(...cont) however, until we are actually able to observe & examine these properties, invoking proposed mechanisms of homeopathic Tx as fact is pointless. Neither 'side' of the debate has firm leg to stand on in terms of HOW the homeopathic treatments 'work'. A plethora of bad science (again on both 'sides') makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions. Tentatively, the evidence of homeopathic Tx efficacy is weak, however NOT so weak that it should be sidelined. We need more unbiased RCTs.
I agree that there is much pseudoscepticism touted in the homeopathy debate. Yes, the homeopathic mechanism is biologically implausible, however its stupid to use EBM to try and argue about the properties of H2O (or matter in general) when our understanding of physics and molecular physiology is so primitive. Comments like "chemistry and physics show us that homeopathy cannot work" are completely guilty of pseudoscience and misrepresentation of the current state of knowledge. (cont--->)
I am a scientist and I use Arnica and find its effects very benificial. I recently sprained my right shoulder and have been on the Arnica for a week or so. Good stuff
There are a LOT of extremely arrogant and ill-informed people who think that they represent "scientific medicine" but sadly (and strangely), they have been shown to have a quite unscientific attitude. These "medical fundamentalists" do not understand homeopathy, and they do not seem to even understand GOOD science. Because I do not want these people to air their arrogance/ignorance, I do not allow such people to post here.
Pseudoskepticism should be classified as a religion.
Homeopathy is science backed by studies done by 3 Nobel Laureate scientists in Chemistry(Hans Von Euler), Physics(Brian Josephson) and Physiology & Medicine(Luc Montagnier) and numerous other scientists who are specialists in their fields of work.
-- Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941.
-- Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.
I am a former patient who got homeopathic treatment, it is something i just took without seriousness but i was suprissed that i got its effect just after a few days, i had arstma. During my visits to the clinik i happened to come in contact with many other patients and the stories i had from them......!!!! i just wish u could document these things! that was in Uganda, kampala
@Skarotum What a sicko because you embarrass yourself with your ignorance AND arrogance. Read the actual research on homeopathy, not just what the deniers and medical fundamentalists say...
@NiPPleS404 One of the definitions of "nano" is one-billionth...but the ORIGIN of the word derives from the word "dwarf" or very small...and just as Steven Jobs used this word for one of his products, the word "nano" is commonly used to suggest something very small and yet very powerful...and that is a good description of what homepathic medicines are and do...
I can say from personal experience that homeopathic medicine has worked for me. Whether it was sore throat/tonsil problems that I previously took antibiotics for 17yrs of my life, because it was persistent and stubbourn and nothing natural wanted to work, or whether it was due to depression, that nothing else natural could pull me out of. It can't be a placebo effect, because then the other natural remedies would have worked too, but the didn't. If you're not getting results, change homeopaths.
@ilduce565 This individual provides additional evidence that "skeptics" of homeopathy are not educated. "Homeopathy" is obviously too large of a word for him/them. They are a sad sad lot (and under-educated). Statistics continually show that people who use homeopathy are more educated than those who don't.
@HomeopathicDana i mean dont get me wrong im only a 16 year old and i havnt done any serious research on this whatsoever, ive just been reading about it for a week or so, but to me the idea of infinately tiny particles of stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water is like selling sand to arabs, and most definately somwere taking money away from old or sick people who need it more than the people who make this stuff, but thats just ethical issues with the cost of this
@metalsinani Hey kid. Please do your homework before making uneducated statements (you are proving my point). My point also is that scientific surveys consistently find that people who seek homeopathic care are more educated than those who don't. And please, be humble in your ignorance of homeopathy and the physics of water. You will be blocked at this site if you continue to show how little homework you do...
@HomeopathicDana its realy hard to be banned from youtube because of comments. i have a qusestion though i saw some sleeping pills at my local pharmasy that the had cafine in it. last time a checked cafine was a drug that caued you to stay awake. how can simpaly adding this to water and diluting it change the afffect. pardon any spelling errors
@strideisgood Homeopathic doses of caffeine have the opposite effect than crude doses cause. I suggest that you learn about homeopathy more so that you can understand it better.
Lancet 1997 Metastudy on Homeopathy (w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov pubmed 9310601)
FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy.
We dont know why it works or why gravity works either, but it does. It is a repeatable scientific experiment. Try it for yourself. Originally it was performed with non-dilute tinctures. It was found that _succussed_ diluted solutions worked better.
So..., bias. By now i asume that you have already checked wikipedia or google. but anyhow, ill still give my view on it.
If, during some process, the same kind of misstake repeatedly is made, the outcome will be biased. A researcher usualy hopes/wants his experiment to turn out a certain way, since you are not allowed to change your project plan as you go along. Unconciously, he might then put a larger amount of verry sick people in the control group, to boost the trail group.
The problem is, during evaluation of the project, when the data is analysed, you can not destinguish from some kinds of bias and the actual effects of the trial.
Lest say that you have a six sided die. You are testing a person that say "im lycky, i get mostly sixes"
If he get sixes 1/3 throws it might be that the edges of the die is manipulated so that the results are biased OR that he actualy is lucky. you can only conclude that the result is nonrandom, but not WHY it is so.
Getting rid of the chance that the results might be biased in an obvious way, such as you giving him a random die each throw (even a chance for it to be his own die) and him not knowing which die he is given (if he holds his own in a special way) will then let you conclude that he actualy is "lucky", which is a lot stronger results than not being able to destinguish between "lucky" AND/OR biased results.
Now that you know, do you agree that those tests are useful and good?
He explains it like a vaccine, but vaccines PREVENT diseases by getting the body to create antibodies. This doesn't work after the fact because once you have a disease or infection the antibodies are already there.
Chucanelli thinks he is so smart, and he may be smart on OTHER subjects, but he doesn't understand science or medicine. The homeopathic "principle of similars" is also a part of allergy treatment, radiation (used to treat cancer, even though it causes it), & many other examples. Because symptoms are defenses, it makes SENSE to support that defense with the homeopathic principle.
(7) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941.
NOTE: All of the references belw are to "high impact" conventional medical journals. If governmental bodies choose to ignore this large body of evidence, they are sewing the seeds of people losing faith of governmental bodies to truly serve the needs of the citizenry.
As you have taken the time to provide evidence for your beliefs as requested, I think it only fair that before others make a critique on your video, they read the full articles.
From reading the comments so far, there is a lot of back and forth. Perhaps these studies can provide a more meaningful debate. I'll get back to you next week.
(3) Jacobs J, et al, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229- 34.
(4) Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2007.
(5) Bell IR, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.
Vickers and Claire (2009) - an update to the withdrawn 2007 paper that you referenced (reference 4) - "Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes"
Oscillo has proven benefits in the TREATMENT of the flu (not its "prevention"). The reason that it was "withdrawn" is that its author has no plans to update it. The research to date is still totally VALID.
Right...but you did not choose the quote that shows that there IS a difference between Oscillo and placebo...these studies are large and they verify that Oscillo 200C (!!!!) has a clinical benefit. It may not be as large as Tamiflu, but it does not have the same baggage that Tamiflu has...& Tamiflu is getting less & less effective.
No I just quoted the conclusion, I'll take another look but to state clinical significance sure is something to then miss out in the conclusion. I'm dubious about tamiflu.
"Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes" - BUT the data is PROMISING...this is a massive review, you can't reference as evidence FOR homeopathy, you can't even say it is false, you say what they say. no evidence but further work is needed.
"Any good medical school".....I'm not an MD in training, therefore I don't go to medical school. I work at a university, but we still don't get access to every subscription. I'm trying to play ball, I'm taking the time to explore YOUR references, I am coming back with evidence based critique, NOT saying it is crap like everyone else, just critique....you should do this with every article, especially medical. When I've gotten through the rest, I'll provide some articles 4u.
Thank you for the offer, please don't take this as a slight, but I prefer to remain anonymous. I can say my opinion when anonymous, but when I am not I risk representing my university. I don't know you enough to trust what I say is confidential. Considering the climate where Simon Singh is sued for simply reporting findings, it's not worth it. But, once the review is out of the way, I'll be in touch.
I have no problem with your decision to be anonymous...good luck to ya...
By the way, I'm still unclear on the study you discussed above that was double-blind...but you say that the researchers "knew" which patients were in the control & tx groups. Which study was that...and I still wonder if what you say is accurate. Don't take this defensively...I too always strive for accuracy.
No offence taken at all. I'm glad you are challenging my statements. The study was Taylor, they state that the patient and doctor are blind which means it IS double-blind to a point. There is clearly something going on, but as the researchers are aware of the conditions it is difficult to ascertain it is not demand characteristics. "Patients were unaware that the phials contained placebo, although the researchers were not blinded." (p472). Bell et al (2004) was a true double blind.
HA! I'm sorry to report that you have clearly mis-understood what was written here (heck, we all make such mistakes). What the researchers are saying is simply that they were not blind to the fact that a placebo was involved. There is NOTHING here that diminishes the value of the experiment by THIS admission. This study was a true double-blind trial.
HA? Are you serious? Are you saying that the researchers are stating in an article, that has such strict word counts that even methodologies are drastically summarisedd, that they are merely aware a placebo is involved?!?! That goes without saying, they are the ones doing the research, of course they know a placebo is involved! No, Dana, they are saying, the researchers carrying out the measures KNEW which participant was in which trial. That is my point. I fail to see how that is not clear.
I've re-read this and I cannot see how this means that the researchers, carrying out the measures, did not know which participant belonged to which. But by your initial excitement, I can see there is not any convincing you so I'll just smile, nod and read the next article in due course.
Actually, you are right. The researchers knew...but the article highlights several times that this study was double-blinded because neither the doctor nor the patient knew. Please do not assume that my mind is closed.
For the Taylor article, I think it is safe to say that the treatment stage is true double blind (doctor-patient) and the evaluation stage in single blind (patient only, researcher aware). Single blind is better than no blinding, but this article is not as strong as stated. Therefore, influence can occur. I am not saying it did, but I cannot say it didn't. The Bell et al (2004) is a true double blind throughout. I am more confident that it didn't occur here.
What is great about this video/forum is that you are discussing using an evidence base. As homeopathic discourse can often be similar to religious discourse ("more to life than evidence", "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there", "i just KNOW it works") then there is never going to be compatibility with science as when the findings are presented against, they are ignored, when they are positive, they are accepted (like religion). But you are considering the evidence. Kudos.
Bell et al (2004) - this is the best one by far. The selection procedure involves contacting an entire community reducing selection bias. HR was chosen using H principles, condition was confirmed, other healthy variables were controlled for. True double blind - "All clinicians
and research staff interacting with and assessing patients were kept
blinded as to group assignments, including dropouts, for the
Prevents the subjects from inadvertently figuring out whether they are on the treatment or the control based on the behaviour of the study personnel. Especially important if the trial has proceeded far enough that the site staff come to conclusions about the study drug or the control- for example they may behave differently towards known control subjects if they've come to believe that the study drug is working better than the control.
1) Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008.
(2) Taylor, MA,et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471 -476.
Hi Dana, I've had a chance to briefly read through your first article which was very interesting. Ludtke & Rutten (2008) critique Shang's (2005) paper, exploring how heterogeneity between trials makes the results of a meta-analysis less reliable but sadly they conclude: "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." (p1203). But I'm assuming you referenced to note methodology issues, not evidence. I'll read Taylor next week.
Had a read of Taylor et al (2000) - good study. They conclude that homeopathy is not a placebo. It is a RCT design, but as the researchers are aware of the conditions it could be argued against being double blind. Following the McMaster University tool, due to the recruitment ("prescribers were familiar with homoeopathic principles") and failing to report attrition rate following a strict exclusion criteria, the study is not 'strong'.
You missed the point here. It does not matter if prescribers were "familiar" with homeopathic principles or not when the study is randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. You're smart enough to know this...
Look Dana, I'm not saying it's crap, i'm saying that the McMaster tool indicates that the sample is selected, this brings its score down. Simple. The researchers knew which vial was placebo, they interacted with patients. But on the whole, this is a good study. I've not finished with the others yet. No need to be so defensive.
What is your evidence that this double-blind trial was not double-blind and that the researchers "knew" which patients were given a placebo and which ones were given the homeopathic medicine?
it is double blind as in the doctor does not know, the participant does not know. But the researchers state in the article that they DO know who is in which trial and they carry out the subjective assessment. Therefore, though technically double blind, they can influence the participant. This may sound minor, but it is actually very important. it is so easy to give away subtle cues, even by accident.
Looking at the results, the alpha value is certainly impressive. it would have been more impressive if they had reported the effect size., Sadly, they "did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated [they] required." This means that the analysis is not as robust as it should have been. Nevertheless, a good article supporting that something is going on. Interestingly, they report that there were no subjective effects (the participants reported no difference).
Not at all, I would say, wow that man can fly excellent....wait, lets try this is various scenarios to ensure there are no other variables, such as strings, affecting the experiment. It wouldn't mean I didn;t believe, I am disproving a hypothesis.
"Just because it doesnt have 100% scientific evidence does not mean it is a practice that should be dismissed. It needs more time and research and people claim to have positive results so ..."
Just because it doesnt have 100% scientific evidence does not mean it is a practice that should be dismissed. It needs more time and research and people claim to have positive results so ...
Is it OK to take homeopathic treatments for maleria as im going to south america and i did not like the side effects from the tablet my doctor gave me the last time?
How about taking medicine that does have "active ingredient" and using conventional care? The two of them combined kill upwards of 784,000 Americans every single year.
I couldn't help but laugh at 1:15 when he says that homeopaths were "too scientific". Sure nano in no way means both "very small" and "very powerful" but the video really comes alive at 3:03 when he almost says "clinical science studies", realizes that couldn't be true, and quickly changes it to "clinical practice" whatever that means. If only my body was like the ocean and diluting a substance to nothing had anything to do with waves; sonic, radio, or otherwise. Insidious use of flawed logic.
Sorry, Dana, not to be nice to KS. Unfortunately, I don't think reaching out to these people is worthwhile simply because their blindness makes them unreachable.
Please don't use the phrase sound scientific thinking in the same context as something which breaks the laws of science. It makes you sound dumber than I already think you are.
I am genuinely interested though, can you please message me a list of references which provide "good sound scientific thinking" that back up all of your claims. I, for one, am open minded as to your claims.
I keep requesting from evidence from homeopaths when they offer products but the usual retort is that the scientific measures are not compatible, for example,a double blind RCT. But as you support the scientific approach I am hoping you will help me.
The evidence I have read so far is not impressive. Selection Bias is prevalent throughout. But I AM interested, I am performing a systematic review into the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. But I am uncertain as to what area to focus upon, hence why asking you for references, which you so carefully refused to do. I get the same reaction from all those trying to make money from it.
I have had treatments that have had an effect, until I read up on it. Then the placebo effect fades.
You're 25 years old and state that you "find making videos addictive". You have ZERO qualifications that could make your statements credible.
".....hence why asking you for references. I get the same reaction from all those trying to make money from it."
1. why haven't you bothered to look at PubMed?
2. EVERYONE in the health care field makes money. GUESS WHAT, if they didn't, there would be NO doctors or educators because they would be doing something else to support themselves!
You are a 67 year old who surrounds himself with fellow believers, spending his time trying to refute those that ask for evidence. But I am sure that you are more than what your account tells me. For example, I can tell that you are ageist because you reference my age and ASSUME I cannot be qualified. Making videos is a hobby, I separate this from my profession.
I have no problem in medical professionals making money....
"I have had treatments that have had an effect, until I read up on it. Then the placebo effect fades."
GUESS WHAT AGAIN? The placebo effect is very temporary. You must be very suggestible if "placebo" makes you better and the "placebo" of reading a negative comment about the treatment makes the symptoms come back!
Two issues....you are assuming I had symptoms when I did not. I used a homeopathic remedy, I felt benefits. Issue with my statement, I made it seem as there was no gap in time, apologies, there was a large gap. When I had become educated and had the treatment again out of academic interest, the effect was no longer there.
I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
@HomeopathicDana You are promoting something which has been disproven by scientific tests many times. It's usage prevents many people from getting useful medical treatment. You shouldn't be surprised that we care about what you are doing here - it's because we care about our fellow humans and don't want them abused and exploited by quacks.
@stefanmuch2k -- You are either totally misinformed about homeopathic research (clinical research AND basic science research) or you are purposefully misinforming people OR BOTH. Do your homework...you're not in high school anymore.
Why are you trying to belittle him? Saying he is high school is like saying he's immature because he disagrees with you.
He simply retorted to your comment.
But I agree to an extent, there is evidence for SOME treatments....you know what happens....it becomes Medicine! It goes through rigorous trials and is perfected....may I ask which of your products have the same standard of testing?
Impressive, but please don't take it personally. I don't find your videos, you or your beliefs a threat, It is very sad of those that do. What I find offensive is that you are trying to make money from vulnerable people. You are a very charismatic, like-able guy who is using scientific gibberish to sell his product. Nothing more. Sadly, when asked for evidence, you spout off about skeptics and how we should find the evidence. No my friend, it should be you, and that evidence should be sound.
There are no facts to homeopathy, I am sick and tired of listening to people like you undermine good science. What is the big problem with conventional medicine? billions of people have got better on it, Clinical research shows the efficacy beyond doubt of the drugs used in conventional medicine. why do you cling to this crackpot "medicine" which has equivocal evidence at the very best? you are endagering lives by spreading this rubbish!
There are plenty of scientific facts supporting homeopathy. You simply prefer to deny them in order to validate your own personal views and agenda.
"Clinical research shows efficacy....". It shows efficacy for exactly 13% of conventional drugs. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the vast majority of conventional drugs work. See the BMJ. If they did work, no one could say how they worked. Sound familiar?
If you doubt it, here's a quote from Dr. Roses, VP, GSK,
as reported in the 12/8/03, issue of The Independent (nothing has changed since 2003):
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people." The article gives these examples: Alzheimer's drugs, effective in 30 %, cancer treatments effective in 25 %, incontinence drugs effective in 40 %.
The facts about h. are that: 1) it cures chronic diseases not otherwise treatable like diabetes 2) it's more effective at preventing epidemics of flu,
leptospirosis, cholera, typhus, etc., than conv med and treating those illnesses AND this is proven and documented, 3) it's used by tens of millions of people around the world BECAUSE it WORKS BEAUTIFULLY.
Sorry you don't like the facts. Your denial of the facts does not change them.
I have absolutely no interest in what you're sick and tired of. If you don't like homeopathy, use what you do like -- whether it works or not.
Oh yes, one last word, the use of homeopathy around the world grows every single year BECAUSE IT WORKS. My friends and family saw how it worked for me and used it themselves. They liked it and told their friends who told their friends..........
If any reader here would truly like to see the scientific evidence, links are available at Bandershot's videos.
accurate scientifically sound tests merely indicate that homeopathy is AT BEST the same as placebo. I fail to see how this can be promoted as efficacy
here's a challenge for you then. You take 400 prescription sleeping tablets and i'll take 400 homeopathetic ones and let's see which one of us sleeps the longest
Right off the bat you prove your ignorance of homeopathy--which leads directly to a foolish and meaningless challenge.
There is no such thing as a "homeopathic sleeping pill". How is it that you didn't know that?
Naturally, anyone who took 400 conventional sleeping pills would sleep the longest for the simple reason that their body would be lying on a metal gourney in the morgue.
Far be it from me to make a negative comment about conventional med but that's the difference between homeopathy
homeopathy is NOT inexpensive. water is so cheap yet what's the price of the average homeopath solution? and the reason they have no side effects is because they have no active ingredients, and thus can only be concluded to be the placebo effect at work. There is NO OTHER valid conclusion that can be made from that. Believe what you will, but that's the only valid connclusion that can be made
Homeopathics are inexpensive as well as safe and effective. A tube of 80 pellets costs about $6 here in the US. If prepared in water and depending on dose and frequency, this one tube alone could cure chronic illnesses. This one tube alone could be used for half a life-time to treat recurring acute illnesses like flu.
Your valid conclusion is only valid in your own mind. Scientific work proves homeopathy to be not just effective but significantly and in some cases substantially effective.
see the fact that it doesn't work and people are paying for it defines it as expensive. if i charge you $6 to make your cold go away then is that money well spent?
lol what fact? All sound scientific tests indicate that homeopathy is AT BEST the SAME as the placebo effect. That is the fact, so if you can draw any other conclusion than that it merely indicates your total lack of understanding of the scientific method and the need for double ot triple blinding in scientific trial and in particular the testing of drugs and medication
You have NOT seen homeopathic "sleeping pills" in shops for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a h. "sleeping pill." If you knew anything about h., you would know this. Also, homeopathics don't work like sleeping pills and aren't sedatives or barbiturates.
I'm pointing out what the US District Court and drug companies themselves say about pharm. products which is exactly what I posted.
scratch US District Court and substitute US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - They just fined Pfizer $2.3 BILLION for fraudulent marketing of drugs for diseases they were never approved to treat. Not to mention $430 MILLION fine for criminal marketing activities.
so becasue a conventional drugs company is not ethical does that prove homeopathy works? 2 wrongs don't make a right, and homeopaths do the same thing daily!!!!
lol, that's why you believe it works? Well they do say there's one born evrey minute. Any regarding medicines, most are "toxins" with side-effects it's the dosage and benefits that outweigh these adverse effects that make them worth while morphine and chemotheraphy being just 2 examples
Yes, you are ignorant of homeopathy. Homeopathic caffeine (coffea) does help insomniacs sleep. BUT it is NOT a sleeping pill and does not act like a sleeping pill.
i suggest you searh youtube for "Ziztur swallows a bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills" or google homeopathic sleeping pils and see how many people are selling them then tell me they don't exist
Ziztur? She doesn't know the difference between a sleeping pill and a sleep aid. She claims Calms Forte is a "sleeping pill". Read the title of her vid. Calms Forte is a SLEEP AID as the manufacturer states.
The difference?
Sleeping pills are, as I noted earlier, sedatives and barbiturates--hypnotics that cause the user to fall asleep whether they want to or not.
Sleep aids reduce stress and tension and help the person fall asleep IF THEY WANT TO. They don't induce sleep.
Googling proves nothing. I'm well aware of the facts of homeopathic treatment. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HOMEOPATHIC SLEEPING PILL irregardless of what you've read or believe.
lol so what you are saying is that EVERY homeopathic solution is freshly made for an individual, so if that's the case WHY are there so many that are available off the shelf? Are you implying homeopaths are psyhic or that these are not homeopathic solutions?
Hey KalahariSurf...you are either not informed about homeopathy or mis-informed about it...it is not too late to become better informed but you have to read something other than the misinformation from certain skeptics' literature.
you are playing with semantics. This is a quote from their web site "" Are Hylands products regulated?
Yes, the manufacturing and marketing of Hylands Homeopathic Medicines are regulated as drugs by the FDA. The FDA has regulated homeopathic medicines since 1938" Re-read and NOTE "Hylands Homeopathic Medicines"
All legitamate homeopathic medicines ARE regulated by the FDA. By the way, the FDA was empowered by legislation in 1938 by a New York Senator (Royal Copeland) who was also an MD/homeopath & ophthamological surgeon.
My personal testimony after a dozen years' of homeopathic use and the testimony of tens of millions of other h. patients: homeopathy does not just work, it works beautifully. My friends and family tried it and were so impressed they told their friends who used it and told their friends.........
So sorry the "skeptics" prefer not to acknowledge the facts even as they've been proven clinically and scientifically.
Part of me gets angry as this fraud is insulting my intelligence with some of the weakest nonsense dressed up with pathetic pseudo techno garble as well as a completely moronic metaphor. On the other hand if you are stupid or vain enough to fall for this crap than maybe you deserve to be scammed out of your money? So instead of getting rilled up about it I might as well give this Dana character a pat on the shoulder for finding a lucrative swindle.
Part of you (a big part) should be ashamed of making ridiculous ad hominem attacks backed up by lack of knowledge, lack of personal experience but with plenty of ignorance mixed with arrogance.
Looks like you don't know what the word libel means or think anonymous posters are immune from taking responsibility for personal attacks. With all the evidence (scientific and clinical) supporting homeopathy you'd be the laughing stock in any court.
I personally don't think it does and don't use it but If others want to use it, let them.
I promote tolerance and learned a long time ago you cannot use logic to talk someone out of an opinion that they didn't use logic to talk themselves into.
Ooooo, scary. This guy (me!) has a book to sell! I actually want to educate people, as compared with skeptics who simply want to NOT do their homework and be and stay arrogant and ignorant. THAT is scary!
The fact you're looking for technical answers via youtube and twitter is extremely strange. Please do not expect me to hand your hand. Read my peer-review articles...read others' works. However, you're seemingly so close-minded, I'm wasting my time. Have a good day.
No...it won't. Try it yourself. In comparison, when you use homeopathy correctly, it will work...and the science backs this...sadly, skeptics are not skeptics; they are denialists.
Actually, it was homeopathy and homeopaths that helped STOP bloodletting. THAT is common knowledge of medical history. Sadly, skeptics of homeopathy spew misinformation and rarely do their homework.
Ok...for starters...but THIS is not a forum for detailed discussion. Check out the clinical improvement & the EEG reading differences:
Bell, IR, Lewis, DA, Brooks,et al, Improved Clinical Status in Fibromyalgia Patients Treated with Individualized Homeopathic Remedies Versus Placebo, Rheumatology, January 20, 2004:1111-7.
