Homeopathy: Wasting resources for distributing water
They do not call it “water” of course. They call it a “homeopathic remedy“… And I was very disappointed to see a leaflet in my University, promoting the Polyclinic which “provides a unique grouping of complementary therapy teaching clinics, offering reliable treatment at affordable prices“, one of them being homeopathy: the distribution of water…

What strikes me the most about homeopathy is how gullible some people can be. I admit I didn’t know what homeopathy was until about a year ago. Before, I though it was a legitimate scientific medicine branch. But then a friend of mine (thanks Artie) told me how it is supposed to work. And I was shocked! How can any sane human being accept it by default when he/she first hears what it is and how it works?!? You have to at least investigate further! And then it becomes even more absurd!!
Homeopathy: no science behind it, no sense behind it, no conclusive reports, goes against proven science and medicine. Yet people still believe in it and still waste money on it…

I started reading about homeopathy very actively, and I have even tried it a couple of times. It is ridiculous. It is placebo with a new alias. A very brief introduction would be: “homeopathic remedies are very highly diluted substances that are supposed to treat the same symptoms that they produce when not diluted (this is called ‘like cures like’)” (!) So for example, to treat insomnia, you get highly diluted caffeine! Then, the higher the dilution the more powerful the remedy! So the typical dilution in homeopathy is 30C or even 200C, which means that the substance has been diluted in 100 parts of water, for 30 or 200 times respectively! That, of course, leaves absolutely no substance at all in the final remedy, and it has now become pure water. In order to have just one molecule of the original substance in a 200C remedy, you would need as many molecules of water as there are atoms in the whole solar system! So here comes to the rescue the main homeopathic “idea”: water has memory! It is able to keep an imprint of the substance. And of course, it can recognize the good substance to remember instead of the various other substances and organisms it comes in contact with during preparation [sarcasm here].

I am not going to delve any further into the mechanics (or absence) of it, as there are numerous places to introduce you to homeopathy. The bottom line however, remains that homeopathy is completely non-scientific, there is no evidence to support either the efficacy or the claimed mechanics, and it highly resembles pseudo-science bull-crap (excuse my language please).

Recently, I had an email exchange with a member of the board of the Hellenic Homeopathic Medical Society, conveniently called Dr. V. Since I knew what exactly to ask him, I got back a series of answers where Dr. V manages to debunk homeopathy on its own perhaps without even realizing it! My email consisted of mainly three questions listed here along with Dr. V answers (translated from Greek, original email available upon request and consent from the authors):
  • Isn’t the final solution pure water since the number of high dilutions goes well above the Avogadro number?
    [...] Your reference to the Avogadro number is correct, and you are well justified to wonder how the solution has a biological effect on the body [...]

  • How is the diagnosis performed? Is it only by reference to the Materia Medica * or do you use other means as well?
    [...] I am not sure what you mean by “diagnosis”. What a homeopathic doctor tries to do is figure out which substance from the Materia Medica has the greatest resemblance to the symptoms of the patient (through a rigorous “interview” of the patient). Traditional means are NOT used, such as any kind of machinery, blood sample examination, [x-rays etc] [...]

  • How did the ‘like cures like’ theory occur? Has it actually been proved at a molecular level that this is indeed the case?
    [...] No, at a molecular/biological level it has not been proved [...]

So, what we have here is a completely unscientific and unsupported by evidence practice, where the remedies are actually just water, they have been proven not to have ANY effect at all at a molecular/biological level, go directly against the highly successful pathogen scientific theory, and where “doctors” (or better homeopaths) reach conclusions and prescribe remedies without even examining the patient!

The good of Homeopathy (only if used as complementary and NOT as alternative):
  • Homeopathic doctors actually pay attention and care for the patient
  • Patients may well benefit and initiate self-healing (placebo)
So, is there anything in favor of homeopathy according to Dr. V? Yes, apparently there is: the “amazing clinical results“! Now, these results are either anecdotal, based on brainwashed patients that swear that they feel better (what an objective report!), or based on dubious and flawed trials that actually aimed at proving that homeopathy works (a bit biased maybe?). At the same time there have also been numerous scientific reports reaching the conclusion that homeopathy is no better than placebo. There has actually been a meta-analysis report (among many others) published in Lancet that concluded that the time for further research for homeopathy has now passed and the grace period is over. Resources should be directed to other [more rational] fields with scientific basis. Yes. These are the results that Dr. V was referring to.

In any case, I truly believe that homeopathy works. Let me explain. When the conventional doctor spends less than 5 minutes with you, and sometimes even sends you home saying: “give it time and it will heal”, people are a bit dissatisfied. On the other end, homeopaths spend quality time with the patients, talking about their past, their hobbies etc. which already makes the patient feel better and initiate the (amazingly powerful) self-healing processes. If some wish to “camouflage” placebo as homeopathy, fine by me, no problems, it is good for the patients. It should be made clear however, that this is only a complementary approach and should not substitute traditional, scientific medicine and treatment.

But there are a few things that really annoy me when it comes to homeopathy and other pseudo-scientific bull****.

The three curses of Homeopathy:
  • Misuses scientific research and restricts its advancement
  • Claims to heal pretty much everything often leading patients to ignore proper treatment
  • Wastes our tax money and resources!
First, they try to use scientific terms and totally non-related science to justify some of their absurd claims and gain some credibility. I remember someone once told me that homeopathy works because of quantum mechanics… I have seen published reports that concluded that results are very unclear and do not prove anything, being used as supportive of the homeopathic claims in various websites! Sometimes, completely unrelated scientific papers are being used in order to attach some value to homeopathy! For example, have a look at any resource you want in the “proof for homeopathy” web site and you will see what I mean. Another example is the blog of a famous advocate of homeopathy, John Benneth. The sources he cites are either non-scientific, non-related to homeopathy, or totally inconclusive! Yet he is using them to “prove” that homeopathy works! Also strange is the homeopathic campaign against vaccinations (vaccinations which might not be perfect but have saved many, many lives in the past). In the Greek Homeopathic Union (or something) they strangely ignore the vast amounts of scientific research that prove that vaccination had nothing to do with autism or other significant symptoms. Instead, and once again, they base their text on anecdotal (biased) reports.

Second, homeopathy claims to heal all kinds of diseases and conditions from cancer and asthma, to allergic shocks and autism! This is dangerous: patients might bypass normal and proven treatment to try homeopathy, which may well lead them to a much worse condition and potentially their deaths (and it has happened a number of times, although bad cases are of course “forgotten” very easily or attributed to other reasons). Arnica Montana alone, is supposed to cure pretty much everything imaginable!

Third, we pay taxes to fund homeopathic hospitals and clinics!!! At a time when NHS has huge money problems, they still instill money to such an unproven pseudo-scientific field when proper research with the potential to save thousands of lives is restricted! This is totally unacceptable. Also, homeopathic remedies do not go through the rigorous processes that normal medicine goes before released -which is obvious as otherwise there is nothing to test on pure water!

In all cases, it is very dangerous and misleading to claim what homeopathy is claiming, and my post here serves simply the purpose to raise awareness. The bottom line is (as always): do not abandon tested and proven methods to turn to homeopathy!. Use it as a complementary method if it makes you feel better (and you have money to waste), but do not play with your health and your life!

A more generic bottom line would be: always question everything and if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn’t true!

  1. * the Materia Medica is a huge book that lists what effects each substance has to a healthy body. Then this same substance but in high dilutions should be used to also cure the same symptoms! []

80 Responses to this post
Hello again, Stavros,
This is a very well written article, but is it without some bias?

What would you suggest to the poor suffering people who feel hopeless unless they can afford the extreme fees charged by doctors?
And doctors are on the top of the corruption list here.
They even evade taxation since you rarely see a doctor give a receipt to his patient.

In this country, unless you pay something extra to the doctors in a hospital,(most of the time they demand it) you can only hope on the mercy of God.

It is called bribing,you know.

The greatest healer of all times was Jesus Christ. He offered his services free of charge; but look what happened to him.

Sorry but I tend to believe that the concerted campaign against Homoeopathy
is not in the interest of helping suffering but, on the contrary, it is another ‘marketing scheme’

I am not a doctor or a healer of any kind, by the way.
My interest is only humanitarian.
Hello Stavos,
Take a look at the article below to see how gullible people are.

What strikes me the most about homeopathy is how gullible some people can be. /end quote

The fact alone that Prince Charles is a proponent of such a dubious “theory” as Homeopathy is, doesn’t make him look smart in my eyes…

The article of course mentions “back pain” and “stress” which is exactly the things you would expect to benefit from homeopathy -a fancifully delivered placebo! I myself mentioned that homeopathy is beneficial in some cases, and -since it involves placebo, pain and stress are the obvious candidates.

The interaction with a homeopath who shows so much interest in each patient, already initiates the self-healing process in the patient (release of endorphins, reassurance, etc.)! It doesn’t require more than common sense to figure that out.

What bothers me though, is when they claim to cure cancer, incurable diseases, asthma, and things like that. This *is* dangerous!
/The interaction with a homeopath who shows so much interest in each patient, already initiates the self-healing process in the patient (release of endorphins, reassurance, etc.)! It doesn’t require more than common sense to figure that out./End quote.

OK I agree Stavros,

How does an Homoeopathic doctor communicate with a horse? :)
They claim that they can effect a cure even on a sick horse, you know.

How about that.:)
Cheers, npap
Nice question! So here is my answer:

First, who decides whether the horse (or any animal whatsoever) got better or not (assuming that there is no conventional examination methods, which homeopaths dislike anyway -see my original post)? Who reports on it? It is the owner or in any case a biased person such as the homeopath himself! You see my point?

