I read two of the articles that you suggested, none of them prove that homeopathy is more than placebo.. Is there any article that proves anything about homeopathy at all. Can you name a single one. I don't belive you can.
@Bandershot I noticed the meta-analyses (which are link to your description) are biased due to the Simpson's Paradox. The very act of pooling data quicky invalidates the meta-analysis since they can reverse the overall results of 2 or more studies and doesn't weight the MA by each independent study. (pooling data) not a legitimate way for MA.
@IceAges14Aces Problem with that argument is that to be valid it has to be applied globally, not to just homeopathic metas, but to others as well & you can't do it. I've put fwd studies opponents said didn't exist. Now that it's seen that they do, opponents rise to the rank of antagonist by attacking the experiemental data without first establishing or accepting preset criteria. Meanwhile, you've no proof for your claims of psychogenic action, i.e. placebo. Where's YOUR science?
@andersandersson000 No meta analysis has been able to conclude that homeoapthics are placebo. People who have done invitro tests are convinced they're not placebos. Look at tinyurl com/7n9sedq. How can something have a placebo effect on biochemicals? I know you're deperate to prove it's the placebo effect, but I haven't been able to find one study that demonstrates it. Can YOU show me one? This whole notion of placebo comes from biased critiques of clinical tests for verum.
@Bandershot Are there any of these articles that prove anything about homeopathy? In that case, which one? I have now read two of them and none of these prove anything
@andersandersson000 Reading two articles isn't going to "prove" anything.to somebody who doesn't want to see the truth. But if you have an open mind & aren't just looking for arguable points, read the Johnson pharmacy report &follow some of the links. Better yet, put it to the test yourself on yrself. That's how the rest of us skeptics did it. Apparently you think anyone who uses homeopathy didn't have any doubts about it at first & wasn't aware of the dilution paradox.
@TheMogulmonster You're not meeting your own standard of proof for making a positive assertion. Your belief is that 2B valid, a phenom such as homeopathy & the "placebo effect," hav 2B supported by peer rev'd pub'd studies, tests&trials. So my ? 2U is, if U believe the biological effects of homeopathics R solely due2psychogenesis, where are the studies in psych journals that prove it?
Remember “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”, translation: This is not medicine and should not be taken in place of real medicine.
FDA: "Homeopathic drugs generally must meet standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. tinyurl com/fdahomoe"
@Bandershot It's just water, so it is not classified a drug, nor should it be used in place of real medicine. Stop defending shysters who bilk people out of money promising "cures", this is the old snake oil hustle. You can believe in it all you like, but real medicine does not require you to believe for it to work.
@frosted1030 Sorry, see the FDA desription below that states homeopathics are drugs. Might want to study up on your facts before you embarass yourself.
It's protected by law. Law's on our side, not yours. If you don't believe it, then why haven't you taken it to court and won a big settlement? You've had 200 years to do it, what's the hang up? If you can't prove what you say in court, then you're just wasting your time. Go get a job. Get a life and stop harrassing.
@Bandershot In the FDA's opinion, homeopathic medications contain little or no pharmacologically active ingredients, so there's no real safety concern and that's why the FDA isn't as strict about the regulations.
@frosted1030 "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively)."
rea it and weep tinyurl com/fdahomoe
It never ceases to amaze me what blatant liars the opponents of homeopathy are, and how they project what they o onto others, i.e. shysters. Tell us, forsted, how much money have you sent poor Randi?
@Bandershot Homeopathic studies published in peer-reviewed journals??? Care to elaborate on the name of those peer-reviewed journals, so I can critique them???
@Bandershot Homeopathic studies published in peer-review journals??? Care to elaborate on the name of those peer-reviewed journals, so I can critique them??..
in the old days, before we had an FDA to test the validity of medical care, we had tar and feathers, a homeopathic cure for quackery, since hillery clinton banned using science to test medicine over fifteen years ago... I think we should go back to homeopathy.
LOL James Randi is a con man and makes no sense whatsoever when he speaks.He should be held in contempt for his nonsensical ramblings about things he has no clue about.He should be objective when infact the real scams and quacks come from the pharmaceutical industry.Over 65000 lawsuits against drug companies within a 6 year period.Drug doctors prescribe seriously deadly drugs that kill millions of people or cause deadly side effects creating newer problems to the patient.
LOL James Randi is a con man and makes no sense whatsoever when he speaks.He should be held in contempt for his nonsensical ramblings about things he has no clue about.He should be objective when infact the real scams and quacks come from the pharmaceutical industry.Over 65000 lawsuits against drug companies within a 6 year period.Drug doctors prescribe seriously deadly drugs that kill millions of people or cause deadly side effects creating newer problems to the patient.
@TheFriendlyEngineer So, you want homeopathic medicine that does nothing instead? Or worse, let's just say that one of your homeopathic dilutions actually worked, but someone was poisoned by one of the many "inactive ingredients", there is almost no way to trace down which ingredient caused the harm and no one to sue, interesting solution. I like that drugs are known, and the side effects are listed, homeopathy does not require that sort of accountability or testing.
You're aware that the study you're discussing has been done, several times; for example by BBC Horizon's show; and they've ALWAYS concluded that water doesn't have any 'memory', that the homoeopathic ingredients can never be found, and they have no repeatable results over chance or placebo. .
@DafyddCymraeg No, you're wrong on all counts. The Horizon test was done by a TV crew & Randi. LOL. When it was done by a multi centered trial & the results pub'd in a peer reviewed journal, they found in favor of homeopathy. Google "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial." Belon, Ennis. All major metanalyses have found homeopathics to have significant effect over placebo. Read Linde. See Ludtke's analysis of Shang.
It wasn't a experiment done through the auspices of the Royal Society, with it's vice-president; Prof John Enderby, overseeing proceedings. The solutions weren't created in UCL's labs; by Prof Peter Mobs and Rachael Pearson. The water wasn't analysed by Wayne Turnbull of Guy's Hospital, and cross referenced by Marion Macy of the Royal London Hospital. Likewise, statisticians Martin Bland didn't help with the decoding of results.
@DafyddCymraeg Oh really? Well, where the peer reviewed published report in an unbiased prestigious journal? Where is any published report? Just where do i ind this wonerul piece of work in the literature? Since Poitevin did the 1st trial in the '80s to 2007, there have been 24 successful replications of the basophil degranulation test rep'd in the literature. Where is the BBC test pub'd? Cite please! Google Ennis' "Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view."
Study. Take the active ingredients. Study histologically, biochemically, pathologically and physiologically. Then tell me exactly what it does.
We do not use medicine because we just know that they work. We use them because we today know basically EXACTLY what they do, we know every reaction down to a molecular level and with that, we can prove that the medicine works. Can you do this with any homeopathic remedy?
@Bahamut2218 LOL! You don't use an allopathic medicine because you know it works as intended, neither is it curative, nor do you know exactly what what it does . . if you did, you would be charged with murder. As it is, you're getting off easy by just being sued & charged with racketeering, i.e. US vs Pfizer. See all the ads on TV by attorneys offering to sue drug companies whose drugs weren't properly tested.
@Bandershot Yep. The polio vaccine was effective. It has wiped out the polio virus. There is not one case in the modern countries of a polio outbreak.
Tuberculosis is no longer a threat to anyone who has access to the vaccine. The disease used to kill an enormous amount of people until the vaccine was discovered.
Homeopathy can not claim any curative results in these cases.
@UnderManlac Nope, wrong again. Homeopathy has outperformed allopathy in everything you mention. In fact, the greatest medical achievement of all time was homeopathic, the smallpox vaccine, the use of similitude from the cowpox serum to treat a simlar disease in humans, distinct from variolation. The word homeopathy doesn't mean "dilution," it means "similar sufering." Conventional medicine is full of uncut homeopathic examples, such as anti-venoms, ADHD meds & inoculations.
@Urammar Really? Wow, when did he change the rules? Are you sure? Last time I looked it said the whole thing is adminsitered by the James Randi Eduational Foundation. Where does it say which court will handle any dispute or arbitration? Gautamala? North Korea? Who's the judge? Judge Roy Bean? Pee Wee Herman? No! It's Randi! He's never signed any agreement to test anyone, says so in the rules. All applicants are immediately dismissed by Randi as failures!
@Bandershot Both the applicant and the Randi foundation sign a legal contract that both parties agree is fair. The applicant is encouraged to design the test themselves.
"All tests are videotaped and stored. You will be asked to state that the protocol is fair prior to the test. You will be asked to state it again afterward. If you do not feel that the protocol is fair beforehand, you are not obligated to continue the test."
If you suspect one of the cases to be biased, ask for copy o the tape
@Urammar Where do you get that its a legal contract? Randi's NEVER signed it. I asked him to sign it REPEATEDLY, and he refused. He's even admitted that he's never signed it, for anyone! For a skeptic you sure aren't being very skeptical of anything but what you don't want to believe.What's amazing is how typical you are. You're ust afraid of having to change mounts.
Homeopathy is total quack science and it doesn't take a medical degree to understand it. The rules of Homeopathy are:
1. Like cures like. So a homeopathic solution for insomnia would be caffeine.
2. The less of the substance you take, the stronger it is. So you can overdose from not taking the medication.
It isn't complicated to understand why homeopathy is a complete fraud. The only way for homeopathy to work would be if the laws of physics were changed, which is of course, impossible.
@GGGeoff You're wrong! In 1 state it DOES take a medical degree to understand it. The American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix's now teaching MDs to use homeopathy, & AZ is licensing homeopaths.
1.) Like does cure like, just as in solvents like dissolves like.
2.) Wrong again. You can get an aggravation from taking too high a potency or a proving from taking it too many times. Take one pellet of a real high potency of Belladonna on the hour for a week, if you can. See what happens.
If homeopathy requires a medical degree, where is your degree from and what year was it obtained?
1. So then you admit that a homeopathic solution for insomnia is caffeine right?
2. I don't deny that high dosages of a substance can have an aggravating effect. If I drink a pot of coffee, sleeping is going to be much harder to do. What I deny is that something that has been diluted past 23X has anything left in it.
@GGGeoff I have a degree in homeopathy from Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London. Most states however have no licensing req.'s of homeopaths. But the fat that Arizona does is further testimony to its effectiveness. I'e never treid it, but a dilute of caffeine can help you get to sleep, and a cup of coffee will calm down an ADHD kid.
