The Disease Only Homeopathy Can Cure

Watch out, there’s a new disease going around. It’s called Le Canard Noir. That means the black lie, n‘est ce pas? It’s like pederasty. In homoepathy they think they’ve found an innocent child to molest. They thinkn they can bully it with threats & lies.
In a symptom of le canard noir, an article here about Florence Nightingale, that tracks back to a most unfortunate eponym for a recent collaboration against the innocent child, some anti-homeopathy blogger known for his fabrications says he don’t think homeopaths check out sources.
Ha!
The name of this flat out fabricator is a sleezy little punk who slimed his way out of Soho, found a used lap top.
His blog is at quackometer.com . . no, wait! That’s wrong. That’s not his website . . not anymore . . it was taken away from him for lying, now redirects to a real doctor’s website, where instead of lies you can get real help for real problems.
Proudly, insanely, the black liar calls himself that,  Le Canard Noir, in Frenchy means, “the black liar.” Funny how the truth just seeps through a man’s cracks. It’s as if he was gut busted without seeming to know it or even care.
I think its critically important to not make any sumptions, or least try not to, such as thinking that I caught someone in a lie, not just misquoting a Nobel laureate, but intentionally misquoting him, for the purpose of maligning someone else.
Something carefully thought out, like a canard!
A canard noir.
I have another rule. If you seen it done once, keep watching, you’ll seen it done it again. Poke into the past, it’s just another lie in a long string of lyings. Know it. This isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last time le canard noir got caught in a bold faced lie. He can’t help it. He‘s been sued for it more than once, and he always loses. Boo hoo. And as always, he get‘s booted off the old website, has to scrounge up a new one.

God puts people here on Earth for many a strange reason. Some to just sit around and wait to get killed. Some to tell lies, twist the truth. Like Canard Noir. To make Man check his facts for sure. Others to do great things, like Josephson, who brought the world it’s greatest invention . . the mind-machine interface (SQUIBS).
Me? Oh, God put me here on the face of It to set things straight. I done it before, I do it again.
I’m here to save millions of lives from the Evil Empire of Pharmaceutical Racketeers. Bring in the world’s greatest medicine. I have done this by teaching the world’s top scientists that there is a real detectable, physical basis for it. Homeopathics are powerful crystalline hydroxl analogs that work directly on the immune system.
Won’t you join me in this great mission?
When you get cancer, like Michael Douglas, look in the mirror and say, “I choose homeopathy.”
If you are midst rampant disease, like malaria, look in the mirror and say, “I choose homeopathy.”
If your mind isn’t right, like Canard noir, look in the mirror and say, “I choose homeopathy.”
Say “I choose homeopathy because it works.”
You seen me do it before, you’ll see me do it again.

John Benneth, PG Hom. (Hons.)
Hahnemann College, London
11/20/10

COMING SOON: From John Benneth . . The World’s FIRST COMPLETE (& understandable) EXPLANATION for the PHYSICO-CHEMICAL MAKE UP of the HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and HOW IT WORKS!

82 comments on “The Disease Only Homeopathy Can Cure

  1. Adam says:

    I give up: this has to be a spoof. If anybody else knows or remembers Spoonbending with Mr Nude on A Bit of Fry and Laurie and can remember the bluster, incoherent logic, misdirected outrage and flat out lunacy of the character Hugh played – claiming he could bend spoons with his mind whilst (actually) just bending them with his hands – I’m sure you’ll see what I mean. If not, God help us but I’ll keep going to my GP if it’s all the same with everyone here.

    Like

  2. Michael Kingsford Gray says:

    “Doctor” Benneth.
    To me, your rant sounds literally insane.
    Seek help.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      A guy wearing a clerics collar with a name like “Michael Kingsford Gray” is telling me to “seek help?” What would that be, the book about his last marriage, “666 Minutes in Hell?” He looks like sociopath who just got out of jail. Oh darn, he’s right, I DO need help, I can’t stop laughing . .

      Like

      • ptangyangkipperbang says:

        So, in order to come across as a more rational, less insane, human being, you decide that the best way to achieve this is to have a go at HIS NAME?

        Keep digging, John…

        Like

      • Michael Kingsford Gray says:

        What on earth are you raving about?
        I have had only one marriage, and my only wife is now deceased.
        I find your insane remarks both deeply offensive and confirmatory of my original opinion of your perilous state of mental health.
        You *do* need professional mental care.
        Seriously.
        Immediately.

        Like

      • Andy Lewis says:

        John – you need to get a grip. What would it take you to apologise to Mr Gray?

        Like

  3. Blanche Canard says:

    All medicine should be chosen to match the symptoms of the individual. Who can possibly tell how any one person will react to any particular drug. Give twenty people an aspirin a day for ten years and some will bleed to death or suffer a stroke, others will be fine.

    The beauty of homeopathy is when treating chronic disease the remedy is carefully matched to the individual from several thousand different remedies.

    Randomised drug trials are meaningless as they do not show what the long term side effects will be to that individual whereas homeopathy is perfectly matched to each person and has no damaging side effects.

    Like

  4. Blanche Canard says:

    I repeatedly see the comment that people live longer in countries that have ConMed at their heart. Do you not think that adequate food and good clean living conditions have a big part to play in whether you live a long and healthy life or not? It is hard to stay healthy whilst living in a damp rat infested slum, half starved with flithy water to drink even if you do have access to alternative medicine.

    If you are to be “scientific” than please do compare like for like and not pick the bits that suit your arguement.

    Like

  5. Guy Chapman says:

    To Kaviraj: you really need to learn the definition of the word “lie”. A lie is a deliberate untruth. You use it to describe any statement with which you disagree, regardless of the fact that the statement with which you disagree has plainly been made in good faith by someone who believes it. I do not call you a liar, I say that your belief is at odds with my understanding of the evidence. Your rhetorical technique, while briefly amusing, has too much of the schoolyard to be of any lasting entertainment. What you think means nothing. What I think means nothing. What the world of science concludes as the evidence base builds, is all that matters. You will not – cannot – prevail unless you are prepared to roll up your sleeves and put in the work. As an aside you would do well to learn the difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

    Even pro-CAM researchers are now finding that homeopathy equals placebo. So you have to get to the root of the theoretical basis of it and explain it in a way that people who are not true believers can understand and accept. And by proof we do not mean a “homeopathic proving.” There’s no immediate profit from going into detail about the flaws in that methodology right now, this reply is long enough as it is.

    These, then, are the things you have to prove, not to your satisfaction but to the satisfaction of those who do not believe, if you want to be taken seriously:

    1. You need to prove the “law of similars”, which goes against everything we know about human physiology. It is not like vaccination, where exposure to an organism builds antibodies against that organism. Forget patently ludicrous remedies like light of Venus and show us a credible mechanism by which, say, exposure to an emetic can cure vomiting caused by something else entirely.

    2. You have to prove the “law of infinitesimals”, which goes against everything we know about dose-response. You have to conclusively show how and why a remedy is more potent when more highly diluted. This is a core tenet of homeopathy, whereas water memory is only a post-hoc rationalisation and thus a sideshow. You probably also have to prove that there is a difference in effect between succussed and unsuccussed versions of the same preparation, since the idea of succussion as providing some specific property over and above simple agitation is, to put it charitably, not widely accepted outside of your own world.

    3. You have to show how whatever property a solvent has after successive dilution and succussion is persistent and can be transferred to a delivery medium such as a sugar pill when the solvent itself has evaporated, and thence through the digestive system into the patient and on to the affected parts of the body.

    Now, it would be best if you were to realise that the people you are arguing with are usually fairly well educated, reasonably intelligent and tolerably well-informed. The reason we don’t believe in homeopathy is precisely because the three things I outlined above cannot, according to our understanding of the world, work. Like an adult watching a magic show we are not seduced into believing that the force of gravity can simply be suspended, we are looking for a an explanation consistent with the vast body of human knowledge about the universe. After all, rocket science is really rather simple – it’s rocket engineering that’s the tricky part.

    Bluster in the absence of proof, then, is just bluster, and you will be called on it. Multiple anecdotes might be counted as evidence of a sort but they are not proof and they are not explanations of the mechanisms behind things. Take the time to watch the YouTube videos of Richard Feynman and his incredible fascination with reducing incredible complexities to elegant truths. The world of homeopathy apparently has no Feynman.

    You also need to read and understand the writings of your critics. Ben Goldacre, for example, is absolutely scathing about the statistical abuses of the pharmaceutical industry. You need to drop the bunker mentality and behave like a rational person.

    OK, enough from me.

    Like

    • kevin morris says:

      Guy,

      I do not agree with you because I am a homoeopath who recovered from my terminal cancer through homoeopathy, but I do admit to a grudging regard for your written style. It is clear to me that we will never bridge the huge gap between your world view and mine and that is a source of sadness to me because, despite your well worn criticisms, I know that homoeopathy is doing great good in the world.

      The situation is really not as cut and dried as you would have it. It isn’t the scientists versus the homoeopaths. Indeed many scientists understand both the principles and the physics and support homoeopathy. Indeed, many who have had a purely scientific background and who have gone on to become doctors, then decide to become homoeopaths. They don’t lack scientific rigour but recognise that there are other paradigms at play in our world.

      Now there are two things in your statement that I cannot let you get away with. Firstly, there is no ‘law of infinitesimals’ Such a thing is not part of homoeopathic philosophy. Homoeopaths talk of infinitesimals and often with a sort of bemusement that they work, but there is no law of such a thing. Actually, most homoeopaths use a range of potencies from the low which have the original material used to prepare them still present to potencies that go beyone Avogadro. I accept that to you Avogadro represents a major stumbling block but it has never much bothered me because I know that these potencies work, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CHOSEN SKILFULLY ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF SIMILARS.

      Now you say that the law of similars goes against everything we know of physiology. Well that great corpus of medicine claimed to have been written by Hippocrates speaks of curing with similars and curing with contraries. Paracelsus, claimed by conventional medicine as the father of modern, chemical based medicine and by homoeopaths as a forebear also mentions curing by similars. Hahnemann himself in the introduction to the Organon lists many examples of the use of similars in medicine prior to his systematising the practice. Almost everyone has tried the ‘hair of the dog’ a cure to the alcoholic hangover and which is an example of the law of similars. Many will have used hot water to soothe a hand that has been burned. These homely examples do not go against everything we know about physiology at all.

      It does sadden me that when colleagues of mine present scientific studies, someone from your side says, ‘not acceptable’ or ‘these are of doubtful provenance’ when it seems clear that they have never seen said studies before. Frankly, much if not all appears to be little more than posturing. It does not suggest a respectful and an honest seeking after truth and in my view goes a long way towards explaining the anger of some of my colleagues at the sort of comments that get made here.

      I would argue that the unedifying spectacle before us today is one that has been repeated many times throughout history- that of a new paradigm that people of a certain education and upbringing- a certain world view perhaps- cannot accept. It has been observed many times and the conclusion already drawn is that what is so violently opposed becomes self evident WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the majority of those who opposed it die off.

      Now, I’m not trying to make any nasty points over this and in any case I have not the least impression that you will accept what I say, nor will you when I add that a Nobel laureate for physics said recently that however these scientists are reacting to homoeopathy has absolutely nothing to do with science.

      In the meantime, do keep well and do give homoeopathy a try sometime. If what you say is correct you have nothing whatsoever to lose and if I am correct, you could have a great deal to gain.

      Like

  6. This is rather an unedifying debate. When all this hot air subsides, people will still be sick, and suffering from disease. Much of that disease has been caused by these called ‘side-effects’ of conventional medicine, which many who send their bile to this site, will call ‘evidence-based’ medicine.

    I am afraid the only evidence base that ConMed has is that it causes disease and death, in such numbers we can really only quess-timate. And it produces evidence for drugs that is usually found be be at best wrong, and at worst fraudulent. Yet I notice these people never, ever defend ConMed. If it is called USELESS, they are silent. If it is called DANGEROUS or DEADLY, the are silent.

    All these denialist do is to repeat their Mantras, over and over again. Homeopathy does not work. It is placebo. Even people who have significant academic roles, like Colquhoun, have nothing to say about the successes of homeopathy – other than to dismiss them, of course. It shows the power and influence the cheque-books of big pharma companies. They can pay for university faculties, and those who work in them; and they are prepared to do their bidding – rubbishing the opposition. And they do so, when at the same time seeking to call themselves ‘scientists’.

    The Colquhoun version of science seems to be ignore the evidence in front of your eyes; people successfully treated by homeopathy over 200 years and throughout the world; and continue repeating the Mantras.

    Personally, guys, I think engaging with them is a waste of time. Let them take their sordid money – and let’s get on with the task of making people well.

    Like

  7. Andy Lewis says:

    John,

    You appear to be getting a little over excited. I have addressed your charges of me being a liar here…

    http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/11/i-have-been-putting-on-my-shoes.html

    Naturally, as a man of honour, you will be posting a comprehensive apology.

    Regards

    Andy

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Nobody need to apologise to a consort of convicted criminals, who accepts their stolen money to publish drivel on a blog.

      Like

      • Andy Lewis says:

        Dear Mr Kaviraj,

        Rather than repeating your baseless claims, I suggest you actually take the time to read what I have written.

        I would suggest that the nature of your response on reading my post will be the measure of you as a man.

        Best wishes

        Andy

        Like

  8. [...] trumpeting his perceived goal against me. He now calls me a ‘disease’ in his post entitled, The Disease Only Homeopathy Can Cure. It’s like pederasty. In homoepathy[sic] they think they’ve found an innocent child to molest. [...]

    Like

  9. RobN says:

    http://www.quackometer.net/

    Still very much a live website debunking pseudoscience like homeopathy; the rumours of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

    Scepticism is growing, we will not put up with your unproven tripe any longer, get a real job, try medical school. If you give someone with malaria a homeopathic remedy you should go to prison.

    Like

  10. RobN says:

    “le canard noir” means black duck not black lie. This blog post is a long, whining (terribly written)stream of conciousness; it does nothing to promote the biases of the author. A degree in Homeopathy obviously doesn’t equip you with the communication skills posessed by actual Doctors.

    Homeopaths are rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic; systems that work are incorporated into medicine, homeopathy is just going through a drawn-out death because there are so many vested interests involved. It will go the same way as bloodletting, the ‘four humours’ and phrenology. In the mean time many people with real illnesses will suffer from its recommendation in the stead of real medicine.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Go back to school and learn french. Un canard is a lie. There is even “Le canard enchente” a publication dedicated to the lies of politicians in France.

      Like

      • Rob H says:

        Sorry Kaviraj but “canard” is French for “duck”. The newspaper you mean is called Le Canard enchaîné – “the chained duck”, so called because…

        The name itself is a reference to Radical Georges Clemenceau’s newspaper L’homme libre (“The Free Man”) which was forced to close by government censorship and reacted by changing its name to L’homme enchaîné (“The Chained-up Man”); Le Canard enchaîné means “The chained-up duck”, but canard (duck) is also French slang for “newspaper”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Canard_enchaîné

        Like

  11. David J Mudkips says:

    Homeopaths – If you want to be taken seriously, stop sounding like Scientologists.

    The refusal to subject your theories to investigation, your over-reliance on biased “personal testimony”, and the legal threats to try and silence those who dare speak out against the quackery… Yup, sounds like a certain Cult I know of.

    Like

    • kevin morris says:

      David,

      It was quite amusing watching your thought processes as you put them down there. The lightbulb switches on: ‘Scientologist’-’over-reliance on biased personal testimony’- ‘a certain cult I know of’

      First point: I care not a jot whether you take me seriously. As someone earlier in this debate observed, the food at the table may be extremely tasty but some people just will not eat. That is okay. There is absolutely no hint of compulsion. We’ll see how true you are to your beliefs when faced with the serious illnesses that tend to afflict many of us after we reach a certain age.

      I have already mentioned that old illusionist, James Randi. However much I deplore the vicousness and the vindictiveness of his behaviour. I can feel compassion for a man who has obviously suffered greatly from the ravages of his cancer treatments.

      I have a special feeling for anyone in such a position because I was declared terminally ill at the beginning of January 1999 with renal cell carcinoma, type three. Of the four options I was offered by my onologist, the last was, ‘do nothing, you might not live as long but your quality of life will be better.’ Homoeopathy was central to my recovery and I have ample reason for gratitude that it exists at all.

      Now, you equate ‘personal testimony’to cult membership. When I walked into my physician’s consulting rooms a week before Easter in 1999, looking happy and well, I can assure you that he was extremely interested in my personal testimony. Man of scientific training that he was, his question to me has stayed with me ever since. ‘What is your secret?’

      A last point and one in defence of my belligerent bretheren. This year we have celebrated the two hundredth anniversery of the first publication of The Organon which sets forth Samuel Hahnemann’s understanding of health and disease, how to remove the latter and replace it with the former. During those two centuries, homoeopathy has grown to the second most widespread medical system in the world.

      Despite this and throughout homoeopathy’s history it has faced the sneering and sometimes the viciousness of people like you. People, frankly, who have absolutely no understanding of what homoeopathy is or what it entails. My good friends are responding with annoyance because of that history because of the fatuousness of so much that is being said, and because of the injustice at the attempts of many like you who are attempting to have homoeopathy denied to ordinary folk who can benefit so much from homoeopathy’s availability on the National Health Service.

      My views are rather different. If you wish to deny what is self evident and to seek solace in flawed studies, well feel free to do so. It is your loss.

      But homoeopathy will continue to grow. People like it and invariably they get better.

      Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        It is unquestionably not true that “invariably they get better”. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed for example.

        Nor is it “self-evident” – if it was then you would not need to have these arguments.

        Your comments are starting to look shrill and rather silly, perhaps you should water them down a bit…

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Yes, ONE case, as opposed to a MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR from your “evidence based” poisons in the USA alone. The biggest killer is not disease, but Pharmaceutical crap, sold as evidence-based.

        If that was not so tragic, I would laugh at you. Your pathetic attempt of showing ONE case for homoeopathy in how many years???

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        You said, and I quote: “homoeopathy will continue to grow. People like it and invariably they get better.” That is an absolute statement and to prove it false only one counter-example need be cited.

        Your silly assertion of mass poisoning by conventional medicine sounds like the ravings of the antivaxers. Is it that you are not aware of the steady increase in life expectancy that Western medicine has demonstrably provided, or is it that you believe that everybody who dies does so because they are poisoned by doctors while everybody who survives does so because they went to an alternative medicine practitioner? It’s very difficult to draw anything out of your comments other than the fact that you have a deep and unshakeable faith in homeopathy and view scepticism much as the Mediaeval church viewed heresy.

        Like

  12. Lenny says:

    Kaviraj says “Evidence is evidence, regardless how you want to twist it. You have invented the term, now eat it.”

    Which is worrying. How someone can dare to engage in a debate regarding evidence-based practice whilst failing to understand the fundamentals is something to make one raise an eyebrow. There are levels of evidence, Kaviraj. From simple anecdote up to the level of meta-analyses. Journals will now use a star-rating to indicate the level of evidence in a particular study.

    If homeopathy worked, we’d use it. Even if we didn’t understnad how it worked, even though it confounded all known physics, we’d be all over it like a rash.

    But it doesn’t. At least not beyond placebo. For us to state this gets the homeopaths angry. We are questioning their faith, their beliefs, what they stand for, what they hold true. But this is not a religion. It is a supposed medical intervention. And this can be tested. And the more we test it, and the better we test it, the worse it performs. Sorry, boys. Much as it’s painful, you need to read the books, try to understand what we’re on about and realise you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Oh you liar! Another one of the crooks that consorts with convicted criminals is spouting his drivel. The Bristol report alone proves you and all of your ilk wrong.

      Refute that report, if you can. You cannot. Then we have countless meat-analyses that prove you wrong too, but we shall make it easy. First refute the Bristol Report. Written up by the government.

      We are not angry at all, nor paranoid as that turkey above seems to think. You provide us with much comic relief and we are laughing about your silly homoeophobic lack of decent arguments.

      Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Isn’t it hilarious that everything the anti-homeoapthy crowd says against homeopathy ends up being true for them? Look at this comment by Lenny in response to “The Disease Only Homeopathy Can Cure.” He’s so contradictory he even contradicts himself.
      He says, “If homeopathy worked, we’d use it.”
      LOL! Homeopathy DOES work and we DO use it. Just look at the figures for usage worldwide. It certainly outperforms the gilded crap Lenny’s trying to peddle. Cubans in 2007 issued 2.5 million doses of homeopathics and stopped the leptospirosis epidemic in their highest risk region, while it went up 22% in untreated regions. And this is typical of epidemiological studies comparing homeopathy against allopathy. How does Lenny explain that? Look up the stats in Bradford’s Logic of Numbers if you don’t believe it.
      Then Lenny says “Even if we didn’t understand how it worked, even though it confounded all known physics, we’d be all over it like a rash. But it doesn’t. At least not beyond placebo.”
      As I’ve pointed out, people in countries that don’t have their media controlled by racketeers like Pfizer, they ARE all over it like a rash, and like a rash it is growing. And it doesn’t confound all known physics. Apparently Lenny didn’t hear my talk at the Cavendish Laboratory.
      Well, you can’t condemn a man for being ignorant, but you can for being arrogant, and that’s what Lenny is. He’s arrogant, he makes assumptions about things, he fails to ask important questions, and doesn’t recognize superior intelligence when he reads it.
      Here’s the prima facie truth of the Beddington Lunacy. Lenny says it doesn’t work, and then he qualifies it by saying it doesn’t work any better than placebo. But wait . .Lenny! That means it DOES work, yousjsut said so. If youbelieve placebo works, then you belive homeoapthy works. You just said so, so now you’re saying homeopathy works! And that’s even with hordes like you and 10:23 running around saying it doesn’t!
      LOL!
      Does anyone but me and my colleagues see how stupid people have become? Lenny’s not the only one, Professor SIr John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor of the Fourth Reich, who wants the third world to die in an epidemic so they won’t invade Britain, says the same damn thing as Lenny. In fact, Lenny could very well BE Beddington in disguise! He might as well be. As Lenny Beddington says, “Sorry, boys. Much as it’s painful, you need to read the books, try to understand what we’re on about and realise you’re barking up the wrong tree.” Woof woof!
      Those books would be the “Organon of Medicine” by Hahnemann, and the repertorized materia medica by James Tyler Kent, MD for one, and John Henry Clarke, MD, for another, plus Kaviraj’s works on agrohomeoapthy.
      Lenny is wrong and Kaviraj, as always, is right.
      Homeopathy works.
      John Benneth, PG Hom. London (Hons.)

