Just what is Christine Braithwaite of the Professional Standards Authority doing speaking at a homeopaths’ conference on treating children with autism with sugar pills? The Society of Homeopaths is holding it annual conference with a theme based around treating children with autism. Braithwaite is the Director of Standards and Policy. You may think that the regulator would be doing its best to protect parents and children from the absurd fantasies of homeopaths who think they can successfully treat autism with their magical thinking.
At one level this is perfectly understandable. The PSA have accredited the Society of Homeopaths as an Accredited Register. On paper, this means that the PSA have run a tick box exercise that shows the Society run something that looks like a professional register of health practitioners. To the public though, it could easily be seen as an official endorsement of an absurd form of quackery. You may argue that it should be up to the Accredited Register to sanction those members involved in such treatments. But this is the actual Register keepers organising this event.
The Society of Homeopaths are holding their annual conference at Keele University. Of itself, borrowing the mantle of an academic institution is bad enough. However, this year they are going a step further by inviting the PSA to talk to their members. The Society says, “Christine will be giving a short presentation and be available in the exhibition suite to chat with everyone and answer any questions’.
Just what should Christine be saying to their members? A look at the other speakers would suggest that she is sharing a platform with some very disagreeable quackery. It is worth going through their list of speakers and workshops.
Philippa Fibert, billed as the Society Research Consultant, will be holding a workshop on “Homeopaths treating autism – capturing our effectiveness”. The pamphlet says,
Treatment of children with autism spectrum conditions (ASDs) are an increasing part of homeopath’s practices, with many success stories. But how effective are we collectively? This workshop presents a new project which aims to start answering this question and provide practical steps enabling your involvement. By the end of the session you should have a clear idea of how to participate and contribute your ASD patient’s cases to this project. You will also have an idea how you might start up a similar project for other conditions, receiving ongoing support from the Society research consultant; and contribute to development of awareness of what our profession can achieve.
It should be of great concern to the PSA that the Society appears to be encouraging its members to treat children with autism. Often parents can be devastated with such a diagnosis and desperate to try any intervention. Autism forms part of a spectrum of brain development disorders where behaviour and social interaction developments can be slowed down or stopped. Naturally, parents are keen to help their children in whatever ways they can. There is no good evidence that treatment with homeopathic practices can assist in any way. To suggest otherwise is exploitative and deceptive. It is simply cruel. Homeopaths have no scientifically recognised skills to diagnose or treat any illness. Homeopathy is based on discredited and magical views of health and biology. It has no role to play in children’s health.
The various speakers at the conference appear to hold various misconceived and worrying views of medicine and autism.
John Melnychuk claims that “during the last 20 years John has treated thousands of children with an autism diagnosis.” His website says that it is his “particular delight to treat children.”
John is in his fifteenth year of full time homeopathic family practice in Palo Alto. John is a classical homeopath with a specialty in treating children and adults with developmental and neurological conditions such as autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, cerebral palsy, and mental retardation.
Homeopathy uses substances so dilute that nothing remains. Using homeopathy, John is treating these children with water and sugar pills.
What sort of substances get used in these ridiculously diluted so-called remedies? A talk from Linda Gwillim from Wales may shed some light on this with her pioneering use of human placenta (diluted to extreme levels) to treat children. She took part in the original homeopathic magic ritual of ‘proving’ to introduce placenta to their repertoire. Parents are encouraged to make a homeopathic remedy from their child’s own placenta,
Homeopathics, like essences, are remedies that heal on a vibrational, energetic level. Homeopathic placenta remedy can be used as your child’s constitutional remedy for life since it was their life-giving source for their time in-utero. It contains the blue print of his/her energetic make-up and hence, the amazing ability to bring balance and illicit healing from within when illness, disease, emotional challenges, or difficult life transitions arise.
I am intrigued to hear what the PSA will think the ethical and practical regulatory problems arise from this therapeutic witchcraft.
The conference will also explore the thoughts of David Lilley who thinks “homeopathy creates a conjunction between the metaphor of the remedy and the metaphor of the patient: it heals through the matching of symbols and archetypes. The potentised, homeopathic remedy is a portal to the archetypal world of myth and symbol.”