@Bandershot Any sane person knows how absurd it is to givea cup of coffee to a kid with ADHD. Expecting it to "calm him down" is even more absurd. I know that this comment will never be posted. Mr. Beneth, your bizarre ramblings, theories and speeches about "upitty niggers" have become so out of place that I would suggest you seek mental health treatment. I'm not trying to be insulting, so please forgive me if it comes out that way.
@GGGeoff You might've had a point if there wasn't any real pre-clincial & clinical evidence amassed over the last 200 years that very clearly & in great detail describes the action of these substances. They're regulated by the FDA, their use is taught to MDs in medical colleges, & they're currently used extensively by MD's. Meanwhile, 11% of the pop. is on ineffective anti depression drugs distrbuted by an industry that has been fined billions by the US Justice dept. Now who's crazy?
@LovaBoij Your'e right, it wouldn't prove it works. What homeopaths are more interested in is in what it does. This is called a proving. To know the action of homeopathic remedies they are given to people double blind to see what symptoms they create. There's also been biochemical tests for homeopathics in vitro. They also work on plants& animals. Contrary to skeptics, there are peer reviewed studies that show it works, but most people are interested in their own observations.
You idiot! James Randi does not judge the test. It's conducted and supervised by independent agencies, who decide if the test was successful or not. Homeopathy is fraudulent from the very foundation, and has no scientific validity. Tests conducted have conclusively observed that it is nothing more than the placebo effect. The results are the same either way, with or without homeopathy. Shysters, that's all you people are.
@UnderManlac Well, here we go again. Can you name ONE, just one peer reviewed test pub'd in a respectable unbiased science journal that conclusively observed that it is nothing more than the placebo effect? YOu going to quote Shang? Better read Ludtke first.
So if you can't find one good test for placebo, then you must be wrong about all your other allegations too. Do you really think you're employing logical thinking? Or did you think you found an excuse to get mad & call people names?
@murrymozza Wellthen you should apply for Randi's challenge to prove it. But first make sure you've done a double blind trial rubber stamped by an "academic" who's a member of NAMBLA & publishit in UnScientific American.
@murrymozza You could kill the entire population if you put one drop of arsenic in your pool, stir it up, then take a drop of that water, add it to another pool and stir it, and do that 1000 times, then put one drop of that last pool water into the ocean and let the tides and currents stir it up. You would be killing the entire planet of plants and animals..
@UnderManlac Death has not been the usual reaction to homeopathic medicine. Allopathic pharmaceuticals have, however, been indicted.
In fact, people who have used homeopathy have longer life spans than usual. John D. Rockefeller, the world's richest man to have ever lived, was an avid homeoapth & lived to be 98. May Baker Eddy, one of the world's most powerful women, was a exp. homeopath & lived to be 87. Mark Twain used homeopaths exclusively & outlived his wife & children.
@frosted1030 Do you really believe homeopathy doesn't work just because Randi says it doesn't? Do you really think Randi's going to pay $1M dollars to someody to prove him wrong? Why is it that people who believe in homeopathy are the ones who've tried it & the ones who don't are the ones who haven't? Why is it that major medical clinis like MD Anderson in Houston are using it & schools teaching it to MDs, like the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix? Just try it & shut up.
@Bandershot This is not about belief. Scientific evidence is more than hearsay and anecdotal evidence. It requires reliable, REPEATABLE and TESTABLE phenomenon. Homeopathy is a silly concept to begin with. You start with a substance that causes similar symptoms to what the patent has, then you dilute it to the point where there isn't a single molecule of that substance left in your solution, and then you call it a cure. That's just batshit crazy!
@frosted1030 Phenomenal testing, i.e. seeing if high dilutes have biological, biochmeical or physical effects, is the easiest kind of repeatable testing to do. There's been biochemical tests for over half century now. The basophil degranulation test that skeptics went beserk over when Benveniste did it, has been replicated sucessfully 24.times Just read some of the stupi commentary that slips through here to see the level of intelligene, of the people who don't get it.
@rfnajera Honest opinion? Isn't honest opinion a contradiction in terms? HOw is it that you came by it. Were you sleeping while Randi pouree the poison in your ear? Look at the facts instead. It's been use by medical doctors & in epidemics for 200 yrs. Now who am I supposed to believe? An entertainer like Randi, who's a hi skool drop out, or Nobel prize winning scientists like Brian Josephson & Luc Montagnier, top material sientists like Rustum Roy, who have rejected his "honest opinion?"
Hey John, how many mirrors do you think there are of the video "The (pseudo)science of Homeopathy" are there. Far more than you could ever false DMCA.
@TheNamelessCharacter Too bad I don't have more time or I would. The DMCA trick worked better than I could ever imagine. My phones have been going crazy ever since. Thanks for all the free adverrtising!
I truly hope James Randi passes you on to NBC or BBC and see's if they want to do another special on a lunatic. The last one I saw with the guy who was thoroughly convinced he could psychically communicate with babies... by the end of the test the guy's entire delusion came crashing in on him. It was extremely sad, but nonetheless, absolutely hilarious too.
I'm actually gonna PM Mr. Randi and make the suggestion, just in case it hadn't crossed his busy mind :)
I know you feel passionately about this topic and I respect that, but this seems like a terribly watered down conclusion to the first study you sited "randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments." Without randomizing and blinding it is impossible to rule out all sorts of bias. It is that bias that these folks are claiming is responsible for the positive results. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying the proof it does, isn't good enough. Peace.
@Bandershot I know you feel passionately about this topic and I respect that, but this seems like a terribly watered down conclusion to the first study you sited "randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments." Without randomizing and blinding it is impossible to rule out all sorts of bias. It is that bias that these folks are claiming is responsible for the positive results. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying the proof it does, isn't good enough for me.
@clintlealos You've seemed to have missed a very important point, that not all testing lacked randomization and blinding. Google "Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions." Sainte-Laudy. For a fair and balanced critical review of the literature, Google Johnson "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?"
Give EVIDENCE! not just saying things... give REAL EVIDENCE. I'm writing in caps not to be shouting, but to emphasise the important things i'd like you to answer. EVIDENCE! We'll split the 1 million dollars!
@Potame25 I Evidence? There are 6 dif. types of biochemical tests: Google Witt 2007 "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." There are 9 different types of physical tests: Becker-Witt lists 6 in "Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy." Tests on plants, animals: Betti "Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials: a critical review" Bellavite "Animals Immunology and Homeopathy"
-Witt 2007 Conclusion: No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.
-Becker-Witt CONCLUSIONS: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion.
-Use of homeopathic preperations in phytopathological models CONCLUSIONS: but much more experimentation is needed.
You're proving experiments are being done, the evidence lacks
@Potame25 You're cherry picking statements from the reports, but even so you've admitted positve results. Whereas they may not be stable for replication by ALL, they still show effects. Most tests reported positive results. So if you're going to admit the negative as being valid, then the poistive becomes valid as well. You're also not etablishing what the criteria is.
@Bandershot Cherry picking? I'm simply looking for the evidence you claim is in there proving homeopathy works. There just isn't any! The "positive results" mentioned turned out to be false positives. If it was a positive result, you could perform the same test thousands of times and still get a positive result. This isn't the case here. If real evidence turns up, let me know...
@Potame25 You yourself just admitted the evidence. The assertion of false positives is a fabrication. Show me one test that claims a false positive. I know where to find it because i've studied the literature, but I don't think you do. & just because results vary does not mean they aren't positive. Even tests for patent drugs have varying results, but I don't see you crying about those. Where is your X-ray vision and superhuman logic re: Vioxx, Avanida, oxycodone, etc. drugs that kill people?
@entyrion You're astroturfing. If what you say is true, then why haven't your allegations against it been proven in a court of law? Why do countless medical doctors to this day use it in their practices, such as Sen. Royal Copeland, MD, primary sponsor of the FDCA? Your arguments amount to nothing but name calling. If it's placebo, then why are there now 6 different types of biochem tests for it, 8 physical, why can its action be seen on plants & animals? Be specific in your response or STFU
"why haven't your allegations against it been proven in a court of law?"
1. Selling placebos is not inherently illegal in the US.
2. Homeopathic dilutions are so dilute as to effectively be little more than water. With zero chance for negative side effects, suing for damages is rare.
3. In at least some cases, it appears companies don't lose in court simply because they decide to settle. Case in point: Matrixx, the manufacturer of Zicam, paid $12 million in a 2006 settlement.
@entyrion But you're the one who's calling it a placebo. Which h- products are marketed as placebos? FDA reg'd homeopathics imply inherent powers, due to supramolecular structuring, their action reported on subjects that can't be influenced by placebos, such as cultured cells, enzymes, neutrophils, basophils. Your 2nd point contradicts your 3rd. LOL.
Everyone of your allegations re RCTs, placebos is proven wrong, leaving you with nothing but straw man arguments, denials and name calling.
Furthermore, if you're so determined that this is a science, why are you using the legal system as a defense? Medical science is not determined in a court or law, nor by public opinion. It is proven in clinical trials and peer reviewed literature.
"Why do countless medical doctors to this day use it in their practices"
-Irrelevant. Counter: "Why do countless MDs to this day NOT use it in their practices and shit-talk it every chance they get?"
@entyrion Any disputed fact can be determined in a court of law. NCAHF tried to sue a homeopathic mfg., lost. You can't accept that homeopathic products are protected by law just as they are proven in science, or you'd answer questions like Why are a growing number of MDs claiming effective use of these substances; how can placebos effect biochem subjects? You're either ignorant of case law & science that prove homeopathy, or you're another astroturfer running straw man arguments @ $10 a pop.
"...such as Sen. Royal Copeland, MD, primary sponsor of the FDCA?"
-Irrelevant. Appeal to authority. Michael Jordan likes Hanes underwear. Dean Eddel, MD, says homeopathy is bullshit. So what?
"If it's placebo, then why are there now 6 different types of biochem tests for it, 8 physical, why can its action be seen on plants & animals? Be specific in your response or STFU"
-Be a little more specific yourself. List the names of the procedures or cite literature.
@entyrion LMAOROFL! What else other than your anonymous authority do we have for the placebo hypothesis? You won't cite refs. (The YT program marked your comment as "spam." LOL! How did it know?) For a full review of the biochem lit, see "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." Witt CM Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41.
Arzneimittelforschung. 2003;53(12):823-30. "Antioxidative, antiproliferative and biochemical effects in HepG2 cells of a homeopathic remedy and its constituent plant tinctures tested separately or in combination."
Gebhardt R. Institute of Biochemistry, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig
Sunila Dynamized Homeopathic Preparations in Cell Culture- a study report in Amala Cancer Research Centre, Kerala
Homeopathy in Cancer Care Moshe Frenkel, MD
Boyd WE, MD, Br F. Biochemical and biological evidence of the
activity of high potencies. Br Hom J 1954;44:7—44.
Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon "scientific experiment" and more ... weirdscience(dot)com
1. The mode of action is nonsense. I'll tell you what though, why don't YOU summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words. Explain what homeopathy does, how it works, and how the medicine is prepared, etc. I dare you to do it without sounding like a quack.
2. IF it is so fantastically effective, why is the modern medical establishment so skeptical? Can you answer this question without appealing to a ridiculous conspiracy theory?
@entyrion What a hypocrite. I thought you were supposed to be the one with all the science and logic and I'm supposed to be the quack. Haven't you've already determined that the mode of action is psychogenic? I thought that in science you ask questions first, present a hypothesis, then test it. But you came here and told me what you already knew it to be, without a doubt? So where's all your peer reviewed published studies proving its a "placebo?" Isn't what you'll need to stop it? Try begging.
You're the one claiming effectiveness and "science" behind this. YOU prove it. Doctors don't put a new medicine on the shelves, declare that it cures cancer, then say "Prove to me that it DOESN'T cure cancer. Until you prove I'm full of shit, I have a RIGHT to claim it works."
Once again, I DARE you to explain the "science" behind your magic to us all and not sound like a quack. I DARE you to explain the medical establishment's skepticism without appealing to a conspiracy theory.
@entyrion Prove something to a paid shill? You gotta b-kidding. I could cite Anagnostatos' Clathrate Model, NMR, show Montagnier's physical evidence, give supramolecular cites, it's not going to prove anything to you. You already made it clear what you're going to believe, even though you can't support it. You say there's no clinical peer review, you don't have anything to say about biochem evidence, so whats the use of trying to prove anything to you? LOL! You'd deny your own mother4adollar!
Thank you for FINALLY citing SOMETHING. I'll give you credit for that much. Interesting to note however, that the conclusions are not as glowing as you might lead us to believe.
From "The in vitro evidence for...": "CONCLUSIONS: ...No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments."
@entyrion Yours is the predictable "skeptic" response. 1st you said there's no science to falsify placebo, i.e. all negative for verum. When a review of numerous tests show overwhelming positive results for verum, rather than admit you were wrong, you seize on the statement that positive results weren't "stable," meaning they weren't always exactly the same in ALL tests.
This is why you'll forever malign but never defeat this amazing medical doctrine, which goes much deeper than you think.
From "Histamine dilutions modulate...": "CONCLUSIONS: We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon."
Hardly incontrovertible.
Also, I am not a "paid shill," just a skeptic. However, a quick Google of your name suggests that YOU have quite a lot personally invested in homeopathy. If it is a crime for me to be a "paid shill" who is incapable of changing my mind, is it not a crime for you too?
@entyrion There you go again. YOU just admitted evidence that falsifies your placebo hypothesis. But rather than acknowledge it, you now try to criticize evidence you were hours ago insisting didn't exist. LOL! And you act like homeopaths have to prove something to you to continue practice & your hypothesis can't be attacked. This is why homeopathy has persisted for over 2 centuries & will continue to exceed patent drugs in usage worldwide. You fail to falsify verum or show evidence for placebo.
And for the THIRD time, I ask that you summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words. Heck, I'll narrow the questions down to make it extra easy.
1. Explain miasms and the law of similars and their relation to disease.
2. Summarize the process used to prepare homeopathic remedies.
3. Summarize the mechanisms by which these remedies work to counteract disease.
4. Explain what the "memory" of water is and how it relates to your ideas of supramolecular structures.
@entyrion Before I present theory for action, I have to show evidence for action, and I have to do it all in bites of 500 characters, while challenging you to show your evidence for psychogenesis, which you've failed to do. The impotence of your vague placebo complaint needs to be pointed out again & again.
Read Luc Montagnier's "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences" Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci 2009 1: 81–90 & let's discuss it
Alright, this discussion has grown beyond tiresome. I could ask you a FOURTH time to summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words, but at this point its clear you have no intention of answering and you've proven my point anyhow.
Regardless of what you say, I will still think you're a charlatan. Likewise, regardless of what I say, you will consider me a "paid shill" and an "astroturfer." I'm flattered you consider my skepticism to be on a professional level.
@entyrion Of course you're getting tired, you're tired of being proven wrong. You thought that by labelling yourself skeptic your assertions wouldn't be challenged; by keeping the argument ad hominem, no one would notice that you have no ad rem for your fuzzy little placebo theory. Surprise! And why would anyone expect to be shown how the actors work when they have yet to acknoweldge what the actors are & what they do? I've given you my time, I've answered questions from you, now run away home.
Bullshit; they turned my system around. Plus; natural medicines like homeapothies take more testing they even remotely pass. So shut up and tell me that when yuou have evidense.
@Bandershot Because I actually understand enough physics to know what you are talking about is crap. Yes, you might be able to convince people who don't understand the scientific process but beyond that, nope we might as well claim we put pixie dust in your water.
@Corvettablie INteresting that you say you understand ENOUGH physics to know . . so you admit there could be some things you don't understand. Just for a moment, stop and consider the nature of this discussion. I'm re'ing what I know, and look how you're responding. If you truly had a scietnific view of this, you wouldn't respond like that. You'd strike up a dialogue and reveal the truth through quesitoning. Rather than preuming how little I know, you'd be qustioning about what is known.
@Bandershot Basically you are full of poop. You can find a few small trials that claim to see a benefit from taking a placebo. Nice. There was a nice meta study of data on PubMED which found the results of similar studies said homecrap= placebo. The larger the study the more homie looks like a sugar pill. Only the small studies ever found otherwise.
@Corvettablie The meta you're not naming is probably Shang, which has been discredited. Google Am J Pharm Educ. "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?"
The fact you're hiding is that NO META HAS EVER CONLCUDED PLACEBO u lying SOS.
Now just for fun, Google this Army study "Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue." (hpathy vs. bioterrorism)
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic of a fatal poison and give it to an organism. By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
@Ignat What you suggest has already been done, countless times. That's how we know it works. You're arguing the "rationalist" point of view, right? Certainly not the empirical one. No of of course not, you've not even considered the difference. How much do YOU remember? Is there some kind of "mechanism" for your memories? Is there a structural change in your brain for them? No, of course not. Time erases all. Even photographs fade. UV destroys clathrates. That is the key. Google it.
"At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance such as visual global perception, impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (P<0.0001). During the crossover trial, CGI parent-ratings were significantly lower under verum (average 1.67 points) than under placebo (P =0.0479)."
I find this baffling. Are they saying that the placebo outperformed verum?
I've also read the other related papers by this group. They are doing an open-label screening prior to randomization. So, they go through and find people who are responding, then put them in the treatment group. That seems to be very poor design. Can you really call it randomized at that point?
Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):35-41.
"...randomisation at the start of treatment in ... ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect..."
@C0nc0rdance Then how do you explain peer reviewed studies rep'd in reputable journals that show the action of hpathics? How is it that hpathy has captured the experiment & use of Nobel laureates, physicists & material scientists? If it isn't a physical phenom, then it is a very deep psychological one, & if it's psychological, then how do you explain results of physical tests by top academic psychiatrists like Iris Bell & Gary Schwartz? Deal with it scientifically &you get diferent results . .
@C0nc0rdance No, they're saying that it was a lower rating for ADHD under hyperactivity treatment. The conclusion said, "The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions.
All children who have ADHD should have homepathic treatment for it. My step son was wildly ADHD. Now he is normal. But you want to deny people the beneift of this medicine.
@C0nc0rdance Google " From Within, Without. A documentary about homeopathy Project by Laurel Chiten" See for yourself what you're trying to dissuade people from, you crook. People use homeopathy because it works.
And another thing. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO USE MY IMAGE in your "mashup. It is a copyight violation. You are a coward and a thief. I challenge you to an open debate with me JOHN BENNETH, &YOU speaking under your real name . .
You might not be familiar with Fair Use (Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act), but I am. Small parts of a work may be reproduced for the purposes of illustration or parody. You should also know that by posting to YouTube, you grant the users of the service a limited license to view and adapt your work. I am doubly protected in that my content generates no revenue.
Why do you have two identities, Jack Hammer of LiveLeak? Are you a Poe?
@C0nc0rdance You're askin me if I'm Poe? Ha! Get a grip, you moron. Did Schwarzenegger use Conan the Barbarian for his name as Governor? It's a different act dummy. This one's for real. Now look at your own crap. You don't even have the guts to show your face or tag a real name to that smarmy lying voice of yours. If you were truly convinced of the rightness of your cause as I am of mine, you'd have no trouble using your face&real name in vids, in fact, it would be an imperative, u little coward
@C0nc0rdance And another thing, the video you stole is no small part of the work. It constitutes it solely. You've converted my image for your use & YT's profit. They don't allow lip synching do they? isn't that parody? I've had the entire audio yanked from my vids because I didn't have permission to use only a few seconds of someone's copyrighted music for background mood. But then it was put back in with an ad overlay. How is MY video any different? Where are my royalties?.
@exposefraud Read rule 11 in the JREF challenge. Randi is the manager of the award. He does it THROUGH JREF. No one else is named as an arbitrator of it. By these rules not even the board of directors of JREF has any say in it. Show me differently, show me where I'm wrong. SHow me where it says who else manages the award.
Table 3: Interestingly, p<0.001 for weak belief in homeopathy. Am I reading that correctly that homeopathy only worked for those people with a strong belief in homeopathy? Odd, don't you think?
