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 , 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.