Wonderful video this. So entertaining. Yet so potent. Indeed H medicines are sold in Australian chemists and they work on me in unexpected ways. Clearly not placebo.
And H grows year by year the more Randi skeptics ridicule it. Start the rumour here James Randi really works for John Benneth all along.LOL.
People here should not bother to quote Randi since his gay felon "Carlos" is going to jail for 10-12 years.He is next considering the fact that he conspired to it.Randi is just another con man and a shill to the pharma industry.Nobody takes him serous.
This is hokum. Easy to prove: we would all be either cured of everything or killed simply by drinking tap water. Here's more proof: James Randi frequently ingests WHOLE BOTTLES FULL of homeopathic sleeping medicine to demonstrate that homeopathic medicine is total fraud. He's still alive by the way. Stop trying to sell us crap.
@lnsaint Montagnier isolated high dilutes in mu metal and the 1kH signal disappeared, indicating that the natural bakground radiation perturbs the crystal like structures in the H-bond network to create the unique signal.
You are totally misinterpreting the Linde meta-analysis. Thats like asking a question "does medicine work?", its a stupid question. It was essentially withdrawn by Lancet. By the way, even if it isn't placebo, it doesn't work for any condition anyway.
By the way, why does it make any difference where the authors are coming from? That doesn't give it credibility.
Homeopathy is basically just sugar pills, so don't eat too many
@edmills1023 Dozens of skeptards, like yourself, come on here and make their assertions without asking one reasonable question. Why is that? If homeopathy is so ineffective, then why is it more popular worldwide than Western patent medicine? What is agrohomeopathy? Why are vets using it? Why are workers reporting biochemical results? What have YOU done to prove YOUR assertions? Name the one meta analysis (Shang) that concludes placebo and I'll prove it's a hoax. Show us what you got Mr Science.
@Bandershot Man that is self-delusional. Why is astrology more popular than astronomy? Because it is easier to read and makes such generic assertions on everyday life that they can be proved right 100% of the time. Why is homeopathy so popular? Because people don't know better and are easily fooled by the placebo effect and some mumbo-jumbo. Why do vets use it? Because they usually prepare it themselves and so get all the revenue. BTW, it's homeopathy that has to prove its worth, not vice versa.
@ivanerill Astrology isn't used to treat medical problems, homeoapthy is, by medical doctors in the U.S. and other countries. You're just making the assumption that people are easily deluded. If this is so, then you should be wary that your beliefs may just as easily be delusions as well.
It's already proven, so what are you talking about? if it didn't have any effects on people, why would they buy it? There are now biochemcial tests as well as chemical analysis for it. So relax, its proven.
@edmills1023 There've been too many observations by pro observers to simply dismiss it as placebo, & if people weren't palpably & visibly benefited by it, then it wouldn't be the 2nd most used form of medicine in the world today (patent is 4th). I've talked to people who believe they were cured of CANCER by it. People are passionate about it because they believe it saved their lives. So, using the same criteria you could be just as dismissive about patent medicine. But you're not. Why is that?
@KungPisstank Randi has never put his million on the line, he has never put his signature to it & never conducted a FORMAL test. All applicants have presumably "failed" preliminary tests, or Randi just ignores them, such as the numerous biochemical effects shown for homeopathics (Belon, Ennis et al). So the point is that you can't show any real intent to award the money for anything . . it is simply a challenge never put to the test.
@Bandershot There are instances (I believe two) of formal tests that Randi has performed for the Million Dollar Challenge. For a guy who supposedly helps people through "medicine", you sure are an asshole about it.
Why would anyone need specific studies to disprove homeopathy? As it happens, all water on earth has at some point been in contact with just about any naturally occuring substance in just the way homeopathic "medicines" are prepared and hence all of humanity receives treatment, on a daily basis, for all conditions homeopathy claims to have a cure for. Still, a lot of people suffer from those conditions so obviously there are tons of cases where homeopathy hasn't helped.
@KungPisstank The hydrate structure of homeopathic remedies, created by succussion and dilution, depends on the hydrogen bonding of water molecules and is temporary unless it is fixed by a non polar medium such as alcohol; even in this condition it can be destroyed by natural conditions such as sunlight, heat and cold. Google gas hydrates, clathrates and supramolecular chemistry.
@Bandershot Alcohol is a polar substance. That is why water and alcohol dissolve in each other. Oil is a non-polar substance. I teach this in grade 11 chemistry. How is it you are unaware of such an elementary concept and then you try and pass yourself of as an expert?
@IrishHermes If ethanol (alcohol) is polar, why is it able to freely diffuse through membranes? The answer is only part of ethanol is polar, whereas part is non-polar. This property allows ethanol to be miscible in both polar and non-polar substances. So you're half wrong. Rather than wasting time over what you think I'm passing myself off as, you should be showing your students how to employ the scientific method, asking questions and studying the literature on The Topic.
@Bandershot There is no if, ethanol is a polar substance. Go into your kitchen and mix some oil and some alcohol see what happens. Ethanol is not miscible in non-polar substances. You haven't got the foggiest concept of the scientific method. You haven't even looked up to see if ethanol is polar or not or mixed ethanol with water vs. ethanol and oil. Membranes and polarity are two different things. You are confusing hydophobic/hydrophilic with polarity.
@IrishHermes Calm down, knock off the insults& let's talk science. That ethanol is both polar & non polar is a matter of context, because when mixed with water it acts more like a non polar medium because of H2O's hi density (1g/ml) & dielectric constant (80) & ethanol's relatively low density (.789) & DC (30). The smaller H20 squeezes in around the CH3-CH2-OH & attaches to the kosmotrope to form a solvation shell. The CH3-CH2-OH then acts as a cybotactic buffer. Be respectful or you'r blocked.
@Bandershot At no point have I insulted you. Density has nothing to do with polarity. Polarity is about how atoms unequally share electrons in an attempt to complete their valence shells. Therefore having a slightly negative and positive end. These slightly positive/negative ends interact and increase intermolecular bonding. Dielectric constant is the relative ability of a substance to hold a charge, it has nothing to do will polarity or solubility. It is a term used in electronics.
@IrishHermes You just did insult me. You write I am either a fool or a liar. You came on here barking about how ethanol isn't a non polar medium, I explained the reasoning behind that statement and you responded with an abusive statement. So even after you've been invited to continue the discussion with an abuse caveat, you went ahead and did it anyway, which means you can't control it. And they let you around kids?
Not sure how credible those research links are, considering the first one literally fails at describing the treatment (it reads as homeopathic anamnesis, which is literally just counseling, and which has previously been shown to reduce chronic pain). So where's the homeopathic aspect of giving them water?
Because the "skeptic" sites get their members to knock down ratings on pro-homeopathy videos. After all, what else can they do? They haven't got any REAL arguments, have they?
Allow me to disagree....do you really think the "skeptic" sites, as you call people rating this video, manipulate people to go and rate cheap videos?....
what I think is that people with acces to a computer are people with comon sense in general....thats why the rating is so low....
"what I think is that people with access to a computer are people with common sense in general....."
Laughable argument!
Are you claiming that the half million highly educated, highly competent homeopaths and the tens of millions of satisfied users of homeopathy around the world don't have computers?
So you think the fact that there are one half million homeopaths and tens of millions of patients proves that there are hundreds of millions of skeptics rating the video? Well, I guess that's your version of "logic".
And I guess your version of "logic" doesn't work. If you look at the number of people rating this video, you'll see that it's 155 -- 155 -- NOT hundreds of millions.
Oh, and one last thing, atheists make up 12% of the world's population, and the drug companies can't afford to pay hundreds of millions of shills. So how many "skeptics" are really rating this video?
What does it all prove? That people who practice and use homeopathy have computers and also have common sense. They also have too much to do to spend their time rating videos on You Tube.
It's well known and very obvious that "skeptics" DO manipulate, deny and distort the facts in order to misinform the public about hpathy. It's well known and provable that "skeptics" attempt to discredit anyone advocating for h.
There are 2 types of "skeptics" doing it for 2 reasons. The first are those paid by drug co's because CAM and especially h. are being used more & more. The second are atheists offended by h. because it works on energy therefore suggesting human spirit and God.
You're interpreting the results to fit what you want to believe. You don'tg know what you're talking about. They weren't testing for any one clinical condition, homeopathy doesn't pretend to do that. They were testing for verum. If you're pretending to peddle the truth, then why didn't you include the entire quote from the Linde conclusion? No good meta has ever concluded placebo. And you still haven't exlained why, if there is "nothing in it", it affects plants and animals? Answer that one.
@Bandershot Wait, homeopathy does not pretend to work on any given clinical condition, only in a nebulous global probability of helping people? That is certainly news to me. I've seen lists of detailed symptoms that each substance is claiming to cure. And as for the review, it did examine specific conditions (interestingly, they levy a complaint that about 2/3 of the studies examined were "methodologically poor").
Why won't you let me respond to the accusations about me you wrote in that article? You know, the one where you quoted me without asking my permission or informing me of your actions. Come on, be a man, allow an honest exchange of ideas.
Dude, this jack shit meta-analysis is absolutely a joke, NOT medical science. 1. Medical science is only built by lab bench research and double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. All other forms of research papers only seek recommendations or options in medicine.
2. metaanalyses are only valid when the individual papers are valid and close enough to be included in a not so scientific form of science called meta-analysis.
If you're going to seriously imply that a review of studies on a particular subject be held to a higher standard, then you need to tell us what it is in clear & concise terms, w/o refs to dude & jack shit. Opponents of hpathy cite the Shang metanalysis, which opposed Linde, but failed to name the 8 studies from which it was made. And what is meant by "placebo?" The Witt review of biochem hpathy studies clearly challenges the placebo hypothesis, as does action on plants & animals. So now what?
Not all homeopathic remedies are truely homeopathic by definition. Some claim to be homeopathic in order to increase their selling power. Example: Zicam. It's only a 2x dilution.
Zicam was marketed as homeopathic but actually is not. The zinc is a 10% orthomolecular preparation, not homeopathic at all, even though it's listed as 2X. It also contains benzylkonium chloride (used in detergents, spermicides and fungicides) and benzyl alcohol (associated with neo-natal deaths). Homeopathics do not contain these types of chemicals. The Matrix products are no longer sold in this part of the country as "homeopathic" and this doesn't appear on the label anymore.
haha, which is precisely my point. If you read my original post, this is what it actually said. I still have a box of zicam from 2 years ago and it said homeopathic, most likely to increase the sales since it's really a catchy word for people who don't know jack shit.
Rant on as you like. It won't change the fact that there are 200+ studies evidencing FOR homeopathy. It won't change the fact that h. has tens of millions of adherents around the world BECAUSE IT WORKS. It won't change the fact that more and more evidence for h. comes into the public every month. Denying the facts doesn't make them go away.
If you actually tried h. instead of getting angry about it, you would be surprised by what it does for you.
you just don't get it. The placebo effect is actually a powerful thing, but it has nothing to do with some crackpot science as those high dillutions and the rule of simmilarities. Voodoo works too, you know?
You're using voodoo now. Didn't you know that 87% of conventional drugs haven't been proven to do ANYTHING. If they were proven to do SOMETHING no one would know how they did that something. Check it out in BMJ. Check it out in The Independent, 12/8/03 (nothing has changed since 2003), interview with Dr. Roses, VP, GSK who states that "The vast majority of drugs -- more than 90% -- only work in 30 to 50% of the people." Example: conv cancer trtmt is effective in only 25% of patients.
Sooner or later (usually sooner) during their lifetimes the vast majority of people desperately need and want good medicine. Why don't you try homeopathy and come to your own conclusions based on your own experience? Guaranteed 100% the time will come when what you're using isn't going to be good enough.
it may work on some people as can any crap by placebo,that doesnt mean its an effective treatment.There are no properly controlled trials supporting it .Any doctor or scientist supporting it is a clown and there is never a shortage of clowns in this world.
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
About 4 out of the few pubMed sources that you have are from the same people. This is not independent verification. Also, several of your sources were published in the journal "Homeopathy" which is hardly an unbiased scientific journal.
"Skeptics" cannot even look at much less acknowledge ANY scientific evidence for h. no matter from what source -- not even from their own chosen system of medicine, not even from the most respected scientists whom they claim to revere. That's hardly the "scientific" method is it now?
I was looking at a skeptic site bashing homeopathy the other day. It was filled with confirmation bias, anecdotal "evidence" and ad hominum attacks. It was written by one person well known to be biased
against more than one form of alternative medicine, not just homeopathy. The site referenced another "skeptic" well known to be biased who slandered chiropractic, was sued by chiropractors and LOST the case. The "skeptic's" bias stands out like a sore thumb, hits everyone in the face!
"Skeptics" accept studies performed by the very company applying for FDA approval to sell the drug but then claim references in homeopathic literature are biased -- a bit ironic, now, isn't it?
"Skeptics" accept studies performed by the very company applying for FDA approval to sell the drug -
----
YES, because those studies are peer reviewed (FDA approval, get it?) & most often replicable. Such studies usually employ stringent double blind methodology (person giving & person getting the pill doesn't know what they are getting), & at least attempt to study a representative sample of the population.
Such studies are done by folks who understand the scientific process
I guess wingless doesn't know that drug companies regularly withhold the negative findings of their studies from the public. Example, Vioxx. Their studies showed Vioxx could cause heart attacks and strokes. For some reason (!!!), the company did not pass that info on. My mother used Vioxx. It caused a stroke behind her left eye. She was left with permanent loss of vision in that eye (anecdotal evidence but still true--much to my mother's regret). Had she and her doctor been told, she
would not have used it. Vioxx killed 27,000 people, and it's just one example of the devastation and death caused by conventional drugs. However, they're "peer reviewed". Get It?
And then there's this little bit of news: Pfizer was fined $2.3 BILLION for illegally promoting drugs for uses THEY WERE NEVER APPROVED FOR! That included a $1.2 BILLION CRIMINAL FINE (the largest ever in any US criminal case), $1 BILLION in civil penalties and $100 MILLION CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.
Just to put a cap on this case, here's what Bill Vaughn, Consumers Union, says: "There's so much money in selling pills that there's a tremendous temptation to cheat. There's a kind of mentality in this sector that (settlements) are the cost of doing business and we can cheat."
While Pfizer was negotiating "deals" on past misconduct they were engaging in violating those very same laws!
"Such studies are done by folks who understand the scientific process." Too bad those very folks choose to inflict devastation and death on the unknowing in order to grab a few of their dollars.
In case wingless might like to argue that h. is not scientific, take a look at this report (it contains 65 studies and 10 clinical trials): "Homeopathy: SCIENTIFIC Proofs of Efficacy". It reads, in part, "A no. of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM have concluded that h. POSSESSES
THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY. The report concludes: "Very briefly, a large body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of homeopathic medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced attitudes."
Always good to learn at least a little something about a subject before commenting.
@den151redbank - At best, what they can conclude, given our Empirical knowledge, is that the placebo effect is real. Most homeopathic remedies are so diluted that you are giving patients "water". For the fairy-tale of greater dilution = greater potency to be real, we'd need to ignore hundreds of years of advancement & observations! If homeopathy were real, you could dump a few mL of 'remedies' into the ocean and cure the world of all ills. BTW: when I dilute salt water, it becomes less salty
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the point of a scientific study is that the claimed result can be accomplished by anyone if they follow the precise test procedure...to just claim the result isn't positive because of the person wgho conducts the test will not be succesfull with anyone of a scientific mind...
"Bandershot" is a LIAR! He has NO EVIDENCE to back-up ANY CLAIMS he makes for ANY SUCCESS of ANY homeopathic treatment or remedy. He KNOWS he has no evidence, and that is why I don't say he's misguided, but rather, HE IS PURPOSELY LYING.
I WELCOME a LAW SUIT! I'll go before a judge and POINT OUT HIS LIES, and he will need to provide EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt to VERIFY HIS BOGUS CLAIMS!
If he does sue, it won't be the 1st time a judge throws out a complaint against h-pathy as frivolous.(See KingBio)Vimisi is just another mouthpiece for James Randi's Atheist Death Cult. All h-pathy haters are atheists; studies by the Am. Psychiatric Ass. have shown atheists have the highest rate of suicide, fewer kids, marriages, contact w/family & the highest rate of SUICIDE, & they HATE homeopathy because it shows scientific evidence for something they can't accept . . the human spirit.
Even funnier if you actually believe it, but using phrases like "James Randi's Death Cult" and "All h[omeo]pathy haters are atheists" makes me think that's unlikely...
For the record, I know a handful of Christians that believe homeopathy is witchcraft, and I give them more credibility than your assertions here.
a true artwork of commentary... besides, if you'd study christians in a moslem majority country you would probabely find they suffered from social stigma, when a minority suffers at the hands of a majority, it's not generally accepted that it's because they're wrong
I hope your god punishes you for mixing homeopathy with your religion. But logic evades you completely. If homeopathy is scientific, why couldn't homeopaths be atheists.
Because the material sciences are becoming the miracle sciences, and have finally recognized what they call "epitaxy." And what makes you think atheism isn't a religion, a religion of humiliation, materialism and spiritual denial? I've seen it all here. They all come to these little shrines I've built for them to make their sacrifices to their Atheist God. And when they look into the mirror, they do not see themselves adequately as they are. Look, look at yourself in the mirror. That is not You.
No one is mixing homeopathy with anything! No one that is except atheists who like to portray it as a religion for the purpose of shoring up the insecurities of their own beliefs. Atheism is truly a religion of its own.
You've made some interesting posts on Zak Debunks Homeopathy and Dr. Werner's video. Seems like you're not sure what camp you're in.
Each of these six papers only describes usage of CAM (complementary alternative medicines, h included) and correlated issues such as family perception of treatment or treatment pathway. There is not a single paper on any kind of experiment on h treatment in Epilepsy. Now, quoting Mr. Bandershot "check out the success homeopathy has had with epilepsy". Sorry, I don't see it. You know, I'm doing my homework. You are not...
Two are not online and are from obscure journals (#13 with no IF and 15 with IF 1.05).That leaves us with only six assessable papers (out of 17!).Their journals are respectable but are not notorious such as Nature or Lancet.Here are their impact factors:Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2.455 (#1 and 8); Child: Health, Care and Development 1.396 (#3); Pediatric Neurology 1.375 (#11); Pharmacoepidemioly and Drug Safety 2.475 (12); and Epilepsy & Behavior (I've published there) 2.3 (#5).
So I did the review on Homeopathy to treat Epilepsy. I entered "epilepsy homeopathy" on pubmed, no limits applied: 17 hits, 2 reviews amongst them. You will have to agree it is not much, considering papers have a 60 years period span. Anyway: some succinct results on this 17 pudmed entries: Four of them (#2, 4, 6 and 7) are not peer-reviewed, including the one using h on epileptic dogs (#6) you mentioned (I guess). Five are in foreign or undetermined languages (#10, 11, 14, 16 and 17).
Finally, you are partially right when you say I should run experiments on h. in my lab. In the perfect world, I would that.But, contrary to the common belief, scientists have limited money and time.Moreover, it's unethical to use animal lives to run experiments with no theoretical fundaments nor justification, which may be the case.See, we have only a few shots to reach important scientific findings.Again, a theory and a set of hypothesis would do much good for homeopathy instead of propaganda
And you are absolutely right to to raise the possibility that I'm wrong! Because it doesn't mean my theory has become absolute truth once it has been published. It must be criticized and if what I saw in my experiment is robust enough, it will pass critics. This sort of attitude is highly encouraged in the scientific arena. That's what I'm doing on h. Blind acceptance of beliefs/dogmas is for religion. It should not be used for medical treatment.
"Torturing rats" (animal experimentation) has saved many lives around the world. It might have saved you. But I won't delve into that and I won't defend my paper to you, once it has already been approved by people with much more credentials on Deep Brain Stimulation. But it is really interesting that you attacked my paper, even though it has been published in a peer reviewed journal with a reasonable impact factor. It means you acknowledge I might be wrong.
But I don't take my theory of non-periodic electrical stimulation dor seizure treatment for granted. If further results deny my hypothesis, I'll discard the theory that generated it, not the experiment. That's why a fundamental theory or a set of hypothesis to h. is so important. In this way you can actually test it.
First of all, I would like to thank you for acknowledging (although implicitly) that you were wrong, once I'm actually a scientist. Very humble of you but I think you owe me apologies... nah, I don't need it.Anyway, science doesn't work on a faith system.Laymen make this mistake all the time. My pre-supposition (so-call a priori belief) is called hypothesis and it is solely based on previous established knowledge. Check wikipedia entry for science, you won't find the word faith or belief in it.
convincing. Not because "org" scientists have prejudice against h., but because there is too much criticism, counter-evidence, rebuttals and, most important, no fundamental theory or reasonable explanation (compare it with the other treatments I've mentioned). I NEVER said h. doesn't work. I said we don't know, because I'm intellectually honest. I don't make money nor deal with somebody else's health based on my beliefs. Homeopaths do. And that's all they have: a belief. You are the menace...
All your "intellectual honest[y]" amounts to is YOUR BELIEF that YOUR BELIEFS are the only correct ones, that the clinical exp. of millions of people and work evidencing for h. does not count. You "don't know" if h. works because you haven't tried it and can't acknowledge positive lab work or anyone else's experience.
All you can do is insult others based on your own BELIEFS! And that's what they are -- BELIEFS! Tens of thousands of people owe their lives to h. (discounting "placebo").
Tens of thousands of intelligent, dedicated, highly trained homeopaths over the past 200 yrs have spent their lives treating patients and watching them: 1) achieve cures not available with other medicine, 2) enjoy improved health and functioning not available anywhere else, 3) enjoy lives with a lot less pain and dysfunction which other meds cannot give.
Homeopathy saved my life and tens of thousands of others. Why in the name of God do you think we give a damn about your "science"?
BTW, I have never met a homeopath I could not respect very highly for his or her knowledge, training, competence, dedication, compassion for his patients, respect for life in general and his or her ability to alleviate suffering!
If you're a real scientist you will immerse yourself in the subject you're addressing, get to know pros working it , take some classes, study the literature, talk to patients, try it for yourself and conduct tests on plants & animals. That's how real scientists do it, not prejudiced & arrogantly shedding opinions about it to those who've been studying it for years. Brazilian homeopaths are some of the best in the world. Talk to them respectfully, ask good questions & learn. Then apologize to me.
I'll only reply here because you made me an accusation. You see, I really am a neuroscientist. Although not yet notorious, I do research, publish papers and teach classes. In fact, I'm even a regular member in the Society for Neuroscience. I could have been rude to you sometimes in the heat of the quarel, but never a liar. And as a scientist, I know that we are prone to methodological error, to biased experimentation and even corruption. Although there is evidence for h in literature, it is not
Lose the attitude, stop posing & conduct a real trial of homeopathy on your lab rats. Get in touch with the Brazilian Homeopathic Medical Assocaition to help you design RCT protocols for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating seizures in lab rats. Belladonna 200c has reportedly been effectively used on epileptic dogs. Contato: Associação Médica Homeopática Brasileira AMHB Rua da Grécia, 142-B. Bairro Barro Vermelho. Vitória. ES. CEP: 29.055-600.
You're laboring under a priori belief, your experimentation shows it. Your rat experiments imply you've come to the conclusion you can cure epilepsy by electricuting the amygdala. So you're not going to be happy with just torturing rats, you want to move on to people. Listen, Frankenstein, b4 you smoke somebody's brain, check out the success homeopathy has had with epilepsy. Surveys have shown that up to 44% of patients with epilepsy are now using some form of CAM treatment. Homeopathy works.
Finally, I searched pubmed for the latest reviews on homeopathy. Yes, there are some of them. The ones with unconditionally positive arguments are from journal such as Homeopathy (not peer reviewed). If you see respectable journals and also minor (but peer review journals) ones, you will find conflicting evidences and arguments (tending to negative) and, most important, no theory/ mechanisms/ fundaments at all. All I say is: I, you, science and mankind, all of us don't know if it works or not.
You're wrong. You're deliberately avoiding the evidence: 45 out of 60 In vitro studies since the 1930's, scored by peer review with standardized measures (SAPEH), including some with the highest level of scientific methodology, report positive results (Witt). In vivo experiments smash the placebo theory. Millions who have tried it, studied it, do know it works. So lay off. If you don't like it, go away & leave us to practice our legally protected rights w/o being harassed by the likes of you.
You're being evasive. What about the 2005 Lancet paper? Why are you sticking on '97 one??? Again, please mention the complete reference for this Witt reviews (there are hundreds of Witts on pubmed). The 3900 papers on homeopathy show that scientists are doing their job, trying to find out if it works or not. But their results and conclusions completely disagree. See deep brain stimulation, with the same amount of entries, it's much more a consensus.
Finally (sorry for taking so much space here), I would like to show you an example of alternative treatment that is owning a lot of respect due to well conduced research. It is important because it is excellent evidence that the academic arena does not carry scientific prejudice for non-allopathic ideas. Check scientific publications on ketogenic diet & epilepsy. That's a non-pharmacological treatment for epilepsy. It is old too (circa 100 years) and has been applied recently with success. Rgds
The complete interpretation section of the paper from Lancet mentioned on this video:
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." It seem like quote mining to me.
So what? The intent was to determine if clinical observation could determine if effects were totally due to placebo. They concluded they weren't. It covered many different conditions. They weren't trying to show the effectiveness on any particular one. Homeopathy logically does not treat conditions. It treats the patient's symptoms. Better trials of placebo than clinical are biochemical, botanical & zoological studies, which have been done. Read the Witt review of in vitro studies.
Mr. Bandershot, please try to understand what science is trying to say to the laymen here. There's not enough evidence for the efficiency of homeopathy. This '97 Lancet paper you cited SAYS that (see my commment). Also, when they say it is not placebo, they don't (because they can't) infer it is homeopathic remedies. It could be, for example, the psichological benefits of sessions with the homeopath dr (which is different than a placebo session). More research is needed; we all agree with it!
Like most, I don't think you've studied the subject enough to pass judgment on it yet. The entire field was built on observation, not theory. The opposition to homeoapthy is what is theoretical. The latest scientific studies are now in support of it. Read the Witt reviews of in vitro and phsyical studies. Do some online reseasrch, follow the links in the vid desc field and visit scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. You'll be surprised to find how much has been accomplished, over 3900 refs in PUBMED
I'm not trying to pull stripes here, but I'm a neuroscientist, hence I checked each single reference you posted here. Two papers are from BMC which has impact factor of 1.5 (very low). One is from European Journal of Pediatrics (IF - 1.27). Three of them are from Homeopathy journal, which is not peer reviewed and has an obvious bias. One is a book (not peer reviewed). All others are mere websites pro-homeopathy. I can't see much accomplished...
You're cherry picking data to support the usual org opposition to homeopathy by atheists that the action of h. remedies is solely due to placebo, which AGAIN is confounded by simple botanical tests YOU can perform, which of course you won't, because you're not interested in supporting data, you want to prove a negative. But the burden of proof is on you. Homeopathy is a long established practice, 2nd most popular med doctrine in the world (yours is 4th), supported by science, pop usage and law.
You know, I could argue that a lie believed by many don't become true because of it; that you are the one who is cherry picking by citing you many articles (instead of one); that you shouldn't expose your beliefs publicly if you can't stand criticism; that there a thousand laws and rights I don't agree with 'cause they are just stupid; but I'll indeed lay off, once you have an obvious emotional and finantial bond to homeopathy. You just won't let go such a poor piece of evidence... Peace!
Even if science doesn't support it, popular acceptance is the bottom line. But even by your terms your argument fails. If it is a placebo, then it shouldn't have any observable effects biochemically or on plants and animals. If you were a scientist, you'd recognize this, and not poison your mind with a priori belief. If you ever really had to face the evidence, comprehensively, in practice and theory, you would wither with such a mindset. You're not a neuro scientist, you're a fake & a menace.
so let's get this straight - "lasers" have some magic ability to distinguish between "homeopathic" water (i.e. pure water) and regular water (pure water again), just because it's been "succussed"? BTW for the laymen, that apparently just means "shaken". LOL.
Google the "structure liquid water roy" from Penn State and Stanford. Check out what Tiller, Josephson say about it. Run "homeopathy" on Pubmed and see how many hits it returns. Read some of the abstracts of the in vitro, in vivo, biochemical, biolocial, botanical, long term mass clinical, theory, spectroscopic, NMR and other physical studies that have been done on homeopathy. Given your stated prejudice, you should be amazed. But I suspect you've drank the atheist koolaid and gone blind.
If I go to a homeopath and aquire a solution would you be able to tell me what it is? I would send you the sample without tampering with it except to remove the label. Would that prove that water has memory?
Yes. Homeopathy would not be the legal, developed science that it is if that distinction couldn't be made. All commonly used h. remedies have been subjected to "provings.' Homeopaths were the first to use double blind testing to test the effects of their remedies on human subjects. Several reporters claim to have made that distinction using modern instrumentation. Baumgartner, Roy, Conte, Elmiger. Spectroscopy appears to be the most reliable method. It can also be done botanically & in vitro
You haven't been fair or polite. Opponents of homeopaths never are.. I answered your questions the best I could and you stomp off taking your bad attitude with you. You'd never say what you've said using your real name. You seem to think you have some sort of license to belittle effective, legal medicine that for 200 yrs has held up under worse scrutiny than your silly presumptions. It should be no surprise that h. isn't in more widespread use with ignornace like yours so common.
You have no idea what your talking about "Read some of the abstracts of the in vitro, in vivo, biochemical, biolocial, botanical, long term mass clinical, theory, spectroscopic, NMR and other physical studies" what a load of shit.
Well, at least I'm referring to scientific studies rather than just calling names and getting nasty. So what's your point? Like God, homeopathy is not going away. So what good is it doing you to troll these sites and throw tantrums? You didn't send money to Randi, did you? That's it, isn't it? You've been strutting around telling everyone homeopathy is bunk, now science is proving you wrong and you're upset..
If you take papers in such higher ground, why don't you cite one from the very same respectable journal (Lancet) but eight years youger than Linde et al: Shang A. et al, Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32. Here's its final sentence: This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects. You mustn't base a medical practice on such a unstable ground such as homeopathy does. And please, complete the Witt ref. I'd like checking.
Look at Shang again; it's a hatchet job. The lead investigator, Egger, REFUSES to name the mere eight studies (not 110) which the entire "meta-anlaysis" is done on. So who now are the pseudo scientists? Nobel prize winners like Josephson and Montagnier; renowned material scintsists like Roya nd Tiller, whose research throws the onus of proof back in the laps of the soffers, or Shang and Egger who are trying prove a negative?
Your cherry picking of discredited studies continues to be a joke - oh look here is another set of grounds to sue me!!! You don't know what your talking about - there you go sweetheart, off to your lawyer
I've seen what you're talking about. But where does it say anything about what it will be paid for? I phoned the Philly office of GS where's it kept and asked for confirmation. They refused. Within a week they ordered Randi to remove their name from his website. He was so furious he had a heart attack! Said I ruined JREF.
Even if the money is real, it doesn't mean it'll be paid out. Read Randi's "rules." Sorry, you lose again. Too bad. It's not a valid offer. Prove that it is & win $100,000!
So psychics and dowsers and tarot readers and astrologers and palm readers and mind readers and time travelers and remote viewers and past lifers and faith healers and psychic surgeons and numerologists and homeopaths are to believed and handed a million dollars when they put on their parlor shows without being tested by someone other than a believer? Do tell.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand what the statement for that portfolio says? Cause it doesn't take a Series 6 to explain it. Perhaps you should go back to playing in the kiddie pool.
He didn't back out he was ill. Also the group that agreed to be tested said that they had spent 2 years preparing for the challenge. Funny that they needed 2 years for something that has been around for 200 years.
Would someone please explain to me why would anyone think that trying to cure a disease by ingesting loads of water with extremely small dilutions of said disease is a viable treatment method?
