LENNY, UK CHIEF SCIENTIST CONDEMN HOMEOPATHY

In “The Disease Only Homeopathy Can Cure” commentary, a reader named 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.

Lenny

IN a response, I answer:

Isn’t it hilarious that everything the anti-homeopathy 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, you just said so. You implied placebo works, so you believe homeopathy works.  So you agree,  homeopathy works! And that’s even with hordes like you and 10:23 running around saying it doesn’t! pretty strong placebo!

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 a recent article in a UK newspaper, it was inferred by this reporter that the Chief Science advisor of the UK government announced to the public, especially those in the Third World countries, (the ones Britain failed to oppress during compulsive b0uts of Anglo imperialism) should not use homeopathy. Homeoapthics, he says, have no science to back them up and are no better than placebo.”

“Doctor, does homeoapthy work?”
“Of course it works, it’s a placebo! The Chief Scientist and a chap named Lenny say so! And if that isn’t enough, it’s been tested on a couple million Cubans and they’re about to invade Britain!”

Given homeoathy’s superior performance in epidemics, it is easy to calculate Beddington’s phobia of homeoapthy in supercharging the Third World to overthrow Beddington’s Fourth Reich. Have you noticed how uppity the Indians have been lately? And they take dilutes by the bowlful.  

In fact, from the sound of it, Lenny could very well BE Beddington in disguise. He might as well be. Like 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.”
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. And a book with some simle phrases in Hindi like, “Please don’t kill me.”
Professor Sir Lenny Beddington is wrong and Kaviraj, as always, is right.
Unfortunately for the Fourth Reich, homeopathy works.
John Benneth, PG Hom – London (Hons.)

Advertisements

40 comments on “LENNY, UK CHIEF SCIENTIST CONDEMN HOMEOPATHY

  1. Dr Zorro says:

    For something to be libelous in law it has to be demonstrably untrue. I think any sane person reading Kaviraj’s drivel would draw his own conclusions on whether he is demonstrably a loon or not.
    As for disbelieving I am an NHS Consultant, that is entirely his prerogative and I am under no obligation to prove anything to him. His disbelief makes absolutely no difference to the NHS pay cheque I receive every month.

    Like

  2. Kaviraj says:

    At the Centre of this massing of troops at the start of the scientific revolution, was David Sainsbury, the billionaire GM entrepreneur who donated around £6 million to New Labour before and after the Labour victory. For part of his £6 million Sainsbury was given the job of head of Science at the Department of Trade and Industry. From this commanding position, with the help of his old Liberal buddy and PR agent for the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, by then ‘Lord’ Dick Tavern,

    Sainsbury built a covert lobby for science, technology and industry that has continued throughout the last decade. In November 2009, Harris attended a meeting ‘Evidence-Based Policy or Policy-Based Evidence?’

    There you have your fantasy that exposed as untrue, that “public policy is not the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      What a very silly conspiracy theory. If public policy were the captive of a scientific-technological elite the government would scarcely be pushing its current line on homeopathy, which leaves it to patient choice and individual primary care trusts. Public policy is dominated by the financial sector in the UK, and in the US as well. Politicians usually have a background in law.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Not a silly conspiracy theory, but a fact. The government knows that if they would ban homoeopathy, their gravy train would be finished because the public would vote them out.

        So it is tolerated but left to the dctor to refer – which they don’t do, often, leaving the patient little or no choice. So you try to deflect the attention away by calling it a “conspiracy” which is simply not in accordance with the facts.

        Bad luck for you conspirators, but we are on to your game and shall expose you at every opportunity.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        The government as a body does not give a flying fuck about homeopathy, it is a sideshow. The UK NHS spend on it is tiny, which is why they don’t care.

        http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm and the debate around it shows that your assertion is false. The Science and Technology Subcommittee (which is by design dominated by science, there would be no point including bishops or crystal healers in a science committee) has come down against homeopathy for all the usual sound reasons, and the Government has instead fudged things. If your assertion were true the Government’s position would be as strong as the Committee’s or stronger, instead it’s weaker.