      Like

  13. Oh I just love this post.

    With naked paranoia like this, clearly homeopathy has no need for skeptics to debunk it. No skeptic could do it as efficiently as John Benneth does himself.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Bless my heart, bless my soul, it’s walkin talkin tootsie roll! Ladies and gentlemen, welcome if you will, the Joseph Mengele of the toxopath racketeers, Professor Doctor Colonel David Colquhoun. Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of the Fourth Reich. Tell us, professor, what percentage of Pfizer’s multi-billion dollar felony RICO conviction is currently attributable to you? Are you going to have to give back any of the money they paid you to pump their poison on the unsuspecting public? Or are you going to get off “Scot free?”
      You know, I got to say, if you and your ilk would complain a fraction as much about the posionous crap your racketeer bosses slather the public with as you about homeopathy, the medical industry wouldn’t be the number one killer of my countrymen, as it is now.
      Stay tuned professor, I’ll get around to you later if not sooner for a FULL treatment . . if you don’t end up in Nuremburg first.
      Your friend,
      Your best friend,
      Your only friend,John Benneth, PG Hom – London (Hons.)

      Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Benneth, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law? You just invoked it. You lose by default.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Chapman, have you NEVER heard of Benneth’s Law? Default transfers to the first one to mention Godwin.

          Like

          • Guy Chapman says:

            That is called “fainites” and it doesn’t work against Mike Gowin (I know, I have exchanged emails with him).

            Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              Okay, but what does “Mike Gowin” have to do with it? All I’m hearing from you are nothing more than repetitions of non- or poorly referenced negations of evidence that doesn’t conform with your desired results, and then invoking somebody’s arbitrary rule as a way to declare yourself the winner of an argument you started. Then say you won in the face of evidence presented by workers with the highest credentials is like saying you won your fantasy debate because you said it first, being cute or claiming a violation of somebody’s arbitrary rule. It’s crybaby forensics, arguing with a child. Grow up. BTW, is there fluoride in your drinking water?

              Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Hey Colquhoun you turkey! You consort of convicted criminals, who is a crook himself accepting their stolen money. Yes you!

      You accept bribes from GSK, Pfizer and Aventis, to spout your drivel about us being paranoid. We shall expose your shell game to all the world.

      Like

      • Fibularis says:

        Okaaaay.

        My growing conviction is that the Benneth & Karivaj show is actually a rather well nuanced spoof.

        If not, I hope Professor Colquhoun (and Guy Chapman and Andy Lewis) will take some joy from the observation that they seem to reserve their more rancid ad hominems for the more reasoned and well-argued contributions. Well done, chaps.

        P.S. Mr. Benneth – I think Canard noir = black lie was part of Andy’s original wit in setting up the Quackometer site.

        Like

  14. Fibularis says:

    @Kaviraj – it ill behooves any homeopath to criticise on the grounds of “science” when they fail miserably to provide any evidence base for their misguided quackery. And the onus is absolutely on homeopaths to do this. The best that you seem able to do is trundle out the tired old anecdotal non-peer reviewed nonsense you have listed above, or resort to the sort of sad ad hominem attacks in which Mr. Benneth seems to specialise. Face it, mate, you’re flogging a long dead horse.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      You are the ones spouting nonense. 100 million users is ‘anecdotal evidence”. Note the second part of what you say – EVIDENCE. Evidence is evidence, regardless how you want to twist it. You have invented the term, now eat it.

      So your ‘science” is Shang et al. He was debunked in peer review as biased and dishonest. ‘Nuff said.

      Like

      • Eoghan says:

        The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

        (1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

        (2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example “my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99″ does not disprove the proposition that “smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age”. In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

        The quality of evidence matters much more than its quantity.

        Like

      • Fibularis says:

        Yah-boo! Can we raise the level of this debate just a tad? If I wanted to introduce a new treatment tomorrow I would have to demonstrate that it worked, and that its benefits outweighed any side-effects. No?

        It is extremely easy to be wrongly convinced by anecdote. This is probably to do with the way our brains have evolved to recognise patterns in a complex world, even when sometimes patterns aren’t there. It is paramount, therefore, that we are very careful about how we go about testing whether something has a real effect. We need to try our best to remove any bias, and to test a proper control group. If we don’t do this properly then yes, I’m afraid a hundred million positive statements will remain anecdotal, and a thousand users properly controlled, randomised, double-blinded will carry much more weight – among people of common sense and intelligence at any rate.

        This would be evidence. And I know you probably won’t believe it, but if you show me/direct me towards good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy I will give it credence. Unfortunately the weight of meta-analyses shows homeopathic remedies to have no benefit beyond placebo – and George Lewith’s recent paper really does put a serious nail in the coffin of homeopathy.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        The quality of our evidence is obvious – see the Bristol report by the government. That is not anecdotal but verified by qualified doctors. If you say those doctors are just repeating hearsay, then you are guilty of the same.

        You repeat the hearsay that homoeopathy does not work. You are with but a few, financed by convicted criminals and thus not trustworthy. Yet the doctors in the Bristol study have nothing to lose – they do not get financed by convicted criminals, and are therefore trustworthy.

        Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Fair point: if even Lewith says it’s placebo then placebo it almost certainly is.

      Like

  15. Kaviraj says:

    The threat was enough. He stopped blogging for some time, as he admitted himself. He has been convicted as proven by others and is but a failed parking attendant. That is the level of “science” you bring in your quasi “skeptical” attitudes. LOL! Pathetic bunch.

    Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Obviously you don’t understand the meaning of the term “convicted”. I don’t mind explaining it to you, are there any other terms you’d like explained at the same time? Like “evidence”, for example, and how it distinguishes from “anecdote”? Happy to help, here…

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You cannot help anyone. Evidence is the plural of anecdote. 100 milion ancedotes with the same outcome is evidence “Anecdotal evidence” is evidence; look at the second part of your silly definition – no denial possible.

        As for convicted, explain to us how Andy lost his job. Through a criminal conviction, which is in the records of the court. No wonder he cannot find any other employment than with the skeptics, who get funded by convicted criminals like GSK, Pfizer and other assorted crooks.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        No, evidence is not the plural of anecdote because anecdote contains bias. Take a hundred people with the common cold, do nothing with half and give the other half homeopathic remedies. All will recover, the ones with the remedies will swear blind that’s what did the trick. All drug trials have to guard against this.

        The days when you could claim that something works based on the say-so of even quite large numbers of people, are long gone. These days you have to provide proof of the mechanism that is consistent with our understanding of the concepts involved – human physiology, chemistry, particle physics. Your claims, your burden of proof.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        The days you could deny that homoeopathy cures a cold in 2 days as opposed to doing nothing taking 2 weeks are also long gone. You are a pathetic ignoramus and a liar to boot.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Again with the “liar” epithet – you seem quite unable to accept that anyone would be sceptical or unconvinced, or have a different point of view. You sound more like a religious convert than someone engaged in the practice of medicine, in fact. The lack of any qualifying words is quite noticeable; this also speaks of faith not science.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You are not a skeptic at all. You are a liar even in that. A skeptic investigates with an unbiased mind and your posts only show bias. So yeah, a liar in every respect of the word. Now what are you going to do about it, liar?

        Like

  16. Rob H says:

    He‘s been sued for it more than once, and he always loses.

    Erm, no. He’s been threatened twice that I know of (by Society of Homeopaths, and by Joseph Chikelue Obi). Both times he stood by his claims and in neither case was he actually sued.
    Perhaps there are other cases John Benneth knows of in which Andy Lewis was actually sued and did lose. In which case please enlighten us.

    Like

  17. kevin morris says:

    I know homoeopathy works, and since it is the second most used medical system in the world, I know I am not on my own in thinking so.

    The thing that our critics fail to take on board is the fact that with a two hundred year long case record of all manner of illnesses and diseases cured by homoeopathy, we have a massive body of evidence. Homoeopathy is used according to principles that even the dirty duck could follow if he chose to do so.

