When science is done right, it shows the truth of a claim. Like anything that involves humans, however, if care is not taken, then bias can creep in. Careful experimentation is the bedrock of science and a thorn in the side of the mystics, spiritualists, religious, and otherwise crackpot.
@imreadydoctor That's called creative editing. That's what the director wants you to see, but it isn't likely what was actually happening. A 2 second clip of Randi biting his fingernail proves only that he bites his fingernails. He could simply have been bored, received a distressing telephone call, or had a hang nail. No, you are falling prey to the same flaws in logic that make scientists claim homeopathy is real and thus ruin their reputations.
@MewCat100 In what way? I am making an observation and drawing a hypothesis of the cause of the observed effect. I simply do not have a way to test my hypothesis, obviously. I do not believe that homeopathy is real, however if through experimentation it showed otherwise, my first opinion would be "faulty experimentation," however after several successfully repeated experiments I would accept it as our most current theory of water. I dont see the logical error
@imreadydoctor You were drawing a conclusion, which is what I objected to. You are welcome to your opinion and if you were simply putting forth a hypothesis and not putting forth a conclusion that you believed to be true without evidence, then you have my apology. That is what I read, but it is clearly not what you meant. It is the typical difficulty in understanding intent on the internet. Again, my apologies.
@MewCat100 It is entirely fine. My education is in biology and philosophy, but you seem to be quite knowledgeable in the scientific field. Have any education/experience in science?
@imreadydoctor Yes, I hold a B.S. in biology and an M.D., both of which are currently going to waste (long story). I know a good deal about science, particularly enough to know that scientific establishment is chock full of people who don't follow the scientific method. When they do follow it though, they get accurate results, like these videos show.
Philosophy is a useful degree, it teaches you how to reason through things; if applied well, it would make you a great scientist.
I don't understand how a glass of water with traces of dinosaur piss and onions could cure a cold, but as long as people don't take this stuff INSTEAD of going to a real doctor I guess it's fine. Until there is any real explantion for exactly how this would work I remain skeptical.
To all the haters here who say that the dilutions aren't made in the correct homeopathic way... I'd like to see this experiment repeated with several controlfluids: 'homeopathist' -made fluids while being filmed, homeopathic 'medicin' being bought from random stores, scientists making homeopathic fluids and all the same with normal water. Then, this all tested in the exact same way on several different bloodsamples to rule out that the specific blood used is a factor.
I did too, but I realized that we should be happy to be proven wrong because it gets us closer to the truth. I would love for homeopathy to be correct because it would open new avenues of science never before explored! However, wanting something hard enough doesn't make it so, and that's where scientists differ from psuedoscientists. But you already knew that :)
@LayPhysicist That's like saying that you would like it to be true that the sun spins around the earth. We understand molecules and we understand dilution. Dilution is a process to reduce the number of molecules in a solution and we know that the less molecules you get, the less potent the effect. Homeopathy is like arguing that 100mg of Tylenol is more powerful than 500mg, it's just not true and it's not based on anything but the ramblings of a snake oil salesman.
@frankvonfrauner I was not saying that, but I see where it could have been interpreted that way. I meant that people need to differentiate between what is real, and what they wish were real.
One essential piece of the puzzle that has been convieniently left out here. None of the samples have been sucussed, that is vibrated or shaken as a true homeopathic remedy would be. All of the samples were drops into stationary water. All homeopathic remedies are shaken to set or increase the memory of the water. The same experiment could be done with homeopathic sucussion of both the remedy and the control, so as far as I am concerned, the program was not about or showed nothing of homeopathy.
Science is today explaining our universe in ways we have never thought to question before. Example, the questions about Space that is all around us-See PBS.org recent videos. In many shots of this video many of the tubes are open and a dilution is being made to the nearby tube, cross contamination is allowed to occur. Randi, The Magician, appears to be a good magician: all STOP! Why is a magician (who dropped out of high school) being allowed to be a part of Science and these experiments. DC
I wonder if all the tubes did merely contain pure water why did some of them show a positive result. I mean why is pure water activating the cells. Does it have some other impurities that weren't checked for?
It could be that there are small bits of peptide in the water that basophils respond to; it could be that these originate from the blood cell samples rather than the water which is added, and that the blood samples have a variance of allergen concentration.
The basophil cells may have a sensitivity variance. Some may more easily express whatever is labelled with the blue pigment even in the absence of allergens.
I think the variation likely comes from the blood, not the water.
Presumably they decided on some value as a threshold for +ve or -ve result. I don't know what informed their choice. Maybe the distribution of %activated cells was bimodal (two clusters) and so it was easy to set the threshold. I kinda doubt that though, the distribution was probably normal, and they put the threshold at the median value. They probably did the proper analysis without placing results in to the 2 classes, but used +ve/-ve to demonstrate the point clearly for tv.
Besides, sending an extremely biased, cynical old man as a "detective" to basically Prove that the experiments are false, is extremely suspicious. Why James Randi? Why not a scientist or a doctor? Randi is just a warped frustrated old man who is Incredibly biased about this subject. NOT the person to send for an Honest trial and assessment of the facts. And the fact that he was doing magic tricks in the lab during the experiments! What a disrespectful ass.
@macgeek2005 Agreed! Posters here are calling homeopaths 'charlatans' while they are taking the word of a REAL charlatan as if he were God speaking to them. They need to go take their Prozac; leave homeopathy for those who recognize its value.
Randi knows frauds because he has experience with being deceptive for a living! Don't discredit the lack of proof in this experiment merely because you don't like the fact that one of them is a magician.
@wendyoffroad So instead of posting absolute proof that homeopathy works you decide to assume I don't buy into proof ? I don't buy into anecdotal stories. However if you can prove that you have more studies of greater quality from a reliable source made by acceptable scientists (by this I mean, no discovery institute-ish scientists) then I will gladly follow you until then I have insufficient evidence to back up the claim that homeopathy works.
@macgeek2005 Ok randi is biased, I'll grant you that. Can you now please prove that it works ? I don't think so. Randi was there for the show, not to do any science. All he did was watch the results. So I don't see how his bias makes any difference.
Wait a second... so, hundreds of scientific experiments from dozens of scientists all show homeopathy working.. and then James Randi oversees ONE experiment, and its result "proves" that homeopathy is bull shit? Wouldn't this same guy tell someone with a positive experiment that he has to repeat it two thousand times before it can mean anything?
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and/or the placebo effect.
@DafyddCymraeg But why does the homeopathic water appear to have an affect on cells in those small scale studies? It DOES affect the cells. They saw it with their own eyes. No matter what a more rigorously conducted trial shows, the reality is that that diluted solution did affect cells in those other experiments. The conclusion of the bigger trial should not be that the smaller trial was somehow completely inaccurate, but that maybe there is another aspect to it that people don't realize yet.
That point of Horizon's study was to properly test whether or not their water's cells were 'affected' or not; whether water could be said as having a 'memory' of the ingredients, even though they'd been diluted out of existence. The test concluded that their water's cells weren't being affected in any bracket beyond that of chance. As said, the results of those small scale studies can never be repeated in bigger scale test, with respectable control mechanisms in place.
That point of Horizon's study was to properly test whether or not their water's cells were 'affected' or not; whether water could be said as having a 'memory' of the ingredients, even though they'd been diluted out of existence. The test concluded that their water's cells weren't being affected in any bracket beyond that of chance. As said, the results of those small scale studies can never be repeated in bigger scale test, with respectable control mechanisms in place.
Additionally, please re-think what you've said; "No matter what a more rigorously conducted trial shows...". You're essentially saying, "A critical, studying, eye" is wrong", where-as "a laid back, doing small a experiment in own time, by one's self, not following proper protocol" is right. If homoeopathy worked, it's results could be demonstrated whatever the scale of study.
@macgeek2005 The number of tests were too small therefore it hinted it would have an effect. As you saw in the final results there were Cs and Ds. Don't forget that cells are living matter and that they are incredible complex so they changed behaviour in the process and thus gave a 'false positive'. Also bear in mind that not all cells were calibrated to begin with and not every cell reacts the same to allergies.
@macgeek2005 "but that maybe there is another aspect to it that people don't realize yet." But then you are assuming it already works. With science all you do is pose the question. You don't start with the answer. So if there might have been other aspects but there is no reason yet to think there were. Unless this can be proven it is safe to assume there aren't. Yes there have been experiments that favor homeopathy, but there simply have been many experiments. It's called chance.
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and/or the placebo effect.
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and / or the placebo effect.
Moreover, the problem is the 'tests', 'studies', 'experiments', which support homoeopathy are often done in by individuals, (i,e not teams) under loose conditions, on a small scale, with no control (e.g double-blind) mechanisms in play. Unfortunately, bad science can be 'proved' through undisciplined experiments.
Why I think homeopathy is bullshit? It's this: How does the water know, what is being diluted and what effect should it have? How it's possible that it doesn't remember some stuff that has been in the water before the dilution procedure? Basically, tap water should be the ultimate homeopathic remedy against anything, because it ran through various pipes, the ground, perhaps fell down as acid rain or as the piss of a mad cow. This should imprint so many memories into the poor molecules...
There are a few points on which I would like to get some input from Mr Randi to to clarify the parameters in conduction of the test.
1. It has been mentioned that before the adoption of coding procedure advised by Mr Randi the tests were being conducted by automatic analysers so it becomes difficult for me to understand that how the knowledge of a person conducting the test through automated machine regarding the sample could affect the results.
Human thought is rather semi corralled insanity. So much can be believed without evidence and in spite of contrary evidence. There are scientists that work with the knowledge that the world and universe is billions of years old, yet believe that the bible never lies and that the world is 6000 yrs old. Take an open mind and drill in your "truth". Once accepted totally - hard to dispell.
"His reputation and his money are safe." I can see how it wouldn't be great for his wallet but I don't think it would be bad for his reputation if the test showed that homeopathy works. He has always said that he is willing to believe in things if he is provided with convincing proof.
@Smithpolly It's not even his money. The money belongs to the foundation. It's not as though Randi would personally lose $1 million if someone wins the challenge.
This test is BS! The test is only focusing on trace of histamine in the diluted water... not if the water have memory! its like saying : hoo its dark right now.. it must be night right!? no its because you are in a room with no window! LOL
@Warcheiftin if you mean knowing which tube contains the diluted solution and which one is the control (just the untreated water,) it would allow someone to be able to treat the experiment in a manner where they can "cheat" their way to their desired result.
How to make fortune with homeopathy: Use a credit card to take out a small quantity of cash and throw it away. Use 10 credit cards to pay off the debt evenly. Select one of these cards and pay off the fraction of the debt with another 10 credit cards. Repeat this 20 times. Go to the bank and collect your riches.
@Henipah Oh I do have a better recipe. Open up a pharma shop that fills vials with tap water and label them with random homeopathic names. Sell them for a high price. Save some money to bribe fiscalization from government. Repeat until you´re rich.
@Beerathan: James Randi will have to submit to a homeopathic medicine test under controlled conditions; like he wants us to prove the effect of homeopathy under controlled conditions. I am ready if and when he is ready anytime & anyday. I will give him Sulphur CM and he will have no choice but to acknowledge homeopathy works. My controlled condition: stay at a hotel of my choice for 3 months and have normal food. No coffee No Alcohol. That's all. He can keep his million if he pays for hotel.
James Randi should be given Sulphur CM and then he will know what homeopathy is.....I bet you he will dish out 1 Million and then ask me can I cure and fix his severly burned skin look all over his body that started coming out within weeks of taking Sulphur CM :-))
@beerathon Also if you are interested you can join him too, I will give you Sulphur too....Both participants will have to sign a notarized statement accepting the risk and the effects that will follow after I give the medicine. I am not responsible then and you will both not be seeing any Allopathic Doctor until 3 months. That will be something ;-)
Addendum: This whole experiment is not testing whether people get cured by homeopathy or not. If you really want to see what homeopathy can do, find a non smoker suffering from Asthma or Eczema and give him Sulphur CM potency 5 Drops in 1/4 cup water surreptitiously without that person knowing if possible early morning before him brushing teeth. Then see what happens within 3 months time. You will be either horrified from the aggravation or surprised by the cure. Either will guaranteed happen.
@MultiSpirit99 People who suffer from asthma or eczema typically are typically either symptom-free or have quite noticeable symptoms. There's usually not much in between. So yeah, if you're a believer, either will very likely happen. This also works with prayer or any other bogus method that the little 'scientist' believes in.
This whole documentary is a big fraud created by Pharma Corps to disprove homeopathy. No homeopathic medicine is ever made in water as a medium. Right there the whole experimentation is totally wrong. All homeopathic medicines are made in "Medicine Grade Absolute Alcohol". All these tests should have been done in that medium and checked. This test is also wrong because it is testing memory of water (not medicines effect), which was first proposed as a hypothesis published it in nature earlier.
Excellent report. Thanks for uploading. I'd like to see more testing done to dispel myth completely. Not that it will make any difference to the adherents of this apparent silliness.
Fer crikey's sake, science doesn't declare anything impossible, just unlikely, unexplained, unsupported, or refuted.
I'm also disappointed at the statistical method they used. They had a categorical independent variable, but they took their dependent numerical variable, transformed it to a categorical variable, and then analyzed it (presumably with a chi squared test). The proper thing to do would be to analyze the data in the form in which it's gathered, in this case a one-tailed t-test.
Very good points danieldollar. These people are in such a scramble to try to disprove Homeopathy that they miss the basics. And who are the 'Homeopaths' that help them set these experiments up? Why aren't they named? This should be a requirement for all future trials of Homeopathy as well as matching the remedies to the subjects which is one of the most basic principles of Homeopathy.
@metako100 The most comprehensive test that left no room for errors was the one that proved homeopathy is false.
What basics did they miss? What steps did they omit or do incorrectly? Why do you need random homeopaths to help them set up the experiments? If they're doing the experiments by the guidelines of homeopathy, then that's good enough. Once you introduce the homeopaths themselves, then there's room for problems to occur.
bbc fail...the issue is not "how" it works, the issue is "that" it works. part 3 or 4 shows that when the remedies on actual patients (and animals) are administered, homeopathy is effective.
you don't have to understand how an automobile engine works to know that the car can drive.
@danieldollar While that is true, anecdotes cannot be used as evidence for obvious reasons. There are many ways in which the mind can trick us into thinking things which aren't true at all.
@econowage you must be really smart because you can recite the opinions of similarly arrogant doctors with no knowledge or experience with homeopathic practice..and if you'd read my entire conversation, you'd see how i referenced several independent studies and inferred the effectiveness of homeopathy. but then again, you can use swear words, so i guess we're at a stand still.
@danieldollar As opposed to citing the opinions of arrogant Homeopaths? I cite the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the clinical trials on homeopathy that have found it to be no better than placebo. There are bound to be a few studies that show homeopathy to be more effective than placebo, especially if they have small samples, are not double blind, or suffer from other issues of internal validity, but that does not "prove" homeopathy is effective.
@econowage first of all, if you can find 10,000 tests that show homeopathy no better than a placebo, and only have 1 good test that supports homeopathy, then all your tests are bunk, because by your assumption homeopathy should under no circumstances have any effect on a person at all. second, it is difficult to treat someone with homeopathy as they typically need a case by case analysis. this is why testing is so difficult and usually done incorrectly, therefore yielding negative results.
@danieldollar I am done wasting my time on you, as you have such a poor understanding of the scientific method or clinical trials. It's useless to argue with you.
@econowage it's useless because you're lazy and don't want to use your brain to like, think, and stuff. i've admitted i've been wrong many times in my life so i have nothing to lose here. if you give me a good argument i'll concede. until then, be safe in your smarmy little bubble of stubborn old "scientists" and "doctors".
@econowage third, i have cited several tests that showed homeopathy to be effective against animals. it's funny because i've heard different responses to this from "the testers were biased" to "animals get the placebo effect too". lastly, i've tried to learn not to knock things without having personal experience with them first. there are very very few things that can be proven for certain in this world, and just because scientists don't understand the mechanism of homeopathy currently ...
Major flaw in the design of that experiment:as Homeopathics are prescribed to fit an INDIVIDUAL'S symptom picture, were the 'human cells' extracted from a person who's symptoms matched the Hystamine by an experienced Homeopath? If not the whole experiment is null and void and proves nothing except that a random remedy will not affect a group of random 'human cells' which most Homeopaths would expect anyway. If you're going to invest all that energy in an experiment please design it properly.
@metako100 that's exactly what i was thinking as i watched this. the issue is not whether or not the remedy can affect some clump of human cells, it's whether it affects human beings...this was the test in part 4 i think that actually was in favor of homeopathy
@metako100 The experiment they did matched the one that the lady did, which, according to her, "confirmed" the water memory thing. They repeated her experiment and it didn't work.
If hers was set up right, then theirs was set up right because they copied it.
@ninjajesus81 Yes that would seem true, unless you understood Homeopathy. Was the donor of Professor Ennis's blood cell the same donor as the cell Horizon used??? If not then the whole experiment is null and void right from the outset if they are trying to replicate her experiment. I have just rewatched the episodes and they do not mention this point. This is crucial because one of the major principles of Homeopathy is that the remedy HAS to be matched to the individual symptoms of the person.
@metako100 You're right, to properly replicate the experiment, they would have to copy it exactly. But how exact does it have to be? The donor's cells for both experiments may have been exactly the same, regardless of what symptoms the donor was exhibiting. Do those specific cells even reflect what symptoms the donor was suffering from? Or would the cells be the same regardless of what condition the donor was in?
@ninjajesus81 The whole design of the experiment is incorrect. As I understand Homeopathy the individually selected remedy works upon the 'vital force' of a person which then governs the immune system which then effects the individual cells. If you remove some cells from the person are they still attached to the 'vital force' or even the immune sysyem? ....
@ninjajesus81..... The cells would probably reflect the state of the donor at the time of removal but is there any element of an immune sysytem (let alone 'vital force') within an individual cell with which to respond to the Homeopathic remedy? An interesting question and worthy of investigation but it's a different question to 'do Homeopathic remedies work on people', which I think is the more important question. It is not critical for Homepathy to work on individual cells but on whole people.
@metako100 What is a "vital force"? That sounds like mumbo jumbo.
We're speculating on what homeopathy does, and what it could do, but do we have any evidence that it does anything? I'm still waiting for that test that has been independently verified by several different groups that proves homeopathy works the way homeopaths believe it does, and not just as a placebo.
@ninjajesus81 a 'vital force' is a non-physical energy-body that lies within and around the physical body and sustains and regulates it. But this is getting into metaphysics and is best left out of the equation for a few more centuries. I think 'immune system' is a more practical term to deal with as it is a total 'system' rather than a function of an individual cell. And I agree - I am eagerly waiting for that test too, but will continue to use Homeopathy and other methods which I find work.
@metako100 Wasn't the test itself on basophils though? I mean, those are a component of the human immune system. And even those have their own particular cellular mechanisms of defense. It's important to look at the individual components that comprise such a complex system. Where does "vital force" even come into the equation?
@KillgoreOv Sorry,I missed that they were basophils. But Homeopathy is far more concerned with the 'totality of symptoms' of a person's immune response rather than what is happening on a cellular level, although this is an interesting area of investigation. Many people will have a problem with the concept of a 'vital force' but the important thing is that Homeopathy treats the person as a whole indivisable system, whereas conventional medicine seems to focus on ever smaller sub components.
@ninjajesus81 ...Prof Ennis may have accidentally and unwittingly used a cell which was from a person who's symptoms were a match for Hystamine and that's why she had positive results. Horizon may not have understood this principle and used a totally different donor. It would be interesting to get this information from Horizon. The other thing is that I have never heard a Homeopath claim that a remedy would work on an independant single cell seperated and cut off from a live human being.
@fkoff99 sorry to comment on an old post but "1+1 does not allways equal 2" errrrr im sorry, but yes it does. Can you provide an example of when it doesnt?
Almost had me fooled. But it's easy to fall for this stuff. People actually want to believe something that doesn't work. But they hope for it to work. Like God for example. They shouldl've explained the animals though.
What are you talking about? You have never heard of 'double slit' experiment? It has nothing to do with new age philosophy. It has been proven time after time particles in quantum level behave differently based on observation. Quantum computers currently being developed use this feature of particles. I suggest you go look into some basics of quantum physics.
@barbarshadow "particles in quantum level behave differently based on observation."
Yes. But everything bigger than a subatomic particle behaves just the way Newtonian physics + General Realativity predict. Quantum mechanics applies only at an extremely small scale. Charlatans, quacks and con-men like to throw the term "quantum physics" around because they know that nobody understands it and they can use it to make any nonsense sound more plausible.
@barbarshadow The double split experiment was done with single particles, not biological cells. Our blood cells are not single particles. I'm not sure about you but I have never seen any organic cell in waveform. I'm afraid I am going to have to repeat what you said and go look into the very very very basics of quantum physics. To me it sounds like you have read a book on quantum physics and skipped the beginning where it explains what it actually is.
How is that two serious scientists came up with positive results? is it possible that this has something to do with quantum physics? In quantum physics it is an accepted (albeit unexplained) fact that particles behave differently when someone is watching/observing it. So it is possible positive results are not repeated because scientists doing the experiment don't know which water is which. There is no conscious observer. In the positive experiments, they knew which water was diluted.
I watched the whole program just to find out that homeopathy is impossible? god damn it, but does that mean that those scientists with positive results were giving out false results? well, i guess so
Why the issue with the shot of Randi looking "worried"? I watched the scenes before and after that moment and it doesn't look at all like they were taken at different times. The glass is in the same place with the same amount of water, the lighting in the room hasn't changed, even the cables in the back of the computer are in the same position. Open 2 windows in your browser and compare the images side by side.
@amatorynumber If water has a memory then it would also contain the urine 'memory' of a number of people, rock and mineral 'memory'. dino urine and poo 'memory' and god knows what other 'memories' of years gone by that would also have an effect on the person taking this ridiculous 'medicine'
Well done BBC for exposing this nonsense in completely convincing fashion.
It's a shame you had to waste some of our money (British TV licence fee payers) doing it - although the extra $1 million dollars would have paid for the programme had the quacks been proved correct.
@jazzx251 If it stops even one person from taking homeopathy against malaria and returning back to the Isles in a casket, I'd say the money is well spent.
@jazzx251 What an odd comment about the BBC wasting your money on this program. Do you feel cheated out of your money when you watch a comedy show on the BBC, or maybe a crime drama? How about a cooking show? After all, you can't learn anything from those programs, and many of them are boring and nonfactual.
If the BBC were to stage a "scientific experiment to prove that eggs break when dropped from the top of a skyscraper" - everyone would consider that a complete waste of money.
Now you mention it - cooking shows should be banned, they are the most boring thing on TV; they should bring back the test card instead. It's much cheaper and more interesting.
Even if water DOES have a 'memory', you're taking a single drop of that special water and then diluting it 100 fold into ordinary water, then doing that again and again until you're left with nothing but regular water... water whose memory only includes other water.
A recent study in the International Journal of Oncology demonstrated that four ultra-diluted homeopathic medicines exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against two breast cancer cell lines
Frenkel M et al. (2010): Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells. International Journal of Oncology, 36: 395-403.
funny on how beleiver in that crap still think it is real.....2 independant analysis by 2 lab didnt do..even knowing that homeopath help creating this protocol...and that it was double blinded...still there is no amont of evidence that will ever convince those people.....they still sell that fucking shit alon side real drugs in drugstore
Horizon is wrong to say that Randi's reputation remains intact. He says that he would actually like to be convinced scientifically by someone that there is something more to all of these things as it would so fascinating. However, it is all so far proved to be hogwash and it is very likely this will always be the case, hence he is quite confident he won't lose that money...
I wouldn't believe anything that comes from the intervention of a magician. No wonder Randi says: even scientists can not be objective. That old tricky m.f. has no shame, and on top of that discredits real scientists. What an arrogant dishonest old mf.
Excuse me, but how can you say Randi has no shame when there are peddlers selling you $100 bottles of FUCKING SUGAR PILLS that are supposed to treat legitimate medical conditions, knowing all the while that there is no science to back it up. Randi exposes bad science, bad methodology and gullible people, and we're damned lucky to have him around.
Homeopathy deserves no trust. The Amazing Randi is merely a man. He just so happens to be an intelligent man dedicated to advancing the acceptance of science in the modern day world who is quite good at his job. Given his track record, he does deserve trust.
What, exactly, is the Law of Vibrators? Or do I even want to know.
@MizarShadow Well said mate! Oh how tedious and tiring it becomes trying to convince even ONE of these moronic blind people... I don't know why I bother but I won't stop - The scientific method is worth defending!
@fkoff99 Try having a proper debate some time. that means not saying mf every second or third word, coming out with some ACTUAL points, considering what the other party is saying and generally keeping as rational a head on as you can manage.
@HitMeWithIt OH! I almost forgot!, Im not here to debate. So save your useless words. I'll express my opinions in general anytime I want. Dissaperar from my horizon pain in the ass.
Animals aren't completely dumb. If you give them something that looks like medicine, like a sugar pill, and the animal itself knows that it's ill, the placebo effect would happen too wouldn't it?
@dojokonojo "If you give them something that looks like medicine, like a sugar pill, and the animal itself knows that it's ill, the placebo effect would happen too wouldn't it?"
Having given many tablets to a sick but reluctant cat, I can safely state this is complete rubbish - and I have the scars to prove it.
Maybe homeopathy maybe cannot be explained because the observer affects the observed(also some startling new findings on this!). I dont know, just a theory. What I would like "science" to explain to me is how and why homeopathy works in horses and little children?
@wildwave2003 You answered your own (impossible) question!
Science is a method. that is all.
Don't expect science to tell you anything you cannot be bothered to go looking up yourself. The real truth is in facts and science just happens to be the very best method for evaluating evidenmce.
@wildwave2003 What I think is that James Randi is dishonest, tricky and on top of that arrogant. Listen how he says that scientists are not "objective" and "rational" sometimes..he is just a tricky magician..MAGICIAN...I wouldn't believe anything that comes from a tricky arrogant magician.
The Amazing Randi actually had a damned good point. Scientists are humans, and can be gullible, no matter how much training they have. His being a magician, and being able to fool people puts him in a very good position to understand how to fool the human mind. Not only that, he's not 'discrediting real scientists', he's simply showing flaws in methodology or research that might otherwise prop up junk research or bad science.
You may not like or trust him, but he's still right.
Don't answer that, it's obvious. Just because he is a magician as a job, an entertainer HAS NO RELEVANCE on whether or not he believes in and trusts the scientific method. Go and read a book.
Like I said in the 2nd part, you just don't fuck with The Amazing James Randi...You just dont!
ilovelani69 1 week ago
When science is done right, it shows the truth of a claim. Like anything that involves humans, however, if care is not taken, then bias can creep in. Careful experimentation is the bedrock of science and a thorn in the side of the mystics, spiritualists, religious, and otherwise crackpot.
MewCat100 1 week ago
you can see Randi begin to sweat bullets as he begins to consider the possibility that he might have lost.
imreadydoctor 1 week ago
@imreadydoctor That's called creative editing. That's what the director wants you to see, but it isn't likely what was actually happening. A 2 second clip of Randi biting his fingernail proves only that he bites his fingernails. He could simply have been bored, received a distressing telephone call, or had a hang nail. No, you are falling prey to the same flaws in logic that make scientists claim homeopathy is real and thus ruin their reputations.
MewCat100 1 week ago
@MewCat100 In what way? I am making an observation and drawing a hypothesis of the cause of the observed effect. I simply do not have a way to test my hypothesis, obviously. I do not believe that homeopathy is real, however if through experimentation it showed otherwise, my first opinion would be "faulty experimentation," however after several successfully repeated experiments I would accept it as our most current theory of water. I dont see the logical error
imreadydoctor 1 week ago
@imreadydoctor You were drawing a conclusion, which is what I objected to. You are welcome to your opinion and if you were simply putting forth a hypothesis and not putting forth a conclusion that you believed to be true without evidence, then you have my apology. That is what I read, but it is clearly not what you meant. It is the typical difficulty in understanding intent on the internet. Again, my apologies.
MewCat100 6 days ago
@MewCat100 It is entirely fine. My education is in biology and philosophy, but you seem to be quite knowledgeable in the scientific field. Have any education/experience in science?
imreadydoctor 5 days ago
@imreadydoctor Yes, I hold a B.S. in biology and an M.D., both of which are currently going to waste (long story). I know a good deal about science, particularly enough to know that scientific establishment is chock full of people who don't follow the scientific method. When they do follow it though, they get accurate results, like these videos show.
Philosophy is a useful degree, it teaches you how to reason through things; if applied well, it would make you a great scientist.
MewCat100 4 days ago
I don't understand how a glass of water with traces of dinosaur piss and onions could cure a cold, but as long as people don't take this stuff INSTEAD of going to a real doctor I guess it's fine. Until there is any real explantion for exactly how this would work I remain skeptical.
soygoratsu 2 weeks ago in playlist BBC Horizon Homeopathy The Test
I had to watch this for college. Loved the documentary!
Plottoberry 3 weeks ago 3
To all the haters here who say that the dilutions aren't made in the correct homeopathic way... I'd like to see this experiment repeated with several controlfluids: 'homeopathist' -made fluids while being filmed, homeopathic 'medicin' being bought from random stores, scientists making homeopathic fluids and all the same with normal water. Then, this all tested in the exact same way on several different bloodsamples to rule out that the specific blood used is a factor.
astilaroth 1 month ago
@boulevardboy
I did too, but I realized that we should be happy to be proven wrong because it gets us closer to the truth. I would love for homeopathy to be correct because it would open new avenues of science never before explored! However, wanting something hard enough doesn't make it so, and that's where scientists differ from psuedoscientists. But you already knew that :)
LayPhysicist 2 months ago 2
@LayPhysicist That's like saying that you would like it to be true that the sun spins around the earth. We understand molecules and we understand dilution. Dilution is a process to reduce the number of molecules in a solution and we know that the less molecules you get, the less potent the effect. Homeopathy is like arguing that 100mg of Tylenol is more powerful than 500mg, it's just not true and it's not based on anything but the ramblings of a snake oil salesman.
frankvonfrauner 1 week ago
@frankvonfrauner I was not saying that, but I see where it could have been interpreted that way. I meant that people need to differentiate between what is real, and what they wish were real.
LayPhysicist 1 week ago
One essential piece of the puzzle that has been convieniently left out here. None of the samples have been sucussed, that is vibrated or shaken as a true homeopathic remedy would be. All of the samples were drops into stationary water. All homeopathic remedies are shaken to set or increase the memory of the water. The same experiment could be done with homeopathic sucussion of both the remedy and the control, so as far as I am concerned, the program was not about or showed nothing of homeopathy.
MrSafwar21 3 months ago
@MrSafwar21 maybe you didnt watch part 4... "these are all shaken - the 'crucial' homeopathic step"
gkittty 3 months ago
@MrSafwar21 Are you for real? Why would that make a difference?
uriituw 3 months ago
Thanks for uploading these.,
MrNellie2200 4 months ago
Science is today explaining our universe in ways we have never thought to question before. Example, the questions about Space that is all around us-See PBS.org recent videos. In many shots of this video many of the tubes are open and a dilution is being made to the nearby tube, cross contamination is allowed to occur. Randi, The Magician, appears to be a good magician: all STOP! Why is a magician (who dropped out of high school) being allowed to be a part of Science and these experiments. DC
MrStarwarmer 4 months ago in playlist BBC Horizon Homeopathy The Test
I wonder if all the tubes did merely contain pure water why did some of them show a positive result. I mean why is pure water activating the cells. Does it have some other impurities that weren't checked for?
devpunk93 4 months ago
@devpunk93
It could be that there are small bits of peptide in the water that basophils respond to; it could be that these originate from the blood cell samples rather than the water which is added, and that the blood samples have a variance of allergen concentration.
The basophil cells may have a sensitivity variance. Some may more easily express whatever is labelled with the blue pigment even in the absence of allergens.
I think the variation likely comes from the blood, not the water.
Teghead 3 months ago
@devpunk93
Presumably they decided on some value as a threshold for +ve or -ve result. I don't know what informed their choice. Maybe the distribution of %activated cells was bimodal (two clusters) and so it was easy to set the threshold. I kinda doubt that though, the distribution was probably normal, and they put the threshold at the median value. They probably did the proper analysis without placing results in to the 2 classes, but used +ve/-ve to demonstrate the point clearly for tv.
Teghead 3 months ago
SO why would mixing up the tubes have any effect?
TrenchCoatMafia33 4 months ago
James Randi, the ultimate badass :D
Dpesh7 4 months ago
Randi was sweating for a bit there :D
rdoetjes 4 months ago
along with james randi even i felt the goosebumps when the results were in favour of shit at one point of time.....
fuck homeopathy........
boulevardboy 5 months ago
And what about the fact that it works on animals?
macgeek2005 5 months ago
Besides, sending an extremely biased, cynical old man as a "detective" to basically Prove that the experiments are false, is extremely suspicious. Why James Randi? Why not a scientist or a doctor? Randi is just a warped frustrated old man who is Incredibly biased about this subject. NOT the person to send for an Honest trial and assessment of the facts. And the fact that he was doing magic tricks in the lab during the experiments! What a disrespectful ass.
macgeek2005 5 months ago
@macgeek2005 Agreed! Posters here are calling homeopaths 'charlatans' while they are taking the word of a REAL charlatan as if he were God speaking to them. They need to go take their Prozac; leave homeopathy for those who recognize its value.
wendyoffroad 5 months ago
@wendyoffroad
Randi knows frauds because he has experience with being deceptive for a living! Don't discredit the lack of proof in this experiment merely because you don't like the fact that one of them is a magician.
ciaobellakate 5 months ago
@wendyoffroad What value ? Can you prove its value ?
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
@ForYeensSake Indeed, but would that convince you? I believe that it would not, and that is too bad.
wendyoffroad 4 months ago
@wendyoffroad So instead of posting absolute proof that homeopathy works you decide to assume I don't buy into proof ? I don't buy into anecdotal stories. However if you can prove that you have more studies of greater quality from a reliable source made by acceptable scientists (by this I mean, no discovery institute-ish scientists) then I will gladly follow you until then I have insufficient evidence to back up the claim that homeopathy works.
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
@wendyoffroad please prove your assertion.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
@PointlessSteel Never trust anyone who makes deception his life's work.
wendyoffroad 4 months ago
@wendyoffroad
I think the value of of homeopathy has been proven in this video.
The give it their best shot, and it was proven bullshit.
If you are ill and want to be cured, take a medicine, if you are thirsty take a glass of water!
Mesdriver 4 months ago
@macgeek2005 Ok randi is biased, I'll grant you that. Can you now please prove that it works ? I don't think so. Randi was there for the show, not to do any science. All he did was watch the results. So I don't see how his bias makes any difference.
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
Was this Horizon study published? I will not accept it otherwise.
Webofscience 5 months ago
Wait a second... so, hundreds of scientific experiments from dozens of scientists all show homeopathy working.. and then James Randi oversees ONE experiment, and its result "proves" that homeopathy is bull shit? Wouldn't this same guy tell someone with a positive experiment that he has to repeat it two thousand times before it can mean anything?
macgeek2005 5 months ago
@macgeek2005
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and/or the placebo effect.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
@DafyddCymraeg But why does the homeopathic water appear to have an affect on cells in those small scale studies? It DOES affect the cells. They saw it with their own eyes. No matter what a more rigorously conducted trial shows, the reality is that that diluted solution did affect cells in those other experiments. The conclusion of the bigger trial should not be that the smaller trial was somehow completely inaccurate, but that maybe there is another aspect to it that people don't realize yet.
macgeek2005 5 months ago
@macgeek2005
That point of Horizon's study was to properly test whether or not their water's cells were 'affected' or not; whether water could be said as having a 'memory' of the ingredients, even though they'd been diluted out of existence. The test concluded that their water's cells weren't being affected in any bracket beyond that of chance. As said, the results of those small scale studies can never be repeated in bigger scale test, with respectable control mechanisms in place.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macgeek2005
That point of Horizon's study was to properly test whether or not their water's cells were 'affected' or not; whether water could be said as having a 'memory' of the ingredients, even though they'd been diluted out of existence. The test concluded that their water's cells weren't being affected in any bracket beyond that of chance. As said, the results of those small scale studies can never be repeated in bigger scale test, with respectable control mechanisms in place.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
Additionally, please re-think what you've said; "No matter what a more rigorously conducted trial shows...". You're essentially saying, "A critical, studying, eye" is wrong", where-as "a laid back, doing small a experiment in own time, by one's self, not following proper protocol" is right. If homoeopathy worked, it's results could be demonstrated whatever the scale of study.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
@macgeek2005 The number of tests were too small therefore it hinted it would have an effect. As you saw in the final results there were Cs and Ds. Don't forget that cells are living matter and that they are incredible complex so they changed behaviour in the process and thus gave a 'false positive'. Also bear in mind that not all cells were calibrated to begin with and not every cell reacts the same to allergies.
rdoetjes 4 months ago
@macgeek2005 "but that maybe there is another aspect to it that people don't realize yet." But then you are assuming it already works. With science all you do is pose the question. You don't start with the answer. So if there might have been other aspects but there is no reason yet to think there were. Unless this can be proven it is safe to assume there aren't. Yes there have been experiments that favor homeopathy, but there simply have been many experiments. It's called chance.
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macgeek2005
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and/or the placebo effect.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macgeek2005
Hundreds of experiments by scientists have shown that homoeopathy doesn't work. In turn, the vast minority of studies that imply that there is something behind homoeopathy are repeated under strict, controlled, environments; like the ONE experiment Randi oversees in this program; and have almost always concluded that homoeopathy doesn't work beyond chance and / or the placebo effect.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
@macgeek2005
Moreover, the problem is the 'tests', 'studies', 'experiments', which support homoeopathy are often done in by individuals, (i,e not teams) under loose conditions, on a small scale, with no control (e.g double-blind) mechanisms in play. Unfortunately, bad science can be 'proved' through undisciplined experiments.
,
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
Why I think homeopathy is bullshit? It's this: How does the water know, what is being diluted and what effect should it have? How it's possible that it doesn't remember some stuff that has been in the water before the dilution procedure? Basically, tap water should be the ultimate homeopathic remedy against anything, because it ran through various pipes, the ground, perhaps fell down as acid rain or as the piss of a mad cow. This should imprint so many memories into the poor molecules...
leichenweich 5 months ago 2
Then how the hell does it work...???
onir27 5 months ago
@ Mr Randi
3. What will be the result if the same test is repeated with only pure water
samples? will that be all negatives or equal positives and negatives?
I have more questions regarding the design of
this test but first I need input from Mr Randi on above questions for a better understanding.
Thanx
Dr Malik
medpkcom 6 months ago
@medpkcom
The control group was "pure water".
The results showed equal positives and negatives.
nemirn 5 months ago
@ Mr Randi
2. Why after the coding procedure the test results got converted into pure randoms of positive and negative instead
of being converted into all negatives.
Dr Malik
medpkcom 6 months ago
@ Mr Randi
There are a few points on which I would like to get some input from Mr Randi to to clarify the parameters in conduction of the test.
1. It has been mentioned that before the adoption of coding procedure advised by Mr Randi the tests were being conducted by automatic analysers so it becomes difficult for me to understand that how the knowledge of a person conducting the test through automated machine regarding the sample could affect the results.
