Heterodyne-coupled sum frequency generation spectroscopy has shown, clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, that the thickness of the water surface layer that you can ever possibly leave a memorable impression in is barely the thickness of a water molecule. The technique would also not have worked if there were more surfaces present beneath the air-water interface.
Sorry but that's physics for you, and unless homeopathy finds a way to disprove spectrophotometry it ain't going to work.
@sanjivak HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Honestly, that was a better joke than all of that guy's jokes... Homeopathy... Medical science, hilarious.
@ohnoyoudidntx does it really matter that he got one thing wrong? Heck are you telling me you've never said something that you later found out to be false?
Getting back to what he said, a bear is natural, nicotine in tobacco is natural and so are many poisons and venoms... Anthrax is natural and if you look at what alcohol does to you... what again is natural. So he made one mistake, I'm betting you've made plenty yourself in the past.
it just makes his joke makes less sense.....thus less funny i neither agreed or dismissed the comedian's attack on homeopathy ... i just pointed out that there is a flaw in his argument... That heroin is not natural.
anyways whats with u bringing up anthrax and alchol ? People dont use heroin in homeopathy. Just like people dont use anthax to treat dieases or get drunk to cure dieases in alternative medicine...no one said if its natural, then it must be good for u.lol
@ohnoyoudidntx you need to read up more on homeopathy, they use what ever creates similar symptoms as a base and if it happens to be that the symptoms mirror that of anthrax poisoning... yeah... exactly. That's what they believe, don't ask me to explain or justify it.
Just because homeopathy sucks..DOES NOT mean all forms of alternative medicine is bad. And homeopathy is not used by all those who subscribe to alternative medicine. They all have different foundations and beliefs.
im sure if a certain Doctor prescribed medicine sucks, we dont go blame the entire medical system as making all bad drugs. Diabetes drugs dont work.........so taht means heart medicines dotn work????
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Another dummy who is talking about things he has no idea about. A comedian who is not funny at all. Go back to comedy school retard. I have used homeopathic medicine and it works. Too bad there isn't one that can make you a better comedian. Take you lame jokes and go back and finish college.
@VgnMuscle haha the truth hurts doesnt it. Im afraid he is right, if you want to believe in a quack treatment whose principles fly in the face of established principles of chemistry and physics, waste your money, and ignore well designed scientific work that shows its the placebo effect, then go ahead. But dont insult the guy for being right.
@tootoo1upper Where's your logic man. I just said I used a bunch of homeopathic medicines and they have worked for me and others I know. How many times has this fool used it. Yeah that's what I thought...never..traditional medicine sucks for the most part, you end up with side effects and then you need more medicine. Instead of being a sheep maybe you should think out of the box sometimes. Big pharma loves you.
@VgnMuscle - No, you've never taken any homeopathic medicines. I'm sure of that, because homeopathic products aren't allowed to use the term "medicine". At most, they can be labelled "remedies". And, regardless of the wording, what you took was made of water, corn starch and sugar. And who do you think distributes "homeopathic remedies"? The very same "big pharma". And you're paying them $10 for sugar pills, giving them a 5000% profit, so I suspect they love you even more...
@RFC3514 Obviously your are a braindead moron who doesn't have the ability to process what I wrote, however, I have an appropriate comment for retards like you, a sentence you will perhaps understand better than anything else, because from day one of your life everybody has been telling you this and now it's my turn, so here go....F@CK YOU ARSEHOLE. Goodbye
@VgnMuscle Its obvious that @RFC3514 understood you clearly, and responded appropriately - if you can't handle reasonable debate and discussion then its probably a good thing you threw in the towel and sat this one out.
@tomrw54 Just cause you agree with him doesn't mean he is right. None of you guys have ever used a homeopathic medicine yet you are so eager to comment on this retard comedians jokes. Keep taking your stupid meds that only mask the side effects, we will see who lives longer. Take the cocks out of your ears and listen to what I am saying. I took the homeopathic medication several times for different illness and I cured me. Traditional medicine sucks for the most part.
@VgnMuscle again, if you can't handle reasonable discussion, you may as well not bother. The insults just make you look stupid. And for the record - I had homeopathic remedies many times before I got an education, sadly, my entire family swear by them. As for your experiences with homeopathy - Im sure you THINK they cured you, but I'm afraid that just something called confirmation bias. Look it up, you might learn something.
@VgnMuscle nah its cool, I'd prefer to keep having rational discussions (which you obviously hate). And trust me, if you read and learn more, you'd be less likely to rely on dumb insults to get your point across. Try it, education is great.
@tomrw54 Look who's talking. Truth is I am tired of retards like you. I refuse to understand the other person's point no matter what, therefore you don't deserve to be treated in a sensible manner. I tried it and it failed. Retards will continue to be retards and try to knock something logical into them is virtually impossible as I have seen it with you guys. I do know that retards understand simple things like assh@le and bitch etc, it always works therefore I had no choice but to resort to it.
@VgnMuscle your attempt at logic was "I just said I used a bunch of homeopathic medicines and they have worked for me and others I know" and then you called everyone who pointed out the problems with your argument "sheep". Pretty crappy logic and fairly dumb argument. Then when you couldn't defend your lame contention, you just resorted to insults. Yeah, real intelligent stuff. Seriously, do a little reading - I swear it will help you avoid resorting to dumb arguments. Try it.
@VgnMuscle Oh the old sheep and big pharma argument. Well, it's not really an argument is it. If you can explain to me how homeopathy works, and show me peer reviewed research that shows that it works then I will accept it. Stop rolling out your anecdotes and your tired change the subject arguments. Just show me the proof. That's not too much to ask is it? Oh wait, we're talking about homeopathy, it is too much to ask.
@SOAS007 tim minchin said it best, "by definition alternative medicine has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work, do you know what they call alternative medicine thats been proved to work? medicine"
its in his beat poem called storm, its on youtube so its not hard to find
@wstevenschneider i'm all for healthy debate/discussion, but *geez* lol there's enough of it going on on youtube and not all of it is civil. it gets tiring, ya? i just wanted to see feedback/comments, not another presidential campaign.
You know this because you've read the study. They did not avoid the funding issue, but they said that they purposely won't tell us because they didn't feel it was important. Let's say I find a criticism of the operating system of Apple Computers. If I find out that the study was funded by Microsoft Corp, don't you think I should be suspicious of the results? it's a conflict of interest. Same with the Lancet study. If GSK funded it, that's a conflict of interest.
@indoctus41 - Your point about conflict of interest is valid. Still, if there are no glaring errors, or obvious omissions then it is less vital.
It's true that sometimes the revealing the commissioner of the report may reveal a conflict of interest. It's also true that sometimes the commissioner was hoping for different results and wishes now to avoid embarassment. Frankly, I agree that it would be revealing though still not vital, nor would it change the results.
@wstevenschneider The problem with conflict of interest bias is that you are most likely NOT going to find it. You are lucky if you do. If I know there is a potential for bias from a conflict of interest situation, then that is good information to have. I mean, it's why we usually don't believe commercials, isn't it?
@indoctus41 - Commercials are about persuasion. Scientific reports are about convincing. If the facts of a scientific report do not withstand scrutiny then they are unconvincing regardless of who funded the study. The source of the funding may reveal why glaring oversights, or omissions were made in an unconvincing study.
That said, I do prefer that a report be open about its funding source.
The following is a study of Breast Cancer cells and homeopathy: Frenkel, M. et al. Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells International Journal of Oncology 2010 Feb;36(2):395-403. Conclusion: Four homeopathic remedies caused death of breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory, similar to the effect of chemotherapy, but without affecting normal cells.
@indoctus41 - The article [Frenkel et al, 2010] is lacks a comprehensive statistical analysis (eg, CI?), inadequate controls, experiments done only 2x's per line of cancer cells (minimum in experiments is 3x's), no results shown for HPLC, results not quantified, western blots meaningless when control is killing cancer cells, and the flow cytometry was not quantitated.
Again, Homeopathy not proven effective beyond placebo.
@wstevenschneider Where did you find these criticisms? Why are you using anonymous, unspecified criticisms of a study from a legitimate medical journal?
@indoctus41 - Why are you surprised that I am capable of criticizing a scientific article? The mistakes in the Frenkel et al study are common mistakes that any first-year science student makes. I've made such mistakes. Smarter people than me have made such mistakes.
@indoctus41 - The topic is the Frenkel et al study. The empirical proof of the sloppiness of Frenkel et al can be seen in their submitted paper. Frankly, I'm surprised it passed peer-review with such obvious errors in it.
A clarification. There were 2 meta-analyses in the Lancet, 1997 and 2005. The 2005 study was negative for homeopathy, the 1997 was positive. When Richard Dawkins vilified homeopathy in his famous documentary "The Enemy of Reason", he only identified the 2005 Lancet study, ignoring the 1997 one, as well as 3 others in the British Medical Journal, The Journal of Clinical Epidemiol, and the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacol. Dawkins in fact cherry-picked his information and misled the public.
@indoctus41 - The 1997 study [Linde et al] did not find anything conclusive. Note the statement "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."
Homeopathy has still not been empirically proven in any randomized, double-blind test. There have been lots of such tests and Homeopathy has consistently failed.
The 2005 Lancet study has the following problems: 1) They won't reveal who funded it, 2) They selected 8 out of 110 studies, but didn't say which ones they selected, 3) They didn't say which branch of homeopathy were in the final eight, 4) Any study showing positive effects were discarded because of bias, even though they couldn't identify the bias, 5) They didn't follow homeopathic protocol, meaning they administered the medicine in a way that would result in failure.
@indoctus41 - "They didn't follow homeopathic protocol, meaning they administered the medicine in a way that would result in failure."
It was a meta-study, Shang et al did not administer any medicine. I've raised this point before and you're repeating it here despite that displays dishonesty. Similarly your point about bias is still bogus.
The Lancet study [Shang et al, 2005] was honestly done despite the difficulties in performing such a study.
@wstevenschneider That's true, but they analyzed studies that avoided using proper homeopathic protocol. Only 15% of the 110 studies used proper protocol (classical homeopathy) and they will not tell us which studies ended up in the final 8 they selected. So we don't know. In fact there's a lot we don't know from this study because they won't tell us.
@indoctus41 - Honestly, I'm not convinced that "proper homeopathic protocol" would have made a difference. It is a pity though that that Shang et al didn't make it more clear in the meta-study. While this would not have swayed a "true believer" in Homeopathy, it would tell the casual reader much.
@wstevenschneider e.g. There are over 100 remedies for a headache. The selection of the remedy depends on numerous factors, location, type (throbbing, continuous), severity, duration, etc. as well as the patient's physical and mental characteristics. If you amassed a room full of subjects with a headache and administered the same remedy for all the different classes of headaches, you would not be following protocol.
@indoctus41 - How can you know point 4) _if_ point 2) is true. Since you don't know which studies they threw out how do you know they threw out the ones showing a positive bias for Homeopathy? Speculation? Where's your evidence?
Science has not been able to prove that Homeopathy is effective beyond placebo.
@wstevenschneider Easily. Shang et al selected 8 studies out of 110. They considered all 110 as legitimate. Among the 102 they discarded were studies that showed positive benefits. They admitted IN THE STUDY which you must have read, that any positive study must have been biased even though they couldn't identify any. That was what THEY said, not me. Moreover you did not address the fact that they refused to disclose who funded the study, and strange fact for a study considering itself unbiased.
@indoctus41 - Shang et al did an odds analysis, assuming the considered study had sufficient data to calculate such odds. The higher quality studies (both Homeopathy and Modern Medicine) had an odds ratio approaching 1.0. Poorly done studies (both Homeopathy and Modern Medicine) showed a bias and the ratio was less than 1.0.
@indoctus41- Point 1) is only really a problem if there are problems with the study (eg, the study is flawed, internally inconsistent, unscientific, etc...). You have been unable to demonstrate any actual problems in The Lancet study [Shang et al, 2005].
Homeopathy, still not proven effective beyond placebo.
@wstevenschneider This was hidden so I didn't see it. You did address the funding issue. My question is, if it makes no difference to the study, why conceal this information. Conflict of interest might be irrelevant to Lancet. If so, then who is funding a medical Journal that believes that a conflict of interest is unimportant??? By the way I unflagged your entry.
Matt Kirshen is correct on one point. He didn't do any research. I found 4 meta-analyses showing positive effects for homeopathy, published in the Lancet, British Medical Journal, Journal of Clinical Epidemiol, and the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacol. The Lancet meta-analysis from 2005 was the only meta-analysis that showed no better than placebo. It is this study, to the exclusion of any other, that is used to disprove homeopathy.
Just a correction of a previous poster. Vaccine antigens don't create an AUTOimmune response. Autoimmunity means your immune system attacks something within YOUR body e.g. MS is an autoimmune disease of the nerve sheath. The last thing you would want is an autoimmune response from a vaccine. However an immune response would be beneficial, meaning that the vaccine has created the appropriate anti-bodies against a target disease.
I recommend to anyone serious about the topic the lectures of Doctor Teresa Forcales. She provides a history of H1N1, the politics, the medical studies and what they mean, while using standard journals as sources (NEJM, BJM, etc). Unfortunately the lectures are in Spanish but I did find one fairly easily that had English subtitles. Cheers.
Indoctus41 presents only part of the story on adjuvants to further his campaign of FUD wrt to vacc'ns. His comment about NA medicine being silent about the study is mere distraction. His claims about Paraguay and Uraguay not being vacc'd are bogus.
ht tp ://w w w. flutrackers. com/forum/archive/index. php/t-145926.html
ht tp ://w w w. flutrackers. com/forum/showthread. php?p=350017
Main Point:
Indoctus41 still fails to produce verified, peer-reviewed evidence to support Homeopathy efficacy.
Note that I had to visit a Spanish lecture series to even hear about the study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The North American medical community and the media were silent on the subject (My first post on the actual figures had some minor numerical errors which I corrected subsequently)
References: NEJM (21/10/09): "A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups" Authors: FC Zhu, H Wang, HH Fang, et al. Results: 7.5mcg = no antibodies, 15mcg = more antibodies than with adjuvant, 30mcg = no difference to 15mcg. Antigens in GSK vaccine = 3.75mcg, insufficient to create antibodies. PLUS, there is no study that shows the vaccine is safe for pregnant women.
As noted, Paraquay & Uruguay, countries that avoided the massive H1N1 vaccine campaigns, experienced no more cases per capita than other countries that initiated massive and expensive vaccine programs. For the H1N1 vaccines to create even a limited antibody response in the host, the level of antigen had to be at least 15 micrograms. At 7.75 micrograms there was no antibody response. The amount of antigen in the GSK vaccine?: 3:5 micrograms. Modern medical science at its best.
Someone needs to state the year and which Vaccine mnfr when making the claim that the H1N1 vaccine was shown not to have enough antigens to elicit an autoimmune response. Not doing so is simply a dishonest ploy to make it seem as if all H1N1 vaccines of all years had a problem. Come now, come clean.
Also, since Homeopaths generally don't believe in Germ Theory, I'd like to know by which mechanism that Homeopathy would protect the patient from contracting H1N1?
As Indoctus41 pointed out I made a error by calling the body's response to the vaccine "autoimmune". Thanks once again as I didn't catch this typographical error when I made this post.
@msburmy1 The Spanish team of doctors I referred to earlier pointed out that Paraquay and Uruquay did not involve themselves in any H1N1 vaccine program and they had no problems with the disease. This supports the original view from the same team that the H1N1 vaccine does not contain enough antigens to create an antibody response in the subject. It's regrettable that these Spanish language lectures will never be translated into English.
Blah, blah, blah. Innuendo, conspiracy, cherry picking, spinning and all the rest we've come to expect from inductus41. Inductus41's goal isn't to provide reliable and accurate information, but to sow confusion and doubt. That anyone who doesn't agree with Inductus41 is somehow mentally deficient, thought the proof seems that it's the other way.
According to a Spanish researcher from the team, the only reason mercury et al are in the vaccines is to augment profits for the companies as they are the cheapest way to increase shelf life. It is madness to shove such garbage into your system and then expect there will be no consequences.
All of the spin doctors in NA on the payroll of Papa Droga ignore Cuban experts. By the way, if you happen to speak Spanish, there is a team of practicing doctors/researchers in Spain who have now shown that the H1N1 vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline cannot possibly work even according to GSK's own studies. The problem is there is not enough antigen in the shot to create any anti-bodies to the disease. It does however contain mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, substances that have no medical value.
Behold the Gish Gallop Poll and Paranoid Conspiracy Theorizing of a medical-science denier. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that Homeopathy is old, unfounded and magic-thinking they resort to spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Homeopaths, post your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence if you have any.
Sadly, because of our gutted educational systems, the population is losing it's ability to analyze information or even to ask the right questions. We're being taught to be obedient little citizens. The result? Lancet and the like can get away with one of the most egregious medical studies to date, and even get support from an Oxford Professor.
The third question for Lancet is, "Why did they ignore all the work done by Cuban researchers?" Could it be that GlaxoSmithKline established the framework and would only allow studies funded by Big Pharma? We can't know any of this for sure because Lancet WON'T tell us who was financially involved in their study.
The second question to ask of Lancet is, "Why do they feel they have to hide who funded the study?". What happened to transparency? If it makes no difference, then why withhold the information?
The only question you have to ask of the Lancet study is "Who funded it?". Was it GlaxoSmithKline or the Swansea Community Ladies' Bridge Club. It makes a difference. Lancet hides this information with good reason. It's like asking Coke to do a taste test on Pepsi, or having the Ford Motor Co study the safety features of GM Trucks.
As you can see folks, Homeopathy supports are not able to produce any verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence of their claims. Observe how they avoid the issue with fallacy after fallacy, paranoid conspiracy thinking, trolling, spinning and spamming.
Please continue posting. It's instructive for the readership to see what goes on inside such a person's head.
We are a profit-based society. In many ways that's a good thing, but when it comes to medical research it is a failed system. It is so bad in places like Canada that doctors are not even allowed to express their own opinions for fear of having their license revoked. The famous Shiv Chopra of Health Canada was fired for refusing to approve what he considered dangerous drugs. This is the kind of hold Big Pharma can have on a nation's economy and ultimately, its freedom.
Remember none of the research or media articles in Cuba will be translated for our perusal. When it comes to the advancement of Cuban medicine, we are completely in the dark, even though the WHO shows that life expectancy in Cuba is 78.26 years compared with the United States at 77.99 years. A little poor country compared to the richest nation on earth. And yet we ignore what they are doing, including their advancement of homeopathy.
Unless Homeopathy can be supported with verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence it will be cast back into the darkness and superstition from which it came. The much hailed "Cuban Success" story of Homeopathy does not stand to scrutiny. The claims of bias against Cuban researchers only insults evidence-based Cuban researchers whom the writers of the article obviously ignore.
Again, produce your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that Homeopathy works if you have any.
I can understand being threatened by homeopathy. After all there are people like James Randi, a magician by trade, and non-medical experts like Richard Dawkins, who have come out vehemently against it. Neither have discussed any of these matters with Cuban researchers, nor did the anonymously-funded Lancet study investigate Cuban success with homeopathy. I can only assume the Lancet did its best to compile a mega-study that pleased those who paid their salaries.