What makes you think that "ingesting loads of water" has anything to do with homeopathy? If you want to understand homeopathy better, do some investigation. Check out the links in the vid decription field. If you can be nice, I'll be happy to try to answer your questions the best I can. But first read the Structure of Liquid Water by Roy et al and look at some of the references and note the authors. Fair enough?
If you want good answers, ask good questions. People aren't ingesting "loads of water" in homeopathic treatment. Your probloem is that you're not really asking a question that has to do with reality, like "when are you going to stop asking stupid questions?"
He's right. It isn't loads of water. It is just a few drops of water. I'm not surprised that homeopathy works on plants. My plants are often made healthier by a good watering.
Same here. Works fine for most people who try it. Seems like there's other more important things for the angry about homeopathy crowd to get upset over, like the number of deaths from vaccinations that could be replaced by nosode prophylaxis.
Funny how "delusion" comes in the form of a large body of high quality lab and clinical trial evidencing for h., the work of renowned scientists at Stanford, Cambridge, Penn State and Arizona U, the evidence of the recent Cuban success using h. to defend against leptospirosis, 200 years of high quality provings and the testimony of tens of millions of adherents of h. around the world.
My opinion: the delusions are in the minds of those who deny the truth, the facts and the evidence.
The cohort study examined multiple ailments, meaning you're going to get a lot of noise in the data. There was no effort to establish a baseline. There was no control or placebo group, making it impossible to differentiate homeopathy from the natural courses of the diseases. The "headaches in women" for example is a comically broad category with a wide range of causes.
The study was incompetently constructed unless one wanted a good SOUNDING study whose results would be easily manipulated.
Those who believe in Homeopathy are self deluded, please seek a way to reverse the delusion. There is a better way to understand the world than self delusion and that is through independent critical thinking. Some humans are not capable of that - they are to be pitied.
Those who don't believe in Homeopathy are in self denial & deluded. Please seek a way to reverse the delusion. There is a better way to understand the world than self delusion and that is through independent critical thinking. Some humans are not capable of that - they are to be pitied.
I used to pity deluded fools like you, then I realized that your reliance upon homeopathy means you're more likely to be killed off bu disease. Hopefully, infections diseases will prove a very effective agent of evolution in culling retards like you form the herd.
Wait a sec there, Mr. Logic. How do you explain the commercial success of homeopathic Zicam and Oscillococcinum, both h. remedies? A pharmacist at Bimart told me the other day he's been using Zicam for 15 years and that its the best cold remedy on the market! EVERY PHARMACY CARRIES IT!Same w/ oscillo for the swine flu! You got that? Doctors are now recommending a common commercial OTC product as a preventive for the swine flu! So maybe you got it reversed? Now who's in danger of Darwinism?
Zicam is not a homeopathic remedy. It just uses the term in its marketing. The Zincum Gluconicum is "only" a 2x dilution. There's still enough in it for "western" definitions of a clinical dosage. . As a matter of fact, it violates the law of "like cures like" as the Zinc doesn't cause flue like symptoms! The folks who regulate what's labeled "homeopathic" should be taking Zicam to task for such a blatant misuse of the term.
Wait a minute, how does that make any sense using skeptologic? If everything you've said in the past is true, then why would they take something that isn't homeopathic and call it that? Unless, of course, all of your defamations have had just the opposite intended effect.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but the FDA governs it under HPUS terms, such as "2x" (look it up) to determine what is and isn't homeopathic. So it is legally homeopathic.
As for Oscillococcinum the popularity of a thing doesn't mean it magically works. As the Wikipedia entry points out:
"it is used for the relief of symptoms of flu, a self-limiting disease which lasts for a variable number of days ... If one takes any medication and one's flu goes away, then it is easy to attribute this to the medication; however, the infection would have resolved anyway"
Oscillococcinum is just a classic example of confirmation bias.
Thank you for that ridiculous explanation. (He uses Wikipedia as his final authority.) Sure you want to go with that? Don't want to call your brother or ask the audience? Look, turn on your light bulb if it isn't burned out already. Tell us something we don't know, okay? YOU put it on trial. Not Wikipedia, YOU. Stop giving us YOUR theories and putting everybody's else down for "sloppy methodology," YOU show us how its done. That's fair, isn't it?
I have one physical ailment that was relieved by my experience of homeopathy. I had mastitis and I had this on five occasions with two infants. Homeopathic beladonna cured me of this infection each time within one half hour of taking the pilules with no side effects. Accute infection cured. What is the problem? It worked.
Randi is all back, FULLY restored, after a posible copyright infringment, but due to the fact the copyright owner was a mate of Randis there was no problem.
Your all, gullible fools, I wonder if you'll stick to this rubbish if ya get a dose of cancer????
And Quite how any of you, so called rational adults can take this bandershot clown seriously is worrying indeed.
This is pure drivel, you arn't fit to speak James Randis name.
I don't know, he's looking kind of frail. Maybe he needs a homeopath. Hey, let me ask you, since you seem to know so much. Why is it YOU clowns w/your 5cents worth of junk bonds haven't run a double blind super duper RTC trial of Zicam, the homeopathic cold remedy? Are you going to declare yourself the winner & run away because it's not your job? Why not? Million's use it but you don't because you're so smart? Where's Randi's published proof? We got ours, where's yours? Prove its a placebo!
Flakingnapstitch, I refer to the anti-homeopathy mob's disproportionate propensity for personal abuse, swearing, ridicule, presumptive generalisations of individuals you dont know, in their posts.
Most likely, yes, it does. Jerks being defined as people who spout opinions based on their lack of personal experience and lack of knowledge of the subject.
You should read Eustace Mullins' 'Murder by Injection' , Bandershot.
Thanks to that book I started to really understand why Homeopathy is not the main basis of healthcare, these days.
Eustace Mullins shows us how the Rockefellers bought the American Medical Association, how the Rockefellers bought the medical faculties of American universities and how they introduced their healthcare ensurances (excluding homeopathy) , vaccination and fluoridation besides their pharmaceutical monopoly.
Wonderful video this. So entertaining. Yet so potent. Indeed H medicines are sold in Australian chemists and they work on me in unexpected ways. Clearly not placebo.
And H grows year by year the more Randi skeptics ridicule it. Start the rumour here James Randi really works for John Benneth all along.LOL.
kimbo99 1 month ago
People here should not bother to quote Randi since his gay felon "Carlos" is going to jail for 10-12 years.He is next considering the fact that he conspired to it.Randi is just another con man and a shill to the pharma industry.Nobody takes him serous.
TheFriendlyEngineer 4 months ago
Dielectric Stress Quotient. LMFAO.
beerathon 7 months ago
This is hokum. Easy to prove: we would all be either cured of everything or killed simply by drinking tap water. Here's more proof: James Randi frequently ingests WHOLE BOTTLES FULL of homeopathic sleeping medicine to demonstrate that homeopathic medicine is total fraud. He's still alive by the way. Stop trying to sell us crap.
frosted1030 7 months ago
this is a joke right?
awfulnhead 11 months ago 3
I got just one question: what's the proposed homeopathic action mechanism on a cellular level? Where's the receptor? How is this signal transduced?
lnsaint 1 year ago
@lnsaint Montagnier isolated high dilutes in mu metal and the 1kH signal disappeared, indicating that the natural bakground radiation perturbs the crystal like structures in the H-bond network to create the unique signal.
Bandershot 3 months ago
You are totally misinterpreting the Linde meta-analysis. Thats like asking a question "does medicine work?", its a stupid question. It was essentially withdrawn by Lancet. By the way, even if it isn't placebo, it doesn't work for any condition anyway.
By the way, why does it make any difference where the authors are coming from? That doesn't give it credibility.
Homeopathy is basically just sugar pills, so don't eat too many
edmills1023 1 year ago
@edmills1023 Dozens of skeptards, like yourself, come on here and make their assertions without asking one reasonable question. Why is that? If homeopathy is so ineffective, then why is it more popular worldwide than Western patent medicine? What is agrohomeopathy? Why are vets using it? Why are workers reporting biochemical results? What have YOU done to prove YOUR assertions? Name the one meta analysis (Shang) that concludes placebo and I'll prove it's a hoax. Show us what you got Mr Science.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Man that is self-delusional. Why is astrology more popular than astronomy? Because it is easier to read and makes such generic assertions on everyday life that they can be proved right 100% of the time. Why is homeopathy so popular? Because people don't know better and are easily fooled by the placebo effect and some mumbo-jumbo. Why do vets use it? Because they usually prepare it themselves and so get all the revenue. BTW, it's homeopathy that has to prove its worth, not vice versa.
ivanerill 1 year ago
@ivanerill Astrology isn't used to treat medical problems, homeoapthy is, by medical doctors in the U.S. and other countries. You're just making the assumption that people are easily deluded. If this is so, then you should be wary that your beliefs may just as easily be delusions as well.
It's already proven, so what are you talking about? if it didn't have any effects on people, why would they buy it? There are now biochemcial tests as well as chemical analysis for it. So relax, its proven.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@edmills1023 There've been too many observations by pro observers to simply dismiss it as placebo, & if people weren't palpably & visibly benefited by it, then it wouldn't be the 2nd most used form of medicine in the world today (patent is 4th). I've talked to people who believe they were cured of CANCER by it. People are passionate about it because they believe it saved their lives. So, using the same criteria you could be just as dismissive about patent medicine. But you're not. Why is that?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@KungPisstank Randi has never put his million on the line, he has never put his signature to it & never conducted a FORMAL test. All applicants have presumably "failed" preliminary tests, or Randi just ignores them, such as the numerous biochemical effects shown for homeopathics (Belon, Ennis et al). So the point is that you can't show any real intent to award the money for anything . . it is simply a challenge never put to the test.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot There are instances (I believe two) of formal tests that Randi has performed for the Million Dollar Challenge. For a guy who supposedly helps people through "medicine", you sure are an asshole about it.
JPO1618 1 year ago
@Bandershot Are you quite sure about your assertion?
What was this then?
Google:
Homeopathy - The Test - BBC Horizon, 2002 (1/4)
The Million Dollar Challenge.
exposefraud 1 year ago
Why would anyone need specific studies to disprove homeopathy? As it happens, all water on earth has at some point been in contact with just about any naturally occuring substance in just the way homeopathic "medicines" are prepared and hence all of humanity receives treatment, on a daily basis, for all conditions homeopathy claims to have a cure for. Still, a lot of people suffer from those conditions so obviously there are tons of cases where homeopathy hasn't helped.
KungPisstank 1 year ago
@KungPisstank The hydrate structure of homeopathic remedies, created by succussion and dilution, depends on the hydrogen bonding of water molecules and is temporary unless it is fixed by a non polar medium such as alcohol; even in this condition it can be destroyed by natural conditions such as sunlight, heat and cold. Google gas hydrates, clathrates and supramolecular chemistry.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Alcohol is a polar substance. That is why water and alcohol dissolve in each other. Oil is a non-polar substance. I teach this in grade 11 chemistry. How is it you are unaware of such an elementary concept and then you try and pass yourself of as an expert?
