hum...now that's disappointing. always figured this bloke to be a man of reason. now it turns out he's also pandering to the almighty drug industry. lol
@schwarzfalk Did he at any time say that western medicine was 100%? Cause I didn't hear that.. When I say "homeopathy is bullshit", does that instantly mean that I think that scientology is right? Or that I believe bloodletting cures the hiccups? Nope. It means just what I said. Homeopathy is bullshit. Why do people get pissy about homeopathy? You're paying equal amounts of $ to a quack as you would going to a trained doctor and getting scientifically proven meds.. Or just drink from the tap.
@ronnysoeberg "Why do people get pissy about homeopathy?"
aye that's what I wondered when I read that long msg :|
anyway even if we assume that all those it has helped where standard stuff failed were somehow trippin' & are still sick, I'll point out that the "quacks" are actually MDs ("medical doctors" - so they can prescribe standard drugs too), at least here in the EU. they just chose to specialise in an xtra field
also it's covered by social security (not that it costs much in taxes anyway)
Anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies IS NOT proof that it works. Someone's dog recovered from depression? How many others did not show any improvement? The pet owner's expectations (mood) may have influenced the dog's behaviour. Give the owner a warm feeling and hope for the best.
Why should homoeopathic practitioners be permitted to make their claims without repeatable and verifiable scientific evidence that their remedies actually work? Example: double blind testing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOLOLOLOL! Always knew this Dawkins wanker was nothing but a fraud - first he takes money from zionists to trash Islam and Christianity and now he takes on Homeopathy at the request of big Pharma - wonder who he'll prostitute himself to next?
Thank you very much for the kind words - I used to work at a newspaper so it infuriates me to see frauds like John Stossel (who was a pitchman for big business - unless they stopped giving him kickbacks) and this Dawkins character (claims to be anti-religion but is sponsored by shady zionists working for Israel - who are - surprise, surprise! - a country run on theological lines!) on the TV pimping himself on behalf of big pharma!
@salimm How does working for a newspaper give you any credit to your critique? I see you work well on logical fallacies. Give us the names of these "shady zionists" who pay Dawkins. Your credibility would be totally saved.
And does working on a comic book make you more knowledgeable? 'Logical fallacies' - I follow the money trail, - Dawkins palls around with the same bunch of people (Hitchens, Maher, Penn Jilette) who hate religion yet support Israel (a Jewish theocracy the last time I checked) unlike you who seems to follow what the voices in his head tell him!
@salimm Well for one, I didn't give my comment after giving myself credit for my writing and drawing comic books. (You say "I used to work at a newspaper SO it infuriates me..."). It's normal I question your background because you have put it forward as part of your argument.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense, consequently you just "announce" with not even a shred of evidence or links to corroborate your accusations.
Get a job on any of those 'conservative' think tanks or Fox News - they have ties to Big Pharma - they'll hire anybody - but don't trash the military or Israel!
@salimm Wait... so Dawkins makes a video about silly medical treatments (which include homeopath), and apparently gets paid? But when I do it, I don't get anything? This is bullcrap!!
Of course, there is also the possibility that homeopathy really is nonsense (as the evidence shows).
Also, Dawkins trashes Judaism as well. Who paid him for that?
WHAT evidence? Big Pharma is upset at the fact that more and more people are seeking alternative remedies since they can't afford the overinflated medical costs so they start this badly made propaganda piece?
Oh, and speaking of Dawkins on Jews, here is what I found "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been...more or less monopolize American foreign policy.." Doesn't sound like he's trashing them - more like he wants to EMULATE them, eh?
@salimm Go to my other video on homeopathy, and I list 20 studies that show it doesn't work.
Also, many homeopathic remedies are made by the same companies that make real medicine. There is a difference between the PR and religious beliefs of Jews.
Could you list anything Dawkins says about homeopathy that is factually wrong, and not supported by the scientific literature?
@zakiechan Fine response... I'm guessing you will get no answer tho -- because you're are dealing with an irrational mind, and what do irrational minds do? Laugh, accuse, and talk -- with absolutely no evidence. Assumptions made on nothing but bullshit. That's why YOU give reference and evidence, like Dawkins, and others just shoot their mouth illogically.
"..difference between PR..religious beliefs of Jews." Yeah, but I was still right, wasn't I ? Oh, I used the word 'Zionism' not 'Judaism'.
The point (which you have missed) is not picking out factual inconsistencies in his language but his MOTIVATION for doing such a docu in the first place! Dawkins is a zoologist - he seems to have forgotten that Homeopathy is used to cure mastitis in cows otherwise he wouldn't be wasting his time here!
You seem to be interested in diverting the fact that Dawkins is a paid stooge of Big Pharma into a 'everything he says is true and supported by facts' argument - I'm, not wasting my time as he is well vetted by his handlers to parrot whatever they say - I'm just saying that it's awfully convenient for him to go on attacking Homeopathy at a time when Big Pharma are facing losses on account of the bad economy and want to discredit any alternatives that's all ...
@salimm Man, I have respect for everyone's beliefs, and I myself am NOT a friend for the Pharmaceutical corporations that indeed have great lobbying power. But the truth is these companies can't really "invent" slander, just like that. What Dawkins exposes here is the CLAIMS of homeopathy, and use it's own defense to show how un-scientific (and even ridiculous) it is! But it does work -- how? the documentary continues on that... Please do your homework. Bias is falsifiable. Just sayin'...
these companies can't really "invent" slander - that's weird - Monsanto (a big Pharma company which has ties to several leading Republican politicians tried to sue an organic farmer for illegally using their products when THEIR seeds cross pollinated with his crop that was nearby! He should be the one suing them for contaminating HIS crop!
@salimm Yes -- on this point you are right. But this is well publicized news... no hidden conspiracy there. The problem with attacking Monsanto is that groups like the Organic Consumers Association create bad publicity for themselves and risk losing their big clients like Walmart or Target, to name a few. They had to compromise. The problem is not a little slander here, but the bigger problem of corporations. This has NOTHING to do with Dawkins. Damn! I almost got caught following a red herring!
@salimm Are you completely out of your mind? Tin foil hat a little too tight maybe? So someone challenges your deeply held beliefs, that you cling too like a baby and his blanket, using logic and reason and now he is in the pockets of the zionist elite? Please show me one bit of evidence that what he say about homeopathy is false. You really think that giving people large amounts of nothing but mainly water will cure them from some of the most resilient diseases? Do you look like a duck as well?
I don't even have a tin foil hat - I'm jealous! How's your straight jacket?
Dude, there was a study conducted by technicians showing that homeopathy works published by The Times of India - The people involved are of solid scientific backgound so no tin-foils there! Homeopathy is used by the dairy industry to cure mastitis - but I'm sue that all the cows have til foils around their heads!
I don't have a problem with anyone trashing or defending Homeopathy - it's just that when Dawkins, Hitchens or their ilk are involved the credibility of the project must be called into question as these people have an agenda - I mean, I always found it funny that these guys claim to b atheists yet get massive publicity from guys like Bill Maher who are rabidly pro-Israel (a theocratic state) ! And if you notice their dialogue - all their talking points are the same - as if they've been vetted!
@salimm because you sure as hell quack like a duck. Dawkins has criticized judaism plenty of times as well, maybe if you get off of youtube and infowars.com everyone in awhile you may see that. Or you can stay in your little corner thinking the entire world as well as the elites are out to get you. Paranoid pitiful little bastard.
@salimm Geez, someone has an axe to grind. This is one of the most depressing comments I've read on YouTube. And we're talking about freaking YouTube here.
it has been scientifically proven that water does carry memory, also darwin claims homeopathy to be nothing more than placebo but i have a pet dog who suffered from a depressive illness for appromimately 4 months, the depression she encountered was unrelenting during that time period, however when the vet suggested homeopathy i thought we shall give it a try and low and behold after 6 days the dog was jumping around alive with energy and stamina and as far as i am aware a dog's consciousness
it has been scientifically proven that water does carry memory, also darwin claims homeopathy to be nothing more than placebo but i have a pet dog who suffered from a depressive illness for appromimately 4 months, the depression she encountered was unrelenting during that time period, however when the vet suggested homeopathy i thought we shall give it a try and low and behold after 6 days the dog was jumping around alive with energy and stamina and as far as i am aware a dog's consciousness
It's an accepted fact that the water molecules we drink have been through the bodies of countless other people (and animals). This being so, why don't these water molecules carry a homoeopathic memory of all the substances they've had contact with?