        So, your claim has no objectively provable merit.

        Like

  3. Kaviraj says:

    This is what the skeptics want and which we have been warned against in the past by Eisenhower.

    …the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Sounds like a nice rant against the Technocracy movement, but it has no obvious relevance to the debate over the validity or otherwise of homeopathy. Only as tiny minority of those in power in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) have science degrees. Law is probably the most common degree discipline among legislators:

      “179 Members of the House and 57 Senators hold law degrees; 22 Members of the House have doctoral (Ph.D) degrees; and 13 Members of the House and four Senators hold medical degrees. ”

      So: no, public policy is not the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Ike’s warnings about the military-industrial complex are rather more pertinent right now.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Then explain to me why the pharmaceutical industry finances most of the research. This is a fact.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        The pharmaceutical industry sponsors most research on new drugs for the exact same reason that the homeopathy industry finances all homeopathic provings. And it is a problem for exactly the same reasons (which are eloquently described in Ben Goldacre’s excellent Bad Science).

        Like

  4. Dr Zorro says:

    Perhaps you could explain how Hypocrates could have advocated homeopathy over 2000 years before it was thought up by a crazed German nutter. I use the term “thought” loosely as the entire concept is hardly the product of a coherant mind.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Perhaps you should read Hyppocrates’ writings, where it is stated clearly. You and your PhD in physics cannot even spell his name properly. And the word is coherent too. Go try and fool your sycophants.
      The only crazed nutter is “Dr” sorrow – ah, zorro. Hahnemann was a lot wiser than all you “skeptics” will ever be, with your consorting convicted criminals and accepting their stolen money. You are such a narrow-minded fool, you cannot even post anything remotely coherent.

      Like

      • Dr Zorro says:

        Where did I ever say I had a PhD in Physics. Are you too dull to notice that that possibility was raised by a different contributor.
        I am not a physicist, I am an NHS Consultant specialising in an area where your homeopathy could not begin to achieve anything, nor is there any evidence to suggest it ever has.
        And the only money I have ever accepted is my NHS salary. As far as I am aware my employers have never been convicted of anything.
        Beware Kaviraj, wrongfully accusing someone of accepting stolen money constitutes libel and defamation. And I know your name.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Libel? Bring it on. Calling us loons is also libel. You work for the NHS? Prove it. I don’t believe a word of what you say.

        Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      As I was researching http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2010/11/how-to-convert-a-skeptic/ I noticed that Jenner proposed inoculation the same year Hahnemann proposed homeopathy. At that time, the claims of homeopathy were no more bizarre than the claims of Jenner. The reason this argument is happening at all, though, is that two centuries of work have not only confirmed Jenner’s hypothesis but have explained it, extended it and shown it to us under microscopes. The basic science that would be required to understand and explain Homeopathy has not advanced at all over this period. We can now see individual atoms and sense the fields of individual subatomic particles, but instruments immeasurably more sensitive than the human body are unable to tell one homeopathic remedy from another, still less to show any gross effect in the human body. Even ignoring the more self-evident silliness like 200C dilutions, “Light of Venus” and the arbitrary nature of the supposed Law of Similars, there are still gaping holes in the basic mechanisms that would be necessary for this to be credible in a world where scientific consensus and truth are increasingly synonymous.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Another lie. NMR shows the remedy. RLS shows the spectrum of the diluted substance, instead of water. Piezo-electric measurement can detect a bottle diluted beyond Avogadro from among 99 control bottles.

        Jenner did his experiments on the basis of homeopathy, which was first written about 6 years BEFORE Jenner started his experiments. A science that remains the same throughout is a science that does not need further development. Would you say that Newtons laws have become obsolete? The first and second law of thermodynamics are still valid today. Apples do not fall upwards now. Homoeopathy has of course advanced, because in Hahnemann’s time there were but 150 remedies, while today we have 2500 and growing.

        And Pasteur admitted he was wrong about the germ theory on his deathbed. Logically, because cause and result can never be the same. In the full-blown flu, for instance, the lungs are equally full of virus, which supposedly are the cause. However, we learned already in primary school that cause and result are always two different things. So how can they be the same in the flu? Not possible, so the “observations” you brag about are fallacious in the determination of causes and thus vaccination is equally fallacious and dangerous to boot. That you promote them shows you are the corporate shill I named you as.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        I found no evidence that Jenner based his ideas on homeopathy, his inspiration was the practice of variolation which had been documented since the 5th Century at least. Even if he had, you have entirely missed the point: Jenner’s work is in line with everything else we know whereas homeopathy flatly contradicts everything else we know.

        You appear to be denying the validity of germ theory. If so, you are even more irrational than I thought possible.

        Like

  5. Andy Lewis says:

    All you need to know about homeopaths is to be found in the Dunning Kruger Effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      All you need to know about liars is to go to Andy’s blog. Wikipedia has often been proven the be completely unreliable. If corrections are made, liars like Andy come to remove the corrections and reinsert their biased unfounded lies.

      Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Then again, Andy cannot refute any of the posts, so Andy needs to refer to someone apparently more “intelligent” than himself. Andy can only spout character assassination attacks on minds miles above his own and too intelligent for Andy to take on by himself.

      Like

    • Andy Lewis says:

      Kaviraj – you are not even clear enough to make refutable points. Your wibble on quantum mechanics is a classic. You clearly do not have the slightest idea about the subject. For me to refute it would be like someone trying to refute the bleeps of the Tellytubbies.

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Teletubbies? Exactly the type that should fit you. You have no understanding of physics and even less of qusntum physics. You claim something can become nothing. Physics since Newton proves you wrong. Something can NEVER become nothing. Hence the one without the slightest idea is you. Go back to your Teletubbies, the name of which you cannot even spell.

        Like

      • Andy Lewis says:

        What if I told you I had a PhD in nuclear physics? Would you feel so secure in carrying on this discussion?

        And as for your idea that I think ‘something can become nothing’. Where did you get that from? Is it because there is none of the original tincture in homeopathic pills? Where do you think that tincture goes? Who exactly is claiming that it becomes nothing

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Show us your PhD. Which website did you buy it from?

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        And I feel completely secure in carrying on any discussion with you because whatever you tell me, I don’t believe. If you really HAD a PhD in Physics, you would refute the argument. You seem to have forgotten you basic science class – matter cannot be destroyed, so homoeopathic remedies are more than water. You refute Rustum Roy, Caltech and the other real Physicists then, with your bought PhD, which is not worth the paper it is written on. If you had, you would not have disparaged Josephson. You low-lifes cannot refute anything and resort to character assassination. Truly the bottom of the barrel.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Matter cannot be destroyed, but it can be poured down the sink. Which is what happens in homeopathic dilutions. Unless, of course, you have a beaker the size of the galaxy in which to prepare your dilutions?

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Nothing is poured down the sink. You know nothing about how remedies are made apparently, Guy. Anyway, we need not a beaker the size of a galaxy either. Your comment shows you are completely ignorant about the process.

        Just as an example, Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine, an organic compound consisting of an s-triazine-ring is a widely used herbicide.

        In dilutions of 1 part per billion, it is capable of turning the leopard frog into a hermaphrodite while already an adult. At this concentration, you would need a swimming pool of about 200 by 50 by 50 metres, to dilute that 1 drop. Now tell me again that homoeopathy cannot work.

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Nothing is poured down the sink, eh? So, you’re preparing a 30C dilution of something. Let’s say you’re very clever and careful and start with 1 molecule of principle. To make a 30C solution you need 10^60 molecules of water. The molecular mass of water is 18 so that’s 18 x 10^60 / 6 x 10^23 g of water, a mass of 3 x 10^37g. That’s five billion times the mass of Earth. I want to know where you’re putting all that water. And if you make a 200C solution do you end up with a gravity singularity?

