Dr Steven Cartwright with some of his homeopathic treatments

Oh what a terrible shame, poor little homeopath won't get to rip off the NHS anymore. Who's going to buy his magic water now?

Glad to see that NHS Oxfordshire has the guts to stand up to the quacks, unlike the wooly thinking imbeciles in the coalition government.

Quote from article: "However, Dr Steven Cartwright, who practices homeopathy in Oxford and runs Oxford Homeopathy, an educational forum, said it was short-sighted to say there was inconclusive evidence to support homeopathy.

He added:“There is as yet no explanation as to how homeopathy works, but that will be forthcoming."

Surely 200 years has been long enough to identify a mechanism for it to work by? The truth of the matter is all properly conducted trials show no effect (ie no better than placebo).

Homeopaths are like members of the Flat Earth Society - clinging onto a pre-scientific notion that has been repeatedly disproven.

Interestingly, 100 million Europeans use homeopathy making it Europe's No. One alternative medicine. In actuality, it should be considered a standard medicine rather than an alternative medicine. Looking closely at rankings of health and health care in countries around the world shows that countries using energy medicines, homeopathy in particular, are ranked at the top in quality of heath care and in the health of their citizens. Countries not using energy medicine rank low, e.g., the US ranks 37th.

Looking at a few countries individually, 70% of French doctors are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective. 25,000 French doctors prescribe homeopathy. It's taught in at least 7 medical schools and in 21 of France's 24 schools of pharmacy.

The German government mandated that all medical schools include information on natural medicine. There are over 6,000 German doctors formally qualified in homeopathy. 75% of all Germans have used natural medicines.

The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health issued a report concluding that "The effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe." Switzerland includes homeopathy in its health care program.

The Indian government supports homeopathy. 1 billion Indians use homeopathy, and many could use any system of medicine they choose.

The U.S. government has conducted studies proving homeopathy is effective in killing cancer cells and has voted to continue to perform trials on homeopathy.

Hopefully, NHS Oxfordshire will recognize patients' right to use good medicine, the medicine of their choice, homeopathy.

C Redd wrote:

Interestingly, 100 million Europeans use homeopathy making it Europe's No. One alternative medicine. In actuality, it should be considered a standard medicine rather than an alternative medicine. Looking closely at rankings of health and health care in countries around the world shows that countries using energy medicines, homeopathy in particular, are ranked at the top in quality of heath care and in the health of their citizens. Countries not using energy medicine rank low, e.g., the US ranks 37th.
Looking at a few countries individually, 70% of French doctors are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective. 25,000 French doctors prescribe homeopathy. It's taught in at least 7 medical schools and in 21 of France's 24 schools of pharmacy.
The German government mandated that all medical schools include information on natural medicine. There are over 6,000 German doctors formally qualified in homeopathy. 75% of all Germans have used natural medicines.
The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health issued a report concluding that "The effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe." Switzerland includes homeopathy in its health care program.
The Indian government supports homeopathy. 1 billion Indians use homeopathy, and many could use any system of medicine they choose.
The U.S. government has conducted studies proving homeopathy is effective in killing cancer cells and has voted to continue to perform trials on homeopathy.
Hopefully, NHS Oxfordshire will recognize patients' right to use good medicine, the medicine of their choice, homeopathy.

So what - none of this proves it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_po... : Argumentum ad populum

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
So what - none of this proves it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_po... : Argumentum ad populum
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

The subject under discussion here is health and homeopathy, not the rules of argumentation or debate.

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
The subject under discussion here is health and homeopathy, not the rules of argumentation or debate.

You have seen nothing yet. Please go through the topics on homeopathic forum and it is quite a revelation on the capabilities of Mr. Mark.

He uses the following points:

1. Anecdote for cure.
2. Self limiting disease.
3. Case of doctor's fault as homeopathic failure.
4. Water.
5. Magic.
6. Doctor drink's himself to death- homeopathic failure.
7. links from James Randi and laymen who have no clue about homeopathy.
8. Rules of science- physics and chemistry,
Did I miss somthing?

Iqbal wrote:

Did I miss somthing?

Yes Iqbal you did miss something. What you're missing is the whole point of what Mark is saying to you.

I'm sure every single skeptic, even James Randi, would eat their words if you could come up with some decent evidence that homeopathy works. You haven't and it has been pointed out that you haven't.

What would it take to make you consider that homeopathy might not work? Anything?