Second, if an animal or a person gets better it is not necessary because of the medication. These are a number of reasons why this could be:

  • Placebo of course

  • Regression to the mean -things tend to get better anyway! This is extremely important! There are 3 potential future states when someone/something is sick: a) gets better, b) stays the same, c) gets worse. Do you know the three answers of homeopathy to these cases? Here they are: a) Success! We cured it! b)Success! We stopped its further development! c)It is just a temporary case, we need more time for the remedy to act… This is similar to selective observation of course

  • Problematic diagnosis

  • Temporary relief due to the intimacy of the communication with the homeopath

  • Perhaps other substances/medicines the person or animal is taking

Now, at this point people say: “horses do not know what placebo is!”, which is of course a terrible statement! Firstly, placebo is not something you “know” and therefor you self-impose! This is kind of self-contradictory. Placebo is a subconscious reaction to positive external events or interactions. You do not have to “know” it! And of course, even babies and animals can feel and understand it when someone cares for them! And lets not forget the psychological factor when dealing with animals: see for example the case of the infamous Pavlov’s Dogs and you will see what I mean.

Finally, I just want to say this: if there is a measurable reaction from the horse which is caused by the homeopathic remedy then why nobody has measured it, tested it, verified it, published it and therefore win the Nobel Prize for such an amazing achievement?!? Hint: because it simply doesn’t happen like that! Homeopathy has been around for 200 years and has not progressed at all, hasn’t proved anything. This is too much of grace time unfortunately…
Hello Stavros,
You have chosen a very controvertial subject for discussion.:)
And I can’t match brains with a fellow of high IQ and a Phd degree to go with it:)

So from a layman’s point of view, I try to analyze things less scientifically.

It seems to me that looking at Medical practice in the advanced world, there is a similar mode of behavior (modus operandi:)).

The Medical profession and its branches ,pharmaceutical companies, clinics and hospitals usually are part of a peculiar closed loop system.

The Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines, the doctors market them (drug pushers, lol) and clinics distribute the product. The last gear in the feedback loop is the patient.
But he is now the negative feedback component.
I call it positive feedback because it is favorable and profitable to all concerned except for the poor patient who is the negative feedback in the servomechanism.

This merciless system has driven the NHS in this country to bankruptcy.

For more professional information on the subject, if you are interested to pursue it further, take a look at what the father of Homoeopathy in this country has to say.


All in good humor and no offense, of course.:)

Your friend, npap
Hi again!

I have seen lots of Vithoulkas articles and sites. He is one of the most prominent advocates of Homeopathy. He fails to provide evidence however, and instead keeps mentioning anecdotal subjective validations -which of course do not constitute evidence…

In any case, the issue of whether the conventional system works correctly or not is not our main subject! The main subject is whether Homeopathy works or not. And ALL evidence currently show that it doesn’t (see original post). Besides, it is the fact that people are generally dissatisfied with some of the conventional methods that homeopaths exploit in order to promote their remedies.

And one of the reasons NHS is failing is their incompetence to choose wisely how to spend their money, and listening to ignorant people such as (excuse me your highness) the Prince of Whales on matters of health and safety! So: they spend abour £50 million a year on homeopathy -a figure which is said to increse to £200 million soon. So much money for what? Have a look at the NHS web site on homeopathy and particularly these pages: Homeopathy: Dosage and Homeopathy: Results.
They (NHS) themselves claim that there is absolutely no scientific basis, it goes against proven scientific laws, and there is NO clinical trial success either!!! Yet they keep supporting it because some people “feel better” with it! And I ask you: is this a rational way to decide how to spend your funding?

thanks for the discussion! cheers
Hmmm, I am not sure about the numbers (£) I provided as the source was a bit out of date. I will try to figure that out and update though…
Hello Stavros,
You could probably beat Plato or Socrates with your well defined Greek logic arguments.

So, what’s the sense of wasting our time in a discussion that has no end.:)

Anyway, it’s been very interesting.
Thanks but I think I merely have a solid base of arguments and it is not up to rhetoric or anything!

Then again I may be wrong and I have to start thinking about a new career in politics :-)

I haven’t done much investigation on homeopathy but I can explain what “like
cures like” means. First we need to
understand what a symptom is.
A symptom is the body’s visible reaction to a previous imbalance which was invisible. It is the body’s attempt to heal itself and restore balance. For example if you drink contaminated water you will get diarrhea which is the body’s reaction to detoxify itself. Most people would think diarrhea is a disease, but in fact it is a healing process.
Now how do conventional doctors deal
with this “illness”? They prescribe pills or diet to stop it. That can get you a chronic disease in an internal organ.
The correct way to deal with this
problem would be exactly the opposite:
Eat natural foods (i.e. watermelon)which boost the symtom(diarrhea) to speed up the healing process! This way the symtom initialy worsens (this actually happens to people taking homeopathic medication), but the final healing comes sooner.
In the end, that which causes the
symptom cures the disease!
I do not know about homeopathy, but
conventional medication does not cure
anybody because it only focuses on treating the symptoms and deliberately
ignores the underlying causes. That spells disaster in the long run. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry invests on human illness and tries to
create sick people in order to maintain
its trillion-dollar market. They have been hiding from us the truth about cancer, heart disease and other
modern plagues which are curable by natural means. I can give you lots of information on this subject. For a start, check out Dr Rath’s website. He has filed a case against the big pharma corporations at the world court at the Hague.
Homeopathy may be unscientific, but
keep in mind that, what cannot be measured by standard scientific procedures does not mean it isn’t there. Science can be very blind sometimes.

Hi Bill and thanks for the comments.

However, a number of your statements are simply wrong.

First, what do you mean “imbalance”? Imbalance of what? It is well known and understood that diseases are caused by germs and viruses.

Diarrhea that you mention is the body’s response to a possible virus. It is a symptom of a disease not a disease itself (as you also correctly mention). To eat natural foods is a good way of preventing lots of things and easing your system in order to help it fight a disease better.

Than you say that “conventional medication does not cure anybody” which is obviously 100% wrong and all you have to do is look at the increase in the average lifespan because of science-based medicine.

Then you move on to say “it only focuses on treating the symptoms” which, sorry to say, but again is completely wrong. Knowing the cause of a disease has helped science make medicine that attacks the cause (i.e. the virus). Antibiotics is one of the wonders of modern science!

I will not comment on your conspiracy theory about the “Big Pharma” because that is simply, well…, a conspiracy theory!

If anyone knows a cure for cancer he is on the fast track to a Nobel prize, immediate stardom and recognition, and a place in the history books forever. He should come forward, don’t you think?

Finally, what cannot be measured by science is something that does not have a measurable effect. If it has no measurable effect in the natural world then we may easily deduce that it doesn’t exist. And you keep in mind that when we are dealing with human beings and their health we have to be very certain of what we are doing, and be sure about the mechanisms, efficacy, and regulation of any medicine. Homeopathy fails blatantly at all these three sectors!
Oh, regarding Dr. Rath. I assume you mean Matthias Rath in which case we are talking about a guy that has fallen out of favor in the scientific community and for a very good reason as well: the guy is promoting his vitamins and other supplements as a means for fighting diseases such as AIDS!

He has encouraged people with HIV to abandon their medication in favour of his vitamins -a move which apart from being highly unethical, is actually criminal! Take the medicine off of an HIV patient and he dies. Simple as that. And unfortunately this is what has happened in South Africa because of people like Rath promoting their vitamins and fighting antiretroviral drugs!

Have a look at the article of Ben Goldacre regarding Patrick Holford and Matthias Rath: http://www.badscience.net/?p=374

Thanks for your comments.
Hi Stavros

I understand I have to elaborate on
my(and your)statements. Debunking conventional medicine cannot be done in 20 lines of text.

An “imbalance” would be a disturbance in the body’s normal functions caused for example by toxins, radiation, bad dietary habits, emotional stress etc etc. This disturbance can go unnoticed for quite some time until the body starts to react with various symptoms. (It is well known that cancer and other diseases can take years to develop).

You say diseases are caused by germs
and viruses. It is not that simple.(I just mentioned above a few causes of disease). A healthy organism can resist
any pathogen. For example:

Every day we live in complete harmony with millions of microorganisms on our skin and inside our body (i.e. mouth, intestine) without normally getting sick.

In every epidemic there are people who remain healthy although they make contact with infected people. It is known that you can repeatedly have sex with an HIV-positive person and not become infected.

Epidemics in Africa, on the other hand, kill thousands of people because the shortage of food and water severely undermines the peoples’ immune systems.

A similar situation existed in Europe 100 years ago and then gradually, diseases such as the plague disappeared on their own, as the living conditions ameliorated. (And it was well before the introduction of mass vaccinations).

The bottom line is: an infection
is a “symptom” of immune system impairment, and the virus itself plays a secondary role.

Antibiotics do not correct this impairment, so they do not attack
the deeper cause of the disease. It is true that they kill pathogens but the most resistant ones remain, creating new populations which need stronger antibiotics to be treated, and where does this end?

Antibiotics also kill friendly bacteria
in the body causing chronic conditions like fungus infections of the
skin and the vagina, which need more
antibiotics to be treated and where does this end?

I admit that an antibiotic could save
a person from an acute life-threatening infection but unfortunately this is not how these drugs are usually prescribed.

I suffered from chronic bronchitis for about 8 years and antibiotics provided
only temporary or no relief at all.
This year I cured it with a few days of juice fasting and a general nutrition program. Not synthetic supplements from the drug store, just natural food. It is not as simple as it sounds, you have to avoid all processed foods, cut down on meat,fish and dairy products and eat mainly fruits, vegetables, whole cereals, raw nuts, seeds, and legumes. And these have to be organic, fresh and whenever possible consumed raw or cooked in a certain way so as not to destroy the vitamins. And no souvlaki:) Also drink enough water, never cook with oil,etc.

Nutrients can really cure you. Hippocrates (who was Greek if I am not
mistaken:) used to say: “May your food
be your medicine and your medicine be
your food”. Of course, if Dr. Rath
is promoting his synthetic vitamins as the ONLY means to cure ALL diseases then I WILL vote against him.