You don't hear anything about this because we're being told by our leaders and experts that homeopathy is nonsense. The important point is that Cuba, with it's limited resources, and still suffering from the Soviet collapse and the 50 year US embargo, can ill-afford to waste time and money on something that doesn't work. Nor are they threatened by the success of homeopathy as seems to be the case with our medical industry.
(Translation of entry below) The Complejo NodeGrip, which is being administered to the population through the united network of primary care, is not a vaccine against the grip, but a homeopathic preparation produced by the Finlay Institute, demonstrated to be harmless, that can offer advantages "such as stimulating an immune response for the prevention of infectious diseases of the respiratory system.
@indoctus41 - "...that can offer advantages such as stimulating an immune response for the prevention of infectious diseases of the respiratory system.'"
That's a lot of "sciency" language but very vague and non-technical. Lots of things can stimulate immune responses. Heck, allergies are immune responses.
@indoctus41 - Let's pick something definite (and ignore your off-the-wall comments about "Big Pharma") and say that Homeopathy somehow does the equivalent of vaccination. By what mechanism do you propose that this would occur when, for instance, there is nothing in the solution?
What verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence do you have that Homeopathy works beyond placebo?
el Complejo NoDegrip — que se viene aplicando a la población a través de la red de unidades de la atención primaria—, no es una vacuna contra la gripe, sino un preparado homeopático producido por el Instituto Finlay, de demostrada inocuidad, que puede ofrecer ventajas "como estimulador de la respuesta inmune para la prevención de enfermedades infecciosas del sistema respiratorio" (see next entry above for translation) -----
What's interesting is that while in North America we are attacking homeopathy, mainly because it is not patentable and therefore does not contribute to the profits of Big Pharma, Cuba is moving ahead with it, incorporating it along with other medical strategies to deal with many health issues. There is a good article in La Granma homeopathy and H1N1, that says in part (read the next entry above) -----
The unfortunate part of relying on only English sources is that you would not see the great disparity between how Cuban medical experts perceive the almost eradication of leptospirosis through homeopathy and how North American 'experts' perceive it. I speak Spanish so fortunately I am not prevented from reading the original texts on the subject, minus the spin from our filters. Distrusting Cuban researchers is of course more about politics than about a quest for the truth.
@indoctus41 - More innuendo minus facts. I take it that you don't have any verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence and so are now trying to win political points.
For those interested, Roniger and Jacobs claim that although there was a significant decrease in leptrospirosis in the years 2007-2008 when homeopathy was used (they didn't mention that in previous years there were some deaths but none in 2007-08), homeopathy just can't work and therefore didn't. This is medical science at the level of about an 8 year old. My apologies to intelligent 8 year olds.
@indoctus41 - Oh please, all you do is go around claiming that this, or that study is invalid. Yet when you are forced to face the fact that they are valid you either resort to conspiracy theories, or make some comment trying to sound superior.
If you've got any actual verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that Homeopathy works then please do so, or you've demonstrated that you're not even able to be in the playing field.
@indoctus41 - Furthermore, your claim doesn't explain why Leptrospirosis rates were the same in both groups (Intervention Region and Rest of Cuba), nor does it acknowledge the massive hygiene education campaign conducted by the Cuban government, nor does it acknowledge the fact that the Homeopathy trial was an non-randomized, uncontrolled experiment.
Again, present your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence in support of Homeopathy.
In case anybody is wondering, there is an analysis of the "Cuban Experience" by Roniger and Jacobs, 2010 Homeopathy Journal. This is where I got my info from.
Homeopathy works and is the most advanced science of healing, scientists has proved it,(search IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY) and the research paper appeared in PEER reviewed well established journal and the result was published after 4 years of study on nanotechnology and homeopathy by scientists of IIT Bombay.
This definitely shows that HOMEOPATHY is the MOST ADVANCED science of healing and medicine of present and future.
@drchristoaa Do you cut and paste all your replies? This looks exactly like your response to the James Randi video. Please come up with something a little more original.
@drchristoaa - Mr. Bonking, would you like it if the government treated Homeopathy solns like real medicine? This of course means that Homeopathy would have the same level of scrutiny as drug mfrs. Would you be comfortable with that, Mr. Bonking?
@wstevenschneider u dont understand the basics of homeopathy or even medicne, i cured a patient with severe headache since 25 years, who has been takng paracetamol or painkillers given by allopathic doctors. With in one week after taking the homeopathic medicne all symptoms disappeared and never reappeared since last 3 years. she had developed peptic ulcer by using pain killers, hence came to homeopathy.
Homeoepathy works and is the most advanced science of healing.Science has proved it..
@drchristoaa - You haven't answered my question, Mr. Bonking.
Instead you offer anecdotal evidence and your usual rhetoric.
Claiming that I don't understand the basics of homeopathy or medicine is a bit of a straw man too. Did I criticize homeopathy in my question which you didn't answer? It's also a bit presumptuous, how do you know what I know or don't know?
The person who presents here is a clown,and is exposing his ignorence in public, pity that he is not understanding the fact that people are laughing at him....poor fellow .
Homeopathy works and is the most advanced science of healing, scientists has proved it,(search IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY) and the research paper appeared in PEER reviewed well established journal and the result was published after 4 years of study on nanotechnology and homeopathy by scientists of IIT Bombay.
This definitely shows that HOMEOPATHY is the MOST ADVANCED science of healing and medicine of present and future.
researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study provides “concrete evidence.”
new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has confirmed the presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials even at extremely high dilutions of homeopathic medicne. Researchers have demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions.
It seems all those who are laughing do not have any educational credentials but to sit and watch this stupid speaker who seem so young I doubt he even completed elementary schooling. Probably they are all patients laughing because their family doctor told them that cures some of their ailments and makes them healthy in the process of healing which can never happen. Shame, Shame any idiot can mock at something with proven experience. Homeopathy is not just water has memory, it has more credits.
@svenkat2006 People deride what they don't understand because it's safe, and avoid doing their own research because they're lazy. That's why indoctrination is so easy. All you need is an authority figure (enter Richard Dawkins) to tell us how to think and then let the population do the rest. Goebbels would have been very interested in watching how successful we are at manufacturing the consent of the masses without threatening them with internment camps.
Homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper and iron retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, states the IIT-Bombay research published in the latest issue of 'Homeopathy', a peer-reviewed journal from reputed medical publishing firm Elsevier
science has proved that homeopathy works...so HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF THERAPUTICS
Actually, homeopathy is unproven by science. The amount of "active ingredient" in these medications is so low that current instruments are typically unable to detect it. Homeopathy functions on the principle that water retains memory the more times you dilute it. It isn't the gold, copper, or iron itself that is believed to provide the benefit. It's the memory the water gains. Homeopathy is NOT naturopathy, which DOES function on health benefits from plants/minerals.
@Echo852 Friend , Search in GOOGLE-IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY, read it and reply me. Memory of water was just a term used by scientist to express the effect that ,even much diluted substance retain medicinal power, now science has proved it using nano science
@jamesbondking Maybe you ought to take your own advice. Did you actually do research, or are you feeding back the homeopathic headline? The paper was entitled "Extreme Homeopathic Dilutions Retain Starting Materials: A Nanoparticulate Perspective." Nothing about healing properties. Also, this article is NOT widespread on medical websites. Just homeopathic ones. A bit one-sided, is it not? I wouldn't accept this as a proper source of information.
@Echo852 Friend,IIT is one of the best science institute in the world. At present they are researching to find out the biological activities of this extreme dilutions, and you will hear it soon and wolrd will know what is the real science of healing.Clinical data already shows homeopathy works..
@jamesbondking Since you haven't even grasped the differences between measurements of length (nanometre) and levels of concentration (p.p.m or x% or gm/L) why on earth should anyone listen to you spouting pseudoscience which may endanger their health?
@andruh99friend,learn what is nanotechnology first and its measurements, it is little different,
if you still doubt the action of homeopathic medicne then please take Homepathic medicine GLONOINE 30, 5 pills 2 hourly for four days,you will get severe headache and headache will disappear within 2 days after u stop the medicne.Anyway water cant cause headache to you.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS...and IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING.SCIENCE HAS PROVED IT
@jamesbondking I know what nanotechnology is, and on what scale it works (less than 100nm.)
Why on earth would you reccomend anyone taking something to give themselves headaches? That's ridiculous, and further illustrates my point that you do not know the basics of what you are talking about. I looked up you Glonoine, and found it to be an "alcoholic solution of nitro-glycerine." For homeopathic uses, it would be greatly diluted.
Homeopathy is nonsense, and diluting things isn't advanced.
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 oh, shut up and go call yourself a doctor elsewhere where people dance to voodoo. Your types are fraudulent scammers who should frankly be jailed for the trouble you cause humanity at large.
@xiangyik Homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper and iron retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, states the IIT-Bombay research published in the latest issue of 'Homeopathy', a peer-reviewed journal from reputed medical publishing firm Elsevier.
chemical engineering department prepared highly diluted solutions and checked these under powerful electron microscopes to find nanoparticles of the original metal.
@jamesbondking Stop quoting this as a source that homeopathic medicine works and read the actual paper. All it says is that they found particles. They did not say they provided any kind of medical benefit. In fact, they did say that it required more study.
Quote: How this translates into change in biological activity with increasing potency needs further study.
Yes, they found particles. No, they can't prove it works.
@Echo852 friend, homeopathic physicians around the world cures millions of patients using this extreem diluted medicine.... so if we connect both then the end product is that... science has proved that how homeopathy works...