Dawkins should mount a campaign against the use of satellite Global Positioning (GPS) on the grounds that time dilation is factored into the positioning calculations and time dilation is irrational.
The teaching of Relativity and Quantum Physics in schools and universities must be opposed by the great inquisitor Richard Dawkins on the grounds of pure irrationality. Dawkins must oppose time slowing down for a satellite in orbit. The universe must be put into a Dawkins designed straitjacket.
I'm merely making the point that relativity and quantum physics are irrational.
If you accept them then you cannot argue against homeopathy on the grounds of irrationality. We only accept gravity and magnetism because of overwhelming "empirical" evidence. We have no "rational" basis for it, only that it is so.
"Rational" medicine seeks to explain life in mechanistic rational terms, which is only a portion of reality, which misses the main bits. Quite an irrational point of view.
@farmerjohn010 lol, no. QM and relativity are perfectly rational, because they are backed by the evidence. They are, however, both very counter intuitive and hard to understand. But that in no way negates their truth, predictive and explanatory power.
If such theories had no evidence, didn't explain anything, and didn't make any accurate predictions, THEN they would be considered irrational.
the flow of time is illusory. In relativity, Penrose reminds us, "one has just a 'static' four-dimensional space-time" - three for space and one for time - "with no 'flowing' about it. The space-time is just there and time 'flows' no more than does space." It is only our conscious experience that seems to impose a flow onto this entity that we call time; our theories of physics make no mention of it. In other words, says Penrose, the puzzle of time is caught up with the puzzle of consciousness..
...And consciousness, at least for Penrose, is something we are not yet equipped to tackle. We'll only come to understand the mind, he argues, when we develop a more complete theory of physics - that is, when we finally unify quantum theory with Einstein's theory of gravity, known as general relativity. In the meantime, he can only muse that time "is not what we think it is... It's not a steady progression - certainly not a sort of universal steady progression."
You need to listen to the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose speaking on the CBC podcast - "Living on Oxford Time", before you can even begin to comprehend what this debate is about.
@farmerjohn010 Ah, that sounds really good. I will check it out!
There is a book called Good and Real, by Gary Drescher which attempts to tackle these sorts of ideas (like the perception of time/consciousness). You might enjoy it.
I've already got Roger Penrose' book "the Road to Reality."
Would you say Drescher agrees with Penrose?
I just had a quick look and I suspect that Drescher probably cherry picks his own bits of information to fit with his view of scientific atheism. Is he really an objective scientist?
@farmerjohn010 Yes, Drescher agrees with Penrose. His book attempts to explain modern paradoxes, such as Why do we feel the flow of time, if it isn't there? Or, how can a material brain have subjective experiences.
The book really has nothing to do with atheism at all.
Do you know when Dawkins says "to science it just doesn't add up," that is the same claim made by pharmaceuticalists and medicos when the safety of a vaccine is called into question. (Listen to BBC - Discovery - The Vaccine Detectives) These "establishment" scientists accept one version of science as "scientific" and they reject as "unscientific" another equally valid scientific explanation of cause and effect. What qualifies as "science" is only what is agreed with.
@farmerjohn010 When a scientist says something doesn't add up, they mean that the evidence just isn't there. That goes for homeopathy, and that goes for the anti vaxers. I mean, how many double blind studies will it take to convince you?
The only way to become famous in science is to go against the norm. Heck, that's how Dawkins first made a name for himself (as well as literally every other famous scientist). He argued that natural selection worked on the level of the gene.
Thomas Kuhn writes that people tend to cling to their old paradigm, sometimes a little irrationally, and that most science is an attempt (almost always a successful attempt) to fit new facts into the currently accepted paradigm; (and this can almost always be done, even when the paradigm is very wrong!)
Kuhn writes that observations tend to be uninterpretable or otherwise meaningless unless they do fit into the accepted paradigm (however forced and "procrustian" the fit!);
".... (a) new theory implies a change in the rules governing the prior practice of normal science. ...a new theory....is seldom or never just an increment TO what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory and the re-evaluation of prior fact."
The double blinds you refer to are designed to fail. Homeopathy needs to be tested in the manner it is claimed to work, not in the manner you reckon it ought to work.
You are an antiscientist.
Now give me examples of your double blinds, the ones which are supposed to convince me.
@farmerjohn010 Please Explain to me why Double blinding is unscientific. Double blinding is designed to eraticate confounding variables that result from the placebo effect on the part of the conductors of the experiment and the volenteers. Double blinding is a perfectly valid method that should always be applied if possible.
@QuantumOverlord The double blinds Zakieboy refers to are unscientific. They are biased studies which have been deliberately designed to show a predetermined outcome. Zakieboy selectively chooses these double blinds and dismisses other double blinds which have been more appropriately designed to test the actual claims of homeopaths.
Homeopaths DO NOT claim that a single symptom can be treated separately in isolation to all other symptoms. This is contrary to the central thesis of homeopathy.
@QuantumOverlord The double blinds Zakie refers to are unscientific. Zakie selectively chooses biased studies which have been deliberately designed to show a predetermined outcome. Zakieboy dismisses other double blinds which have been appropriately designed to test the actual claims of homeopaths.
Homeopaths DO NOT claim that a single symptom can be treated separately in isolation to all other symptoms. This is contrary to the central thesis of homeopathy. All symptoms are taken together.
@farmerjohn010 Double blinding in itself can not be biased, as all it does is remove the confounding Placebo effect. Of course Publication Bias exists, i.e Publishing studies which show what people want. Recently I witnessed a study on Homeopathy for backpain which showed null results, yet was not published because of this. The homeopathic Idea that certain symptons can be cured with dilutes of substances causing the symptons, is well advicated in homeopathy and is of course wrong.
Listen to this BBC podcast by the physicist Richard Feynman. At the end he describes perfectly what your problem is.- Little things, he says, behave very differently than big things and there is still a school of thought that cannot believe this and they are holding out for the day when it turns out that little things are not different after all.
@farmerjohn010 Yes, yes I do accept relativity. I have no idea if Julius Caesar exists "now." It depends on what theory of time is correct, and I don't know enough about philosophy of time to have a position on it.
@farmerjohn010 Im sorry to say this. Quantum mechanics and relitavity are a very good model for our surroundings, Homeopathy is not. Incidently You said Mathmatical physists dont understand stuff. This is incorrect, Physics IS maths, which you begin to understand after you have studied it for as long as I have. The whole of physics that we understand can be expressed mathematically. Homeopathy contradicts Quantum mechanics incidently. Also Dawking Does belive in quantum mechanics as Do I
One of the best testimonies of the efficacy of Homeopathy is the book:
"HOMEOPATHY CURES WHERE ALLOPATHY FAILS" written by an Allopathy medical doctor & surgeon.
In it he details many patients of chronic diseases who were getting worse with Allopathy drugs but were CURED once they switched to Homeopathy remedies.
Many of these patients were Allopathy doctors themselves.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
THE REAL SOURCE OF ANTAGONISM Dawkins asserts that vaccination is scientific. Those opposed to vaccine are enemies of reason.
Injections of pus destroy the immune system. The patient can no longer have a fever. This is how it works but a chronic disease is established. The best information on vaccination effects is homeopathic philosophy - read H L Coulter. This is the real source of the antagonism between homeopathy and the medical establishment , a controversy of which Dawkins is fully aware
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are disputing the facts now. The main contention between homeopathy and allopathy is not the fake highschool chemistry avagadro argument. The real point of contention is vaccination. It is neither safe nor effective.
There is believed to be a link between mesothelioma and SV40, an ingredient of the polio vaccine. Some people seem to get the disease from very slight exposure to asbestos while others who have actually worked with blue asbestos (crocidolite) have not contracted mesothelioma and remain relatively healthy. I think there is an issue of vital force here.
Your gayness may well be perfectly Rational in Dawkin's Age of Reason, but in homeopathy, which is the height of Empirical medicine, homosexuality is considered to be a sickness brought out by the miasms. Read the lectures of Kent!
1. Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.
2.The method of dilution does not help your claim. If anything, you should be pleased that he didn't show it, since it makes homeopathy seem even more absurd than it already is.
On 17 May 2009 the Swiss people voted to enshrine Homeopathy and complementary medicine in a national vote. Sixty Seven percent of voters supported the new constitutional article.
Indeed - and in the UK we have the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. As it is though, scientific truth is not an exercise in popularity, democracy, or royal assent, but what can be demonstrated by observation within a theoretical framework.