I hope that is clear to you. David likes to look at things like the “Psychopathology of Children in the Light of the Chronic Miasms”. Miasms are the mystical, pseudoscientific causes of illness according to homeopaths. They have no place in modern medicine. It may be worth quoting him in depth so you can make your own mind up,
Children are more likely to wear their miasms on their sleeves. The early years of life provide a vital, and sometimes fleeting, window through which the discerning practitioner can scrutinise the miasmatic legacy, and the endowed and inherited influences of the past. It is also at this time that the situational circumstances of the child’s life exert their greatest and enduring influence, imprinting the soul with patterns of perception, preference and prejudice, modified or enhanced by the miasm holding sway. The environment is not experienced as consistently caring and holding, and basic trust, the essential ingredient for a creative and enlightened life, is lost, and the shadow-self emerges. This is the period when the healing power of homeopathy can exert its greatest effect upon the individuation process of the soul.
The spiritually healing power of disease is inherent in the miasmatic continuum, and facilitates the individuation process of humanity. The harmonising of homeopathic therapy with this unfolding in the individual, is the highest calling of the homeopathic physician”
Also speaking is Kim Kalina, a homeopath from Wiltshire, who appears to specialise in something called CEASE therapy. This variant of homeopathy was invented by the homeopath Tinus Smits. CEASE stands for Complete Elimination of Autistic Spectrum Expression. This therapy involves homeopathy and something called orthomolecular medicine – basically, selling unnecessary and potentially harmful vitamin pills. According to CEASE theory, autism is the result of vaccines, medical drug usage and amalgam fillings. CEASE claims to ‘detox’ children of these things. Utter nonsense, of course.
In Sweden, it is illegal to treat children with so-called alternative medicine. This is proper regulatory protection of children who may be exploited by quacks. Providing window stickers to pseudo-regulators who comply with a tick-box questionnaire is not protecting anyone but instead providing a state-endorsed imprimatur of harmful nonsense.
What should Christine Braithwaite do? To appear to endorse such appalling quackery that exploits parents fears would be utterly unacceptable for someone involved in the protection of the public from harm. But to walk away would show the absurdity of the PSA’s decision to endorse an organisation that promotes delusional health practices. Such are the dilemmas you get into when you suggest that the way to protect the public from quackery is to pretend that people who believe and practice according to pseudoscientific and superstitious nonsense are health professionals.
The PSA’s accreditation of the Society of Homeopaths is currently being reviewed and is due on 9 September. This will be a test of the PSA’s commitment to protecting the public.
Is there any concerted effort to lobby the PSA and/or any other organisations that may influence the PSA to withdraw thie ludicrous support for homeopathy?
Exactly the thought that occurred to me a few minutes ago.
The PSA review appears related to annual re-certification. On Sept. 9 the SoH will or not be re-certified for the 2015-2016. I can’t believe the PSA’s Director Braithwaite would schedule a speech for an organization about to be denied re-certification.
Does the PSA really have any real world function, or is it just another body that never ceases?
The only possible placebo effect is on the parent, and that does nothing for the child.
Autism is a perfect area for magical treatment since it is so poorly understood.
Alexander Pope described it well, but the angels are far behind.
“Homeopathy uses substances so dilute that nothing remains. Using homeopathy, John is treating these children with water and sugar pills.”
2 research papers in physics.
IKZ: Now prove that a residual molecule or two of anything can actually show some sort of efficacy in a treatment! Be sure to cite a well designed, large scale, appropriately blinded and controled study published in a well known top tier peer reviewed medical or scientific journal.
There is a lot of information available if you wish to pursue it.
I think I should ban the pasting of links unless the poster can explain why they are posting them.
I should also ban the tedious cherry pickihg of studies. IT forces people once again to point out the same errors. You have posted some results fro Jacobs. But only the most positive ones. There are others thar are negative, and when looked at as a whole, the evidence looks very weak. You fail to point this out hoping people will only see the cherry picked positive results.
“You have posted some results fro Jacobs. But only the most positive ones”
If homeopathic medicine is in-effective, there can be no weak evidence also. It will be NO evidence always.
You can counter with negative report for review. Alternatively, you can insist that only negative reports are allowed – in line with YOUR personal understanding.
If you write an open blog you should be ready to see contrary evidence.
And if this would be the rationale, you will be left with nothing to print with 92% medicine turning out to be non-effective:
“The true picture has emerged only since regulations that control clinical medical trials have been tightened up in the US. Before the stricter rules were introduced in 2000, 57 per cent of large-budget clinical trials for the prevention or treatment of heart disease were returning positive results; since then, just 8 per cent of trials have been positive.
Researchers from Oregon State University explored large trials that were funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In all, of the 55 studies reviewed, 30 were published before the regulations were tightened, and 25 published since. Of the 25 published more recently, just two had positive outcomes, compared with 17 of the 30 studies published under more lax reporting requirements.
Under the tougher rules, all clinical trials involving people must be posted with the clinical trials.gov database beforehand. This prevents poor results being forgotten, or massaging the data to achieve a better outcome.
Although their analysis covered drugs and treatments only for heart disease, the researchers are confident they would see a similar picture emerge for treatments for diabetes, cancer and any other disease.
(Source: PLOS ONE, August 2015; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132382)
INK said, “if homeopathic medicine is in-effective, there can be no weak evidence also. It will be NO evidence always.”
Clearly you do not understand evidence or science.
I would strongly suggested you immerse yourself in the following site. It is really very good and designed to help people understand how to conduct fair tests of medical treatments. It is based on a rather excellent book of the same now but is now available in interactive form online. The intrductions shoul dbe enough for you to understand why you are wrong in your above statement. Come back when you get it.
It is disappointin to see such low quality reserach papers being used to support homeopathy. Both papers are utter nonsense.
Let’s take them at face value – homeopathic materials remain after serial dilution. The most obvious explanation is poor dilution procedures. That is, you do not dilute very well and allow contamination between dilutions. Some homeopathic techiques for dilution may well do this. But others not. Homeopaths use all sorts of methods from fully automated (Korsakovian) to tradition (leather bible and lots of banging). Do all methiods result in the same lack of proper dilution? Or only some methods? In both papers, results are best explained by low signal background contamination. If these results were true, it ought to be able to take a homeopathic rememdy and determine which one it is using analytical methids. This has never been done. And even if this results are meaningful, and not just very poor lab practice, they say nothing about how microscopic traces of material can have significant biological effects as intended by a homeopath.
In short – pathological science – and it is a shame that homeopathy supporters continue to uncritically cite these papers.
“Both papers are utter nonsense.”
You did not accept outcome or because you do not understand.
I have a PhD in elemental anaysis and have worked for years in microanalysis. These papers are close to being academic fraud.
What is your academic expertise in these areas?
“What is your academic expertise in these areas?”
I did my MSc. in Physics 30 years back. Many things have changed in the intervening period. 30 Noble prizes in Physics alone since then.
My academics is not important: You should compare your academic record with the scientists doing these tests.
Ever thought of a refresher course?
It is interesting how often students of the ‘hard sciences’ do not understand how to interpret soft data.
“The most obvious explanation is poor dilution procedures.”
Report 1 was presented in New Scientist June 11, 03. The point made by you is already addressed and closed.
Report 2 states ” medicines in high potencies such as 30c and 200c involve huge dilution factors (10⁶⁰ and 10⁴⁰⁰ respectively) which are many orders of magnitude greater than Avogadro’s number, so that theoretically there should be no measurable remnants of the starting materials.”
The team knew of the possibility.
We can look for biological effects also.
Note the word ‘theorectically’. In any laboratory siutation imperfect laboratory procedures will make it certain that you will be able to detect something. Failing to take this into account is the fraud.
“Note the word ‘theoretically’.”
The scientist accepts the fact that the theory is not known.
“In any laboratory situation imperfect laboratory procedures will make it certain that you will be able to detect something.”
Why are you stating an assumption to justify a preconceived notion?
Deary me IKZ. It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.
Let’s start this from another angle.
If it is true that homeopathic remedies actually contain the materials that are used, then this ought to be causing chaos and mayhem in the Homeopathic community.
For a start, Hahnemann’s intention was to dilue to remove the toxic effect of the substances he was using. If homeopaths cannto do that then where does this leave homeopathy?
Secondlly, many substance are serious health hazards. You can easily find homeopatjic remedies using deadly toxins or viruses. If these rmain then homeopathic remedies pose a serious healh risk. Regulation assumes dilution removes all these things. Why is there not panic?
Thirdly, what about all the imponderable remedies, like ‘Light from Venus’, ‘Shipwreck’ or ‘Dolphin Sonar’. What does this paper have to say about them?
The thoughtlessness of homeopaths amazes me.
IKZ, if homeopathic dilution had the effects claimed for it then the routine of serial dilution carried out in biological laboratories every day would give wildly discordant results.
They don’t. It doesn’t. QED.
“Deary me IKZ. It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.” “”Both papers are utter nonsense.”
This does not seem to come from a PhD. More like a dramatist.
Many new studies are finding their way on Pubmed.
“if homeopathic dilution had the effects claimed for it then the routine of serial dilution carried out in biological laboratories every day would give wildly discordant results.”
If you read the first reference, you will understand the difference.
“Let’s start this from another angle.”
What was wrong with direct discussion?
“If ..homeopathic remedies actually contain the materials that are used, …causing chaos and mayhem in the Homeopathic community.”
Rationale? Until now the argument was exactly opposite. Angle changed?
“Hahnemann’s intention was to dilute to remove the toxic effect of the substances he was using”
You seem not to understand the difference between dilute and presence of material in a solution?
“You can easily find homeopathic remedies using deadly toxins or viruses. If these remain then homeopathic remedies pose a serious health risk. ”
Toxins are deadly relative to quantity of material consumed. What logic changed in the above 2 reports? HOMŒOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA by William BOERICKE, M.D is available on net. Check contents and let me know consuming which of the toxins used will be ” serious health risk” at 30 C dilution?
“I have a PhD in elemental analysis and have worked for years in micro analysis.”
I seriously doubt your statement.
Deary, deary me.
Nothing is dangerous at a 30C dilution. No substance can have any effect on a biological system at that level of dilution This is why homeopathy is nonsense.
But – and do try to keep up – the claim is that some of starting materials are retained. That is, the dilution is not happening and somehow asymptotes. If that is so, then for example, any viruses still present represent an infection risk. No homeopath appears to be at all bothered by this but and quick to cite this paper. That is either a) complete stupidiy or b) utter dishonesty. Which do you think it is?
This site is bad quality because of:
Wrong presentation of facts : PhD
No imagination : Choice of subjects and arguments.
Repetitive arguments : An old scratched gramophone record.
Stuck in time wrap: No acknowledgement of new scientific data.
The Indian newspapers use the black border similar to yours when publishing obituary.
Is that your drift also?
Wrong presentation of facts : PhD
– Whar on earth are yo on about?
No imagination : Choice of subjects and arguments.
– I am sorry my blog does not discuss the subjects you wish me to. There are many other blogs out there that may discuss the thing you want to. Why are you not there?
Repetitive arguments : An old scratched gramophone record.
– If I am guilty of repetitive arguments it is because quacks use the same old disproven nonsense time after time. Even if my argument are repetitive (and I am not sure which ones you mean) are they wrong?
Stuck in time wrap: No acknowledgement of new scientific data.
– I often discuss new scientific results. Which results do you think I should be acknowledging?
“Nothing is dangerous at a 30C dilution. No substance can have any effect (ANY EFFECT)on a biological system at that level of dilution This is why homeopathy is nonsense.”
You sure. As I mentioned, time wrap continues. Ernst E does not think so:
I note this paper does not mention 30C remedies. Remedies can be dangerous when they are at material dilutions or are incorreclty diluted. So yes, I am sure that a properly diluted 30C remedy can have no effect.
“I note this paper does not mention 30C remedies”
You did not read the small review headline? This was systematic review: “In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy.”
I always believed Ernst E was an idiot. He does not understand what to review!!!!
You just confirmed my understanding.
Oh and by the way- a cheap and cheerful comment, but mine own- I notice that some sellers of ‘water divining’ rods on Amazon use the same type of logic as homeopaths. They claim that their rods can find not only water, but also minerals, lost children, cats, dogs….So it seems that as with Magic Water’s ability to ‘remember’ everything that’s been in it, but be selective about which bits you want it to remember, so can copper. Imagine how many people have gone divining for gold, but found a cat.
In 2012, four hundred prominent Australian medical scientists and practitioners formed the Friends of Science in Medicine Group. Their principal aim was to decry the teaching of pseudo-scientific health subjects in Australian Universities. They maintained that there was no such thing as alternative medicine. They
claimed that there was good medicine and bad medicine. Guess where they placed homeopathy.
Need I add more?
Have long thought/argued that so called Complementary/Alternative Medicine should be known as pseudo-medicine as CAM/ALT gives the various scams that come under those headings far too much credibility.
Well as somebody pointed out, there is no such thing as ‘Alternative Medicine’. If it works, it’s ‘Medicine’. There’s nothing alternative about it.
A rather dismaying true story-
A few months ago I was ‘Unfriended’ on Facebook by a long-standing friend who moved to France, simply because I argued with him-cogently- on Homeopathy.
He pointed out that French doctors have to do an extra 2 years’ ‘training’ in addition to the regular Degree course in order to become homeopaths. As another British friend who lives there pointed out, it’s extremely popular in France.
I replied that in that case it was 2 years wasted, and it didn’t matter if it were an extra 200 years. It’s still pointless.
The clincher was when he said ‘Of course I don’t believe in homeopathy. You know I don’t. It’s nonsense. But some of it can work’.
Just an indication of how pernicious the spread of this belief is.