About conventional medicine: It only
treats symptoms and I can explain how.
I already argued on antibiotics, lets go
a bit further.

(1) Antihistamine drugs: An allergy is a symptom of immune system malfunction.
(Abnormal and excessive reaction of the immune system to a natural substance and secondary production of histamine
and other inflammatory agents). These
drugs remove the histamine from your
system and temporarily ease the symptoms. Conventional medicine considers allergies uncurable. They are not.

I again admit that an adrenaline shot can save a life in the event of an allergic shock, but that is not how antihistamine drugs are prescribed.

As a result, a large number of allergic people become chronically dependent on these drugs and that is “big money” for the “big pharma”.

(2)Chemotherapy: Highly-toxic and very
expensive drugs which destroy tumors and
at the same time kill millions of healthy cells. They have been proven
to be carcinogenic in the long run,
so they not only fail to cure the cause
of the disease, but they also aggravate
it later on. Because they have
serious side effects, they have
created a whole new market of other
drugs used to treat these side effects.
They are prescribed as the only means
available to prolong life in cancer
patients, but statistics have shown
that they shorten life expectancy in
most cases. 75% of the oncologists asked
in the U.S. admitted they would never
use chemotherapy on themselves if they
had cancer.

Alternative cures for cancer have been
around for many years, but doctors who
come forward are being prosecuted. For example Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer and Dr Simoncini.

There is big money at stake with natural therapies which cannot be patented. I have personally met a doctor who cures cancer with natural means. He doesn’t go public, and he does it off the record and for free to avoid legal prosecution.
You see, natural cures cannot be approved by standard FDA procedures and are dismissed as “tsarlatan” and dangerous for public health. Chemotherapy, on the other hand, has been approved as “safe and effective”!

The corruption of the FDA has been
confirmed by some of its own employees, do some research on Dr. Graham who exposed the Vioxx scandal, his interviews can be found on the net.

(3)Cholesterol-lowering drugs: The common belief that high cholesterol is the main cause of heart disease has been
proven false. Coronary arteries are damaged by other molecules circulating in the blood such as homocystin, which is a metabolic product of animal protein. A lack of nutrients in the arterial wall also plays a major role.

When artery damage occurs, the liver produces high amounts of cholesterol which are used as repair molecules for the arterial wall. So high cholesterol
is an indicator of progressing heart
disease, and an emergency measure of
your body to save your life. If continued for many years, though, this repair process overcompensates and atherosclerosis develops. So the emergency measure which saved your life
before, now becomes a death sentence.

Studies have shown that cholesterol-lowering drugs do not lessen the risk
of heart disease and are carcinogenic
in the doses currently prescribed to
millions of people. They should have
been pulled from the market long ago.

Needless to say that heart disease can be prevented through exercise and
optimal nutrition, any doctor will confirm it.

(4) AZT and other anti-retroviral
It is a proven fact that these drugs gradually destroy the immune system. People taking such medications suffer severe side effects(including cancer) and eventually die.

There are many reputable scientists who disagree with the current beliefs on HIV regarding its connection with the AIDS epidemic. Dr. Peter Duesberg, Dr. Stefan Lanka, the Perth Group in Australia to name a few. Did you know there are AIDS patients who don’t have the HIV virus in their body, and people with HIV who never develop AIDS?

Anyway, similar logic applies to all prescription drugs that I can think of.

All drugs are chemicals which the body sees as toxins that have to be eliminated. Thats why they should be used only in emergency situations and
never on a chronic basis. Unfortunately
thats not how conventional medicine is practiced.

Pathology textbooks only use the word “treatment” (αγωγή)and not the word “cure” (θεραπεία).
treatment = dealing with symptoms.
cure = removing the cause of

Unfortunately we are not talking about
conspiracy theories here but rather about proven facts.

Health is definitely not something you can buy from a drugstore. Remember
this for your own good.

As for the average lifespan are you
sure it is increasing? Cancers,heart attacks, strokes and auto-immune disorders are exponentially rising.

And even if it is actually increasing, this is surely not because of science-basedmedicine. Prescription drugs are the fourth cause of death in the industrialized countries after cancer,
heart attacks and strokes.

About measurable quantities: What I meant is that CURRENT technology might
be unable to measure something which
might prove measurable in the future,
but of course I wouldn’t know for


Of course a healthy immune system will help resist pathogens. No one denies that. But you still have not mentioned an imbalance of what?!? You cannot just say “there is an imbalance”!

I will repeat that antibiotics is one of the most successful stories in modern medicine. As is the Germ Theory of Disease…

Vaccines have eradicated killer diseases (e.g. smallpox) and have contained other very serious ones.

I am glad that your condition got better, but the fact that there was a correlation does not mean that this should be a cure for bronchitis now. Science does not work that way.

Hippocrates lived more than 2000 years ago and had no idea of modern scientific advances.

Regarding your attack on modern medicine I will just bypass it, mainly because it is out of focus. I will only say that when you are attacking such serious conditions like cancer (2), AIDS (4) it is inevitable that some side effects will occur.

But you have to understand one thing here: behind these “treatments” there are years of scientific research, trials, tests, etc. And while mistakes will ALWAYS happen (either deliberately or not) the truth remains that science based medicine has done wonders and yes, the life expectancy has increased tremendously because of it.

My bottom line is (and this also explains what I said about your comments being out of focus): the fact that a number of things are not right in modern medicine does NOT in any way make homeopathy efficient or even true! It is fallacious to even think about such connection.

And finally, you have no idea the things we can measure with current technology. Plus, when talking about medicine there SHOULD be a measurable effect when taking it! If not, then it means it doesn’t work! Homeopathy proponents know this and that’s why they resort to “life energies”, spiritual balances and other such woo woo.

Thanks for the discussion but please do not be ungrateful to what science has done for humanity!

Examples of imbalance would be bacterial imbalance(which can be caused by antibiotics as I explained), acid/base imbalance(which is what happens when you drink a glass of coke), hormonal imbalance(which can be caused by chemicals - for example certain pesticides whose chemical structure resembles that of estrogen), trace element imbalance(can be caused by nutritional deficiencies) etc.

About “The Germ Theory Of Disease”: It sure is a successful story for manufacturers of vaccines and antibiotics. As for medicine, a more successful story would be “The Cellular Theory Of Disease” which I assume you are not familiar with.

Vaccines have not eradicated diseases. Nutrition and sanitation systems have. Epidemiological data from the last 100 years confirms this. And I won’t start talking about side effects and long-term effects to the immune system. You should really buy the book of Dr. Gerhard Buchwald “Vaccination: Business Based on Fear”. He has done 30 years of research on the subject. Also
check out the free e-book “The Terror of Pediatric Medicine” by Mark Sircus which can be found
here: http://www.imva.info/books.shtml And of course tons of information on the internet
for example http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html

Modern dietary habits are the cause of much of modern disease, which means that the reversal of those habits should be able to cure a significant number of people. I didn’t say diet should now become the cure of bronchitis just because it worked for me, that would have been foolish.

I gave you specific facts about how certain drugs harm and kill people. The fundamental precondition for any drug to be approved should be a high ratio of benefit over harm. Yet chemotherapy and AZT have been killing people for years. And you will only say it is “inevitable” that “some” side effects will occur and that “mistakes” will happen. How is it “inevitable”? I gave you specific names of doctors who cure cancer by alternative means. Dr Hamer’s medicine has a success rate of 92%. Check it out on the web. The fundamental rule of medicine coming from Hippocrates is “first do not harm”, but you seem to be forgetting your own heritage.

Cancer rates have increased 5-fold in the last 50 years, the WHO estimates they will increase by another 50% by the year 2020 (which means 1 out of 2 people will be dying from it), and yes, life expectancy is increasing, and donkeys can fly.

I am grateful to anything good that science has done for humanity. Modern medicine has saved many lives but we have reached a point where it is killing millions of people. The problem is not medicine itself but rather its manipulation by big corporate interests.

Finally, I never said the failure of modern medicine makes homeopathy true, and I certainly agree with you it doesn’t.
Hi Bill,

vaccines have eradicated diseases and have helped contain many others. To deny this is simply living in a world of general denial.

I have actually read Buchwald’s book and (as is usually the case) it is based mostly on non scientific literature, anecdotes, and a very bad understanding of statistics, Bayesian theory, and mathematics in general! Have you noticed that none of the references he provides are peer-reviewed scientific publications in independent journals?

And guess what? HIS war on vaccines is actually based on fear by making vaccines look like human killing injections. This is criminal. As is the whole anti-vaccination war which has lead to deaths from diseases like measles in the UK very recently. If one is not qualified to talk about such things, then one should shut up and let people who know do their job. This is the case with many ignorant people who base their stupid and criminal ideas on an array of fallacious thoughts, most notably confusion of correlation and causation.

Sorry I got a bit excited there, but it really infuriates me when such things happen and we end up with unnecessary deaths.

Regarding “chemotherapy and AZT have been killing people for years”: way more people would have died from these terminal diseases like HIV and Cancer without AZT and chemotherapy. The cause of cancer and HIV and of course a cure for them has eluded science for decades now. It is great that at least some methods have been developed to increase the life expectancy and comfort of many patients and in many cases, cure them completely.

Dr Hamer?!? Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer?!? Bill, you keep referring to well known charlatans! Please update your bibliography with proper science!!!
Oh Bill,

sorry I forgot to discuss about the “cellular theory of disease“. Well, guess what? There is no such theory… Not a scientific one at least…

Hi Stavros,

The numbers, which Dr. Buchwald collected from the German government, clearly show that death rates from infectious diseases had been declining long before the introduction of vaccines, and of course high-school mathematics would be enough to understand those diagrams.

Vaccines do kill people. It has been
proven that they can cause sudden infant death syndrome(SIDS). My own
child developed symptoms of encephalitis after vaccination, and
a friend’s child was permanently
paralysed. Auto-immune disorders are
dangerously rising in the child population. Throat, sinus and ear infections have become an epidemic. How is it possible that a whole population of 2-year olds have a crippled immune system?

Babies have a highly-immature immune
system and rely mostly on their mother’s milk for antibodies. And they are injected with multiple vaccines! How is their immune system expected to react to 5 or 6 different antigens simultaneously? Do you think they develop immunity? Has any human being ever contracted 5 diseases at the same time? The only possible effect of
such an assault is the destruction of the immune system!

Hepatitis B vaccine, which has terrible
side effects(encephalitis, meningitis,
Guillain-barre syndrome, multiple sclerosis - they are listed in the product insert!) is given to newborns,
yet hepatitis B is not a childhood
infectious disease! This disease
is known to be transmitted through
sexual intercourse and blood contact!
Aren’t these side effects alone enough
proof to you that this vaccine is poison?

Vaccines are supposed to be sterilized
but they aren’t. Many of them are cultivated in animan cells(i.e. monkey
kidney cells) and there is no telling
what contaminants may pass from these
cells to the final product. It is known
that the SV40, a monkey virus suspected to cause cancer, was transmitted to
humans through the polio vaccine.

Viruses are packets of genetic material
susceptible to mutations. Mass vaccination against measles has resulted
in the creation of a new, atypical form
of the disease. The rash in atypical measles moves in the wrong direction, heading straight for the vital organs instead of away from them, resulting in serious cases of pneumonia, meningitis
etc. This is the killer type of measles which probably killed the people in the UK and guess what: only vaccinated people contract this form of measles!

Of course the medical establishment
attributed this tragedy to the anti-vaccination campaign to make a ridicule
of it. Don’t fall for their propaganda
so easily.

Chemotherapy increases the life expectancy and comfort of patients?
COMFORT?? Have you seen people under

A charlatan would be a person who poisons people for profit. A doctor
would be a person who cures people.
So choose wisely whom you call a charlatan.

this has gone way off topic. Further, you continue to make assertions based on nothing but someone’s belief or bogus research. Sorry, but this is not how science works.

If scientists decided that the risk was higher than the benefits vaccines would be downsized. Period. Science is self correcting.

Vaccine sterilization has to do with implementation of procedures and is irrelevant to whether vaccines are effective or not.

I don’t fall for propaganda: I have a look and read the dozens (!) peer reviewed scientific journal publications supporting vaccinations (instead of relying on Buchwald’s doctrine which is not supported by scientific publications).

Regarding your (failed) comment on chemotherapy: have you seen people suffering from cancer and dying in agonizing pain after years of torture? Would you choose that or a course of chemotherapy that might save your ass? Choose wisely ;-)

So you’ve read dozens of peer reviewed scientific journal
publications, everything else is just
bogus research, and science is automatically self-correcting.
Sorry, but these are not real
arguments. This is not how science
Would you please share with us some
of your knowledge?

yes when I am interested in a subject I try to read the scientific literature first. I take opinions generated by non scientific methods with a grain of salt.

But I NEVER claimed expertise or authority in our discussion. I cannot do so in any case.

If something has not been reviewed and accepted by the scientific community then sorry but it doesn’t have much credibility. Further, when it claims knowledge or findings in purely scientific fields (such as medicine and disease fighting) it easily raises some eyebrows.

And I am sorry if you disagree but science is indeed self-correcting. It has absolutely nothing to do with me reading papers (I am not sure I got your point/connection there).

In science if something contradicts an existing hypothesis then the hypothesis will be thrown out the window. An existing theory, in the face of contrary scientific evidence, will either be modified to fit the new data or be thrown out the window. This is the heart of science: falsifiability, repeatability, predictive power, and rigorous testing.

Then the heart of medical science has
stopped beating. I know it. I have seen
it in my baby’s eyes. It was the morning we forced her into the doctor’s office to get another vaccine
she didn’t want. But this time her
reactions had gone out of control. Screaming for mercy…
As if she new what was going to happen. And then… the side effects…
High fever, headache, high-pitched crying, walking instability,

How did a 16-month-old baby know what
was going to happen? Obviously babies
understand the chemical rape inflicted
upon them and make the connection. That’s why they see pediatricians as
their worst enemies. And we have failed
to protect them. We hurt our own babies, the most vulnerable beings on
this planet, and then we wonder why
we have raised a society of criminals…

Many days after the incident, I could
not look her into the eyes because tears
would run down on my face. At that moment, before having done any research,
I knew deep inside that a medical system capable of hurting young babies is capable of anything. You see, the biggest school in life, is life itself.

And then I started researching, and
it only confirmed my suspicions. Fortunately, there are some brave
people with conscience, authorities in the medical field, who risk their carreers and make a step forward to
inform us of the crimes of the medical


If “safe” is defined as “free from
negative effects” then vaccines aren’t
safe. After much pressure from vaccine
victims, the FDA created an adverse
event reporting system(VAERS) just for
vaccines to keep track of side effects.
Thousands of incidents have been reported, including deaths. This is
the reality of vaccines and no scientific journal publications can change it.
Bill I will just bypass your personal anecdote for obvious reasons.

Regarding vaccines, no one EVER said that they are free from side effects! Where did you get that? As I mentioned before it is a case of cost/benefit analysis.

And as I (again) said before, it is inevitable that some people will experience negative side effects. That’s just the way it is unfortunately. I wouldn’t like to be on that list of course (and thankfully all my vaccines were free of side effects).

Regarding your link: you missed the point. As I (once again) mentioned before, corruption and bad procedures are irrelevant to whether vaccines and science-based medicine is effective or not. Mistakes and malicious behaviour will always exist in all fields -unfortunately. But that cannot render the whole field ineffective or malicious!

Corruption will always exist, the problem is how much corruption, how
many side effects, how many deaths,
and for what benefit. I already analysed how conventional drugs work but you chose to bypass the whole story.

You agree with me that vaccines are not free from side effects. What about the cost/benefit analysis? Do you have a specific reference which proves vaccines eradicated diseases? All you
have been doing so far is bypassing my arguments, trying to discredit the research of independent scientists, calling people charlatans, and expressing opinions on subjects you
can’t argue about!

this attack of yours serves no purpose at all.

I am not expressing my opinion, I am stating the scientific consensus, research and studies in the field. You are referencing people that may have done research on their own but have not published scientific articles. This is not a matter of opinions!

For the vaccines you do not have to ask me! Just visit the World Health Organization and you will find all the scientific references you want!

For the infamous “MMR is bad” anti-vaccination campaign just visit MMR -The Facts and you will get all the scientific publications you want.

It is not difficult to do research on mainstream subjects.

By no means I have bypassed arguments unless it was obvious that they added nothing to the discussion (like e.g. your personal story).

I am not personally discrediting any independent scientist. I am stating facts about their research (e.g. not having published anything), their motives (e.g. promoting their own agenda), and the scientific consensus (e.g. the Cellular Theory of Disease).

So, Bill, you see that your statements about my part on this discussion were absolutely wrong, and the attack you launched was baseless. I can happily participate in a discussion if it remains civilized and free of fallacious arguments and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.

Feel free to continue if you want to further your case/opinion but please state your arguments instead of misinterpreting mine!


It is you who attacked me by stating that I “live in a world of general denial”, or that my assertions are based on nothing but “someone’s belief” or “bogus research”. Articles and books by medical doctors are not “bogus research”. Was that civilized?

The scientific consensus is doubted by experts around the world who have not published scientific articles because simply they were censored! In a free world opposing views would have been publicly debated, but in reality they are being suppressed all the time.
This is how science works today. It is obvious that the medical profession cannot afford to have the public ever find out the truth about vaccination for there is simply too much at stake for them. And health officials have been covering up big stories all the time.

History teaches us that scientific breakthroughs and major discoveries
are often being ridiculed by the scientific establishment for many
years after they occur, which means
that scientific consensus does not necessarily reflect scientific truth.

So don’t try to teach me lessons on
what is real science and what is not.

Since you have been countering all my arguments by simply stating the
scientific consensus, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I did not attack you directly Bill. Please read what I write carefully. I said “To deny this [the fact that vaccines have eradicated diseases] is simply living in a world of general denial”.

Bogus research was referring to Buchwald and Hammer that you mention and it is indeed bogus research not backed up by evidence and not backed up by scientific publications.

Bill, if one has a scientifically valid argument he will not going to be censored! Once again you are talking about conspiracy theories with no actual evidence to back this up.

And then you resort to the Galileo gambit… That says it all I am afraid…

Read a small part of Dr. Hamer’s

…In 1981, Hamer thought that these connections applied only to cancer and had no idea that the IRON RULE OF CANCER would become the central discovery for all of medicine. He submitted his discovery to the University in Tubingen in October, 1981 as a post-doctoral thesis for qualification as a university lecturer. The main objective of the thesis was to provide his results to the University so that they could be tested on the next available cases as quickly as possible and benefit patients. In May 1982 the University rejected the work on the interconnections between the psyche and cancer, without testing a single case for reproduction, something they later admitted to in court…

Another example on Dr Duesberg (from post 14):

…He once was considered a top retrovirologist, the first to isolate a cancer gene, California Scientist of the Year in 1971 and recipient of an Outstanding Investigator Award from the US National Institutes of Health in 19861 . For 25 years he had every grant application approved. That ended in 1987 when he published a paper providing extensive evidence that HIV could not cause disease . Since then he has had 0 of 23 government grants approved for research in AIDS and cancer and great difficulty getting his work published…

There you have your censorship.

One more question: Are you implying
the current scientific consensus is
You mention two cases where we cannot be sure why this happened. A few things here: Hamer’s biography is actually from his own website! So this is one side of the story. Maybe indeed his research was sloppy and/or breached ethical or scientific rules -which seems to be the case if he wanted to just go on and open a clinic to treat patients with unverified methods and based on unverified hypotheses!

