be at least a LITTLE honest (if possible)!
You are NOT referring to the CVMA trial. You ARE referring to the work done by Scott, Miller, Senter and Cook (Compan. Animal Hosp. Pharm.). AND here are the comments about their work:
1. NOT classical homeopathy
2. A POOR test of hom.
3, Hom. principles NOT followed
Here are comments about the CVMA trial WITH +2 and +3 improvement in 50% of cases:
den151redbank 2 years ago
"You are NOT referring to the CVMA trial. You ARE referring to ..."
"Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis with a commercial homeopathic remedy: A single-blinded, placebo-controlled study"
Can Vet J. 2002 August; 43(8): 601603.
PMCID: PMC339391
Copyright and/or publishing rights held by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
jotatsu 2 years ago
"I have really enjoyed this, my first direct exposure to scientific evaluation of hom. I have also enjoyed the cooperation of a FIRST CLASS SCIENTIST with a TRULY OPEN SCIENTIFIC MIND. (Unlike your own, jotatsu). I hope the paper will go a long way to supporting what I BELIEVE to be a WONDERFUL MEDICAL THERAPY."
- John Hoare, MRCVS
Dishonesty -- that's all you have!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Oh yes, thank you for illuminating the thinking processes of a skeptic!
den151redbank 2 years ago
den151redbank
"Thank you, jotatsu! .. and am glad to hear about it. A blessing..."
to
"jotatsu
Try to be at least a LITTLE honest (if possible)! ...TRULY OPEN SCIENTIFIC MIND. (Unlike your own, jotatsu)... Dishonesty -- that's all you have! "
"There you go a study that proves that homeopathy is 100% true;....
;) " <-- thats a semicolon
so thats the "nanohoax", you didnt bother to check the study because it was + to your believe ("and am glad") , but now that is not, its bogus?
jotatsu 2 years ago