Wait.... you will hear it soon through your scientfic community.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING
@Echo852 FRIEND, biological action is already established by the milllions of patients who gets cured by homepathy and the doctors who use homeopathic medicne.
wait.. soon science will prove it, you dont worry , science is always late in homeopathic matter, till now science was delaying the fact that homeopathy medicine contain any particles,which they proved is wrong recently.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOSTADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING
haha did you guys know how much they dilute the substance in water... If you put one drop into the ocean of a particular medicine, it still isnt diluted enough. Its hocus Pocus
I've used homeopathy a couple of times throughout my life and it seemed to help. I mean, if you have something simple like a cold, or a flu, or something that's really not worth going to a doctor for, homeopathy is better then nothing and even if it is a placebo, gives relief for a little while or until you're healthy again.
@kiki10020 friend, Homeopathy even give relief the pain and suffering of cancer patients and gives them a healthy life and a painless death. I had recently 5 cancer patients, and 3 of them died with in three months after starting chemotherapy and radiation, but other 2 are still living a happy life still and they are on Homeopathic treatment.
@jamesbondking Homeopathic medicine, administered properly, can generate benefits in patients, sometimes profoundly. Homeopathy is attacked not because it doesn't work (that wouldn't present a problem to drug monopolies) but that it works too well. Drug companies along with their agents, national gov'ts, are very good at fudging figures on their own products, e.g. If a cancer patient under chemo makes it to the 5th year and dies, he's LISTED AS CURED, dead but cured.
@indoctus41 if homoeopathy works so well then why the hell does it do no better than the placebo effect when experimental studies are conducted which involve a double blind? what a load of utter bullshit "it works too well". if it worked TOO WELL then you would have hundreds of studies to PROVE IT. science doesnt work with whats popular it goes with what the EVIDENCE suggests. you think evolution was popular in 18th century britian? no but it won because it was TRUE
@AussiePolitics The Lancet mega-analysis that Dawkins refers to is an embarrassment. I can say that because I have READ it and know why it's rubbish. They admitted, remarkably, that any study that showed positive benefits were tossed because they MUST HAVE BEEN BIASED, even though they COULDN'T FIND ANY. They only focused on negative results. If scientists and their sycophants think homeopathy is garbage, why did they distort the mega-study to 'prove' their point? Ask yourself that.
@indoctus41 i am not referring specifically to the lancet article, i am referring to ALL double blind studies into homoeopathy. if homoeopathy is as effective as you claim then it should do far better than the placebo effect.
show me ONE study into homoeopathy that is double blind, done by a reputable peer reviewed journal and has a significiant sample size with NO bias or other such flaws in the methodology.
@AussiePolitics Hard to educate you since you're so far behind. Do you know what mega-analysis means? Do you know the different types of homeopathy? Do you understand homeopathic protocol? Do you know why double-blind studies and homeopathy are incompatible? Leptospirosis in Cuba: 2007 & 2008 - 10 infections/no fatalities. Previously using standard vaccines: thousands of infections and a number of fatalities. Homeopathy was 1/10 the cost of pharma approach and vastly superior in effectiveness.
@AussiePolitics As an example, there are over 100 homeopathic remedies for headaches. If you gathered together a group of 100 to administer 1 remedy to all subjects who had a headache, you would be doing something that no homeopath would ever do, give the same remedy to patients with similar symptoms. Given the protocols for homeopathy, I don't see how you could perform a double-blind test that made sense.
@indoctus41 do you know what a double blind study is? it means that neither the homoeopaths or the patients know whether they are getting the real thing or a placebo. so they would prescribe what they normally would but they would not know whether the 'ingredients' in their solutions were actually real or just a placebo.
whenever you implement a double blind study with homoeopathy it never does better than the placebo.
@indoctus41 congratulations ever heard of a thing called godwins law? it concerns fools who bring nazism into debates that have NOTHING to do with it. look it up.
i love it how you are equating the failure of homoeopathy to demonstrate ANY evidence that it works beyond the placebo effect to actual scientists who do REAL WORK. you have no evidence, and if you would win the nobel prize for chemistry, physics and many other areas.
@indoctus41 i always think its funny how homoeopathy holds itself to a different standard than medicine. if pharmaceutical companies that make homoeopathic products were to try to market it as an actual drug, they would have to undergo REAL testing to demonstrate that it actually works.
@AussiePolitics Again not true. Drugs do NOT HAVE TO WORK. That is a myth. They only have to be slightly better than placebo. That means that if 1 person out of 100 receives a benefit from a drug in pharma funded studies, that is sufficient for gov't approval as a marketable drug. That also means that 99 people will be subjecting themselves to the side effects of that drug with no hope of any benefit.
@indoctus41 you obviously have never studied statistics in your life if 1 person out of 100 would have to benefit to get a drug approved. medical statistics is not like environmental studies a result of 0.5 is deemed significant. medicine typically goes to at least 0.01 or MORE. you are obviously making things up that you have no knowledge of that suits your argument.
@indoctus41 BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF STATISTICS. you go on about medicine only needing to heal 1 in 100 people but that would not yield a statistical level of significance great enough according to medical standards for it to be significant enough to keep the drug.
a statistical value of 0.01 or GREATER is required to REJECT the null hypothesis in medical testing that the drug does no better than the placebo. you obviously have NO understanding of how medical stats works
@AussiePolitics Pt 2: Most remedies require an empty stomach. This was done in only 15% of the studies that were classified as classical homeopathy. Unfortunately we don't know if any of the 15% were included in the final tally because the study did not tell us what types of homeopathy they decided to keep and which ones they discarded. Moreover it stated the funding source would NOT be revealed. Keep in mind this is Dawkins' favourite study, the mega-analysis of mega-analyses.
@indoctus41 actually there are a large number of studies into homoeopathy that have found it has little effect beyond the placebo. REAL medicine has actually had to pass the TESTS to prove it is useful and works better than the placebo effect. double blind studies have to show a significant statistical advantage before they are allowed on the market. homoeopathy does not have ANY PROOF. if homoeopathy is as effective as you claim then WHY is it so hard to find ANY proof that it works?
@AussiePolitics "REAL Medicine". Interesting. You mean like the medicine they gave my sister for joint pain that ate away the meniscus in both of her knees because they didn't know that it destroys cartilage. You mean that kind of medicine. You mean the stuff that's been tested and deemed safe but somehow still manages to destroy parts of the body.
@indoctus41 right individual testimony from a person who claims to understand how medicine works but obviously has not got the slightest clue about medical statistics.
individual testimony is utter bullshit. its like 'i smoked for 60 years and i am as healthy as' or 'my uncle was a fitness freak and had a heart attack at 34'. it proves NOTHING.
maann,,,this kid is awsome ^^
TheMikeADN 2 weeks ago
Heterodyne-coupled sum frequency generation spectroscopy has shown, clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, that the thickness of the water surface layer that you can ever possibly leave a memorable impression in is barely the thickness of a water molecule. The technique would also not have worked if there were more surfaces present beneath the air-water interface.
Sorry but that's physics for you, and unless homeopathy finds a way to disprove spectrophotometry it ain't going to work.
OfficeThug 2 weeks ago
Funny. However, children are not qualified to judge medical science such as homeopathy.
sanjivak 3 weeks ago
@sanjivak Interesting. However, people with no sense of humor are not qualified to belittle someone on the irrelevant grounds of there apparent age.
ShortCircuit11 1 week ago
@sanjivak HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Honestly, that was a better joke than all of that guy's jokes... Homeopathy... Medical science, hilarious.
XChillX42 4 days ago
"Why just this morning i took a supplement derived from the mark of the willow tree.. What was it called again, Basprin? Masprin? Oh right. ASPRIN"
Neopopulas 1 month ago
@Neopopulas Nice quotation! :)
gabrieleprotopapa 6 days ago
this guy is amazing
chaoticpiklemongerer 3 months ago
heroin is not natural..it is synthesized from morphine..the comedian is stupid
ohnoyoudidntx 4 months ago
@ohnoyoudidntx does it really matter that he got one thing wrong? Heck are you telling me you've never said something that you later found out to be false?
Getting back to what he said, a bear is natural, nicotine in tobacco is natural and so are many poisons and venoms... Anthrax is natural and if you look at what alcohol does to you... what again is natural. So he made one mistake, I'm betting you've made plenty yourself in the past.
DoomsdayR3sistance 4 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance
it just makes his joke makes less sense.....thus less funny i neither agreed or dismissed the comedian's attack on homeopathy ... i just pointed out that there is a flaw in his argument... That heroin is not natural.
anyways whats with u bringing up anthrax and alchol ? People dont use heroin in homeopathy. Just like people dont use anthax to treat dieases or get drunk to cure dieases in alternative medicine...no one said if its natural, then it must be good for u.lol
ohnoyoudidntx 4 months ago
@ohnoyoudidntx you need to read up more on homeopathy, they use what ever creates similar symptoms as a base and if it happens to be that the symptoms mirror that of anthrax poisoning... yeah... exactly. That's what they believe, don't ask me to explain or justify it.
DoomsdayR3sistance 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DoomsdayR3sistance
Just because homeopathy sucks..DOES NOT mean all forms of alternative medicine is bad. And homeopathy is not used by all those who subscribe to alternative medicine. They all have different foundations and beliefs.
im sure if a certain Doctor prescribed medicine sucks, we dont go blame the entire medical system as making all bad drugs. Diabetes drugs dont work.........so taht means heart medicines dotn work????
ohnoyoudidntx 4 months ago
Great stuff
donrane 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Another dummy who is talking about things he has no idea about. A comedian who is not funny at all. Go back to comedy school retard. I have used homeopathic medicine and it works. Too bad there isn't one that can make you a better comedian. Take you lame jokes and go back and finish college.
