Bryan, as a defender of homeopathy, you have yet again failed to understand your critics. The other possibility is that you are deliberately misrepresenting them. Which is it?

The critics of homeopathy are in no way trying to limit people's choice. What is happening here is that critics would like, as much as possible, for people's health choices to be fully informed.

There is much misinformation about homeopathy around. The people I meet generally believe that homeopathy is a type of herbalism. I am sure that homeopaths would agree with me that this is wrong. Homeopaths, however, rarely put people right. They talk of 'low doses of natural substances' rather the more usually correct 'no doses'. They pretend there is good evidence that homeopathy can do things for malaria rather than just shabby anecdotes and wishful thinking. They misrepresent the research - such as Linde and Shang - continuously. And they pretend that there new emerging sciences to support them - such as quantum mechanics and materials science.

I am quite happy for people to take homeopathic pills. But let that be in an environment where it is obvious that to believe in it you have to believe in mysterious life forces or other non-scientific things. Let people know that the sum of trials confirm that taking a homeopathic pill is the same as taking a blank sugar pill. They are chemically and physically identical. If the customer then swallows the pill then so be it. Universities pretending that homeopathy is worthy of a BSc is just lying to people - pure and simple. And so the closure of this course is one small step towards a more honest appraisal of homeopathy in society.

"But another SoE has been at the receiving end; Simon Singh, co-author of the recent book Trick or Treatment?  Alternative Medicine On Trial, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over claims he makes about the therapy in the book."

This is factually incorrect.  According to the Sunday telegraph, Dr Singh is being sued over a newspaper article in the Guardian.  Not the book.

It is disappointing that you blog without establishing facts first. It makes you appear rather unreliable on all your other points.

Well done Bryan for understanding what the skeptics think of themselves, the CAM practitioners, the CAM users, ad the general public.

Sons (and daughters) of Enlightment! Brilliant! They are a sect of their own and, as is usually the case with sects, dont even realise their madness.

Oh I rather like that., What greater compliment than to be called a son of the enlightenment.  A lot better, anyway that advocating endarkenment.  The whole point of the age of enlightenment was that people started to use their eyes and their brains themselves, and so overcame dogma and mysticism. Sounds pretty good to me.

I do wish, though, that you wouldn't represent my views. As Andy Lewis has already said, I have never advocated banning of any sort of CAM. People should be free to spend their money however they want.  I do draw the line at them spending my money though (via the NHS or via universities). And, being a pharmacologist by trade, I'm only too aware of the limitations of "powerful pharmaceuticals".  For example, neither regular medicine nor quacks can do a great deal for back pain. I'd rather go for a walk in the country than be impaled by needles or take analgesics,  I dare say it will work (or fail to work) just as well.

I have been brought up with homeopathy and never missed conventional medicine, despite the fact that my son and his wife are GP's. I believe that conventional medicine has its place the same as homeopathy. I have lived to the ripe old age of 69 with no health problems, good heart, good BP etc and I put this down to the way I live and look after my system. In 35 yrs I have seen my GP twice. I take vitamins and minerals as I think I need and lo and behold I may be here for a little bit longer.Ingrid

Bryan Hubbard is absolutely correct.  We are witnessing the emergence of a kind of medical totalitarianism in which the "Sons of "Enlightenment",  I prefer the term "Quackers"

decide which evidence supports which medicine and then force us to follow the medical system which they have sanctified.

Homeopathy has massive clinical data in support of it and in recent decades has numerous double blinded placebo control studies showing clear benefit well above placebo.  With researchers and practtioners such as Dr. Iris Bell MD, PhD, Dr. Vithoulkas, Dr. Robert Morrison and Dr. Andrew Saine, among many others, Homeopathy is most certainly a genuine and important system of medicine providing enormous benefit to millions.

Shall we shut down all of standard medicine because some folks' cold remedies didn't take

or because some people were KILLED by Vioxx??

