Saturday, March 21, 2015

Roslyn Ross Defends Homeopathy. Can You?


Roslyn Ross Vermont Girls High School Defends Homeopathy Against one of its Skeptics

You said: Many other alternative remedies are nothing more than a placebo -- having the same effect as a sugar pill. Homeopathy is a good example.

Wrong. Homeopathy has demonstrated even within the distortions of tests devised by materialist/reductionist science/medicine that it is more than placebo.

Sugar pills do not have effect on cells, body tissue, plants etc. You should also note that all medical treatments include placebo effects of some kind and unfortunately, with much of Allopathic medicine, a great deal of nocebo as well.

You said: here are several problems with this popular treatment. The original basis was totally unscientific

Wrong again. The original basis, while more advanced than scientific knowledge then or now, was sourced in scientific practice and methodology. Samuel Hahnemann was both a qualified pharmacist and medical doctor.

You said: -- it's sympathetic magic.

There is nothing magical about it. Magic is trickery practised by a magician. Sympathetic yes, magic no.

You said: Samuel Hahnemann, who developed the concept in the 18th century, decided that consuming a dilute solution of a substance, often poisonous, which caused bad responses, would cure illnesses that produced the same effects.

Oh dear, your ignorance is just embarrassing, for you. Hahnemann decided no such thing. There are no bad responses from Homeopathic remedies. You clearly have no knowledge at all about the methodology.

You said: Then there's that dilution. A typical dilution for a homeopathic product is "30 C." This means the original substance has been watered down by a factor of 100, 30 times in row. (That makes the chance of a single molecule of the active ingredient being left in the medicine a million trillion trillion times less likely than you are of winning the U.K. lottery jackpot with a single ticket.)

You are at least consistent. A demonstration of ignorance personified. Surely a little time spent researching that which you opt to reject would have been wise.

You said: Better homeopaths recognize this, but say that water has a "memory," which retains the ability to act as if the substance were present.

No, they don't. As with any science where it is not known how something works, there are a variety of theories. The 'water as memory' claim has more to do with media manipulation than anything else. But I suspect a study of the quantum physics aspects as theory might be a bit much for you to absorb.

You said: However, there is no evidence for this "memory" and, as the Australian Council Against Health Fraud has pointed out [1], it is strange that water's memory is so selective.

That is because it is not about 'memory' or memory. But hey, never let facts get in the way of propaganda. The issue is about the capacity of water to record, retain and release information and there is research demonstrating that is most certainly possible. Water Retains Memory

You said: How does it know to remember the homeopathic cure, but not the various bladders the water has passed through in the past and all the other chemicals that have been in it and then diluted out of it on its way to the final place of use?

Oh dear, cringe with embarrassment on your count. Please do some research.

You said: There have been many, many trials of homeopathy, and the good quality studies show no benefit above that of a placebo.

A blatant untruth.

Thursday, February 26, 2015


UK Surgeon DocBastard wonders why patients research the internet for health care answers. Don't think he liked the answers. UK Surgeon "DocBastard" gets slammed on his DailyBeast article.

Click here to return to blog home page



DocBastard, as he calls himself, got an opinion piece published in the DailyBeast slamming alternative medicine and wondering Why health care consumers trust the internet for answers to their questions rather than their doctors He got a lot of heartfelt answers he probably did not, but should have expected.

See screen shots of a few sample posted comments. As I watch the trend away from conventional medicine towards alternative forms of health care (which DocBastard slams in his article), conventional medicine has a lot of work to do to improve its very tarnished image. As you will glean from the comments, conventional medical pracitioners are clearly their own worst enemy.

Update with new comment(s)11 March, 2015




Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Friday, November 7, 2014

Homeopathy Skeptic Alan Henness Quizes Professional Health Care Team


Click here to return to blog home page

I'll let the image and content speak for itself. The "Translation" in bold red lettering I have added to the screen shot of the Twitter conversation represents my personal opinion about Mr. Henness' thought process.

I wonder if Mr. Henness (Nightingale Collaboration Co-Founder) would prefer more expensive and potentially toxic drugs over other alternative care that a private individual and his/her family may prefer and choose instead?

Sunday, October 26, 2014

The Brain-Dead Homeopathy Critics & Their Schoolyard Slander


Click here to return to blog home page

Quoted material.   "It is truly remarkable the level of ignorance involved in this debate, with critics of homeopathy showing their true love of mediocrity, conformism and brain-dead enforcement of orthodoxy (dogma) – with enthusiasm that would make an Inquisitor blush.

