17 Comments

  1. Nancy Malik

    Just because skeptics don’t understand homeopathy mechanism doesn’t negate its effectiveness. Are skeptics part of TED’s anonymous scientific advisory board? Robert Sweeney, “Burden of proof has shifted those who question..have more to explain if they disagree with conclusions”

    Reply
    • Stopthequacks

      Nancy, there is no “effectiveness” to negate it just doesn’t work.

      Your friend in delusion Sandra thinks homeopathy can cure a broken bone, you have stated it can’t. Who is correct and on what evidence do you base your conclusions?

      Reply

    • So you’re illiterate as well as scientifically illiterate. As I pointed out, skeptics understand homeopathy just fine, it’s you quacks who don’t.

      Reply

    • Nancy: as I think I showed rather well, skeptics understand homeopathy better than homeopaths do! We understand why it seems to work even though there is no remotely plausible reason to expect it to, and no way it can.

      TED’s scientific advisory board has scientists on it. Unsurprisingly, they support the scientific consensus view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I believe the comment you note is the result of external criticism of some TEDx events where people with views that are not supported by good science, were given a platform. Rupert Sheldrake springs to mind. Here’s a non-anonymous comment: http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html

      It’s normal in science to place a higher burden on those who argue against the consensus, because the consensus is generally based on a lot of evidence. People can and do successfully challenge consensus, for example when peptic ulcers were shown to be caused by h. pylori.

      Reply
      • Nancy Malik

        Have you read 10 science dogmas/delusions by Dr. Rupert Shedrake

        http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/10/banned-ted-talk-rupert-sheldrake-the-science-delusion/

        The truth is that there’s a medicine other than conventional medicine

        Reply

        • The Wikipedia article is less flattering than the hagiographic article you linked:

          Sheldrake’s work in this area is widely rejected by the scientific community due to the lack of reproducible evidence, criticism of Sheldrake’s experimental and analytical methods, and the perceived over-generality of the “morphic resonance” hypothesis, with some calling it pseudoscience.

          In other words, Sheldrake is a crank. He asserts that science is wrong because his ideas fail scientific inquiry. That is a reversal of the truth. Naturally for hoemopaths (whose beliefs also fail the test of science) it is a seductive delusion, but it is a delusion nonetheless.

          Reply
  2. Sandra Courtney

    Be educated about homeopathic Sympytum (link below) and its ability to hasten the healing of broken bones. Two family members were facing surgery to place screws in fractures (i.e., broken bones). Two casts over an 8 week period, and x-rays showed non-healing with casting alone. Surgery was recommended. Both family members were prescribed Symphytum. Surgery was avoided in both cases. Before and after x-rays confirmed the adequate healing with homeopathy alone. To be fair (which you may find repulsive), you might want to stop misrepresenting what I have posted in the past. [spam link elided]

    Reply

    • Be educated about the atomic nature of matter, the laws of thermodynamics, the nature of the null hypothesis in hoemopathy, and the fact that no observation has ever refuted this.

      No cases over 200+ years show any unambiguous objective proof of a cure by homeopathy. If any such case existed, the debate would be over.

      As to misrepresenting what you have said, feel free to point out any case where I have done this. I have, of course, interpreted what you have said, in the light of the reality you so steadfastly deny. I have also pointed out the lies you have told. Oh, and mocked you a bit.

      Reply
    • Stopthequacks

      And as you could clearly read if you could be bothered, Nancy says homeopathy can’t cure broken bones.
      Who is correct, you or Nancy, and based on what evidence?

      Reply
      • Nancy Malik

        Researchers have confirmed homeopathy’s effectiveness in speeding up the healing of bone fractures. In a DBRCT of 67 patients, they found that healing was accelerated significantly through individualized homeopathic treatment.

        http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-12-S1-O61.pdf

        Reply
        • Stopthequacks

          Nonsense of course but you are now changing your opinion you clearly expressed elsewhere: “Yes homeopathy can’t cure broken bones”

          http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/21/rational-heroes-david-colquhoun-pharmacologist

          You really are completely deluded.

          Reply
          • Nancy Malik

            Science is ever changing. Sticking to fixed notions is like clinging to a past. Let it be any branch of science, we have to be open minded to analyze the evidence and accept the good things in it and discard the illogical things from it.

            Research has now shown that homeopathy plays an important role in orthopaedic care.

            Your comment has helped me to find out this study. I will add it to my database. Thank You.

          • Stopthequacks

            Ha ha ha
            Science indeed moves forward. Do you really think a single poor quality oral report is good evidence?
            ” The treatment group received homoeopathic medicine on the basis of totality of symptoms and individualisation”

            That’s not science it’s mystical gibberish.

            Even if you believed it, which would be insane, it doesn’t prove homeopathy cures broken bones, conventional treatment was used. Taking things out of context, exaggerating, all the usual blatant errors I expect from you.
            “Research has now shown that homeopathy plays an important role in orthopaedic care”

            What research? Sugar pills play no part in orthopaedic care.


          • Yes, Nancy, science is ever changing. That’s one of the many ways it differs from homeopathy. Scientific knowledge builds on multiple different sources of information and fields of inquiry, whereas homeopathy is basically a religion and has its sole basis in the word of Hahnemann; it cannot develop in any meaningful way because there is no objective basis on which competing opinions can be judged.

            Science changes, and over the 200 years since Hahnemann plucked hoemopathjy out of his arse thin air, ever dveelopment in scientific knowledge has made it more and more obvious that homeopathy is simply wrong.


        • Nancy, this does not refute the null hypothesis. You need to learn whjat the null hypothesis is, and what refutation means. “Unicorn tears definitely cured X” will always fail to persuade, because unicorn tears are only slightly more plausible than homeopathy.

          Reply

    • Be educated about the atomic nature of matter, the laws of thermodynamics, the nature of the null hypothesis in hoemopathy, and the fact that no observation has ever refuted this.

      No cases over 200+ years show any unambiguous objective proof of a cure by homeopathy. If any such case existed, the debate would be over.

      As to misrepresenting what you have said, feel free to point out any case where I have done this. I have, of course, interpreted what you have said, in the light of the reality you so steadfastly deny.

      Reply

    • “To be fair (which you may find repulsive), you might want to stop misrepresenting what I have posted in the past.”

      Sandra, from someone who spams blogs and insults people, while denying them the right to reply on you own blog, that’s pretty bloody rich. Especially as you deliberately misrepresent replies as ” offensive personal comments directed toward (you)”. Misrepresent much?

      Reply

Leave a Reply