IrishHermes 1 year ago
@IrishHermes If ethanol (alcohol) is polar, why is it able to freely diffuse through membranes? The answer is only part of ethanol is polar, whereas part is non-polar. This property allows ethanol to be miscible in both polar and non-polar substances. So you're half wrong. Rather than wasting time over what you think I'm passing myself off as, you should be showing your students how to employ the scientific method, asking questions and studying the literature on The Topic.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot There is no if, ethanol is a polar substance. Go into your kitchen and mix some oil and some alcohol see what happens. Ethanol is not miscible in non-polar substances. You haven't got the foggiest concept of the scientific method. You haven't even looked up to see if ethanol is polar or not or mixed ethanol with water vs. ethanol and oil. Membranes and polarity are two different things. You are confusing hydophobic/hydrophilic with polarity.
IrishHermes 1 year ago
@IrishHermes Calm down, knock off the insults& let's talk science. That ethanol is both polar & non polar is a matter of context, because when mixed with water it acts more like a non polar medium because of H2O's hi density (1g/ml) & dielectric constant (80) & ethanol's relatively low density (.789) & DC (30). The smaller H20 squeezes in around the CH3-CH2-OH & attaches to the kosmotrope to form a solvation shell. The CH3-CH2-OH then acts as a cybotactic buffer. Be respectful or you'r blocked.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot At no point have I insulted you. Density has nothing to do with polarity. Polarity is about how atoms unequally share electrons in an attempt to complete their valence shells. Therefore having a slightly negative and positive end. These slightly positive/negative ends interact and increase intermolecular bonding. Dielectric constant is the relative ability of a substance to hold a charge, it has nothing to do will polarity or solubility. It is a term used in electronics.
IrishHermes 1 year ago
@IrishHermes You just did insult me. You write I am either a fool or a liar. You came on here barking about how ethanol isn't a non polar medium, I explained the reasoning behind that statement and you responded with an abusive statement. So even after you've been invited to continue the discussion with an abuse caveat, you went ahead and did it anyway, which means you can't control it. And they let you around kids?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot IrishHermes did insult you. Homoepathy works.
fkoff99 11 months ago
Not sure how credible those research links are, considering the first one literally fails at describing the treatment (it reads as homeopathic anamnesis, which is literally just counseling, and which has previously been shown to reduce chronic pain). So where's the homeopathic aspect of giving them water?
wretcherwretch 1 year ago
why is he rating on this video so low, I wonder?
edcastillo 1 year ago
Because the "skeptic" sites get their members to knock down ratings on pro-homeopathy videos. After all, what else can they do? They haven't got any REAL arguments, have they?
den151redbank 1 year ago
Allow me to disagree....do you really think the "skeptic" sites, as you call people rating this video, manipulate people to go and rate cheap videos?....
what I think is that people with acces to a computer are people with comon sense in general....thats why the rating is so low....
edcastillo 1 year ago
"what I think is that people with access to a computer are people with common sense in general....."
Laughable argument!
Are you claiming that the half million highly educated, highly competent homeopaths and the tens of millions of satisfied users of homeopathy around the world don't have computers?
den151redbank 1 year ago
Exactly my point! thats why I wonder why the rating on the video is so low.....
edcastillo 1 year ago
so in that logic...there must be HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of skeptics rating the video
edcastillo 1 year ago
So you think the fact that there are one half million homeopaths and tens of millions of patients proves that there are hundreds of millions of skeptics rating the video? Well, I guess that's your version of "logic".
And I guess your version of "logic" doesn't work. If you look at the number of people rating this video, you'll see that it's 155 -- 155 -- NOT hundreds of millions.
Thanks for coming!
den151redbank 1 year ago
Oh, and one last thing, atheists make up 12% of the world's population, and the drug companies can't afford to pay hundreds of millions of shills. So how many "skeptics" are really rating this video?
What does it all prove? That people who practice and use homeopathy have computers and also have common sense. They also have too much to do to spend their time rating videos on You Tube.
den151redbank 1 year ago
Dude.... 4 things......
1.- What do "Atheists" have to do with anything here?
2.- "They also have too much to do to spend their time rating videos on You Tube" ....unlike yourself, I guess.....
3.- That does NOT change the fact that the video has a LOW rating.
4.- Lighten up!
edcastillo 1 year ago 2
THanls for coming XD
edcastillo 1 year ago
It's well known and very obvious that "skeptics" DO manipulate, deny and distort the facts in order to misinform the public about hpathy. It's well known and provable that "skeptics" attempt to discredit anyone advocating for h.
There are 2 types of "skeptics" doing it for 2 reasons. The first are those paid by drug co's because CAM and especially h. are being used more & more. The second are atheists offended by h. because it works on energy therefore suggesting human spirit and God.
den151redbank 1 year ago
The 1997 lengths at meta-analysis quoted gave the following conclusion
"we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition"
So the best evidence that they can cite actually states that there is no proof that homoeopathy works.
Homeopathy - there's nothing in it.
SkepRob 1 year ago
You're interpreting the results to fit what you want to believe. You don'tg know what you're talking about. They weren't testing for any one clinical condition, homeopathy doesn't pretend to do that. They were testing for verum. If you're pretending to peddle the truth, then why didn't you include the entire quote from the Linde conclusion? No good meta has ever concluded placebo. And you still haven't exlained why, if there is "nothing in it", it affects plants and animals? Answer that one.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Wait, homeopathy does not pretend to work on any given clinical condition, only in a nebulous global probability of helping people? That is certainly news to me. I've seen lists of detailed symptoms that each substance is claiming to cure. And as for the review, it did examine specific conditions (interestingly, they levy a complaint that about 2/3 of the studies examined were "methodologically poor").
klutterkicker 1 year ago
5 stars. Such good satire doesn't deserve 1 1/2 Stars. You did too good of a job, people are buying it.
ajsb1986 2 years ago
Nobel Laureate Scientists throughout the ages who have proven the efficacy of Homeopathic high dilutions:
Hans Von Euler
Nobel Laureate - Chemistry 1930
Brian David Josephson
Nobel Laureate - Physics 1973
Luc Montagnier
Nobel Laureate-Physiology/Medicine2009
mohanaturo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why won't you let me respond to the accusations about me you wrote in that article? You know, the one where you quoted me without asking my permission or informing me of your actions. Come on, be a man, allow an honest exchange of ideas.
adamredwine 2 years ago
What we need from the skeptic PSEUDO scientists is proof that Homeopathy is indeed placebo effect.......evidence which to date is seriously lacking.
Especially when two REAL scientists - Nobel Laureates Luc Montagnier and Josephson - have shown in their tests that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
Logis is NOT the forte of Skeptics.
The religion of skepticism is!
mohanaturo 2 years ago
"Especially when two REAL scientists"
Then why not the rest of the science world also? 2 REAL scientists in a pool of roughly 5 MILLION is 0,0000004% of all researchers.
The value is similar to the amount of transsexual gay eskimos and jewish nazis among scientists.
latuman 2 years ago 6
Dude, this jack shit meta-analysis is absolutely a joke, NOT medical science. 1. Medical science is only built by lab bench research and double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. All other forms of research papers only seek recommendations or options in medicine.
2. metaanalyses are only valid when the individual papers are valid and close enough to be included in a not so scientific form of science called meta-analysis.
biomed007 2 years ago
If you're going to seriously imply that a review of studies on a particular subject be held to a higher standard, then you need to tell us what it is in clear & concise terms, w/o refs to dude & jack shit. Opponents of hpathy cite the Shang metanalysis, which opposed Linde, but failed to name the 8 studies from which it was made. And what is meant by "placebo?" The Witt review of biochem hpathy studies clearly challenges the placebo hypothesis, as does action on plants & animals. So now what?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Hey..this is Borat! Yagshemaaaash!!!
biomed007 2 years ago 2
"dilution AND succussion" = Pour it in some water and shake it about. Hahahaha.
Plimp73 2 years ago 10
Not all homeopathic remedies are truely homeopathic by definition. Some claim to be homeopathic in order to increase their selling power. Example: Zicam. It's only a 2x dilution.
biomed007 2 years ago
2X IS a homeopathic potency! Zicam is NOT a homeopathic preparation.
What makes a substance homeopathic is serial dilution AND succussion. It's called potentization.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Yes, it claims to be. It's on the box in small print, next to 2x.
biomed007 2 years ago
Zicam was marketed as homeopathic but actually is not. The zinc is a 10% orthomolecular preparation, not homeopathic at all, even though it's listed as 2X. It also contains benzylkonium chloride (used in detergents, spermicides and fungicides) and benzyl alcohol (associated with neo-natal deaths). Homeopathics do not contain these types of chemicals. The Matrix products are no longer sold in this part of the country as "homeopathic" and this doesn't appear on the label anymore.
den151redbank 2 years ago
haha, which is precisely my point. If you read my original post, this is what it actually said. I still have a box of zicam from 2 years ago and it said homeopathic, most likely to increase the sales since it's really a catchy word for people who don't know jack shit.
biomed007 2 years ago
Rant on as you like. It won't change the fact that there are 200+ studies evidencing FOR homeopathy. It won't change the fact that h. has tens of millions of adherents around the world BECAUSE IT WORKS. It won't change the fact that more and more evidence for h. comes into the public every month. Denying the facts doesn't make them go away.
If you actually tried h. instead of getting angry about it, you would be surprised by what it does for you.
den151redbank 2 years ago
you just don't get it. The placebo effect is actually a powerful thing, but it has nothing to do with some crackpot science as those high dillutions and the rule of simmilarities. Voodoo works too, you know?
Trashboldus 2 years ago
You're using voodoo now. Didn't you know that 87% of conventional drugs haven't been proven to do ANYTHING. If they were proven to do SOMETHING no one would know how they did that something. Check it out in BMJ. Check it out in The Independent, 12/8/03 (nothing has changed since 2003), interview with Dr. Roses, VP, GSK who states that "The vast majority of drugs -- more than 90% -- only work in 30 to 50% of the people." Example: conv cancer trtmt is effective in only 25% of patients.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Sooner or later (usually sooner) during their lifetimes the vast majority of people desperately need and want good medicine. Why don't you try homeopathy and come to your own conclusions based on your own experience? Guaranteed 100% the time will come when what you're using isn't going to be good enough.
den151redbank 2 years ago
it may work on some people as can any crap by placebo,that doesnt mean its an effective treatment.There are no properly controlled trials supporting it .Any doctor or scientist supporting it is a clown and there is never a shortage of clowns in this world.
billysue2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While Homeopathy detractors cling to 8 FLAWED studies to discredit Homeopathy, there are over 200 well conducted clinical trials and studies done by eminent scientists and physicians around the world to prove that Homeopathy is NOT placebo effect.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
About 4 out of the few pubMed sources that you have are from the same people. This is not independent verification. Also, several of your sources were published in the journal "Homeopathy" which is hardly an unbiased scientific journal.
kubush 2 years ago
"Skeptics" cannot even look at much less acknowledge ANY scientific evidence for h. no matter from what source -- not even from their own chosen system of medicine, not even from the most respected scientists whom they claim to revere. That's hardly the "scientific" method is it now?