Would be defenders of science and so-called ‘evidence-based medicine' seem to have no problem whatsoever issuing criticisms of homeopathy which are completely and totally at variance with the actual data.

Somehow they don't see the irony in calling homeopathy ‘unscientific' even though the criticism is itself not based on any hard evidence. As Dr. Spense has rightfully pointed out, this is a very safe and conventional position – ‘everyone' knows homeopathy is ‘just water' and ‘just placebo'. The critics see no problem substituting conventional wisdom for facts – which is why if you peruse Dr. Spense's article and the subsequent commentary, you will find almost no mention of material facts, just schoolyard slander.

The fact is, the weight of the evidence strongly favors homeopathic remedies being biological active agents.

Nearly all physico-chemical research – conducted by scientists of the very highest skill on earth, such as Rustum Roy and Jayesh Bellare – demonstrates physical properties of homeopathic remedies which are distinct from those of plain water or succussed/diluted water controls. None of the research is completely beyond reproach, but it is nevertheless quite strong and viewed as a whole becomes stronger.

Good medicine: homeopathy

Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective.

The 'Memory of Water': an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions.

The in vitro evidence is similarly strong – with a recent review finding that over 2/3 of all high quality studies demonstrate biological activity of homeopathic remedies. The same is true for nearly 3/4 of all replications.

The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature.

The clinical evidence is less consistent, but this is because of the enormous heterogeneity of the literature – with many different types of homeopathy being studied, often by people who know nothing of homeopathy or lack the skills specific to the performance of homeopathic trials. Viewed as a whole, 41% of all RTC's come to positive conclusions, while 52% are inconclusive; 7% are actually negative. These numbers correlate almost precisely with RCT's of conventional medical therapies.

Research, the evidence base.

Systematic reviews have come to positive conclusions for, so far, the following conditions: allergies and upper respiratory infections, childhood diarrhea, influenza treatment, post-operative ileus, rheumatic diseases, seasonal allergic rhinitis, vertigo and most recently, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome

Systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy.

Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled studies.

Homeopathic critics, if they cite any evidence, seem to universally cite only one study – the Shang, et al meta-analysis (Lancet, 2005). They may as well have referenced no data at all, since Shang is an abomination of science – failing nearly every conventional norm for high quality research (e.g. failing to meet multiple QUOROM criteria for systematic reviews) – and basing its conclusions on 8 out of 110 cherry picked trials. No sensitivity analysis was performed, but in subsequent independent assessment, literally every single other manner of assessing the data comes up positive for homeopathy. The 8 selected trials fail the ‘leave one out' cross-validation test – take out the study looking at use of Arnica for soreness in marathon runners (a completely irrelevant research question with zero external validity) and the conclusions reverse dramatically (in favor of homeopathy). In other words, Shang is a sham. But clearly for critics it represents the pinnacle of research science since it supposedly ‘debunks' homeopathy. No mention is ever made of all the other meta-analyses - which come to positive ends and are of far higher quality than Shang.

The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials.

The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data.

The homeopathic literature is not without deficiencies, but to say homeopathy is nothing but placebo requires turning a blind eye to a large amount of data which, though not completely conclusive, certainly suggests otherwise. It is clear that those who issue boilerplate criticisms of homeopathy have not bothered to consider the entirety of the data. Intelligent people and true scientists should be embarrassed by this and most ‘discussions' taking place about homeopathy in the British medical community – they are an affront to scientific principles of rationality and objectivity."

Competing interests: No competing interests | 06 October 2012 |
Christopher M Johnson | Naturopathic Doctor |Private Practice |
4910 31st St S Suite A Arlington, VA 22206 USA
The source of this article can be found HERE

Thank you Dr. Johnson!

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Nightingale Collaboration - The Ugly Side


Click here to return to blog home page

As BrownBagPantry on Twitter, I promote homeopathy. As a follower of the Nightingale Collaboration, JoBrodie has decided she needs to reign me in. The Nightingale Collaboration was founded by Alan Henness and his wife MariaMacLachlan with initial seed money donated by Simon Singh. Their anti-CAM lobby group "challenges questionable claims made by healthcare practitioners on their websites, in adverts and in their ... feel is unproven...." Since I am not a healthcare practitioner, seems a bit of a stretch how I *fit* that description.



A brief Google search shows that JoBrodie can be an annoyance ELSEWHERE