1. (empirical) ingesting some of your water tells me right away what it is (if it's the correct remedy for my illness). If it works, it's h. If it doesn't work, it's tap water.
2. If you have access to the equipment, examine it for electromagnetic remnant waves.
3. google clathrates, nanobubbles and crystal chemistry. Read the work of Roy and others, "Structure of Liquid Water". Read the work of Conte and others "Theory of High Dilutions".
My personal experience of many years = h. works beautifully, gently and dynamically. My friends, family and neighbors have had the same results. They're so pleased they pass their experiences on to their friends, family and neighbors.
You try to convince people that homeopathy is more effective than real medicine and surgery. You're killing people by preventing them from getting the real treatment they require.
Den, I hope I'm not giving you too much trouble all at once.
But let's say I decided to start a homeopathy fraud, telling people I'm selling them homeopathic remedies when I'm really just filling my vials with tapwater.
How would you tell them apart from the real thing?
An intelligent and scientific argument presented by a hater (atheist) who opposes homeopathy because he is offended by the fact that it works through energy (vital force, chi, ki, prana) rather than through the material body.
The emperor isn't just naked, he's ugly to boot.
After 12 years of homeopathic treatment I can only say that it's been wonderfully successful for chronic and acute illnesses, injuries, dental work and flu prevention. The animals love it too!
He's not confused. It's called a comparison. And as someone else who's dealt with dishonest creationists before, I can vouch for him; it's an appropriate comparison.
And what studies are you talking about? I asked earlier in the comments here, and the homeopathy apologists failed/refused to provide.
He's not confused. It's called a comparison. And as someone else who's dealt with dishonest creationists before, I can vouch for him; it's an appropriate comparison.
And what studies are you talking about? I asked earlier in the comments here, and the homeopathy apologists failed/refused.
den151redbank: both religion and homeopathy requires one to take a huge leap of faith, blindly trust it, ask no questions, avoid rational thought. Both have never been proven to be real.
"Both have never been proven to be real." Every reader here should know that homeopathy has been proven effective BEYOND PLACEBO in 200 studies and over 200 years of clinical use around the world. It has 1/2 BILLION adherents because it works.
Anyone truly interested in the facts proving h. efficacy can, for starters, read the report "Homeopathy: The Scientific Proofs of Efficacy". This report contains 65 studies and 10 clinical trials of the highest quality. It reads in part:
"A # of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM HAVE CONCLUDED THAT H. POSSESSES THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY." "Very briefly, a large body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of h. medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus, finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced
Many thanks for this brief introduction to Homeopathy!
I am happy to disclose that my complex health issues were relieved to a great extent by use of Homeo medicines.
gabsave 2 months ago
(...cont) however, until we are actually able to observe & examine these properties, invoking proposed mechanisms of homeopathic Tx as fact is pointless. Neither 'side' of the debate has firm leg to stand on in terms of HOW the homeopathic treatments 'work'. A plethora of bad science (again on both 'sides') makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions. Tentatively, the evidence of homeopathic Tx efficacy is weak, however NOT so weak that it should be sidelined. We need more unbiased RCTs.
tomrw54 5 months ago
I agree that there is much pseudoscepticism touted in the homeopathy debate. Yes, the homeopathic mechanism is biologically implausible, however its stupid to use EBM to try and argue about the properties of H2O (or matter in general) when our understanding of physics and molecular physiology is so primitive. Comments like "chemistry and physics show us that homeopathy cannot work" are completely guilty of pseudoscience and misrepresentation of the current state of knowledge. (cont--->)
tomrw54 5 months ago
I am a scientist and I use Arnica and find its effects very benificial. I recently sprained my right shoulder and have been on the Arnica for a week or so. Good stuff
JimmyV2009 5 months ago
There are a LOT of extremely arrogant and ill-informed people who think that they represent "scientific medicine" but sadly (and strangely), they have been shown to have a quite unscientific attitude. These "medical fundamentalists" do not understand homeopathy, and they do not seem to even understand GOOD science. Because I do not want these people to air their arrogance/ignorance, I do not allow such people to post here.
HomeopathicDana 7 months ago
Pseudoskepticism should be classified as a religion.
Homeopathy is science backed by studies done by 3 Nobel Laureate scientists in Chemistry(Hans Von Euler), Physics(Brian Josephson) and Physiology & Medicine(Luc Montagnier) and numerous other scientists who are specialists in their fields of work.
mohanaturo 7 months ago
Can you please source the studies confirming the effects of homeopathy?
CelerMortis 1 year ago
@CelerMortis ...here are
-- Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941.
-- Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
I am a former patient who got homeopathic treatment, it is something i just took without seriousness but i was suprissed that i got its effect just after a few days, i had arstma. During my visits to the clinik i happened to come in contact with many other patients and the stories i had from them......!!!! i just wish u could document these things! that was in Uganda, kampala
adabarong 1 year ago
@Skarotum What a sicko because you embarrass yourself with your ignorance AND arrogance. Read the actual research on homeopathy, not just what the deniers and medical fundamentalists say...
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
July 26th 2010 the British government emphatically backs the people's choice to seek homeopathy within the NHS, despite the propaganda against it.
Amygdala100 1 year ago
Nano is just a prefex for the numrical term 10−9 or 0.000000001
NiPPleS404 1 year ago
@NiPPleS404 One of the definitions of "nano" is one-billionth...but the ORIGIN of the word derives from the word "dwarf" or very small...and just as Steven Jobs used this word for one of his products, the word "nano" is commonly used to suggest something very small and yet very powerful...and that is a good description of what homepathic medicines are and do...
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
@csmcmillion No and No
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Finally; a man who knows what he is talking about.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
I can say from personal experience that homeopathic medicine has worked for me. Whether it was sore throat/tonsil problems that I previously took antibiotics for 17yrs of my life, because it was persistent and stubbourn and nothing natural wanted to work, or whether it was due to depression, that nothing else natural could pull me out of. It can't be a placebo effect, because then the other natural remedies would have worked too, but the didn't. If you're not getting results, change homeopaths.
izabelaR 1 year ago
@ilduce565 This individual provides additional evidence that "skeptics" of homeopathy are not educated. "Homeopathy" is obviously too large of a word for him/them. They are a sad sad lot (and under-educated). Statistics continually show that people who use homeopathy are more educated than those who don't.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
@HomeopathicDana i mean dont get me wrong im only a 16 year old and i havnt done any serious research on this whatsoever, ive just been reading about it for a week or so, but to me the idea of infinately tiny particles of stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water is like selling sand to arabs, and most definately somwere taking money away from old or sick people who need it more than the people who make this stuff, but thats just ethical issues with the cost of this
metalsinani 1 year ago
@metalsinani Hey kid. Please do your homework before making uneducated statements (you are proving my point). My point also is that scientific surveys consistently find that people who seek homeopathic care are more educated than those who don't. And please, be humble in your ignorance of homeopathy and the physics of water. You will be blocked at this site if you continue to show how little homework you do...
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
@HomeopathicDana its realy hard to be banned from youtube because of comments. i have a qusestion though i saw some sleeping pills at my local pharmasy that the had cafine in it. last time a checked cafine was a drug that caued you to stay awake. how can simpaly adding this to water and diluting it change the afffect. pardon any spelling errors
strideisgood 1 year ago
@strideisgood Homeopathic doses of caffeine have the opposite effect than crude doses cause. I suggest that you learn about homeopathy more so that you can understand it better.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Comment removed
Catherine8raw 1 year ago
Lancet 1997 Metastudy on Homeopathy (w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov pubmed 9310601)
FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy.
We dont know why it works or why gravity works either, but it does. It is a repeatable scientific experiment. Try it for yourself. Originally it was performed with non-dilute tinctures. It was found that _succussed_ diluted solutions worked better.
randomcoolzip 1 year ago
@N3CR1S @dantheman
So..., bias. By now i asume that you have already checked wikipedia or google. but anyhow, ill still give my view on it.
If, during some process, the same kind of misstake repeatedly is made, the outcome will be biased. A researcher usualy hopes/wants his experiment to turn out a certain way, since you are not allowed to change your project plan as you go along. Unconciously, he might then put a larger amount of verry sick people in the control group, to boost the trail group.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@dantheman 2
The problem is, during evaluation of the project, when the data is analysed, you can not destinguish from some kinds of bias and the actual effects of the trial.
Lest say that you have a six sided die. You are testing a person that say "im lycky, i get mostly sixes"
If he get sixes 1/3 throws it might be that the edges of the die is manipulated so that the results are biased OR that he actualy is lucky. you can only conclude that the result is nonrandom, but not WHY it is so.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@dantheman 3
Getting rid of the chance that the results might be biased in an obvious way, such as you giving him a random die each throw (even a chance for it to be his own die) and him not knowing which die he is given (if he holds his own in a special way) will then let you conclude that he actualy is "lucky", which is a lot stronger results than not being able to destinguish between "lucky" AND/OR biased results.
Now that you know, do you agree that those tests are useful and good?
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S post 2
That kind of lack of logic in reasoning would be banned in any jornal or book worth reading.
Ever heard of affinity? avidity? concentration? mol? ratio? entropy?
N3CR1S 1 year ago
Personally I don't believe in Homeopathy. Not saying it doesn't work, only Head on never worked for me =(
Oranges generally work for me and they taste better than them pills!
MrNoucfeanor 1 year ago
He explains it like a vaccine, but vaccines PREVENT diseases by getting the body to create antibodies. This doesn't work after the fact because once you have a disease or infection the antibodies are already there.
Chucanelli 1 year ago
Chucanelli thinks he is so smart, and he may be smart on OTHER subjects, but he doesn't understand science or medicine. The homeopathic "principle of similars" is also a part of allergy treatment, radiation (used to treat cancer, even though it causes it), & many other examples. Because symptoms are defenses, it makes SENSE to support that defense with the homeopathic principle.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
The fairest thing to suggest is that people do their own unbiased research into this area before risking their health to it.
This man would clearly profit from selling his book (and you should always be wary when money could be the motive behind what someone is telling you).
Also, it is always suspicious when you are being told that something 'makes sense'.
It suggests that they don't want you to find empirical evidence or independent testing - they just want you to believe what sounds right.
adamlyons87 1 year ago
Comment removed
Parau1990 1 year ago
3 Nobel Laureate scientists have done studies on high dilutions( similar to Homeopathic) and have proven their effects.
1. Hans Von Euler -
Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1929
2. Brian David Josephson -
Nobel Laureate Physics 1973
3. Luc Montagnier -
Nobel Laureate Physiology & Medicine 2009
mohanaturo 1 year ago
(7) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941.
NOTE: All of the references belw are to "high impact" conventional medical journals. If governmental bodies choose to ignore this large body of evidence, they are sewing the seeds of people losing faith of governmental bodies to truly serve the needs of the citizenry.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Thank you for providing these, Dana.
As you have taken the time to provide evidence for your beliefs as requested, I think it only fair that before others make a critique on your video, they read the full articles.
From reading the comments so far, there is a lot of back and forth. Perhaps these studies can provide a more meaningful debate. I'll get back to you next week.
Regards
djmkb
djmkb 1 year ago
(6) Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
(3) Jacobs J, et al, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229- 34.
(4) Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2007.
(5) Bell IR, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Vickers and Claire (2009) - an update to the withdrawn 2007 paper that you referenced (reference 4) - "Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes"
djmkb 1 year ago
Oscillo has proven benefits in the TREATMENT of the flu (not its "prevention"). The reason that it was "withdrawn" is that its author has no plans to update it. The research to date is still totally VALID.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
They do not conclude that it benefits it's treatment. What I wrote is word for word from the article.
djmkb 1 year ago
Right...but you did not choose the quote that shows that there IS a difference between Oscillo and placebo...these studies are large and they verify that Oscillo 200C (!!!!) has a clinical benefit. It may not be as large as Tamiflu, but it does not have the same baggage that Tamiflu has...& Tamiflu is getting less & less effective.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
No I just quoted the conclusion, I'll take another look but to state clinical significance sure is something to then miss out in the conclusion. I'm dubious about tamiflu.
djmkb 1 year ago
"Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes" - BUT the data is PROMISING...this is a massive review, you can't reference as evidence FOR homeopathy, you can't even say it is false, you say what they say. no evidence but further work is needed.
djmkb 1 year ago
I can't get access to the Jacobs et al (2003) study - anyone have access? I'll try and get it next week.
djmkb 1 year ago
Any good medical school will have it...
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Do you have it, Dana?
"Any good medical school".....I'm not an MD in training, therefore I don't go to medical school. I work at a university, but we still don't get access to every subscription. I'm trying to play ball, I'm taking the time to explore YOUR references, I am coming back with evidence based critique, NOT saying it is crap like everyone else, just critique....you should do this with every article, especially medical. When I've gotten through the rest, I'll provide some articles 4u.
djmkb 1 year ago
Sure...I have it, but not in electronic form. Let's take this discussion to email. My email is known.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Thank you for the offer, please don't take this as a slight, but I prefer to remain anonymous. I can say my opinion when anonymous, but when I am not I risk representing my university. I don't know you enough to trust what I say is confidential. Considering the climate where Simon Singh is sued for simply reporting findings, it's not worth it. But, once the review is out of the way, I'll be in touch.
djmkb 1 year ago
I have no problem with your decision to be anonymous...good luck to ya...
By the way, I'm still unclear on the study you discussed above that was double-blind...but you say that the researchers "knew" which patients were in the control & tx groups. Which study was that...and I still wonder if what you say is accurate. Don't take this defensively...I too always strive for accuracy.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
No offence taken at all. I'm glad you are challenging my statements. The study was Taylor, they state that the patient and doctor are blind which means it IS double-blind to a point. There is clearly something going on, but as the researchers are aware of the conditions it is difficult to ascertain it is not demand characteristics. "Patients were unaware that the phials contained placebo, although the researchers were not blinded." (p472). Bell et al (2004) was a true double blind.
djmkb 1 year ago
HA! I'm sorry to report that you have clearly mis-understood what was written here (heck, we all make such mistakes). What the researchers are saying is simply that they were not blind to the fact that a placebo was involved. There is NOTHING here that diminishes the value of the experiment by THIS admission. This study was a true double-blind trial.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
HA? Are you serious? Are you saying that the researchers are stating in an article, that has such strict word counts that even methodologies are drastically summarisedd, that they are merely aware a placebo is involved?!?! That goes without saying, they are the ones doing the research, of course they know a placebo is involved! No, Dana, they are saying, the researchers carrying out the measures KNEW which participant was in which trial. That is my point. I fail to see how that is not clear.
djmkb 1 year ago
I've re-read this and I cannot see how this means that the researchers, carrying out the measures, did not know which participant belonged to which. But by your initial excitement, I can see there is not any convincing you so I'll just smile, nod and read the next article in due course.
djmkb 1 year ago
Actually, you are right. The researchers knew...but the article highlights several times that this study was double-blinded because neither the doctor nor the patient knew. Please do not assume that my mind is closed.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
For the Taylor article, I think it is safe to say that the treatment stage is true double blind (doctor-patient) and the evaluation stage in single blind (patient only, researcher aware). Single blind is better than no blinding, but this article is not as strong as stated. Therefore, influence can occur. I am not saying it did, but I cannot say it didn't. The Bell et al (2004) is a true double blind throughout. I am more confident that it didn't occur here.
djmkb 1 year ago
What is great about this video/forum is that you are discussing using an evidence base. As homeopathic discourse can often be similar to religious discourse ("more to life than evidence", "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there", "i just KNOW it works") then there is never going to be compatibility with science as when the findings are presented against, they are ignored, when they are positive, they are accepted (like religion). But you are considering the evidence. Kudos.
djmkb 1 year ago
Bell et al (2004) - this is the best one by far. The selection procedure involves contacting an entire community reducing selection bias. HR was chosen using H principles, condition was confirmed, other healthy variables were controlled for. True double blind - "All clinicians
and research staff interacting with and assessing patients were kept
blinded as to group assignments, including dropouts, for the
duration of the study."
djmkb 1 year ago
@djmkb
what's the point of double blind?
dantheman1507 1 year ago
@dantheman1507
Prevents the subjects from inadvertently figuring out whether they are on the treatment or the control based on the behaviour of the study personnel. Especially important if the trial has proceeded far enough that the site staff come to conclusions about the study drug or the control- for example they may behave differently towards known control subjects if they've come to believe that the study drug is working better than the control.
AtomicHorror 1 year ago
@AtomicHorror
I really think double blind studies are an overreaction, I mean c'mon...
dantheman1507 1 year ago
1) Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008.
(2) Taylor, MA,et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471 -476.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Hi Dana, I've had a chance to briefly read through your first article which was very interesting. Ludtke & Rutten (2008) critique Shang's (2005) paper, exploring how heterogeneity between trials makes the results of a meta-analysis less reliable but sadly they conclude: "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." (p1203). But I'm assuming you referenced to note methodology issues, not evidence. I'll read Taylor next week.
djmkb 1 year ago
Had a read of Taylor et al (2000) - good study. They conclude that homeopathy is not a placebo. It is a RCT design, but as the researchers are aware of the conditions it could be argued against being double blind. Following the McMaster University tool, due to the recruitment ("prescribers were familiar with homoeopathic principles") and failing to report attrition rate following a strict exclusion criteria, the study is not 'strong'.
djmkb 1 year ago
You missed the point here. It does not matter if prescribers were "familiar" with homeopathic principles or not when the study is randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. You're smart enough to know this...
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Look Dana, I'm not saying it's crap, i'm saying that the McMaster tool indicates that the sample is selected, this brings its score down. Simple. The researchers knew which vial was placebo, they interacted with patients. But on the whole, this is a good study. I've not finished with the others yet. No need to be so defensive.
djmkb 1 year ago
What is your evidence that this double-blind trial was not double-blind and that the researchers "knew" which patients were given a placebo and which ones were given the homeopathic medicine?
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
it is double blind as in the doctor does not know, the participant does not know. But the researchers state in the article that they DO know who is in which trial and they carry out the subjective assessment. Therefore, though technically double blind, they can influence the participant. This may sound minor, but it is actually very important. it is so easy to give away subtle cues, even by accident.
djmkb 1 year ago
Looking at the results, the alpha value is certainly impressive. it would have been more impressive if they had reported the effect size., Sadly, they "did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated [they] required." This means that the analysis is not as robust as it should have been. Nevertheless, a good article supporting that something is going on. Interestingly, they report that there were no subjective effects (the participants reported no difference).
djmkb 1 year ago
So, if a man proves that he can fly, would you say that it doesn't matter because he doesn't fly as high or as fast as a jet?
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Not at all, I would say, wow that man can fly excellent....wait, lets try this is various scenarios to ensure there are no other variables, such as strings, affecting the experiment. It wouldn't mean I didn;t believe, I am disproving a hypothesis.
djmkb 1 year ago
"Just because it doesnt have 100% scientific evidence does not mean it is a practice that should be dismissed. It needs more time and research and people claim to have positive results so ..."
That is really desperately stupid. Jesus.
Only idiots believe in this mumbo-jumbo.
steve69696969 1 year ago
nano...
is a point on the metric scale:
meter (1)... mili meter (1x10^-3)... micro meter (1x10^-6)... nano meter (1x10^-9)... pico meter (1x10^12)
please don't hijack clearly defined scientific terms and mutilate them.
seriously come up with your own terms so we can distinguish them from scientific ones... thats the least you owe scientists.
thenthepixiesare8 1 year ago
Just because it doesnt have 100% scientific evidence does not mean it is a practice that should be dismissed. It needs more time and research and people claim to have positive results so ...
Cozzi0 1 year ago
Is it OK to take homeopathic treatments for maleria as im going to south america and i did not like the side effects from the tablet my doctor gave me the last time?
menfearthought 1 year ago
At least the author allows all sides to be heard equally and doesn't delete comments. But what I think of as a
"deadly combination" is being sick and taking medicine that has no active incrediants.
Mazarael 1 year ago
How about taking medicine that does have "active ingredient" and using conventional care? The two of them combined kill upwards of 784,000 Americans every single year.
den151redbank 1 year ago
I couldn't help but laugh at 1:15 when he says that homeopaths were "too scientific". Sure nano in no way means both "very small" and "very powerful" but the video really comes alive at 3:03 when he almost says "clinical science studies", realizes that couldn't be true, and quickly changes it to "clinical practice" whatever that means. If only my body was like the ocean and diluting a substance to nothing had anything to do with waves; sonic, radio, or otherwise. Insidious use of flawed logic.
Mazarael 1 year ago
Sorry, Dana, not to be nice to KS. Unfortunately, I don't think reaching out to these people is worthwhile simply because their blindness makes them unreachable.
den151redbank 1 year ago
I understand. These "skeptics" are both ignorant AND arrogant...which is a bad and even deadly combination to good sound scinetiific thinking.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Well said!
den151redbank 1 year ago
Please don't use the phrase sound scientific thinking in the same context as something which breaks the laws of science. It makes you sound dumber than I already think you are.
Munro1Man 1 year ago
Unfortunate typo you have there Dana ;)
I am genuinely interested though, can you please message me a list of references which provide "good sound scientific thinking" that back up all of your claims. I, for one, am open minded as to your claims.
I keep requesting from evidence from homeopaths when they offer products but the usual retort is that the scientific measures are not compatible, for example,a double blind RCT. But as you support the scientific approach I am hoping you will help me.
djmkb 1 year ago
If you were genuinely interested you would have read the 150+ studies evidencing for homeopathy a long time ago.
NO homeopath would tell you anything except that the studies you claim to be asking for already exist and do support homeopathic efficacy.
I guess you don't know that homeopaths were the first to do those types of studies.
den151redbank 1 year ago
I'm having a hard time finding any scientific evidence backing homeopathy. Could you provide a few links here?
antibunker 1 year ago
The evidence I have read so far is not impressive. Selection Bias is prevalent throughout. But I AM interested, I am performing a systematic review into the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. But I am uncertain as to what area to focus upon, hence why asking you for references, which you so carefully refused to do. I get the same reaction from all those trying to make money from it.
I have had treatments that have had an effect, until I read up on it. Then the placebo effect fades.
djmkb 1 year ago
You're 25 years old and state that you "find making videos addictive". You have ZERO qualifications that could make your statements credible.
".....hence why asking you for references. I get the same reaction from all those trying to make money from it."
1. why haven't you bothered to look at PubMed?
2. EVERYONE in the health care field makes money. GUESS WHAT, if they didn't, there would be NO doctors or educators because they would be doing something else to support themselves!
den151redbank 1 year ago
You really think I would put my qualifications on a 3 year old youtube channel? I'm not THAT stupid.
Why do you feel the need to discredit me?
FYI, I am a 25 year old Trainee Health Psychologists with an MSc, 7 years Research Experience and am, out of interest, very well read.
A ask for references because what this man is stating is not backed up. There are thousands of papers, I may have missed one.
PubMed is NOT a publication as such, Journals are where research is published.
djmkb 1 year ago
You are a 67 year old who surrounds himself with fellow believers, spending his time trying to refute those that ask for evidence. But I am sure that you are more than what your account tells me. For example, I can tell that you are ageist because you reference my age and ASSUME I cannot be qualified. Making videos is a hobby, I separate this from my profession.
I have no problem in medical professionals making money....
djmkb 1 year ago
"I have had treatments that have had an effect, until I read up on it. Then the placebo effect fades."
GUESS WHAT AGAIN? The placebo effect is very temporary. You must be very suggestible if "placebo" makes you better and the "placebo" of reading a negative comment about the treatment makes the symptoms come back!
den151redbank 1 year ago
Two issues....you are assuming I had symptoms when I did not. I used a homeopathic remedy, I felt benefits. Issue with my statement, I made it seem as there was no gap in time, apologies, there was a large gap. When I had become educated and had the treatment again out of academic interest, the effect was no longer there.
djmkb 1 year ago
Your comments make it very clear that you are anti-homeopathy. End of story.
den151redbank 1 year ago
Your follow-up comments are nothing more than justification and rationalization.
den151redbank 1 year ago
I am honored that so many skeptics of homeopathy are so threatened by my videos. The skeptics' blogs encourage their ilk to give my videos a "low rating." I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
@HomeopathicDana You are promoting something which has been disproven by scientific tests many times. It's usage prevents many people from getting useful medical treatment. You shouldn't be surprised that we care about what you are doing here - it's because we care about our fellow humans and don't want them abused and exploited by quacks.
stefanmuc2k 1 year ago
@stefanmuch2k -- You are either totally misinformed about homeopathic research (clinical research AND basic science research) or you are purposefully misinforming people OR BOTH. Do your homework...you're not in high school anymore.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
Why are you trying to belittle him? Saying he is high school is like saying he's immature because he disagrees with you.
He simply retorted to your comment.
But I agree to an extent, there is evidence for SOME treatments....you know what happens....it becomes Medicine! It goes through rigorous trials and is perfected....may I ask which of your products have the same standard of testing?
djmkb 1 year ago
Impressive, but please don't take it personally. I don't find your videos, you or your beliefs a threat, It is very sad of those that do. What I find offensive is that you are trying to make money from vulnerable people. You are a very charismatic, like-able guy who is using scientific gibberish to sell his product. Nothing more. Sadly, when asked for evidence, you spout off about skeptics and how we should find the evidence. No my friend, it should be you, and that evidence should be sound.
djmkb 1 year ago
There are no facts to homeopathy, I am sick and tired of listening to people like you undermine good science. What is the big problem with conventional medicine? billions of people have got better on it, Clinical research shows the efficacy beyond doubt of the drugs used in conventional medicine. why do you cling to this crackpot "medicine" which has equivocal evidence at the very best? you are endagering lives by spreading this rubbish!
BaronVonWolfenstien1 2 years ago
There are plenty of scientific facts supporting homeopathy. You simply prefer to deny them in order to validate your own personal views and agenda.
"Clinical research shows efficacy....". It shows efficacy for exactly 13% of conventional drugs. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the vast majority of conventional drugs work. See the BMJ. If they did work, no one could say how they worked. Sound familiar?
If you doubt it, here's a quote from Dr. Roses, VP, GSK,
den151redbank 2 years ago
as reported in the 12/8/03, issue of The Independent (nothing has changed since 2003):
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people." The article gives these examples: Alzheimer's drugs, effective in 30 %, cancer treatments effective in 25 %, incontinence drugs effective in 40 %.
The facts about h. are that: 1) it cures chronic diseases not otherwise treatable like diabetes 2) it's more effective at preventing epidemics of flu,
den151redbank 2 years ago
leptospirosis, cholera, typhus, etc., than conv med and treating those illnesses AND this is proven and documented, 3) it's used by tens of millions of people around the world BECAUSE it WORKS BEAUTIFULLY.
Sorry you don't like the facts. Your denial of the facts does not change them.
I have absolutely no interest in what you're sick and tired of. If you don't like homeopathy, use what you do like -- whether it works or not.
Good luck to you and thanks for coming.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Oh yes, one last word, the use of homeopathy around the world grows every single year BECAUSE IT WORKS. My friends and family saw how it worked for me and used it themselves. They liked it and told their friends who told their friends..........
If any reader here would truly like to see the scientific evidence, links are available at Bandershot's videos.
den151redbank 2 years ago
accurate scientifically sound tests merely indicate that homeopathy is AT BEST the same as placebo. I fail to see how this can be promoted as efficacy
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
here's a challenge for you then. You take 400 prescription sleeping tablets and i'll take 400 homeopathetic ones and let's see which one of us sleeps the longest
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Right off the bat you prove your ignorance of homeopathy--which leads directly to a foolish and meaningless challenge.
There is no such thing as a "homeopathic sleeping pill". How is it that you didn't know that?
Naturally, anyone who took 400 conventional sleeping pills would sleep the longest for the simple reason that their body would be lying on a metal gourney in the morgue.
Far be it from me to make a negative comment about conventional med but that's the difference between homeopathy
den151redbank 1 year ago
and conventional med. The conventional med in this case doesn't cure the problem, is addictive, could be very dangerous and is expensive.
Homeopathy, on the other hand, quite often cures, is not addictive, has no side effects, causes no iatrogenic diseases and is inexpensive.
Cheers!
den151redbank 1 year ago
homeopathy is NOT inexpensive. water is so cheap yet what's the price of the average homeopath solution? and the reason they have no side effects is because they have no active ingredients, and thus can only be concluded to be the placebo effect at work. There is NO OTHER valid conclusion that can be made from that. Believe what you will, but that's the only valid connclusion that can be made
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Homeopathics are inexpensive as well as safe and effective. A tube of 80 pellets costs about $6 here in the US. If prepared in water and depending on dose and frequency, this one tube alone could cure chronic illnesses. This one tube alone could be used for half a life-time to treat recurring acute illnesses like flu.
Your valid conclusion is only valid in your own mind. Scientific work proves homeopathy to be not just effective but significantly and in some cases substantially effective.
den151redbank 1 year ago
see the fact that it doesn't work and people are paying for it defines it as expensive. if i charge you $6 to make your cold go away then is that money well spent?
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Homeopathy DOES work. You simply prefer not to accept that fact.
den151redbank 1 year ago
lol what fact? All sound scientific tests indicate that homeopathy is AT BEST the SAME as the placebo effect. That is the fact, so if you can draw any other conclusion than that it merely indicates your total lack of understanding of the scientific method and the need for double ot triple blinding in scientific trial and in particular the testing of drugs and medication
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
lol, sorry so all the ones i've seen in shops and advertised on the net don't exist?
and as for you not making neg comments about conventional medicine re-read you comments about most of them not working
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
You have NOT seen homeopathic "sleeping pills" in shops for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a h. "sleeping pill." If you knew anything about h., you would know this. Also, homeopathics don't work like sleeping pills and aren't sedatives or barbiturates.
I'm pointing out what the US District Court and drug companies themselves say about pharm. products which is exactly what I posted.
den151redbank 1 year ago
scratch US District Court and substitute US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - They just fined Pfizer $2.3 BILLION for fraudulent marketing of drugs for diseases they were never approved to treat. Not to mention $430 MILLION fine for criminal marketing activities.
den151redbank 1 year ago
so becasue a conventional drugs company is not ethical does that prove homeopathy works? 2 wrongs don't make a right, and homeopaths do the same thing daily!!!!
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
NO ONE, including myself, has ever claimed that the fact that drugs don't work or are dangerous proves h. works.
The point is that medicine which is safe and effective should be used before medicine that quite often isn't.
den151redbank 1 year ago
lol i have seen them i spent months installing epos systems for a pharmacy chain the the UK and saw them almost daily
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
but ket me guess you know better than i do what i've seen
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Yes, I do know better than you on the subject of homeopathy.
den151redbank 1 year ago
lol, that's why you believe it works? Well they do say there's one born evrey minute. Any regarding medicines, most are "toxins" with side-effects it's the dosage and benefits that outweigh these adverse effects that make them worth while morphine and chemotheraphy being just 2 examples
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
PS Speaking of ignorance of homeopathy IF the assumptions of homeopathy are true then a homeopathic solution of caffiene would cause sleep.
but what do i know i'm ignorant
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Yes, you are ignorant of homeopathy. Homeopathic caffeine (coffea) does help insomniacs sleep. BUT it is NOT a sleeping pill and does not act like a sleeping pill.
den151redbank 1 year ago
so it aids sleep but it's not a sleeping pill, a sleeping solution then?
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
i suggest you searh youtube for "Ziztur swallows a bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills" or google homeopathic sleeping pils and see how many people are selling them then tell me they don't exist
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Ziztur? She doesn't know the difference between a sleeping pill and a sleep aid. She claims Calms Forte is a "sleeping pill". Read the title of her vid. Calms Forte is a SLEEP AID as the manufacturer states.
The difference?
Sleeping pills are, as I noted earlier, sedatives and barbiturates--hypnotics that cause the user to fall asleep whether they want to or not.
Sleep aids reduce stress and tension and help the person fall asleep IF THEY WANT TO. They don't induce sleep.
den151redbank 1 year ago
The only thing Ziztur proved is that she:
1) took a sleep aid --maybe--no objective third party can verify what she took, if anything, or how much.
2) that she chose not to fall asleep and didn't.
You still don't grasp the fact that there is no such thing as a h. sleeping pill.
1. Homeopathics are NOT narcotics, hypnotics or sedatives.
2. If a person wanted to be treated for insomnia, he would have to consult with a homeopath who would choose the correct remedy for that person.
den151redbank 1 year ago
3. H. is INDIVIDUALIZED.
Googling proves nothing. I'm well aware of the facts of homeopathic treatment. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HOMEOPATHIC SLEEPING PILL irregardless of what you've read or believe.
den151redbank 1 year ago
lol so what you are saying is that EVERY homeopathic solution is freshly made for an individual, so if that's the case WHY are there so many that are available off the shelf? Are you implying homeopaths are psyhic or that these are not homeopathic solutions?
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
Hey KalahariSurf...you are either not informed about homeopathy or mis-informed about it...it is not too late to become better informed but you have to read something other than the misinformation from certain skeptics' literature.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
you are playing with semantics. This is a quote from their web site "" Are Hylands products regulated?
Yes, the manufacturing and marketing of Hylands Homeopathic Medicines are regulated as drugs by the FDA. The FDA has regulated homeopathic medicines since 1938" Re-read and NOTE "Hylands Homeopathic Medicines"
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
All legitamate homeopathic medicines ARE regulated by the FDA. By the way, the FDA was empowered by legislation in 1938 by a New York Senator (Royal Copeland) who was also an MD/homeopath & ophthamological surgeon.
HomeopathicDana 1 year ago
that doesn't make it real. you can read your horoscope in newspapers everyday but that doesn't mkae them true
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
?????????
