WIKILIARS: Wikipedia and the case against homeopathy

We’re looking at a real, proven cure for cancer and we’re going to let these kind of games interfere with our use of it?

John Benneth responds to Wikipedia lies about homeopathy.

EXPOSES WIKIPEDIA contradicting what its sources conclude.

“The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”  –Wikipedia

Investigation of Wikipedia’s sources reveals the statement to be not true and follows a disturbing trend of omitting, attacking or transmogrifying positive studies, tests, trials of homeopathy while pro forma accepting negative opinion as fact.

Since I made my bold predictions and video on Wikipedia, their article has changed slightly. Instead of the footnote numero uno [1] going to an obscure dictionary definition of homeopathy, it now goes directly to the number one hatemonger for homeopathy, Professor Edzard Ernst, a bizarre old self-described homeopath, a Dr. Frankenstein making malice and lies, author of the pretended  über review of homeopathy “A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.”

Of course it’s nothing of the sort.


It’s just a collection of his own garbage obscuring the evidence: One third of his references are to his own articles, opinion and commentary about homeopathy. And yet it is this squattaling albatross the groveling open online encyclopedia Wikipedia cravens to.

“A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy,” the chief wellspring of hatecrime against homeopathy, is the headwater of lies about homeopathy.

Out of 224 footnotes on homeopathy in Wikipedia, Ernst is in 16 of them. Non-scientist, high school drop out James Randi, an entertainer, illusionist and debunker with an alleged million dollars to lose if homeopathy is proven to work, is in three of them, referring to articles entitled such as “Horizon’s homeopathic coup, Cuzco’s altitude, more funny sites, the clangers, overdue, Orbito nabbed in Padua, Randi a zombie?, Stellar guests at amazing meeting, and great new Shermer books!”

What’s amazing to me is that anyone with any kind of real knowledge about homeopathy, or even anyone with a lick of sense as to what makes a decent article, is going to let this kind of crap pass without raising hell about it. The Wikipedia article is an obvious piece of black propaganda, its sources peopled with pharmaceutical company shills.

No? You don’t believe it? Then let me ask you this: Does such an article as Wikipedia’s on homeopathy NOT serve to benefit competing interests in the health scare industry?

Whether or not you believe homeopathic remedies have any biochemical action, would you NOT agree that they pose a threat to conventional medicine?

What is it do you think these people who are antagonistic to homeopathy are doing? Who do you think serves NOT to gain by homeopathy’s demise?  Could it not be that the antagonism to this tenacious remedial study sprung first from its  implausibility, led into facing a difficult to understand doctrine, and finally morphed into embarrassment from a too-hasty judgment leading to the fools gallery?

Yes, of course. If they’re so irrational, than why are they omitting rational evidence?

Because it proves them WRONG!

It proves them to be the very thing they feared and subsequently condemned.

Is it because it is something that they condemned so hastily and so severely, leaping at the chance to bully something they thought they would make them look smart and tough minded, that when finally faced with the evidence they said didn’t exist, they can’t recant without doing real harm to their precious reputations and their belly scraping self-esteem?

Isn’t it amazing how men wear their fears so brazenly written on their sleeves when they’re pointing an accusatory finger? A man most often it seems will condemn in others what he fears hides within himself.

We’re looking at a real, proven cure for cancer and we’re going to let these kind of games interfere with our use of it?

Well, I guess I shouldn’t be so naive, should I? I guess it’s to be cynically understood, sub silentio, isn’t it?

In a brutal world led by self proclaimed heroes who would drag us into the use of radioactive weapons against civilians, such as was recently done against the insurgency in Iraq, a few lies, such as those being issued by Wikipedia regarding a traditionally proven system of disease prevention and cure, redoubts against a complex and powerful health scare system, might seem like nothing.

But I must confess, I don’t buy into the cynicism so easily. Cynicism is for men wh0 sleep in barrels in the park, for losers, cowards and comedians.

I say to you that here a few lies are everything. It’s a quarter of century on the average lifespan. The world’s richest man of all time, richest in the values of a dollar both then and now, was a homeopath. John D. Rockefeller lived to be 97 years old and died with his homeopath by his side.  He was so committed to homeopathy that he ordered $350,000 for its support and development, but due to his philanthropic advisor defiance, it was diverted to the development of allopathic pharmaceuticals instead.

In 1906 the nation’s most powerful woman was a homeopath, as was her son and her first husband. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, had also become one of the nation’s wealthiest women, and discusses cases she had treated in the church manual. Her greatest critic the dean of American letters, was also an advocate of homeopathy. Mark Twain wrote, “The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths (the orthodox physicians to destroy it.”

Mahatma Gandhi was an advocate of homeopathy. He says, “Homeopathy …. cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete medical science.”

So certainly even my harshest critics must honestly observe how it is that I can have a passion for this work when some of the greatest people of the twentieth century were its advocates.

Not one major meta analysis has been able to effectively conclude that the action of homeopathic remedies is due solely to the placebo effect. Not even Shang, the most popular homeopathy meta analysis among skeptics, was able to clearly conclude that the effect was from placebo. A review of the data by independent analysis of Shang determined that even in this most damning meta of homeopathy,  “Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo.” Ludtke Rutten

Why aren’t we seeing that in the Edzard Ernst dominated article on homeopathy in Wikipedia? This guy’s sticky fingers get all over everything that has anything to do with homeopathy.

Now, I can’t run out into the street and effectively stop marches to war by grabbing guns or lying down in front of tanks, but I can say something about a carefully orchestrated corruption peddling deliberate lies, as is being done on Wikipedia.

‘Homeopathy i/ˌhmiɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners claim to treat patients using highly diluted[2][3] preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]

Let’s take a closer look at the footnote, go to the article and see what the author actually said.

[2] ERNST: “The existence of contradicting evidence is not unusual in therapeutics. One solution to resolve such contradictions is to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous studies. In 1997, Linde et al did just that. The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines more than mere placebos.”