Alternative medicine is thriving today because people are discovering that Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Homeopathy, Chiropractic and other systems often provide a complete cure, or relief from pain where standard medicine failed completely.  The research is growing in favour of it and all the media attacks, popularized books and anti-scientific hysteria will STILL not prevent alternative medicine from assuming a position equal, if not superiour to the so called standard.

Search out "laughingmysocksoff" comments for a detailed refutation of, for example, Ben Goldacre's half truths and clever omissions of fact about Homeopathy and THEN decide.

James Pannozzi. Perhaps you should ask yourself why I spend time on reading about subjects like homeopathy?  Most of the people that I'm arguing with make their living at it, so it's hardly surprising that they defend it.  For me it is just a distraction from my real scientific interests (the stochastic interpretation of single ion channel experiments0. I spend a lot of my time and a bit of my own money on it.  The only reason for that is because it upsets me to see people misunderstanding evidence. It also upsets me to see people mistake wishful thinking for truth and and being defrauded on a massive scale.  I will agree though, that their are more important forms of self-delusion than homeopathy -deluding oneself about WMD involves just the same mind set but results in a lot more deaths.

'Alternative medicine is thriving today because people are discovering that Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Homeopathy, Chiropractic and other systems often provide a complete cure, or relief from pain where standard medicine failed completely.'

Herbology teaches that you should take sizeable doses of plants containing active chemicals to treat illness. Homeopathy teaches that the less you take the better.

Chiropractic teaches that illness originates in the spine and is treated by manipulating it. Acupuncture teaches that illness originates in meridians that flow throughout the body, not just near the spine, and that you treat it by the insertion of small needles, not by manipulating the bones in the spine alone.

Can you please tell me - which is it?

And I'm afraid I think you've mislead yourself regarding the evidence for homeopathy.

A simple query for James Pannozzi or any other.

In what circumstances would they accept any allternative medicine to be invalid?

I ask because the following quotation expressly refers to the possibility that standard medicine can "fail".  Accordingly, when (if at all) would alternative medicine fail?  

'Alternative medicine is thriving today because people are discovering that Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Homeopathy, Chiropractic and other systems often provide a complete cure, or relief from pain where standard medicine failed completely.'

Another logical fallacy that Brian commits is the false dichotomy. In the concluding paragraph we are presented with a stark choice "it's the difference between having either a belief in the State - which becomes the ultimate authority on everything we are allowed to have and experience in life - or the common-sense of the individual. "

But there are not just two choices. There is also the choice to believe in evidence and reason - science. Homeopaths appear to be unable to see truth as coming from anything other than some authority figure. That is why when presented with challenged to that authority they can only respond with attacks on people's motives.

Replying to David Colquhoun and others.  

The fundamental premise on which the objections to Homeopathy rest involve the delusion that "standard" medicine, whatever THAT is, is "evidence" based and founded on certain scientifc truths.   It sounds all very logical and scientific untl the first patient walks in the door whose problem remains UNRESOLVED and UNKNOWN despite numerous laboratory tests.  It is very much more hit or miss than the theorists and Goldacre's of the world care to admit.

And THEN, my dear skeptics, is the example of Homeopathy being used in Europe and England during the cholera and other deadly epidemics of the 1800's.

Supposedly, the rationalization is that the remarkably lower death rate of the Homeopaths' patients was due to the poor allopathic treatments of the time.  But a close examination of the statistics reveals otherwise, that doing absolutely nothing in such epidemics would still result in a 30 to 60 percent mortality rate while the Homeopath's were getting 10-15%... OR BETTER.

In one case the near hysterical opposition to the Homeopaths was overruled in one country after their dramatic life savings during such epidemics.   HERE, read some of the details for yourselves and then rethink if those high dilutions beyond Avogadro are quite so nonsensical as they've been made out to be:

http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/

I commented over there, although my comment is currently awaiting moderation.

Basically, at Laughing My Socks Off, a comparison is drawn between a 10-15% mortality rate in a hospital and a 50-60% mortality rate overall. You cannot compare the latter rate with the former, as not only are the former receiving other forms of care (like having nurses to hand), but the blog itself says that death could occur within hours, and so you've got a selected sample in the hospital of people who actually managed to stay alive long enough to get there.