Dr Malik
medpkcom 6 months ago
Human thought is rather semi corralled insanity. So much can be believed without evidence and in spite of contrary evidence. There are scientists that work with the knowledge that the world and universe is billions of years old, yet believe that the bible never lies and that the world is 6000 yrs old. Take an open mind and drill in your "truth". Once accepted totally - hard to dispell.
JohnnyRock2000 6 months ago
"His reputation and his money are safe." I can see how it wouldn't be great for his wallet but I don't think it would be bad for his reputation if the test showed that homeopathy works. He has always said that he is willing to believe in things if he is provided with convincing proof.
Smithpolly 7 months ago 2
@Smithpolly It's not even his money. The money belongs to the foundation. It's not as though Randi would personally lose $1 million if someone wins the challenge.
Guitcad1 6 months ago
Comment removed
Smithpolly 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This test is BS! The test is only focusing on trace of histamine in the diluted water... not if the water have memory! its like saying : hoo its dark right now.. it must be night right!? no its because you are in a room with no window! LOL
mproductionsmusik 7 months ago
Comment removed
mproductionsmusik 7 months ago
Homeopathy and prayer work the same way: the placebo effect.
Thats the facts.
vincedeporter 7 months ago
well does the act of observation and knowing where the the solutions are actually effect the experiment?? has anyone tested this?
Warcheiftin 8 months ago
@Warcheiftin if you mean knowing which tube contains the diluted solution and which one is the control (just the untreated water,) it would allow someone to be able to treat the experiment in a manner where they can "cheat" their way to their desired result.
AtomicAtari 8 months ago
How to make fortune with homeopathy: Use a credit card to take out a small quantity of cash and throw it away. Use 10 credit cards to pay off the debt evenly. Select one of these cards and pay off the fraction of the debt with another 10 credit cards. Repeat this 20 times. Go to the bank and collect your riches.
Henipah 8 months ago 2
@Henipah Oh I do have a better recipe. Open up a pharma shop that fills vials with tap water and label them with random homeopathic names. Sell them for a high price. Save some money to bribe fiscalization from government. Repeat until you´re rich.
algorithmancer 7 months ago
@Beerathan: James Randi will have to submit to a homeopathic medicine test under controlled conditions; like he wants us to prove the effect of homeopathy under controlled conditions. I am ready if and when he is ready anytime & anyday. I will give him Sulphur CM and he will have no choice but to acknowledge homeopathy works. My controlled condition: stay at a hotel of my choice for 3 months and have normal food. No coffee No Alcohol. That's all. He can keep his million if he pays for hotel.
MultiSpirit99 8 months ago
But but but but but but but but but.... homeopathy works!
beerathon 8 months ago
James Randi should be given Sulphur CM and then he will know what homeopathy is.....I bet you he will dish out 1 Million and then ask me can I cure and fix his severly burned skin look all over his body that started coming out within weeks of taking Sulphur CM :-))
MultiSpirit99 8 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 Then why don't you get him to take some "Sulphur CM" and claim your million dollars?
beerathon 8 months ago
@beerathon Also if you are interested you can join him too, I will give you Sulphur too....Both participants will have to sign a notarized statement accepting the risk and the effects that will follow after I give the medicine. I am not responsible then and you will both not be seeing any Allopathic Doctor until 3 months. That will be something ;-)
MultiSpirit99 8 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 Fake azz....
beerathon 8 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 You are an idiot.
econowage 7 months ago
Addendum: This whole experiment is not testing whether people get cured by homeopathy or not. If you really want to see what homeopathy can do, find a non smoker suffering from Asthma or Eczema and give him Sulphur CM potency 5 Drops in 1/4 cup water surreptitiously without that person knowing if possible early morning before him brushing teeth. Then see what happens within 3 months time. You will be either horrified from the aggravation or surprised by the cure. Either will guaranteed happen.
MultiSpirit99 8 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 People who suffer from asthma or eczema typically are typically either symptom-free or have quite noticeable symptoms. There's usually not much in between. So yeah, if you're a believer, either will very likely happen. This also works with prayer or any other bogus method that the little 'scientist' believes in.
letsfightinglove00 7 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 Or look at the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of homeopathy clinical trials, which show that its just a placebo pill.
econowage 7 months ago
This whole documentary is a big fraud created by Pharma Corps to disprove homeopathy. No homeopathic medicine is ever made in water as a medium. Right there the whole experimentation is totally wrong. All homeopathic medicines are made in "Medicine Grade Absolute Alcohol". All these tests should have been done in that medium and checked. This test is also wrong because it is testing memory of water (not medicines effect), which was first proposed as a hypothesis published it in nature earlier.
MultiSpirit99 8 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 You are an idiot.
econowage 7 months ago
@MultiSpirit99 You are one stupid fuck. Every homeopath I've ever run into uses water! I've never heard of any using anything BUT water.
Oh wait, I suppose that's not "true homeopathy"?
Guitcad1 7 months ago
impossible. and retarded.
illumined1 8 months ago
Excellent report. Thanks for uploading. I'd like to see more testing done to dispel myth completely. Not that it will make any difference to the adherents of this apparent silliness.
spaceoreo 8 months ago
Fer crikey's sake, science doesn't declare anything impossible, just unlikely, unexplained, unsupported, or refuted.
I'm also disappointed at the statistical method they used. They had a categorical independent variable, but they took their dependent numerical variable, transformed it to a categorical variable, and then analyzed it (presumably with a chi squared test). The proper thing to do would be to analyze the data in the form in which it's gathered, in this case a one-tailed t-test.
dcs002 9 months ago
let many foolish people still beleive this crap
abarrathemaster 9 months ago
James Randi is fucking awesome
DragonfallCIA 9 months ago 37
Very good points danieldollar. These people are in such a scramble to try to disprove Homeopathy that they miss the basics. And who are the 'Homeopaths' that help them set these experiments up? Why aren't they named? This should be a requirement for all future trials of Homeopathy as well as matching the remedies to the subjects which is one of the most basic principles of Homeopathy.
metako100 10 months ago
@metako100 The most comprehensive test that left no room for errors was the one that proved homeopathy is false.
What basics did they miss? What steps did they omit or do incorrectly? Why do you need random homeopaths to help them set up the experiments? If they're doing the experiments by the guidelines of homeopathy, then that's good enough. Once you introduce the homeopaths themselves, then there's room for problems to occur.
ninjajesus81 9 months ago
bbc fail...the issue is not "how" it works, the issue is "that" it works. part 3 or 4 shows that when the remedies on actual patients (and animals) are administered, homeopathy is effective.
you don't have to understand how an automobile engine works to know that the car can drive.
danieldollar 10 months ago
@danieldollar While that is true, anecdotes cannot be used as evidence for obvious reasons. There are many ways in which the mind can trick us into thinking things which aren't true at all.
jbdtaylor 8 months ago
@jbdtaylor which is why it is fortunate there have been studies done that support homeopathic benefits
danieldollar 8 months ago
@danieldollar And the majority show that it is no better than placebo, particularly the high quality studies. Now shut the fuck up.
econowage 7 months ago
@econowage you must be really smart because you can recite the opinions of similarly arrogant doctors with no knowledge or experience with homeopathic practice..and if you'd read my entire conversation, you'd see how i referenced several independent studies and inferred the effectiveness of homeopathy. but then again, you can use swear words, so i guess we're at a stand still.
danieldollar 7 months ago
@danieldollar As opposed to citing the opinions of arrogant Homeopaths? I cite the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the clinical trials on homeopathy that have found it to be no better than placebo. There are bound to be a few studies that show homeopathy to be more effective than placebo, especially if they have small samples, are not double blind, or suffer from other issues of internal validity, but that does not "prove" homeopathy is effective.
econowage 7 months ago
@econowage first of all, if you can find 10,000 tests that show homeopathy no better than a placebo, and only have 1 good test that supports homeopathy, then all your tests are bunk, because by your assumption homeopathy should under no circumstances have any effect on a person at all. second, it is difficult to treat someone with homeopathy as they typically need a case by case analysis. this is why testing is so difficult and usually done incorrectly, therefore yielding negative results.