        Please do try to understand the claims you are making and why they seem so absurd to anyone with a modern Western education.

        http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2010/11/how-to-convert-a-skeptic/

        Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        Incidentally, at what dilution does the effect of Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine on leopard frogs reverse? According to the law of similars and the law of infinitesimals if this substance causes the frogs to become hermaphrodite then at some level of dilution it will surely cause hermaphrodite frogs to assume a gender. At what dilution does that happen? Or is it just that this substance causes the frog gender to change and exactly the same effect is visible down to very low concentrations – something which would be plausible and consistent with normal science but inconsistent with the core tenets of homeopathy.

        Like

  6. Dr Zorro says:

    Your first two paragraphs bear no relation to homeopathy. Giving low doses of toxic substances will invariably stimulate any mechanism the organism has for eliminating that substance. Homeopathy is not giving any substance at all except water and therefore can not have the same effect. The rest of this long & tedious ramble also bears for the most part nothing of any relevance and is full of meaningless pseudo scientific fiction clearly from someone whose scientific ideas bear no relation to reality. Utterly meaningless phrases such as “horizontal causality layer” are flights of your own fancy.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Everything I wrote has a bearing on homoeopathy. You simply fail to see it. To put Dr before your fictitious name is as fictitious as your knowledge of anything scientific. You have not refuted anything, but only ramble on about your perceived understanding of anything I wrote. You clearly have no clue. How pt on the dunce’s hat and join Lenny in the corner. I am of a mind to let you write a thousand times “I must not be so arrogant in my ignorance.”

      Like

  7. Kaviraj says:

    The Powerful Placebo

    Van Wijk and Wiegant (1997) examined the validity of the similia principle. With their research they showed that

    ‘if low doses of harmful conditions are administered according to the similia principle the capacity for survival (expressed in terms of development of tolerance) is stimulated at cellular level and protector proteins are also stimulated.’

    The research gives an important indication of a regulatory mechanism on which the similia principle is founded. Eskinazi (1999) expounded on the scientific state of affairs with regard to the theoretical objections to homeopathy. With modern insights there is little left of the theoretical objections. First the objection to the theory that pathogenic substances can also cure. The author gives and extensive list of examples in which this principle also applies in conventional medicine. This principle has also now been recognised in cellular biology and is known as hormesis. The most surprising thing is that it was a conventional scientist who removed the objection to high dilutions.
    Recent articles by two research groups have raised doubts about the scale and even about the existence of the placebo effect. Kienle (1995) carried out a critical analysis of Beecher’s fundamental research, which produced the initial concept of the ‘Powerful Placebo’. She describes a multitude of weaknesses in these studies and demonstrates that all Beecher’s so-called proofs of the placebo effect could have other explanations. From an entirely different point of view, Danish researchers Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche (2001) reviewed 130 clinical trials in which a placebo was compared with an experimental treatment.
    They concluded on this basis that is was unlikely that the so-called placebo effect could lead to significant changes in the parameters of physical diseases, but that it can lead to significant changes in psychological disturbances, such as anxiety. Given the notion that a placebo is in essence a psychological phenomenon (for example, the thought and feeling that you are receiving something which will probably help), the researchers’ conclusion that placebos only have a significant psychological and not a physical effect, is understandable.
    Based on the arguments raised above, it is clear that the theory of ontological reductionism fails on internal and external conceptual grounds, as well as empirical grounds. It is also demonstrated that there is evidence of a working mechanism underlying the similia law. Finally it is clear that the alternative explanation – i.e. the placebo effect – for a subsequent effect in studies on the effect of a homeopathic treatment, is unlikely.
    This disposes of the theoretical obstacle to the acceptance of homeopathy, namely that a homeopathic treatment cannot be effective because the working mechanism is not compatible with recognised scientific, in this case, biological, chemical and pharmacological, theories and insights.
    Furthermore there is the discovery that many scientific facts argue in favour of the theory of ontological holism. This raises the question of why it is not more widely embraced as a theory in science. In our view this is due to the deep-seated belief that effects in nature can only be attributed to material phenomena. Many people are unaware that this belief was not held throughout the majority of human history.
    From Plato (427 – 347 BC) and Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) to the Middle Ages however the notion has existed in scientific history that there is a world of ideas, which, as causal principles, give shape to things in nature. These ideas or universals were seen as complex, differentiated systems of forces which gave an organism such as a plant or a human being its shape and enabled it to keep it. Both Plato and Aristotle maintained that such causal principles existed, and that they could be known and understood: according to Plato, by looking in thought into a spiritual world of ideas and according to Aristotle by turning one’s sights on the world of the individual things
    (Hartmann, 1941; Kienle, 1998).