You need to compare homeopathic treatment in the hospital with no treatment <i>still in the hospital</i>.

Until you lot get your head around having controls like that you will continue to be lead to incorrect conclusions.

I find the attempts of defending allopathy laughable. All matter is energy which includes the human body. The only form of successfully treating the human body is through the appliance of energetic medicine. Homeopathy is such a form but there are many others. After many years of taking allopathic pain killers against my migraines with little success, I finally turned towards homeopathy. It worked wonders. I am now free of migraines. When my children get sick, homeopathy sorts them out in very little time. This is all the evidence I need. Evidence is based upon one's own experience. Only a fool relies on the information (being sold as "evidence") of unknown third parties. If I act upon such information and it works, great, if it does not work I move on to something else. Evidence is established either way as far as I am concerned. Whatever some more or less credible "authority" says based upon whatever studies, has no relevance in my life because an unknown third party can tell me anything for whatever known or unknown reasons. It is unreliable especially when looking at the funding of conventional medical studies.

So, the only question remains is why the allopaths have declared war against those who promote health based on natures own remedies? Why not simply let people decide and find out for themselves? Why the attempts at any cost, no matter how many die and remain debilitated, to push, coerce, mandate and impose the use of drugs which are essentially toxic? (Just study the possible side-effects of an allopathic drug). Why? ...... Why?

Trying to find the answers to these questions will open the Pandora's box of drug induced genocide but luckily, more and more people are waking up to this.

A good place to start one's research are the "Georgia Guidestones".

Brandon - do you not see the irony in your statement about only fools relying on the information of unknown third parties and then pushing forward your own unverifiable testimonials?

'I find the attempts of defending allopathy laughable. All matter is energy which includes the human body. The only form of successfully treating the human body is through the appliance of energetic medicine. Homeopathy is such a form but there are many others. After many years of taking allopathic pain killers against my migraines with little success, I finally turned towards homeopathy.'

Allopathic medicines and drugs are made of matter. Therefore by your reasoning they're energy, and therefore the energetic medicine you believe is required.

Homeopathic medicines contain no matter from the active substance therefore no energy from it (any supposed 'vibrations' being quite undetectable), and therefore can't work by your logic.

Please don't make such gross errors as thinking that the equivalence of matter and energy have any bearing on these things. If your reasoning was correct, the fact that a kilogram of water and a kilogram of petrol contain the same amount of energy would mean you could run your car on water. This is clearly ridiculous, unless you're a homeopath perhaps.

The problem with hard line allopathic priests of medicine is that they believe only their system has any credibility and they measure success by their own narrow yardstick and parameters.

I find that GPs are often the prime dispensers of mythology and folklore about illness and treatment. Many of the "diagnoses" made are little more than guess work. For example the ubiquitous "virus"  that is given as a reason for virtually any set of symptoms involving tiredness or weakness often stops proper treatment and diagnosis being made. I have made this point before but how many children  have died of bacterial meningitis because the GP said "give more calpol and call me in the morning." The old "viral" stand by again. There is very little "scientific" or analytical thought involved in the process of making a diagnosis in allopathic medicine. A drop down menu and only very obvious  symptomotology is relied upon.

Allopathic medicine is one form of medicine that can work but so can many others whose proof lies in the experience of the patients who partake in the treatment. Why dismiss the experience of thousands of people as "unproven." This is the way by which adverse reactions to drugs are recorded, (or should be recorded) by the patient's personal experience and reaction, so why is not positive reaction to herbal medicine, or acupuncture?

To state that studies that involve control groups are the only valid ones, is naive and unscientific. People participating in controlled studies, particularly ones over a couple of years, often partake in dietary changes and develop changes of life style, and habits etc that may have a profound impact on the results of that study but none of these contributing factors is notated into the outcome.