Oh, what was the conclusion of a technically superb meta-analysis is now just a notion? And really, isn’t Ernst leading us to thinking in misnomers? He says he’s a “trained homeopath.” Well, at what point in his training did he take such a skeptical view of it? Where did he get this training? From a textbook he wrote on it?

When he says that homeopathy is more than a mere placebo’s, what’s he referring to, exactly?

Finally theyf ound a man who’s really willing to completely betray himself, set aside all standards of science and attend to the highes ideals of equivocation.

But let me take a moment to be kind. Maybe he didn’t check the exact meaning of the word homeopathy? Does it not refer to similitude, not dilution? Is that what he’s talking about? Or is he whining about this long standing complaint that anything diluted 1 to 100 a few times can’t have any biological effects?

I don’t know. First of all, he must know about hormesis, the Arndt Schultz Law, that substances that will usually depress an organic system, will in very small amounts stimulate it.

He must be aware of the FACT that the action of similitude is credited with being the operative mechanism in providing the world with its greatest achievement, the small pox vaccine? Of course! What else would it be? Such is the mechanism for most vaccines. Hair of the dog that’s about to bite you. Prior to control of the deadly pox by homeopathic vaccination, variolation was the preferred method of immunization (technically isopathy) . . not like cures like, but same cures same. Homeo means similar. Homo means equal. There’s a huge difference missed by nuance. They used to use a knife blade to inject the serum from the infected into the uninfected by cutting it into the crease of your ass where the butt meets the thigh, so as to hide the ensuing ugly infection and ultimate scar, and in this way partially immunize against the disease. But then they found that the serum from a similar  disease in cattle provided better protection, and it was made famous by Jenner.

Hahnemann called it testimony and proof of homeopathy.

“Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the “old school” doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases…..I gave about three hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form. All of these people, exposed daily, were immune.”–W. L. Bonnell, MD [ ]

Follow the link 0n that one and read about Bonnell’s trial amd the difference between vaccinoid and variolinoid. But are the anonymous editors at Wikipedia going to supply readers with links like these? Hell no, this is too much proof for homeopathy.

Now, allow me to repeat the question. Who made this man Ernst a homeopath?

Does he know about anti venom? Isn’t that an example of homeopathy in the crude form?

Like cures like.

Adderall and Ritalin are ADHD “medications” that operate on the principle of homeopathy, being nothing more than methamphetamine salts.


In fact, I might be compelled to say that I suspect just about every action has a homeopathic-like component in the response. There are other examples of homeopathy. In chemistry, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In electromagnetics, like repels like in the action of magnets. And of course every bit of matter, living and not, has an electromagnetic component to it. What is it that holds the Moon in orbit so that it neither crashes into the Earth nor flies away from it?


Elucidating magnetism  is no different than the explanations  of Hahnemann, reciting what is at the heart of the homeopathic effect.

You know, I really don’t know how it is that a guy like Ernst can’t feel some shame or anxiety when reading an article like this.

And he says he’s a homeopath? How does a man like that sleep at night?

I wrote to Ernst once and asked him if he was still offering $10,000 for proof of homeopathy. He wrote back and said that he had pulled the offer. Just like any grease pole contest. When somebody with spikes on his boots shows up, the on man pulls the offer and heads for a new ounty before the sheriff arrives.

Could it be that Ernst thinks he received his education from me?

LINDE:  “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo.” Linde, Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Linde also says, “However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.”

The reason for Linde’s statement that there is insufficient evidence for any single clinical condition” is self evident. The Linde review is a meta analysis of the literature asking the question whether or not homeopathy is a placebo. Efficacy for any single clinical condition can’t be answered in such a review, and that’s why they had to put in that caveat. But Ernst takes this caveat and turns it into the meaning he wants. In his really not so systematic review he reworks Linde to say, “The authors also stated that no indication was identified in which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo.”

As anyone can see, they did NOT state that.

Ernst says, “In conclusion, the hypothesis that any given homeopathic remedy leads to clinical effects that are relevantly different from placebo or superior to other control interventions for any medical condition, is not supported by evidence from systematic reviews. Until more compelling results are available, homeopathy cannot be viewed as an evidence-based form of therapy.”

From this the anonymous authors of Wikipedia allege, “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”

Even Ernst can’t say that.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

39 comments on “WIKILIARS: Wikipedia and the case against homeopathy

  1. […] The NCCAM article was not the first time Wikipedia was caught falsifying the placebo claim. This blog made note of the same charge in its entry on January 29th, 2012. (Wikipedia and the Case Against Homeopathy) […]


  2. Steve Cheney says:

    My word, this little rant is pretty staggeringly insane, isn’t it?


  3. […] “Wikiliars: Wikipedia and the Case Against Homeopathy.” […]


  4. […] on. I’m going to grab some popcorn and watch the fun, now that everyone else has found that John Benneth post about Wikipedia. I refrained from blogging about it, despite huge temptation, on the basis that I can’t take […]


  5. mohanaturo says:

    Clinical trials on treatment of cancer with Homeopathy remedy Psorinum 6:


  6. 4tis says:

    “There are other examples of homeopathy. In chemistry, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In electromagnetics, like repels like in the action of magnets. And of course every bit of matter, living and not, has an electromagnetic component to it. What is it that holds the Moon in orbit so that it neither crashes into the Earth nor flies away from it?


    Elucidating magnetism is no different than the explanations of Hahnemann, reciting what is at the heart of the homeopathic effect.”
    Really? Do you really believe that it is magnetism that is responsible for the orbital motion of the Moon?