2004: Pfizer was made to pay $240 m damages after illegally marketing a drug intended only for seizures as pain, headache reliever and psychiatric drug.
Their fraud included bribing docors with speakers fees to talk about the drug (one doctor received over $300,000).
The scam made Pfizer billions from a drug shown to work even less well than placebo in some cases.
Is this the real medicine you speak of, Mr Dawkins?
With Pfizer, the problem was exposed, and people had to pay for it. With alternative medicine, no one will ever admit that it has done anything wrong.
This is the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Real science corrects itself, while the alternative just keeps running around, refusing to accept that it was wrong.
By "real science" do you mean "correct science"? If so, why should it need to correct itself?
The problem was not that Pfizer were in scientific error. They were fraudulently selling a drug for purposes they themselves knew wouldn't it would not work for.
No, real science is not always correct. Science is a method of investigation... and quite often, hypotheses are found not to be true at all. There are thousands of examples of this.
As for with Pfizer... how was it that they were exposed? I am going to guess by studies being done.
Real science is just good science. That is, it is based on strong, tightly controlled, methodologically sound, research studies. When you go around that, don't do any research, or do poorly conducted studies, that is bad science, since bias can easily slip in.
And how did the whistle blowers know that Pfizer didn't work? By guessing, or by looking at research?
Hey, perfect analysis of this homeopatic nonsense and irrationalism. It's a pity, that this video does not has a German version. But even than, my fellowcitizens would still run blindly to their homeopathists, like they run before to other ideologists. It's so difficult to cultivate people. This video is - at least a good contribution to that long lasting process.
"If medicine works it ceases to be alternative medicine and becomes medicine".
He's trying to tarnish holistic medicine here.... but does this make Neurontin and Prozac, alternative medicines, because they've worked so disastrously in many cases?
Don't get me started on the part he gets stuck trying to explain his support for vaccines....
"If medicine works it ceases to be alternative medicine and becomes medicine" is 100% true. If a treatment works, it is accepted by the science and medical community. Such as with St. Johns wort. It was originally an alt medicine. But it was found to work, so it is now accepted as a real treatment.
LOL, I would love to hear your ideas on vaccines. I am sure they are killing the world, causing autism, etc. Right?
Because if the terms "alternative medicine" and "medicine" are mutually exclusive, it's logically impossible for them to change from one state to the other unless the medicine themselves change.
It was the medical community itself that was ignorant as to the benefits of St John's Wort.
Alt medicine just means medicine that the science community rejects, because it doesn't work (homeopathy, reflexology, reiki healing, etc).
However, some things are originally considered alt (simply because they are first used by alt practitioners), and are later found to actually work. This generally only happens with herbal sorts of stuff. Like St Johns Wort. But this is a result of having to convince scientists by showing good, research based, evidence. Not by relying on anecdotes.
Noooo, it is the fault of the alt practitioners for not presenting credible evidence. You can't make a claim and expect to get respect for it, unless you have credible evidence to back it up.
Linus Pauling, 2 times nobel prize winner for his work into the nature of the chemical bond, has suggested that all disease, can be cured by nutrition and minerals.
Being cured by nutrition and minerals is quite a bit different than remedies that don't even have a single molecule of active ingredient.
For example, the packaging on oscillococcinum boldly states that each gram of medication has .85 grams of sucrose, and .15 grams of lactose. An admitted 100% sugar pill.
"bio-energetic level" lol, of course. Just like chiropractors can fix the "subluxations" that interfere with the body's "innate intelligence", and reiki healers can manipulate your "energy fields."
Regardless, if that is so, then why did you reference Linus Pauling?
If you would actually take the time to visit a chiropracter instead of being a cyclops mouthpiece for Big Pharma, you would find this out for yourself.
I'm not a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.If anything, I am a mouthpiece of rational inquiry, and evidence based medicine. There is absolutely no evidence for anything such as "subluxations", "innate intelligence" or "energy fields." There isn't even any sort of specific definition of what these things are. They are just vague psuedo-scientific terms, meant to make the specific therapy sound good.
Uuuuh, Hippocrates lived about 2000 years before homeopathy was thought up. So no, I doubt he was a supporter of it. Just like he wasn't a supporter of heliocentrism, germ theory, natural selection or the internet.
And Isaac Newton was a supporter of alchemy. So what? Just because a person is very smart, doesn't make them immune to bad ideas.
This is a little odd. You are trying to make a case for something scientific, by relying on what someone 2400 years ago thought.
Ooook.
The present incarnation of homeopathy is WAY different than anything that could be related to Hippocrates, who was just trying to balance the humors. If you want to say that because he thought "like curse like" in a few instances, then you might as well say that he was also supporting vaccination.
Again, homeopathy (EXTREME dilution of like cures like) never existed before Hanneman. Whatever Hippocrates was talking about was not homeopathy.
Regardless, it's still funny that you are trying to bolster support for your argument by calling on someone from 2400 years ago. Glad to know you use such up to date, current science ;)
Interestingly, in 1991, the pharmacologist WH Hopff repeated Hahnemann's original experiment with cinchona (to see if it would generate symptoms of malaria).
Hopff's results found that cinchona had absolutely no effect, positive or negative.
This is great, because all of the substances that are the supposed "active" ingredients of homeopathic medicine can already be found diluted in ocean water you don't need to waste your money on expensive pills, you can just drink glasses of sea water. I bet if I start bottling it and selling as a miracle cure I could make a bundle.
"There is no legitimate medical organization that would recommend homeopathy over actual medicine."
Wrong. France has the best healthcare in the world (source: WHO) and also the biggest homeopathy market. A safe, gentle, cheap and curative form of medicine.
The allopathic American system is only the 37th best in the world, despite being too expensive for 18 million of its citizens to afford.
Could you provide the percentages of those using Homeopathy in France. I think you'll find them interesting.
France generally has a good health care service anyway. To say its good BECAUSE of homeopathy is to say that Britain is a great multicultural centre because we have a proportion of the population that are racist bigots (BNP for example).
Just because there are numerous supporters, does not make it right.
There are still 60%-68% non homeopathic. We would need to look at the homeopathic cases VS non homeopathic in order to see homeopathy making an progress.
1. As said, they are still up to 68% non homeopathic.
2. Are they registered as normal GPs or as homeopathic ones? if homeopathic, then its a separate issues, if regular its worrying. But evidence please.
3. Training in a subject does not advocate using it. I would hope they are trained in REAL medicine too
No, training can be undertook to understand. I'm very interested in doing a bible study course to better understand the bible- but I'm an atheist and have no intention of using it professionally, simply to "know your enemy".
Q2: You didn't answer my question and I suspect I now know the answer.
As to whether I think homeopathy is real medicine, no of course I don't. There is not a shred of strong, repeatable convincing evidence it works. The basic principals are mathematically impossible!
The WHO didn't recommend homeopathy over real medicine. They said that there was evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. However, there has been a lot of criticism of the WHOs results.
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine, said the draft WHO report seemed overtly biased and that all of the trials cited happened to be positive. "They are not the most rigorous ones, not the most recent," he said.
If you don't believe in homeopathy, yet imply that belief of it is on par with belief in Christianity, don't you think you should give your religion some reconsideration?
you can argue belief in religion because there is no way for humans to look further back then the moment the universe was created. homeopathy defys clearly true laws and obvious facts, going off on a whim with psyuedoscientific bull about water memory. its not true. substanc3es can only changes through chemical or atomic reactions.
There is no legitimate medical organization that would recommend homeopathy over actual medicine.
The law of similarities doesn't exist (in fact, the opposite is true, like with magnets). Treating a patient and not the disease makes no sense. There is no law of cure or any evidence for your theory.
no. because these things have YET to be understood. homeopathy has already been disproven, effective only as a placebo. it also violates proven information about chemistry and physics. there is simply no sound evidence to support it. it is a placebo.
The study Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE by Jacques Beneveniste. His lab did it twice (without double blinded controls) and got positive results. 4 other groups then repeated the experiment (John Maddox, the editor of Nature, was one of the researchers), with double blind controls. The experiments all failed.
As I've already explained to you, Benveniste's experiment loooked for exactly the wrong thing. If the histaminum wa efficacious, you would expect to see the inhibition of basophil degranulation.
The experiments were performed correctly by Conde et al using magnetic nuclear resonancing. It was shown that histaminum clearly had a clinically beneficial effect in three separate tests.