VgnMuscle 5 months ago
@VgnMuscle haha the truth hurts doesnt it. Im afraid he is right, if you want to believe in a quack treatment whose principles fly in the face of established principles of chemistry and physics, waste your money, and ignore well designed scientific work that shows its the placebo effect, then go ahead. But dont insult the guy for being right.
tootoo1upper 5 months ago 3
@tootoo1upper Where's your logic man. I just said I used a bunch of homeopathic medicines and they have worked for me and others I know. How many times has this fool used it. Yeah that's what I thought...never..traditional medicine sucks for the most part, you end up with side effects and then you need more medicine. Instead of being a sheep maybe you should think out of the box sometimes. Big pharma loves you.
VgnMuscle 5 months ago
@VgnMuscle - No, you've never taken any homeopathic medicines. I'm sure of that, because homeopathic products aren't allowed to use the term "medicine". At most, they can be labelled "remedies". And, regardless of the wording, what you took was made of water, corn starch and sugar. And who do you think distributes "homeopathic remedies"? The very same "big pharma". And you're paying them $10 for sugar pills, giving them a 5000% profit, so I suspect they love you even more...
RFC3514 5 months ago
@RFC3514 Obviously your are a braindead moron who doesn't have the ability to process what I wrote, however, I have an appropriate comment for retards like you, a sentence you will perhaps understand better than anything else, because from day one of your life everybody has been telling you this and now it's my turn, so here go....F@CK YOU ARSEHOLE. Goodbye
VgnMuscle 4 months ago
@VgnMuscle Its obvious that @RFC3514 understood you clearly, and responded appropriately - if you can't handle reasonable debate and discussion then its probably a good thing you threw in the towel and sat this one out.
tomrw54 4 months ago
@tomrw54 Just cause you agree with him doesn't mean he is right. None of you guys have ever used a homeopathic medicine yet you are so eager to comment on this retard comedians jokes. Keep taking your stupid meds that only mask the side effects, we will see who lives longer. Take the cocks out of your ears and listen to what I am saying. I took the homeopathic medication several times for different illness and I cured me. Traditional medicine sucks for the most part.
VgnMuscle 4 months ago
@VgnMuscle again, if you can't handle reasonable discussion, you may as well not bother. The insults just make you look stupid. And for the record - I had homeopathic remedies many times before I got an education, sadly, my entire family swear by them. As for your experiences with homeopathy - Im sure you THINK they cured you, but I'm afraid that just something called confirmation bias. Look it up, you might learn something.
tomrw54 4 months ago
@tomrw54 Oh just shut up. Take your traditional medicine and shove it up your ass. Go to hell for all I care.
VgnMuscle 4 months ago
@VgnMuscle nah its cool, I'd prefer to keep having rational discussions (which you obviously hate). And trust me, if you read and learn more, you'd be less likely to rely on dumb insults to get your point across. Try it, education is great.
tomrw54 4 months ago
@tomrw54 Look who's talking. Truth is I am tired of retards like you. I refuse to understand the other person's point no matter what, therefore you don't deserve to be treated in a sensible manner. I tried it and it failed. Retards will continue to be retards and try to knock something logical into them is virtually impossible as I have seen it with you guys. I do know that retards understand simple things like assh@le and bitch etc, it always works therefore I had no choice but to resort to it.
VgnMuscle 4 months ago
@VgnMuscle your attempt at logic was "I just said I used a bunch of homeopathic medicines and they have worked for me and others I know" and then you called everyone who pointed out the problems with your argument "sheep". Pretty crappy logic and fairly dumb argument. Then when you couldn't defend your lame contention, you just resorted to insults. Yeah, real intelligent stuff. Seriously, do a little reading - I swear it will help you avoid resorting to dumb arguments. Try it.
tomrw54 4 months ago 2
@VgnMuscle Oh the old sheep and big pharma argument. Well, it's not really an argument is it. If you can explain to me how homeopathy works, and show me peer reviewed research that shows that it works then I will accept it. Stop rolling out your anecdotes and your tired change the subject arguments. Just show me the proof. That's not too much to ask is it? Oh wait, we're talking about homeopathy, it is too much to ask.
waysgoose 3 months ago 4
true class
dig6dog 6 months ago
XD Can't stop laughing!
ThePixel1983 7 months ago
If it worked it would be called medicine.
peterb1968 7 months ago 26
alternative medicine, i.e alternative to being medicine.
SOAS007 7 months ago 25
@SOAS007 tim minchin said it best, "by definition alternative medicine has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work, do you know what they call alternative medicine thats been proved to work? medicine"
its in his beat poem called storm, its on youtube so its not hard to find
deathman1021 6 months ago 4
Asprin is too natural
deathman1021 8 months ago
DOUCHE BAG STOLE OFF CARLIN!
mazza23 8 months ago
looool . .
xOsaloOmOx 8 months ago
It's organic.
MrRichardsome1 9 months ago
Last line cracked me up. :D
LordLoco87 9 months ago 2
omg,why are only two people having a conversation here? it's not even about the comedian any more, move on or continue in a PM...
OppositeofHATE7 9 months ago
@OppositeofHATE7 - LOL. Okay, I'll stop. Homeopathy seems to be a passionate topic for some people here, both for and against.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@wstevenschneider i'm all for healthy debate/discussion, but *geez* lol there's enough of it going on on youtube and not all of it is civil. it gets tiring, ya? i just wanted to see feedback/comments, not another presidential campaign.
OppositeofHATE7 9 months ago
You know this because you've read the study. They did not avoid the funding issue, but they said that they purposely won't tell us because they didn't feel it was important. Let's say I find a criticism of the operating system of Apple Computers. If I find out that the study was funded by Microsoft Corp, don't you think I should be suspicious of the results? it's a conflict of interest. Same with the Lancet study. If GSK funded it, that's a conflict of interest.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Your point about conflict of interest is valid. Still, if there are no glaring errors, or obvious omissions then it is less vital.
It's true that sometimes the revealing the commissioner of the report may reveal a conflict of interest. It's also true that sometimes the commissioner was hoping for different results and wishes now to avoid embarassment. Frankly, I agree that it would be revealing though still not vital, nor would it change the results.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@wstevenschneider The problem with conflict of interest bias is that you are most likely NOT going to find it. You are lucky if you do. If I know there is a potential for bias from a conflict of interest situation, then that is good information to have. I mean, it's why we usually don't believe commercials, isn't it?
indoctus41 9 months ago
@indoctus41 - Commercials are about persuasion. Scientific reports are about convincing. If the facts of a scientific report do not withstand scrutiny then they are unconvincing regardless of who funded the study. The source of the funding may reveal why glaring oversights, or omissions were made in an unconvincing study.
That said, I do prefer that a report be open about its funding source.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
The following is a study of Breast Cancer cells and homeopathy: Frenkel, M. et al. Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells International Journal of Oncology 2010 Feb;36(2):395-403. Conclusion: Four homeopathic remedies caused death of breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory, similar to the effect of chemotherapy, but without affecting normal cells.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - The article [Frenkel et al, 2010] is lacks a comprehensive statistical analysis (eg, CI?), inadequate controls, experiments done only 2x's per line of cancer cells (minimum in experiments is 3x's), no results shown for HPLC, results not quantified, western blots meaningless when control is killing cancer cells, and the flow cytometry was not quantitated.
Again, Homeopathy not proven effective beyond placebo.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider Where did you find these criticisms? Why are you using anonymous, unspecified criticisms of a study from a legitimate medical journal?
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Why are you surprised that I am capable of criticizing a scientific article? The mistakes in the Frenkel et al study are common mistakes that any first-year science student makes. I've made such mistakes. Smarter people than me have made such mistakes.
Do you disagree with my analysis?
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@wstevenschneider I agree with you that scientists can be very sloppy. The Lancet 2005 meta-analysis is in my opinion one of those.
indoctus41 9 months ago
@indoctus41 - The topic is the Frenkel et al study. The empirical proof of the sloppiness of Frenkel et al can be seen in their submitted paper. Frankly, I'm surprised it passed peer-review with such obvious errors in it.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
A clarification. There were 2 meta-analyses in the Lancet, 1997 and 2005. The 2005 study was negative for homeopathy, the 1997 was positive. When Richard Dawkins vilified homeopathy in his famous documentary "The Enemy of Reason", he only identified the 2005 Lancet study, ignoring the 1997 one, as well as 3 others in the British Medical Journal, The Journal of Clinical Epidemiol, and the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacol. Dawkins in fact cherry-picked his information and misled the public.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - The 1997 study [Linde et al] did not find anything conclusive. Note the statement "However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."
Homeopathy has still not been empirically proven in any randomized, double-blind test. There have been lots of such tests and Homeopathy has consistently failed.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider Therein lies the problem with reading conclusions instead of the bulk of the study to make up your own mind.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Or perhaps I've read the Linde et al study and agree with the conclusion.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@wstevenschneider That's possible. Is it true?
indoctus41 9 months ago
@indoctus41 - It is.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
The 2005 Lancet study has the following problems: 1) They won't reveal who funded it, 2) They selected 8 out of 110 studies, but didn't say which ones they selected, 3) They didn't say which branch of homeopathy were in the final eight, 4) Any study showing positive effects were discarded because of bias, even though they couldn't identify the bias, 5) They didn't follow homeopathic protocol, meaning they administered the medicine in a way that would result in failure.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - "They didn't follow homeopathic protocol, meaning they administered the medicine in a way that would result in failure."
It was a meta-study, Shang et al did not administer any medicine. I've raised this point before and you're repeating it here despite that displays dishonesty. Similarly your point about bias is still bogus.
The Lancet study [Shang et al, 2005] was honestly done despite the difficulties in performing such a study.