@C0nc0rdance Read BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413 "How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?--Results from a long term observational study." Witt CM. CONCLUSION: "PATIENTS WHO SEEK HOMEOPATHIC TREAtMENT ARE LIKELY TO IMPROVE CONSIDERABLY. THESE EFFECTS PERSIST FOR AS LONG AS EIGHT YEARS.
Interesting study, but deeply flawed for anything other than marketing purposes. They were honest about it:
"The mean change of the severity ratings after 8 years was large. This may be partly explained by placebo and/or regression to the mean effects that our study was not designed to control. We thus cannot rule out overestimation of the treatment effect."
The primary problem was heterogeneity. Too many conditions, too many treatments, too diverse a population. No controls
@C0nc0rdance Deeply flawed? Compared to what? Pfizer rec'd the largest fine in history for bribing docts & mktg. untested drugs that have murderous side effects, & you're trying to tell me that the evidence doesn't support a medical practice that uses FDA reg'd substances in use for 100 years & is now supported by Nobel laureate scientists & heads of material sciences at top universities? This is making you look foolish, isn't it?
"Compared to what?" It can be deeply flawed on its own merits.
We don't have to choose between two evils, Big Pharma ($640B global) and Big AltMed ($84B global). We can make educated choices about our health. Not all drugs are advisable, and not all alt med is advisable.
How to decide? How about systematic, rigorous evidence of effectiveness? Do you have any third party reviews of homeopathy that demonstrate its clinical effectiveness in rigorous studies?
@C0nc0rdance The fact that they post what the flaws in their own study could be demonstrates their objectivity. You're the one that's making assumptions ad hominem as to what their motives were. And when it comes to science to support your side, you don't have a thing. What, Shang? A joke! Ernst? He reviews his own crap in meta analysis!
@C0nc0rdance Now take a look at this: This is a clinical study done pub'd in an AMA journal. Let's see how you pick this one apart: Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study Weiser et al Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
"therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance."
@afielsch Actually just the opposite is true. Meds that make use of synthesized petro chemical compounds can be very toxic . . & profitable. Pfizer recently rec'd the biggest gov't fine in history because of its illegal acitvities and the deaths that have ensued. But this is a small threat to Pfizer compared to what homeopathy poses to it, because it is inexpensive, safe AND MORE EFFECTIVE. Homeopathy is real medicine and they don't want you to know it.
At larger dilutions theres less and less of the solute molecules within the solution. Right? At a certain point, you only have one molecule of "active ingredient" in....lets grab an example...10 to the 30th power molecules("30x" strength).
That works out to about 1 molecule of "medicine" in every 30,000 L of water.
You ever see a big shipping container? The ones on railroad cars and such. Thats how much water.
THESE SCAMMERS ARE SELLING YOU DISTILLED WATER. WAKE UP!!!
@doggyjones You're repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don't want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they're molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you'd don't find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
Homeopathy works through energy, not through "active ingredient" or the physical body. How many molecules of substance is ingested is immaterial except to those who can't look beyond their belief systems.
Tens of millions of people around the world use h. because it works. It's supported by a large body of scientific evidence, studies, clinical work and clinical records.
Do you know what the real "money grab" is? If not, I suggest you find out.
@vlaydros So what? You seem to think that you know more about the mfg prcoess of homeopathics than do those of us who have been studying and using it for years. There'[s more to it thanwhat you think there is. And the prima facie proof that there's a glitch in your little assumption is, if it didn't work, then why do you think the FTC, the FDA and other regulatory bodies around the world continue to allow it to be sold? Why are the communist Cubans using it en masse?
Rational thought shows that it doesn't work. The FDA the FTC and whatever regulatory bodies cannot regulate the sale of tapwater.
Feel free to continue to believe in your sill stories and bullshit science. But please expect the rational and logical part of society to come down on you once in a while for your shenanigans and stupidity.
@vlaydros Thanks! Very good recommendation for the skepitcal argument. Nothing more than angry vague assertions and pointed obscentities, just what one would expect from someone who has run out of logical responses. Tell us more, show us what you're made of , you coward.
@Bandershot So tell me more about how the water magically takes on the properties of whatever is put in it. We've already shown that at the concentrations you dilute it to you would have to consume an ocean of water to get ONE molecule.
What magic bits are missing about the shape of the water molecule, or it's super fantastic vibrations.
You and your views are nothing but drivel spun to get some cash out of the gullible. You're beneath my contempt.
@vlaydros Homeopathics are not chemical compounds, they're molecular complexes. For more information take a look at supramolecular chemistry. Nuclear physicist George Anagnostatos decribes the operative structure as clathrates. Read Structure of Liquid Water by Roy, Tiller, Bell and Hoover. Roy is the dean of US material sciences. Look at what Josephson has to say about it. Many studies too numerous too mention here, more than enough to inspire confidence in this amazing medicine.
@vlaydros You're repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don't want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they're molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you'd don't find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
If homeopathy was as rentable as alopathic drugs, we would see the shelves on the pharmacies stacked with homeopathic remedys and all the labs would come out advertising it as the 8th wonder.
The only reason why homeopathy has so many detractors it's cause it's not rentable for the pharmaceutical bussines.
I've been using it for 20 years and it always worked... oh and it also helped A LOT with my cats. Especially on their behaviour.
Cheers for the vid, excuse my english im brazilian.
I'd like to see some you prove the it does not work. Maybe you should tell that to my son who was cured of ADHD and my dog that was cured of stomach cancer thanks to homeopathy. I had a 5 year depression and took all kinds of meds nothing happened until the 4th month of being on homeopathic meds. Today my depression is gone!
P.S - proving the difference between water and a high dilute doesn't prove homoeopathy, it proves there is something in the solution. I can put a lump of plastic in a beaker of water, I can tell there is plastic in the water, but it won't cure asthma.
@Bandershot
I read two of the articles that you suggested, none of them prove that homeopathy is more than placebo.. Is there any article that proves anything about homeopathy at all. Can you name a single one. I don't belive you can.
andersandersson000 1 week ago
@andersandersson000 Yes, of course:
JOHNSON: "Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo" tinyurl com/7htoejq
LINDE: "clinical effects of homoeopathy are not completely due to placebo.” tinyurl com/84xt56k
LUDTKE on Shang: "homeoapthy had a significant effect beyond placebo" tinyurl com/ludtkerutten
FISHER: “high-quality and repeated experiments have yielded positive results.” tinyurl com/7666q5g
Bandershot 1 week ago
@Bandershot I noticed the meta-analyses (which are link to your description) are biased due to the Simpson's Paradox. The very act of pooling data quicky invalidates the meta-analysis since they can reverse the overall results of 2 or more studies and doesn't weight the MA by each independent study. (pooling data) not a legitimate way for MA.
IceAges14Aces 3 weeks ago
@IceAges14Aces Problem with that argument is that to be valid it has to be applied globally, not to just homeopathic metas, but to others as well & you can't do it. I've put fwd studies opponents said didn't exist. Now that it's seen that they do, opponents rise to the rank of antagonist by attacking the experiemental data without first establishing or accepting preset criteria. Meanwhile, you've no proof for your claims of psychogenic action, i.e. placebo. Where's YOUR science?
Bandershot 1 week ago
Do you think there is evidence that homeopathy works?
andersandersson000 3 weeks ago
You have misunderstood what Randi said. You are wrong. What do you think you proved? I think James Randi is right.
andersandersson000 3 weeks ago
Bandershot 3 weeks ago
@Bandershot Did I understand you correctly? You mean, these articles prove that homeopathy works? (Better than placebo)
andersandersson000 3 weeks ago
@andersandersson000 No meta analysis has been able to conclude that homeoapthics are placebo. People who have done invitro tests are convinced they're not placebos. Look at tinyurl com/7n9sedq. How can something have a placebo effect on biochemicals? I know you're deperate to prove it's the placebo effect, but I haven't been able to find one study that demonstrates it. Can YOU show me one? This whole notion of placebo comes from biased critiques of clinical tests for verum.
Bandershot 1 week ago
@Bandershot Are there any of these articles that prove anything about homeopathy? In that case, which one? I have now read two of them and none of these prove anything
andersandersson000 3 weeks ago
@andersandersson000 Reading two articles isn't going to "prove" anything.to somebody who doesn't want to see the truth. But if you have an open mind & aren't just looking for arguable points, read the Johnson pharmacy report &follow some of the links. Better yet, put it to the test yourself on yrself. That's how the rest of us skeptics did it. Apparently you think anyone who uses homeopathy didn't have any doubts about it at first & wasn't aware of the dilution paradox.
Bandershot 1 week ago
It's nothing more than placebo full-stop. Mumbo jumbo baseless nonsense beyond that.
TheMogulmonster 1 month ago
@TheMogulmonster You're not meeting your own standard of proof for making a positive assertion. Your belief is that 2B valid, a phenom such as homeopathy & the "placebo effect," hav 2B supported by peer rev'd pub'd studies, tests&trials. So my ? 2U is, if U believe the biological effects of homeopathics R solely due2psychogenesis, where are the studies in psych journals that prove it?
JOHNSON tinyurl com/7htoejq:
SWISS tinyurl com/78fzhl2
INVITRO tinyurl com/7n9sedq
Bandershot 3 weeks ago
Remember “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”, translation: This is not medicine and should not be taken in place of real medicine.
frosted1030 2 months ago
@frosted1030 Where did you get that? Cite pls.
Here's the FDA regs:
FDA: "Homeopathic drugs generally must meet standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. tinyurl com/fdahomoe"
Bandershot 3 weeks ago
@Bandershot It's just water, so it is not classified a drug, nor should it be used in place of real medicine. Stop defending shysters who bilk people out of money promising "cures", this is the old snake oil hustle. You can believe in it all you like, but real medicine does not require you to believe for it to work.
frosted1030 3 weeks ago
@frosted1030 Sorry, see the FDA desription below that states homeopathics are drugs. Might want to study up on your facts before you embarass yourself.
It's protected by law. Law's on our side, not yours. If you don't believe it, then why haven't you taken it to court and won a big settlement? You've had 200 years to do it, what's the hang up? If you can't prove what you say in court, then you're just wasting your time. Go get a job. Get a life and stop harrassing.
