Homeopathy Is Witchcraft, Say Doctors

Judged:

2

2

1

Mark wrote:

Source article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternative...
Excellent article that exposes the fraud that is homeopathy.
Homeopaths like C Redd must be amongst the biggest hypocrites around as they will claim that the scientific method (you know that thing that has produced the internet, sent man to the moon & doubled the lifespan for the average human in the past 100 years) is not suitable for testing homeopathy!!!??? Yet if some pre-clinical scientific trial shows a vaguely positive result they accept it???
Homeopathy is plain water - it has no special properties that distinguish it from normal distilled water. Homeopaths do invoke magical thinking when they claim that "water has memory".
It is criminal to promote homeopathy in third world countries as an alternative to real medicine. The people in those countries face life threatening disease on a daily basis. Giving them a reliable source of clean drinking water would be far more effective in reducing disease than homeopathy.

Judged:

2

1

1

Max wrote:

This is typical of the biased and inaccurate propaganda being put out by people who want to attack homoeopathy.
The fact is that there is a substantial body of positive clinical trials showing that homoeopathy works. Why do you people ignore that and pretend that it does not exist. It does, so deal with it.
On what basis do you say that homoeopathy has no special properties when there is scientific proof that it does? You promote dogma based on nothing more than your own assumptions and then think you can criticise homoeopathy.
As to third world countries, nobody propmotes homoeopathy INSTEAD OF conventional treatment. It is promoted to help people who often have no other treatment at all and it helps many. You would be quite happy preventing them having that help because of your prejudice. If, as you claim, it does not work why are you so hysterically opposed to it?

Judged:

1

1

1

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
Only those people motivated by greed or who are personally threatened by ideological differences try to prevent the rest of humanity from exercising this right.

Judged:

3

3

2

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Talking about greed - a pharma drug is discovered/created by a company - it is tested & can take 10 to 15 years before a usable product hits the marketplace. All this cost a lot of money. Is it immoral for a company to recoup its investment? Why don't you argue over the cost of a new car? Would you buy a cheap car slapped together from available parts by some guy in his backyard just because he is not working for big auto?
Now look at homeopathy - sell a 100ml of water that costs a few cents for $20 - there is no testing, research or development required. Exactly who is ripping off the public?

Judged:

3

2

1

Mark wrote:

The practicing doctor quoted above is a quack. His name is Dr. B.M. Hegde:
http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php...
"Terming Ayurveda as the most influential science of medicine, he said that even western researchers and medical practitioners derived maximum benefits from this science of Indian origin.
Calling the criticisers of Ayurveda as fools, Hegde asked ‘can anyone who criticise Ayurveda provide 100% solutions to all human diseases?’"
Ayurvedic medicine can contain toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury & arsenic - added as it is believed that these are beneficial to human health:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#Safety
Also much of Ayurvedic is untested for efficacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#Scienti...

Judged:

1

1

1

Max wrote:

We had witch hunters in the 16th century persecuting innocent people on the basis of ignorance and superstition. Now the BMA are the self-styled witch hunters.

Judged:

1

1

1

Mark wrote:

Having thought about the comparison to witchcraft I have concluded that the comment is incorrect - witches potions have measurable amounts of active ingredients while homeopathy doesn't.

Judged:

1

1

1

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
So what? We have known that for 200 years. Homoeopathy claims that successive dilution with succussion affects the diluent so that it stimulates a healing reaction completely different from the effect of the original dilute. If you want to check that look at the evidence.
It is pointless complaining that there are no molecules present. You are just begging the question and I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason why any molcules should be needed.

Max wrote:

Because thatis how reality works. Who told you that? This is no more than an assertion on your part. If you want to assess the claim of homoeopathy you have to address the evidence for it as I said. Why are you people so thick? YOu think everything you say must be God's truth and revile everyone who doesn't swallow your nonsense.
What has explanation got to do with it? Science proceeds by first finding the facts then looking for the explanation. What you do is first assuming the answer and then refusing to accept the facts.
Until you learn how to think straight you should stop wasting people's time on the internet.

Judged:

2

2

1

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Because that is how reality works, it is not begging the question - substance A causes effect B, more substance A causes a greater effect, less substance A causes a lesser effect, no substance A causes no effect.
Explain how no active ingredient can stimulate a healing reaction? What processes occur in the body that can demonstrate this?
I have looked at the evidence and homeopathy is only as effective as no treatment at all. In other words it doesn't work.
It is up to homeopaths to find a mechanism for it to work. Until then they should be banned from peddling fake treatments and jailed if they continue to do so.

Judged:

2

2

1

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
You claim there is evidence for homeopathy working - how about providing it? I don't think everything I say is "God's truth" but as factual as the latest research allows. You reckon homeopathy works - prove it.

Judged:

2

2

1

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
You claim there is evidence for homeopathy working - how about providing it? I don't think everything I say is "God's truth" but as factual as the latest research allows. You reckon homeopathy works - prove it.
From the article entitled "Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?" published in the American Journal of Medicine, Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst (trained in homeopathy)-- writing to other physicians -- wrote some strong criticisms of homeopathy:
"Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine... These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect... To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (eg, Bach flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is therefore not an option. We think that a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work and that positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until proved otherwise... We wonder whether any kind of evidence would persuade homeopathic physicians of their self-delusion and challenge them to design a methodologically sound trial, which if negative would finally persuade them to shut up shop... Homeopathy is based on an absurd concept that denies progress in physics and chemistry. Some 160 years after Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, an essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes, we are still debating whether homeopathy is a placebo or not... Homeopathic principles are bold conjectures. There has been no spectacular corroboration of any of its founding principles... After more than 200 years, we are still waiting for homeopathy “heretics” to be proved right, during which time the advances in our understanding of disease, progress in therapeutics and surgery, and prolongation of the length and quality of life by so-called allopaths have been breathtaking. The true skeptic therefore takes pride in closed mindedness when presented with absurd assertions that contravene the laws of thermodynamics or deny progress in all branches of physics, chemistry, physiology, and medicine."

Judged:

4

3

3

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove to whom? To you who has a closed mind or to the patient who comes for treatment?