As I said corruption is unfortunately everywhere in one form or another. So might be conflict of interest. But if your science is good, it will find its way up for sure -as happens all the time!

Regarding scientific consensus: you should be aware that scientific results are always tentative and falsifiable. This is the heart of science as I mentioned before. However, there are theories that are so strong and have such a solid evidence based so as to be considered as facts (e.g. Atomic Theory, Relativity, Quantum Theory, Evolution, Germ Theory of Disease etc.)

That said, if one wants to talk and understand nature and get closer to the truth, he/she needs a solid knowledge base and a good methodology. Science is by far the best methodology for gaining knowledge and getting closer to the truth. Therefore, in arguments-based discussions, the single strongest argument is that which originates from established science.

Well, there is no “maybe” in Dr. Hamer’s case. A court order was issued
that the University of Tübingen test Dr. Hamer’s research, but up to this
date they have refused to do so despite
their legal obligation. No other University has accepted to test his research either. This is an unprecedented case in the history of universities.

If that isn’t enough proof we are living in a totalitarian state then what is?

Who’s been unethical here, Dr. Hamer,
or the medical establishment which
has been trying to hold on to current
scientific consensus at all costs?
The “medical establishment” and the University departments are not connected! And as I said we should listen to the other side of the story as well.

And finally, for the millionth time, no one is denying that there are, and will be again, such issues. But eventually, if the research is good it will float! Especially if it is groundbreaking! Do you have any idea the fame, subsequent money, prizes etc that would come to the University that developed such breathtaking new science?!? Hammer would be on the fast lane to Nobel prize! So, maybe, just maybe, it was actually his research that was not decent or ethical?

I think you are failing to see the big picture here.

Many of the policies and procedures for the ethical oversight of research were put in place in an era when public funding was much more prominent than it is now. Over the last decades, however, increasing pressure on universities, teaching hospitals and individual researchers to seek industry sponsorship for research, have made the pharmaceutical industry the single largest direct funder of medical research in countries such as USA, Canada and the UK. Conflicts of interest are inevitable, because the goals of industry and of academia differ. These conflicts put pressure on researchers to stretch fundamental principles of ethical and scientific behaviour, and often result in corporate research agendas, rather than the broader public agenda, being placed centre stage.

Cases of suppression of data and intimidation are likely only the visible tip of a bigger iceberg. For many academic researchers, the future prospects of their laboratories and careers depend on renewed industry funding.

Disease-specific foundations such as the American Heart Association are heavily funded by industry.

The rapidly increasing trend toward influence and control by industry has become a serious concern.

The development of a breathtaking new science such as Hamer’s would destroy the single most profitable section of the pharmaceutical industry(Chemotherapy section). Under the current situation, I believe there is no chance for such a research to float.
Ok, ok, we are back to conspiracy theories so I will just stop this discussion as I am becoming bored now. It was exciting in the beginning but you just circle around conspiracy theories without evidence all the time.

It is ridiculous to think that the whole scientific community in the field of medicine is in a world wide conspiracy against Hammer (or other Hammers).

And it is especially insulting to think that scientists are hiding this info when a large percentage of them obviously has relatives suffering from cancer, AIDS, and other such conditions! It truly is appalling Bill, think about it for a minute…
Stavros, I forgot

Medical doctors and researchers have been trained/conditioned to think only in terms of conventional medicine for years, and to reject alternative/natural therapies by default. They simply do not believe in them. Very few of them(like dr Hamer)
manage to break free from the stereotype
thinking of their fellow scientists.

So I wouldn’t say they are conspiring against “The Hamers”, it is just a matter of beliefs. And when they get cancer, they fall into the trap of chemotherapy, like most people.
If there is evidence and science behind alternative therapies then there is absolutely no reason to discard them. They would instead become part of the “conventional” science-based medicine as has happened numerous times in the past. Science is not a belief system!

They do not reject something by default. They reject something if it goes against established and proven science, or if there is no evidence to back it up.
Currently, all of homeopathy, acupuncture, faith-based healing (Reiki etc.) and other woo like that, satisfy both of those criteria! Unless we are talking about self-limiting conditions of course.

Yes, you are right. There is no science behing therapies like homeopathy, and since I am fed up too
with the discussion on corruption/conspiracies, I would like
to go back to the subject of health if
you don’t mind.

The fact that the health of the population is constantly deteriorating, proves beyond doubt that conventional medicine has largely failed. (Attention: I am not saying it is totally useless). All degenerative diseases, which were unknown 100 years ago, are on the rise and the war on cancer declared 40 years ago has been lost.

The explanation is quite straightforward: To cure a disease you
have to remove the cause behind it, but conventional medicine just treats the symptoms. For example:

Attacking tumors (chemotherapy-radiation-surgery) does not cure cancer
because simply it does not address the reason these tumors developed in the first place. So metastasis will happen.

Diuretics cannot cure high blood pressure, because they temporarily reduce blood volume and do not
correct the spasm of the blood vessel wall which caused the problem in the first place. And the patient will
become chronically dependent on them.

Aspirin temporarily treats pain in arthritis but does not repair the damaged joints.

Insulin administered by injection artificially decreases blood
sugar levels but does not cure diabetes.

Antihistamin drugs cannot cure allergies, cholesterol-lowering drugs
cannot cure heart disease, etc

Moreover, drugs are all chemicals
that were developed only this century
and the body hasn’t had the time to
learn to deal with them. (The same way
it hasn’t learned to deal with genetically engineered food but more on
this below). So the body treats them as
foreign substances or cell toxins that
have to be detoxified. Or simply put:
All drugs are poisons and have to be avoided whenever possible.

So that leaves us with the question:
What is the cause of disease and how
can it be removed? I think we already know what the cause is:

(1)Eating processed food or food
laced with pesticides and
other chemicals.
(2)Lack of exercise.
(3)Lack of sleep.
(4)Lack of sunshine.
(5)Bad habits such as smoking, drinking,
(6)Living in crowded cities away from
natural environments.
(7)Overworking and too much stress.
(8)Lack of love and human contact.
(9)Environmental pollution.

The cause of most(if not all) disease is the modern way of life and western civilisation itself. The destruction
of the natural environment has reached a
point where it is threatening our very
existence. The path of science which you so admire is probably a dead-end.

You can’t imagine the importance of
the above factors. For example, a large epidemiological study was conducted in China to assess the effect of nutrition on human health. It showed that certain populations which relied only on natural and mostly plant foods, were practically free from many cancers that are prevalent in Europe and the US.

Now Monsanto and other biotech corporations are threatening to take
control of the whole food chain and
destroy our nutrition once and for all
with their GM foods. Thats another major
field of corruption:


Research has shown that 50% of heart
attacks are caused by bad nutrition and
lack of exercise. The rest 50% are caused by loneliness and lack of human

What about the cure?
All above health factors, with the exception of(9) can be controlled
by ourselves as an excellent means of preventing disease. The heart of health is prevention. The nutritional factor is more difficult, since one would have to grow his own food for best results, but the reward would be great.

I now make my own bread, I will
start creating a garden soon :)

These factors can also cure disease because anything that prevents, cures as well. If someone already has a serious/urgent health condition then obviously he needs the additional help of a medical doctor.

Do you remember the doctor I was
telling you about who can cure cancer
patients? He sends them to his big farm in the countryside and implements fasting and other diets under supervision. I don’t know the details(I only saw him once, he lives in another city far away) but I know several people who have confirmed what he does.

The bottom line is: We can take our
food and our health in our own hands
and stop depending on pharmaceutical and
food industries. Now that the GM foods
have invaded foodstores, the food
issue has become extremely urgent.

Why on earth conventional medicine hasn’t implemented natural therapy protocols? Has this man breached ethical rules? Do you see now why
I believe something is really wrong
with the medical system?
Ok, we are getting *somewhere*. I will agree on the list you provide but not as a cause of diseases but instead as cause for deteriorated immune systems that make us more susceptible to pathogen attacks.

I totally disagree on the “fact that the health of the population is constantly deteriorating”. Life expectancy is going up as always. Where did you get this fact?

Regarding the drugs: it is a shame that cure for many conditions has not been found yet, but this doesn’t mean that the drugs have no purpose! If you don’t take them when necessary, your health is going down, quite simple really. Now, I also agree with you on that people tend to resort to drugs as the easy solution because they are not willing to make lifestyle changes. That’s too bad for them and I am with you on this one 100%.

I disagree with “These factors can also cure disease because anything that prevents, cures as well” for the reasons I mentioned with the weak immune system.

The doctor who cures cancer with diet should publish his/her results. Otherwise what he does with his patients is unethical and extremely dangerous! To use unconfirmed techniques and potentially prevent them from receiving life-saving treatments!

Natural Therapy protocols that you mention have been used for thousands of years if you remember with no results :-) It is the easiest of all for pathogens to resist and adapt to, exactly because they’re natural!

The story with the GM food is not that simple unfortunately. Earth cannot accommodate so many people anymore so techniques to increase production and/or nutritional value need to be found. GM food is one such attempt. Just like *scientifically* devised agriculture methods did a few decades ago.

With GM food no one really knows if it is safe or not yet. In theory there shouldn’t be any reason to be unsafe because nature has been making genetically modified food continuously for millions of years now! The only difference is that now we make it in the lab! But who knows. In the future we will see. But GM food production presents a glorious opportunity for agriculture in difficult regions such as Africa and it can really save lives there. But that’s another topic off the course :-)

Why you keep referring to pathogen attacks? Humanity is not currently suffering from infectious diseases(i.e. plague, typhus, cholera) but from degenerative diseases: cancer, heart disease, auto-immune disorders(i.e. crohn disease, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes), alzheimer’s disease etc. The rates of these are constantly increasing and pathogen attacks have nothing to do with them. Check out the official statistics.