Bandershot 1 week ago
@Bandershot In the FDA's opinion, homeopathic medications contain little or no pharmacologically active ingredients, so there's no real safety concern and that's why the FDA isn't as strict about the regulations.
frosted1030 3 weeks ago
@frosted1030 "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively)."
rea it and weep tinyurl com/fdahomoe
It never ceases to amaze me what blatant liars the opponents of homeopathy are, and how they project what they o onto others, i.e. shysters. Tell us, forsted, how much money have you sent poor Randi?
Bandershot 1 week ago
@Bandershot Homeopathic studies published in peer-reviewed journals??? Care to elaborate on the name of those peer-reviewed journals, so I can critique them???
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
Bandershot 3 weeks ago
@Bandershot Homeopathic studies published in peer-review journals??? Care to elaborate on the name of those peer-reviewed journals, so I can critique them??..
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
Bandershot 3 weeks ago
in the old days, before we had an FDA to test the validity of medical care, we had tar and feathers, a homeopathic cure for quackery, since hillery clinton banned using science to test medicine over fifteen years ago... I think we should go back to homeopathy.
halloranedward 5 months ago
LOL James Randi is a con man and makes no sense whatsoever when he speaks.He should be held in contempt for his nonsensical ramblings about things he has no clue about.He should be objective when infact the real scams and quacks come from the pharmaceutical industry.Over 65000 lawsuits against drug companies within a 6 year period.Drug doctors prescribe seriously deadly drugs that kill millions of people or cause deadly side effects creating newer problems to the patient.
TheFriendlyEngineer 5 months ago
LOL James Randi is a con man and makes no sense whatsoever when he speaks.He should be held in contempt for his nonsensical ramblings about things he has no clue about.He should be objective when infact the real scams and quacks come from the pharmaceutical industry.Over 65000 lawsuits against drug companies within a 6 year period.Drug doctors prescribe seriously deadly drugs that kill millions of people or cause deadly side effects creating newer problems to the patient.
TheFriendlyEngineer 5 months ago
@TheFriendlyEngineer So, you want homeopathic medicine that does nothing instead? Or worse, let's just say that one of your homeopathic dilutions actually worked, but someone was poisoned by one of the many "inactive ingredients", there is almost no way to trace down which ingredient caused the harm and no one to sue, interesting solution. I like that drugs are known, and the side effects are listed, homeopathy does not require that sort of accountability or testing.
frosted1030 2 months ago
You're aware that the study you're discussing has been done, several times; for example by BBC Horizon's show; and they've ALWAYS concluded that water doesn't have any 'memory', that the homoeopathic ingredients can never be found, and they have no repeatable results over chance or placebo. .
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
@DafyddCymraeg No, you're wrong on all counts. The Horizon test was done by a TV crew & Randi. LOL. When it was done by a multi centered trial & the results pub'd in a peer reviewed journal, they found in favor of homeopathy. Google "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial." Belon, Ennis. All major metanalyses have found homeopathics to have significant effect over placebo. Read Linde. See Ludtke's analysis of Shang.
Bandershot 5 months ago
@Bandershot
"done by a TV crew & Randi. LOL"
It wasn't a experiment done through the auspices of the Royal Society, with it's vice-president; Prof John Enderby, overseeing proceedings. The solutions weren't created in UCL's labs; by Prof Peter Mobs and Rachael Pearson. The water wasn't analysed by Wayne Turnbull of Guy's Hospital, and cross referenced by Marion Macy of the Royal London Hospital. Likewise, statisticians Martin Bland didn't help with the decoding of results.
DafyddCymraeg 5 months ago
@DafyddCymraeg Oh really? Well, where the peer reviewed published report in an unbiased prestigious journal? Where is any published report? Just where do i ind this wonerul piece of work in the literature? Since Poitevin did the 1st trial in the '80s to 2007, there have been 24 successful replications of the basophil degranulation test rep'd in the literature. Where is the BBC test pub'd? Cite please! Google Ennis' "Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view."
Bandershot 2 months ago
I suggest, do this:
Study. Take the active ingredients. Study histologically, biochemically, pathologically and physiologically. Then tell me exactly what it does.
We do not use medicine because we just know that they work. We use them because we today know basically EXACTLY what they do, we know every reaction down to a molecular level and with that, we can prove that the medicine works. Can you do this with any homeopathic remedy?
Bahamut2218 8 months ago
@Bahamut2218 LOL! You don't use an allopathic medicine because you know it works as intended, neither is it curative, nor do you know exactly what what it does . . if you did, you would be charged with murder. As it is, you're getting off easy by just being sued & charged with racketeering, i.e. US vs Pfizer. See all the ads on TV by attorneys offering to sue drug companies whose drugs weren't properly tested.
Can you name one vaccine that was?
How many people did Jenner maim or kill?
Bandershot 5 months ago
@Bandershot Yep. The polio vaccine was effective. It has wiped out the polio virus. There is not one case in the modern countries of a polio outbreak.
Tuberculosis is no longer a threat to anyone who has access to the vaccine. The disease used to kill an enormous amount of people until the vaccine was discovered.
Homeopathy can not claim any curative results in these cases.
UnderManlac 5 months ago
@UnderManlac Nope, wrong again. Homeopathy has outperformed allopathy in everything you mention. In fact, the greatest medical achievement of all time was homeopathic, the smallpox vaccine, the use of similitude from the cowpox serum to treat a simlar disease in humans, distinct from variolation. The word homeopathy doesn't mean "dilution," it means "similar sufering." Conventional medicine is full of uncut homeopathic examples, such as anti-venoms, ADHD meds & inoculations.
Bandershot 2 months ago
"He is the judge, jury and executioner of that award" - Stopped watching right there.
An actual judge will be the judge. If you can't even get that right, enjoy your delusion.
Urammar 8 months ago
@Urammar Really? Wow, when did he change the rules? Are you sure? Last time I looked it said the whole thing is adminsitered by the James Randi Eduational Foundation. Where does it say which court will handle any dispute or arbitration? Gautamala? North Korea? Who's the judge? Judge Roy Bean? Pee Wee Herman? No! It's Randi! He's never signed any agreement to test anyone, says so in the rules. All applicants are immediately dismissed by Randi as failures!
Bandershot 5 months ago
@Bandershot Both the applicant and the Randi foundation sign a legal contract that both parties agree is fair. The applicant is encouraged to design the test themselves.
"All tests are videotaped and stored. You will be asked to state that the protocol is fair prior to the test. You will be asked to state it again afterward. If you do not feel that the protocol is fair beforehand, you are not obligated to continue the test."
If you suspect one of the cases to be biased, ask for copy o the tape
Urammar 5 months ago
@Urammar Where do you get that its a legal contract? Randi's NEVER signed it. I asked him to sign it REPEATEDLY, and he refused. He's even admitted that he's never signed it, for anyone! For a skeptic you sure aren't being very skeptical of anything but what you don't want to believe.What's amazing is how typical you are. You're ust afraid of having to change mounts.
Bandershot 2 months ago
Homeopathy is total quack science and it doesn't take a medical degree to understand it. The rules of Homeopathy are:
1. Like cures like. So a homeopathic solution for insomnia would be caffeine.
2. The less of the substance you take, the stronger it is. So you can overdose from not taking the medication.
It isn't complicated to understand why homeopathy is a complete fraud. The only way for homeopathy to work would be if the laws of physics were changed, which is of course, impossible.
GGGeoff 8 months ago
@GGGeoff You're wrong! In 1 state it DOES take a medical degree to understand it. The American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix's now teaching MDs to use homeopathy, & AZ is licensing homeopaths.
1.) Like does cure like, just as in solvents like dissolves like.
2.) Wrong again. You can get an aggravation from taking too high a potency or a proving from taking it too many times. Take one pellet of a real high potency of Belladonna on the hour for a week, if you can. See what happens.
Bandershot 5 months ago
@Bandershot
If homeopathy requires a medical degree, where is your degree from and what year was it obtained?
1. So then you admit that a homeopathic solution for insomnia is caffeine right?
2. I don't deny that high dosages of a substance can have an aggravating effect. If I drink a pot of coffee, sleeping is going to be much harder to do. What I deny is that something that has been diluted past 23X has anything left in it.
GGGeoff 5 months ago
@GGGeoff I have a degree in homeopathy from Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London. Most states however have no licensing req.'s of homeopaths. But the fat that Arizona does is further testimony to its effectiveness. I'e never treid it, but a dilute of caffeine can help you get to sleep, and a cup of coffee will calm down an ADHD kid.
Bandershot 2 months ago
@Bandershot Any sane person knows how absurd it is to givea cup of coffee to a kid with ADHD. Expecting it to "calm him down" is even more absurd. I know that this comment will never be posted. Mr. Beneth, your bizarre ramblings, theories and speeches about "upitty niggers" have become so out of place that I would suggest you seek mental health treatment. I'm not trying to be insulting, so please forgive me if it comes out that way.
GGGeoff 2 months ago
@GGGeoff You might've had a point if there wasn't any real pre-clincial & clinical evidence amassed over the last 200 years that very clearly & in great detail describes the action of these substances. They're regulated by the FDA, their use is taught to MDs in medical colleges, & they're currently used extensively by MD's. Meanwhile, 11% of the pop. is on ineffective anti depression drugs distrbuted by an industry that has been fined billions by the US Justice dept. Now who's crazy?
Bandershot 1 week ago
even if, u could find the active substance in a homeopathic remedy, how would that prove that it works?
I mean doesn't it also need to actually consistently cure more people than placebo's do?
LovaBoij 11 months ago 8
@LovaBoij Your'e right, it wouldn't prove it works. What homeopaths are more interested in is in what it does. This is called a proving. To know the action of homeopathic remedies they are given to people double blind to see what symptoms they create. There's also been biochemical tests for homeopathics in vitro. They also work on plants& animals. Contrary to skeptics, there are peer reviewed studies that show it works, but most people are interested in their own observations.
Bandershot 5 months ago
You idiot! James Randi does not judge the test. It's conducted and supervised by independent agencies, who decide if the test was successful or not. Homeopathy is fraudulent from the very foundation, and has no scientific validity. Tests conducted have conclusively observed that it is nothing more than the placebo effect. The results are the same either way, with or without homeopathy. Shysters, that's all you people are.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
@UnderManlac Well, here we go again. Can you name ONE, just one peer reviewed test pub'd in a respectable unbiased science journal that conclusively observed that it is nothing more than the placebo effect? YOu going to quote Shang? Better read Ludtke first.