Yes, and the MNR experiments were reviewed in 2003 and published in the Journal of Alternative Medicine. They reviews concluded that the experiments with MNR were generally of poor quality and prone to errors.
Andrew Vickers (from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital) looked at 120 homeopathy papers, and concluded the results were negative, or the methodology was questionable.
The National Veterinary Institute in Sweden tested (with double blinds) a homeopathic remedy for diarrhea in calves, and concluded that there was no evidence for its efficacy.
Cambridge recently tested a homeopathic remedy for mastitis in cows. It was no more effective than a placebo.
Aijing Shang did a meta-analysis of homeopathy tests, though, only ones that were methodologically strong. His findings were compatible with the notion that the effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.
I can give more examples if you like. As I said, every study that has had any positive results, and has been repeated by others, has failed.
The book "Trick or Treatment" outlines all of this in quite a bit of detail. Check it out.
p.s. I should be happy to make the names of about 100 studies suggesting homeopathy *does* work avaliable to you, but if I take the time to list them all I expect you to read them and quit this "there are no studies blah blah" BS.
list them if you wish. it is not bs. there has been no major study proving water has memory or that homeopathy has any effect other then placebo. any study that says otherwise is usually not blinded or has some other error, and upon further review is found to be false. a few studies do not make a new law in science, they have to be critically tested to be found as plausible. any time homeopathy has been tested under standard scientific protocol, it fails, definitively.
Rubbish. "Free" energy has not been created. You are (like the advocates of homeopathy) making things up and hoping to fool those who know nothing about science.
Tesla's free-energy receiver was patented in 1901 as 'An Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy'. The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays."
Looks like you're making things up and hoping anyone who calls BS will be put off by your obnoxious tone.
Tesla did patent that idea, but neither he nor anyone else ever got it to work. You know that patents are also used to protect an idea don't you? It doesn't mean the apparatus is ever built or even feasible.
Would any of these studies be the 120 that caused Andrew Vickers (a homeopathy researcher) to conclude that the results were negative, or the methodology was questionable.?
Once again, you are full if ti. Noam Chomsky is not a scientist at MIT - he is a philosopher/linguist/author. These have nothing to do with science (except maybe linguistics - but certainly not related to biology)
Biology *CAN* explain the "purpose" of the human DNA - to produce proteins. A large number of these DNA snippets are non-coding and are remnants of past viral infections (ERV's), no longer needed adaptations and outright mutations.
hum...now that's disappointing. always figured this bloke to be a man of reason. now it turns out he's also pandering to the almighty drug industry. lol
schwarzfalk 5 months ago
@schwarzfalk Did he at any time say that western medicine was 100%? Cause I didn't hear that.. When I say "homeopathy is bullshit", does that instantly mean that I think that scientology is right? Or that I believe bloodletting cures the hiccups? Nope. It means just what I said. Homeopathy is bullshit. Why do people get pissy about homeopathy? You're paying equal amounts of $ to a quack as you would going to a trained doctor and getting scientifically proven meds.. Or just drink from the tap.
ronnysoeberg 4 months ago
@ronnysoeberg "Why do people get pissy about homeopathy?"
aye that's what I wondered when I read that long msg :|
anyway even if we assume that all those it has helped where standard stuff failed were somehow trippin' & are still sick, I'll point out that the "quacks" are actually MDs ("medical doctors" - so they can prescribe standard drugs too), at least here in the EU. they just chose to specialise in an xtra field
also it's covered by social security (not that it costs much in taxes anyway)
schwarzfalk 4 months ago
Anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies IS NOT proof that it works. Someone's dog recovered from depression? How many others did not show any improvement? The pet owner's expectations (mood) may have influenced the dog's behaviour. Give the owner a warm feeling and hope for the best.
Why should homoeopathic practitioners be permitted to make their claims without repeatable and verifiable scientific evidence that their remedies actually work? Example: double blind testing.
LsBaba 8 months ago
HAAHAHAHA crazy idiot.. taking without getting his facts right..:D propagandist .... nothing more..
manmeetsm 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOLOLOLOL! Always knew this Dawkins wanker was nothing but a fraud - first he takes money from zionists to trash Islam and Christianity and now he takes on Homeopathy at the request of big Pharma - wonder who he'll prostitute himself to next?
salimm 9 months ago
@salimm Excellent comment. I'm glad to see that intelligence is alive and flourishing on this site. Keep up the good work.
neighbour666 8 months ago
@neighbour666
Thank you very much for the kind words - I used to work at a newspaper so it infuriates me to see frauds like John Stossel (who was a pitchman for big business - unless they stopped giving him kickbacks) and this Dawkins character (claims to be anti-religion but is sponsored by shady zionists working for Israel - who are - surprise, surprise! - a country run on theological lines!) on the TV pimping himself on behalf of big pharma!
salimm 7 months ago
@salimm How does working for a newspaper give you any credit to your critique? I see you work well on logical fallacies. Give us the names of these "shady zionists" who pay Dawkins. Your credibility would be totally saved.
vincedeporter 6 months ago
@vincedeporter
And does working on a comic book make you more knowledgeable? 'Logical fallacies' - I follow the money trail, - Dawkins palls around with the same bunch of people (Hitchens, Maher, Penn Jilette) who hate religion yet support Israel (a Jewish theocracy the last time I checked) unlike you who seems to follow what the voices in his head tell him!
salimm 6 months ago
@salimm Well for one, I didn't give my comment after giving myself credit for my writing and drawing comic books. (You say "I used to work at a newspaper SO it infuriates me..."). It's normal I question your background because you have put it forward as part of your argument.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense, consequently you just "announce" with not even a shred of evidence or links to corroborate your accusations.
vincedeporter 6 months ago
@salimm "...unlike you who seems to follow what the voices in his head tell him!" I like it. Thanks, salimm. I'll start using that myself.
tigranvartanovitch 2 months ago
@neighbour666 I seriously hope you are being sarcastic.
zakiechan 7 months ago
@zakiechan :)
neighbour666 7 months ago
@salimm I have a video trashing homeopathy. How do I get my check?
zakiechan 7 months ago
@zakiechan
Get a job on any of those 'conservative' think tanks or Fox News - they have ties to Big Pharma - they'll hire anybody - but don't trash the military or Israel!
salimm 7 months ago
@salimm Wait... so Dawkins makes a video about silly medical treatments (which include homeopath), and apparently gets paid? But when I do it, I don't get anything? This is bullcrap!!
Of course, there is also the possibility that homeopathy really is nonsense (as the evidence shows).
Also, Dawkins trashes Judaism as well. Who paid him for that?
zakiechan 7 months ago 2
@zakiechan
WHAT evidence? Big Pharma is upset at the fact that more and more people are seeking alternative remedies since they can't afford the overinflated medical costs so they start this badly made propaganda piece?
Oh, and speaking of Dawkins on Jews, here is what I found "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been...more or less monopolize American foreign policy.." Doesn't sound like he's trashing them - more like he wants to EMULATE them, eh?
salimm 6 months ago
@salimm Go to my other video on homeopathy, and I list 20 studies that show it doesn't work.
Also, many homeopathic remedies are made by the same companies that make real medicine. There is a difference between the PR and religious beliefs of Jews.
Could you list anything Dawkins says about homeopathy that is factually wrong, and not supported by the scientific literature?
zakiechan 6 months ago
@zakiechan Fine response... I'm guessing you will get no answer tho -- because you're are dealing with an irrational mind, and what do irrational minds do? Laugh, accuse, and talk -- with absolutely no evidence. Assumptions made on nothing but bullshit. That's why YOU give reference and evidence, like Dawkins, and others just shoot their mouth illogically.
vincedeporter 6 months ago
@zakiechan
"..difference between PR..religious beliefs of Jews." Yeah, but I was still right, wasn't I ? Oh, I used the word 'Zionism' not 'Judaism'.
The point (which you have missed) is not picking out factual inconsistencies in his language but his MOTIVATION for doing such a docu in the first place! Dawkins is a zoologist - he seems to have forgotten that Homeopathy is used to cure mastitis in cows otherwise he wouldn't be wasting his time here!
salimm 6 months ago
You seem to be interested in diverting the fact that Dawkins is a paid stooge of Big Pharma into a 'everything he says is true and supported by facts' argument - I'm, not wasting my time as he is well vetted by his handlers to parrot whatever they say - I'm just saying that it's awfully convenient for him to go on attacking Homeopathy at a time when Big Pharma are facing losses on account of the bad economy and want to discredit any alternatives that's all ...
salimm 6 months ago
@salimm Man, I have respect for everyone's beliefs, and I myself am NOT a friend for the Pharmaceutical corporations that indeed have great lobbying power. But the truth is these companies can't really "invent" slander, just like that. What Dawkins exposes here is the CLAIMS of homeopathy, and use it's own defense to show how un-scientific (and even ridiculous) it is! But it does work -- how? the documentary continues on that... Please do your homework. Bias is falsifiable. Just sayin'...
vincedeporter 6 months ago
@vincedeporter
these companies can't really "invent" slander - that's weird - Monsanto (a big Pharma company which has ties to several leading Republican politicians tried to sue an organic farmer for illegally using their products when THEIR seeds cross pollinated with his crop that was nearby! He should be the one suing them for contaminating HIS crop!
salimm 6 months ago
@salimm Yes -- on this point you are right. But this is well publicized news... no hidden conspiracy there. The problem with attacking Monsanto is that groups like the Organic Consumers Association create bad publicity for themselves and risk losing their big clients like Walmart or Target, to name a few. They had to compromise. The problem is not a little slander here, but the bigger problem of corporations. This has NOTHING to do with Dawkins. Damn! I almost got caught following a red herring!
vincedeporter 6 months ago
@salimm Are you completely out of your mind? Tin foil hat a little too tight maybe? So someone challenges your deeply held beliefs, that you cling too like a baby and his blanket, using logic and reason and now he is in the pockets of the zionist elite? Please show me one bit of evidence that what he say about homeopathy is false. You really think that giving people large amounts of nothing but mainly water will cure them from some of the most resilient diseases? Do you look like a duck as well?
uniteordie1 6 months ago
I don't even have a tin foil hat - I'm jealous! How's your straight jacket?
Dude, there was a study conducted by technicians showing that homeopathy works published by The Times of India - The people involved are of solid scientific backgound so no tin-foils there! Homeopathy is used by the dairy industry to cure mastitis - but I'm sue that all the cows have til foils around their heads!
salimm 6 months ago
I don't have a problem with anyone trashing or defending Homeopathy - it's just that when Dawkins, Hitchens or their ilk are involved the credibility of the project must be called into question as these people have an agenda - I mean, I always found it funny that these guys claim to b atheists yet get massive publicity from guys like Bill Maher who are rabidly pro-Israel (a theocratic state) ! And if you notice their dialogue - all their talking points are the same - as if they've been vetted!
salimm 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@salimm because you sure as hell quack like a duck. Dawkins has criticized judaism plenty of times as well, maybe if you get off of youtube and infowars.com everyone in awhile you may see that. Or you can stay in your little corner thinking the entire world as well as the elites are out to get you. Paranoid pitiful little bastard.
uniteordie1 6 months ago
@salimm Geez, someone has an axe to grind. This is one of the most depressing comments I've read on YouTube. And we're talking about freaking YouTube here.
AeliusMistry 7 months ago 2
@salimm oh so you're a conspiracy nut. great.........
GADGETRONsc 5 months ago
is not sufficiently developed to understand concepts such as placebo effect so there mr. dawkins something you have been proved wrong about
gangadhari108 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it has been scientifically proven that water does carry memory, also darwin claims homeopathy to be nothing more than placebo but i have a pet dog who suffered from a depressive illness for appromimately 4 months, the depression she encountered was unrelenting during that time period, however when the vet suggested homeopathy i thought we shall give it a try and low and behold after 6 days the dog was jumping around alive with energy and stamina and as far as i am aware a dog's consciousness
gangadhari108 9 months ago
it has been scientifically proven that water does carry memory, also darwin claims homeopathy to be nothing more than placebo but i have a pet dog who suffered from a depressive illness for appromimately 4 months, the depression she encountered was unrelenting during that time period, however when the vet suggested homeopathy i thought we shall give it a try and low and behold after 6 days the dog was jumping around alive with energy and stamina and as far as i am aware a dog's consciousness
gangadhari108 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gangadhari108 oh please be kidding. That is so sad!!! You really think a dog could fall prey to the placebo effect?
skywize 9 months ago
It's an accepted fact that the water molecules we drink have been through the bodies of countless other people (and animals). This being so, why don't these water molecules carry a homoeopathic memory of all the substances they've had contact with?
LsBaba 9 months ago
@LsBaba That's because people drink water and forget to perform the succussion. LOL
lcsavi 8 months ago
If you want the real thing do not take just water. Eat the real thing. Orange drink versus Orange fruit. No duh!
Topazman12 11 months ago
Dawkins should mount a campaign against the use of satellite Global Positioning (GPS) on the grounds that time dilation is factored into the positioning calculations and time dilation is irrational.
The teaching of Relativity and Quantum Physics in schools and universities must be opposed by the great inquisitor Richard Dawkins on the grounds of pure irrationality. Dawkins must oppose time slowing down for a satellite in orbit. The universe must be put into a Dawkins designed straitjacket.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 WTF are you talking about? Are you suggesting that relativity and quantum mechanics aren't supported by the evidence?
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
I'm merely making the point that relativity and quantum physics are irrational.
If you accept them then you cannot argue against homeopathy on the grounds of irrationality. We only accept gravity and magnetism because of overwhelming "empirical" evidence. We have no "rational" basis for it, only that it is so.
"Rational" medicine seeks to explain life in mechanistic rational terms, which is only a portion of reality, which misses the main bits. Quite an irrational point of view.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
In Science we don't have a Law of Plausibility.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Duh. That's a contradiction in terms.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 lol, no. QM and relativity are perfectly rational, because they are backed by the evidence. They are, however, both very counter intuitive and hard to understand. But that in no way negates their truth, predictive and explanatory power.
If such theories had no evidence, didn't explain anything, and didn't make any accurate predictions, THEN they would be considered irrational.
zakiechan 1 year ago
the flow of time is illusory. In relativity, Penrose reminds us, "one has just a 'static' four-dimensional space-time" - three for space and one for time - "with no 'flowing' about it. The space-time is just there and time 'flows' no more than does space." It is only our conscious experience that seems to impose a flow onto this entity that we call time; our theories of physics make no mention of it. In other words, says Penrose, the puzzle of time is caught up with the puzzle of consciousness..
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Yeah I have read a bit about that. It's mind blowing.
zakiechan 1 year ago
...And consciousness, at least for Penrose, is something we are not yet equipped to tackle. We'll only come to understand the mind, he argues, when we develop a more complete theory of physics - that is, when we finally unify quantum theory with Einstein's theory of gravity, known as general relativity. In the meantime, he can only muse that time "is not what we think it is... It's not a steady progression - certainly not a sort of universal steady progression."
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan
You need to listen to the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose speaking on the CBC podcast - "Living on Oxford Time", before you can even begin to comprehend what this debate is about.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Ah, that sounds really good. I will check it out!
There is a book called Good and Real, by Gary Drescher which attempts to tackle these sorts of ideas (like the perception of time/consciousness). You might enjoy it.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Thanks.
I've already got Roger Penrose' book "the Road to Reality."
Would you say Drescher agrees with Penrose?
I just had a quick look and I suspect that Drescher probably cherry picks his own bits of information to fit with his view of scientific atheism. Is he really an objective scientist?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Yes, Drescher agrees with Penrose. His book attempts to explain modern paradoxes, such as Why do we feel the flow of time, if it isn't there? Or, how can a material brain have subjective experiences.
The book really has nothing to do with atheism at all.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan Thanks Zak
Do you know when Dawkins says "to science it just doesn't add up," that is the same claim made by pharmaceuticalists and medicos when the safety of a vaccine is called into question. (Listen to BBC - Discovery - The Vaccine Detectives) These "establishment" scientists accept one version of science as "scientific" and they reject as "unscientific" another equally valid scientific explanation of cause and effect. What qualifies as "science" is only what is agreed with.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 When a scientist says something doesn't add up, they mean that the evidence just isn't there. That goes for homeopathy, and that goes for the anti vaxers. I mean, how many double blind studies will it take to convince you?
The only way to become famous in science is to go against the norm. Heck, that's how Dawkins first made a name for himself (as well as literally every other famous scientist). He argued that natural selection worked on the level of the gene.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan and you are a good case in point.
Thomas Kuhn writes that people tend to cling to their old paradigm, sometimes a little irrationally, and that most science is an attempt (almost always a successful attempt) to fit new facts into the currently accepted paradigm; (and this can almost always be done, even when the paradigm is very wrong!)