Next thing they will be treating conditions like autism and ADHD with “quack” unlicensed supplements like melatonin.
On second thoughts most paediatricians are already doing that.
However, melatonin isn’t actually used to “treat” either ASD or ADHD. It is used to help re-establish sleep patterns something close to normal, which is not the same thing at all.
This is def the worst website ever:
– Displaying opinions of non-qualified health professionals
– Full of on-line teenage haters
– Most Partial website I’ve ever seen
If you want impartial advise on anything related to health, please visit:
WHO – World Health Organisation
NHS – National Health System
British Heart Foundation
Please don’t waste your time in this rubbish website.
Thankyou for your thoughtful contribution.
You are welcome.
Get some real health professionals in here, ask for independent advisers to regulate this website and you will be on your way to stop being a quack website. At the moment, this website is messy, inconsistent and hypocritical.
How can a Quack website criticise anything? Funny and Hypocritical.
Looks like reading “OK Magazine”.
Lets improve this Website Guys, please.
Well. I’m a qualified health professional. But holding those qualifications is not necessary to construct coherent arguments about scientific medicine and its distinction from the superstitious magic of homeopathy.
My suggestion? Play the ball, not the man.
” I’m a qualified health professional. But holding those qualifications is not necessary to construct coherent arguments about scientific medicine”
Something wrong about your assessment of your self.
You have no idea, IKZ.
Oddly, you seen to have ignored the question I posed you about how you wish to regulate blogs.
I presume andyliveit that you are a qualified health professional and are fully authorised to make these criticims. That would be wonderful.
Out of interest, what level of qualification is required before you can start criticising so-called alternative medicine?
Try qualifying in any medical field first, then go and work for a respectful institution, for example BUPA, NHS, etc. Then, on your spare time, you can volunteer to be part of a team of health professionals contributing in producing relevant and impartial information about preventive medicine and complementary therapies.
It’s not hard to do that. It will just need you to study and then, look for a real job.
I’m a qualified health professional and I have a science degree and worked for over 30 years in the NHS. Is that good enough?
Homeopathy requires a re-writing of our entire understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and medicine for it to work.
The Noble Prize Committee is that a-away ——> and I’m sure will be very pleased to hear from you.
because they are hosting a children’s party and forgot to book a clown?
“Homeopathy requires a re-writing of our entire understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and medicine for it to work.”
If your knowledge lacks depth does not mean a science cannot exist. If I remember correctly, Einstein did not accept the rationale of Quantum Physics. “God does not play dice” was his refrain.
You can also be imaginative with a matching comment.
Einstein was proven wrong when the evidence for quantum mechanics became overwhelming. Homeopathy has no overwhelming evidence base. The evidence in fact points the other way – that it is nonsense. Hence, there is no need to re-write physics or biology or anything. Homeopathy is just an old idea based on magical thinking. The beliefs of homeopaths can be easily explained by psycholiogy with no need for overhauling our ideas about matter.
But homeopathy doesn’t require that we rewrite physics. The remedies are just sugar and the effects are illusory.
“Homeopathy has no overwhelming evidence base. The evidence in fact points the other way – that it is nonsense”.
You will find a lot of evidence if you were looking for it impartially and were a real PhD. The fear that you will have to eat a lot of paper if you accepted evidence, is holding you back.
You even called your erstwhile hero, Ernst.E an idiot, when he revised his position to adverse effects from no effects for homeopathy. The next stage is effects.
For a change, instead of parroting old cliches like an “old scratched gramophone record” let us see a PhD analyze the 2 studies and come up with proper scientific rebuttal.
I have spent the best part of ten years studying the scientific literature around homeopathy. Deeply flawed, poor quality and sometimes obviously fraudulent. When independent bodies have looked at the totality of the evidence (and not cherry picked what they like such as you have done) the conclusions have been that there is no decent evidence base for homeopathy and it is not effective for any condition – which is consistent with the obvious fact that it is an inert treatment.
I have asked you before and I will ask you again: why would adverse events get reported for an inert treatment? Would you expect no adverse events to be reported? Please try to think this through.
You appear to think that cherry picking papers about Traumeel proves that homeopathy is effective. Heel, the manufacturer, is behind these studies and has not been cooperative in allowing independent review. I draw my own conclusions from that.
“I have spent the best part of ten years studying the scientific literature around homeopathy.”
The “old scratched gramophone record”. QED.
I note you have not addressed my question. Is that an oversight, or a deliberate attempt not to engage in a question that might expose your arguments as baseless?
It’s interesting that you quote the World Health Organisation, as do many homeopaths, I’ve seen sites where they crow that ‘The WHO admit that homeopathy is the fastest growing medical treatment system in the world currently’. It’s in homeopaths’ own interests of course to omit the part where it says ‘to their dismay’. As to impartiality- it’s one thing to go into a subject like homeopathy with impartiality, but to come out the other end still impartial is imbecilic.
As to needing a medical qualification in order to have an opinion on this- I think no such qualification is needed to have an opinion on bad logic, lies, cherry-picked statistics etc.
I know little about Electronics, but just enough to figure that a guy who claims he can fix a TV with a sausage is probably talking nonsense.
my point relates specifically to criticising this hypocritical website (unregulated and unaccredited source of information) and to contributors like yourself (unqualified, unregulated, unregistered, uninsured in dealing with health or even medical issues). if you don’t understand that, this proves my point about low quality contribution, from this website supporters.
Your proposals for regulating and accrediting commentary blogs would, I suspect t, provide some entertainment. Do, please, share them with us.
Try using the NHS blog/commentary section. Not only the Article will be made by qualified/experienced health professionals, but also the content is reviewed and updated regularly.
I’m just saying there are much better websites/blogs/commentary sections out there.
If one day you bother to look at an article written by a medical professional, you will understand the difference.
Deal with the point about what the WHO says about homeopathy. It was your decision, not mine, to adduce them in support of your argument.
Deal with the point about how no medical qualification is needed to pick holes in someone’s logic, lies and fallacies.
In fact- tell me how you know anything at all about my qualifications.
Andyliveit has a valid point. This website is just bad in general, no one is talking about therapies (favour or against it). The point is, no relevant content! On all posts.
OK. Homeopathy is a load of impossible nonsense. Your view, please.
My point is: “this website and blog is rubbish”. Not in favour or against any complementary therapy.
In its way, this is still as vacuous as your previous comments. Why is it ‘rubbish’? You must have SOME reason for saying this? Or do you find yourself saying stuff without realising it?
You must be blind or dumb if you can’t see how rubbish this website it. But then, who cares? Rubbish sells really well everywhere
‘No one is talking about therapies’ is so vacuous an observation that it’s difficult to know how to respond.
I’m sure there are are countless other sites you could go to if you want to ‘talk about therapies’.
It seems to have escaped your notice that this particular site is called ‘Quackometer’ for a reason.
Should change the name of the website from “quackometer” to “Teenage Nonsense Haters” and explain at the “Home Page” that the articles are written by a nobody, that has no real job, non-literate, not a health professional (or even a professional of any kind); the supporters are aged 12-19yo and contribute in a blog section, that is available just below every low quality article,
Published in this platform.
ROFL! Oh you are amusing, Joanna 2. Please keep it up.
Very well expressed.
Spelling mistakes, poor grammar, illogical reasoning are fundamental issues.
YOU use a phrase like ‘My academics is not important’ and you have the sheer nerve to criticise another’s grammar?
You believe that a substance becomes more potent the more it’s diluted? And criticise others’ illogical reasoning?
I know you keep running away from questions you don’t want to answer, but how about this challenge.
Will you agree to a blind testing of unlabelled bottles, some containing water, others containing homeopathic Woo- or water as we call it-and attempt to differentiate them?
If not why not?
Anyway I thought you’d disappeared to spend that million you must have won.
How on Earth do you know anything about me or my qualifications? As to being 12 years old- did you even read your own petulant little post before you submitted it?
For someone who claims-not that it was ever credible-to have no opinions either way as to ‘alternative therapies’, you do appear to be rather strident.
And by the way-if the fellow IKZ considers your post to be ‘very well expressed’, I can only think that he’s using the works of Dan Brown as a comparison.
How you doing IKZ? Got any of the million left?
I see you are still evading engagement with the substantive issues. Does it not worry you that you find yourself incapable of doing so?
Badly Shaved Monkey
“Does it not worry you that you find yourself incapable of doing so?”
Communicating with a monkey – and badly shaved?
No. It does not. I am not Dr. Dolittle.
That last response doesn’t even qualify as an excuse. You are merely being evasive and I suspect some part of you knows you have shown yourself unable to contribute in any more meaningful manner, but will face the consequences of that inability.
I have been disputing with homeopaths for nearly 15 years and your pattern of behaviour is typical.
Please, let me help you here. The key to grammar-flaming is to write more grammatically than those you wish to mock. Otherwise you look a bit silly.
On the other hand, you might like to engage with the substantive issues.
I see that Linda Gwillim’s website really does state “illicit healing from within”. Is she eliterate?
When is one of the homeopathy fans here going to pick up James Randi’s 1 million dollar prize?
If as IKZ claims his academics is – sic – not important, why is he so demanding in relation to others?
IKZ-‘New scientific data’? ‘Indian newspapers’? ‘Black borders’? Any chance of your explaining which planet you recently moved to? Do you have a holiday home there? Any chance you could answer at least one or two of the questions you’ve recently been asked? Any more details on these new scientific data? Any understanding of the notion that you’re starting to slip slightly below the radar of even some of the slightly saner homeopathy fans?
Please read some new scientific data.
The best would be the patients.
And the patients with effective treatment in USA:
The best ‘scientific evidence’ you can come up with is a handfull of case studies? Perhaps you can tell us where case studies exist on the heirarchy of evidence and why they are unreliable in determining causation?
As for the second link, please read
Once an idiot, always an idiot. Good idea to gloss over death and disability figures.
Patients who choose “scientific medicine” and pay for it, deserve such treatment. AND
“Admissions caused by adverse reactions are only one aspect of drug related morbidity and account for about 10% of the adverse effects observed in hospitals.4 A larger proportion of adverse effects probably occurs in the community and never leads to admission.”
Dr. Lucien Leape’s report was an eye opener. Until then, the extent of disaster was not known. Now another doctor is at it. Start reading Dr. Blaser’s research on microbes and the impact of antibiotics on cancer, diabetes etc.
As they say, you can tell a homeopath it’s water, but you cannot make them think.
IKZ – I do not think you can comprehend what we are arguing. You perceive it as idiocy? That is just a reflection upon yourself.
By the way – ‘Time wrap’ is one I’m CERTAINLY having.
Your use of language occasionally trumps-were such a thing possible -your rather absurd understanding of both Science AND logic.
In response to my point about serial dilutions in routine lab science you said;
which is a bit elliptical but appears to mean that you were referring to those useless old Jacobs studies.
So, the “difference” is that instead of responding to my argument, you cited an old weak clinical study that is irrelevant.
But, I do not expect homeofans to be able to engage in a coherent discussion. This is more a case of shooting at your feet to watch you dance.
However, you have a chance to prove me wrong. Address the point about benchtop serial dilution.
Or perhaps you were referring to that old Rey thermoluminescence paper. If it pointed to an underlying truth that repeatedly rinsed containers hold contents with unexpected properties then you would have conceded my point about the implications of homeopathic pharmacy practice for routine biochemical experiments.
In other words, you would have lost the argument but failed to notice.
Since you are keen on Rey’s paper, you should read this fairly thorough critique of it.
Weak methods, inadequate controls, no statistical analysis at all. Apart from that, it’s a brilliant piece of work.
I doubt that you have cited your various sources from your own independent literature searching so they have probably been quoted without thought from one of the many clueless homeopathic internet echochambers, I wonder whether you have read any of them yourself.
One thing that the lackwit fools who support homeopathy seem not to have noticed as they clutch their precious set of clinical and lab studies to their bosoms is that these papers are getting older and remain unreplicated. Given that the authors are either pubic or closet supporters of homeopathy with a strong personal investment in it, where is the progressive refinement of their work in better and better quality journals that the Nobel Committee might notice instead of the bottom-feeding paper-mills and pet journals with appalling peer review? Even if there was a conspiracy to keep the work out of good journals, they have no problem publishing in their own rags, so where are the high-quality papers? With clinical studies, better work costs a lot of money and can take years. Homeopathy is now so busted that it’s unlikely these will be carried out, but lab studies can be churned out quickly, cheaply and often in labs to which these off-the-rails loons have ready access. There is one obvious explanation why we don’t see a stinger and stronger signal emerging from the noise: there is no signal, but the researchers lack the honesty to report their failure to replicate initial results.
Thank you Autocorrect;
There is one obvious explanation why we don’t see a stronger and stronger signal emerging from the noise: there is no signal, but the researchers lack the honesty to report their failure to replicate initial results.
Watched the Horizon documentary again the other day-available on Youtube-but since it features among others their hate figure James Randi I expect the homeopaths won’t watch it. Can’t think that there could be a more convincing demonstration of the foolishness of this belief, unless one is resolute and determined NOT to be convinced. And how Madeleine Ennis is still in a job defies logic.
Well – -it looks as though we’ve heard the last of IKZ.
Maybe he won the James Randi million-dollar prize by proving beyond doubt that homeopathy works, and doesn’t need to engage in further argument.
In which case, this site would seem to be redundant.