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
You have seen nothing yet. Please go through the topics on homeopathic forum and it is quite a revelation on the capabilities of Mr. Mark.
He uses the following points:
1. Anecdote for cure.
2. Self limiting disease.
3. Case of doctor's fault as homeopathic failure.
4. Water.
5. Magic.
6. Doctor drink's himself to death- homeopathic failure.
7. links from James Randi and laymen who have no clue about homeopathy.
8. Rules of science- physics and chemistry,
Did I miss somthing?

Oh, yes, I know Mark (and others like him) very well going back some months here and a couple of years on other internet venues. They're all the same, all of them have the same scripted, paid-for comments and all are well worth ignoring. The vast majority of people catch on to them pretty quickly.

I know you know this, but I'll say it anyway, these people are either:

1. hired by drug companies to bash alternative medicine on public forums for the obvious reasons -- competition and profits. Drug companies have paid out $30 billion+ to these people.

www.whale.to/p/quacks.html

2. followers of James Randi, skeptic of everything, high school drop-out and magician -- not scientist, not doctor, not user of anything but conventional medicine. Randi (actually James Radni)is on a crusade against anything that doesn't fit into his world view because his church was cheated by a minister who claimed special powers and whom the parishioners believed. What that has to do with homeopathy I couldn't guess.

These are:

3. dysfunctional people who have been riled up by the people who recruited them and who come on the internet with nothing more than personal attacks, no knowledge of homeopathy and no personal experience of it. Bullying and harassment are how they operate in their everyday lives so they think it works here. They have a few "arguments" they pick up from skeptic sites (sponsored by the drug companies) like "there are no studies" even though there are hundreds proving homeopathy works. Their method of operation is to ignore the responses they get and to repeat the same arguments over and over and over. Apparently they think that repetition makes their statements true facts or that people will believe them if they say it often enough.

Only people with no personal competency and no self-esteem who are lacking a satisfying life engage in the activities they engage in.

Wow, just take a look at what you have written, do you need me to go through the entire piece and point out your personal insults. Directed at Randi and anyone who dares to disagee with your opinion. By the way prove homeopathy works and Randi would be very happy to increase your bank balance considerably.

Do you seriously believe I'm in the pocket of big pharma? On that reckoning does that make you a paid shill of big placebo?

Yup, sceptics do repeat the same arguments over and over again because that's what we truly believe, and that is what the trials we believe are valid tell us. This is also what the scientific method tells us is correct,which is currently the best method of determining evidence we have so far. Homeopaths and the like repeat subjective anecdotes instead of evidence time and again. As long as you continue to write, what I consider to be, dangerous mind numbingly stupid comments people will continue to tell you to prove it.

I take it you have read the report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee's evidence check on homeopathy? If not you will find that the multi party committee demolished the evidence put forward by the homeopaths. Pointing out the cherry picking of trials , results and also outright lies provided by the quacks.

Does that mean that all British Parliamentary parties are in the pocket of big pharma? If so why has the new Health Secretary declined to ban it on the NHS and left the decision to provide it in the hands of the health care trusts the run our hospitals. I know as an american you will have no or little interest in anything outside your own country but as you feel it fine to rip into the education standards of sceptics, and of course Randi, perhaps you are more informed than the usual homeopathic cheer leaders.

Much as I tried I find it impossible not to stoop to your level and personally insult you so I'd like to finish with a very fine Scots saying "geritrightupye ye c**t!"

Shell wrote:

Wow, just take a look at what you have written, do you need me to go through the entire piece and point out your personal insults. Directed at Randi and anyone who dares to disagee with your opinion. By the way prove homeopathy works and Randi would be very happy to increase your bank balance considerably.
Do you seriously believe I'm in the pocket of big pharma? On that reckoning does that make you a paid shill of big placebo?
Yup, sceptics do repeat the same arguments over and over again because that's what we truly believe, and that is what the trials we believe are valid tell us. This is also what the scientific method tells us is correct,which is currently the best method of determining evidence we have so far. Homeopaths and the like repeat subjective anecdotes instead of evidence time and again. As long as you continue to write, what I consider to be, dangerous mind numbingly stupid comments people will continue to tell you to prove it.
I take it you have read the report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee's evidence check on homeopathy? If not you will find that the multi party committee demolished the evidence put forward by the homeopaths. Pointing out the cherry picking of trials , results and also outright lies provided by the quacks.
Does that mean that all British Parliamentary parties are in the pocket of big pharma? If so why has the new Health Secretary declined to ban it on the NHS and left the decision to provide it in the hands of the health care trusts the run our hospitals. I know as an american you will have no or little interest in anything outside your own country but as you feel it fine to rip into the education standards of sceptics, and of course Randi, perhaps you are more informed than the usual homeopathic cheer leaders.
Much as I tried I find it impossible not to stoop to your level and personally insult you so I'd like to finish with a very fine Scots saying "geritrightupye ye c**t!"

I didn't direct my comment to YOU nor did I identify YOU. YOU identified YOURSELF.

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't direct my comment to YOU nor did I identify YOU. YOU identified YOURSELF.

Oh lordy lord someone really has spat the dummy. What a crumpy little munchkin you are tonight.

I don't care if you didn't direct your blathering nonsense at me, I have chosen to answer it. Don't you understand how forums work?

I'll write whatever I like about your comments. what's up don't you apppreciate someone laughing at your hypocrisy, stupidity and apparent lack of education? What a fragile little ego you have, touch a nerve did I?

Oh by the way crudd< think you'll find that this does apply to me "Oh, yes, I know Mark (and others like him)".

So, wrong again sweety.

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, yes, I know Mark (and others like him) very well going back some months here and a couple of years on other internet venues. They're all the same, all of them have the same scripted, paid-for comments and all are well worth ignoring. The vast majority of people catch on to them pretty quickly.
I know you know this, but I'll say it anyway, these people are either:
1. hired by drug companies to bash alternative medicine on public forums for the obvious reasons -- competition and profits. Drug companies have paid out $30 billion+ to these people.
www.whale.to/p/quacks.html
2. followers of James Randi, skeptic of everything, high school drop-out and magician -- not scientist, not doctor, not user of anything but conventional medicine. Randi (actually James Radni)is on a crusade against anything that doesn't fit into his world view because his church was cheated by a minister who claimed special powers and whom the parishioners believed. What that has to do with homeopathy I couldn't guess.
These are:
3. dysfunctional people who have been riled up by the people who recruited them and who come on the internet with nothing more than personal attacks, no knowledge of homeopathy and no personal experience of it. Bullying and harassment are how they operate in their everyday lives so they think it works here. They have a few "arguments" they pick up from skeptic sites (sponsored by the drug companies) like "there are no studies" even though there are hundreds proving homeopathy works. Their method of operation is to ignore the responses they get and to repeat the same arguments over and over and over. Apparently they think that repetition makes their statements true facts or that people will believe them if they say it often enough.
Only people with no personal competency and no self-esteem who are lacking a satisfying life engage in the activities they engage in.

The subject under discussion here is health and homeopathy, not personal insults.

BTW I do not get paid for comments & I have no vested interest in the medical system except that I use it when I get sick. Get over your paranoid delusions.

On the other hand I bet you are involved with a homeopath - you may not be one yourself but you probably worked for one.

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
You have seen nothing yet. Please go through the topics on homeopathic forum and it is quite a revelation on the capabilities of Mr. Mark.
He uses the following points:
1. Anecdote for cure.
2. Self limiting disease.
3. Case of doctor's fault as homeopathic failure.
4. Water.
5. Magic.
6. Doctor drink's himself to death- homeopathic failure.
7. links from James Randi and laymen who have no clue about homeopathy.
8. Rules of science- physics and chemistry,
Did I miss somthing?

How about this one: spamming the thread with the same "questions" and "arguments" over and over and over, answering the responses with the same scripted material and then repeating those very "questions" and "arguments" again and again. Also, repeatedly bringing up the one or two issues they can find but never acknowledging that there are factors in the cases they haven't and won't consider. An example of this is continually bringing up the site "What's the Harm" and its 46 supposed cases in which homeopathy did harm to someone. When you point out to them that the back-up material the site offers on each case shows the patient never used homeopathy, used conventional medicine first without success or the site has confused some other system of medicine with homeopathy they simply continue to bring up this site.

One big spam machine!

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
How about this one: spamming the thread with the same "questions" and "arguments" over and over and over, answering the responses with the same scripted material and then repeating those very "questions" and "arguments" again and again. Also, repeatedly bringing up the one or two issues they can find but never acknowledging that there are factors in the cases they haven't and won't consider. An example of this is continually bringing up the site "What's the Harm" and its 46 supposed cases in which homeopathy did harm to someone. When you point out to them that the back-up material the site offers on each case shows the patient never used homeopathy, used conventional medicine first without success or the site has confused some other system of medicine with homeopathy they simply continue to bring up this site.
One big spam machine!

Christy, the reason I keep repeating my posts is that people like you keep stating the same lies. We ask for evidence & you quote half-assed homeopathy websites full of anecdotes & no objective testing.

You keep responding "what about the harm of big pharma" - that is irrelevant to whether homeopathy works or not. Just because A might have problems doesn't mean B works.

Yes I will continue to repeat my arguments until you can provide some real evidence that homeopathy is not 100% water.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Christy, the reason I keep repeating my posts is that people like you keep stating the same lies. We ask for evidence & you quote half-assed homeopathy websites full of anecdotes & no objective testing.
You keep responding "what about the harm of big pharma" - that is irrelevant to whether homeopathy works or not. Just because A might have problems doesn't mean B works.
Yes I will continue to repeat my arguments until you can provide some real evidence that homeopathy is not 100% water.

What do you define as REAL evidence?

Treated patients are anecdotes, cure is achieved because of placebo effect, it was a self limiting disease, or off course reference to big names?

What beyond this can you see?

An Ostrich is famous for "head in the sand" saying?

Iqbal wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you define as REAL evidence?
Treated patients are anecdotes, cure is achieved because of placebo effect, it was a self limiting disease, or off course reference to big names?
What beyond this can you see?
An Ostrich is famous for "head in the sand" saying?

Real evidence has objective result unbiased by anecdote & personal bias. It can also be independantly verifyed. When a scientific discovery is made, it is published in a peer reviewed journal for other scientists to test & criticise. If a result cannot be repeated by other scientists then the initial study is rejected. Sometimes a second test isn't needed because the intial test was fundamentaly flawed (like the MD Anderson clinic study on cancer cells which even one of its authors rejected).

In Australia we don't have ostrichs, we have emus which look you straight in the eye and don't take any BS.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Christy, the reason I keep repeating my posts is that people like you keep stating the same lies. We ask for evidence & you quote half-assed homeopathy websites full of anecdotes & no objective testing.
You keep responding "what about the harm of big pharma" - that is irrelevant to whether homeopathy works or not. Just because A might have problems doesn't mean B works.
Yes I will continue to repeat my arguments until you can provide some real evidence that homeopathy is not 100% water.

Interestingly, when confronted with documented proof of the highest quality of homeopathic efficacy, you cry "lies" and "fraud".

Also interesting is the fact that you can't provide links to DOCUMENTED, HIGH QUALITY PROOF that what I've posted is either a lie or a fraud as we all know it is not.

Why is that?

You love to avoid the fact that conventional drugs often do much more harm than good by switching the argument. As you well know, NO ONE has EVER stated that the fact that conventional drugs do more harm than good proves that homeopathy works.

Just keep chewing that cud!

C Redd wrote:

<quoted text>
Interestingly, when confronted with documented proof of the highest quality of homeopathic efficacy, you cry "lies" and "fraud".
Also interesting is the fact that you can't provide links to DOCUMENTED, HIGH QUALITY PROOF that what I've posted is either a lie or a fraud as we all know it is not.
Why is that?
You love to avoid the fact that conventional drugs often do much more harm than good by switching the argument. As you well know, NO ONE has EVER stated that the fact that conventional drugs do more harm than good proves that homeopathy works.
Just keep chewing that cud!

Because you have not provided evidence of the higest quality, you only provide anecdotes & poor quality trials.

Christy do you believe everything you see on TV, that a certain perfume will make you irresistible to men or that using a certain skin cream will make you look 10 yrs younger. No you don't because these are just stories to get you to buy a product. They use anecdotes because the scientific evidence does not support their claims. This is exactly why homeopahy websites have anecdotes & no real evidence - they know there isn't any.

Shell wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes Iqbal you did miss something. What you're missing is the whole point of what Mark is saying to you.
I'm sure every single skeptic, even James Randi, would eat their words if you could come up with some decent evidence that homeopathy works. You haven't and it has been pointed out that you haven't.
What would it take to make you consider that homeopathy might not work? Anything?

I believe Mr. Mark's comments are irrelevant.

Please see what he writes about Dr. Hegde, an eminent Cardiologist:

Homeopathy is witchcraft: Post # 10, May 17, 2010
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.

Whooping cough: Post #67: July 20, 2010. It appears Iqbal was quoting Dr BM Hegde. Reading some of Hegde's articles shows someone struggling to comprehend what science is.

Under fire: Post #111 , July 27,2010.

Iqbal, why do you keep quoting BM Hegde? Are you a relative or a student? From Hegde's writings he has clearly stopped updating his medical knowledge sometime during the 1960s. In Australia he would be refered to as "an old fogy" - someone who is behind the times.

Obviously Hegde uses his academic status to pontificate on medical topics that he has not bothered to research thoroughly. And because of his status people are unwilling to call him on his BS.

Under fire: Post #127 , July 27, 2010
No, thats the same BM Hegde who believes in astrology.

He has seen the website, checked the credentials of the doctor and the above posts are written in the homeopathic forum to mislead who?