These diseases are not a global problem. They appeared in industrialized
countries which means they are a side
effect of modern civilization.

Certainly they have to do with deteriorated immune systems(hence the
term “auto-immune”), but I do not understand the reasoning behind your
statement that a cause of deteriorated immune systems is not a cause of disease!

Chronic conditions such as allergies,
adult onset diabetes, high blood pressure and progressing atherosclerosis
not only can be prevented, but also
progressively cured when we reverse
the factors in my list.

Curing = removing an existing cause
of disease.

Preventing = avoiding the cause of

Thats why I said that “These factors can also cure disease because anything that prevents, cures as well”.

At an early stage of such diseases,
drugs can be completely avoided.

If the disease has already progressed and the patient is under medication, drugs can be gradually reduced under supervision.

In emergencies(i.e. allergic shock)
a drug can save a life, but this is
a one-time use.

Drugs, however, cannot cure in the REAL sense of the word.

The doctor I mentioned has been curing
people for years. If he had been killing
people, we would have known by now, and
he would probably have ended up in jail. I will check if he has published any results and what opposition exactly he has had by the medical establishment. Thanks for bringing that up.

GM food has been shown to be unsafe in
animal experiments, and I know of a specific case in the US in which hundreds died and thousands permanently debilitaded by a bioengineered L-tryptophan supplement.

We just don’t know how much unsafe GM food is yet. And thats the exact point: Why experiment on billions of people? In the same way that any drug must be proven safe before approval, any GM food must be proven safe before approval too.

The terrifying thing about this new technology is that once a GM organism
is released in the environment, it can
never be recalled and will continue to
reproduce indefinitely. It’s not like dangerous pesticides, for example, which can be simply withdrawn if a problem arises.

GM food will definitely not increase
production! This is pure biotech propaganda! GM crops have not adapted
to the environment and farmers have been reporting crop failures all the time. Traditional crops are far more

Five decades ago, they promised to solve the problem of hunger in Africa with the so-called “Green Revolution”
but they didn’t. Now they are promising
again. This has always been a problem
of unfair distribution of wealth between the continents and not a problem of food shortage.

Sure nature has been making GM crops
but not overnight and always by mating allied species! Nature has not been
mating tomatoes with scorpions!! This
technology will completely disrupt the
global ecological balance with unknown
and irreversible consequences!

Get informed, inform other people and
do whatever you can against this most
unethical experiment!

And definitely do not plant GM seeds
in your garden!! :)
True, I narrowed it down by saying “pathogen attacks”, but this stands true for heart conditions and cancer as well: weak immune system will make things worse.

The reasoning behind “a cause of deteriorated immune systems is not a cause of disease” comes by definition!To weaken an immune system doesn’t mean to “inflict” a disease upon it!! But a weaken immune system is more susceptible to diseases. If you hold a shield and someone destroys that shield it doesn’t mean he destroyed you, but just made you easier to destroy.

I am not going to go deep into the GM food but you do have a very noticeable error in your text that needs addressing! You propagate a myth of mixing genes from different species when in fact there are no animal genes in commercial GM plants and the mixing might only happen in labs for experimentation.

And you might want to check out on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8 There are of course other scientific resources on the subject but I though that this one tells the story quickly and amusingly (in a sense).

As I said, it is not very simple to feed so many people today. And GM food remains an option on the table -especially for countries that cannot produce enough food for themselves!

Oh, and the Green Revolution was a success story and is still advancing in its broad technological sense.

I am not going to plant GM food in my garden (yet) because I have options. But other people do not have options Bill.

This “shield” story is really amusing! :) And how much are you
expected to last without your shield??
There is a pathogen around the corner
waiting to kill you, remember? :)

You didn’t check on PSRAST. They publish evidence that directly contradicts your arguments and the video on GM food.

As for the Green Revolution, it has poisoned our food supply, polluted the
environment, and most importantly rendered the land infertile over the

Have you heard of Masanobu Fukuoka?
He is a Japanese farmer and scientist who devised a revolutionary method of
sustainable agriculture called “Natural Farming”. His books, were the most shocking and exciting piece of work I’ve read in my whole life. Not only
his method creates productive crops
in a completely natural way, but also
can turn the deserts back to forests!

I know one of his major students and successors and I’ve seen it’s results
myself: Link

Why hasn’t it been implemented? Well
I would start talking about industry,
money and human greed taking control
of everything and you’d get angry…
No I didn’t look into PSRAST -I told you I will not go deep into GM this time. I don’t have that much time. I enjoy our discussion but it has derailed a lot!

The natural farming concept sounds very interesting if indeed the potential is there. I might have a look on first chance. Thanks!
The funny thing about this discussion
is that it is a small biography of me,
in a way…

When my daughter suffered the vaccine injury, I started the research on vaccines. Then the research expanded on
conventional medicine in general. At some point I met some special people who showed me the way to achieve health through a natural way of life. And
I learned about GM food hazards and the
natural farming, and this is where I
stand now…

Isn’t this how our discussion progressed?

I don’t think this discussion derailed.
All our subjects have something to do with human health…

Thank you Stavros.

I did not have time to read this amazingly long thread, but it is clear that you are well and truely indoctrinated with conventional ways of thinking. This is sad because you are obviously very clever. The plain fact of the matter is science follows the money. Money only goes to those projects that attract revenue. Anything that ends up threatning profits is suppressed by fair means or foul. If you have not learned that yet, it is because you refuse to believe the possibility exists. Try reading “toxic sludge is good for you” or “Tust us we’re experts”. Unfortunately you are so defensive about the only science being peer reviewed journal published RCTs, you seem to deny that anything exists outside them. In your early statements you kept asking poor old Bill what “out of balance” means. What it means is homeostasis fails. I’ll give you an example: my blood sugar is not under proper control. It cannot return to the normal homeostatic level without intervention. They call this T2 diabetes. Conventional medicine can givme tablets that force it back, but otherwise it cannot cure it. CAM therapy tells me the reason my sugar is out of balance is because I was short of certain nutrients. I supplied the nutrients and my condition is better, but not perfect. The main conditions that people die of are cancer, heart disease, stroke, doctor error, diabetes etc. Medicine has no real answers to any of these. People in the west do die of infectious disease: pnumonia for example. But usually when old and their immunity is very low. But at the start of the 20th century most people died of TB and pnumonia and TB. It was improved sanitary conditions that eradicated these, not vaccines and not anti-biotics. Conventional medicine is all about killing the causative agents and not about building up inherent strength. Try living purely on junk food for a couple of months, you health will suffer. It may even kill you. Go to a doctor when your health is low like that and he’ll start giving you pills - s/he won’t look at the causes for your poor state of health. Can you point me at a CRT that has proved that vaccines work. Any trial will do. I’m of the same opinion as Bill that medicine has never cured anything (with the possible exception of vaccination). All anti-biotics do is destroy the infectious agent, they do not make the body capable of withstanding them. This is not *cure* to me. Overuse of antibiotics has now become dangerous are more resistant strains like MRSA, C-difficile come into existance. The medical profession understands that. I’d just like you to take your blinkers off and consider that there are cures outside medicine. Mostly only people get into this only when they or someone close suffers something serious long term and medicine fails them. I’d point you at a good text to read, but I don’t think there is one. I hope one day to write it so that people can understand the difference between treatment and cure. Between health and just getting by etc., Until then you’ll just have to find out for yourself or live in ignorance.

if you didn’t have time to read this then do so and then start accusing me of indoctrination. I merely follow the evidence and science. There is no indoctrination involved: show me conclusive evidence and I happily change my mind.

If you say science follows the money then obviously you have no idea what science is. The rest is just the typical conspiracy theories. Good science survives money-caused conflicts of interest. Most scientists have a variety of sources today and if they produce bad research that cannot be replicated by other labs then this is their fast track to failure and rejection.

The reason why the diseases you mention only exist as death causes is because science-based medicine has successfully fought the other diseases.

Visit the World Health Organization, MMR The Facts, and the Institute of Vaccine Safety and you will find dozens (if not hundreds) of scientific papers reporting on epidemiological studies and clinical trials confirming vaccine efficacy and safety.

Bottom line: the “poor old underdog hero” story coupled with conspiracy theories is exactly that: conspiracy theories. Bring forth evidence and then science welcomes you happily. Until that happens I am not willing to accept anything on the basis that “it could happen” or “it might be a possibility”. This is not how science works.

How, then do you define science?

“Good science survives money-caused conflicts of interest” Yes, that is a popular belief. If there is there really scientific evidence to support that statement, rather than just belief, I’d be interested in seeing it.

On vaccination, I could find a few abstacts, often with no body on the safety of vaccines. I just wanted a few RCTs that demonstrated the efficacy. I was not questioning whether vaccination was effective or safe, only examples of RCTs before it was used on the population. I’d like to know if there have ever been any. So far I have failed to find one (but that might be because I wasn’t looking hard enough).

I provided you with a reason for why science survives conflicts of interest right after my statement, but you chose to ignore it. I repeat it here:

Most scientists have a variety of sources today and if they produce bad research that cannot be replicated by other labs then this is their fast track to failure and rejection.

This is what happened with the tobacco scientist for example. When their results (that showed no link between smoking and cancer) could not be replicated, they fell from grace and “rejected” by the scientific community after that. This is too big a risk for anyone. Even scientists working for big companies cannot publish fake research because not only them but also the company will have to face the consequences.

No one denies that conflicts of interest exist and will pose a threat to *some* aspects of scientific research. But the scientific community was the first to detect these and try to minimize/eliminate such issues (for example by requesting author to state their interests and funding bodies if they are relevant to their research).

This is the normal and expected operation within the realms of which and because of our human nature, errors will always happen. On the other hand if *you* make a claim that this normal operation is not typically followed (at all, apparently by your statement) it is *you* that must provide evidence to back up your claim.