    Randomised trials are the means by which our detractors try to prove homoeopathy’s ineffectiveness, but of course there are many rumblings, and not from homoeopaths, that RCTs are not the ‘gold standard’ they claim to be. Outcome and patient satisfaction are being suggested as tests that are equally as valid as RCTs.

    Of course, our detractors don’t wish to see how a patient feels following his treatment being used and that is why the media have been trumpeting a flawed study that says it isn’t the remedies but the homoeopath listening that leads to the improvement. I ask you!

    Thankfully, people are rather more open minded. If it works, then it works, goes the reasoning. The fact that a body of skeptics are performing the most graceless contortions in order to prove that the self evident isn’t so seems not to be having the desired effect.

    And like Topsy, homoeopathy just keeps on growing.

    Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      If homeopathy advocates restricted themselves to statements of faith, as you do, then we could treat it as a religious thing, like faith healing, and a lot of the arguments would go away. Instead you dress it up with the trappings of science, which means it is going to be judged by scientific standards and (thus far at least) consistently found wanting.

      Like

      • kevin morris says:

        Guy,

        It is not an item of religious faith that every year, spring follows winter. Nor does it take ‘scientific studies’ to confirm that this actually occurs. People have observered these things since the beginning of time. Likewise, it is not an item of religious faith that when one takes the indicated homoeopathic remedy, one tends to get better. Homoeopathy has a remarkable, two hundred year long case history that any fool- any denialist is welcome to study.

        Mention of religious faith does prompt me to observe that the contortions of denialists resemble nothing more closely than the futile mediaeval debates on how many angels could fit onto the point of a pin.

        Thankfully, the millions who use homoeopathy throughout the world, including in India where it is a mainstream medical system, or in Cuba where it is used prophylactically against tropical disease, tend to view issues of whether it works or not with rather more pragmatism.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        You might not have noticed this, but we have a considerably longer life expectancy in countries where Western medicine predominates than in those where homeopathy is widespread.

        I’ve yet to see an argument from you that was not fallacious. You think you might stop that some time please?

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Give us a link for that lie, Guy. How is the life-expectancy higher in Germany, where more people use homoeopathy than conmed? How is it higher in France and the Benelux? You are such a pathetic fabrcator of claims, it is a wonder anyone believes you.

        Like

  18. Rob H says:

    It’s like pederasty. In homoepathy they think they’ve found an innocent child to molest.

    Way to keep it classy, John.

    Like

  19. debbybruck says:

    You know that image of three monkeys with their hands covering their eyes, ears and mouth? The skeptics will never open their mouths to accept homeopathy since they are blinded to the truth and refuse to listen. End of story. No point in providing any evidence. No matter how much food is on their plate, they will not eat.

    Like

    • kevin morris says:

      Never despair Debby!

      Were not many of the greatest homoeopaths in our illustrious history just detractors who had the intellectual honesty to change their views when they saw the evidence of homoeopathy’s effectiveness for themselves?

      By and large our detractors don’t have that sort of honesty. Instead they hide behind flawed RCTs and talk of anecdotes. But some scientists have rather greater rigour than the likes of the dirty duck and some of them are becoming concerned about the unscientific nonsense our detractors are spouting. Some indeed have become confirmed users of homoeopathy.

      When I saw recent videos of James Randi, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him. He has clearly suffered a great deal from his cancer treatment. A former terminally ill cancer patient myself (renal cell carcinoma type three- 1999), I know there is a better way, but doggedly the old illusionist sticks to his guns. I can’t help but think this desperate picture comes to symbolise the plight of the denialists.

      Of course, one day we will all be dead but homoeopathy will still be healing the sick.

      Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Yes, skeptics will accept homeopathy – the very moment you produce a credible explanation for how it works. A lot of research has been done and the bigger and better and more detailed the study the closer it approaches homeopathy = placebo. You want to make extraordinary claims, go right ahead, but remember the onus is firmly on you to prove them. Start with proving that an emetic can cure vomiting, then prove water memory in a way consistent with particle physics, then show in a large randomised double-blind trial that there is a difference in response between correct vs. randomly selected remedies, and placebo. Get right on it. Make sure the protocol is verified and observed by a neutral body and get it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. There is no way skeptics could argue that away, so get right on it now.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Been done already. You prove yourself to be ignorant. We merely point it out. Rustum Roy, Rolland Conte, Montagnier, and so on have all proven you wrong. Materials science has proven the basis of homoeopathy and the memory of water. That you chose to ignore that shows you are ignorant – from “to ignore”. You need not complain when we declare you so, because you show all the world that you ignore and thus are ignorant. Pathetic, as noted several times already. You remove all doubt about it by your own admissions.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        No, you are arm-waving. I have read the Montaigner paper, he proposes a very short-lived effect. We’ll wait and see what happens when others try to duplicate this work. Remember cold fusion? Montaigner’s work absolutely does not propose a persistent water memory, still less explain why an emetic might cure vomiting.

        You say it’s “already been done”. Fine, cite, precisely, the large randomised double-blind trial showing a difference in response between correct vs. randomly selected remedies, and placebo, with a protocol verified and observed by a neutral body, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The last publication of this type that was discussed in the scientific press showed that homeopathy equals placebo but that the bedside manner of homeopaths had a beneficial effect. That’s an interesting and valid finding with a genuine lesson to teach medicine.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You are the arm waver, and you know it too.

        I say it has been done. By the scientific method of homoeopathy. That is all. We have proof we are far better at saving people from serious disease. We have the best records in ALL epidemics.

        We have 200 years of proof. That you are so foolish to declare that anecdotal is not my fault but your shortcoming. I have already pointed out the fallacy in reasoning that the RCT is not applicable and is moreover untrustworthy and unreliable as a method of testing anything because the placebo is not revealed.

        If you base your premise on a proven unreliable test, then you are a fool. How much do they pay you for your drivel? Man, I wonder what drives a fool like you, apart from making money from your useless efforts. You convince nobody and your desperation is palpable. Go home – or better still, go back to school and learn your basic science class.

        That last study is simple drivel. The placebo was not revealed, and so it is unreliable. Your side never reveals all the details and so you are canards noirs – liars from start to finish.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Oooh, “liars”. Strong language. Are you really ready to personally take on the challenge to the reputation of published scientific authors? Calling them liars is potentially an actionable defamation. Are you sure you don’t just mean that you dispute their findings? It’s fine to dispute findings, that is essentially what sceptics are doing here, disputing your findings. Your findings, your burden of proof.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You want to say they are not liars? BMJ says they cannot be trusted Bring on your stupid lawsuit. Make my day. JAMA calls them untrustworthy. That is what I quoted, fool1

        Like

  20. Kaviraj says:

    Let us begine with your basic assumptions.

    I quote from your own post.

    “diluted to the point that there is nothing left.”

    Excuse me, such is not possible. Something can NEVER become nothing, as your revered scientists with brains the size of planets have asserted since Newton. Where is their inability?

    Nowhere else to be found than in your pea-brained head, which cannot even remember the basic science class.

    Those same scientists have determined that there are no substances that do not have a physiological effect, so your canard noir also fall through on that account.

    This shows the keen observer that you have an agenda of misinformation. You quasi “skeptics” (if only you really were one) never stick with the real subject matter and always seek to divert the attention to things entirely unrelated and equally untruthful – it is another canard noir.

    We shall quote again:

    “All your proposed evidence is weak and observational, most of it fatally undermined by selection bias and other confounders.”

    So where is your evidence for that? You do not have any and your selection bias is all too glaring. It is another attempt at simple diversion from the truth of the matter – Le Canard Noir is a liar – which is the tenure of Mr Benneth’s post.

    Yet we do not see you respond to the post, but seek to divert the readers into directions that were not even mentioned. You engage in the same type of canard noir again and again, simply proving Mr Benneth right, again and again. With both feet in your mouth, it is no wonder you have no legs to stand upon.