    In the medieval debate on universals, this world of ideas was not denied, but Realists and Nominalists argued about whether man could know these causal principles. The debate was eventually won by the Nominalists and the question was answered in the negative.
    The next historical milestone was the work of Francis Bacon in the 17th century. Bacon argued in his ‘Novum Organon’ that the task of the scientist should not be the broad sweep of ideas, but careful observation and experimentation. A final phase in this historical development came in the second half of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century. In this period, following on from the previous historical views that man could not know the causal principles of forms (universals debate) and that it was not the task of the scientist to know these principles (Bacon), the existence of this body of causal principles was denied. Rudolf Virchow (1907) summarised the biological and medical view of his time as follows:

    ‘Modern medicine has defined its view as mechanical, its aim as establishing a physics of organisms. This has shown that life is merely an expression of a sum of phenomena each of which proceeds separately according to the normal physical and chemical (that is to say mechanical) laws. It denies the existence of an independent life force and natural curative power.’
    (Virchow R. ‘Cellular Pathology.’)

    This summary conclusion illustrates the historical steps, which led to the gradual denial of the existence of causal principles and the reduction of the cause of natural phenomena to the functioning of material particles. Causal-mechanistic or ontological reductionist thinking is an expression of this development. We have demonstrated above that this theory is not tenable on a number of grounds. To arrive at a reasonable alternative we have to look more closely at the question of causality.
    If an experienced tennis player hits a perfect shot at Wimbledon there is, at the physiological level, a sequence of biochemical reactions in time. In this case there must be a transfer of information, which causes all the biochemical steps in time to be attuned to each other so that ultimately the entire process of preparation and execution lead to the ball hitting exactly the right place at exactly the right time. We could call this a ‘time Gestalt’.
    In a general sense all this applies afresh to a subsequent but different perfect shot in another place. However, since this is another type of shot there is a different ‘time Gestalt’. In this ‘Gestalt’ we can distinguish two causal layers: a vertical and a horizontal layer. In the horizontal layer there seems at first sight to be a cause-effect chain because, for example, increasing the hormone level leads to an increase in the glucose level in the blood. Each preceding ‘cause’ in time leads to a subsequent ‘effect’ in time.
    However, on further consideration there is a problem here, which was previously identified by Bertrand Russel. That is that an effect which precedes something in time, no longer exists when the effect occurs. The cause has already disappeared. How can a cause, which no longer exists, bring about an effect? (Kiene, unpublished).
    To solve this problem the scientific literature turns to the concept of ‘information’. The information is supposedly transferred from one stage to the following stage. This brings us to the second, vertical, layer of causality. In the case of the perfect shot, but also in other self-regulatory skills, and the self-organising physiological processes which can only be understood in terms of the species, there is a hierarchically higher-ranked principle that provides the coherence between, say, biochemical stages in time, but which also provides the context for the object of all the processes as a whole, namely performing this specific tennis shot at this moment or creating this specific tissue structure. The principle also provides an explanation for the transfer of information between the various stages in time in the horizontal causality layer. This higher-ranked principle is not immediately perceptible to the senses, but is manifest in bringing coherence in time and space.