Please take Dana Ullman's advice and go to knowledgeable and legitimate sources for information on homeopathy .
den151redbank 1 year ago
i'd suggest you open your mind and see homeopathy for what it is, voz. BS. the underlaying principles are absurb so it can't work
KalahariSurf 1 year ago
I'd suggest that YOU take your very blatant ignorance over to Ziztur's video. That's where it belongs.
den151redbank 1 year ago
My personal testimony after a dozen years' of homeopathic use and the testimony of tens of millions of other h. patients: homeopathy does not just work, it works beautifully. My friends and family tried it and were so impressed they told their friends who used it and told their friends.........
So sorry the "skeptics" prefer not to acknowledge the facts even as they've been proven clinically and scientifically.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Part of me gets angry as this fraud is insulting my intelligence with some of the weakest nonsense dressed up with pathetic pseudo techno garble as well as a completely moronic metaphor. On the other hand if you are stupid or vain enough to fall for this crap than maybe you deserve to be scammed out of your money? So instead of getting rilled up about it I might as well give this Dana character a pat on the shoulder for finding a lucrative swindle.
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
Part of you (a big part) should be ashamed of making ridiculous ad hominem attacks backed up by lack of knowledge, lack of personal experience but with plenty of ignorance mixed with arrogance.
Looks like you don't know what the word libel means or think anonymous posters are immune from taking responsibility for personal attacks. With all the evidence (scientific and clinical) supporting homeopathy you'd be the laughing stock in any court.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Who cares if Homeopathy works on not?
I personally don't think it does and don't use it but If others want to use it, let them.
I promote tolerance and learned a long time ago you cannot use logic to talk someone out of an opinion that they didn't use logic to talk themselves into.
sismpn 2 years ago
Who cares if Homeopathy works on not?:
do you care about the sanctity of science and education?
do you care to see desperate people being taken advantage of?
would you like to have a loved one use a homeopathic "doctor" as a primary caregiver?
would you like to see superstition and witchcraft given equal time in the medical field and in medical school?
TheEarthAbides 2 years ago
Ah! He's got a book to sell.
zeno2712 2 years ago
Ooooo, scary. This guy (me!) has a book to sell! I actually want to educate people, as compared with skeptics who simply want to NOT do their homework and be and stay arrogant and ignorant. THAT is scary!
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
@HomeopathicDana And on what have you based you opinion that I'm ignorant of homeopathy and that I don't want to do my homework?
Please educate me.
zeno2712 2 years ago
Show me what you've written about basic sciences research and homeopathy. Next...on clinical research. Simple questions...the ball is in your court.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
I see you didn't answer my questions.
I was asking about *your* knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology. If you're not prepared to answer those questions, please just let me know.
Since it looks like you deleted my first comment, I'll repeat it here:
"It would help if this guy knew something about physics, chemistry or biology...or anything for that matter."
zeno2712 2 years ago
The fact you're looking for technical answers via youtube and twitter is extremely strange. Please do not expect me to hand your hand. Read my peer-review articles...read others' works. However, you're seemingly so close-minded, I'm wasting my time. Have a good day.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
If I give my sick friend a glass of water, will that cure him?
dewooo 2 years ago
No...it won't. Try it yourself. In comparison, when you use homeopathy correctly, it will work...and the science backs this...sadly, skeptics are not skeptics; they are denialists.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
You should make a video about how bloodletting works and makes sense next!
blammers 2 years ago
Actually, it was homeopathy and homeopaths that helped STOP bloodletting. THAT is common knowledge of medical history. Sadly, skeptics of homeopathy spew misinformation and rarely do their homework.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
Thats very true, bloodletting was dangerous and the fact that homeopaths did not perform this practice had helped to save many lives.
It still doesn't explain the validity of homeopathy though, or why you keep conjuring up this 100-year old fact. Did I just answer my own question?
regi1873 2 years ago
Den151, you haven't answered my question from a day ago:
If I was to start scamming people by selling vials of plain tapwater as "homeopathic remedies", how would you tell the difference?
NRen2k5 2 years ago
Ok...for starters...but THIS is not a forum for detailed discussion. Check out the clinical improvement & the EEG reading differences:
Bell, IR, Lewis, DA, Brooks,et al, Improved Clinical Status in Fibromyalgia Patients Treated with Individualized Homeopathic Remedies Versus Placebo, Rheumatology, January 20, 2004:1111-7.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
3 replication trials: Jacobs, J, Jonas, WB, Jimenez-Perez, M, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34.
HomeopathicDana 2 years ago
Much better, thank you. I'll look up these studies and get back to you.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
Here are several suggestions:
1. (empirical) ingesting some of your water tells me right away what it is (if it's the correct remedy for my illness). If it works, it's h. If it doesn't work, it's tap water.
2. If you have access to the equipment, examine it for electromagnetic remnant waves.
3. google clathrates, nanobubbles and crystal chemistry. Read the work of Roy and others, "Structure of Liquid Water". Read the work of Conte and others "Theory of High Dilutions".
den151redbank 2 years ago
My personal experience of many years = h. works beautifully, gently and dynamically. My friends, family and neighbors have had the same results. They're so pleased they pass their experiences on to their friends, family and neighbors.
It's easy, if YOU don't like h., don't use it.
den151redbank 2 years ago
You try to convince people that homeopathy is more effective than real medicine and surgery. You're killing people by preventing them from getting the real treatment they require.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
1) Easily passed. A lot of conditions homeopathy seeks to treat go away on their own within hours or days.
2) Easily passed. 30C dilutions are identical to plain water in every way.
3) Any reason you can't sum up their abstracts here?
NRen2k5 2 years ago
Den, I hope I'm not giving you too much trouble all at once.
But let's say I decided to start a homeopathy fraud, telling people I'm selling them homeopathic remedies when I'm really just filling my vials with tapwater.
How would you tell them apart from the real thing?
NRen2k5 2 years ago
Quack quack quack quack, quality quack, quality quack (Monty Python).
a1mint 2 years ago
An intelligent and scientific argument presented by a hater (atheist) who opposes homeopathy because he is offended by the fact that it works through energy (vital force, chi, ki, prana) rather than through the material body.
The emperor isn't just naked, he's ugly to boot.
After 12 years of homeopathic treatment I can only say that it's been wonderfully successful for chronic and acute illnesses, injuries, dental work and flu prevention. The animals love it too!
den151redbank 2 years ago
Comment removed
a1mint 2 years ago
Quack quack quack!
Here hate this.
You will never discover in your entire life how pathetic you little homeopath sect really is.
a1mint 2 years ago
Don't confuse medicine with religion. They're two very different things as all the studies evidencing FOR homeopathy prove.
den151redbank 2 years ago
What studies are those? I asked earlier, but you guys refused/failed to provide.
What I'm asking for is very simple and very easy to obtain of anything that actually works:
A double blind clinical trial.
"Big pharma" doesn't accept anything less, and you guys think their stuff is so bad, so surely I'm setting the bar rather low for you... ?
NRen2k5 2 years ago
He's not confused. It's called a comparison. And as someone else who's dealt with dishonest creationists before, I can vouch for him; it's an appropriate comparison.
And what studies are you talking about? I asked earlier in the comments here, and the homeopathy apologists failed/refused to provide.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
He's not confused. It's called a comparison. And as someone else who's dealt with dishonest creationists before, I can vouch for him; it's an appropriate comparison.
And what studies are you talking about? I asked earlier in the comments here, and the homeopathy apologists failed/refused.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
den151redbank: both religion and homeopathy requires one to take a huge leap of faith, blindly trust it, ask no questions, avoid rational thought. Both have never been proven to be real.
a1mint 2 years ago
"Both have never been proven to be real." Every reader here should know that homeopathy has been proven effective BEYOND PLACEBO in 200 studies and over 200 years of clinical use around the world. It has 1/2 BILLION adherents because it works.
Anyone truly interested in the facts proving h. efficacy can, for starters, read the report "Homeopathy: The Scientific Proofs of Efficacy". This report contains 65 studies and 10 clinical trials of the highest quality. It reads in part:
den151redbank 2 years ago
"A # of lg-scale studies designed to evaluate the huge amount of h. literature have been conducted, especially in the last 10 years. Org's and institutes of great international prestige and importance have dealt with the issue of h. ALL OF THEM HAVE CONCLUDED THAT H. POSSESSES THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY." "Very briefly, a large body of studies demonstrates that the efficacy of h. medicines is NOT due to the 'mythical' placebo effect, thus, finally dispelling a series of superficial, prejudiced
den151redbank 2 years ago
attitudes."
You've proven here that YOU are the person who asks no questions and avoids rational thought.
All you provide is silly sarcasm -- a wonderful argument even if it isn't "scientific"!
Bless!
den151redbank 2 years ago