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Kuhn writes that observations tend to be uninterpretable or otherwise meaningless unless they do fit into the accepted paradigm (however forced and "procrustian" the fit!);
".... (a) new theory implies a change in the rules governing the prior practice of normal science. ...a new theory....is seldom or never just an increment TO what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory and the re-evaluation of prior fact."
Dawkins is a very poor scientist.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan
The double blinds you refer to are designed to fail. Homeopathy needs to be tested in the manner it is claimed to work, not in the manner you reckon it ought to work.
You are an antiscientist.
Now give me examples of your double blinds, the ones which are supposed to convince me.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Please Explain to me why Double blinding is unscientific. Double blinding is designed to eraticate confounding variables that result from the placebo effect on the part of the conductors of the experiment and the volenteers. Double blinding is a perfectly valid method that should always be applied if possible.
QuantumOverlord 1 year ago 10
@QuantumOverlord The double blinds Zakieboy refers to are unscientific. They are biased studies which have been deliberately designed to show a predetermined outcome. Zakieboy selectively chooses these double blinds and dismisses other double blinds which have been more appropriately designed to test the actual claims of homeopaths.
Homeopaths DO NOT claim that a single symptom can be treated separately in isolation to all other symptoms. This is contrary to the central thesis of homeopathy.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuantumOverlord The double blinds Zakie refers to are unscientific. Zakie selectively chooses biased studies which have been deliberately designed to show a predetermined outcome. Zakieboy dismisses other double blinds which have been appropriately designed to test the actual claims of homeopaths.
Homeopaths DO NOT claim that a single symptom can be treated separately in isolation to all other symptoms. This is contrary to the central thesis of homeopathy. All symptoms are taken together.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Double blinding in itself can not be biased, as all it does is remove the confounding Placebo effect. Of course Publication Bias exists, i.e Publishing studies which show what people want. Recently I witnessed a study on Homeopathy for backpain which showed null results, yet was not published because of this. The homeopathic Idea that certain symptons can be cured with dilutes of substances causing the symptons, is well advicated in homeopathy and is of course wrong.
QuantumOverlord 1 year ago 2
@zakiechan
Listen to this BBC podcast by the physicist Richard Feynman. At the end he describes perfectly what your problem is.- Little things, he says, behave very differently than big things and there is still a school of thought that cannot believe this and they are holding out for the day when it turns out that little things are not different after all.
You are one of those people.
Fun to Imagine | 6: Ways of Thinking
BROADCAST 1983 12 MINUTES
Feynman ponders the process of thinking.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan You may as well come clean and give Richard Dawkins the grim news.
Mathematical physicists are not in accordance with the "laws of reason", as Dawkins sees them.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18"
- Albert Einstein
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@zakiechan
You don't accept relativity.
Do you believe that all moments in time are equal? That there is no ultimate "now"? That Julius Caesar exists and is as real as you are "now"?
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Yes, yes I do accept relativity. I have no idea if Julius Caesar exists "now." It depends on what theory of time is correct, and I don't know enough about philosophy of time to have a position on it.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 Im sorry to say this. Quantum mechanics and relitavity are a very good model for our surroundings, Homeopathy is not. Incidently You said Mathmatical physists dont understand stuff. This is incorrect, Physics IS maths, which you begin to understand after you have studied it for as long as I have. The whole of physics that we understand can be expressed mathematically. Homeopathy contradicts Quantum mechanics incidently. Also Dawking Does belive in quantum mechanics as Do I
QuantumOverlord 1 year ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best testimonies of the efficacy of Homeopathy is the book:
"HOMEOPATHY CURES WHERE ALLOPATHY FAILS" written by an Allopathy medical doctor & surgeon.
In it he details many patients of chronic diseases who were getting worse with Allopathy drugs but were CURED once they switched to Homeopathy remedies.
Many of these patients were Allopathy doctors themselves.
IMO, the book should be titled:
"HOMEOPATHY CURES ALLOPATHY DOCTORS"!! LOL!!!
mohanaturo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE REAL SOURCE OF ANTAGONISM Dawkins asserts that vaccination is scientific. Those opposed to vaccine are enemies of reason.
Injections of pus destroy the immune system. The patient can no longer have a fever. This is how it works but a chronic disease is established. The best information on vaccination effects is homeopathic philosophy - read H L Coulter. This is the real source of the antagonism between homeopathy and the medical establishment , a controversy of which Dawkins is fully aware
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
Vaccinations... oh lord. Here come the conspiracy theories.
One word: Measles.
zakiechan 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are disputing the facts now. The main contention between homeopathy and allopathy is not the fake highschool chemistry avagadro argument. The real point of contention is vaccination. It is neither safe nor effective.
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
lol yeah ok.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Comment removed
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
There is believed to be a link between mesothelioma and SV40, an ingredient of the polio vaccine. Some people seem to get the disease from very slight exposure to asbestos while others who have actually worked with blue asbestos (crocidolite) have not contracted mesothelioma and remain relatively healthy. I think there is an issue of vital force here.
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
@farmerjohn010 dont pepper your senetences with intellectual words you twat .
B4IRUTUARU16 1 year ago
@B4IRUTUARU16
If you can't understand intellectual words then you should not be posting on this forum.
Are you condemning homeopathy? Why are you posting here?
And yet you can't even understand intellectual words!
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 a witty saying proves nothing
so you can stop putting your head deeper in your ass
B4IRUTUARU16 1 year ago
@B4IRUTUARU16
Australians say arse you fucking smartarse
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 I can say "ass" dumbshit. stop your bitching
B4IRUTUARU16 1 year ago
@B4IRUTUARU16
Your gayness may well be perfectly Rational in Dawkin's Age of Reason, but in homeopathy, which is the height of Empirical medicine, homosexuality is considered to be a sickness brought out by the miasms. Read the lectures of Kent!
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
@farmerjohn010 omg can you please shut the fuck up! seriously dude you spew out to much bullshit
B4IRUTUARU16 1 year ago
Comment removed
toffeeangieful1 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@B4IRUTUARU16
Open Gayness is considered to be quite reasonable in modern Rationalist medicine. Gayness is in accordance with Scientific Reason as Dawkins sees it.
Empirical medicine regards your homosexuality as a perversion.
No wonder you hate it so much.
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
Comment removed
farmerjohn010 1 year ago
email sent to R. dawkins
Your youtute video about homeopathy makes some false claims.
1. You claim water can't have memory.
By that I take it to mean that you deny the findings of materials scientists about the structure of water and epitaxy.
2. You also neglected to show the method whereby a remedy is diluted and potentised.
This is important since this is how the structure of the water is changed with each dilution through epitaxy.
Regards
farmerjohn
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
Farmerjohn,
1. Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.
2.The method of dilution does not help your claim. If anything, you should be pleased that he didn't show it, since it makes homeopathy seem even more absurd than it already is.
zakiechan 2 years ago
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY MATERIALS RESEARCH INSTITUTE 2005 paper conclusion.
Homeopathic remedies are spectroscopically distinct from the original solvent (water/ethanol)
Different potencies can be distinctly distinguished by the UV-VIS
and the Raman spectra
Nat Mur and Nux Vomica are distinctly different while the same
potencies with different succussion also show a clear evidence of
difference in the structure of the individual samples
Looks like I can't post a URL
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
Very interesting study. I appreciate that you actually cite a study, rather than just some anecdote.
Obviously, this study will need to be replicated, and similar ones carried out. Then the laws of nature can start to be re-written.
zakiechan 2 years ago
thanks zak
The title of the paper was
The Structure of Liquid Water;
Novel Insights from Materials Research;
Potential Relevance to Homeopathy
Rustum Roy[1], W.A. Tiller[2], Iris Bell[3], R.A. Hoover[4]
farmerjohn010 2 years ago
On 17 May 2009 the Swiss people voted to enshrine Homeopathy and complementary medicine in a national vote. Sixty Seven percent of voters supported the new constitutional article.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Indeed - and in the UK we have the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. As it is though, scientific truth is not an exercise in popularity, democracy, or royal assent, but what can be demonstrated by observation within a theoretical framework.
stevebritgimp 2 years ago
If homeopathy worked then I'd like to see someone try homeopathic birth control. I can't seen to find it the local quack health stores.
chiggylon 2 years ago
2004: Pfizer was made to pay $240 m damages after illegally marketing a drug intended only for seizures as pain, headache reliever and psychiatric drug.