Homeopathy still not proven effective.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider That's true, but they analyzed studies that avoided using proper homeopathic protocol. Only 15% of the 110 studies used proper protocol (classical homeopathy) and they will not tell us which studies ended up in the final 8 they selected. So we don't know. In fact there's a lot we don't know from this study because they won't tell us.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Honestly, I'm not convinced that "proper homeopathic protocol" would have made a difference. It is a pity though that that Shang et al didn't make it more clear in the meta-study. While this would not have swayed a "true believer" in Homeopathy, it would tell the casual reader much.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@wstevenschneider e.g. There are over 100 remedies for a headache. The selection of the remedy depends on numerous factors, location, type (throbbing, continuous), severity, duration, etc. as well as the patient's physical and mental characteristics. If you amassed a room full of subjects with a headache and administered the same remedy for all the different classes of headaches, you would not be following protocol.
indoctus41 9 months ago
@indoctus41 - Sounds like a complicated procedure just to prescribe water/alcohol, or sugar tablets.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@indoctus41 - How can you know point 4) _if_ point 2) is true. Since you don't know which studies they threw out how do you know they threw out the ones showing a positive bias for Homeopathy? Speculation? Where's your evidence?
Science has not been able to prove that Homeopathy is effective beyond placebo.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider Easily. Shang et al selected 8 studies out of 110. They considered all 110 as legitimate. Among the 102 they discarded were studies that showed positive benefits. They admitted IN THE STUDY which you must have read, that any positive study must have been biased even though they couldn't identify any. That was what THEY said, not me. Moreover you did not address the fact that they refused to disclose who funded the study, and strange fact for a study considering itself unbiased.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Shang et al did an odds analysis, assuming the considered study had sufficient data to calculate such odds. The higher quality studies (both Homeopathy and Modern Medicine) had an odds ratio approaching 1.0. Poorly done studies (both Homeopathy and Modern Medicine) showed a bias and the ratio was less than 1.0.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@indoctus41- Point 1) is only really a problem if there are problems with the study (eg, the study is flawed, internally inconsistent, unscientific, etc...). You have been unable to demonstrate any actual problems in The Lancet study [Shang et al, 2005].
Homeopathy, still not proven effective beyond placebo.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Comment removed
indoctus41 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wstevenschneider This was hidden so I didn't see it. You did address the funding issue. My question is, if it makes no difference to the study, why conceal this information. Conflict of interest might be irrelevant to Lancet. If so, then who is funding a medical Journal that believes that a conflict of interest is unimportant??? By the way I unflagged your entry.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Matt Kirshen is correct on one point. He didn't do any research. I found 4 meta-analyses showing positive effects for homeopathy, published in the Lancet, British Medical Journal, Journal of Clinical Epidemiol, and the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacol. The Lancet meta-analysis from 2005 was the only meta-analysis that showed no better than placebo. It is this study, to the exclusion of any other, that is used to disprove homeopathy.
indoctus41 10 months ago
excellent
waheex 10 months ago
Just a correction of a previous poster. Vaccine antigens don't create an AUTOimmune response. Autoimmunity means your immune system attacks something within YOUR body e.g. MS is an autoimmune disease of the nerve sheath. The last thing you would want is an autoimmune response from a vaccine. However an immune response would be beneficial, meaning that the vaccine has created the appropriate anti-bodies against a target disease.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Indeed. Thank you for that correction.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider: No problem.
indoctus41 10 months ago
By what mechanism is Homeopathy supposed to protect the patient from H1N1?
Homeopathic practitioners don't believe in Germ Theory so this talk of "strengthening the immune system" is a smokescreen.
Homeopathy operates on the magical principle of "law of similars". So if it makes reproduces the symptoms it should protect you from the disease?
Homeopathy solns are not very dilute, there is no solute in the solvent. There isn't anything in them.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
I recommend to anyone serious about the topic the lectures of Doctor Teresa Forcales. She provides a history of H1N1, the politics, the medical studies and what they mean, while using standard journals as sources (NEJM, BJM, etc). Unfortunately the lectures are in Spanish but I did find one fairly easily that had English subtitles. Cheers.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Indoctus41 presents only part of the story on adjuvants to further his campaign of FUD wrt to vacc'ns. His comment about NA medicine being silent about the study is mere distraction. His claims about Paraguay and Uraguay not being vacc'd are bogus.
ht tp ://w w w. flutrackers. com/forum/archive/index. php/t-145926.html
ht tp ://w w w. flutrackers. com/forum/showthread. php?p=350017
Main Point:
Indoctus41 still fails to produce verified, peer-reviewed evidence to support Homeopathy efficacy.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Note that I had to visit a Spanish lecture series to even hear about the study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The North American medical community and the media were silent on the subject (My first post on the actual figures had some minor numerical errors which I corrected subsequently)
indoctus41 10 months ago
References: NEJM (21/10/09): "A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups" Authors: FC Zhu, H Wang, HH Fang, et al. Results: 7.5mcg = no antibodies, 15mcg = more antibodies than with adjuvant, 30mcg = no difference to 15mcg. Antigens in GSK vaccine = 3.75mcg, insufficient to create antibodies. PLUS, there is no study that shows the vaccine is safe for pregnant women.
indoctus41 10 months ago
As noted, Paraquay & Uruguay, countries that avoided the massive H1N1 vaccine campaigns, experienced no more cases per capita than other countries that initiated massive and expensive vaccine programs. For the H1N1 vaccines to create even a limited antibody response in the host, the level of antigen had to be at least 15 micrograms. At 7.75 micrograms there was no antibody response. The amount of antigen in the GSK vaccine?: 3:5 micrograms. Modern medical science at its best.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Someone needs to state the year and which Vaccine mnfr when making the claim that the H1N1 vaccine was shown not to have enough antigens to elicit an autoimmune response. Not doing so is simply a dishonest ploy to make it seem as if all H1N1 vaccines of all years had a problem. Come now, come clean.
Also, since Homeopaths generally don't believe in Germ Theory, I'd like to know by which mechanism that Homeopathy would protect the patient from contracting H1N1?
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider - (replying to my own post to post a amendment)
As Indoctus41 pointed out I made a error by calling the body's response to the vaccine "autoimmune". Thanks once again as I didn't catch this typographical error when I made this post.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
There is nothing IMPOSSIBLE in Homeopathy even AIDS can b treated
msburmy1 10 months ago
@msburmy1 The Spanish team of doctors I referred to earlier pointed out that Paraquay and Uruquay did not involve themselves in any H1N1 vaccine program and they had no problems with the disease. This supports the original view from the same team that the H1N1 vaccine does not contain enough antigens to create an antibody response in the subject. It's regrettable that these Spanish language lectures will never be translated into English.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Some anti-H1N1 Vaccine rebuttals:
Three Studies
ht tp ://general-medicine.jwatch. org/cgi/content/full/2010/121/2
(see sourced documents for more details)
Health Canada (H1N1) (mercury entry)
ht tp :// w w w. phac-aspc.gc. ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/faq/faq_rg_h1n1-fvv-eng.php
Post your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that Homeopathy isn't the travesty that we know it to be.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Blah, blah, blah. Innuendo, conspiracy, cherry picking, spinning and all the rest we've come to expect from inductus41. Inductus41's goal isn't to provide reliable and accurate information, but to sow confusion and doubt. That anyone who doesn't agree with Inductus41 is somehow mentally deficient, thought the proof seems that it's the other way.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
According to a Spanish researcher from the team, the only reason mercury et al are in the vaccines is to augment profits for the companies as they are the cheapest way to increase shelf life. It is madness to shove such garbage into your system and then expect there will be no consequences.
indoctus41 10 months ago
All of the spin doctors in NA on the payroll of Papa Droga ignore Cuban experts. By the way, if you happen to speak Spanish, there is a team of practicing doctors/researchers in Spain who have now shown that the H1N1 vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline cannot possibly work even according to GSK's own studies. The problem is there is not enough antigen in the shot to create any anti-bodies to the disease. It does however contain mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, substances that have no medical value.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Behold the Gish Gallop Poll and Paranoid Conspiracy Theorizing of a medical-science denier. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that Homeopathy is old, unfounded and magic-thinking they resort to spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Homeopaths, post your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence if you have any.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Sadly, because of our gutted educational systems, the population is losing it's ability to analyze information or even to ask the right questions. We're being taught to be obedient little citizens. The result? Lancet and the like can get away with one of the most egregious medical studies to date, and even get support from an Oxford Professor.
indoctus41 10 months ago
The third question for Lancet is, "Why did they ignore all the work done by Cuban researchers?" Could it be that GlaxoSmithKline established the framework and would only allow studies funded by Big Pharma? We can't know any of this for sure because Lancet WON'T tell us who was financially involved in their study.
indoctus41 10 months ago
The second question to ask of Lancet is, "Why do they feel they have to hide who funded the study?". What happened to transparency? If it makes no difference, then why withhold the information?
indoctus41 10 months ago
The only question you have to ask of the Lancet study is "Who funded it?". Was it GlaxoSmithKline or the Swansea Community Ladies' Bridge Club. It makes a difference. Lancet hides this information with good reason. It's like asking Coke to do a taste test on Pepsi, or having the Ford Motor Co study the safety features of GM Trucks.
indoctus41 10 months ago
As you can see folks, Homeopathy supports are not able to produce any verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence of their claims. Observe how they avoid the issue with fallacy after fallacy, paranoid conspiracy thinking, trolling, spinning and spamming.