I feel embarrassed for my sceptical foolishness. Albeit that the news that Science as we know it was all wrong doesn’t seem to have been as widely reported as one might expect.
You still there IKZ?
What you spending your million on?
Every post in this website is quack as quack can be.
EVERY post? Even the ones you agree with? Are you even aware when you’re speaking? Do you realise that you’ve now taken the place of IKZ now that he’s done the wise thing and exited the battlefield? And you’re now the class idiot? Still – your decision. Let’s see what you got.
Quack like a teenage quack, keep quacking rubbish little boy.
I’m liking Junior already.
Seems to be rather angry. And about as mad as a settee.
IKZ posted a comment about case studies;
I wonder whether you can explain back to us why case studies are proof of nothing.
You’ve also, once again, evaded giving an answer about routine serial dilutions in labs. I wonder why.
Actually, IKZ, even in their own terms those cases that you cited are interesting demonstrations of the natural history of the disease not response to homeopathy, though it is likely that regular dressing changes with an antibacterial topical treatment helped. Did you notice that last bit?
In two of the photo sets of appearance before homeopathy there is clear evidence of healthy granulation. In another, the hand, there is a clear demarcation where the dry necrosis has halted and the dead tissue is waiting to slough off. I suspect you have never managed these conditions and are clueless as to the normal processes that are involved.
In summary, at least three of those cases show the homeopaths stepping in once the path to resolution of the problem had already been set. Well done, them.
The problem is that if homeopaths tell themselves they can treat gangrene then they will kill patients whose disease is less forgiving.
Further to the above, that case series cited by IKZ illustrates another problem of homeopaths. They are so ignorant of biology and medicine and constrain their narratives so tightly to serve the needs of homeopathy that they really are terrible at recognising the natural courses of diseases. For them, every recovery after sugar pill is a miracle of homeopathy.
“In summary, at least three of those cases show the homeopaths stepping in once the path to resolution of the problem had already been set. Well done, them.”
This is the best part of homeopathic treatment.
Patient reaches the homeopathic doctor and then gets well on his own.
You’ve rather crapped on your own argument again.
This is exactly why real doctors will not have homeopathic fruitcakes ‘working alongside them’, and attempting to take credit for the serious work that others have done.
Oh and by the way – your answer to my question about what you’re spending the million dollars on?
What’s wrong with my own job? Why is it necessary for anyone to qualify in the medical field, and work for a ‘respectful’-sic-organisation like the NHS in order to be qualified to have an opinion on homeopathy? It’s little wonder that so many of the posts from homeopathy fans are so often illogical, and so often avoid answering simple questions. I don’t believe in pixies or unicorns either. I know this will cause anger among the homeopaths, since I don’t have a qualification in Biology or Archaeology or similar. It’s just a hunch, based on rationality and common sense as
much as anything.
And still no answer as to why nobody’s claimed the James Randi one million dollars.
Why are you still engaging in this discussion? Why do you pointedly refuse to answer simple questions, instead of creating irrelevantly complicated smokescreens with your bogus use of statistics and your frankly lunatic belief that a substance becomes stronger the more you dilute it? It’s simple. If homeopathy works-pay attention here- WHY HAVE YOU NOT BECOME RICH BY PROVING IT AND CLAIMING THE MILLION DOLLARS ON OFFER?
For once, just answer a simple question. The more you avoid doing so, the dafter you look. And you’re already starting from the daft place on the starting grid.
To be frank, I’m beginning to find you and the other chap rather tiresome., if not downright weird.I’m going to concentrate on poking the rather belligerent Junior with my intellectual stick. As long as he doesn’t find out where I live, there’s fun to be had there.
Mad. Woofingly mad.
Said I was becoming fatigued with IKZ’s aggressive foolishness, but couldn’t resist, checked on Amazon to see if he’d reviewed anything.
Is he the same person who gave a 5-Star review to something called ‘GUAM AlgaSCRUB aromatherapy scrub with essential oils’?
At merely 42.55 pounds for a 700g jar, it’s a steal.
Like taking candy from an idiot really.
And yet-as I’ve said time and time and time again-not enough ‘stories’ on Pubmed for one of you cretins to feel confident to try for the one million.
But not quite as well as it used to in the homeopathic hospital departments that are being closed one by one.
Don’t know if everyone has seen the story in the Independent ‘HOMEOPATHY CONFERENCE ENDS IN CHAOS AS DELEGATES TAKE HALLUCINOGENIC DRUG’. The unsurprising bit is where the authorities found them ‘talking gibberish’.