Their fraud included bribing docors with speakers fees to talk about the drug (one doctor received over $300,000).
The scam made Pfizer billions from a drug shown to work even less well than placebo in some cases.
Is this the real medicine you speak of, Mr Dawkins?
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Nice red herring.
With Pfizer, the problem was exposed, and people had to pay for it. With alternative medicine, no one will ever admit that it has done anything wrong.
This is the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Real science corrects itself, while the alternative just keeps running around, refusing to accept that it was wrong.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Huh? Your response makes no sense.
By "real science" do you mean "correct science"? If so, why should it need to correct itself?
The problem was not that Pfizer were in scientific error. They were fraudulently selling a drug for purposes they themselves knew wouldn't it would not work for.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
No, real science is not always correct. Science is a method of investigation... and quite often, hypotheses are found not to be true at all. There are thousands of examples of this.
As for with Pfizer... how was it that they were exposed? I am going to guess by studies being done.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Than how are you defining "real science"?
And how do you square your explanation with the fact that Pfizer *knew* they were selling Neurontin fraudulently?
No, they weren't exposed by studies. They were exposed by a whistleblower.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Real science is just good science. That is, it is based on strong, tightly controlled, methodologically sound, research studies. When you go around that, don't do any research, or do poorly conducted studies, that is bad science, since bias can easily slip in.
And how did the whistle blowers know that Pfizer didn't work? By guessing, or by looking at research?
zakiechan 2 years ago
Hey, perfect analysis of this homeopatic nonsense and irrationalism. It's a pity, that this video does not has a German version. But even than, my fellowcitizens would still run blindly to their homeopathists, like they run before to other ideologists. It's so difficult to cultivate people. This video is - at least a good contribution to that long lasting process.
Regards from Germany
MKohlhass
MKohlhass 2 years ago
We fans of homeopathy don't blindly run anywhere. Most of us heard the misinformation about it before we tried it.
WE went and found it worked better than any other form of medicine.
Dawkins is talking out of his backside here.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
What part of what Dawkins says here is not true?
zakiechan 2 years ago
It's his implications that are dishonest.
"If medicine works it ceases to be alternative medicine and becomes medicine".
He's trying to tarnish holistic medicine here.... but does this make Neurontin and Prozac, alternative medicines, because they've worked so disastrously in many cases?
Don't get me started on the part he gets stuck trying to explain his support for vaccines....
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
"If medicine works it ceases to be alternative medicine and becomes medicine" is 100% true. If a treatment works, it is accepted by the science and medical community. Such as with St. Johns wort. It was originally an alt medicine. But it was found to work, so it is now accepted as a real treatment.
LOL, I would love to hear your ideas on vaccines. I am sure they are killing the world, causing autism, etc. Right?
zakiechan 2 years ago
Yes, he's talking nonsense, isn't he Zak?
Because if the terms "alternative medicine" and "medicine" are mutually exclusive, it's logically impossible for them to change from one state to the other unless the medicine themselves change.
It was the medical community itself that was ignorant as to the benefits of St John's Wort.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Alt medicine just means medicine that the science community rejects, because it doesn't work (homeopathy, reflexology, reiki healing, etc).
However, some things are originally considered alt (simply because they are first used by alt practitioners), and are later found to actually work. This generally only happens with herbal sorts of stuff. Like St Johns Wort. But this is a result of having to convince scientists by showing good, research based, evidence. Not by relying on anecdotes.
zakiechan 2 years ago
"However, some things are originally considered alt (simply because they are first used by alt practitioners), and are later found to actually work."
Then the practitioners who thought them to be "alternative" in the first place were at fault.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Noooo, it is the fault of the alt practitioners for not presenting credible evidence. You can't make a claim and expect to get respect for it, unless you have credible evidence to back it up.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Homeopathy, what an idiot idea that this Samuel had.
christe68 2 years ago
Then Hippocrates must also be an idiot.
Do you make sure no doctor you see has sworn a Hippocratic oath?
Do you know why the pineal gland is the most important organ in the human body?
Do you know *anything*?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Linus Pauling, 2 times nobel prize winner for his work into the nature of the chemical bond, has suggested that all disease, can be cured by nutrition and minerals.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Being cured by nutrition and minerals is quite a bit different than remedies that don't even have a single molecule of active ingredient.
For example, the packaging on oscillococcinum boldly states that each gram of medication has .85 grams of sucrose, and .15 grams of lactose. An admitted 100% sugar pill.
zakiechan 2 years ago
That's the whole point. Homeopathy is intended to work on a bio-energetic level rather than a pharmacological effect.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
"bio-energetic level" lol, of course. Just like chiropractors can fix the "subluxations" that interfere with the body's "innate intelligence", and reiki healers can manipulate your "energy fields."
Regardless, if that is so, then why did you reference Linus Pauling?
zakiechan 2 years ago
Exactly. They can.
If you would actually take the time to visit a chiropracter instead of being a cyclops mouthpiece for Big Pharma, you would find this out for yourself.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
I'm not a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.If anything, I am a mouthpiece of rational inquiry, and evidence based medicine. There is absolutely no evidence for anything such as "subluxations", "innate intelligence" or "energy fields." There isn't even any sort of specific definition of what these things are. They are just vague psuedo-scientific terms, meant to make the specific therapy sound good.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Hippocrates was a supporter of homeopathy. Do you think he didn't understand the concept of rational inquiry?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Uuuuh, Hippocrates lived about 2000 years before homeopathy was thought up. So no, I doubt he was a supporter of it. Just like he wasn't a supporter of heliocentrism, germ theory, natural selection or the internet.
And Isaac Newton was a supporter of alchemy. So what? Just because a person is very smart, doesn't make them immune to bad ideas.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Noo.... he lived 2000 years before the present incarnation of homeopathy.
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
This is a little odd. You are trying to make a case for something scientific, by relying on what someone 2400 years ago thought.
Ooook.
The present incarnation of homeopathy is WAY different than anything that could be related to Hippocrates, who was just trying to balance the humors. If you want to say that because he thought "like curse like" in a few instances, then you might as well say that he was also supporting vaccination.
zakiechan 2 years ago
No... I'm saying that Hippocrates said homeopathy worked 2000 years ago and he's still right today.
He didn't qualify that by saying "in a few instances".
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
Again, homeopathy (EXTREME dilution of like cures like) never existed before Hanneman. Whatever Hippocrates was talking about was not homeopathy.
Regardless, it's still funny that you are trying to bolster support for your argument by calling on someone from 2400 years ago. Glad to know you use such up to date, current science ;)
zakiechan 2 years ago
Yes.... he was. "Disease is eliminated by substances capable of producing similar symptoms".
In other words, "homeopathy works".
fireiciclespark 2 years ago
So, are you saying that dilution is not part of homeopathy? And would getting a flu vaccine be homeopathy?
This is like how some Christians will say "well, the Bible says 'in the beginning', so that means that the author knew about the big bang."
Do you think that alchemy is right, since Newton thought it was true too?
zakiechan 2 years ago
I like Richard Dawkins, but he just sounds so clueless here. I do believe Hahnemann is quite out of his league.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Actually, you are the one who is clueless judging by your posts here.
dyerasyd 2 years ago
Interestingly, in 1991, the pharmacologist WH Hopff repeated Hahnemann's original experiment with cinchona (to see if it would generate symptoms of malaria).
Hopff's results found that cinchona had absolutely no effect, positive or negative.
zakiechan 2 years ago
And Reilly's double blind study re. mixed pollen found that homepathy *is* efficacious. So?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
The point was that the basis for Hahnemann's idea was completely false.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Not according to Hippocrates.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
No it didn't.
ShitStains7676 2 years ago
This is great, because all of the substances that are the supposed "active" ingredients of homeopathic medicine can already be found diluted in ocean water you don't need to waste your money on expensive pills, you can just drink glasses of sea water. I bet if I start bottling it and selling as a miracle cure I could make a bundle.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago
If you knew how to turn it into a curative substance, I'm sure sea salt would be a very effecttive substance.
Unfortunately you probably don't, and neither do I.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
"There is no legitimate medical organization that would recommend homeopathy over actual medicine."
Wrong. France has the best healthcare in the world (source: WHO) and also the biggest homeopathy market. A safe, gentle, cheap and curative form of medicine.
The allopathic American system is only the 37th best in the world, despite being too expensive for 18 million of its citizens to afford.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
JimHewittWhite.