I was looking at a skeptic site bashing homeopathy the other day. It was filled with confirmation bias, anecdotal "evidence" and ad hominum attacks. It was written by one person well known to be biased
den151redbank 2 years ago
against more than one form of alternative medicine, not just homeopathy. The site referenced another "skeptic" well known to be biased who slandered chiropractic, was sued by chiropractors and LOST the case. The "skeptic's" bias stands out like a sore thumb, hits everyone in the face!
"Skeptics" accept studies performed by the very company applying for FDA approval to sell the drug but then claim references in homeopathic literature are biased -- a bit ironic, now, isn't it?
den151redbank 2 years ago
den said:
"Skeptics" accept studies performed by the very company applying for FDA approval to sell the drug -
----
YES, because those studies are peer reviewed (FDA approval, get it?) & most often replicable. Such studies usually employ stringent double blind methodology (person giving & person getting the pill doesn't know what they are getting), & at least attempt to study a representative sample of the population.
Such studies are done by folks who understand the scientific process
winglessblog 2 years ago
I guess wingless doesn't know that drug companies regularly withhold the negative findings of their studies from the public. Example, Vioxx. Their studies showed Vioxx could cause heart attacks and strokes. For some reason (!!!), the company did not pass that info on. My mother used Vioxx. It caused a stroke behind her left eye. She was left with permanent loss of vision in that eye (anecdotal evidence but still true--much to my mother's regret). Had she and her doctor been told, she
den151redbank 2 years ago
would not have used it. Vioxx killed 27,000 people, and it's just one example of the devastation and death caused by conventional drugs. However, they're "peer reviewed". Get It?
And then there's this little bit of news: Pfizer was fined $2.3 BILLION for illegally promoting drugs for uses THEY WERE NEVER APPROVED FOR! That included a $1.2 BILLION CRIMINAL FINE (the largest ever in any US criminal case), $1 BILLION in civil penalties and $100 MILLION CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Just to put a cap on this case, here's what Bill Vaughn, Consumers Union, says: "There's so much money in selling pills that there's a tremendous temptation to cheat. There's a kind of mentality in this sector that (settlements) are the cost of doing business and we can cheat."
While Pfizer was negotiating "deals" on past misconduct they were engaging in violating those very same laws!
den151redbank 2 years ago
"Such studies are done by folks who understand the scientific process." Too bad those very folks choose to inflict devastation and death on the unknowing in order to grab a few of their dollars.
den151redbank 2 years ago
In case wingless might like to argue that h. is not scientific, take a look at this report (it contains 65 studies and 10 clinical trials): "Homeopathy: SCIENTIFIC Proofs of Efficacy". It reads, in part, "A no. of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM have concluded that h. POSSESSES
den151redbank 2 years ago
THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY. The report concludes: "Very briefly, a large body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of homeopathic medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced attitudes."
Always good to learn at least a little something about a subject before commenting.
den151redbank 2 years ago
@den151redbank - At best, what they can conclude, given our Empirical knowledge, is that the placebo effect is real. Most homeopathic remedies are so diluted that you are giving patients "water". For the fairy-tale of greater dilution = greater potency to be real, we'd need to ignore hundreds of years of advancement & observations! If homeopathy were real, you could dump a few mL of 'remedies' into the ocean and cure the world of all ills. BTW: when I dilute salt water, it becomes less salty
winglessblog 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the point of a scientific study is that the claimed result can be accomplished by anyone if they follow the precise test procedure...to just claim the result isn't positive because of the person wgho conducts the test will not be succesfull with anyone of a scientific mind...
this is bullshit
mbostrom 2 years ago
"Bandershot" is a LIAR! He has NO EVIDENCE to back-up ANY CLAIMS he makes for ANY SUCCESS of ANY homeopathic treatment or remedy. He KNOWS he has no evidence, and that is why I don't say he's misguided, but rather, HE IS PURPOSELY LYING.
I WELCOME a LAW SUIT! I'll go before a judge and POINT OUT HIS LIES, and he will need to provide EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt to VERIFY HIS BOGUS CLAIMS!
VimisiDigitalMedia 2 years ago
If he does sue, it won't be the 1st time a judge throws out a complaint against h-pathy as frivolous.(See KingBio)Vimisi is just another mouthpiece for James Randi's Atheist Death Cult. All h-pathy haters are atheists; studies by the Am. Psychiatric Ass. have shown atheists have the highest rate of suicide, fewer kids, marriages, contact w/family & the highest rate of SUICIDE, & they HATE homeopathy because it shows scientific evidence for something they can't accept . . the human spirit.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Funniest comment I've read all week, well done!
Even funnier if you actually believe it, but using phrases like "James Randi's Death Cult" and "All h[omeo]pathy haters are atheists" makes me think that's unlikely...
For the record, I know a handful of Christians that believe homeopathy is witchcraft, and I give them more credibility than your assertions here.
ಠ_ಠ
QuadError 2 years ago
Maybe the atheists are more successful at suicide because they overdosed on real drugs.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago 2
"Maybe the atheists are more successful at suicide because they overdosed on REAL drugs."
No one doubts that! It's hard not to believe you guys use and post at the same time!
den151redbank 2 years ago
a true artwork of commentary... besides, if you'd study christians in a moslem majority country you would probabely find they suffered from social stigma, when a minority suffers at the hands of a majority, it's not generally accepted that it's because they're wrong
mbostrom 2 years ago
I hope your god punishes you for mixing homeopathy with your religion. But logic evades you completely. If homeopathy is scientific, why couldn't homeopaths be atheists.
Lollipoppization 2 years ago
Because the material sciences are becoming the miracle sciences, and have finally recognized what they call "epitaxy." And what makes you think atheism isn't a religion, a religion of humiliation, materialism and spiritual denial? I've seen it all here. They all come to these little shrines I've built for them to make their sacrifices to their Atheist God. And when they look into the mirror, they do not see themselves adequately as they are. Look, look at yourself in the mirror. That is not You.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Bravo!
den151redbank 2 years ago
No one is mixing homeopathy with anything! No one that is except atheists who like to portray it as a religion for the purpose of shoring up the insecurities of their own beliefs. Atheism is truly a religion of its own.
You've made some interesting posts on Zak Debunks Homeopathy and Dr. Werner's video. Seems like you're not sure what camp you're in.
den151redbank 2 years ago
woo
shubidubar 2 years ago
Look up the etymololical definition of pharamacy, what the word really means,and you'll see what real "woo" is.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Each of these six papers only describes usage of CAM (complementary alternative medicines, h included) and correlated issues such as family perception of treatment or treatment pathway. There is not a single paper on any kind of experiment on h treatment in Epilepsy. Now, quoting Mr. Bandershot "check out the success homeopathy has had with epilepsy". Sorry, I don't see it. You know, I'm doing my homework. You are not...
vrcota 2 years ago 2
Two are not online and are from obscure journals (#13 with no IF and 15 with IF 1.05).That leaves us with only six assessable papers (out of 17!).Their journals are respectable but are not notorious such as Nature or Lancet.Here are their impact factors:Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2.455 (#1 and 8); Child: Health, Care and Development 1.396 (#3); Pediatric Neurology 1.375 (#11); Pharmacoepidemioly and Drug Safety 2.475 (12); and Epilepsy & Behavior (I've published there) 2.3 (#5).
vrcota 2 years ago 2
So I did the review on Homeopathy to treat Epilepsy. I entered "epilepsy homeopathy" on pubmed, no limits applied: 17 hits, 2 reviews amongst them. You will have to agree it is not much, considering papers have a 60 years period span. Anyway: some succinct results on this 17 pudmed entries: Four of them (#2, 4, 6 and 7) are not peer-reviewed, including the one using h on epileptic dogs (#6) you mentioned (I guess). Five are in foreign or undetermined languages (#10, 11, 14, 16 and 17).
vrcota 2 years ago
Finally, you are partially right when you say I should run experiments on h. in my lab. In the perfect world, I would that.But, contrary to the common belief, scientists have limited money and time.Moreover, it's unethical to use animal lives to run experiments with no theoretical fundaments nor justification, which may be the case.See, we have only a few shots to reach important scientific findings.Again, a theory and a set of hypothesis would do much good for homeopathy instead of propaganda
vrcota 2 years ago
And you are absolutely right to to raise the possibility that I'm wrong! Because it doesn't mean my theory has become absolute truth once it has been published. It must be criticized and if what I saw in my experiment is robust enough, it will pass critics. This sort of attitude is highly encouraged in the scientific arena. That's what I'm doing on h. Blind acceptance of beliefs/dogmas is for religion. It should not be used for medical treatment.
vrcota 2 years ago
"Torturing rats" (animal experimentation) has saved many lives around the world. It might have saved you. But I won't delve into that and I won't defend my paper to you, once it has already been approved by people with much more credentials on Deep Brain Stimulation. But it is really interesting that you attacked my paper, even though it has been published in a peer reviewed journal with a reasonable impact factor. It means you acknowledge I might be wrong.
vrcota 2 years ago
But I don't take my theory of non-periodic electrical stimulation dor seizure treatment for granted. If further results deny my hypothesis, I'll discard the theory that generated it, not the experiment. That's why a fundamental theory or a set of hypothesis to h. is so important. In this way you can actually test it.
vrcota 2 years ago
First of all, I would like to thank you for acknowledging (although implicitly) that you were wrong, once I'm actually a scientist. Very humble of you but I think you owe me apologies... nah, I don't need it.Anyway, science doesn't work on a faith system.Laymen make this mistake all the time. My pre-supposition (so-call a priori belief) is called hypothesis and it is solely based on previous established knowledge. Check wikipedia entry for science, you won't find the word faith or belief in it.
vrcota 2 years ago
convincing. Not because "org" scientists have prejudice against h., but because there is too much criticism, counter-evidence, rebuttals and, most important, no fundamental theory or reasonable explanation (compare it with the other treatments I've mentioned). I NEVER said h. doesn't work. I said we don't know, because I'm intellectually honest. I don't make money nor deal with somebody else's health based on my beliefs. Homeopaths do. And that's all they have: a belief. You are the menace...
vrcota 2 years ago
All your "intellectual honest[y]" amounts to is YOUR BELIEF that YOUR BELIEFS are the only correct ones, that the clinical exp. of millions of people and work evidencing for h. does not count. You "don't know" if h. works because you haven't tried it and can't acknowledge positive lab work or anyone else's experience.
All you can do is insult others based on your own BELIEFS! And that's what they are -- BELIEFS! Tens of thousands of people owe their lives to h. (discounting "placebo").
den151redbank 2 years ago
Tens of thousands of intelligent, dedicated, highly trained homeopaths over the past 200 yrs have spent their lives treating patients and watching them: 1) achieve cures not available with other medicine, 2) enjoy improved health and functioning not available anywhere else, 3) enjoy lives with a lot less pain and dysfunction which other meds cannot give.
Homeopathy saved my life and tens of thousands of others. Why in the name of God do you think we give a damn about your "science"?
den151redbank 2 years ago
BTW, I have never met a homeopath I could not respect very highly for his or her knowledge, training, competence, dedication, compassion for his patients, respect for life in general and his or her ability to alleviate suffering!
den151redbank 2 years ago
If you're a real scientist you will immerse yourself in the subject you're addressing, get to know pros working it , take some classes, study the literature, talk to patients, try it for yourself and conduct tests on plants & animals. That's how real scientists do it, not prejudiced & arrogantly shedding opinions about it to those who've been studying it for years. Brazilian homeopaths are some of the best in the world. Talk to them respectfully, ask good questions & learn. Then apologize to me.
Bandershot 2 years ago
I'll only reply here because you made me an accusation. You see, I really am a neuroscientist. Although not yet notorious, I do research, publish papers and teach classes. In fact, I'm even a regular member in the Society for Neuroscience. I could have been rude to you sometimes in the heat of the quarel, but never a liar. And as a scientist, I know that we are prone to methodological error, to biased experimentation and even corruption. Although there is evidence for h in literature, it is not
vrcota 2 years ago
Lose the attitude, stop posing & conduct a real trial of homeopathy on your lab rats. Get in touch with the Brazilian Homeopathic Medical Assocaition to help you design RCT protocols for testing the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating seizures in lab rats. Belladonna 200c has reportedly been effectively used on epileptic dogs. Contato: Associação Médica Homeopática Brasileira AMHB Rua da Grécia, 142-B. Bairro Barro Vermelho. Vitória. ES. CEP: 29.055-600.
Best wishes & good luck.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Oh Mr. Bandershot, that's not a nice thing to do: lie. See, these are my papers (you can check them on pubmed):
Distinct patterns of electrical stimulation of the basolateral amygdala [...] Cota VR, et al - Epilepsy Behav. 2009 Jan;14 Suppl 1:26-31.
2) Mice deficient for the vesicular acetylcholine transporter are myasthenic [...]. Prado VF et al. Neuron. 2006 Sep 7;51(5):601-12.
No much, I know, but journals are much more respectable than those of your refs with IF of 3 and 14 resp.
vrcota 2 years ago
You're laboring under a priori belief, your experimentation shows it. Your rat experiments imply you've come to the conclusion you can cure epilepsy by electricuting the amygdala. So you're not going to be happy with just torturing rats, you want to move on to people. Listen, Frankenstein, b4 you smoke somebody's brain, check out the success homeopathy has had with epilepsy. Surveys have shown that up to 44% of patients with epilepsy are now using some form of CAM treatment. Homeopathy works.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Finally, I searched pubmed for the latest reviews on homeopathy. Yes, there are some of them. The ones with unconditionally positive arguments are from journal such as Homeopathy (not peer reviewed). If you see respectable journals and also minor (but peer review journals) ones, you will find conflicting evidences and arguments (tending to negative) and, most important, no theory/ mechanisms/ fundaments at all. All I say is: I, you, science and mankind, all of us don't know if it works or not.
vrcota 2 years ago
You're wrong. You're deliberately avoiding the evidence: 45 out of 60 In vitro studies since the 1930's, scored by peer review with standardized measures (SAPEH), including some with the highest level of scientific methodology, report positive results (Witt). In vivo experiments smash the placebo theory. Millions who have tried it, studied it, do know it works. So lay off. If you don't like it, go away & leave us to practice our legally protected rights w/o being harassed by the likes of you.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You're being evasive. What about the 2005 Lancet paper? Why are you sticking on '97 one??? Again, please mention the complete reference for this Witt reviews (there are hundreds of Witts on pubmed). The 3900 papers on homeopathy show that scientists are doing their job, trying to find out if it works or not. But their results and conclusions completely disagree. See deep brain stimulation, with the same amount of entries, it's much more a consensus.
vrcota 2 years ago
Finally (sorry for taking so much space here), I would like to show you an example of alternative treatment that is owning a lot of respect due to well conduced research. It is important because it is excellent evidence that the academic arena does not carry scientific prejudice for non-allopathic ideas. Check scientific publications on ketogenic diet & epilepsy. That's a non-pharmacological treatment for epilepsy. It is old too (circa 100 years) and has been applied recently with success. Rgds
vrcota 2 years ago
The complete interpretation section of the paper from Lancet mentioned on this video:
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." It seem like quote mining to me.
vrcota 2 years ago
So what? The intent was to determine if clinical observation could determine if effects were totally due to placebo. They concluded they weren't. It covered many different conditions. They weren't trying to show the effectiveness on any particular one. Homeopathy logically does not treat conditions. It treats the patient's symptoms. Better trials of placebo than clinical are biochemical, botanical & zoological studies, which have been done. Read the Witt review of in vitro studies.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Mr. Bandershot, please try to understand what science is trying to say to the laymen here. There's not enough evidence for the efficiency of homeopathy. This '97 Lancet paper you cited SAYS that (see my commment). Also, when they say it is not placebo, they don't (because they can't) infer it is homeopathic remedies. It could be, for example, the psichological benefits of sessions with the homeopath dr (which is different than a placebo session). More research is needed; we all agree with it!
vrcota 2 years ago
Like most, I don't think you've studied the subject enough to pass judgment on it yet. The entire field was built on observation, not theory. The opposition to homeoapthy is what is theoretical. The latest scientific studies are now in support of it. Read the Witt reviews of in vitro and phsyical studies. Do some online reseasrch, follow the links in the vid desc field and visit scienceofhomeopathy(dot)com. You'll be surprised to find how much has been accomplished, over 3900 refs in PUBMED
Bandershot 2 years ago
I'm not trying to pull stripes here, but I'm a neuroscientist, hence I checked each single reference you posted here. Two papers are from BMC which has impact factor of 1.5 (very low). One is from European Journal of Pediatrics (IF - 1.27). Three of them are from Homeopathy journal, which is not peer reviewed and has an obvious bias. One is a book (not peer reviewed). All others are mere websites pro-homeopathy. I can't see much accomplished...
vrcota 2 years ago
You're cherry picking data to support the usual org opposition to homeopathy by atheists that the action of h. remedies is solely due to placebo, which AGAIN is confounded by simple botanical tests YOU can perform, which of course you won't, because you're not interested in supporting data, you want to prove a negative. But the burden of proof is on you. Homeopathy is a long established practice, 2nd most popular med doctrine in the world (yours is 4th), supported by science, pop usage and law.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You know, I could argue that a lie believed by many don't become true because of it; that you are the one who is cherry picking by citing you many articles (instead of one); that you shouldn't expose your beliefs publicly if you can't stand criticism; that there a thousand laws and rights I don't agree with 'cause they are just stupid; but I'll indeed lay off, once you have an obvious emotional and finantial bond to homeopathy. You just won't let go such a poor piece of evidence... Peace!
vrcota 2 years ago
Even if science doesn't support it, popular acceptance is the bottom line. But even by your terms your argument fails. If it is a placebo, then it shouldn't have any observable effects biochemically or on plants and animals. If you were a scientist, you'd recognize this, and not poison your mind with a priori belief. If you ever really had to face the evidence, comprehensively, in practice and theory, you would wither with such a mindset. You're not a neuro scientist, you're a fake & a menace.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Comment removed
vrcota 2 years ago
James Randi said homeopathy doesn't work. The beginning of your video suggest otherwise.
technoway 2 years ago
Homeopathy is rubbish.
puttanesca621 2 years ago
so let's get this straight - "lasers" have some magic ability to distinguish between "homeopathic" water (i.e. pure water) and regular water (pure water again), just because it's been "succussed"? BTW for the laymen, that apparently just means "shaken". LOL.
Falco98 2 years ago
Google the "structure liquid water roy" from Penn State and Stanford. Check out what Tiller, Josephson say about it. Run "homeopathy" on Pubmed and see how many hits it returns. Read some of the abstracts of the in vitro, in vivo, biochemical, biolocial, botanical, long term mass clinical, theory, spectroscopic, NMR and other physical studies that have been done on homeopathy. Given your stated prejudice, you should be amazed. But I suspect you've drank the atheist koolaid and gone blind.
Bandershot 2 years ago
If I go to a homeopath and aquire a solution would you be able to tell me what it is? I would send you the sample without tampering with it except to remove the label. Would that prove that water has memory?
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
Yes. Homeopathy would not be the legal, developed science that it is if that distinction couldn't be made. All commonly used h. remedies have been subjected to "provings.' Homeopaths were the first to use double blind testing to test the effects of their remedies on human subjects. Several reporters claim to have made that distinction using modern instrumentation. Baumgartner, Roy, Conte, Elmiger. Spectroscopy appears to be the most reliable method. It can also be done botanically & in vitro
Bandershot 2 years ago
Okay, I got a negative vote for asking a fair and polite question. You are not nice. Good Bye and Good Luck in life.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
You haven't been fair or polite. Opponents of homeopaths never are.. I answered your questions the best I could and you stomp off taking your bad attitude with you. You'd never say what you've said using your real name. You seem to think you have some sort of license to belittle effective, legal medicine that for 200 yrs has held up under worse scrutiny than your silly presumptions. It should be no surprise that h. isn't in more widespread use with ignornace like yours so common.
Bandershot 2 years ago
You have no idea what your talking about "Read some of the abstracts of the in vitro, in vivo, biochemical, biolocial, botanical, long term mass clinical, theory, spectroscopic, NMR and other physical studies" what a load of shit.
myrmecia1977 2 years ago
Well, at least I'm referring to scientific studies rather than just calling names and getting nasty. So what's your point? Like God, homeopathy is not going away. So what good is it doing you to troll these sites and throw tantrums? You didn't send money to Randi, did you? That's it, isn't it? You've been strutting around telling everyone homeopathy is bunk, now science is proving you wrong and you're upset..
Bandershot 2 years ago
If you take papers in such higher ground, why don't you cite one from the very same respectable journal (Lancet) but eight years youger than Linde et al: Shang A. et al, Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32. Here's its final sentence: This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects. You mustn't base a medical practice on such a unstable ground such as homeopathy does. And please, complete the Witt ref. I'd like checking.
vrcota 2 years ago
Look at Shang again; it's a hatchet job. The lead investigator, Egger, REFUSES to name the mere eight studies (not 110) which the entire "meta-anlaysis" is done on. So who now are the pseudo scientists? Nobel prize winners like Josephson and Montagnier; renowned material scintsists like Roya nd Tiller, whose research throws the onus of proof back in the laps of the soffers, or Shang and Egger who are trying prove a negative?
If homeopathy is a delusion, it is a grand one.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Right on again!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Your cherry picking of discredited studies continues to be a joke - oh look here is another set of grounds to sue me!!! You don't know what your talking about - there you go sweetheart, off to your lawyer
myrmecia1977 2 years ago
I've seen what you're talking about. But where does it say anything about what it will be paid for? I phoned the Philly office of GS where's it kept and asked for confirmation. They refused. Within a week they ordered Randi to remove their name from his website. He was so furious he had a heart attack! Said I ruined JREF.
Even if the money is real, it doesn't mean it'll be paid out. Read Randi's "rules." Sorry, you lose again. Too bad. It's not a valid offer. Prove that it is & win $100,000!
Bandershot 2 years ago
So psychics and dowsers and tarot readers and astrologers and palm readers and mind readers and time travelers and remote viewers and past lifers and faith healers and psychic surgeons and numerologists and homeopaths are to believed and handed a million dollars when they put on their parlor shows without being tested by someone other than a believer? Do tell.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
The million dollars is in a portfolio with Goldman Sachs. The information is posted publicly and online.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
doesn't prove anything. and its not in cash. its in "negotiable bonds." what are those? jref can't answer. they could be junk bonds.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand what the statement for that portfolio says? Cause it doesn't take a Series 6 to explain it. Perhaps you should go back to playing in the kiddie pool.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
hey have a look at this...
vithoulkas . com / content/ view/ 1973/lang, en/
IT SHOWS JAMES RANDI BACKING OUT OF A DOUBLE BLIND HOMEOPATHIC CLINICAL TRIAL WHEN HE WAS TAKEN UP FOR THE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE.
Not all homeopaths are idiots, some of us do consider homeopathy an undiscovered science rather than a hippie drug.
DrPhos 2 years ago
He didn't back out he was ill. Also the group that agreed to be tested said that they had spent 2 years preparing for the challenge. Funny that they needed 2 years for something that has been around for 200 years.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
That's just low. He was ill at the moment, and because he couldn't stand up for one day you're making up all kinds of bullshit already?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Would someone please explain to me why would anyone think that trying to cure a disease by ingesting loads of water with extremely small dilutions of said disease is a viable treatment method?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
What makes you think that "ingesting loads of water" has anything to do with homeopathy? If you want to understand homeopathy better, do some investigation. Check out the links in the vid decription field. If you can be nice, I'll be happy to try to answer your questions the best I can. But first read the Structure of Liquid Water by Roy et al and look at some of the references and note the authors. Fair enough?
John
Bandershot 2 years ago
"If you want to understand homeopathy better, do some investigation."
That's not helpful. At all. In fact this makes you look like you have no answer to such a simple question despite you making videos about it.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
If you want good answers, ask good questions. People aren't ingesting "loads of water" in homeopathic treatment. Your probloem is that you're not really asking a question that has to do with reality, like "when are you going to stop asking stupid questions?"
Bandershot 2 years ago
So you can't tell me exactly why anyone should even consider not laughing at the field you're professing expertise in.
Instead you offer vague directions in response to what is an overtly simple question, to justify your outlook.
You're a shameless liar, basically. Good job.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
He's right. It isn't loads of water. It is just a few drops of water. I'm not surprised that homeopathy works on plants. My plants are often made healthier by a good watering.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
Pardon, loads of water in comparison to amount of actual substance used.
And, hey, homeopathy works in general. Placebo is a very real thing, after all.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Homeopathy worked for me. Three times for the same accute complaint, I have no problems with belladonna.
camij79 2 years ago
Same here. Works fine for most people who try it. Seems like there's other more important things for the angry about homeopathy crowd to get upset over, like the number of deaths from vaccinations that could be replaced by nosode prophylaxis.
Thanks for commenting.
Bandershot 2 years ago
Funny how "delusion" comes in the form of a large body of high quality lab and clinical trial evidencing for h., the work of renowned scientists at Stanford, Cambridge, Penn State and Arizona U, the evidence of the recent Cuban success using h. to defend against leptospirosis, 200 years of high quality provings and the testimony of tens of millions of adherents of h. around the world.
My opinion: the delusions are in the minds of those who deny the truth, the facts and the evidence.
den151redbank 2 years ago 2
Well said. Thanks for commenting.
Bandershot 2 years ago
So, where can I find some more details on this "large body of high quality lab and clinical trial evidencing for h"?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
ARE YOU BLIND? THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION FIELD! THEY'VE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG!
(No wonder he doesn't get it.)
Now in order to try to save face he'll probably try to tell us about the "sloppy methodology" and how they all are.
Bandershot 2 years ago
The cohort study examined multiple ailments, meaning you're going to get a lot of noise in the data. There was no effort to establish a baseline. There was no control or placebo group, making it impossible to differentiate homeopathy from the natural courses of the diseases. The "headaches in women" for example is a comically broad category with a wide range of causes.
The study was incompetently constructed unless one wanted a good SOUNDING study whose results would be easily manipulated.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Those who believe in Homeopathy are self deluded, please seek a way to reverse the delusion. There is a better way to understand the world than self delusion and that is through independent critical thinking. Some humans are not capable of that - they are to be pitied.
dynamikausa 2 years ago
Those who don't believe in Homeopathy are in self denial & deluded. Please seek a way to reverse the delusion. There is a better way to understand the world than self delusion and that is through independent critical thinking. Some humans are not capable of that - they are to be pitied.
mohanaturo 2 years ago
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you.
dynamikausa 2 years ago
I used to pity deluded fools like you, then I realized that your reliance upon homeopathy means you're more likely to be killed off bu disease. Hopefully, infections diseases will prove a very effective agent of evolution in culling retards like you form the herd.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Wait a sec there, Mr. Logic. How do you explain the commercial success of homeopathic Zicam and Oscillococcinum, both h. remedies? A pharmacist at Bimart told me the other day he's been using Zicam for 15 years and that its the best cold remedy on the market! EVERY PHARMACY CARRIES IT!Same w/ oscillo for the swine flu! You got that? Doctors are now recommending a common commercial OTC product as a preventive for the swine flu! So maybe you got it reversed? Now who's in danger of Darwinism?
Bandershot 2 years ago
Zicam is not a homeopathic remedy. It just uses the term in its marketing. The Zincum Gluconicum is "only" a 2x dilution. There's still enough in it for "western" definitions of a clinical dosage. . As a matter of fact, it violates the law of "like cures like" as the Zinc doesn't cause flue like symptoms! The folks who regulate what's labeled "homeopathic" should be taking Zicam to task for such a blatant misuse of the term.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Wait a minute, how does that make any sense using skeptologic? If everything you've said in the past is true, then why would they take something that isn't homeopathic and call it that? Unless, of course, all of your defamations have had just the opposite intended effect.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but the FDA governs it under HPUS terms, such as "2x" (look it up) to determine what is and isn't homeopathic. So it is legally homeopathic.
Now, what about Oscillococcinum? Come on!
Bandershot 2 years ago
As for Oscillococcinum the popularity of a thing doesn't mean it magically works. As the Wikipedia entry points out:
"it is used for the relief of symptoms of flu, a self-limiting disease which lasts for a variable number of days ... If one takes any medication and one's flu goes away, then it is easy to attribute this to the medication; however, the infection would have resolved anyway"
Oscillococcinum is just a classic example of confirmation bias.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Thank you for that ridiculous explanation. (He uses Wikipedia as his final authority.) Sure you want to go with that? Don't want to call your brother or ask the audience? Look, turn on your light bulb if it isn't burned out already. Tell us something we don't know, okay? YOU put it on trial. Not Wikipedia, YOU. Stop giving us YOUR theories and putting everybody's else down for "sloppy methodology," YOU show us how its done. That's fair, isn't it?
DISPROVE OSCILLOCOCCINUM!
RCT or STFU!
Bandershot 2 years ago
I have one physical ailment that was relieved by my experience of homeopathy. I had mastitis and I had this on five occasions with two infants. Homeopathic beladonna cured me of this infection each time within one half hour of taking the pilules with no side effects. Accute infection cured. What is the problem? It worked.
camij79 2 years ago
Way things are going with Randi's videos being removed for "violation of terms of use", this may end up the last portal for his cult's hate messages
annesash 2 years ago
Randi is all back, FULLY restored, after a posible copyright infringment, but due to the fact the copyright owner was a mate of Randis there was no problem.
Your all, gullible fools, I wonder if you'll stick to this rubbish if ya get a dose of cancer????
And Quite how any of you, so called rational adults can take this bandershot clown seriously is worrying indeed.
This is pure drivel, you arn't fit to speak James Randis name.
Where Pray is the SCIENTIFIC evidence??
What is the mechanism??
martiangrundy 2 years ago
I don't know, he's looking kind of frail. Maybe he needs a homeopath. Hey, let me ask you, since you seem to know so much. Why is it YOU clowns w/your 5cents worth of junk bonds haven't run a double blind super duper RTC trial of Zicam, the homeopathic cold remedy? Are you going to declare yourself the winner & run away because it's not your job? Why not? Million's use it but you don't because you're so smart? Where's Randi's published proof? We got ours, where's yours? Prove its a placebo!
Bandershot 2 years ago
Calling for scientific proof is "hate"?
You learn something new every day.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Flakingnapstitch, I refer to the anti-homeopathy mob's disproportionate propensity for personal abuse, swearing, ridicule, presumptive generalisations of individuals you dont know, in their posts.
annesash 2 years ago
So being a jerk means you're automatically wrong?
Interesting.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Most likely, yes, it does. Jerks being defined as people who spout opinions based on their lack of personal experience and lack of knowledge of the subject.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You should read Eustace Mullins' 'Murder by Injection' , Bandershot.
Thanks to that book I started to really understand why Homeopathy is not the main basis of healthcare, these days.
Eustace Mullins shows us how the Rockefellers bought the American Medical Association, how the Rockefellers bought the medical faculties of American universities and how they introduced their healthcare ensurances (excluding homeopathy) , vaccination and fluoridation besides their pharmaceutical monopoly.
Hank48E 2 years ago
Thanks, I'll check it out!
best wishes
b
Bandershot 2 years ago
the way you mash up this video shows what a nutter you really are.
not that that disproves homeopathy, it merely indicates what kind of people are peddling it..
homeopathy is a laughing stock.
if it worked, t