Let me give you an example:  A woman has had a very rare genetically linked form of cancer is asked to particupate in a national study. She has her blood drawn every few months, and has an ultra sound scan of her pelvis and answers a questionnaire regularly. However none of the "alternative" treatments she has are included in the information given to the doctors/scientists conducting the study. One lesion of 3 cm has shrunk completely and a fibroid tumour has reduced substantially. However there is no box to tick that asks about the rigourous treatment she is undertaking involving radical changes of diet and progesterone cream. So the results of the study will not be accurate as it excludes much  information pertinent to the outcome. I know because I am the woman in this case.

I refused chemotherapy and radiation three times following surgery for bowel cancer.  I have successfully shrunk several lesions by dietary treatment only- based on the biochemistry of cancer cells- and inhibiting the synethesis of their DNA.

I am on the one who suspected a genetic link and was scoffed at several times by allopathic doctors for suggesting it. Unfortunately i found out I was right after pressurising them to test me.

I was scoffed at by my GP when I suggested bowel cancer might be a cause of my symptoms which were attributed to the ubiquitous IBS. A syndrome I doubt really exists but is handy to have as it stops any thought being given to the cause of the intestinal symptoms.

Science is something that "alternative medicine" makes better use of sometimes than allopathetic medicine.

.

"Brandon - do you not see the irony in your statement about only fools relying on the information of unknown third parties and then pushing forward your own unverifiable testimonials?"

Nice try, Andy. Delphi technique comes to mind. I do not give testimony. I share my experience which is evidence as far as I am concerned just for me as clearly stated in my previous post. You should not just accept it and as a matter of fact, you would be a fool if you did. This is exactly my point. How can I possibly accept anything a third party says based on knowledge or bias or whatever which I have no knowledge of?

Aside to "A Little Aside"...

"Basically, at Laughing My Socks Off, a comparison is drawn between a 10-15% mortality rate in a hospital and a 50-60% mortality rate overall."

Ah but those in the Homeopathic hospital were being cured by, what you claim is absolutely NOTHING!!  How could they ever have gotten such a low mortality rate?  Could it be some sort of curative field such that if they stayed outside the Homeopathic hospital and remained on the sidewalk,  the death rate was 50% but if they walked inside it was 15%??

Even without a properly designed study, the statistics were sufficently intriguing that that they were SUPPRESSED from the medical board's report on the epidemic and the Health dept. had to be forced by Parliament to give them up.

Regarding the equivalence of matter and energy

in your "refutation" (sic) of Homeopathic remedies,  you seem to ignore the shaking, which

can and does TRANSFER energy from one medium to another - apparently a necessity for proper  functioning according to the Homeopaths.

Last but not least, in the hysteria over the high dilution Homeopathic remedies, the matter of LOW DILUTION remedies, which do indeed have SOME bit of the original substance in them, seems to be ignored.    (One envisions a classical Homeopath, wrinkling their nose, like a wine taster who has just been given a cheap wine, at the mere thoght of such crudity as having actual molecules of the curative substance still present).

You may wrap YOUR head around THOSE considerations and be advised that personal scientific knowledge, however clever, is not omniscience in the realm of the unknown.

A little aside:

"Allopathic medicines and drugs are made of matter. Therefore by your reasoning they're energy, and therefore the energetic medicine you believe is required."

This is not what I said. I said that all matter is energy. I did not say that allopathic medicine is the form of energy that is required.  Homeopathy is because the water contains the energy of the substance although the substance itself is no longer present in molecular form which is something that allopaths and "science based medicine" have a great deal of trouble to understand and supress. Why is that? Well, because allopathic quackers somehow believe that they can do it better than nature. Phew, quite arrogant, wouldn't you think?

And if you believe that you cannot drive your car on water than you cannot. If you care to do some research you might find out how to do just that.

People have to do their own research.

'Bitter' is an appropriate adjective to describe the struggle, but 'SoE'?!? (Clearly David Colquhoun does not get the intended irony). I prefer the phrase 'High Priests of Scientism' myself. Andy Lewis and DC are self-appointed gatekeepers for the science of the narrow-minded and seem to be more interested in establishing quasi-religious medical and scientific dogmas than anything else. They are extremists and giving them any kind of attention is like giving the BNP a platform in a political debate.

Anti-D said: "is like giving the BNP a platform in a political debate".