Please continue posting. It's instructive for the readership to see what goes on inside such a person's head.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
We are a profit-based society. In many ways that's a good thing, but when it comes to medical research it is a failed system. It is so bad in places like Canada that doctors are not even allowed to express their own opinions for fear of having their license revoked. The famous Shiv Chopra of Health Canada was fired for refusing to approve what he considered dangerous drugs. This is the kind of hold Big Pharma can have on a nation's economy and ultimately, its freedom.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Remember none of the research or media articles in Cuba will be translated for our perusal. When it comes to the advancement of Cuban medicine, we are completely in the dark, even though the WHO shows that life expectancy in Cuba is 78.26 years compared with the United States at 77.99 years. A little poor country compared to the richest nation on earth. And yet we ignore what they are doing, including their advancement of homeopathy.
indoctus41 10 months ago
Unless Homeopathy can be supported with verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence it will be cast back into the darkness and superstition from which it came. The much hailed "Cuban Success" story of Homeopathy does not stand to scrutiny. The claims of bias against Cuban researchers only insults evidence-based Cuban researchers whom the writers of the article obviously ignore.
Again, produce your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that Homeopathy works if you have any.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
I can understand being threatened by homeopathy. After all there are people like James Randi, a magician by trade, and non-medical experts like Richard Dawkins, who have come out vehemently against it. Neither have discussed any of these matters with Cuban researchers, nor did the anonymously-funded Lancet study investigate Cuban success with homeopathy. I can only assume the Lancet did its best to compile a mega-study that pleased those who paid their salaries.
indoctus41 10 months ago
You don't hear anything about this because we're being told by our leaders and experts that homeopathy is nonsense. The important point is that Cuba, with it's limited resources, and still suffering from the Soviet collapse and the 50 year US embargo, can ill-afford to waste time and money on something that doesn't work. Nor are they threatened by the success of homeopathy as seems to be the case with our medical industry.
indoctus41 10 months ago
(Translation of entry below) The Complejo NodeGrip, which is being administered to the population through the united network of primary care, is not a vaccine against the grip, but a homeopathic preparation produced by the Finlay Institute, demonstrated to be harmless, that can offer advantages "such as stimulating an immune response for the prevention of infectious diseases of the respiratory system.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - "...that can offer advantages such as stimulating an immune response for the prevention of infectious diseases of the respiratory system.'"
That's a lot of "sciency" language but very vague and non-technical. Lots of things can stimulate immune responses. Heck, allergies are immune responses.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Let's pick something definite (and ignore your off-the-wall comments about "Big Pharma") and say that Homeopathy somehow does the equivalent of vaccination. By what mechanism do you propose that this would occur when, for instance, there is nothing in the solution?
What verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence do you have that Homeopathy works beyond placebo?
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
el Complejo NoDegrip — que se viene aplicando a la población a través de la red de unidades de la atención primaria—, no es una vacuna contra la gripe, sino un preparado homeopático producido por el Instituto Finlay, de demostrada inocuidad, que puede ofrecer ventajas "como estimulador de la respuesta inmune para la prevención de enfermedades infecciosas del sistema respiratorio" (see next entry above for translation) -----
indoctus41 10 months ago
What's interesting is that while in North America we are attacking homeopathy, mainly because it is not patentable and therefore does not contribute to the profits of Big Pharma, Cuba is moving ahead with it, incorporating it along with other medical strategies to deal with many health issues. There is a good article in La Granma homeopathy and H1N1, that says in part (read the next entry above) -----
indoctus41 10 months ago
The unfortunate part of relying on only English sources is that you would not see the great disparity between how Cuban medical experts perceive the almost eradication of leptospirosis through homeopathy and how North American 'experts' perceive it. I speak Spanish so fortunately I am not prevented from reading the original texts on the subject, minus the spin from our filters. Distrusting Cuban researchers is of course more about politics than about a quest for the truth.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - More innuendo minus facts. I take it that you don't have any verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence and so are now trying to win political points.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
For those interested, Roniger and Jacobs claim that although there was a significant decrease in leptrospirosis in the years 2007-2008 when homeopathy was used (they didn't mention that in previous years there were some deaths but none in 2007-08), homeopathy just can't work and therefore didn't. This is medical science at the level of about an 8 year old. My apologies to intelligent 8 year olds.
indoctus41 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Oh please, all you do is go around claiming that this, or that study is invalid. Yet when you are forced to face the fact that they are valid you either resort to conspiracy theories, or make some comment trying to sound superior.
If you've got any actual verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that Homeopathy works then please do so, or you've demonstrated that you're not even able to be in the playing field.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@indoctus41 - Furthermore, your claim doesn't explain why Leptrospirosis rates were the same in both groups (Intervention Region and Rest of Cuba), nor does it acknowledge the massive hygiene education campaign conducted by the Cuban government, nor does it acknowledge the fact that the Homeopathy trial was an non-randomized, uncontrolled experiment.
Again, present your verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence in support of Homeopathy.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
In case anybody is wondering, there is an analysis of the "Cuban Experience" by Roniger and Jacobs, 2010 Homeopathy Journal. This is where I got my info from.
ht tp://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.homp.2010.06.004
Conclusion: Homeopathy still doesn't work.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Homeopathy works and is the most advanced science of healing, scientists has proved it,(search IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY) and the research paper appeared in PEER reviewed well established journal and the result was published after 4 years of study on nanotechnology and homeopathy by scientists of IIT Bombay.
This definitely shows that HOMEOPATHY is the MOST ADVANCED science of healing and medicine of present and future.
drchristoaa 10 months ago
@drchristoaa Do you cut and paste all your replies? This looks exactly like your response to the James Randi video. Please come up with something a little more original.
murdocha 10 months ago
@drchristoaa - Mr. Bonking, would you like it if the government treated Homeopathy solns like real medicine? This of course means that Homeopathy would have the same level of scrutiny as drug mfrs. Would you be comfortable with that, Mr. Bonking?
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider u dont understand the basics of homeopathy or even medicne, i cured a patient with severe headache since 25 years, who has been takng paracetamol or painkillers given by allopathic doctors. With in one week after taking the homeopathic medicne all symptoms disappeared and never reappeared since last 3 years. she had developed peptic ulcer by using pain killers, hence came to homeopathy.
Homeoepathy works and is the most advanced science of healing.Science has proved it..
drchristoaa 10 months ago
@drchristoaa - You haven't answered my question, Mr. Bonking.
Instead you offer anecdotal evidence and your usual rhetoric.
Claiming that I don't understand the basics of homeopathy or medicine is a bit of a straw man too. Did I criticize homeopathy in my question which you didn't answer? It's also a bit presumptuous, how do you know what I know or don't know?
Why won't you answer my question, Mr. Bonking?
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
The person who presents here is a clown,and is exposing his ignorence in public, pity that he is not understanding the fact that people are laughing at him....poor fellow .
drchristoaa 10 months ago
Homeopathy works and is the most advanced science of healing, scientists has proved it,(search IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY) and the research paper appeared in PEER reviewed well established journal and the result was published after 4 years of study on nanotechnology and homeopathy by scientists of IIT Bombay.
This definitely shows that HOMEOPATHY is the MOST ADVANCED science of healing and medicine of present and future.
drchristoaa 10 months ago
researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study provides “concrete evidence.”
drchristoaa 10 months ago
new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has confirmed the presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials even at extremely high dilutions of homeopathic medicne. Researchers have demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions.
drchristoaa 10 months ago
If this guy really understood the complete and utter stupidity of what he's saying he'd be on the other side of the curtain
acorntechnique 11 months ago
@acorntechnique Comedy is about revealing an underlying truth, not spouting gov't/corporate propaganda.
indoctus41 11 months ago
My ex-wife killed three people using homeopathy - the first being her own mother. Don't let anyone fool you:
There's nothing in it.
LouisDixon213 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING, SCIENCE HAS PROVED IT.....
EVERY TRUE DUBLE BLIND TEST HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT HOMEOPATHY WORKS....
jamesbondking 11 months ago
It seems all those who are laughing do not have any educational credentials but to sit and watch this stupid speaker who seem so young I doubt he even completed elementary schooling. Probably they are all patients laughing because their family doctor told them that cures some of their ailments and makes them healthy in the process of healing which can never happen. Shame, Shame any idiot can mock at something with proven experience. Homeopathy is not just water has memory, it has more credits.
svenkat2006 11 months ago
@svenkat2006 People deride what they don't understand because it's safe, and avoid doing their own research because they're lazy. That's why indoctrination is so easy. All you need is an authority figure (enter Richard Dawkins) to tell us how to think and then let the population do the rest. Goebbels would have been very interested in watching how successful we are at manufacturing the consent of the masses without threatening them with internment camps.
indoctus41 11 months ago
This guy is adorable!
hellogoodbyemyluv 11 months ago
Homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper and iron retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, states the IIT-Bombay research published in the latest issue of 'Homeopathy', a peer-reviewed journal from reputed medical publishing firm Elsevier
science has proved that homeopathy works...so HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF THERAPUTICS
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@jamesbondking
Actually, homeopathy is unproven by science. The amount of "active ingredient" in these medications is so low that current instruments are typically unable to detect it. Homeopathy functions on the principle that water retains memory the more times you dilute it. It isn't the gold, copper, or iron itself that is believed to provide the benefit. It's the memory the water gains. Homeopathy is NOT naturopathy, which DOES function on health benefits from plants/minerals.
Echo852 1 year ago 2
@Echo852 Friend , Search in GOOGLE-IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY, read it and reply me. Memory of water was just a term used by scientist to express the effect that ,even much diluted substance retain medicinal power, now science has proved it using nano science
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@jamesbondking Maybe you ought to take your own advice. Did you actually do research, or are you feeding back the homeopathic headline? The paper was entitled "Extreme Homeopathic Dilutions Retain Starting Materials: A Nanoparticulate Perspective." Nothing about healing properties. Also, this article is NOT widespread on medical websites. Just homeopathic ones. A bit one-sided, is it not? I wouldn't accept this as a proper source of information.
Echo852 1 year ago
@Echo852 Friend,IIT is one of the best science institute in the world. At present they are researching to find out the biological activities of this extreme dilutions, and you will hear it soon and wolrd will know what is the real science of healing.Clinical data already shows homeopathy works..
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@jamesbondking How can something be diluted to a unit of length?
kiybro 11 months ago
@kiybro Nanoscience is totally different...learn it then reply
jamesbondking 11 months ago
@jamesbondking Since you haven't even grasped the differences between measurements of length (nanometre) and levels of concentration (p.p.m or x% or gm/L) why on earth should anyone listen to you spouting pseudoscience which may endanger their health?
andruh99 11 months ago
@andruh99friend,learn what is nanotechnology first and its measurements, it is little different,
if you still doubt the action of homeopathic medicne then please take Homepathic medicine GLONOINE 30, 5 pills 2 hourly for four days,you will get severe headache and headache will disappear within 2 days after u stop the medicne.Anyway water cant cause headache to you.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS...and IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING.SCIENCE HAS PROVED IT
jamesbondking 11 months ago
@jamesbondking I know what nanotechnology is, and on what scale it works (less than 100nm.)
Why on earth would you reccomend anyone taking something to give themselves headaches? That's ridiculous, and further illustrates my point that you do not know the basics of what you are talking about. I looked up you Glonoine, and found it to be an "alcoholic solution of nitro-glycerine." For homeopathic uses, it would be greatly diluted.
Homeopathy is nonsense, and diluting things isn't advanced.
andruh99 11 months ago
@andruh99 The fact HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING is the ternruth.
Friend, try how water can cause headache...if u have courage. and reply me
and dont waste your beautiful suffering by using chemicals.. because u have an better alternative way to heal...
HOMEOPATHY WORKS
jamesbondking 11 months ago
I could really use an angry bear!
laharvey125 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
@DrNancyMalik oh, shut up and go call yourself a doctor elsewhere where people dance to voodoo. Your types are fraudulent scammers who should frankly be jailed for the trouble you cause humanity at large.
xiangyik 1 year ago
@xiangyik Homeopathic pills containing naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper and iron retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre, states the IIT-Bombay research published in the latest issue of 'Homeopathy', a peer-reviewed journal from reputed medical publishing firm Elsevier.
chemical engineering department prepared highly diluted solutions and checked these under powerful electron microscopes to find nanoparticles of the original metal.
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@jamesbondking Stop quoting this as a source that homeopathic medicine works and read the actual paper. All it says is that they found particles. They did not say they provided any kind of medical benefit. In fact, they did say that it required more study.
Quote: How this translates into change in biological activity with increasing potency needs further study.
Yes, they found particles. No, they can't prove it works.
Echo852 1 year ago
@Echo852 friend, homeopathic physicians around the world cures millions of patients using this extreem diluted medicine.... so if we connect both then the end product is that... science has proved that how homeopathy works...
Wait.... you will hear it soon through your scientfic community.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@Echo852 FRIEND, biological action is already established by the milllions of patients who gets cured by homepathy and the doctors who use homeopathic medicne.
wait.. soon science will prove it, you dont worry , science is always late in homeopathic matter, till now science was delaying the fact that homeopathy medicine contain any particles,which they proved is wrong recently.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOSTADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING
jamesbondking 11 months ago
haha did you guys know how much they dilute the substance in water... If you put one drop into the ocean of a particular medicine, it still isnt diluted enough. Its hocus Pocus
MattyJoels 1 year ago
oogle "escaping the cult of homeopathy" for an excellent article by Le Canard Noir;
skepticat1 1 year ago
I've used homeopathy a couple of times throughout my life and it seemed to help. I mean, if you have something simple like a cold, or a flu, or something that's really not worth going to a doctor for, homeopathy is better then nothing and even if it is a placebo, gives relief for a little while or until you're healthy again.
kiki10020 1 year ago
@kiki10020 friend, Homeopathy even give relief the pain and suffering of cancer patients and gives them a healthy life and a painless death. I had recently 5 cancer patients, and 3 of them died with in three months after starting chemotherapy and radiation, but other 2 are still living a happy life still and they are on Homeopathic treatment.
jamesbondking 1 year ago
@jamesbondking Homeopathic medicine, administered properly, can generate benefits in patients, sometimes profoundly. Homeopathy is attacked not because it doesn't work (that wouldn't present a problem to drug monopolies) but that it works too well. Drug companies along with their agents, national gov'ts, are very good at fudging figures on their own products, e.g. If a cancer patient under chemo makes it to the 5th year and dies, he's LISTED AS CURED, dead but cured.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 if homoeopathy works so well then why the hell does it do no better than the placebo effect when experimental studies are conducted which involve a double blind? what a load of utter bullshit "it works too well". if it worked TOO WELL then you would have hundreds of studies to PROVE IT. science doesnt work with whats popular it goes with what the EVIDENCE suggests. you think evolution was popular in 18th century britian? no but it won because it was TRUE
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics The Lancet mega-analysis that Dawkins refers to is an embarrassment. I can say that because I have READ it and know why it's rubbish. They admitted, remarkably, that any study that showed positive benefits were tossed because they MUST HAVE BEEN BIASED, even though they COULDN'T FIND ANY. They only focused on negative results. If scientists and their sycophants think homeopathy is garbage, why did they distort the mega-study to 'prove' their point? Ask yourself that.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 i am not referring specifically to the lancet article, i am referring to ALL double blind studies into homoeopathy. if homoeopathy is as effective as you claim then it should do far better than the placebo effect.
show me ONE study into homoeopathy that is double blind, done by a reputable peer reviewed journal and has a significiant sample size with NO bias or other such flaws in the methodology.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics Hard to educate you since you're so far behind. Do you know what mega-analysis means? Do you know the different types of homeopathy? Do you understand homeopathic protocol? Do you know why double-blind studies and homeopathy are incompatible? Leptospirosis in Cuba: 2007 & 2008 - 10 infections/no fatalities. Previously using standard vaccines: thousands of infections and a number of fatalities. Homeopathy was 1/10 the cost of pharma approach and vastly superior in effectiveness.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 why are double blind studies and homoeopathy incompatible? because double blind studies are the ONLY way to rule out the placebo effect?
AussiePolitics 11 months ago 2
@AussiePolitics As an example, there are over 100 homeopathic remedies for headaches. If you gathered together a group of 100 to administer 1 remedy to all subjects who had a headache, you would be doing something that no homeopath would ever do, give the same remedy to patients with similar symptoms. Given the protocols for homeopathy, I don't see how you could perform a double-blind test that made sense.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 do you know what a double blind study is? it means that neither the homoeopaths or the patients know whether they are getting the real thing or a placebo. so they would prescribe what they normally would but they would not know whether the 'ingredients' in their solutions were actually real or just a placebo.
whenever you implement a double blind study with homoeopathy it never does better than the placebo.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics Goebbels stated that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 congratulations ever heard of a thing called godwins law? it concerns fools who bring nazism into debates that have NOTHING to do with it. look it up.
i love it how you are equating the failure of homoeopathy to demonstrate ANY evidence that it works beyond the placebo effect to actual scientists who do REAL WORK. you have no evidence, and if you would win the nobel prize for chemistry, physics and many other areas.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@indoctus41 i always think its funny how homoeopathy holds itself to a different standard than medicine. if pharmaceutical companies that make homoeopathic products were to try to market it as an actual drug, they would have to undergo REAL testing to demonstrate that it actually works.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics Again not true. Drugs do NOT HAVE TO WORK. That is a myth. They only have to be slightly better than placebo. That means that if 1 person out of 100 receives a benefit from a drug in pharma funded studies, that is sufficient for gov't approval as a marketable drug. That also means that 99 people will be subjecting themselves to the side effects of that drug with no hope of any benefit.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 you obviously have never studied statistics in your life if 1 person out of 100 would have to benefit to get a drug approved. medical statistics is not like environmental studies a result of 0.5 is deemed significant. medicine typically goes to at least 0.01 or MORE. you are obviously making things up that you have no knowledge of that suits your argument.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics I haven't the foggiest clue what you're on about.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF STATISTICS. you go on about medicine only needing to heal 1 in 100 people but that would not yield a statistical level of significance great enough according to medical standards for it to be significant enough to keep the drug.
a statistical value of 0.01 or GREATER is required to REJECT the null hypothesis in medical testing that the drug does no better than the placebo. you obviously have NO understanding of how medical stats works
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics Pt 2: Most remedies require an empty stomach. This was done in only 15% of the studies that were classified as classical homeopathy. Unfortunately we don't know if any of the 15% were included in the final tally because the study did not tell us what types of homeopathy they decided to keep and which ones they discarded. Moreover it stated the funding source would NOT be revealed. Keep in mind this is Dawkins' favourite study, the mega-analysis of mega-analyses.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 actually there are a large number of studies into homoeopathy that have found it has little effect beyond the placebo. REAL medicine has actually had to pass the TESTS to prove it is useful and works better than the placebo effect. double blind studies have to show a significant statistical advantage before they are allowed on the market. homoeopathy does not have ANY PROOF. if homoeopathy is as effective as you claim then WHY is it so hard to find ANY proof that it works?
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics "REAL Medicine". Interesting. You mean like the medicine they gave my sister for joint pain that ate away the meniscus in both of her knees because they didn't know that it destroys cartilage. You mean that kind of medicine. You mean the stuff that's been tested and deemed safe but somehow still manages to destroy parts of the body.
indoctus41 11 months ago
@indoctus41 right individual testimony from a person who claims to understand how medicine works but obviously has not got the slightest clue about medical statistics.
individual testimony is utter bullshit. its like 'i smoked for 60 years and i am as healthy as' or 'my uncle was a fitness freak and had a heart attack at 34'. it proves NOTHING.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago