@wawei67 So what do I have to do to make them approved for homeopathy? I do 1/10 dilutions, I shake up the solution and dilute out quite far. What else do I need to do? Bacteriophages are quite effective when they aren't diluted at all so why would diluting it to 10^-19 result in me seeing killing the bacterial lawn when I don't. I can go test this out tomorrow if you tell me how to make it homeopathic approved. I'll take photos and send them to you if you want.
@wawei67 Most New Age websites and groups endorse homeopathy and describe as part of their ideal holistic approach to medicine. I won't deny that there are people (maybe yourself included) that endorse homeopathy but aren't necessarily New Agers but homeopathy is very much rooted in the New Age movement.
@wawei67 Uhh, homeopathy clearly aligns itself with the New Age movement. Most New Age websites endorse homeopathy because of its holistic practices.... I understand the mechanisms of homeopathy but I'm in a field of science where I do massive serial dilutions (of phages/viruses) and I, along with all of my colleagues don't see ultra diluted homeopathic effects at the higher dilutions when we spot phage on a lawn of bacteria. You sound like a conspiracy theorist troll when you talk.
@wawei67 Can we see legitimate evidence of this supposed big pharma conspiracy trying to surpress homeopathy? I can't find any. None of my moderately-tenured professors ever taught me that New Age Alt Med was bullshit. They taught me fundamental principles of biochem, microbio, organic and gen chem, molecular genetics and physiology, how to read scientific literature and I formed my own opinions on the subject. Can you demonstrate some of your knowledgable about science relating to homeopathy?
@wawei67 I don't believe you I'm sorry. If you taught physics or any of the physical sciences you would realise the absurdity of homoeopathy. The evidence for homeopathy is not censored, anyone can go on pubmed and check the evidence, and like I have pointed out, all the high quality trials show no +ve effect beyond the placebo.
@wawei67 Yes and it was a massive embarrasment for cambridge, and the chemistry dept declared that they did not endorse bandershots theory, basically it was a massive screw up. In any case Josephene is a noble laurete for his work on super conductors not homeopathy, the fact he believed in mindless superstition does not invalidate the work he did on real science.
@wawei67 You can find everything you need on bandershots videos, where I have commented, I believe he didnt even delete them all. Otherwise the equation I used can be found in atkins physical chemistry 13ed.
I can't believe the way uneducated people try to tell educated people they are wrong about their own field. Its like an accountant trying to correct a physist on Quantum entanglement.
@wawei67 Oh please, so the educated cambridge proffesors are all biased selfish, self obsessed gits. If you had an education you would relise how stupid you are being.
@wawei67 I destroyed john benith by using solvation equations to prove his clathrate theory complete bullshit; that is why he has blocked me. He knows nothing of chemistry and does not have a degree in it.
@wawei67 Because there is no fricking evidence. All the evidence for homeopathy comes from poor quality studies that were not double blinded, not RCTs or some other serious methological flaws, like I say crap studies that scored less than 3 on the cambridge test are worse than usless.
@wawei67 The usual pharma shills often spread misinformation concerning anything alternative.There have been countless reports on their so-called clinical trials being fraudulent.In 2004,13 psychiatrists were sent to jail for 7 years for fraudulent results concerning Paxil.Typical pseudoskeptical behaviour hiding behind the name science.Science is pure marketing for the drug peddlers.Reports show Avandia damaged 88000 people which included heart failures,Actos caused bladder cancers.
@wawei67 Yes you are right, all those cambridge proffesors are talking bollucks, go collect your noble prize for proving in less than 4 lines that RCTs are bogus. It is obvious you have no idea what an RCT even is or what it is designed for, aswell as a clear lack of regard of the scientific method. Also this 'big phama' kills you shit has gone far enough, ANTIBIOTICS, without them you would probably be dead. Go figure.
actually the frauds are the drug doctors/mds who prescribe or sell dangerous drugs every year and is proven to kill thousands of people,the lawsuits against big pharma is scary,65000 within a 6 year period.The drug doctors should be in jail for causing harm to gullible patients.Psychiatry is also a big scam and a pseudoscience.Its all about schemes and symptomatic treatment,research vioxx.actos,avandia,accutane,zoloft,paxil just to name a few.Serious fraud and dangers involved.
Actually according to Princeton the Burden of Proof is defined as "the duty of proving a disputed charge" One example states: "A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative team has the burden to prove the resolution false." Therefore the burden of proof lies with both parties.
Homeopathy is pure quackery. A vestige from Victorian ignorance. The people who practice this are frauds and charlatans who are simply fooling their patients.
There are No High Quality studies that show any evidence of homeopathy beyond the placebo. Any studies that do show some positive result all turn out to: a) not be RCTs (some poor quality study), b) Not double blind, c) have huge publication bias or some other methological flaw. There is a massive positive corralation (cor coeff : 0.8+) in meta anaysles of Quality of RCT vs positive results for homeopathy.
No. Its on the people making a positive claim. That is, that homoeopathy provides a better remedy for a given ailment than placebo, or better yet, a similarly administered "regular" medical treatment.
That said, the fact that its mathematically almost impossible for there to be any of the stuff you started with in the solution you finish with, is some evidence of quackery.
However, I don't mind people using such remedies, but for minor things or alongside proven medical treatments.
@mohanaturo What a pile of shite? The burden of proof lies with those claiming the efficacy of their product....err I mean water. That is the scientific way. The only ailment that homeopathy will cure is thirst.
Learn2science. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that X does Y.
If I was to say a gold statue of a unicorn was orbiting the Sun, it would be impossible for you to disprove me. This doesn't mean, of course, that you would believe my story about a unicorn; I would have to provide proof. Derp.
Our modern enlightened world has relied on the scientific method and the burden of proof and peer review to allow man to walk on the moon and to extend our life expectancy.
Newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence can be indicators but are not proof in themselves. Research papers which are not accepted by the wider scientific community are not proof.
For homoeopathy to work the rules of physics would need to be rewritten.
1. If you don't click the reply button how do I know you're talking to me?
2. There are 200 high quality studies evidencing for homeopathy. You are the one asking for evidence. It's YOUR responsibility to do the homework (here are more clues: avilian co uk, PubMed, Bandershot's vids). It's not my responsibility to educate you.
You simply prefer not to acknowledge the facts because they don't validate your own personal views or agenda.
The "skeptics" (professionals being paid to bash homeopathy for the obvious reasons and atheists who are offended by energy meds because to them energy represents God and human spirit which they can't acknowledge) cling to the "flawed study" argument. They themselves hang onto 8 flawed studies not evidencing for homeopathy as opposed to 200 quality studies and replicated work which does support h.
Are you seriously trying to claim that arnica doesn't work? Read the article/comments in the NY
Times. Over 100 people including MD's testify to how beautifully arnica works. Read the comments of plastic surgeons who use it to prevent swelling after surgery. That's only a few of the people testifying for arnica besides many years of documented clinical evidence for it, and all against..............YOU, who have no knowledge of h. and have never used it.
People like Parmenus want others to believe there's no scientific evidence FOR h., so here's some proof: From the report "Homeopathy: The Scientific Proofs of Efficacy", "A # of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM have concluded that h. possesses therapeutic efficacy." The report concludes
"Very briefly, a lg body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of h. medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus, finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced attitudes." This report includes 65 studies and 10 clinical trials of the HIGHEST QUALITY.
SOME of the international NON-h. medical journals cited in this report which have published the results of methodologically reliable, controlled clinical trials that prove FOR h. are:
One thing i don't understand is.. wy people like "RoyBot" skeptist. are so hasty to coment negativ about somthing they know nothing about! (Flame me NOW) But hey "don't knock it until you tried it" And if it doe's not work " then what is the problem? If it works for people then good for them.
I've had 12 yrs of h. treatment for serious illnesses (neuropathy, fibromyalgia, hi blood pressure), acute illness (sore throats, poison ivy, etc.) injuries and dental work. It is the most wonderfully healing medicine imaginable, gentle but dynamic. In the years since I discovered h. I've used it successfully for every illness/injury. My friends and family have had the same satisfying experience.
Those who cannot give h. careful consideration are passing up something very valuable!
Anecdotes are not proof of efficacy. Just because you took homeopathic water or sugar pills and then recovered from illness it does not follow that the homeopathy had an effect.
We all know that lab and clinical work evidences FOR homeopathy. Go to Bandershot's videos and read his links. See the study with 3,981 patients. If you can read all the evidence with an open mind you will have the opportunity to expand your thinking.
"....then I will change my mind on the matter." Your opinion is your business. I have absolutely no interest in it.
Wow, that study is so flawed it is almost comical.
The conclusion is simply post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are no controls, they don't take into account any other factors that could lead to a change in subjective assessment of patient conditions. For example how is one to separate the effect of the homeopathic remedies from the effect of the treating physician or placebo effect?
What a crackpot! This has been so disproved so many times under controlled test. The minute that you test this by independent testers it all falls apart and that is why it is not fact. Of course it is not the crackpots fault, the planets were not aligned or the tester was giving off negative waves! Homeopathy was created before modern science and has no basis in fact but in it's day it was considered fact and a lot of people died from it!
It isn't a closed mind to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that homeopathy is quackery. It is simply sound reasoning. When the most recent meta-analysis of homeopathy has shown 0 effect outside of placebo it is simply a sign of gullibility to continue to believe in it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@someidiot1337 Penicillin antibiotics didn't work for me-in fact; it hospitalized me; so my "conventional" doctor prescribes homeopathic alternatives, which work fine! Plus, there are many, many studies which prove homeopathy, above and beyond placebo, animals and plants included, which don't have the imagination to fake recovery.
Comment removed
hobbsilla 2 months ago
@wawei67 So what do I have to do to make them approved for homeopathy? I do 1/10 dilutions, I shake up the solution and dilute out quite far. What else do I need to do? Bacteriophages are quite effective when they aren't diluted at all so why would diluting it to 10^-19 result in me seeing killing the bacterial lawn when I don't. I can go test this out tomorrow if you tell me how to make it homeopathic approved. I'll take photos and send them to you if you want.
hobbsilla 2 months ago
@wawei67 Most New Age websites and groups endorse homeopathy and describe as part of their ideal holistic approach to medicine. I won't deny that there are people (maybe yourself included) that endorse homeopathy but aren't necessarily New Agers but homeopathy is very much rooted in the New Age movement.
hobbsilla 2 months ago
@wawei67 Uhh, homeopathy clearly aligns itself with the New Age movement. Most New Age websites endorse homeopathy because of its holistic practices.... I understand the mechanisms of homeopathy but I'm in a field of science where I do massive serial dilutions (of phages/viruses) and I, along with all of my colleagues don't see ultra diluted homeopathic effects at the higher dilutions when we spot phage on a lawn of bacteria. You sound like a conspiracy theorist troll when you talk.
hobbsilla 2 months ago
@wawei67 Can we see legitimate evidence of this supposed big pharma conspiracy trying to surpress homeopathy? I can't find any. None of my moderately-tenured professors ever taught me that New Age Alt Med was bullshit. They taught me fundamental principles of biochem, microbio, organic and gen chem, molecular genetics and physiology, how to read scientific literature and I formed my own opinions on the subject. Can you demonstrate some of your knowledgable about science relating to homeopathy?
hobbsilla 2 months ago
@wawei67 I don't believe you I'm sorry. If you taught physics or any of the physical sciences you would realise the absurdity of homoeopathy. The evidence for homeopathy is not censored, anyone can go on pubmed and check the evidence, and like I have pointed out, all the high quality trials show no +ve effect beyond the placebo.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 Yes and it was a massive embarrasment for cambridge, and the chemistry dept declared that they did not endorse bandershots theory, basically it was a massive screw up. In any case Josephene is a noble laurete for his work on super conductors not homeopathy, the fact he believed in mindless superstition does not invalidate the work he did on real science.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 You can find everything you need on bandershots videos, where I have commented, I believe he didnt even delete them all. Otherwise the equation I used can be found in atkins physical chemistry 13ed.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
I can't believe the way uneducated people try to tell educated people they are wrong about their own field. Its like an accountant trying to correct a physist on Quantum entanglement.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 Oh please, so the educated cambridge proffesors are all biased selfish, self obsessed gits. If you had an education you would relise how stupid you are being.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 I destroyed john benith by using solvation equations to prove his clathrate theory complete bullshit; that is why he has blocked me. He knows nothing of chemistry and does not have a degree in it.
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 Lazy bastard that gets A's: riiiight. Okay
QuantumOverlord 2 months ago
@wawei67 I'm sorry I have homework to do on partial differential equations in propagating waves, you know real science.
QuantumOverlord 3 months ago
@wawei67 Because there is no fricking evidence. All the evidence for homeopathy comes from poor quality studies that were not double blinded, not RCTs or some other serious methological flaws, like I say crap studies that scored less than 3 on the cambridge test are worse than usless.
QuantumOverlord 3 months ago
@wawei67 I'm sorry what language are you speaking, it appears to be bullocks. Ive had just about enough of the crap you are peddiling.;
QuantumOverlord 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wawei67 The usual pharma shills often spread misinformation concerning anything alternative.There have been countless reports on their so-called clinical trials being fraudulent.In 2004,13 psychiatrists were sent to jail for 7 years for fraudulent results concerning Paxil.Typical pseudoskeptical behaviour hiding behind the name science.Science is pure marketing for the drug peddlers.Reports show Avandia damaged 88000 people which included heart failures,Actos caused bladder cancers.
TheFriendlyEngineer 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheFriendlyEngineer 3 months ago
@wawei67 Yes you are right, all those cambridge proffesors are talking bollucks, go collect your noble prize for proving in less than 4 lines that RCTs are bogus. It is obvious you have no idea what an RCT even is or what it is designed for, aswell as a clear lack of regard of the scientific method. Also this 'big phama' kills you shit has gone far enough, ANTIBIOTICS, without them you would probably be dead. Go figure.
QuantumOverlord 3 months ago
@wawei67 "Your brain is "just water""
No it isn't (yours excepted of course!).
LAnonHubbard 3 months ago
actually the frauds are the drug doctors/mds who prescribe or sell dangerous drugs every year and is proven to kill thousands of people,the lawsuits against big pharma is scary,65000 within a 6 year period.The drug doctors should be in jail for causing harm to gullible patients.Psychiatry is also a big scam and a pseudoscience.Its all about schemes and symptomatic treatment,research vioxx.actos,avandia,accutane,zoloft,paxil just to name a few.Serious fraud and dangers involved.
TheFriendlyEngineer 6 months ago
Actually according to Princeton the Burden of Proof is defined as "the duty of proving a disputed charge" One example states: "A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative team has the burden to prove the resolution false." Therefore the burden of proof lies with both parties.
dgiddens8 6 months ago
Why don't you team up with "Dr" Charlene Werner? She's really good at explaining homeopathy too. You could take it in turns.
jeremyg1972 1 year ago
Homeopathy is pure quackery. A vestige from Victorian ignorance. The people who practice this are frauds and charlatans who are simply fooling their patients.
Utterly disgusting. Shut these liars down now.
Homeopathic remedies ARE JUST WATER!!!!
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago 45
There are No High Quality studies that show any evidence of homeopathy beyond the placebo. Any studies that do show some positive result all turn out to: a) not be RCTs (some poor quality study), b) Not double blind, c) have huge publication bias or some other methological flaw. There is a massive positive corralation (cor coeff : 0.8+) in meta anaysles of Quality of RCT vs positive results for homeopathy.
QuantumOverlord 1 year ago 47
The burden of proof lies with PSEUDOskeptics who claim that Homeopathy is placebo effect.
To date there is not a shred of evidence to support their claim.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
@mohanaturo
No. Its on the people making a positive claim. That is, that homoeopathy provides a better remedy for a given ailment than placebo, or better yet, a similarly administered "regular" medical treatment.
That said, the fact that its mathematically almost impossible for there to be any of the stuff you started with in the solution you finish with, is some evidence of quackery.
However, I don't mind people using such remedies, but for minor things or alongside proven medical treatments.
paulbottomley42 1 year ago
@mohanaturo What a pile of shite? The burden of proof lies with those claiming the efficacy of their product....err I mean water. That is the scientific way. The only ailment that homeopathy will cure is thirst.
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@mohanaturo
Learn2science. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that X does Y.
If I was to say a gold statue of a unicorn was orbiting the Sun, it would be impossible for you to disprove me. This doesn't mean, of course, that you would believe my story about a unicorn; I would have to provide proof. Derp.
jimmyboyG485 7 months ago
Those making extraordinary claims must have extraordinary proof.
The burden of proof rests upon the claimants.
SkepRob 2 years ago
Our modern enlightened world has relied on the scientific method and the burden of proof and peer review to allow man to walk on the moon and to extend our life expectancy.
Newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence can be indicators but are not proof in themselves. Research papers which are not accepted by the wider scientific community are not proof.
For homoeopathy to work the rules of physics would need to be rewritten.
SkepRob 2 years ago 21
den151redbank please provide the single best clinical trial providing evidence for proof of efficacy of homeopathy.
Recent UK inquiry into h ask mouthpiece this question and were told of anica trials. These proved to be flawed as expected.
Why is it so difficult to conclusive prove efficacy considering the vast range of ailments impacted - from muscle soreness to malaria protection.
SkepRob 2 years ago
1. If you don't click the reply button how do I know you're talking to me?
2. There are 200 high quality studies evidencing for homeopathy. You are the one asking for evidence. It's YOUR responsibility to do the homework (here are more clues: avilian co uk, PubMed, Bandershot's vids). It's not my responsibility to educate you.
You simply prefer not to acknowledge the facts because they don't validate your own personal views or agenda.
Do your homework and thank you for coming.
den151redbank 2 years ago
The "skeptics" (professionals being paid to bash homeopathy for the obvious reasons and atheists who are offended by energy meds because to them energy represents God and human spirit which they can't acknowledge) cling to the "flawed study" argument. They themselves hang onto 8 flawed studies not evidencing for homeopathy as opposed to 200 quality studies and replicated work which does support h.
Are you seriously trying to claim that arnica doesn't work? Read the article/comments in the NY
den151redbank 2 years ago
Times. Over 100 people including MD's testify to how beautifully arnica works. Read the comments of plastic surgeons who use it to prevent swelling after surgery. That's only a few of the people testifying for arnica besides many years of documented clinical evidence for it, and all against..............YOU, who have no knowledge of h. and have never used it.
Have I said "thanks for coming'?
den151redbank 2 years ago
People like Parmenus want others to believe there's no scientific evidence FOR h., so here's some proof: From the report "Homeopathy: The Scientific Proofs of Efficacy", "A # of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM have concluded that h. possesses therapeutic efficacy." The report concludes
den151redbank 2 years ago
"Very briefly, a lg body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of h. medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus, finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced attitudes." This report includes 65 studies and 10 clinical trials of the HIGHEST QUALITY.
SOME of the international NON-h. medical journals cited in this report which have published the results of methodologically reliable, controlled clinical trials that prove FOR h. are:
The Lancet
BMJ
Rheumatology
den151redbank 2 years ago
Phlebology
Pediatrics
Pediatrie
Allergologie
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Cancer
Thrombosis Research
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
It's a closed mind that insists h. is quackery in the face of overwhelming proof that it WORKS.
Bless!
den151redbank 2 years ago
show me the proof
Flagdue 2 years ago
i wonder if there is some corelation to this placebo.
iamundergrace 2 years ago
One thing i don't understand is.. wy people like "RoyBot" skeptist. are so hasty to coment negativ about somthing they know nothing about! (Flame me NOW) But hey "don't knock it until you tried it" And if it doe's not work " then what is the problem? If it works for people then good for them.
Axachi 2 years ago
Who needs cannabis and opium to cheer you up when you've got this shit!!!
lolz.... what a load of crap.
I'm sure it's had some psychosomatic effect on a few vulnerable people.
Corrupt5358 2 years ago
I've had 12 yrs of h. treatment for serious illnesses (neuropathy, fibromyalgia, hi blood pressure), acute illness (sore throats, poison ivy, etc.) injuries and dental work. It is the most wonderfully healing medicine imaginable, gentle but dynamic. In the years since I discovered h. I've used it successfully for every illness/injury. My friends and family have had the same satisfying experience.
Those who cannot give h. careful consideration are passing up something very valuable!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Anecdotes are not proof of efficacy. Just because you took homeopathic water or sugar pills and then recovered from illness it does not follow that the homeopathy had an effect.
puttanesca621 2 years ago
We will have to agree to disagree. Tens of millions of people around the world also disagree with you.
den151redbank 2 years ago
We disagree, but you have no proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, tens of millions of people can be wrong.
When repeatable double blinded placebo controlled large trials of homeopathy show consistent efficacy then I will change my mind on the matter.
puttanesca621 2 years ago
We all know that lab and clinical work evidences FOR homeopathy. Go to Bandershot's videos and read his links. See the study with 3,981 patients. If you can read all the evidence with an open mind you will have the opportunity to expand your thinking.
"....then I will change my mind on the matter." Your opinion is your business. I have absolutely no interest in it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Wow, that study is so flawed it is almost comical.
The conclusion is simply post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are no controls, they don't take into account any other factors that could lead to a change in subjective assessment of patient conditions. For example how is one to separate the effect of the homeopathic remedies from the effect of the treating physician or placebo effect?
puttanesca621 2 years ago 2
What a crackpot! This has been so disproved so many times under controlled test. The minute that you test this by independent testers it all falls apart and that is why it is not fact. Of course it is not the crackpots fault, the planets were not aligned or the tester was giving off negative waves! Homeopathy was created before modern science and has no basis in fact but in it's day it was considered fact and a lot of people died from it!
redone5623 2 years ago
someidiot1337 is correct. Homeopathy is absolute bullshit. Peddling this is grossly irresponsible and should be criminal.
R0YB0T 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear some idiot 1337
actually, it has been demonstrated to work (both clinically and in the laboratory) again and again, but people with closed minds don't listen. Go to
Bandershot for further details.
normanallan 2 years ago
It isn't a closed mind to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that homeopathy is quackery. It is simply sound reasoning. When the most recent meta-analysis of homeopathy has shown 0 effect outside of placebo it is simply a sign of gullibility to continue to believe in it.
Parmenus 2 years ago
thanks Parmenus. I agree. To claim that a closed mind is the reason a person doesn't understand is just another ad hominem attack.
Flagdue 2 years ago
Wow, what a load of bull. It has been proven over and over that it doesn't work beyond that of placebo effects. It is pure fantasy.
someidiot1337 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@someidiot1337 Penicillin antibiotics didn't work for me-in fact; it hospitalized me; so my "conventional" doctor prescribes homeopathic alternatives, which work fine! Plus, there are many, many studies which prove homeopathy, above and beyond placebo, animals and plants included, which don't have the imagination to fake recovery.
Amygdala100 1 year ago
Five star and fave on this one, subscribed, and bravos for Norman Allen. Thank you for making this video.
Let's set up mass testing and show skeptics, physics, medical science, and the health care system that homeopathy works.
JOHN BENNETH
Bandershot 3 years ago