Comments on: Popular Delusions VI: Homeopathy

By: Nes

Nes — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:33:30 +0000

Don't worry Steve, that's probably a doctorate in homeopathy.

Oh, wait...

By: Steve Bowen

Steve Bowen — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:06:39 +0000

There are increasing number of people who understand Homoeopathy and who are benefitted by its safe , simple, scientific and economic and effective benefits--- Dr. C. J. Varghese, Taliparamba, Kannur, Kerala, India- 670141, Ph: 919447019733, 04602202033

Dr!!????? Abandon hope!!

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:19:37 +0000

About 95% or more of the human individuals on earth are believers of God. I believe at least many of the iconoclastic writers against Homoeopathy are also believers. Please explain how scientific is your faith and religiousness? Before you turn against Homoeopathy , a baby system of medicine, can you attack the religions of the world ?

I approved this one because I needed a good laugh.

By: Dr. C. J. Varghese

Dr. C. J. Varghese — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:41:31 +0000

Why turning against Homoeopathy alleging it to be non science. Yes unless and untill the definition of science is altered as a systematized knowledge about the truths, which essentially implies many immaterial concepts, Homoeopaths do not claim it to be a science. The parameters of material science alone does not explore or expose the truth in its entirety. Do you agree that love, happiness, beauty etc are truths? Do you agree that arts like music, painting etc have a truthful existence? Do you think that all about those immaterials but truths are scientifically explained? Whereas Allopaths believe that health is something material, Homoeopaths believe that health is a Dynamis just as Disease and Cure are also Dynamic. The roots of diseases as per the latest medical knowledge are genetic. But does everything regarding the genetic science explained away? Only if somebody can think in a spiritual manner, he can understand Homoeopathy.
About 95% or more of the human individuals on earth are believers of God. I believe at least many of the iconoclastic writers against Homoeopathy are also believers. Please explain how scientific is your faith and religiousness? Before you turn against Homoeopathy , a baby system of medicine, can you attack the religions of the world ? Many truths are born not in the laboratories outside but in the laboratories of the mind. Do you love your child or mother after testing and verifying the veracity of your love? The music of a great musician is sweet to hear and we enjoy. You cut his throat open to see the music in this vocal cords! There are several truths remaining to be explored in terms of material truths. To understand the existence of roots, you need not everytime pluck the plant and see the roots. Reason is given to the people to understand truths. There are increasing number of people who understand Homoeopathy and who are benefitted by its safe , simple, scientific and economic and effective benefits--- Dr. C. J. Varghese, Taliparamba, Kannur, Kerala, India- 670141, Ph: 919447019733, 04602202033

By: Jim Baerg

Jim Baerg — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:19:32 +0000

The Skepticality podcast has an interview with Dr. Simon Singh who has done some work exposing dangerous homeopathic practices in Britain.
Go to http://www.skepticality.com/index.php
Then click on 'Listen to Past Episodes' & download episode #37

By: lpetrich

lpetrich — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:59:23 +0000

Have you ever heard of the homeopath who died of an overdose? They forgot to take their medicine.

I couldn't resist that joke, and it is not original with me.

But more seriously, I've seen the argument that Niklaus Pfirsig mentioned, even though it is specific to the operation of the immune system and even though it is a poor analogy for homeopathic medicines.

In one of the response threads at Richard Dawkins's site, I saw an argument from a defender of homeopathy who claimed that homeopathy treats a patient as an integrated unit rather than as a set of parts that can be treated in isolation from each other. He never explained how that was supposed to work, however.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is preparing a documentary on crackpottery and irrationalism; he might be discussing homeopathy in a bit of it.

By: Polly

Polly — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:45:28 +0000

Ja, Vjatcheslav, dat is niet zo hulpvaardig voor ons Amerikanen.

By: Vjatcheslav

Vjatcheslav — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:17:52 +0000

Hahneman took some kinine, used to treat malaria, and he had an allergical reaction to it. He got fever, which is typical of malaria, so he thought he had found the reason why kinine worked against malaria, and he developped the similia-principe (like cures like) as formulation.

In his time Hahneman was quite progressive, because he opposed the traditional medicine, consisting of things like laxation, letting the patient bleed so the bad blood would go away,..., and while searching better medicines, he tried kinine, with the known results.

So, homeopathy is based on one observation which was atypical for the general population. A bad form of science, which has now degenerated into a form of superstition.

The source is http://www.skepp.be/artikels/alternatieve-behandelingen/homeopathie-geloof-of-wetenschap, but it is in Dutch, so it could be that it isn't really usefull.

Greetings from Puiveldistan.

By: Niklaus Pfirsig

Niklaus Pfirsig — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:09:12 +0000

Perhaps one of the things that convinces the practitioners of homeopathy is a vague association with the accepted medical practices of vaccination and allergic desensitization. The idea of intentionally introducing an allergen or pathogen into the body, on the surface sounds similar, but is quite different. With vaccination, a live but somewhat less virulent pathogen (or in many cases, inactive viral proteins ) is introduced into a healthy person in order to trigger the immune system into producing a pre-emptive immunity to the targeted pathogen. In the case of de-sensitizing against an allergen, components of the allergen are injected in relatively small quantities during times when the allergen is not present. In a small percentage of people, this actually reduces the serverity of reactions to the actual allergen.
Homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point of having no real effect, and administered to the sick.

Naturopathic does have some merit, and to a very large extent, the pharma industry is based on naturopathic remedies. One of the most sucessful medications of all time is aspirin, which is based on an old natural remedy (willow bark tea).

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:33:21 +0000

The term homeopathy actually covers three completely different things.
1) Classical homeopaths insist that remedies must be individually tailored to the sufferer (according to principles which never properly get explained).
2) The homeopathic products that one buys over the counter are however one-size-fits-all. Note that these two interpretations of homeopathy are mutually incompatible.
3) Some substances sold as homeopathic are not actually homeopathic at all (relying on neither the similia principle nor high dilutions). They are herbal remedies which are sold as homeopathic because it's easier to get away with quackery under the homeopathic label in some countries. These remedies may have some effect. And in some cases it might even be beneficial.

So if you ever meet someone defending homeopathy, first get them to define which version of homeopathy they are talking about. (Chances are they haven't a clue.)

By: bassmanpete

bassmanpete — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:19:31 +0000

Mrnaglfar, I thought the guy was serious at first but the more it went on the more I thought "This is a leg pull!" Then when he said "It's the 21st century" and the text on the screen read "Let's make it feel like the 14th" I just burst out laughing.

By: Mrnaglfar

Mrnaglfar — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:24:58 +0000

Adam, I'd thought you'd enjoy this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU