http://www.squidoo.com/KatieKeebler

As is so often the case, homeopathy is not the only modality on offer. We have one of those sets of mutually incompatible therapies all bound up in one package. Of course, if any one of them actually worked, you wouldn’t need the others.

Homeopathy = less is more. You take a drop of substance B and put it into a vial of distilled water. You shake that vial repeatedly. Then you take a drop from said vial and put it into a different vial of distilled water and shake it. Repeat. You do this so many times that there are no longer any molecules left of substance B in the last vial of water. Then you stick a tag on it that says “Substance B” and make claims that it can cure some ailment or disease. And how can pure water cure a disease? Why, because the water *remembers* the qualities of substance B!

The memory of water has been disproved. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZhmG97lYog)

There is a one million dollar prize for anyone who can scientifically prove that homeopathy works. That prize is still waiting to be collected.

Homeopathy = less is more. You take a drop of substance B and put it into a vial of distilled water. You shake that vial repeatedly. Then you take a drop from said vial and put it into a different vial of distilled water and shake it. Repeat. You do this so many times that there are no longer any molecules left of substance B in the last vial of water. Then you stick a tag on it that says “Substance B” and make claims that it can cure some ailment or disease. And how can pure water cure a disease? Why, because the water *remembers* the qualities of substance B!

The memory of water has been disproved.

Yes, you do look stone raving bonkers.

My article above is based entirely on the mainstream viewpoint that homeopathy is an inert treatment based on supersitious views of medicine. From that simple fact, all else follows. No dark motives are required – just the simple observation that if people take sugar pills believing they can help serious conditions they will come to harm.

I would suggest that if you disagree with this, then indeed the onus is on you to provide your own reasons and evidence that this is a reasonable position.

For homeopathy to be proven useless, you need multiple blind studies by multiple researchers with medical statistical analysis and all the details published in peer reviewed journals and based upon that research governments to outlaw the use. So once again your basis is opinion not fact backed by science.

Your discussion of first aid is what I consider a half truth. See my original post.

So what are your motives for your campaign to discredit homeopathy? How do you benefit personally?

How do we proceed? Hummmmm. Maybe you could start using references to back all your facts and label the rest as opinion or editorial and expect outlandish comparisons (i.e. midwife) to produce challenges or maybe be skip them. And I could only respond when I have a question about your facts or opinion or challenge you on your outlandish comparisons.

There are plenty of good places to learn the facts about homeopathy. Trick or Treatment by Ernst and Singh is good. So, is Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. Online, you may like to try here,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

I see no reason to go further with you as you have not actually countered anything I have said – just tried to label what I write as mere opinion. If you disagree with something, then we can have a worthy discussion. But without saying what my ‘half-truths’ are, I am not sure how to proceed.

And you only need to slam homeopathy once. I will make the point once, when you make your point only once.

My position is that you have only opinions and state them as facts. You admit that you are out to discredit, so show me the facts. I am still waiting for the facts. I never took a position as to being for or against homeopathy–only against smear campaigns based upon half truths and opinions.

SPAM is posting all those other comments pointing to another comment. You need only make your point once.

Yes, I do write about my opinions here. But they are informed opinions based on the facts that homeopathy is a pseudomedical treatment based on discredited 18th century views of health and that it cannot demonstrate that it is effective for any named condition. Homeopathy is just sugar pills.

You are also quite right that I am trying to discredit homeopaths – and for very good reasons. They are capably of great harm because of their lack of self-awareness.

Your quote is off topic because it tries to change the subject. Mine was on topic because it demonstrated how superstitious medical beliefs in emergency situations can be harmful.

As for having to substantiate my other points. Perhaps you would like to show how homeopathy is not superstitious and that it is rational. These are not contentious issues. (Unless you are a homeopath).