    You cannot answer the basic tenet of Mr Benneth’s post, because you know it is true, being engaged in the exact disinformational behaviour as he exposes.

    “Science is consensus”, you say – it has morphed into a democratic process, as you assert. Alas for you, and to our luck, it has not. Science is scientific and not democratic. The consensus among you homoeophobes is not scientific, and only “democratic” in the sense you all agree on the same fallacies in reasoning. You all agree on the same intellectual dishonesty – a canard noir.

    For instance, I have well over 100 scientific reports, from reputable scientists of reputable universities, peer-reviewed and all, that prove that our infinitesimal doses work on plants – no placebo effect possible even. I shall shortly give you a list that proves the placebo effect is another canard noir, another lie.

    Speaking about your placebos, it has been established that the placebos in RCT’s are NOT PLACEBOS as reported in the latest JAMA and BMJ issues. Which brings us to the conclusion those RCT’s are not to be trusted – they are as many canards noirs as there are RCT’s says the BMJ.

    You also demand that an individualised system of medicine such as homoeopathy, be subjected to a generalised manner of testing, which does not reflect its true worth, thus skewering the results. You want to assign qualities to it that it does not possess, just as our individualised approach does not work for pharmaceutical drugs.

    Yet you do not hear us demand these pharmaceuticals should be subjected to our type of testing, although they would fail as much and more, as you claim our medicine fails in the RCT, which is another canard noir, because you reject any RCT that proves you wrong.

    So equally the dismissal of 100 million satisfied and ordinary users (no celebrities needed) in the EU alone as anecdotal evidence. Point one, the plural of anecdote is data. Point two if they are ancedotes, then the 30 odd people in Shang et al’s RCT’s that supposedly prove homoeopathy has no effect, is less than anecdotal and must therefore be rejected also. I.o.w you cannot simply have it both ways. 100 million satisfied users are all anecdotes and 30 people in Shang’s “analysis” – debunked as fraudulent by peer-review – constitute “proof”. Your entire post is a collection of black ducks from start to finish. In other words, it is a pack of lies.

    Now here comes some truth for you.

    1.Beneficial effects of Biochemic drug Natrum mur … ( Dr Pankaj Oudhia –Raipur)
    2.Safed and Kali Musli planted in pots for Agrohomoeopathy experiements  (Dr Pankaj Oudhia –Raipur)
    3.Details of Agrohomoeopathic experiments conducted by using  various Homoeopathic Drugs (Dr Pankaj Oudhia –Raipur)
    4.Effects of different Homoeopathic drugs prepared from common weeds on radial growth of Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus membranaceus) under in vitro …( Dr Pankaj Oudhia –Raipur)
    5.Effect of different concentrations of selected Homoeopathic drugs, prepared from obnoxious weeds on radial growth of mushroom (Pleurotus florida). (Dr Pankaj Oudhia –Raipur)
    6.Management and Control of Genetic Processes in Cotton Plants through Homoeopathy Dr. H.U. Gangar Ex-Head, Engineering & Workshop, Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology, (ICAR) , Mumbai
    7.Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a Test Organism for Homeopathic Potencies Scherr C, Simon M, Spranger J, Baumgartner S. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Switzerland., Society for Cancer Research, Institute Hiscia, Arlesheim, Switzerland. J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Nov;13(9):931-8
    8.Effects of Potentised Substances on Growth Kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe C. Scherra,c; S. Baumgartnera,b; J. Sprangerc,e; M. Simond aVerein für Krebsforschung, Institut Hiscia, Arlesheim, Schweiz bKollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM), Universität Bern, Insel-Spital, Imhoof-Pavillon, Bern, Schweiz cForschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau, Frick, Schweiz dInstitut für Chemie und Biologie des Meeres (ICBM), Universität Oldenburg, Deutschland eInstitut für anthroposophische Veterinärmedizin, Frick, Schweiz Forsch Komplementärmed 2006;13:298-306 (DOI: 10.1159/000095302)
    9.Statistical analysis of the effect of high dilutions of arsenic in a large dataset from a wheat germination model Brizzi M, Nani D, Peruzzi M, Betti L. Dipartimento di Scienze statistiche, University of Bologna, Italy Br Homeopath J. 2000 Apr;89(2):63-7
    10.Growth stimulation of dwarf peas (Pisum sativum L.) through homeopathic potencies of plant growth substances Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A, Heusser P. Kollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin, Universität Bern, Insel-Spital, Imhoof-Pavillon, Bern, Switzerland. s.baumgartner@hiscia.ch Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2004 Oct;11(5):281-92
    11.Effect of electronic homeopathic copy of biohumus fertilizer on tomato sprout development Korenbaum VI, Chernysheva TN, Apukhtina TP, Shin SN, Demeniuk VN. Pacific Institute of Oceanology, Far East Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, 690041 Russia. v-kor@poi.dvo.ru Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003 May-Jun;43(3):370-4
    12.Effects of potentised substances on growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe Scherr C, Baumgartner S, Spranger J, Simon M. Verein für Krebsforschung, Institut Hiscia, Arlesheim, Schweiz. scherr@vfk.ch Forsch Komplementarmed. 2006 Oct;13(5):298-306. Epub 2006 Oct 20
    13.The effects of a 45x potency of arsenicum album on wheat seedling growth — a reproduction trial Binder M, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A. Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Switzerland Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Oct;12(5):284-91. Epub 2005 Oct 13
    14.A biostatistical insight into the As(2)O(3) high dilution effects on the rate and variability of wheat seedling growth Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Nani D, Borghini F, Peruzzi M, Betti L. Department of Statistical Sciences, Bologna University, Italy Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Oct;12(5):277-83. Epub 2005 Oct 13
    15.Medicinal plants and homeopathy: a scientific and literary study C Amengual Selva, Mallorca, Spain
    16.Effect of the homeopathic solution Sulphur on the growth and productivity of radish Bonato, C. M., Silva, E. P. da Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av Colombo, 5790, 87020, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil. Acta Scientiarum – Agronomy, 2003 (Vol. 25) (No. 2) 259-263
    17.Homeopathy agriculture pioneers
    18.Employing homeopathy for plant protection by By Hussnain Qureshi
    19.Forum For Agrohomeopathy
    20.Mark Moddy publications
    21.Role of homeopathy in Agriculture
    22.

    23.Plant Studies

    http://avilian.co.uk/2008/08/scientific-research-and-homeopathy-plant-studies/

    The Efficacy of Ultramolecular Aqueous Dilutions on a Wheat Germination Model as
    a Function of Heat and Aging-Time. Brizzi M, Elia V, Trebbi G, Nani D, Peruzzi
    M, Betti L. Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agroambientali, Viale Fanin
    42, 40127 Bologna, Italy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Dec 22.
    24.
    Homeopathic preparations to control the rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea
    Pass.). Wyss E, Tamm L, Siebenwirth J, Baumgartner S. Research Institute of
    Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland. ScientificWorldJournal. 2010 Jan
    8;10:38-48.
    25.
    Use of homeopathic preparations in experimental studies with healthy plants.
    Majewsky V, Arlt S, Shah D, Scherr C, Jäger T, Betti L, Trebbi G, Bonamin L,
    Klocke P, Baumgartner S. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick,
    Switzerland. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):228-43.
    26.
    Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials:
    a critical review. Betti L, Trebbi G, Majewsky V, Scherr C, Shah-Rossi D, Jäger
    T, Baumgartner S. Department of Agri-Environmental Sciences and Technologies,
    University of Bologna, Italy. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):244-66.
    27.
    In 1941 and 1942, William Ernest Boyd was the first person to definitively
    demonstrate that a homeopathic remedy at 30c dilution, mercury chloride, had a
    statisically significant effect upon diastase activity during the germination
    of plants. This research was published in The British Journal of Homeopathy in
    1954, and it is the basis of all research into homeopathy using plants.
    28.
    Isopathic treatment effects of Arsenicum album 45x on wheat seedling growth.
    Lahnstein L, Binder M, Thurneysen A, Frei-Erb M, Betti L, Peruzzi M, Heusser P,
    Baumgartner S. Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, University of Bern,
    Switzerland. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):198-207.
    29.
    Influence of very low doses of mediators on fungal laccase activity –
    nonlinearity beyond imagination. Malarczyk E, Kochmanska-Rdest J,
    Jarosz-Wilkolazka A. Biochemistry Department, Maria Curie-Skłodowska
    University, Lublin, Poland. Nonlinear Biomed Phys. 2009 Sep 4;3(1):10. Read the
    whole report here.

    Homeopathic treatment of Arabidopsis thaliana plants infected with Pseudomonas
    syringae. Shah-Rossi D, Heusser P, Baumgartner S. Society for Cancer Research,
    Hiscia Institute, Kirschweg 9, 4144 Arlesheim, Switzerland.
    ScientificWorldJournal. 2009 May 20;9:320-30
    30.
    Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba
    L. Scherr C, Simon M, Spranger J, Baumgartner S. Research Institute of Organic
    Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, Frick, Switzerland. Complement Ther Med. 2009
    Apr;17(2):63-70.
    31.
    In vitro studies demonstrate anti-cancer activity of an alkaloid of a plant
    (Gelsemium sempervirens). Bhattacharyya SS, Mandal S, Biswas R, Paul S, Pathak
    S, Boujedaini N, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. University of Kalyani Exp Biol Med
    (Maywood). 2008 Nov 7.
    32.
    Homeopathy and systematics: a systematic analysis of the therapeutic effects of
    the plant species used in homeopathy. Bharatan V. Department of Botany, The
    Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. Homeopathy. 2008
    Jul;97(3):122-8.
    33.
    Effects of High Dilutions of Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt (citronella) on the
    Germination and Growth of Seedlings of Sida rhombifolia. Rosimar Maria Marques;
    Giuliani Grazyella MarquesSilva; Carlos Moacir Bonato International Journal of
    High Dilution Research, v.7, issue 22, p.3034, March 2008 Prof. Carlos Moacir
    Bonato Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM) Department of Biology, State
    University of Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
    34.
    Reproducibility of dwarf pea shoot growth stimulation by homeopathic potencies
    of gibberellic acid Baumgartner S, Shah D, Schaller J, Kämpfer U, Thurneysen A,
    Heusser P. Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, University of Bern, Bern,
    Switzerland; Society for Cancer Research, Institute Hiscia, Kirschweg 9,
    Arlesheim, Switzerland Complement Ther Med. 2008 Aug;16(4):183-91
    35.
    Management and Control of Genetic Processes in Cotton Plants through Homoeopathy
    Dr. H.U. Gangar Ex-Head, Engineering & Workshop, Central Institute for Research
    on Cotton Technology, (ICAR) , Mumbai
    36.
    Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a Test Organism for Homeopathic Potencies Scherr C,
    Simon M, Spranger J, Baumgartner S. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture,
    Frick, Switzerland., Society for Cancer Research, Institute Hiscia, Arlesheim,
    Switzerland. J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Nov;13(9):931-8
    37.
    Effects of Potentised Substances on Growth Kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
    and Schizosaccharomyces pombe C. Scherra,c; S. Baumgartnera,b; J. Sprangerc,e;
    M. Simond aVerein für Krebsforschung, Institut Hiscia, Arlesheim, Schweiz
    bKollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM), Universität Bern,
    Insel-Spital, Imhoof-Pavillon, Bern, Schweiz cForschungsinstitut für
    biologischen Landbau, Frick, Schweiz dInstitut für Chemie und Biologie des
    Meeres (ICBM), Universität Oldenburg, Deutschland eInstitut für
    anthroposophische Veterinärmedizin, Frick, Schweiz Forsch Komplementärmed
    2006;13:298-306 (DOI: 10.1159/000095302)
    38.
    Statistical analysis of the effect of high dilutions of arsenic in a large
    dataset from a wheat germination model Brizzi M, Nani D, Peruzzi M, Betti L.
    Dipartimento di Scienze statistiche, University of Bologna, Italy Br Homeopath
    J. 2000 Apr;89(2):63-7
    39.
    Growth stimulation of dwarf peas (Pisum sativum L.) through homeopathic
    potencies of plant growth substances Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A, Heusser P.
    Kollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin, Universität Bern, Insel-Spital,
    Imhoof-Pavillon, Bern, Switzerland. s.baumgartner@hiscia.ch Forsch
    Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2004 Oct;11(5):281-92
    40.
    Effect of electronic homeopathic copy of biohumus fertilizer on tomato sprout
    development Korenbaum VI, Chernysheva TN, Apukhtina TP, Shin SN, Demeniuk VN.
    Pacific Institute of Oceanology, Far East Division, Russian Academy of Sciences,
    Vladivostok, 690041 Russia. v-kor@poi.dvo.ru Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003
    May-Jun;43(3):370-4
    41.
    Effects of potentised substances on growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
    and Schizosaccharomyces pombe Scherr C, Baumgartner S, Spranger J, Simon M.
    Verein für Krebsforschung, Institut Hiscia, Arlesheim, Schweiz. scherr@vfk.ch
    Forsch Komplementarmed. 2006 Oct;13(5):298-306. Epub 2006 Oct 20
    42.
    The effects of a 45x potency of arsenicum album on wheat seedling growth — a
    reproduction trial Binder M, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A. Institute for
    Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Switzerland Forsch
    Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Oct;12(5):284-91. Epub 2005 Oct 13
    43.
    A biostatistical insight into the As(2)O(3) high dilution effects on the rate
    and variability of wheat seedling growth Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Nani D, Borghini
    F, Peruzzi M, Betti L. Department of Statistical Sciences, Bologna University,
    Italy Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Oct;12(5):277-83. Epub
    2005 Oct 13
    44.
    Medicinal plants and homeopathy: a scientific and literary study C Amengual
    Selva, Mallorca, Spain
    45.
    Effect of the homeopathic solution Sulphur on the growth and productivity of
    radish Bonato, C. M., Silva, E. P. da Departamento de Biologia, Universidade
    Estadual de Maringá, Av Colombo, 5790, 87020, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil. Acta
    Scientiarum – Agronomy, 2003 (Vol. 25) (No. 2) 259-263

    Last but not least:
    Inaccurate reporting

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18545688

    Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Lovely pile of uncritical pro-homeopathy reports, but missing the point entirely I’m afraid. Do you actually know what 30C means? It means that the impurities inevitable in the solvent will be many many orders of magnitude more significant than the supposed nostrum. It means that every single homeopathic remedy is effectively chemically and physically identical to every other remedy prepared from the same solvent source, and any difference between remedies is down to the source of the solvent not the nostrum added. You want to claim otherwise, you need to prove it using methods consistent with our ever-greater understanding of particle physics. Oh, and don’t forget Mr. Avogadro.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Avogadro is the value for gases. Not for liquids. Again a canard noir.

        And you have carefully avoided to show us how universities are pro-homoeopathy.

        You also have carefully avoided all my other points and have not even taken the trouble to refute them. You are just another pathetic liar. You have not refuted anything.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        I don’t have to refute anything, you’re making extraordinary claims, it’s up to you to prove them. Your invalid citation of quantum entanglement (a phenomenon of which I’m well aware) shows your failure to understand how science would apply to your own field. The forces in quantum entanglement are tiny and apply to particles which are split; I am sure the guys at CERN would love to hear how to split subatomic particles by banging them on the desk, that could save them some serious money!