danieldollar 7 months ago
@danieldollar I am done wasting my time on you, as you have such a poor understanding of the scientific method or clinical trials. It's useless to argue with you.
econowage 7 months ago
@econowage it's useless because you're lazy and don't want to use your brain to like, think, and stuff. i've admitted i've been wrong many times in my life so i have nothing to lose here. if you give me a good argument i'll concede. until then, be safe in your smarmy little bubble of stubborn old "scientists" and "doctors".
danieldollar 7 months ago
@danieldollar ... has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falseness of the issue.
danieldollar 7 months ago
@econowage third, i have cited several tests that showed homeopathy to be effective against animals. it's funny because i've heard different responses to this from "the testers were biased" to "animals get the placebo effect too". lastly, i've tried to learn not to knock things without having personal experience with them first. there are very very few things that can be proven for certain in this world, and just because scientists don't understand the mechanism of homeopathy currently ...
danieldollar 7 months ago
Major flaw in the design of that experiment:as Homeopathics are prescribed to fit an INDIVIDUAL'S symptom picture, were the 'human cells' extracted from a person who's symptoms matched the Hystamine by an experienced Homeopath? If not the whole experiment is null and void and proves nothing except that a random remedy will not affect a group of random 'human cells' which most Homeopaths would expect anyway. If you're going to invest all that energy in an experiment please design it properly.
metako100 10 months ago
@metako100 that's exactly what i was thinking as i watched this. the issue is not whether or not the remedy can affect some clump of human cells, it's whether it affects human beings...this was the test in part 4 i think that actually was in favor of homeopathy
danieldollar 10 months ago
@metako100 The experiment they did matched the one that the lady did, which, according to her, "confirmed" the water memory thing. They repeated her experiment and it didn't work.
If hers was set up right, then theirs was set up right because they copied it.
ninjajesus81 9 months ago
@ninjajesus81 Yes that would seem true, unless you understood Homeopathy. Was the donor of Professor Ennis's blood cell the same donor as the cell Horizon used??? If not then the whole experiment is null and void right from the outset if they are trying to replicate her experiment. I have just rewatched the episodes and they do not mention this point. This is crucial because one of the major principles of Homeopathy is that the remedy HAS to be matched to the individual symptoms of the person.
metako100 9 months ago
@metako100 You're right, to properly replicate the experiment, they would have to copy it exactly. But how exact does it have to be? The donor's cells for both experiments may have been exactly the same, regardless of what symptoms the donor was exhibiting. Do those specific cells even reflect what symptoms the donor was suffering from? Or would the cells be the same regardless of what condition the donor was in?
ninjajesus81 9 months ago
@ninjajesus81 The whole design of the experiment is incorrect. As I understand Homeopathy the individually selected remedy works upon the 'vital force' of a person which then governs the immune system which then effects the individual cells. If you remove some cells from the person are they still attached to the 'vital force' or even the immune sysyem? ....
metako100 9 months ago
@ninjajesus81..... The cells would probably reflect the state of the donor at the time of removal but is there any element of an immune sysytem (let alone 'vital force') within an individual cell with which to respond to the Homeopathic remedy? An interesting question and worthy of investigation but it's a different question to 'do Homeopathic remedies work on people', which I think is the more important question. It is not critical for Homepathy to work on individual cells but on whole people.
metako100 9 months ago
@metako100 What is a "vital force"? That sounds like mumbo jumbo.
We're speculating on what homeopathy does, and what it could do, but do we have any evidence that it does anything? I'm still waiting for that test that has been independently verified by several different groups that proves homeopathy works the way homeopaths believe it does, and not just as a placebo.
ninjajesus81 9 months ago
@ninjajesus81 a 'vital force' is a non-physical energy-body that lies within and around the physical body and sustains and regulates it. But this is getting into metaphysics and is best left out of the equation for a few more centuries. I think 'immune system' is a more practical term to deal with as it is a total 'system' rather than a function of an individual cell. And I agree - I am eagerly waiting for that test too, but will continue to use Homeopathy and other methods which I find work.
metako100 9 months ago
@metako100 "a 'vital force' is a non-physical energy-body"? Yep, pure mumbo jumbo. Thanks for confirming.
johnnyeverton 9 months ago
@metako100 Wasn't the test itself on basophils though? I mean, those are a component of the human immune system. And even those have their own particular cellular mechanisms of defense. It's important to look at the individual components that comprise such a complex system. Where does "vital force" even come into the equation?
KillgoreOv 9 months ago
@KillgoreOv Sorry,I missed that they were basophils. But Homeopathy is far more concerned with the 'totality of symptoms' of a person's immune response rather than what is happening on a cellular level, although this is an interesting area of investigation. Many people will have a problem with the concept of a 'vital force' but the important thing is that Homeopathy treats the person as a whole indivisable system, whereas conventional medicine seems to focus on ever smaller sub components.
metako100 9 months ago
@metako100 Fair enough, I think I see your point. Agree to disagree then?
KillgoreOv 9 months ago
@ninjajesus81 ...Prof Ennis may have accidentally and unwittingly used a cell which was from a person who's symptoms were a match for Hystamine and that's why she had positive results. Horizon may not have understood this principle and used a totally different donor. It would be interesting to get this information from Horizon. The other thing is that I have never heard a Homeopath claim that a remedy would work on an independant single cell seperated and cut off from a live human being.
metako100 9 months ago
@metako100 Then why do so many homeopaths use the original research as advance for homeopathy's theoretical validity.
econowage 7 months ago
@fkoff99 sorry to comment on an old post but "1+1 does not allways equal 2" errrrr im sorry, but yes it does. Can you provide an example of when it doesnt?
Ixnay211 10 months ago
Almost had me fooled. But it's easy to fall for this stuff. People actually want to believe something that doesn't work. But they hope for it to work. Like God for example. They shouldl've explained the animals though.
geniusjas87 10 months ago
sience 1 point, homeopathy 0 :)
for those that still believe homepathy is a homerun, go ahead.
Illness and desease will seperate the believers form the non believers natures way
punchcrosser 10 months ago
What are you talking about? You have never heard of 'double slit' experiment? It has nothing to do with new age philosophy. It has been proven time after time particles in quantum level behave differently based on observation. Quantum computers currently being developed use this feature of particles. I suggest you go look into some basics of quantum physics.
barbarshadow 11 months ago
@barbarshadow "particles in quantum level behave differently based on observation."
Yes. But everything bigger than a subatomic particle behaves just the way Newtonian physics + General Realativity predict. Quantum mechanics applies only at an extremely small scale. Charlatans, quacks and con-men like to throw the term "quantum physics" around because they know that nobody understands it and they can use it to make any nonsense sound more plausible.
They are misapplying the term!
Guitcad1 10 months ago 30
@Guitcad1 Macro-level observer effect has been repeatedly demonstrated on both atoms and molecules. You don't know what you're talking about.
kentforbes 7 months ago
@Guitcad1
medpkcom 6 months ago
@barbarshadow The double split experiment was done with single particles, not biological cells. Our blood cells are not single particles. I'm not sure about you but I have never seen any organic cell in waveform. I'm afraid I am going to have to repeat what you said and go look into the very very very basics of quantum physics. To me it sounds like you have read a book on quantum physics and skipped the beginning where it explains what it actually is.
jbdtaylor 8 months ago
How is that two serious scientists came up with positive results? is it possible that this has something to do with quantum physics? In quantum physics it is an accepted (albeit unexplained) fact that particles behave differently when someone is watching/observing it. So it is possible positive results are not repeated because scientists doing the experiment don't know which water is which. There is no conscious observer. In the positive experiments, they knew which water was diluted.
barbarshadow 11 months ago
@barbarshadow
The claim by New Age philosophers regarding the "observer effect" is baseless and fraudulent as well. Look in to it.
unkizzleskizzle 11 months ago
@barbarshadow That sounds like a bit of a bullshit explanation to me.
Bumblybee256 10 months ago
2:30 Oh, BBC, when will you learn? When Randi wins, *everyone* wins. :-)
zEropoint68 11 months ago
YEAH! GO RANDI!
magichristo 11 months ago
I watched the whole program just to find out that homeopathy is impossible? god damn it, but does that mean that those scientists with positive results were giving out false results? well, i guess so
Zee96969696 11 months ago
Why the issue with the shot of Randi looking "worried"? I watched the scenes before and after that moment and it doesn't look at all like they were taken at different times. The glass is in the same place with the same amount of water, the lighting in the room hasn't changed, even the cables in the back of the computer are in the same position. Open 2 windows in your browser and compare the images side by side.
santospb 1 year ago
This experiment was a waste of time, all normals, rational people could have predicted the outcome with 100% accuracy.
cplusplusish 1 year ago
It's a shame that all this attention to homeopathy diverts resources from something that does (seem to) work: the placebo effect.
mroctahedron 1 year ago
homeopathy is real, water does have a memory. Explanation= the universe behaves holographically. Oh, there is fundamentalism in science!!!!
amatorynumber 1 year ago
@amatorynumber If water has a memory then it would also contain the urine 'memory' of a number of people, rock and mineral 'memory'. dino urine and poo 'memory' and god knows what other 'memories' of years gone by that would also have an effect on the person taking this ridiculous 'medicine'
Haizum74 1 year ago
Well done BBC for exposing this nonsense in completely convincing fashion.
It's a shame you had to waste some of our money (British TV licence fee payers) doing it - although the extra $1 million dollars would have paid for the programme had the quacks been proved correct.
jazzx251 1 year ago
@jazzx251 If it stops even one person from taking homeopathy against malaria and returning back to the Isles in a casket, I'd say the money is well spent.
Yupiyeahs 1 year ago
@jazzx251 What an odd comment about the BBC wasting your money on this program. Do you feel cheated out of your money when you watch a comedy show on the BBC, or maybe a crime drama? How about a cooking show? After all, you can't learn anything from those programs, and many of them are boring and nonfactual.
1971ojoalparche1971 1 year ago
@1971ojoalparche1971
There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my comment.
But homeopathy is so obviously a load of rubbish.
If the BBC were to stage a "scientific experiment to prove that eggs break when dropped from the top of a skyscraper" - everyone would consider that a complete waste of money.
Now you mention it - cooking shows should be banned, they are the most boring thing on TV; they should bring back the test card instead. It's much cheaper and more interesting.
jazzx251 1 year ago
Even if water DOES have a 'memory', you're taking a single drop of that special water and then diluting it 100 fold into ordinary water, then doing that again and again until you're left with nothing but regular water... water whose memory only includes other water.
ThePolysyllabist 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Feb 13, 2010 HOMEOPATHY CURES BREAST CANCER
A recent study in the International Journal of Oncology demonstrated that four ultra-diluted homeopathic medicines exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against two breast cancer cell lines
Frenkel M et al. (2010): Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells. International Journal of Oncology, 36: 395-403.
mohanaturo 1 year ago
As if we didn't know this
oliversenord 1 year ago
funny on how beleiver in that crap still think it is real.....2 independant analysis by 2 lab didnt do..even knowing that homeopath help creating this protocol...and that it was double blinded...still there is no amont of evidence that will ever convince those people.....they still sell that fucking shit alon side real drugs in drugstore
lapmarty 1 year ago 2
Randi fucked them.
WOOOOO!
theshaggyskinhead 1 year ago 2
Mopsters, liars
fkoff99 1 year ago
@fkoff99 the homeopaths? hell yeah!
nicolaswirth 1 year ago
@nicolaswirth No! FDA asslicker. You see how confused you are? Keep smoking crack so the world gets rid quickly of a piece of trash like you.
fkoff99 1 year ago
once again 0 evidence for homeopath quackery and more evidence it is based on a flawed bullshit principle.
MrPoxman 1 year ago
Useless mopsters
fkoff99 1 year ago
Kula Shaker
TheBakor 1 year ago
Horizon is wrong to say that Randi's reputation remains intact. He says that he would actually like to be convinced scientifically by someone that there is something more to all of these things as it would so fascinating. However, it is all so far proved to be hogwash and it is very likely this will always be the case, hence he is quite confident he won't lose that money...
ironweighted 1 year ago
I wouldn't believe anything that comes from the intervention of a magician. No wonder Randi says: even scientists can not be objective. That old tricky m.f. has no shame, and on top of that discredits real scientists. What an arrogant dishonest old mf.
fkoff99 1 year ago
@fkoff99
Excuse me, but how can you say Randi has no shame when there are peddlers selling you $100 bottles of FUCKING SUGAR PILLS that are supposed to treat legitimate medical conditions, knowing all the while that there is no science to back it up. Randi exposes bad science, bad methodology and gullible people, and we're damned lucky to have him around.
MizarShadow 1 year ago
@MizarShadow I don't trust homepathy, I don't trust Randi. I trust the law of vibrators. lol.
fkoff99 1 year ago
@fkoff99
Homeopathy deserves no trust. The Amazing Randi is merely a man. He just so happens to be an intelligent man dedicated to advancing the acceptance of science in the modern day world who is quite good at his job. Given his track record, he does deserve trust.
What, exactly, is the Law of Vibrators? Or do I even want to know.
MizarShadow 1 year ago
@MizarShadow LOL. ok,
fkoff99 1 year ago
@MizarShadow Well said mate! Oh how tedious and tiring it becomes trying to convince even ONE of these moronic blind people... I don't know why I bother but I won't stop - The scientific method is worth defending!
Keep doing it! :)
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@fkoff99 Try having a proper debate some time. that means not saying mf every second or third word, coming out with some ACTUAL points, considering what the other party is saying and generally keeping as rational a head on as you can manage.
Oh, you were?
LOL
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
Comment removed
fkoff99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HitMeWithIt OH! I almost forgot!, Im not here to debate. So save your useless words. I'll express my opinions in general anytime I want. Dissaperar from my horizon pain in the ass.
fkoff99 1 year ago
Animals aren't completely dumb. If you give them something that looks like medicine, like a sugar pill, and the animal itself knows that it's ill, the placebo effect would happen too wouldn't it?
dojokonojo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dojokonojo "If you give them something that looks like medicine, like a sugar pill, and the animal itself knows that it's ill, the placebo effect would happen too wouldn't it?"
Having given many tablets to a sick but reluctant cat, I can safely state this is complete rubbish - and I have the scars to prove it.
mandolinic 1 year ago
Maybe homeopathy maybe cannot be explained because the observer affects the observed(also some startling new findings on this!). I dont know, just a theory. What I would like "science" to explain to me is how and why homeopathy works in horses and little children?
wildwave2003 1 year ago
@wildwave2003 You answered your own (impossible) question!
Science is a method. that is all.
Don't expect science to tell you anything you cannot be bothered to go looking up yourself. The real truth is in facts and science just happens to be the very best method for evaluating evidenmce.
Why does it work on horses?
It doesn't.
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@wildwave2003 What I think is that James Randi is dishonest, tricky and on top of that arrogant. Listen how he says that scientists are not "objective" and "rational" sometimes..he is just a tricky magician..MAGICIAN...I wouldn't believe anything that comes from a tricky arrogant magician.
fkoff99 1 year ago
@fkoff99
The Amazing Randi actually had a damned good point. Scientists are humans, and can be gullible, no matter how much training they have. His being a magician, and being able to fool people puts him in a very good position to understand how to fool the human mind. Not only that, he's not 'discrediting real scientists', he's simply showing flaws in methodology or research that might otherwise prop up junk research or bad science.
You may not like or trust him, but he's still right.
MizarShadow 1 year ago
@fkoff99 What logic do you use? your own?
Don't answer that, it's obvious. Just because he is a magician as a job, an entertainer HAS NO RELEVANCE on whether or not he believes in and trusts the scientific method. Go and read a book.
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@HitMeWithIt 1)Say no to drugs, 2) Your ass hurts, 3) the fact that you don't have a satisfactory sexual life doesn't mean that you have