    Homeopathy and also anthroposophic medicine assume this sort of higher-ranked and forming principle in nature. The pharmaceutical processes used in these forms of complementary medicine, are aimed at releasing these forming or in-form-ing principles from matter, which is set in time and space. In this way these matterless forming forces can be used as medication. From this point of view it is also conceivable that there are medications in which no material molecules remain.

    Like

  8. Kaviraj says:

    Evidence base? What a joke! Lenny failed to read JAMA and BMJ, which condemned the “evidence” as non-existent!

    “Placebos” that are no placebos and are not revealed 90% of the time to hide the motivation of the “trial” to come out favourably, in the light of day. None could be trusted, concluded the BMJ. So much for the “evidence base” and ‘science”!

    Lenny is a hypocrite of the worst kind. Always seeking to excuse himself for his own poison peddling and defense of unscientific procedures, by accusing the other party of “unscientific” claims. LOL!

    Lenny needs to go back to school. And be put in the corner with the dunce’s hat.

    Like

  9. Dr Zorro says:

    Stumbled on this site accidentally and am astounded that there are humans out there with such extraordinarily low levels of intelligence. How you can have any belief in such an implausible and ludicrous phenomenon as homeopathy is something that makes me despair.
    Your arguments are of the “black is white, up is down and I am not listening” variety. Shaking your fists, hurling insults and insisting that evidence exists when it plainly does not is hardly any way to convince the open minded. Loons.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Well, the evidence is aplenty. 200 peer reviewed reports that say that it is over 70% better than any placebo can be ignored of course, but that makes you only ignorant.

      That you refuse to see it, says more bout your own extraordinary lack of intelligence than of those you accuse. Something that has stood the test of time has its own merits and is not dependent on your endorsement.

      Who are you? What is your claim to fame? Ad hominem is the refuge of the scoundrel, without any decent arguments.

      Like

      • Dr Zorro says:

        You don’t appear to understand what “ad hominim ” actually means.
        read
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominim

        I have criticised nothing but homeopathy and the stupid self delusion of those who insist on promoting it. I have made no links to any other act or characteristic which would make this ad hominim.
        Words I think you have heard and used without taking the trouble to comprehend.
        And the “200 peer reviewed reports that say that it is over 70% better than any placebo” simply don’t exist except in your dreams

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        You are really something. You don’t appear to understand what homoeopathy means. Hippocrates was an advocate, in that he asserted there were 2 ways to approach disease. Once was by contrary ideas and one was by the similia principle. So the idea is at least from that account 2500 years old. Then again, 2500 years earlier it was written in the ancient books of the far east, that this priciple was universal. So the ancients and Hippocrates were stupid and self deluded to promote it. That is a stupid self-deluded statement coming from an ignoramus.

        Those 200 peer reviewed studies proving I am right and you are wrong are posted elsewhere on this blog. Appeared all in the Lancet, BMJ and other such august publications. I propose you write a letter to the editor of those journals and tell them they are stupid and self-deluded.

        Then again, nothing to a self-deluded ignoramus to go about name-calling for lack of proper argument, apart from plain stupid denial.

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        “Loons” is an ad hominim. Read again your definition.

        Like

  10. Another good post John.

    The certainty with which these ‘scientists’ write off homeopathy, the complete blindness to the millions who have been treated successfully by homeopathy, their inability to acknowledge the RCT science that supports homeopathy as being ‘more than placebo’, the way they can ignore the increasingly fruitful efforts of real, questioning scientists to explain how homeopathy works – is just mind boggling.

    Arrogance, you say. Perhaps. More likely, their pockets are filled with gold from the Big Pharma companies. There are, of course, no people more blind than those who do not want to see.

    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