Could you provide the percentages of those using Homeopathy in France. I think you'll find them interesting.
France generally has a good health care service anyway. To say its good BECAUSE of homeopathy is to say that Britain is a great multicultural centre because we have a proportion of the population that are racist bigots (BNP for example).
Just because there are numerous supporters, does not make it right.
Quality
NOT Quantity.
edinburghskeptics 2 years ago
I don't know the number of users, but I believe 32% - 40% of family doctors are homeopaths in France.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily because of homeopathy, but I do wonder
1) Why the WHO has endorsed France as the best healthcare in the world if 40% of its doctors are employing quackery?
2) Why have these doctors not been struck off for negligence?
3) Why has the FMA mandated homeopathic training? Are the conventional docs who run it "quacks" too?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
There are still 60%-68% non homeopathic. We would need to look at the homeopathic cases VS non homeopathic in order to see homeopathy making an progress.
1. As said, they are still up to 68% non homeopathic.
2. Are they registered as normal GPs or as homeopathic ones? if homeopathic, then its a separate issues, if regular its worrying. But evidence please.
3. Training in a subject does not advocate using it. I would hope they are trained in REAL medicine too
edinburghskeptics 2 years ago
You've asked questions (2) and (3) in a way that presents your presumptions that homeopathy is not "normal" or "real" as fact.
I think training in a subject does imply that it should be used. But this is a subjective matter.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
No, training can be undertook to understand. I'm very interested in doing a bible study course to better understand the bible- but I'm an atheist and have no intention of using it professionally, simply to "know your enemy".
Q2: You didn't answer my question and I suspect I now know the answer.
As to whether I think homeopathy is real medicine, no of course I don't. There is not a shred of strong, repeatable convincing evidence it works. The basic principals are mathematically impossible!
edinburghskeptics 2 years ago
The WHO didn't recommend homeopathy over real medicine. They said that there was evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. However, there has been a lot of criticism of the WHOs results.
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine, said the draft WHO report seemed overtly biased and that all of the trials cited happened to be positive. "They are not the most rigorous ones, not the most recent," he said.
zakiechan 2 years ago
for heaven's sake! i'm a christian, and i don't believe in homeopathy!!!
gusgrissomismyhero 3 years ago
If you don't believe in homeopathy, yet imply that belief of it is on par with belief in Christianity, don't you think you should give your religion some reconsideration?
quarkde 2 years ago
you can argue belief in religion because there is no way for humans to look further back then the moment the universe was created. homeopathy defys clearly true laws and obvious facts, going off on a whim with psyuedoscientific bull about water memory. its not true. substanc3es can only changes through chemical or atomic reactions.
nintendowns 2 years ago
Comment removed
quarkde 2 years ago
Homeopathy is the best for the treatment and cure of chronic diseases because of it's logic:
i)The Law of Similars
ii)Treat the Patient not the Disease
iii)Law of Cure
iv)Theory of miasms as the cause of Chronic Diseases
mohanaturo 3 years ago
There is no legitimate medical organization that would recommend homeopathy over actual medicine.
The law of similarities doesn't exist (in fact, the opposite is true, like with magnets). Treating a patient and not the disease makes no sense. There is no law of cure or any evidence for your theory.
zakiechan 3 years ago
homeopathy violates the most basic laws of chemistry. matter cannot be created. neither can energy. this dilution theory is false.
nintendowns 2 years ago
Physics can't explain how a sponge worm turns left, according to MIT scientist Noam Chomsky.
Biology cannot explain the purpose of (at least) 95% of all human DNA.
Is it possible that medicine is necessarily way ahead of our known science laws?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
no. because these things have YET to be understood. homeopathy has already been disproven, effective only as a placebo. it also violates proven information about chemistry and physics. there is simply no sound evidence to support it. it is a placebo.
nintendowns 2 years ago
"homeopathy has already been disproven"
Nonsense. Where?
"it also violates proven information about chemistry and physics."
Tesla's creation of free energy violated "proven" information about chemistry and physics. Does this mean it didn't happen? I think not.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
his creation of free energy? is there any documentation of his creation of free energy?
nintendowns 2 years ago
JimHewitt, There have been TONS of double blinded studies for homeopathy, and they all fail.
The few studies that do support homeopathy, when repeated by other scientists, have also failed.
So if there is no experimental evidence that it works, I think it is safe to say that it has been disproven.
zakiechan 2 years ago
"There have been TONS of double blinded studies for homeopathy, and they all fail."
False. Evidence?
"The few studies that do support homeopathy, when repeated by other scientists, have also failed."
False. Evidence?
"So if there is no experimental evidence that it works, I think it is safe to say that it has been disproven".
If so, yes. But there *is*. Vast amounts.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
JimHewitt- Here is your evidence
The study Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE by Jacques Beneveniste. His lab did it twice (without double blinded controls) and got positive results. 4 other groups then repeated the experiment (John Maddox, the editor of Nature, was one of the researchers), with double blind controls. The experiments all failed.
zakiechan 2 years ago
As I've already explained to you, Benveniste's experiment loooked for exactly the wrong thing. If the histaminum wa efficacious, you would expect to see the inhibition of basophil degranulation.
The experiments were performed correctly by Conde et al using magnetic nuclear resonancing. It was shown that histaminum clearly had a clinically beneficial effect in three separate tests.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yes, and the MNR experiments were reviewed in 2003 and published in the Journal of Alternative Medicine. They reviews concluded that the experiments with MNR were generally of poor quality and prone to errors.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Could you provide a link to this paper?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Zak, where is a link to this paper?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Andrew Vickers (from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital) looked at 120 homeopathy papers, and concluded the results were negative, or the methodology was questionable.
The National Veterinary Institute in Sweden tested (with double blinds) a homeopathic remedy for diarrhea in calves, and concluded that there was no evidence for its efficacy.
Cambridge recently tested a homeopathic remedy for mastitis in cows. It was no more effective than a placebo.
zakiechan 2 years ago
Aijing Shang did a meta-analysis of homeopathy tests, though, only ones that were methodologically strong. His findings were compatible with the notion that the effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.
I can give more examples if you like. As I said, every study that has had any positive results, and has been repeated by others, has failed.
The book "Trick or Treatment" outlines all of this in quite a bit of detail. Check it out.
zakiechan 2 years ago
p.s. I should be happy to make the names of about 100 studies suggesting homeopathy *does* work avaliable to you, but if I take the time to list them all I expect you to read them and quit this "there are no studies blah blah" BS.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
list them if you wish. it is not bs. there has been no major study proving water has memory or that homeopathy has any effect other then placebo. any study that says otherwise is usually not blinded or has some other error, and upon further review is found to be false. a few studies do not make a new law in science, they have to be critically tested to be found as plausible. any time homeopathy has been tested under standard scientific protocol, it fails, definitively.
nintendowns 2 years ago
A few "false studies"? How do you know they are false when you have yet to even look at them?
Check your inbox.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
because if they were true, then it would be headline for re defining the entire concept of chemistry and physics.
nintendowns 2 years ago
You appear to be unaware that free energy has now been created.
Is this also "headline for re defining the entire concept of chemistry and physics"?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
please specify what you mean by free energy. thats too general.
nintendowns 2 years ago
Rubbish. "Free" energy has not been created. You are (like the advocates of homeopathy) making things up and hoping to fool those who know nothing about science.
Give it up and sell your snake-oil elsewhere.
dyerasyd 2 years ago
Tesla's free-energy receiver was patented in 1901 as 'An Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy'. The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays."
Looks like you're making things up and hoping anyone who calls BS will be put off by your obnoxious tone.
Fat chance.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Tesla did patent that idea, but neither he nor anyone else ever got it to work. You know that patents are also used to protect an idea don't you? It doesn't mean the apparatus is ever built or even feasible.
dyerasyd 2 years ago
Would any of these studies be the 120 that caused Andrew Vickers (a homeopathy researcher) to conclude that the results were negative, or the methodology was questionable.?
zakiechan 2 years ago
Once again, you are full if ti. Noam Chomsky is not a scientist at MIT - he is a philosopher/linguist/author. These have nothing to do with science (except maybe linguistics - but certainly not related to biology)
Biology *CAN* explain the "purpose" of the human DNA - to produce proteins. A large number of these DNA snippets are non-coding and are remnants of past viral infections (ERV's), no longer needed adaptations and outright mutations.
Just stop making stuff up OK?
dyerasyd 2 years ago