    I’m afraid that says it all.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Yes of course. If you don’t think gravity is a magnetic force, what kind of force do think it is? How is the hypothetical graviton not a specie of magneton? Have you not seen anti gravity levitation done with high powered magnetics?
      Magnetism and gravity are both non-contact forces. There are numerous kinds of magnetism other than ferrous.
      Without gravitational magnetism Keplar’s law would be meaningless. And since you don’t know what gravity is, the best way to explain it to you is magnetism.
      So stop pretending to be stupid. You know perfectly well that ALL substances are magnetic, specifically diamagnetic
      What you’re trying to do is change the subject, my friend. You’re trying to distract everyone’s attention away from the central issue here, which is Wikipedia’s malnomer of homeopathy.
      What YOU don’t want admitted here is anything that challenges the crumbling placebo hypothesis for homeopathy. You can’t come up with one bit of “placebo” evidence that proves your claim that “homeopathy is placebo” according to your pre-set standards of published peer reviewed double blind RCT’s.
      So cut the BS and show me the “facts” that prove “placebo.”


      • Ken Travis says:

        “Magnetism and gravity are both non-contact forces”

        Horses and Elephants are both non-trees, but that doesn’t mean Horses are elephants or vice-versa. What a ridiculous notion.

        Gravity is NOT a form of magnetism as ferrious and non-ferrious items of equal mass have the same gravitationsal field. To believe otherwise underlines your ignorance of basic science.

        You do realise that your posts do homeopathy far more harm than good, don’t you?


        • johnbenneth says:

          This is a good example of the kind of mindset we’re dealing with in medicine, altho I don’t think it’s going to change it. It just keeps popping up enlessly, trying to play a game of gotcha built on the premise that if you can’t add up A then B must be false.
          Because I associated magnetism with graivty is further evidence to the pseudoscientists that homeoapthy is a placebo.
          Come on. NO ONE knows what a graviton is, its only hypothetical, just as NO ONE knows what a placebo is, which is also hypothetical.
          Homeoaptahy however islike graivity an magentism. Everyone is aware of i, no one escapes it, everyone believes in it because everyone eperiences it.
          Homeoapthy is the same for those who have truly investigated it, which is what skeptics will not do. THere is no case against homeoapthy. LIke the gravitron, you haven’t found it yet.
          If you’re going to espouse the scientific method, pleae, use it.


          • Ken Travis says:

            “Because I associated magnetism with graivty is further evidence to the pseudoscientists that homeoapthy is a placebo.

            Wrong, this is not what was suggested and since the rest of your reply was built on this poor assumption and is duly ignored as straw-man rhetoric.

            Because you associated magnetism with gravity it’s evidience that you are scientifically illiterate. However your (or my) personal abilities have no relevence to the efficacy of homeopathy.

            Although as I pointed out your blogs do damage its reputation.


      • 4tis says:

        Not changing the subject at all. You introduced the subject when you said
        “There are other examples of homeopathy. In chemistry, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In electromagnetics, like repels like in the action of magnets. And of course every bit of matter, living and not, has an electromagnetic component to it. What is it that holds the Moon in orbit so that it neither crashes into the Earth nor flies away from it?


        This goes to the heart of why homeopathy is never going to be taken seriously. It isn’t just the dilution beyond the Avagadro limit. This is bad enough, but let’s assume for the moment that some “memory of water” effect exists. Even given that, homeopaths go on to wreck their case by acting more like mystics than scientists. There are homeopathic “imponderables” like “Luna”, “Sol”, “Venus”, “Spectrum”, and “Electricas”. Homeopaths use dreams to help them determine prescriptions. The use of symbolism as part of homeopathic “provings”.
        Other homeopaths use astrology to assist them in prescribing the homeopathical pills that they give to their patients.

        Click to access MedicalAstrologyandHomeopathy.pdf

        And now we have you claiming that it is magnetism that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth. Are you aware that the interaction between magnets is in the form of a “dipole” interaction? That this interaction leads to a 1/r^3 force? That the bodies of the Solar system, from the largest planet to the smallest satellite, behave as if the forces between them have a 1/r^2 dependance? Definitely not 1/r^3? I could go on, but suffice to say that if you are happy to make this completely erroneous claim with the utmost confidence (Dunning-Kruger?) then it is yet another example of homeopaths confusing two things that seem a bit similar (Law of Similars?) and seeing patterns where none exist.


        • johnbenneth says:

          What, is this a comedy audition for Penn and Teller’s “Fool Us?” Or are you just tyring to entertain yourself?
          Look, this is only as hard as you want to make it. You won’t understand science, and prima facie you don’t understand astronomy or cosmology either.
          You have no ontology.
          And you can’t produce one bit of evidence for any of your ridiculous allegations, such as “homeopathy is a placebo.”
          I know you want to argue about the Moon. You can’t substantiate your first claim, so now you want to move onto picking another fight you think you can win, and you think by doing this you’ll get everybody to stop thinking about your first blatant lie.
          Prove it. Come on! Stop trying to prove what a graviton is and show me one published peer reviewed doubleblind RCT that demonstrates the placbeo effect to be the sole effect for homeopathics in biochemical testing.
          You got to have this evidence before you an reasonably make this claim about homeoapthy, otherwise go back to flipping burgers. All your other little arguments and notions and angry accusations mean nothing. NOTHING. First you have to prove what you say is true, that “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”
          Come on, show me just one study where it says that. Until you can do that, being the tough minded skeptic that you wnat us to believe you are, if you’re going to be honest about this you will provide us quickly with the answer to that question.
          I’ve done it for you. I’ve posted dozens of tests and trials all over the internet showing that these substances work outside of mind control, now you show me one test that proves that they don’t. That’s all. EZ!
          Now, if that’s not what you mean, then tell us what do you mean by placebo? The placebo EFFECT? Well, it has been said that it’s quite powerful. So does this mean that you believe that homeopathic medicine is immeasurably powerful? And what do you mean by “collective weight?”
          We’ve alaready had one guy, “Acleron,” cut and run from this question, salting his escape with angry epithets, without answering the question, yet is this not the crux of the argument?
          SHOW ME.