Regarding RCTs on vaccines: even a simple Google “RCT vaccines” will give you back lots of results!! So probably you were not looking hard enough.

Besides remember something: a vaccine is based on well established science and has measurable biological responses from the immune system. So, RCTs are not the only body of evidence in favor of vaccines. This is in stark contrast with CAM therapies, which because of their scientific implausibility and usually supernatural mechanisms, only RCTs can test their efficacy (since there is no other biological reponse, say, in Homeopathy). And as you probably know (or can easy verify by checking the Cochrane library, PubMed, MedLine etc. etc) well designed RCT’s of CAM have shown they’re not better than placebo… End of story. It remains a mystery why people still go for CAM when such solid evidence against them exist!!
Yes, your argument about RCTs and vaccination is valid. I did find some examples.

“Following the money”. It is the research that is not done that is a big issue. Who will fund research unless it is to make money. However, much has to do with interpretation rather than the research. Some of the research campaigns are long and complex. Take statins. They lowewr cholesterol without doubt, but does that save you from heart disease? I’ve read that 99% of doctors believe that. However, there are half a dozen books by doctors that dispute their efficacy.

I still think you are missing a lot by not examining in detail evidence that does not meet the RCT standards. But I’ll leave it at that.
But RCT trials, while the gold-standard, does not mean that other info is not taken into consideration!

Even anecdotes (especially well-documented ones) are taken into consideration, but be careful: not as evidence (as is the case with CAM therapies) but as a starting point to determine potential efficacy and then move on to biological or chemical mechanics, lab testing, and finally RCTs.

I am not aware of the case you mention with statins. From a quick look at Wikipedia (btw Wikipedia is not the proper way to research science! nevertheless might give you a good starting point) there does seem to be a controversy around the issue.

Cheers for the info and discussion.

I love your name (Kojak).

I am staggered that you are not aware of the statin controversy.

Statins are the biggest selling drugs in the world.


at $15.5 billion, Pfizer really want to protect their interest.


Lots of controversy here.


Some of the books on the subject

Lipitor theif of memory

The great cholesterol con
(a very amusing book)

another book of the same name!

The Cholesterol Myths. God at £50 second hand it must have become a classic! (Good job I got my copy early!)

And one more - an excellent book
What You Must Know About Statin Drugs

The point. I don’t know how much the NHS spend on statins, but it makes what it spends on homeopathy look like small change.

I believe we, the tax payer, and the country are being ripped off big style.

One last reference
A site run by sceptical doctors.

Take care,

Hi Stavros,

Just to add. Diabetes UK is a charity, but their logo has been used on this site http://www.lesscholesterol.co.uk/

Amazingly the site says total cholesterol should be below 4. This is a number only achievable with statins. I was quite shocked when I saw that number. Even the Chinese have an average cholesterol of 4.7.

http://www.lesscholesterol.co.uk/b4.asp?v=746 says
“Leading UK heart doctors – supported by patient charities such as Heart UK and Diabetes UK – recommend an optimal target for total cholesterol of below 4.0 mmol/l.”

Last year the target was 5.2, down from 5.6. But a few years ago 6.2 was fine. Every time that number goes down, Pfizer profits go up. There really is no evidence to support a cholesterol level lower than 4 is beneficial. To the contrary, there is evidence that reducing it below 5, increases mortality from other causes (eg stroke or suicide). But Pfizer would not let a few bits of research get in the way of profits!

The site tells you all about cholesterol, by Pfizer, assisted by DiabetesUK and HeartUK. Now just because conspiracy theories exist, does not mean conspiracies are not real.



Sorry, but my previous post dissapeared. I’ll reconstruct it if it does not re appear. It puts the one above right out of context.


Nick, the first post went directly to spam because of the very high number of links! The second went for moderation. I approved both so seems ok now.

Maybe the case with statins is as you say it is. I think the same happens with supplements for example.

But you know what needs to be done? Not whine about the establishment, conspiracies etc. etc. Instead, skeptical doctors must go and do research and good science to support their own hypotheses. Otherwise not much will change.
Hi Stavros,

Doctors have, and many minds more able than mine. The cholesterol skeptics site documents much of their thinking. This books I referenced are all written by medical doctors. I’m not whining, I just brought it to your attention of an example where money and power hold the upper hand. There are many such examples I am aware of, and possibly many I’m not.

I manage my own disease in a way not advocated, approved or accepted by conventonal medicine. I did that after findind establishmnt research (in this particular case) was a facade by examining in extreme detail the papers that supported their case. No disrespect, but your statement “skeptical doctors must go and do research and good science to support their own hypotheses” just serves to emphisise the niaive world in which you live. It just ain’t like that. Reseach costs money, lots of it. It also takes a lot of time, something doctors do not have. If and when the research is done it has to be accepted by the rest of the community. Now none of those guys have vested interests do they? Everyone is honest, and no one does any wrong. Have you only ever been subjected to an academic environment or what? The real world is just not like that. I’m not trying to convince you for my benefit, but for your own. If you are quite happy to go along with everything the establishment has taught you, that’s fine by me.
Hi Stavros,

Ah! Sorry, just read the “about you”. Now I understand. You have only experience academia. I see that you are very young, and have an IT knowlegde base and appear not to have worked in industry. I worked for 30 years as an blue chip IT professonal in industry and everything is exactly as you describe it because there is no real room for bull. Everything has to be precise. (However, there are very clever, unscruplulous and vicious characters there who manipulate everything to their own ends. I have the scars to prove it) The world of medicine and health is just not like IT, it is much more fuzzy and open to abuse. You appear not to have studied A&P, biology, medicine, nutrition or CAM, yet you are so convinced your point of view is right, and are exlaining what doctors should be doing. As they say, I’m too old to know everything.

the “whining” was not referring to you -sorry if you interpreted it that way.

“Research costs money, lots of it.” If they have not done any research how did they reach their conclusions in the first place?!?

I am not naive, and the world in academia is not free of egos and conflicts -believe me! I am just not willing to accept any idea if it is not supported by evidence! There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, this is the correct way to go -how else can you filter through every idea anyone tells you?

It is good to write books as long as one (again) backs up his claims! Otherwise it might seem like one is just using his authority to propagate his beliefs (which has happened many times and still happens often).

Further, as I have made clear many times, this is not my point of view but the scientific consensus and the evidence base. I always backup what I say with references and if I have not done it at some points please let me know and I can do it retrospectively. I am not pulling things out of my ass here -as you say, I am not an expert in these areas. But I can read scientific papers and I can think critically.

Finally, what I have formally studied in my academic environment does not mean that I have not studied physics, cosmology, some biology, and lots of (*lots of*) stuff on alternative medicine.
Nick, one more question: if they have not done research and/or have not published their ideas, on what basis do you accept their beliefs?
Hi Stavros,

I don’t think I would accept anyone’s beliefs. I might find their hypothesis more attractive than those representing received wisdom, but only if their case is strong. As you know, you cannot prove anything true (except in a mathematical context), only that a hypothisis is false. I first became aware that mainstream hypotheses might be inaccurate when doing a critical analysis of the research that supported the advised treament for my condition. The advice made things worse for me not better. That was in 2002, now I find many others think along the same lines.

Plausible altenative hypothesis/methods come from many interesting sourses, such as…

Doctors who treat their patients in a particular way and get consistent results over a number of years. This type of evidence occurs quite frequently, but is not allowed because it is anecdotal. It would have to be repeated under trial conditions, that is where costs come in. Besides most doctors are too busy earning a living..
Sometimes, evidence comes from revisiting “forgotten” research. Historically a new way of working may replace an established conventional method, and then later proves unreliable. Just by way of example, Broda Barnes, a doctor from the early part of the 20th century established a strong indicator of low thyroid function by measuring axillary temperature. He made obsevations over many years and at one time this method appeared in the Physician’s Desk Reference manual. Then someone invented a blood test where TSH is measured. Now it is believed that 13million Americans with hypothyroid go undiagnosed http://thyroid.about.com/od/drstevenhotze/a/hotze_3.htm.
Barne’s approach, once accepted, is now depricated and never revisited. It was never subject to clinical trial in the first place and that is why people critise it. No one seems to want to trial it.
Sometimes information comes from patient research. They’ve had the disease and are providing information they have discoved that your doctor might not tell you. A good example here is Mary Shomon who suffered hypothyroidism and has done extensive literature research and wrote about her findings. These works can be well referenced, but go unheeded by mainstream medicine or its researchers because they are not written by a doctor.
Lastly, there is critical analysis of published research. Often there is nothing wrong with the research other than the results are open to interpretation. Reappraisal shows them under a different light. A good example is Dr. Ravnskov´s “The Cholesterol Myths”. It points out many holes and invalid assumptions and conclusions in the research supporting the lipid hypothesis.
eg one of his papers http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927?ijkey=172mwKXqzgmtE&keytype=ref

Big pharmas fight this initiative tooth and nail because if accepted it would put a massive hole in their profits.

What I find alarming is that people continually accept recieved wisdom without ever satisfying themselves the research on which it is founded was good. (Some times it is good). For example I continuously come across good reports about metformin for diabetes. It has an excellent safety record and few side effects. I have no reason to knock it, but I know it is detoxified in the liver and so puts strain on the body. There are other approaches to diabetes that you have to dig out. No-one has ever subjected them to trial, so they may not work. But then they are worth trying just in case they work for you.

I think one of the problems is that sometimes a drug might get well established as the result of early research. Then the Big pharma has so much invested in it, it will defend its position against any research that shows it is harmful, not needed or has natural alternatives. Take Vioxx for example. Merck may have buried relevant information prior to FDA drug approval. It cost them a packet in the end because a further trial showed that many people taking Vioxx suffered stroke and heart attack. Science won out in the end, but how much sufferng went on in the meantime.
It takes 20-30 years for new findings to be accepted in medicine. Sometimes it is really worth finding out what they are in case they work for you.