        You seem to be too wrapped up in your own belief to be able to engage those who do not share it.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You are the one with the extraordinary claims. You claim that 100 million people are all deluded. You claim their experience is invaled. You are the one who is deluded here.
        It is up to you to validate your claims.

        And you have not proven anything so far but your own ignorance. First prove that 100 million people are all deluded, then we shall answer the rest of your baseless assumptions.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You are the one with the extraordinary claims. You claim that 100 million people are all deluded. You claim their experience is invalid. You are the one who is deluded here.
        It is up to you to validate your claims.

        And you have not proven anything so far but your own ignorance. First prove that 100 million people are all deluded, then we shall answer the rest of your baseless assumptions.

        Moreover, you are again trying to distract from the original post – Andy Lewis and all of your ilk are lying. Refute it. You cannot and then come with ridiculous assumptions on a subject you do not understand at all, and proceed to put your foot into your mouth with every post. You seek to distract from the original premise, because you cannot refute it. Why do you people always avoid to answer the charges?

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        The claim that large numbers of people are deluded is scarcely extraordinary, there have been many cases throughout history of mass delusion. If you ask Richard Dawkins he will tell you that all people of faith – which is probably three quarters of all the people on the planet – are deluded, and actually anybody with even a passing acquaintance with cognitive dissonance theory will realise that delusions are a normal part of remaining sane in a complex world.

        The idea that an emetic can cure vomiting is an extraordinary claim. The idea that water with a statistically infinitesimal chance of retaining a single molecule of this can effect a cure is an extraordinary claim. The idea that this can be passed through the digestive system to affected body parts is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        Like

      • Shiroboshi says:

        Kaviraj: “Avogadro is the value for gases. Not for liquids. Again a canard noir.”

        I suggest you try and read beyond the first two sentences in a Wikipedia article. If you get such basics utterly wrong, there’s not much hope that you have understood anything else in the physlical chemistry background to homeopathy, that you claim. Avogadro’s Constant defines the amount of a material in numbers of molecules, gaseous, liquid, solid, plasma or whatever.

        But hey, why let facts get in the way of good polemics and personal attacks…

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        I am not asking Richard Dawkins. I am asking you. You cannot answer my questions and try to deflect again. You are Pathetic.

        Wikipedia as your authority? Bwhahahahaha! I am not asking wikipedia. I ask you. You are pathetic. Avogadro calculated his value for gases and not for liquids. You cannot even refute that. The value for water is a derived value only.

        Moreover, just like Avogadro, you cannot measure beyond the molecule, which is all that Avogadro implies. So again, you have not proven anything. Pathetic!!!! You are the one who does not understand physics.Physics is more than molecules, which you again ignore and prove thereby you are ignorant.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Citizendium is a project started by Larry Sanger based on precisely your objection to Wikipedia. It is edited only by credentialled users. This definition was written by a former Associate Professor of Theoretical Chemistry:

        The SI definition of Avogadro’s constant (designated NA) is: the number of entities (such as atoms, ions, or molecules) per mole. (This definition requires a definition of mole that does not rely on NA, but one that is in terms of 12C atoms). The constant NA has dimension mol−1. The numeric value of Avogadro’s constant is NA = 6.022 141 79 x 1023 mol−1.

        Because the mole and Avogadro’s number are defined in terms of the atomic mass constant (one twelfth of the mass of a 12C atom), Avogadro’s constant and number have by definition the same numerical value. In practice the two terms are used interchangeably.

        Do you notice what’s missing from this definition? The word starts with “g”.

        Once again you are using rhetoric in place of knowledge. Please stop doing that.

        Like

  21. Guy Chapman says:

    Um, the bullying amounts in sum total to requests to prove the extraordinary claims that homeopaths make. You claim that diseases can be cured by substances that cause similar symptoms (though how you would find that out in the case of, say, light from Venus is open to question). This has absolutely zero evidential basis so requires proof that is consistent with our understanding of human physiology. You claim that these work /better/ when diluted to the point that there is nothing left. That requires proof which is consistent with our understanding of human physiology, i.e. dose response, and atomic physics. There are incredibly detailed mathematical models which can predict the behaviour of subatomic particles, on this is based massive projects such as the LHC; the guys with brains the size of planets are unable to observe or model your proposed effect, it’s very much up to you to satisfy them because as in all human endeavour the burden is always on the person proposing an idea to provide conclusive proof. When that’s done you can explain how this effect can be transferred to the affected parts of the body by ingestion.

    All your proposed evidence is weak and observational, most of it fatally undermined by selection bias and other confounders. In the days before the Enlightenment it was enough to produce an empirical result and from that propose a possible rule; Newton did away with that and now you have to say /why/ – and prove it. Science is the consensus because science refines itself over time always moving towards a condition where it better and more completely explains the world. Feynman’s lectures on this have a beautiful clarity which is conspicuously absent from any explanation of homeopathy I ave ever seen.

    You – homeopaths – can silence your critics by demonstrating in a large randomised a double blind trial that human subjects show a difference in response between (a) the “correct” remedy, (b) a “remedy” designed to produce an opposite or substantially different effect and (c) placebo. Do that and science will ahve to take note and work with you to understand the underlying mechanism.

    But you won’t. And you won’t for one very good reason: the bigger and better controlled the trial, the more it points to homeopathy being placebo, entirely, and nothing else. That is an effect we understand, albeit only only imperfectly. Evidence converges on the explanation we understand, as it so often does. If you want people to start (or continue) believing your extraordinary claims then you will need to go well beyond making misleading assertions of belief by famous people, well beyond claiming support where it does not exist (cf. Montaigner) and actually start engaging people in a rational dialogue. Because there is no way on earth we’re likely to believe that water with nothing in it has an effect based on a physically and chemically undetectable memory of an arbitrarily chosen substance.

    Like

    • Claude says:

      Your premise that water has nothing in it is false. Just because you cannot see it, that current measuring methods cannot sense it, does not mean there’s “nothing” in water. The materialistic reductionistic attitude behind this statement plays a large role in the disrespect that too many humans have for life forms on this planet, known as the water planet for a very good reason. People like you, in your ignorant arrogance, are determined to kill the rest of us. Go read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. You are like the people who wish to stay in the darkness of the cave.

      Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        I am not ignorant. I went to a school founded more than a thousand years ago whose alumni include Stephen Hawking and I have a good degree from a Russell Group university. Dismissing criticism because you claim the critic is ignorant has never actually worked as a way of making criticism go away.

        You are arm waving and trying to distract attention from the point at issue. In a 30C dilution, you are more likely to win the lottery every week for a year than to find a single molecule of the supposed nostrum in a homeopathic dose. You know this. You know that you have about the same chance of finding a molecule of Caesar’s piss in a homeopathic remedy as of the purported nostrum. This is a matter of fact which is very well understood thanks to the work of people like Avogadro.

        It’s not materialist or reductionist, it’s a very simple scientific fact. Over time science refines its models to better explain what we observe. Each successive model makes the idea of water memory less plausible, not more. In 1796 yuo could get away with these extraordinary claims because they had no particle physics and they lacked the mathematics to model at that level. Now, we have those tools. If water memory happened it would have been observed in semiconductor fabs long ago.

        Your response is not a logical one. It is fallacious. You are attacking the motives of your critics without addressing the criticism itself. The criticism is not going to go away just because you attack the critics so please address the facts not those who point them out.

        Remember, science has succeeded where alchemy failed because each successive iteration better and more elegantly explains the world. Science can be and has been wrong, but it self-corrects. You will not get science to change its view on this subject by piling up anecdotes, invoking celebrity endorsements, attacking your critics or arm-waving. You have to do it the hard way, with intellectual rigour, starting with a credible explanation of the “law of similars”. Water memory is a sideshow, the fundamental basis of selecting remedies is in and of itself sufficient to cause science to reject your premise.

        Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s