          • 4tis says:

            Thank you for your response. You say I am making “angry accusations”. Can you indicate where I have done that?

            You also claim that I do not “understand astronomy or cosmology either”. Please could you explain where I am in error with respect to these topics? The only errors that I see in our discussion are in your statements, not mine.

            You are suggesting that Wikipedia is terribly unfair to homeopathy. Presumably you would like to see it give more credence to the beliefs of homeopaths. As you raised the Moon/electromagnetism claim as an example of homeopathy, would you like to see that in the Wikipedia entry on homeopathy? Perhaps you would like to see the claims relating to homeopathic imponderables (such as Luna) represented in a positive light in the Wikipedia entry? Or is that concept clearly wrong? Maybe you would like to see the use of astrology within homeopathy described as being efficaceous? Or is that obviously unscientific?

            Let’s have another example. Homeopaths recommend the use of homeopathic helix tosta (a homeopathic preparation of toasted snails) as a means of protecting plants from snail damage. How does that work? It frankly makes no sense, but would you like to see this described in Wikipedia as an effective treatment?

            This is why I keep coming back to your confusion over magnetism and the Moon. It is symptomatic of a much wider problem with homeopathy. Homeopaths believe that they are working in a scientific way, and yet they generally don’t seem to be aware that their understanding of science is not as great as perhaps they think it is.


  7. Every single homeopath and pro-homeopath who has entered the discussion in the wikipedia article has been invited to provide evidence for any of their claims. Those claims that can be verified have been included. The vast majority of those statements have not been verified and therefore not included.

    The discussion pages are extremely lengthy and probably more interesting than the subject. They show all the lengths a homeopath will go to prevent facts being mentioned. But it is the verifiable facts that have gone into the article, not incoherent ramblings, extremely poor clinical trials or statements that are not borne out by the given references.

    The long time authors have been extremely careful to prevent bias from personal experience entering the article, would that the homeopaths have had the same high standards. The article would have been finished much sooner.

    Let me give an example. In his article, Benneth mentions hormesis, he doesn’t seem to understand that this is an observation and doesn’t apply in a large number of biochemical interactions. But when it does happen, it requires the presence of active material. We know, from product labels and methods sections of clinical trials that in the majority of homeopathic products there is NO active material present. Several homeopathic authors have tried very hard to prevent that fact being mentioned.

    And the accusation of being in the pharmaceutical industries pocket. What a laugh. Homeopathic products are a pharmaceutical industry’s dream product. Zero toxicity, extremely low cost of production (after all how difficult can it be to dispense non-sterile water) and extremely high profit margin. Of course, there happens to be one large problem, they don’t work.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Here we have proof of what I say in this post by “Acleron,” what appears to be one of the anonymous authors of the Wikipedia Homeoapthy page. First of all, nothing he says can be verified, its just all his opinion, most of it doen’t really make even sense.

      A very good article could be written about homeopathy if they would just follow good rules of journalism and science writing.

      The biggest error in the Wikipeia artile is omission. Notice that all evidence for homeopathy is predicated on a belief that it can’t be possible, that the tests that do show evidence of action must simply be false, bad info, etc etc. without recognizing first what the criteria are for judging such tests.

      The conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo is without criteria. WHat tests are there that prove high dilutes as used in homeopathy are placebos?
      What is meant by “placebo?”
      If they mean its a scam, then why hasn’t it been adjudicated as such in a proper jurisdiction for such accusations, which have been explicitly made by at least one of the article’s contributors?

      For instance, why isn’t Wikipeida simply laying out the research as it is and letting the reader judge?

      Other peer reviewed reviews dothat, why can’t Wikipedia? Their purpose is not to present information about homeopathy, but to discredit it. Wikipedia presents the evidence against homeopathy and footnotes it with references first to a review of reviews of the literature. But Wikipedia, like the Ernst review, leaves out important systematic reviews of the literature, such as the following:
      Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
      Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?

      If the authors of the Wikipedia page had any committment for honest, accurate reporting, they’d present the literature for what it is and leave the commentary in the criticism and idsussion section without censoring it.

      Notice that the anonymous troll simply states what he wants people to believe is true. But who do you think the p-ublic would rather hear from? Sock puppet “Acleron” or Stanford Professor William Tiller and others who have conducted physical tests on hi dilutes as used in homeopathy?
      Whose commentary would you be more intereted in onthe phsis? A NObe prize winning physicist whose conducted phsyical tests, or anonymous commentator posting statements with footnotes to an artile by an enteratained with a million dollars he says he’llt lose if anyone can “prove homeopathy” to him.
      Herre’s what we should do. Those of us in the homeoapthy community should scrape together a million dollars to offer to Wikipedia if it an support its allegations about homeoapthy to us inthe same they’re contirbutor have baite us. ame rules, Mr. Jimmy Wales. Prove homeopathy “is a placebo” and collect a million dollars for Wikipedia.
      Rules similar to Randi’s.
      Here are more artiles the WIkipedia authors like “Acleron” don’t wnat you to see:

      THey say there are no
      Int J Onc
      Integr Cancer Ther
      Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
      Am J Pharm Educ
      UK Parliament
      Inflam Res.
      Comp Ther Med
      BMC Public Health
      NY Acad Sci.

      The two most controversial are:
      Linde: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.
      Shang Ludtke Rutten: Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo

      Themost omprehensive and unserstandable is Am J Pharm Educ

      Theysay there is no science to homeopathy:

      ROY Structure
      RAO Epitaxy
      CHAPLIN Memory
      ELIA Thermodynamics

      Dozens of biochemical tests make the WIipeia article look dishonest and stupid
      IN VITRO review, SAPEH scores
      Witt in vitro review

      from the number rated cancer faiclity in the US. How does Jimmy Wales explain this?

      Malik- Scientific Research in Homeopathy
      Dr. Malik presnts a large database of Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies 130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded

      Here’s a review by Peter Fisher, MD, ‘the Royal Homeopath” at a homoepathic hospital. Ernst is terrified of this guy. WHen Fisher aske him if ernt thought he was dishonest, Ernst backed down and said no.

      UK Parliament 2009
      UNCORRECTED EVIDENCE Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research, Fisher

      Here’s one that “Acleron” et al REALLY don’t want you to see, much less know that it even exists!
      International Journal of High Dilution Research

      This is only a fraction of the evidence for homeopathy. The clinical evidence is overwhleming. Why aren’t they showing it to you?
      The anonymous trolls on the Wikipedia homeoapthy article are deliberately lying to you ladies and gentlemen.
      They don’t want you to know the truth about homeopathy.
      I say that until it is corrected, stop supporting Wikipedia. It’s run by obsessive trolling debunkers


      • You are mistaken, I have commented on the content but others are far better at writing and they have performed the hard work. I consider myself far too intemperate to write a cool analysis, a characteristic that I see you do not suppress. That you were not aware of this reveals that you haven’t read the extensive discussions that have taken place on all aspects of the article and are still continuing. If you had, you might have realised exactly how the process takes place, but then, you might not.

        I think you are asking why we don’t just say that homeopathy is a scam. Again you miss the point of an encyclopedic article. If there was verified references, in this case from courts of law, that homeopathy was a scam, we could enter that fact. The fact that some homeopaths have been found guilty of fraud and maltreatment does not condemn the whole of homeopathy and so it is not in the article.

        You also ask why we include no biochemistry. I’ll resist the impulse to educate you on biochemistry, as the lesson on hormesis didn’t sink in. The experiments in high dilutions, i.e. zero solute or active material, are not reproducible. Benveniste’s experiments were shown to be useless because of lack of correct controls. Ennis’s experiments were not confirmed in subsequent tests. Montagnier’s experiments were of such high standard that it had to be published in Montagnier’s own journal.

        So when you can come up with results that are reproduced by others and published in high quality science journals then this part of homeopathy will be included.

        It was expected that many homeopaths would disagree with the article, that is why the authors are on firm ground in that article has been extensively researched and the principles of wikipedia have been applied correctly.

        Attempts such as yours to smear the authors and article are obnoxious and ill-founded. But science has a way of coming back at those who ignore its principles and hard won knowledge of reality, it bites them in the ass.


        • johnbenneth says:

          “ACLERON”: Please quote the authorities line and verse supporting Wikipedia’s claim that “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”


          • They are in the article, surely you read it.

            The data and the essence of the quote come from the first 5 references. The statement is expanded in the fourth paragraph with a further eight references numbered 10-17.

            Do you have any meta studies/ systematic studies including high quality trials, published in reputable journals that we missed?

            I ask because we have just had a homeopath wanting changes to that line but was unable to come up with anything we hadn’t already included. Quite a coincidence that you are blogging about that same line shortly afterwards.

            You see unless there is evidence that homeopathy gives results significantly better than placebo, that is the message. A lesson was learned from Shang et al. The lower quality trials with less power are the trials that give positive results. As the quality increases, the effect for homeopathy becomes insignificant. Linde et al found the same effect.


            • johnbenneth says:

              I read it and I don’t see it, I don’t see anywhere the suppprt of the allegation that “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”
              So far you have failed to support your big claim here.
              You haven’t even told us what you mean by placebo. “To please” Medical sham? Psychogenic effects? Vespers? Ode to the dead and dying?
              All of the above?
              Look, “Acleron,” whoever you are, you certainly have yet to reveal yourself to be an authority on anything, you haven’t even given us your credentials on this subject or any other, yet you seem to be perfectly comfortable in stating what this doctrine is, how it works medically and what it is legally.
              So you must be relying on something that is authoritative.
              I’m simply asking you for a cut and paste quote here and where it ame from so I can read it in it’s true context. That’s fair, isn’t it?
              Give me line and verse, I asked you politely and you haven’t done it yet. Don’t tell me the old “look it up yourself” line, I can’t interpret your meaning of it, just show me the quote and where it came from.
              I want to know, who is making this “placebo” claim, where’s the peer reviewed publshed double blinded random controlled trials that proves “the collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo?”
              Show me, teach me.
              Show me the math.
              And stop trying to change the subject by insulting me, speculating on my schooling, making accusations, talking about “Venetian treacle,” asking questions or making requests. Get your own water and please give me the exact wording and the name of the authority that supports the Wikipedia CLAIM that “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”


              • An encyclopedia that gives readily available references is a teaching aid in itself. I don’t really feel the urge to give you personal tuition.

                It is quite apparent that you cannot produce any evidence to show the article is incorrect and the article has enough evidence to support its own statements. It is also obvious that what is at the heart of the matter is that you don’t like the conclusions.

                I have not insulted you, I have asked for evidence, I have not mentioned your schooling, accused you of anything except not reading the references to the article you complain about and have never heard of ‘Venetian Treacle’ but the mind boggles.

                I see no virtue in trying to communicate with someone who makes up that load of garbage. Perhaps you should take some alumina 300C


        • Visitante says:

          Its funny the arguments of Acleron is simple made “reject evidence” in base a deformation of arguments. The excuse de inexistense of publications in peer review journals is called Desinformation.
          Investigaation in wikipedia? Bad response.


  8. I’m sure you’re aware there is a massive amount of money (over a million dollars) waiting for anyone who could actually prove that homeopathy is anything more than placebo.


  9. This is a rather disturbing post. The author makes multiple accusations while promoting the oldest form of quackery in the books: homeopathy. How would you explain that high quality research invariably finds that homeopathy is nothing more than placebo?


    • johnbenneth says:

      It SHOULD be disturbing to you because you’ve obviously been sucker punched by interests that are desperate for you to believe its a scam. The only problem is that the only people who fall for that line of crap are idiots, and there are a lot of smart people out there. Obviously you’re not one of the smart ones, becaue you’ve bought the allopathic pharmaeutical line of crap hook, line an sinker. I’ll prove it to you. Your phony name implies you want to be regarded as a skeptic, right? And a skeptic is someone who employs rational thinking over blind faith. And so it would also follow that you have the logical kind of mind that doesn’t believe something just because you want to, and that you don’t belive something is real without direct observation of it, with the caveat that your five senses could be fooled by it, right?
      But you see you’ve done none of that. You’re not a real skeptic. A skepti oes everything he can to look at anomalies with an open mind. He doen’t covert implausile to imposible as easily as you do. In fact, read what you wrote. You’re implying nothing more than vague putative terms that homeopathy’s quackery. Well, what does that mean? It’s a scam? Would you go so far as to say its fraud?
      If you had a logical, inquiring mind, interested in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you wouldn’t be making stupid comments like what you wrote unless you had a court case or an attorney or something like that to back it up with. But you don’t. I know you like a dog eared book. Because without some legal precedent, you’d be suspicious of a statement that implies homeopathy is illegal, which means you let things in your mind slide.
      If you were areal skeptic you’d be asking me some very pointed, direct questions, like, “are there any pre-clinical tests that show the action of these susbtances used as ‘remedies’ in homeoapthy?”
      You’d be asking, “do they have any physical characteristics that distinguish them from their vehicles?”
      Do you see? If I can aask these questions, why an’t you? WHyare you just listening to nobody but anonymous trolls. WHy are you asking a meical doctor trained in homeopathy these questions?
      HOw about these for questions: “WHat’s the history of their use, who uses them and what?
      What are the dimensions of this business?
      Are they used professionally?
      How are they used professionally?
      Are there any biochemical tests?
      Do they work on organisms other than human beings?
      What are the laws, rules and regulations, if any, governing their use?
      If they’re being sold, then they must either be inside or outside of the law. But you’re not asking those questions, are you? You’re just making assumptions, like the majority of people who respond to my videos an blogs.
      Well, guess what, Wikipedia is doing the same thing. Look at all the research they’ve omitted.
      Instead they’re feeding us a line about “Venetian treacle,” and the opinions of magicians, trolls, professional debunkers. They have yet to show one test that proves its a placebo, but they say the colletive weight of sceience proves it’s a placebo.
      Alright, name one study that proves it’s a placbeo.
      You can’t do it.
      So in the game of gotha they’ve been caught.
      Look at the damage you’ve done.


  10. 4tis says:

    I see you make the common mistake of claiming that Mark Twain supported homeopathy. He didn’t. Quote mining doesn’t help your cause.


    • 4tis says:

      Try the top quote here from Mark Twain

      “[I]f another citizen preferred to toy with death, and buy health in small parcels, to bribe death with a sugar pill to stay away, or go to the grave with all the original sweetners undrenched out of him, then the individual adopted the “like cures like” system, and called in a homeopath physician as being a pleasant friend of death’s.”


      • johnbenneth says:

        Well now, look who’s quote mining, although I’d call it cherry picking, rotten ones. You must have a lot to lose in this little argument, 4tis, i can see why you can’t afford to stick a real name on it. Smebody other than you might complain about b eing mae to ook foolish.

        It’s a nice try, 4tis, but it won’t work.


        Your link is a dead end and doesn’t give the whole quote, as usual, because you don’t want anyone to see the whole quote, nor when it was written, that he had just gone to, got out or was going to jail.

        So leave it to daddy to fix. I’ll go get the real quote for you so everyone can see it in all its full blown glory!

        Read it. I’ll be waiting for you at the other end with a fire extinguisher so we can light a real blaze under you:

        APRIL 21, 1867
        New York Sunday Mercury
        Official Physic
        Ed. T. T.: — It is one of the beauties of our advance consolidated and all-embracing government that questions which were left to puzzle the private judgment of the citizens under the old regime are now settled by the legislative powers authoritatively. Among other differences of opinion there has been always a variance of choice under which system a citizen preferred to find his way across the Styx, and he enjoyed in this State till now the privilege of choosing the rower who was to aid in ferrying him over in Charon’s boat. In other words, if a citizen was inclined to take salts by the ton, ipecac by the barrel, mercury by the quart, or quinine by the load, and thus be cured of his ailment or his sublunary existence by the wholesale, he was at perfect liberty to invite the services of a medicus of the allopathic style; and if another citizen preferred to toy with death, and buy health in small parcels, to bribe death with a sugar pill to stay away, or go to the grave with all the original sweetners undrenched out of him, then the individual adopted the “like cures like” system, and called in a homeopath physician as being a pleasant friend death’s. Citizens there were too, who liked to be washed into eternity, or soaked like over-salt mackerel before they were placed on purgatorial gridirons, and these, “of every rank and degree”, had the right to pass their few remaining days in an element that they were not likely to see much of for some time. Then again there were those who saw “good in everything” and who believed that whatever is is right, and these last mixed the allopathic, homeopathic, and hydropathic systems, qualified each with each, and thus passed to their long homes, drenched, pickled, sweetened, and soaked. But all this is fast being changed. The highest power in our State has been forced to declare, through the workings of over-legislation, that the allopathic system is the only one at present recognized by the State, and so has reinstated in his position a noted allopathic physician in the Health Board. Before this decision of the Governor’s was made known, there was a war of lancets, and many hard pills to swallow were administered by the rival homeopaths and allopaths. Among arguments used were those founded on the questionable statistics of the number of patients who recovered while being treated by the rival systems. Some sarcastic people, justified by the saying of the well-known Oliver Wendell Holmes, may be of the opinion that more people get well in spite of the doctors than by their help, and that a doctor is as likely to be famous from the number that he kills as from that which he cures. Something like this might have passed through the Governor’s mind, for evidently he was undecided under which king death to speak or die, and showed that he is like most laymen, inclined to be eclectic; for immediately after the appointment of the allopath to that Board which will authoritatively recommend the kind of physic good for the public bowels in the event of the spread of an epidemic, and which poor patients will be forced to swallow, whatever their medical code may be, the Governor paid the high but rather sarcastic compliment to homeopathy of appointing one of its disciples to a place on the Board of Commissioners for the new State Lunatic Asylum to be located at Poughkeepsie. No doubt, the Governor thought that people divested of reason could offer no reasons against the appointment; and that if the lunatics were not improved by sugar pills, they would at least die sweetly — a lunatic more or less being of little account. Thus it is officially settled that allopathy is good for the sane and homeopathy for the insane. The famed “judgment of Solomon” dwindles to folly in comparison with this decision. But alas! for the changeableness of human affairs, an energetic Senator is determined to have the hydropaths officially recognized; and no doubt to satisfy the followers of that school, shower-baths, douches, and sitzes, will have to be ordered for the benefit of some class in the community. No persons need the cooling influences of cold water more than the small-fry of hot-tempered politicians who periodically increase our taxes at the State capitol. If, over each member’s seat a shower-bath was contrived, and by some electric-telegraph means the check-strings could be placed at the control of the Speaker, then, when honorable members wax so hot in debate that they forget the rules of decorum and ignore the Speaker’s gavel, the presiding officer could pull the check-strings, souse the offending members, and bring them to order and a frame of mind and body in which they would look at things coolly. Some such arrangement might be applied to caucuses and conventions, of which the members are troubled with superfluity of bile and too great a rush of blood to the head. Thus the hydropathists might be pacified by being allowed a share in public hygienics. But to return to the starting-point of this communication, the mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose that independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in fine, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.
        – M.T.
        [Text from Mark Twain: Collected Tales, Sketches, Speeches, & Essays, 1852 – 1890, edited by Louis J. Budd

        1867 found Twain in New York, only a couple years out from his rowdy genesis in Virginia City, still trying to fill his boots when he wrote this article for the Mercury condemning the state’s interference in one’s choice of medicine, ridiculing allopathy’s overdose with homeopathy’s under, waxing poetic about death, published exactly 44 years prior to the day of his own on April 27, 1910.
        But in 1867 he undoubtedly was feeling something, weighing one modality against the other. It was the year he was beginning to consider his mortality, languishing in jail for misconduct, for trying to recreate his bacchinal with his inspiration for stand up omedy, Artemus Ward, now the editor of Vanity Fair. He was no longer a kid of twenty something, he was no longer rifling the big bonanza. The world, his world, was in barasca. The adventurer who missed nothing, the Mercury sent him to Europe, when on the boat he met his future brother-in-law.
        Three years later he married Livvy and embraced homeopathy, as is detailed in preceding commentary.
        Looks like he sided with the insane and stayed that way to the end.
        TOO BAD!
        But shouldn’t this tweak your mind a little? Obviously you can see from this that in 1867, expressing the sentiments of a libertarian, he knew the two principles of homeopathy most cajoled, dilution and similitude, and was skeptical enough to tease them as well as the horror show of allopathy.

        Point is, as is made in the comment prior, by 1870 Mark Twain was on the side of homeopathy.

        Skeptoids zero, homeopathy won.

        your friend,
        your best friend,
        your ONLY friend,



    • johnbenneth says:

      The idea that the dean of American letters could neither be an atheist nor an antagonist to homeopathy drives pseudoskeptics nuts, and this is as it should be, as the spirit of homeopathy offends both.
      Even worse, Twain lambasts allopathy instead with the following ridicule from “A Majestic Literary Fosssil”.
      “Aqua Limacum. Take a great Peck of Garden-snails, and wash them in a great deal of Beer, and make your Chimney very clean, and set a Bushel of Charcoal on Fire; and when they are thoroughly kindled, make a Hole in the Middle of the Fire, and put the Snails in, and scatter more Fire amongst them, and let them roast till they make a Noise; then take them out, and, with a Knife and coarse Cloth, pick and wipe away all the green froth: Then break them, Shells and all, in a Stone Mortar. Take also a Quart of Earth-worms, and scour them with Salt, divers times over. Then take two Handfuls of Angelica and lay them in the Bottom of the Still; next lay two Handfuls of Celandine; next a Quart of Rosemary-flowers; then two Handfuls of Bearsfoot and Agrimony; then Fenugreek; then Turmerick; of each one Ounce: Red Dock-root, Bark of Barberry-trees, Wood-sorrel, Betony, of each two Handfuls.—Then lay the Snails and Worms on the top of the Herbs; and then two Handfuls of Goose Dung, and two Handfuls of Sheep Dung. Then put in three Gallons of Strong Ale, and place the pot where you mean to set Fire under it: Let it stand all Night, or longer; in the Morning put in three Ounces of Cloves well beaten, and a small Quantity of Saffron, dry’d to Powder; then six Ounces of Shavings of Hartshorn, which must be uppermost. Fix on the Head and Refrigeratory, and distil according to Art.

      “When you reflect that your own father had to take such medicines as the above, and that you would be taking them to-day yourself but for the introduction of homeopathy, which forced the old-school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business, you may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.”

      Today’s allopathic crap isn’t any better than the kettle stirrings Twain described in the 19th, as the mortality rates and lawsuits of the 21st reveal.

      But the question remains, how could the unusually hardheaded Twain suddenly go soft on homeopathy, as the quote implies? Or was he a good disbeliever, like the skeptoids desperate grasping with their argument drowning in a thimble would demand, and really just making fun of it?

      Or lacking that, is there a way to twist or interpolate it to make it sound like he is? Think! skeptos, think! To lose Twain, the ultimate skeptic on this one would be a crushing blow to the cause of pseudo skepticism, anad we must have him!

      Well, here are the damn facts, Jehosephat. Between 1870 and I am guessing his death in 1910, wherever he and his family went, Twain made almost EXCLUSIVE use of numerous medical doctors trained as homeopathic physicians, two of which became close, trusted friends of the family, such as Dr. Cincinatus Taft, MD and Dr. Howard Kellogg, MD.
      Here’s the reference in Ober’s biography of Twain that proves he was an avid believer in homeopathic medicine:
      Let’s see what lies the denialists will try to make out of that.
      Despite his smoking and drinking Twain was the ripe old age of 75 when the man punched out in 1910, the year of the comet, the same year as the target of his real antagonism floated, another homeopath by the name of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, 89.
      These are unusually long drafts of life for their day. Could it be homeopathy kept them alive, or was it cigars, whiskey and Christian Science?
      If Twain could have excoriated her for homeopathy, he wouldn’t have hesitated, he would have floated her as a witch.
      Too bad, Randi, you don’t get Twain, not on this one either. And having spoken for Twain, as Twain, many times, in front of large crowds, I think I could honestly say my opinion is that if Twain was alive today, he would find James “the Amazing” Randi to be a truly disgusting human being. If not a rope, I suspect the only thing he would award to Randi would be a blindfold and a cigarette.
      Twain may have been a good liar, but as far as I have been able to tell he didn’t take anything to be true ornot just because it shouldn’t be due to the standards of atheism, not until he oul stick his own nose into it.
      But isn’t it grand, isn’t it sweet, that the word’s wealthiest man of all time (Rockefeller), and its greatest literary genius (Twain) and its most noted spirtual healer (Eddy), and its greatest revolutionary (Gandhi) were all ardent supporters of homeopathy in the 20th century.

      I laugh, lay back, sip my Scotch and smoke my cigar: What sweet revenge there is in the literature.



      • 4tis says:

        Mr Hammer

        “When you reflect that your own *father* had to take such medicines as the above, and that you would be taking them to-day yourself but for the introduction of homeopathy, which forced the old-school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business, you may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.”

        Did you spot the word “father”? The snails, worms, etc. is a parody of how medicine *used* to be practiced. It was the time of “Heroic Medicine” when blood-letting and the like was believed to be good practice. It was only when people like Pierre Louis looked at the statistics that it was realised tha nothing really was better than blood-letting (among other things.) It was against this background of heroic medicine that Hahnemann developed homeopathy. No wonder it seemed to be efficaceous. Giving people sugar pills had the advantage that at least the pills weren’t actively killing the patient. It should also be no surprise that dilution of the “like cures like” toxin would lead to even better results.

        What homeopathy did was encourage the rest of the medical profession to “up its game”.


        • johnbenneth says:

          Homeopathy has hardly forced allopathy to give up its game. It is still the same as it has always been, overdosing the patient.

          The reason allopathy is calle heroic medicine is because of the heroic suffering the patient must endure from the allopath, specifically the other sufffering he creates, hencce the meaning of the word allopathy.

          People who use homeopathy always have been and currently are not only of a higher intelligence and financial status, they live longer.

          Allopathy has contributed little to extending life. The main reason people live longer now is due to sanitation and the EPA. Working as the assassins and thugs of the interests that own you, the medical doctors and pharmacetuical interests simply want to sicken you so they can enslave you to them. It always been a race to who can get their hooks into you first. ANd if they can’t sicken you, they just want to kill you.


  11. Thanks for this comprehensive blog about Wikipedia. Many of us have tried, for several years now, to get Wikipedia to tell the truth about homeopathy, but whatever changes have been made have been deleted. Wikipedia is clearly in the hands of the conventional medical establishment. I wonder what their connection with Big Pharma is?

    The point is, if Wikipedia is prepared to tell lies (?), not tell the full truth (?), is prepared only to provide ‘partial’ information (?) about one subject, how can anyone believe what it says on any subject.

    I, for one, no longer trust it.


    • Visitante says:

      No, is most patetic: The Wikipedia, in the case for the Homeopathy article, is modify, edit and authorized for pseudoskeptiks bloggers.


  12. Guy Chapman says:

    The Wikipedia article is well sourced from reliable independent sources. It is watched by believers and non-believers alike. Your post, by contrast relies on your own opinion, which is, quite frankly, bonkers. In a contest between you and reality, reality wins – and it’s reality that Wikipedia documents.

    Do let me know your Wikipedia account name though. It would be interesting.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Mr. Chapman,

      To recap, aside from its relentless antagonissm towards the subject, the Wikipedia article on homeoapthy has to omit reference to an entire line of inquiry and science, biochemistry, in order to maintain it premade conclusion that the remedies used in homeopathy are placebos:


    • Visitante says:

      Fail! The Wikipedia article about homeopathy is unobjetive, unscientific, and contamined for the pseudoskeptik ideology. Yet, the Wikipedia article based in prejuicies, fallacies (ad-hominem, false authority appeal, straw man fallacy, ad-misericordiam), desinformation, opinions, irrelevant arguments (in example: “the homeopathy is unlogic, and contradict physics and chemistry laws”),.
      Yes the article based in arguments for the “feels” and “not feels”, but the skeptiks feels is management who authoriy (see discusion area of article).


  13. Please proofread your articles before posting them John Benneth. I noticed a number of typos. It would leave a better impression.

    Otherwise, good intriguing information.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Thank you, Mr. McCarvil. Let me assure you that or me typography is a nightmare; I repeatedly, over and over again, proofread my articles, but i am so obsessive that I cannot stop adding another thought that contains more typographical errors. What confounds this is that my keyboard has been flattened and the letters rubbed off, and it no longer works so good. I have to hit some letters extra hard, or go back and fill them in, to get them to appear, especially those over the processor, which makes them alomost too hot to touch.


  14. The artists against homoeopathy should read and propose THEIR equations, That is the Way in science! I forgot they are artists: bla bla bla, illusionist, … To bad felllows the artist fade away when science arrive!


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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s