10:23. My Personal Homeopathic Overdose

image Right now, if the homeopaths are correct, I should have paralysed arms, be in severe pain, have convulsions, delirium, skin itching all over and be unable to stand. That is because I have taken a massive overdose of the homeopathic remedies, Belladonna 30C, Sulphur 30C and Lachesis 5MM. I wrote this post last night and set it to appear at 10:23 today, the moment I will also be taking a whole packet of Boots homeopathic sleeping pills.

I expect to be quite alright because despite the labelling of these products, homeopathic pills are just sugar pills – there is nothing in them. They are inert and completely ineffective.

I am taking this overdose because Boots the Chemists sell these products as if they were real medicines. They make money by misleading the public that these pills can relieve them of various symptoms, from hay fever to infant teething pain. They do not, of course, and Boots know there is no evidence, but they sell them nonetheless. Hundreds of like minded people will be doing the same in cities throughout the UK as part of the 10:23 homeopathy campaign.

The Society of Homeopaths is condemning this protest as “an ill advised publicity stunt”. Why it should be ‘ill advised’ is not clear. They go on to say in their press release that they “would not therefore expect any reaction to the proposed ‘overdose’ by this group.”

Well we are all in agreement that nothing will happen then. And that is precisely the message that we want the public to take away – homeopathic remedies cannot have any effects because they contain no active substance – they are diluted to the point that no material remains. Homeopathy is a pseudo-medicine based on magical and pre-scientific belief systems that should have no place in a modern High Street pharmacy.

But, as usual, the Society of Homeopaths are not being straightforward with the public. For on another of their pages they repeat the homeopathic belief that their sugar pills can produce symptoms in healthy people. This is known as a homeopathic ‘proving’.

Volunteers or ‘provers’ take the new substance until they experience symptoms. All symptoms that result from taking the substance are recorded in detail.

Now of course this does not really happen. What homeopathic ‘provers’ experience are just random symptoms – there is no evidence that homeopathic pills can induce any consistent symptoms in people because they are just sugar pills. Such is the imagination.

If the Society of Homeopath believes this though, it is a mystery why they decline to warn the protesters about this.

The medical doctors who use homeopathy have come out strongly against this protest too. They say “The BHA regards the 10:23 stunt as grossly irresponsible”. Personally, I think that doctors misleading patients by telling them that a 19th Century pseudoscientific cultish quack medicine can help them is deeply irresponsible. I am amazed they are not struck off.

But to satisfy the homeopaths, in addition to downing by whole box of homeopathic sleeping pills, I have started taking the sulphur, belladonna and lachesis, 2 tabs of each at 2 hourly intervals. I started at 9pm last night and will continue until the tubs run out.

The lachesis is supposed to be particularly nasty. It is made from a snake venom (Bushmaster) and is supposed to induce horrific symptoms. Previous provers have reported paralysis of the arms and lots of pain. But because my pills do not actually contain any snake venom, I feel pretty confident I will be OK.

I am supposed to be giving a talk with Simon Singh and John Garrow in an hour, “Trick or Treatment: The Event.” If I am not there, you know why.

If you want to check I am alive, follow my twitter stream: http://www.twitter.com/lecanardnoir

******************************************************************************************************************

If you want to find out more about why I am doing this, read here.  And if you want to know why it is called the 10:23 campaign, you could do worse than read this.

69 comments for “10:23. My Personal Homeopathic Overdose

  1. Zeno
    January 30, 2010 at 10:54 am

    30 minutes later and everyone still seems OK!

  2. Dr Aust
    January 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    The idea of a homeopathic "snake venom" remedy containing nothing, and then homeopaths vehemently denying it is "Snake Oil", even though in their Homeo-Verse it should supposedly evoke venom-effects…

    …well, let's just say my meta-Unreality Filters are on overload.