You will see things differently as you get older for two reasons. 1. your experience will increase and 2. Unless you are exceptionally lucky or look after your health well, you will fall prey to a disease of civilsation.

Take care,

Ps. I agree non-published work is not worth the paper it is written on!
arthritis cures japanese… Nevertheless there will always be a minority who will not get the point you are trying to make….
Nice trackback to that mindboggling repository of stupidity, John Benneth. The man is a complete lunatic of course, he calls himself Bandershot on Youtube - if he’s still on there and spreads his ignorance like manure. It’s worth as less.
63. sciencebitches
why, what’s wrong with Benneth? :-P
Water is fascinating stuff. Anyone intersted in looking at the possibilities should first understand all of the complexities.


..introduces many concepts and has a look at homeopathy and memory of water, but not coming to any definte conclusion.
Water doesn’t have memory - end of story. Fallacy is fallacy no matter how hard you look at it or dress it up and if you’re going to quote scientific papers or websites, you’d bloody well better read them.

This particular example comes to a very definite conclusion regarding junk science.

“…experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy although they can explain some effects.”

What you call “memory” is minute amounts of glass being dissolved into the water. You can chase a rainbow to the end of the earth, but you’ll never find the pot of gold because there never was one.
Of course I read the papers.

In the section does water have memory QUOTE

“Liquid water is clearly a very complex system even before the further complexity of molecular clusters, gas-liquid and solid-liquid surfaces, reactions between these materials, the consequences of physical and electromagnetic processing and the addition of ethanol are considered. Any or a combination of these factors may cause ‘memory’ of past solutes and processing in water. Some of these solutions are capable of causing non-specific clinical effects whereas others may cause effects specifically linked to the solution’s (and laboratory) history, as outlined below ”

“Does the glassware matter?

The process of silica dissolution has been much studied [1109, 1207] ever since it was proven by Lavoisier over 200 years ago and fits with this argument. This may explain why glass is preferred over polypropylene tubes. It should be noted that dissolved silica is capable of forming solid particles with complementary structures (that is, imprints) to dissolved solutes and macromolecules and such particles will ‘remember’ these complementary structures essentially forever.”

Yes I believe it is the glassware in solution that retains any memory. What does that matter? Even “pure” water is complex, it has lots of other things dissolved in it. Whether solutes have any effect is a whole other debate. But many people discount homeopathy simply because they cannot see how it could work. Continuing to look at difficult qustions and unexplained phenomena is the halmark of science, even if you don’t see it like that. Failure to do so enhances human knowledge not one iota.

Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has “proved” anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other. I keep looking a Chaplin because he is enhancing our knowledge.
68. sciencebitches
Read his section on published evidence under homeopathy. No one has “proved” anything one way or another. I just retain an open mind, neither in one camp nor the other.

after 200 years, miraculous claims, and a literature strongly pointing to placebo effect, what more do you need? if we are talking about clinically relevant effects as Homeopaths claim of course, then studies would have conclusively shown that after so many trials. instead, better studies show negative results. Doesnt that tell you anything?
Speaks volumes to me. Especially when Nick says that “pure” water is complex. It’s one of the simplest compounds we have - if not the simplest. Pure water is blue and an insulator; yet most of us (correctly for the most part) think of it as a transparent conductor.
My experience of homoeopaths is that they like to claim the title of Doctor without having the intelligence or the intellect. And I have read the original text on it too.
All the studies I’ve seen to “disprove” homeopathy are carefully crafted. It’s virtually impossible to test homeopathy in trial, because part of the treatment involves placaebo, patients presenting with smalar medical symptoms are not necessarily sufferng as a result of the same cause, ane each patient potentially requires a different treatment. The symptoms the homeopath analyses are not the same as medically dagnosed symptoms. It is also difficult to tell if people “just got better anyway”, irrespective of which trial group they belonged to.

I don’t necessarily believe it works, but I am very curious about why so many believe it works and the possible mechanism of action. I believe scientific thinking demands ambivalence.
Millions of people believe in Yahweh, YE Creation and miracles, that doesn’t mean they’re right.

Trials where Homeopathy is disproved (even without patients) are carefully researched; if it worked, the drug companies would be making a fortune! Placebo is a powerful effect regardless of what we’re testing (including real medicine).

It’s one thing to have an open mind, it’s another thing entirely to be silly about it and ignore a crushing proof. PI is an irrational number - we’ll never know it to the infinite accuracy because it’s infinitely long. We know this and we move on. Homeopathy has been proven to the nth degree to be false and it’s only deluded fools like Benneth who continue to press for it. That’s no different to the drivel spouted by “Dr.” Duane Gish at any chance he gets.

Homoeopathy is easily disproven by Avagadro’s constant because at even fairly early dilutions, there’s no active ingredient left in the sample: which Stavros correctly discusses in the post.

As for homoeopathic diagnosis, I believe you’ll find that is an oxymoron.

Good grief, it’s Darwin’s bi-centenary and we’re arguing about this.

Sometimes you just have to get off the fence and move on.
72. sciencebitches
Well said Marc
Mark, Its not me that “says” water is complex. It’s Martin Chaplin. my quotes round “pure” were to signify that water we think of as pure has impurities

Distilled and deionized water contain significant and varying quantities of contaminating ions. Often the criteria for ‘purity’ is the conductivity, but this will not show ionic contaminants at nanomolar, or even somewhat higher, concentrations due to the relatively high conductivity of the H+ and OH- ions naturally present. Other materials present will include previously dissolved solutes, dissolved gasses dependent on the laboratory atmosphere, gaseous nanobubbles [500d], material dissolved or detached from the containing vessels [1207], solid particles and aerosols (also dependent on the laboratory history) entering from the gas phase, and redox materials produced from water molecules [1066] and other solutes produced on standing…

signify that water we think of as pure has impurities

Even this goes against homeopathic practices! How does the water know which substance to remember between the impurities and the treating agent?!?
Attention to detail is important, to Nick. This is a science forum post so if you want to allude to impure water, you only have to say that.

If we’re taking about pure water, then it’s the compound produced in a vacuum before hitting the container vessel.

Gracious, you can’t even spell my name correctly which says a lot about how you approach these things. Yes, I know that’s harsh, but if you demand accuracy then so do I.

As Stavros has just implied, pure water is required by Homoeopathy to make these substances; yet you can’t get that. When Hahnemann invented this, he had no way to test for the things we do now - never mind obtaining pure water.

Merely regurgitating from Mr Chaplain’s website won’t help if you don’t understand the fundamentals which clearly he (and Stavros) do.

I can quote from websites that claim the speed of light is variable and that the Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs. Go have a look at Conservapedia - which claims to be a reference you can trust: which is obviously some variation of the word trust that does not appear in my dictionary.

Water isn’t complex - the stuff in it might be, but there’s no reliable evidence that homoeopathy does anything at all; and bucket loads saying that it’s not worth the water it’s diluted in.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go wash my brains. I have a blog entry to write.
Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
There’s a lot of people that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Many thanks
[...]although websites we backlink to beneath are considerably not related to ours, we feel they’re basically worth a go through, so have a look[...]
Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re using? I’m looking to start my own blog soon but I’m having a hard time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!
Having once had an interest in the efficacy of homeopathy, I’ve seen most of the arguments before. The scientific method is to try to explain observed phenomena. Controversy exists because firstly agreement cannot be reached on whether any effects above a placebo can be observed and the fact there is not simple plausible hypothesis as to how homeopathy might work. I gave up because it became too complex, but I was intrigued by various observations. One of the most important is that plain old water is not the simple stuff we came across at school and anyone poo-pooing homeopathy on the basis that there is no substance left in the diluted solutions should really thoroughly understand the properties of water. An excellent summary of the research so far can be found at . This site also considers whether water has memory and whether homeopathic substances differ from ordinary dissolved substances. The answers are surprising and counter intuitive and therefore common sense arguments fail.
The second most interesting thing I came across is whether homeopathy remedies could have any effect. To understand that one first needs to understand the concept of balance, which the earlier parts of this block really missed. Viruses, bacteria and parasites as well as external toxicants such as heavy metals can cause disease. Modern medicine has effective treatments for many diseases from these sources. What is often overlooked is the myriad of chronic diseases causes by bodily dysfunction. Our bodies are complex biological machines, which have many subsystems that must be in balance. An oft cited example is temperature regulation. If we are too hot or too cold, physiological processes cause changes that take us back to a set point. This correction process is called
An example of a malfunctioning homeostatic system would be when too little thyroxin was being produced in the body causing a dis-regulation of the body’s energy producing systems. The conventional solution is to compensate by supplying thyroxin injections. An alternative approach might be to try and make the thyroid work correctly by supplying iodine, if indeed iodine deficiency was the original cause. However, in the body many cells can dysfunction for many reasons causing what many refer to as an “imbalance”. Can homeopathy sometimes correct these cells and restore balance? One of the books I read The Emerging Science of Homeopathy suggested that cells had two receptors for any substance. One received substances normally, but failed to express if swamped with the substrate (causing imbalance) and another that responded to very minute concentrations of the substrate and caused the cell to “reset”, so that normal receptors became operative once again. I’m not saying this is how homeopathy “works”, but it does raise interesting possibilities that should not be dismissed out of hand.
Someone recommended this blog? Well I’m flabbergasted! I am Nick and not your cousin. I like to look in from time to time. I re-read the entire blog just to make sure my thinking has not changed. Well it hasn’t in 5 years! I do apologise for all the typos though.
Add a comment
Leave a comment
(Email required for authentication purposes only and will not be published. Please also note that if your comment contains links, profanity, or other sensitive content it might be held for moderation. In that case it will not appear until accepted by the administrator. Please do not post the same comment twice.)
Name *:

Email (not published) *:


Comment: (you may use HTML tags for styling)