So if you can't find one good test for placebo, then you must be wrong about all your other allegations too. Do you really think you're employing logical thinking? Or did you think you found an excuse to get mad & call people names?
Bandershot 5 months ago
So, did you do the test with Randi and win the million dollars?
MadocDoyu 1 year ago
@MadocDoyu Yes, of course I did, but Randi was hiding in China having a heart attack and his bearer bonds converted to yen.
Bandershot 5 months ago
If homeopathy works then you can get every fish drunk by pouring one beer into the ocean.
murrymozza 1 year ago 2
@murrymozza Wellthen you should apply for Randi's challenge to prove it. But first make sure you've done a double blind trial rubber stamped by an "academic" who's a member of NAMBLA & publishit in UnScientific American.
Bandershot 5 months ago
@murrymozza You could kill the entire population if you put one drop of arsenic in your pool, stir it up, then take a drop of that water, add it to another pool and stir it, and do that 1000 times, then put one drop of that last pool water into the ocean and let the tides and currents stir it up. You would be killing the entire planet of plants and animals..
UnderManlac 5 months ago
@UnderManlac Death has not been the usual reaction to homeopathic medicine. Allopathic pharmaceuticals have, however, been indicted.
In fact, people who have used homeopathy have longer life spans than usual. John D. Rockefeller, the world's richest man to have ever lived, was an avid homeoapth & lived to be 98. May Baker Eddy, one of the world's most powerful women, was a exp. homeopath & lived to be 87. Mark Twain used homeopaths exclusively & outlived his wife & children.
Bandershot 1 week ago
Randy does not recognize anecdotal evidence, actual scientific evidence can be duplicated, and that's why you did not win.
frosted1030 1 year ago
We publish A unique book on Treatment with Homoeopathy, which gives the detailed knowledge about Homoeopathy.
Book Name : Homoeopathy ke Chamatkar (Complete Guide).
Author : Dr. Krishna Bhushan Singh Chandel.
Language : Hindi.
Price : 60/- INR (Indian National Rupees) only.
Postal Charges Extra.
Publish By : Rojgar Prakashan, Halan Ganj, Mathura (U.P.) (India) Pin-- 281001
If you want to purchase this book, please contact us.
mgoyal565 1 year ago
You really believe that you can get $1 million just because you say homeopathic medicine works?
frosted1030 1 year ago
@frosted1030 Do you really believe homeopathy doesn't work just because Randi says it doesn't? Do you really think Randi's going to pay $1M dollars to someody to prove him wrong? Why is it that people who believe in homeopathy are the ones who've tried it & the ones who don't are the ones who haven't? Why is it that major medical clinis like MD Anderson in Houston are using it & schools teaching it to MDs, like the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix? Just try it & shut up.
Bandershot 5 months ago
@Bandershot This is not about belief. Scientific evidence is more than hearsay and anecdotal evidence. It requires reliable, REPEATABLE and TESTABLE phenomenon. Homeopathy is a silly concept to begin with. You start with a substance that causes similar symptoms to what the patent has, then you dilute it to the point where there isn't a single molecule of that substance left in your solution, and then you call it a cure. That's just batshit crazy!
frosted1030 5 months ago
@frosted1030 Phenomenal testing, i.e. seeing if high dilutes have biological, biochmeical or physical effects, is the easiest kind of repeatable testing to do. There's been biochemical tests for over half century now. The basophil degranulation test that skeptics went beserk over when Benveniste did it, has been replicated sucessfully 24.times Just read some of the stupi commentary that slips through here to see the level of intelligene, of the people who don't get it.
Bandershot 2 months ago
My nose is bleeding... What a bunch of crock, in my honest opinion.
rfnajera 1 year ago
@rfnajera Honest opinion? Isn't honest opinion a contradiction in terms? HOw is it that you came by it. Were you sleeping while Randi pouree the poison in your ear? Look at the facts instead. It's been use by medical doctors & in epidemics for 200 yrs. Now who am I supposed to believe? An entertainer like Randi, who's a hi skool drop out, or Nobel prize winning scientists like Brian Josephson & Luc Montagnier, top material sientists like Rustum Roy, who have rejected his "honest opinion?"
Bandershot 5 months ago
Hey John, how many mirrors do you think there are of the video "The (pseudo)science of Homeopathy" are there. Far more than you could ever false DMCA.
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
@TheNamelessCharacter Too bad I don't have more time or I would. The DMCA trick worked better than I could ever imagine. My phones have been going crazy ever since. Thanks for all the free adverrtising!
Bandershot 5 months ago
I truly hope James Randi passes you on to NBC or BBC and see's if they want to do another special on a lunatic. The last one I saw with the guy who was thoroughly convinced he could psychically communicate with babies... by the end of the test the guy's entire delusion came crashing in on him. It was extremely sad, but nonetheless, absolutely hilarious too.
I'm actually gonna PM Mr. Randi and make the suggestion, just in case it hadn't crossed his busy mind :)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@Bandershot
I know you feel passionately about this topic and I respect that, but this seems like a terribly watered down conclusion to the first study you sited "randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments." Without randomizing and blinding it is impossible to rule out all sorts of bias. It is that bias that these folks are claiming is responsible for the positive results. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying the proof it does, isn't good enough. Peace.
clintlealos 1 year ago
@Bandershot I know you feel passionately about this topic and I respect that, but this seems like a terribly watered down conclusion to the first study you sited "randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments." Without randomizing and blinding it is impossible to rule out all sorts of bias. It is that bias that these folks are claiming is responsible for the positive results. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying the proof it does, isn't good enough for me.
clintlealos 1 year ago
@clintlealos You've seemed to have missed a very important point, that not all testing lacked randomization and blinding. Google "Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions." Sainte-Laudy. For a fair and balanced critical review of the literature, Google Johnson "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?"
Bandershot 1 year ago
Give EVIDENCE! not just saying things... give REAL EVIDENCE. I'm writing in caps not to be shouting, but to emphasise the important things i'd like you to answer. EVIDENCE! We'll split the 1 million dollars!
Potame25 1 year ago
@Potame25 I Evidence? There are 6 dif. types of biochemical tests: Google Witt 2007 "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." There are 9 different types of physical tests: Becker-Witt lists 6 in "Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy." Tests on plants, animals: Betti "Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials: a critical review" Bellavite "Animals Immunology and Homeopathy"
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Ok I did...
-Witt 2007 Conclusion: No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.
-Becker-Witt CONCLUSIONS: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion.
-Use of homeopathic preperations in phytopathological models CONCLUSIONS: but much more experimentation is needed.
You're proving experiments are being done, the evidence lacks
Potame25 1 year ago 2
@Potame25 You're cherry picking statements from the reports, but even so you've admitted positve results. Whereas they may not be stable for replication by ALL, they still show effects. Most tests reported positive results. So if you're going to admit the negative as being valid, then the poistive becomes valid as well. You're also not etablishing what the criteria is.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Cherry picking? I'm simply looking for the evidence you claim is in there proving homeopathy works. There just isn't any! The "positive results" mentioned turned out to be false positives. If it was a positive result, you could perform the same test thousands of times and still get a positive result. This isn't the case here. If real evidence turns up, let me know...
Potame25 1 year ago
@Potame25 You yourself just admitted the evidence. The assertion of false positives is a fabrication. Show me one test that claims a false positive. I know where to find it because i've studied the literature, but I don't think you do. & just because results vary does not mean they aren't positive. Even tests for patent drugs have varying results, but I don't see you crying about those. Where is your X-ray vision and superhuman logic re: Vioxx, Avanida, oxycodone, etc. drugs that kill people?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot You are to homeopathy what "Dr" Kent Hovind is to creationism.
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago
@LAnonHubbard Thank you. You're too kind.
Bandershot 1 year ago
If a "placebo" works, it is a medicine. Even if it only works by stimulating the brain and make it activate functions that cures, by faith..
This has been shown to work so many times, that the "medication" itself becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@ericcox2 Randi refuses to test the agreed protocol.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Corvettablie
Well said.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion You're astroturfing. If what you say is true, then why haven't your allegations against it been proven in a court of law? Why do countless medical doctors to this day use it in their practices, such as Sen. Royal Copeland, MD, primary sponsor of the FDCA? Your arguments amount to nothing but name calling. If it's placebo, then why are there now 6 different types of biochem tests for it, 8 physical, why can its action be seen on plants & animals? Be specific in your response or STFU
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
"why haven't your allegations against it been proven in a court of law?"
1. Selling placebos is not inherently illegal in the US.
2. Homeopathic dilutions are so dilute as to effectively be little more than water. With zero chance for negative side effects, suing for damages is rare.
3. In at least some cases, it appears companies don't lose in court simply because they decide to settle. Case in point: Matrixx, the manufacturer of Zicam, paid $12 million in a 2006 settlement.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion But you're the one who's calling it a placebo. Which h- products are marketed as placebos? FDA reg'd homeopathics imply inherent powers, due to supramolecular structuring, their action reported on subjects that can't be influenced by placebos, such as cultured cells, enzymes, neutrophils, basophils. Your 2nd point contradicts your 3rd. LOL.
Everyone of your allegations re RCTs, placebos is proven wrong, leaving you with nothing but straw man arguments, denials and name calling.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Furthermore, if you're so determined that this is a science, why are you using the legal system as a defense? Medical science is not determined in a court or law, nor by public opinion. It is proven in clinical trials and peer reviewed literature.
"Why do countless medical doctors to this day use it in their practices"
-Irrelevant. Counter: "Why do countless MDs to this day NOT use it in their practices and shit-talk it every chance they get?"
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion Any disputed fact can be determined in a court of law. NCAHF tried to sue a homeopathic mfg., lost. You can't accept that homeopathic products are protected by law just as they are proven in science, or you'd answer questions like Why are a growing number of MDs claiming effective use of these substances; how can placebos effect biochem subjects? You're either ignorant of case law & science that prove homeopathy, or you're another astroturfer running straw man arguments @ $10 a pop.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
"...such as Sen. Royal Copeland, MD, primary sponsor of the FDCA?"
-Irrelevant. Appeal to authority. Michael Jordan likes Hanes underwear. Dean Eddel, MD, says homeopathy is bullshit. So what?
"If it's placebo, then why are there now 6 different types of biochem tests for it, 8 physical, why can its action be seen on plants & animals? Be specific in your response or STFU"
-Be a little more specific yourself. List the names of the procedures or cite literature.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion LMAOROFL! What else other than your anonymous authority do we have for the placebo hypothesis? You won't cite refs. (The YT program marked your comment as "spam." LOL! How did it know?) For a full review of the biochem lit, see "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature." Witt CM Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@entyrion
Arzneimittelforschung. 2003;53(12):823-30. "Antioxidative, antiproliferative and biochemical effects in HepG2 cells of a homeopathic remedy and its constituent plant tinctures tested separately or in combination."
Gebhardt R. Institute of Biochemistry, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig
Inflamm Res. May;53(5):181-8.2004 Apr 21. "Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation." Belon P
Bandershot 1 year ago
@entyrion Google:
Sunila Dynamized Homeopathic Preparations in Cell Culture- a study report in Amala Cancer Research Centre, Kerala
Homeopathy in Cancer Care Moshe Frenkel, MD
Boyd WE, MD, Br F. Biochemical and biological evidence of the
activity of high potencies. Br Hom J 1954;44:7—44.
Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon "scientific experiment" and more ... weirdscience(dot)com
These are just a few studies of many
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
My primary complaints are simple:
1. The mode of action is nonsense. I'll tell you what though, why don't YOU summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words. Explain what homeopathy does, how it works, and how the medicine is prepared, etc. I dare you to do it without sounding like a quack.
2. IF it is so fantastically effective, why is the modern medical establishment so skeptical? Can you answer this question without appealing to a ridiculous conspiracy theory?
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion What a hypocrite. I thought you were supposed to be the one with all the science and logic and I'm supposed to be the quack. Haven't you've already determined that the mode of action is psychogenic? I thought that in science you ask questions first, present a hypothesis, then test it. But you came here and told me what you already knew it to be, without a doubt? So where's all your peer reviewed published studies proving its a "placebo?" Isn't what you'll need to stop it? Try begging.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
You're the one claiming effectiveness and "science" behind this. YOU prove it. Doctors don't put a new medicine on the shelves, declare that it cures cancer, then say "Prove to me that it DOESN'T cure cancer. Until you prove I'm full of shit, I have a RIGHT to claim it works."
Once again, I DARE you to explain the "science" behind your magic to us all and not sound like a quack. I DARE you to explain the medical establishment's skepticism without appealing to a conspiracy theory.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion Prove something to a paid shill? You gotta b-kidding. I could cite Anagnostatos' Clathrate Model, NMR, show Montagnier's physical evidence, give supramolecular cites, it's not going to prove anything to you. You already made it clear what you're going to believe, even though you can't support it. You say there's no clinical peer review, you don't have anything to say about biochem evidence, so whats the use of trying to prove anything to you? LOL! You'd deny your own mother4adollar!
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Thank you for FINALLY citing SOMETHING. I'll give you credit for that much. Interesting to note however, that the conclusions are not as glowing as you might lead us to believe.
From "The in vitro evidence for...": "CONCLUSIONS: ...No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments."
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion Yours is the predictable "skeptic" response. 1st you said there's no science to falsify placebo, i.e. all negative for verum. When a review of numerous tests show overwhelming positive results for verum, rather than admit you were wrong, you seize on the statement that positive results weren't "stable," meaning they weren't always exactly the same in ALL tests.
This is why you'll forever malign but never defeat this amazing medical doctrine, which goes much deeper than you think.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
From "Histamine dilutions modulate...": "CONCLUSIONS: We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon."
Hardly incontrovertible.
Also, I am not a "paid shill," just a skeptic. However, a quick Google of your name suggests that YOU have quite a lot personally invested in homeopathy. If it is a crime for me to be a "paid shill" who is incapable of changing my mind, is it not a crime for you too?
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion There you go again. YOU just admitted evidence that falsifies your placebo hypothesis. But rather than acknowledge it, you now try to criticize evidence you were hours ago insisting didn't exist. LOL! And you act like homeopaths have to prove something to you to continue practice & your hypothesis can't be attacked. This is why homeopathy has persisted for over 2 centuries & will continue to exceed patent drugs in usage worldwide. You fail to falsify verum or show evidence for placebo.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
And for the THIRD time, I ask that you summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words. Heck, I'll narrow the questions down to make it extra easy.
1. Explain miasms and the law of similars and their relation to disease.
2. Summarize the process used to prepare homeopathic remedies.
3. Summarize the mechanisms by which these remedies work to counteract disease.
4. Explain what the "memory" of water is and how it relates to your ideas of supramolecular structures.
entyrion 1 year ago 2
@entyrion Before I present theory for action, I have to show evidence for action, and I have to do it all in bites of 500 characters, while challenging you to show your evidence for psychogenesis, which you've failed to do. The impotence of your vague placebo complaint needs to be pointed out again & again.
Read Luc Montagnier's "Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences" Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci 2009 1: 81–90 & let's discuss it
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Alright, this discussion has grown beyond tiresome. I could ask you a FOURTH time to summarize the science behind homeopathy in your own words, but at this point its clear you have no intention of answering and you've proven my point anyhow.
Regardless of what you say, I will still think you're a charlatan. Likewise, regardless of what I say, you will consider me a "paid shill" and an "astroturfer." I'm flattered you consider my skepticism to be on a professional level.
entyrion 1 year ago 5
@entyrion Of course you're getting tired, you're tired of being proven wrong. You thought that by labelling yourself skeptic your assertions wouldn't be challenged; by keeping the argument ad hominem, no one would notice that you have no ad rem for your fuzzy little placebo theory. Surprise! And why would anyone expect to be shown how the actors work when they have yet to acknoweldge what the actors are & what they do? I've given you my time, I've answered questions from you, now run away home.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Bullshit; they turned my system around. Plus; natural medicines like homeapothies take more testing they even remotely pass. So shut up and tell me that when yuou have evidense.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
I think homeopathy works. But then, I am a moron.
davidheffron 1 year ago
@Corvettablie How do YOU know?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Because I actually understand enough physics to know what you are talking about is crap. Yes, you might be able to convince people who don't understand the scientific process but beyond that, nope we might as well claim we put pixie dust in your water.
Corvettablie 1 year ago
@Corvettablie INteresting that you say you understand ENOUGH physics to know . . so you admit there could be some things you don't understand. Just for a moment, stop and consider the nature of this discussion. I'm re'ing what I know, and look how you're responding. If you truly had a scietnific view of this, you wouldn't respond like that. You'd strike up a dialogue and reveal the truth through quesitoning. Rather than preuming how little I know, you'd be qustioning about what is known.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Basically you are full of poop. You can find a few small trials that claim to see a benefit from taking a placebo. Nice. There was a nice meta study of data on PubMED which found the results of similar studies said homecrap= placebo. The larger the study the more homie looks like a sugar pill. Only the small studies ever found otherwise.
Do you also believe in ghosts?
Corvettablie 1 year ago
@Corvettablie The meta you're not naming is probably Shang, which has been discredited. Google Am J Pharm Educ. "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?"
The fact you're hiding is that NO META HAS EVER CONLCUDED PLACEBO u lying SOS.
Now just for fun, Google this Army study "Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue." (hpathy vs. bioterrorism)
Now who's full of poop?
Bandershot 1 year ago
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
Ignat 1 year ago
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic solution of a fatal poison and give it to an organism, if it dies is that proof? By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
Ignat 1 year ago
@Ignat hey moron before you attack natural medidcin; get evidence.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
The simple way to test this is to prepare a homeopathic of a fatal poison and give it to an organism. By the same logic, water memory promotes we are all ingesting shit, piss, and blood. The logic goes against all of our knowledge of dosage and I don't see that being addressed at all.
Ignat 1 year ago
@Ignat What you suggest has already been done, countless times. That's how we know it works. You're arguing the "rationalist" point of view, right? Certainly not the empirical one. No of of course not, you've not even considered the difference. How much do YOU remember? Is there some kind of "mechanism" for your memories? Is there a structural change in your brain for them? No, of course not. Time erases all. Even photographs fade. UV destroys clathrates. That is the key. Google it.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Even John will appreciate this simple fact:
A delusion is impervious to logical argument!
exposefraud 1 year ago 3
@exposefraud ANd the l;ogical argument stands with homeopathy. You have nothing to prove otherwise.
Bandershot 1 year ago
BTW
Why have you disabled the ratings for your video?
exposefraud 1 year ago
Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67.
"At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance such as visual global perception, impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (P<0.0001). During the crossover trial, CGI parent-ratings were significantly lower under verum (average 1.67 points) than under placebo (P =0.0479)."
I find this baffling. Are they saying that the placebo outperformed verum?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 2
@C0nc0rdance
I've also read the other related papers by this group. They are doing an open-label screening prior to randomization. So, they go through and find people who are responding, then put them in the treatment group. That seems to be very poor design. Can you really call it randomized at that point?
Homeopathy. 2007 Jan;96(1):35-41.
"...randomisation at the start of treatment in ... ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect..."
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Then how do you explain peer reviewed studies rep'd in reputable journals that show the action of hpathics? How is it that hpathy has captured the experiment & use of Nobel laureates, physicists & material scientists? If it isn't a physical phenom, then it is a very deep psychological one, & if it's psychological, then how do you explain results of physical tests by top academic psychiatrists like Iris Bell & Gary Schwartz? Deal with it scientifically &you get diferent results . .
Bandershot 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance No, they're saying that it was a lower rating for ADHD under hyperactivity treatment. The conclusion said, "The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions.
All children who have ADHD should have homepathic treatment for it. My step son was wildly ADHD. Now he is normal. But you want to deny people the beneift of this medicine.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Google " From Within, Without. A documentary about homeopathy Project by Laurel Chiten" See for yourself what you're trying to dissuade people from, you crook. People use homeopathy because it works.
And another thing. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO USE MY IMAGE in your "mashup. It is a copyight violation. You are a coward and a thief. I challenge you to an open debate with me JOHN BENNETH, &YOU speaking under your real name . .
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
You might not be familiar with Fair Use (Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act), but I am. Small parts of a work may be reproduced for the purposes of illustration or parody. You should also know that by posting to YouTube, you grant the users of the service a limited license to view and adapt your work. I am doubly protected in that my content generates no revenue.
Why do you have two identities, Jack Hammer of LiveLeak? Are you a Poe?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance You're askin me if I'm Poe? Ha! Get a grip, you moron. Did Schwarzenegger use Conan the Barbarian for his name as Governor? It's a different act dummy. This one's for real. Now look at your own crap. You don't even have the guts to show your face or tag a real name to that smarmy lying voice of yours. If you were truly convinced of the rightness of your cause as I am of mine, you'd have no trouble using your face&real name in vids, in fact, it would be an imperative, u little coward
Bandershot 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance And another thing, the video you stole is no small part of the work. It constitutes it solely. You've converted my image for your use & YT's profit. They don't allow lip synching do they? isn't that parody? I've had the entire audio yanked from my vids because I didn't have permission to use only a few seconds of someone's copyrighted music for background mood. But then it was put back in with an ad overlay. How is MY video any different? Where are my royalties?.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Spare us just take the money!
Vamavid 1 year ago
"He is the judge jury and executioner of that award".
How sad that you can't even get that basic point correct.
exposefraud 1 year ago
@exposefraud Read rule 11 in the JREF challenge. Randi is the manager of the award. He does it THROUGH JREF. No one else is named as an arbitrator of it. By these rules not even the board of directors of JREF has any say in it. Show me differently, show me where I'm wrong. SHow me where it says who else manages the award.
Bandershot 1 year ago
BMC Public Health. 2005; 5: 115.
Table 3: Interestingly, p<0.001 for weak belief in homeopathy. Am I reading that correctly that homeopathy only worked for those people with a strong belief in homeopathy? Odd, don't you think?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Read BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413 "How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?--Results from a long term observational study." Witt CM. CONCLUSION: "PATIENTS WHO SEEK HOMEOPATHIC TREAtMENT ARE LIKELY TO IMPROVE CONSIDERABLY. THESE EFFECTS PERSIST FOR AS LONG AS EIGHT YEARS.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Interesting study, but deeply flawed for anything other than marketing purposes. They were honest about it:
"The mean change of the severity ratings after 8 years was large. This may be partly explained by placebo and/or regression to the mean effects that our study was not designed to control. We thus cannot rule out overestimation of the treatment effect."
The primary problem was heterogeneity. Too many conditions, too many treatments, too diverse a population. No controls
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Deeply flawed? Compared to what? Pfizer rec'd the largest fine in history for bribing docts & mktg. untested drugs that have murderous side effects, & you're trying to tell me that the evidence doesn't support a medical practice that uses FDA reg'd substances in use for 100 years & is now supported by Nobel laureate scientists & heads of material sciences at top universities? This is making you look foolish, isn't it?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
"Compared to what?" It can be deeply flawed on its own merits.
We don't have to choose between two evils, Big Pharma ($640B global) and Big AltMed ($84B global). We can make educated choices about our health. Not all drugs are advisable, and not all alt med is advisable.
How to decide? How about systematic, rigorous evidence of effectiveness? Do you have any third party reviews of homeopathy that demonstrate its clinical effectiveness in rigorous studies?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance The fact that they post what the flaws in their own study could be demonstrates their objectivity. You're the one that's making assumptions ad hominem as to what their motives were. And when it comes to science to support your side, you don't have a thing. What, Shang? A joke! Ernst? He reviews his own crap in meta analysis!
Bandershot 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Now take a look at this: This is a clinical study done pub'd in an AMA journal. Let's see how you pick this one apart: Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study Weiser et al Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
"therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance."
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
"containing ambra grisea D6, anamirta cocculus D4, conium maculatum D3, and petroleum rectificatum D8."
These are low dilutions! D3 is 3X, or 1:1,000 dilutions. That's a millimolar concentration of poison hemlock, containing potent alkaloids!
I also find it funny that you are opposed in a comment below to "petrochemical drugs". Want to know what petroleum rectificatum is? Refined oil!
Study flaws: No placebo, small population, no quantification, open label.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
It would be far more convincing if:
1. They used dilutions beyond D23, rather than D3, which contains the "active ingredient" at relatively high levels. More herbalism than homeopathy!
2. They measured actual objective tests, rather than subjective scores. For example, a balance test for vertigo with measurements in seconds.
3. True double blinding were employed.
4. Animal models subjected to the same treatment and quantitative tests perform similar to humans.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
wow dude, stop the promotion of bs like homeopathy.
it is dangerous. ppl die because they dont get the meds they need because of it.
afielsch 1 year ago
@afielsch Actually just the opposite is true. Meds that make use of synthesized petro chemical compounds can be very toxic . . & profitable. Pfizer recently rec'd the biggest gov't fine in history because of its illegal acitvities and the deaths that have ensued. But this is a small threat to Pfizer compared to what homeopathy poses to it, because it is inexpensive, safe AND MORE EFFECTIVE. Homeopathy is real medicine and they don't want you to know it.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Look at the raw math.
At larger dilutions theres less and less of the solute molecules within the solution. Right? At a certain point, you only have one molecule of "active ingredient" in....lets grab an example...10 to the 30th power molecules("30x" strength).
That works out to about 1 molecule of "medicine" in every 30,000 L of water.
You ever see a big shipping container? The ones on railroad cars and such. Thats how much water.
THESE SCAMMERS ARE SELLING YOU DISTILLED WATER. WAKE UP!!!
doggyjones 1 year ago
@doggyjones You're repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don't want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they're molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you'd don't find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Ratings disabled... meaning "This is rubbish and I can't accept people telling me so"
sonicthebadger 1 year ago
in order to get one molecule of the dilute in a 30c solution one would have to drink 3 x 10^35 liters of solution.
thats orders of magnitude larger than the volume of water on earth.
this is the biggest placebo money grab ever.
vlaydros 2 years ago
Homeopathy works through energy, not through "active ingredient" or the physical body. How many molecules of substance is ingested is immaterial except to those who can't look beyond their belief systems.
Tens of millions of people around the world use h. because it works. It's supported by a large body of scientific evidence, studies, clinical work and clinical records.
Do you know what the real "money grab" is? If not, I suggest you find out.
If you don't like homeopathy, don't use it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
dude, you still can't know for sure...
a ton of things change their effect in different concentrations, coffee, vitamine K, heparine, a ton of anti-oxidants...
I think it's worth reseaching it.
dantheman1507 1 year ago
@vlaydros So what? You seem to think that you know more about the mfg prcoess of homeopathics than do those of us who have been studying and using it for years. There'[s more to it thanwhat you think there is. And the prima facie proof that there's a glitch in your little assumption is, if it didn't work, then why do you think the FTC, the FDA and other regulatory bodies around the world continue to allow it to be sold? Why are the communist Cubans using it en masse?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
So sorry. The placebo effect is strong with you.
Rational thought shows that it doesn't work. The FDA the FTC and whatever regulatory bodies cannot regulate the sale of tapwater.
Feel free to continue to believe in your sill stories and bullshit science. But please expect the rational and logical part of society to come down on you once in a while for your shenanigans and stupidity.
Burn in hell mother fucker.
vlaydros 1 year ago
@vlaydros Thanks! Very good recommendation for the skepitcal argument. Nothing more than angry vague assertions and pointed obscentities, just what one would expect from someone who has run out of logical responses. Tell us more, show us what you're made of , you coward.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot So tell me more about how the water magically takes on the properties of whatever is put in it. We've already shown that at the concentrations you dilute it to you would have to consume an ocean of water to get ONE molecule.
What magic bits are missing about the shape of the water molecule, or it's super fantastic vibrations.
You and your views are nothing but drivel spun to get some cash out of the gullible. You're beneath my contempt.
vlaydros 1 year ago
@vlaydros Homeopathics are not chemical compounds, they're molecular complexes. For more information take a look at supramolecular chemistry. Nuclear physicist George Anagnostatos decribes the operative structure as clathrates. Read Structure of Liquid Water by Roy, Tiller, Bell and Hoover. Roy is the dean of US material sciences. Look at what Josephson has to say about it. Many studies too numerous too mention here, more than enough to inspire confidence in this amazing medicine.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@vlaydros You're repeating exactly what the big money pharmaceutical companies want you to believe. What they don't want you to know is that homeopathics are not molecular compounds, they're molecular complexes, hydrates, clathrates, aqueous polymers. So no, you'd don't find compounds in them, but you do find complexes. See my videos The Homeopathic Molecule and The Mechanism for more explanations and references.
Bandershot 1 year ago
If homeopathy was as rentable as alopathic drugs, we would see the shelves on the pharmacies stacked with homeopathic remedys and all the labs would come out advertising it as the 8th wonder.
The only reason why homeopathy has so many detractors it's cause it's not rentable for the pharmaceutical bussines.
I've been using it for 20 years and it always worked... oh and it also helped A LOT with my cats. Especially on their behaviour.
Cheers for the vid, excuse my english im brazilian.
BlackMagikMan 2 years ago
I'd like to see some you prove the it does not work. Maybe you should tell that to my son who was cured of ADHD and my dog that was cured of stomach cancer thanks to homeopathy. I had a 5 year depression and took all kinds of meds nothing happened until the 4th month of being on homeopathic meds. Today my depression is gone!
If you haven't tried don't try and understand it
freemason98 2 years ago
Thanks for the testimonial, brother. Did you know that Hahnemann was raised a Mason by Count Brukentahal while he was in Sibiu?
Bandershot 2 years ago 3
Actually I did not know that! Interesting!!!
keep up the awesome work!
freemason98 2 years ago
placebo
mrextremophile 2 years ago 3
@freemason98 THIS ACCOUNT IS CLOSED. Humm? Wonder why.
UselessBrokenDog 1 year ago
P.S - proving the difference between water and a high dilute doesn't prove homoeopathy, it proves there is something in the solution. I can put a lump of plastic in a beaker of water, I can tell there is plastic in the water, but it won't cure asthma.
kyral210 2 years ago 30
Hey, ratings disabled, my my my, just shows how much faith the creator has in his own material!
kyral210 2 years ago 56