  3. Cavall de Quer
    January 30, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    I am tired of telling people on more credulous blogs that as well as being totally useless, homeopathic remedies don't spare animals – the lists of provings contain everything from alligators to pig embryo. A minor concern for the non-veggies, I know, but so many innocents think homeopathy is all-round beneficent it is often salutary to remind them that it has its basis in the frantic castings-around of humans to cure themselves, using and abusing anything that comes to hand.

  4. TK
    January 30, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    Still alive? Me too. I bought sepia 30C because I liked the name and then discovered that it's for brunettes so it's handy I am one.

  5. Le Canard Noir
    January 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Mmmm sepia. i used to work in Venice. Everything is cooked in sepia. It does terrible things to the digestive system.

  6. Anonymous
    January 31, 2010 at 1:22 am

    You are a fucking idiot- see if the docs can cure that

  7. Mojo
    January 31, 2010 at 1:54 am

    "I bought sepia 30C because I liked the name and then discovered that it's for brunettes…"

    Does it cure them or attract them?

  8. Anonymous
    January 31, 2010 at 11:53 am

    I agree that homeopathy doesn't work but it seems to me that the bit in the
    article about »homeopathic provings« is not quite correct.

    Homeopathic proving means that one takes not the homeopathic »remedy« but
    whatever the remedy is derived of, and records the symptoms one experiences
    after that. The homeopathic »principle« of »like cures like« then claims that
    the stuff, when made into a homeopathic »remedy« according to the official
    ritual, will cure these symptoms even if you have them from elsewhere.

    If you take undiluted belladonna, which is quite poisonous, this will cause
    you to experience a wide range of nasty symptoms including dilated pupils,
    staggering, and rashes, and will eventually kill you. The homeopath says that
    if you dilute belladonna enough (say, to 30C, which is 100 to the 30th power)
    it will, in fact, *relieve* you from symptoms such as staggering and rashes.
    (They are clever enough not to claim that it will bring you back from the
    dead.)

    The way this was established was because some intrepid volunteer once took
    a (hopefully small) nibble of belladonna and wrote down everything they
    experienced after that, so presumably belladonna 30C was declared to be good
    against staggering and rashes. If, for whatever reason, the intrepid
    volunteer had also experienced sneezing and smelly feet, then belladonna 30C
    would have gone on the homeopathic books as good against those, too.

  9. Le Canard Noir
    January 31, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    You would have thought so, wouldn't you Anonymous.

    But no. Hahnemann was quite clear that provings should be done at a dilution of 30C.

    § 128 5th edition Organon

    “The most recent observations have shown that medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent. In this manner we now find it best to investigate the medicinal powers even of such substances as are deemed weak, and the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potentized dilution of such a substance, moistened with a little water, and let him continue this for several days.”

    Bonkers. Yes. But that is homeopathy.

  10. Charlotte
    January 31, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Yesterday I took half a bottle of aconite 30C* and today I have a cold. Thus I have PROVEN!!!1!! that the symptoms of aconite poisoning are a stuffy nose, headache and generally feeling a bit crap. The paralysis and cardiac arrest observed when people have actually been poisoned with the stuff are just fabrications of scientists in the pay of the allopathy industry. Obviously.

    * I'd have taken the whole bottle but the clicky bit kept jamming. Shoddy manufacturing standards.

  11. pvandck
    January 31, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Anonymous said…
    "You are a fucking idiot- see if the docs can cure that"

    Yet another persuasive argument from an articulate homeopathy supporter.

  12. UK Expat
    February 1, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    "Homeopathy … has its basis in the frantic castings-around of humans to cure themselves, using and abusing anything that comes to hand."

    Beautifully expressed. And another great piece by le canard noir.

    It's this sort of thing that we need more of: merciless picking apart of the homeopathic method.

    Forget the trials. We don't consider random controlled trials of witchcraft or voodoo. We shouldn't consider them concerning homeopathy either.

    First, they need to present a watertight method (quite literally), or at least propose a means of achieving one. Then we might be more interested in their results.

    Finally, if anyone counters with argument such as "look, some things like aspirin took ages to work out, so science also uses things even though it doesn't know how they work" I would remind people that premier aspirin researchers such as Dreser, Collier and Piper did not go about proposing magic as the reason why aspirin works.

    And of course, aspirin does actually work.

  13. Anonymous
    February 2, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Conclusion from the press release of the Society of Homeopaths is that you should get an prescription and then ovedose on that medicine. Would be interresting to see what they come up with then. You should then of course have a real illness or you would be back to start.

    Some day you will be burned at the stake…..

  14. BillyJoe
    February 2, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    "Forget the trials. We don't consider random controlled trials of witchcraft or voodoo. We shouldn't consider them concerning homeopathy either."

    Yes, it's time to stop.
    Homoeopathy is not worthy of an RCT. They just give people like Dullman an excuse to keep posting the unreliable and discredited ones.
    Enough already. It's time just to keep poking fun.

  15. knackeredhack
    February 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Should we now be worried about your excessive sugar consumption? ;-)

  16. BadlyShavedMonkey
    February 3, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    It is funny how the homeopaths change track to its direct opposite depending on which audience they are speaking to at any given time.

    Sometimes they want to show off how powerful homeopathy is, so they boast about provings and all the weird and wonderful things that happen when people take their sugar pills and it's all caused by the pills even car crashes outside the prover's house (I kid you not). At other times, homeopathy is so amazingly safe that no harm can ever occur. Except at other times again homeopathy has to be used with great caution because great harm can result from aggravations. Then again their pills don't need to be regulated and tested as drugs because they are completely safe. Except when they are used in healthy people as part of a proving: from Jeremy Sherr's book The Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings
    "However it is true that a small number of provers do not emerge unscathed. Usually these sufferings do not last long, but on rare occasions I have known problems to last for months or even years"

    Is homeopathy both the cause and cure of the whiplash readers must suffer when trying to follow what homeopaths say?

    It's one thing to just make stuff up because none of it is anchored in reality, but one might wish they could at least keep their story straight and self-consistent.

  17. Dr Andrew Sikorski
    February 4, 2010 at 9:51 am

    ….so… you so don't want to meet up and chat- you send me Quackers- I send you peace, love, understanding, respect and support.

  18. Mojo
    February 4, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Anonymous said: "Homeopathic proving means that one takes not the homeopathic »remedy« but whatever the remedy is derived of, and records the symptoms one experiences after that."

    LCN said: "But no. Hahnemann was quite clear that provings should be done at a dilution of 30C."

    If you want a more recent source for this try Kayne SB (2006), Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2nd ed. p. 52:

    "While, in the beginning, Hahnemann mainly used mother tinctures and low potencies for homeopathic provings, he later switched to centesimal dilutions (30C), and many of his followers did the same. most modern provings have been conducted with ultramolecular dilutions (>12C). It is highly unlikely that any original molecule is present in such medicines."

    Anonymous's confusion is understandable, though, because homoeopaths appear rather unwilling to attract attention to this.

    Have a look around the internet, and you'll find reports of 'provings'. Invariably they seem to use potentised remedies, almost always at 30C.

    • Rtved
      February 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      Mojo, Your reference is wrong.Hahnemann didn’t use Extreme Dilutions for Provings.

      You are talking out of your —-.

      I am not surprised though having had discussions with you in randi forum.

    • le canard noir
      February 17, 2011 at 1:31 pm

      Um, Have a look at The Organon aphorism 128

      The most recent observations have shown that medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent. In this manner we now find it best to investigate the medicinal powers even of such substances as are deemed weak, and the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potency of such a substance, moistened with a little water or dissolved in more or less water and thoroughly mixed, and let him continue this for several days.

      • Rtved
        February 17, 2011 at 3:50 pm

        le canard noir,

        Thanks for the reference.

        I stand corrected.

      • le canard noir
        February 17, 2011 at 4:00 pm

        And an apology to Blue Wode might be in order too.

  19. Nick
    February 4, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    You clearly don't understand how homeopathy works. Of course an "overdose" won't hurt you! The whole point is that the *less* of an active ingredient you have in a homeopathic remedy, the *more* potent it becomes. Therefore, by taking too much you are actually make it less potent, and less likely to have any side effects.

    Duh!

    • girlwonder
      September 1, 2010 at 10:17 am

      Sooo… am I then right in thinking that no remedy at all would be the most potent homoeopathic option??

  20. BillyJoe
    February 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    that must be why they instruct you to take not one but two tablets, and not once but twice a day, and not for one day but for several days.

    ….oh wait

  21. Stephen
    February 15, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I found the slightly horrible thing was that homoeopaths couldn’t even agree on what would happen if you did overdose (taking the wrong treatment in the right sort of doses, over days rather than all at once).

    Imagine not knowing what can go wrong with your treatment, what kind of a butcher would that be?

    • Rtved
      February 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm

      I am not a Homeopath.But there is no evidence to Suggest that Homeopathic remedies can cause ANY effects unless the remedy is a constitutional remedy.

      The Only thing this excercise proves is that Cult leaders Will always have following.

  22. le canard noir
    February 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    “unless the remedy is a constitutional remedy”

    These words are redundant, unless you have some good evidence to the contrary.

  23. Rtved
    February 17, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    I am talking about SINGLE dosage Once.If you repeat the dosages over several days then you are doing it as per Homeopathic protocal.

    I do have anectodal evidence(Personal one).Let us skip this since it is NOT good evidence.

    I see you are taking lachesis, sulphur and belladonna simultaneously.

    I would suggest taking them individually for a period of sevendays:one dose per day.

    I would suggest startinging with other remedies 12x potency one dose perday for sevendays.Wait for a couple of days and then start the next one.

    The usual stipulations like No alcohol for the entire period and avoiding coffee or tea near the dosage time.

    • le canard noir
      February 17, 2011 at 3:57 pm

      What nonsense.

      All assertion without evidence.

      I have had plenty of assertions from homeopaths about how to take the remedies – all inconsistent and ad hoc. Which is exactly what you would expect when people are talking nonsense.

      The truth is, I could take these pills hanging from a trapeze every alternative Thursday – still no effect. They are just sugar pills.

      • Rtved
        February 17, 2011 at 4:04 pm

        Le canard says “What nonsense”.

        You are trying Nonsense; so try to adhere to the stipulations of Nonsense.Fair?.

        Le canard says “I have had plenty of assertions from homeopaths”.

        Why don’t you follow Organon 128 you quoted earlier ?.

        You are trying to disprove Homeopathy and NOT HOmeopaths.Right?.

        If you want to prove this as nonsense follow their Nonsensical stipulations.

      • le canard noir
        February 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm

        I took the pills in the manner I did, and the combination, on the advice that it was the worst thing I could do and not fail to near kill me.

        Despite this, there will always be another homeopath who declares that it did not work as I was not singing the national anthem whilst taking the pills, or something.

        I think it is about time, homeopaths put their money where their mouth is and take the pills as I have suggested in my simple challenge (see home page). The fact that in 3 years, no-one has had the courage of their convictions to demonstrate the awesome powers of their sugar pills, speaks volumes.

  24. Rtved
    February 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    le canard noir says

    “homeopaths put their money where their mouth is and take the pills as I have suggested in my simple challenge”.

    I fail to see rationality in this assertion.

    Why Homeopaths should take Pills as YOU suggested?.

    le canard noir says

    “The fact that in 3 years, no-one has had the courage of their convictions to demonstrate the awesome powers of their sugar pills, speaks volumes.”

    That speaks volumes about your exuberance.Nothing more.

    • le canard noir
      February 17, 2011 at 5:34 pm

      If you bothered to read and understand the challenge, you would see that I do not stipulate how homeopaths take their pills, merely that they demonstrate that they have consistent and recognisable effects. It is up to them if they take them at full moon or during Coronation Street.

      Read the comments on the various posts to see the evasion and hand ringing that goes on to say why they could not really do it.

    • Badly Shaved Monkey
      February 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm

      p.s. and to echo what LCN just said. His protocol is very simple and would produce neatly measurable results. The reason why homeopaths should do this is because it is a much better protocol than any we have ever seen suggested by them.

      It’s almost like they are afraid of something that would yield clear results. Why would that be, do you suppose?

  25. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Rtved, I see you have not chosen to address LCN’s point that he has followed the protocol guaranteed by one homeopath to produce an effect. We are well aware that homeopaths cannot agree on which protocol will produce a guaranteed effect. The only certainty is that each thinks he or she is correct and none of them comments that these discrepancies would be damn peculiar if homeopathy actually worked.

    As LCN says, because homeopathy doesn’t work the protocols are all equivalent and produce the same size of biological effect- zero.

    Does that help resolve the conundrum you set yourself?

  26. Rtved
    February 18, 2011 at 12:57 am

    LCN says

    “What homeopathic ‘provers’ experience are just random symptoms – there is no evidence that homeopathic pills can induce any consistent symptoms in people”.

    Right.Where did the Organon says Provers exhibit Consistent Syptoms across the board?.

    BSM, I read the challenge.I think LCN is making Unsupported Presumptions.

    • le canard noir
      February 18, 2011 at 1:10 am

      Um yet again, I refer you to the Organon, § 119

      As certainly as every species of plant differs in its external form, mode of life and growth, in its taste and smell from every other species and genus of plant, as certainly as every mineral and salt differs from all others, in its external as well as its internal physical and chemical properties (which alone should have sufficed to prevent any confounding of one with another), so certainly do they all differ and diverge among themselves in their pathogenetic – consequently also in their therapeutic – effects. Each of these substances produces alterations in the health of human beings in a peculiar, different, yet determinate manner, so as to preclude the possibility of confounding one with another.

      If you wish to make further criticism of our scholarship, perhaps you ought to go to the trouble of reading the organon yourself.

  27. Rtved
    February 18, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Things are getting interesting.

    We are talking about Provings here and NOT about the Mode of action on Patients.

    Organon 129

    If the effects that result from such a dose are but slight, a few more globules may be taken daily, until they become more distinct and stronger and the alterations of the health more conspicuous; for all persons are not effected by a medicine in an equally great degree; on the contrary, there is THERE IS A VAST VARIETY IN THIS RESPECT, so that sometimes an apparently weak individual may by scarcely at all affected by moderate doses of a medicine known to be of a powerful character, while he is strongly enough acted on by others of a much weaker kind. And, on the other hand, there are very robust persons who experience very considerable morbid symptoms from an apparently mild medicine, and only slighter symptoms from stronger drugs. Now, as this cannot be known beforehand, it is advisable to commence in every instance with a small dose of the drug and, where suitable and requisite, to increase the dose more and more from day to day.

    Organon 129 says in clear and Unambigous terms Provings Vary from Person to person.It says for example:
    quote

    THERE IS A VAST VARIETY IN THIS RESPECT.

    • Badly Shaved Monkey
      February 18, 2011 at 8:30 am

      And the evidence to support Hahnemann’s assertions is to be found where?

    • Mojo
      February 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm

      You’re moving the goalposts, Rtved. What was being talked about was homoeopaths taking their pills in order to identify the remedy, so the fact that a remedy might produce different degrees of symptom, or might take longer or more pills to produce its characteristic symptoms, does not matter as long as, as § 119 states, it “produces alterations in the health of human beings in a peculiar, different, yet determinate manner, so as to preclude the possibility of confounding one with another.”

      Of course, if the remedies don’t produce consistent and characteristic symptoms, then the whole business of prescribing remedies using the results of “provings” is complete nonsense.

      So which is it – do the remedies produce consistent and characteristic symptoms, or is homoeopathic prescribing nonsense?

  28. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 18, 2011 at 8:35 am

    By the way, you are following a well-trodden path for fans of sugar pills.

    Assertion 1: Homeopathic pills have strong and predictable biological effects.

    Assertion 2: Homeopathic pills have fragile and utterly unpredictable therapeutic effects.

    Assertion 1 is trotted out when trying to defend its therapeutic use.

    Assertion 2 is trotted out when trying to defend homeopathy from scientific scrutiny and/or excuse its failures in controlled trials.

    At the very least, homeopathy’s supporters are highly predictable.

  29. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 18, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Bugger! Switch the words “biological” and “therapeutic” in my statements of the assertions.

    Thus;

    Assertion 1: Homeopathic pills have strong and predictable therapeutic effects.

    Assertion 2: Homeopathic pills have fragile and utterly unpredictable biological effects.

    Assertion 1 is trotted out when trying to defend its therapeutic use.

    Assertion 2 is trotted out when trying to defend homeopathy from scientific scrutiny and/or excuse its failures in controlled trials.

    At the very least, homeopathy’s supporters are highly predictable.

    • Rtved
      February 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm

      Bsd says

      “Assertion 1: Homeopathic pills have strong and predictable therapeutic effects.’

      Wrong.Predictabilty for homeopathic treatment is very less because of uncertainity in determining a match b/n provings and patient conditions.

      Bsd says :

      “Assertion 2: Homeopathic pills have fragile and utterly unpredictable biological effects.’”

      Homeopathic Pills are fragile.That is why they are prepared onsite for dispensing.

      Bsd says :
      Assertion 1 is trotted out when trying to defend its therapeutic use.Assertion 2 is trotted out when trying to defend homeopathy from scientific scrutiny and/or excuse its failures in controlled trials.

      Who said that?.Atleast i am no saying it.

      Back to LCN for nonmonkey business and no derail.

      • Mojo
        February 18, 2011 at 1:17 pm

        “Homeopathic Pills are fragile.That is why they are prepared onsite for dispensing.”

        Seriously? If you buy pills from one of the many homoeopathic pharmacies that sell them via a website do they send one of their pharmacists round to make them? Are all those pre-packaged tubes of pills in Boots made in the shop?

  30. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    “Who said that?.Atleast i am no saying it”

    Oh, lordy, I see we have the usual reading comprehension problems to content with as well.

    “Wrong.Predictabilty for homeopathic treatment is very less because of uncertainity in determining a match b/n provings and patient conditions.”

    So, that would be you switching to Assertion 2 when challenged on the topic of Assertion 1.

    “Homeopathic Pills are fragile.That is why they are prepared onsite for dispensing.”

    Well, the alleged properties of the pills are protean. They are so sensitive they must not be touched by the bare hands of the person taking them. Yet they can survive utterly without practical limit if left alone in their bottle. Clearly the glass of those bottles renders the contents completely safe from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand, the bottles do not prevent breaches of the First Law. These permanent, immutable pills are allegedly capable of projecting their power onto pills in adjacent bottles. No practical limit is stated for their ability to reduce entropy in their surroundings.

    I know none of this makes sense, but I don’t make this crap up. I leave that to homeopaths.

    Your second statement is either untrue or meaningless. Obviously the pills have to be prepared at a “site” somewhere, but I don’t suppose you actually visit Boiron’s factory to collect your magic sugar. They are thus not prepared “onsite” if the site is the dispensing pharmacy.

    • Rtved
      February 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      BSM, let us see who is having comprehension problems:

      BSM said:
      “Assertion 1: Homeopathic pills have strong and predictable therapeutic effects.’

      Rtved said:Wrong.Predictabilty for homeopathic treatment is very less because of uncertainity in determining a match b/n provings and patient conditions.

      BSD said:

      Assertion 1 is trotted out when trying to defend its therapeutic use.Assertion 2 is trotted out when trying to defend homeopathy from scientific scrutiny and/or excuse its failures in controlled trials.

      RTved is saying Now:
      Assertion 2 regarding Fragility of Handling Homeopathic Pills has nothing to do with Scientific scrutiny.I havent seen any Moron making that assertion.

      BSD are you aware any homeopath making such assertion???.Please give reference.

      • Badly Shaved Monkey
        February 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm

        Umm, Rtved, can we take it that English is not your first language?

        I said;

        “Assertion 2: Homeopathic pills have fragile and utterly unpredictable biological effects.’”

        That is a statement concerning the effects allegedly produced by the pills.

        You went off at a tangent by wittering on about the supposed physical fragility of ghe pills themselves;

        Homeopathic Pills are fragile.That is why they are prepared onsite for dispensing.

        You then perpetuated your own misreading;

        Assertion 2 regarding Fragility of Handling Homeopathic Pills has nothing to do with Scientific scrutiny.I havent seen any Moron making that assertion.

        BSD are you aware any homeopath making such assertion???.Please give reference.

        To reiterate, no one has said that some physical fragility of the pills is an obstacle to scientific study of their effects. You are the only person who has introduced the idea. You tell us whether a moron would advance that strawman argument.

      • Badly Shaved Monkey
        February 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm

        P.S. Assertion 2 itself is a widespread belief among homeopaths. If you are unaware of it then you know less about homeopathy than you purport to do.

  31. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 18, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Rtved

    Can I suggestion that you just back away quietly from the holes you are digging here, put down your shovel and clamber out? Every statement you can possibly make in support of homeopathy will either be wrong or it can be contradicted by some source within the homeopathic world. Typically it will be both.

    • Rtved
      February 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      BSM, I am tired of Monkeybusiness and silly derails.

      I am interested in discussing provings with “le canard noir”

      From his last post made on February 18, 2011 at 1:10 am

      Where he quoted Organon 119.

      Um yet again, I refer you to the Organon, § 119

  32. Rtved
    February 18, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Mojo on February 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    You’re moving the goalposts, Rtved. What was being talked about was homoeopaths taking their pills in order to identify the remedy, so the fact that a remedy might produce different degrees of symptom, or might take longer or more pills to produce its characteristic symptoms, does not matter as long as, as § 119 states,…

    Mojo i am committed to discuss provings as specified in 129.129 is about Provings.

    119 is about materials being distinct and different.It has to be read along with 129 regarding each Subject differing in their extent of responses.

  33. Rtved
    February 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    For clarity Organon 129 is reproduced second time:

    § 129

    If the effects that result from such a dose are but slight, a few more globules may be taken daily, until they become more distinct and stronger and the alterations of the health more conspicuous; FOR ALL PERSONS ARE NOT EFFECTED BY A MEDICINE IN AN EQUALLY GREAT DEGREE; on the contrary, there is a vast variety in this respect, so that sometimes an apparently weak individual may by scarcely at all affected by moderate doses of a medicine known to be of a powerful character, while he is strongly enough acted on by others of a much weaker kind. And, on the other hand, there are very robust persons who experience very considerable morbid symptoms from an apparently mild medicine, and only slighter symptoms from stronger drugs. Now, as this cannot be known beforehand, IT IS ADVISABLE TO COMMENCE IN EVERY INSTANCE WITH A SMALL DOSE OF THE DRUG AND, WHERE SUITABLE AND REQUISITE, TO INCREASE THE DOSE MORE AND MORE FROM DAY TO DAY.

    • Nash
      February 19, 2011 at 1:19 pm

      What this verse boils down to is “Anything can happen”

      • rtved
        February 20, 2011 at 6:12 am

        It is not saying anything can happen.

        It says

        until they become more distinct and stronger and the alterations of the health more conspicuous;

        These are the procedures Laid down for PROVINGS.

      • Mojo
        February 20, 2011 at 8:12 am

        § 129 says that the symptoms produced may vary in intensity, or take longer, and/or larger doses, to appear. It does not say that different symptoms will appear in different subjects. There is nothing in § 129 to suggest that the test suggested by Le Canard Noir shouldn’t work, just that it might take longer for some homoeopaths to identify the remedies than others.

        You only really have two options here: either remedies produce consistent symptoms in provings, as § 119 states, and LCN’s test should work, or they don’t produce consistent symptoms and so are useless for determining appropriate prescriptions.

  34. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    It’s 2011 and we are engaged in a minute discussion of individual assertions from a 200-year old book.

    Great!

    • Mojo
      February 20, 2011 at 8:15 am

      And I’d be concerned if my doctor had last year’s BNF on his desk…

    • Rtved
      February 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      Now, that is some belated wisdom after some dozens of posts.

  35. Rtved
    February 20, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Mojo on February 20, 2011 at 8:12 am

    § 129 says that the symptoms produced may vary in intensity, or take longer, and/or larger doses, to appear. It does not say that different symptoms will appear in different subjects..

    RTVED:Good.That is some improvement from dismissing it as derail.

    The Time lag for appearance of symptoms vary from person to person as per 129. And the Order of appearence also varies as per Refer Organon 134.

    • Rtved
      February 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Continuing on 134: All the symptoms doesn’t appear in First trial.

    • Mojo
      February 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm

      It is a derail, because as I pointed out above there is nothing in § 129 that in any way invalidates LCN’s proposed test.

      The remedies are supposed, according to the Organon, to produce symptoms that are consistent, specific and unmistakable in nature, if not in intensity. And if they don’t then the whole of homoeopathic prescribing is nonsense.

  36. Rtved
    February 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    LCN and other such serious dudes better take a systematic approach in scrutinizing Homeopathic Provings.

    Downing some “Homeopathic preparation” at one go and shouting Ooh lala the next Minute is not going to earn any credibility.

    • le canard noir
      February 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm

      On the contrary. It is for those who risk people’s health and lives by making extraordinary claims about these sugar pills to take a “systematic approach” and actually demonstrate under what conditions their claimed effect actually works.

      I have a feeling you are either trolling or being dishonest now.

      Perhaps you would like to get off the fence and actually state your position. Do you believe these pills have an effect? An under what conditions?

      • Rtved
        February 21, 2011 at 1:29 am

        No body should be making any extraordinary claims with regards to Homeopathic TREATMENT.Fight them by all means.The Kind of People who recommend Homeopathic preparations enmass for Malaria.

        If OTOH you are making a serious attempt to Disprove Provings in Individual remedies of Homeopathy do it with Some serious study and planning.

        The cheering monkeys and Attentoion seeking Bojos are not going to be of any use.

        Cheers.

  37. Badly Shaved Monkey
    February 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Rtved, you seem still not to have accepted that homeopaths have claimed that taking the pills as LCN has done will cause dramatic effects. Obviously, you claim these homeopaths were wrong. Its a familiar tactic. The No True Scotsman fallacy is a homeopathic favourite.

    I see you have made no comment at all about LCN’s “Simple Challenge”. If you do not accept it is well-founded, what problem do you have with it and how would you solve it?

  38. Rtved
    August 8, 2011 at 4:53 am

    BSM

    ” homeopaths have claimed that taking the pills as LCN has done will cause dramatic effects”.

    Dramatic effects are not uniform across people.

    Homeopathic dilution method do cause effects that have no explanation scientifically.

    If there are any serious researchers who are willing to take the risks i suggest the following preparations which i find to cause DRAMATIC effects in most of the people.

    Natrum sulph 6x

    kali phos 6x

  39. Badly Shaved Monkey
    August 8, 2011 at 7:10 am

    “Homeopathic dilution method do cause effects that have no explanation scientifically.”

    Cite some. We’ve seen no adequate evidence that this is true.

    “Dramatic effects are not uniform across people.”
    “If there are any serious researchers who are willing to take the risks i suggest the following preparations which i find to cause DRAMATIC effects in most of the people.”

    What strategy would you propose to show any such effects if they are not consistent?

    You seem to admit that the effects are not uniform then suggest again that a single-person will have impressive and convincing results. You can’t have it both ways.

Leave a Reply