Yay!  We're running up against the boundaries of Godwin's Law already.  

Go on, Anti-D, one more push and we'll be there.  Say it, this whole reliance on evidence thing that the Sons of the Enlightenment seem to love so is reminiscent of which 20th C. German dictator...?  

(Hint: it's not Kaiser Wilhem).

Stop sqabbling. Homeopathy works. I have seen horses, dogs and cats cured after being given up as uncurable by vets. They don't listen to the words of the " snake oil shaman" so it's hardly psychosomatic. As a human being I've had better results from homeopathy than standard medical treatments. I was an SRN, and ended up as a Theatre Sister before retirement, so I am not completely ignorant.

Many years ago a certain Doctor advocated using intravenous Vitamin C on Cancer patients and they were recovering.  The chemical companies ran trials involving oral vitamin C, which is patently not the same thing, and completely debunked his assertion that Cancer could be cured by Vitamin C. Now they are trialling intravenous Vitamin C again. The Chemical companies won't like it because there is no money to be made in producing Vitamin C.

I, for one, would refuse chemo. You wouldn't take arsenic to cure a wart, so why poison your whole body to kill cancer? There's apparently a lot of money to be made in poisoning patients .

Of course, if that Doctor is proved right, how many people have died unnecessarily over the years.  

Never trust the Chemical guys. Remember Thalidomide, Vioxx, et alia. The list of their mistakes is horrendous. They advise everyone over 50 to buy Statins over the counter without a prescription. They don't make a big thing out of the side effects, and if you take statins you should have monthly blood tests. If you buy over the counter this won't happen, and most doctors just reach for the prescription pad and don't know blood monitoring is essential.

I have, on the other hand, never heard of anyone dying through taking homeopathic medicines.

Berly

Vitamin C is a chemical.  Ascorbic acid.  So some chemicals, by your own logic, are acceptable, and some not.  Which ones?  I would suggest we base that decision on evidence.  

You?

Harradine,

Thanks for recognising that other substances contain active chemicals other than the ones endorsed by drug companies and some doctors.  I would interested in your response to my posts about my "alternative" treatment, involving no "chemotherapy" ( to clarify, as interpreted and administered by hospitals) yet based on the biochemistry of tumour producing cancer cells. Glycolysis makes a PET scan possible, the biochemical process is recognised.  Likewise it is recognised that Interfering with glycolysis helps make apoptosis possible.   Sugar is needed for many cancer cells, in order to synthesize DNA.  By depriving cancer cells of their energy source you help facilitate apoptosis. This can be achieved by manipulating the the food you eat to drastically reducing the intake of nutrients essential to the function of the cancer cells. Researchers are looking at ways to do this with enzymes and in fact my treatment was recommended by scientist in this field. I have had no conventional chemotherapy at all. See A P John Cancer Institute site and get back to me.

Harradine, you said:

"Vitamin C is a chemical.  Ascorbic acid.  So some chemicals, by your own logic, are acceptable, and some not.  Which ones?  I would suggest we base that decision on evidence."

Correct, everything we take in has chemical characteristics because chemistry is the foundation of all matter or, in other words, the manifested energy. It is my understanding that when people talk about chemical medicine that they refer to artifical, not naturally produced or altered substances.

Vitamin C occurs naturally which should answer your question as to which chemicals are acceptable and which ones are not for me personally.

As far as your call for evidence is concerned, here an example of how ridiculous that is. Let us assume that a child which has no experience with fire touches a flame and gets burned. What do you think will make the child more careful next time? Its experience that it was very painful or a report from a scientist who has made a double-blind study of people touching an open flame?

Evidence does not exist unless the conclusions of a piece of research lie within the field of personal experience. In that case and in that case only I can say that my experience is congruent with the conclusions of a study. However, somebody else might make an experience opposite to the conclusions of the research. Are you so mindless and arrogant to claim that this person is wrong?

If somebody uses homeopathy and his/her medical problems are helped or go away, who are you to deny that person his/her positive experience and ask for evidence when in fact the evidence was already given?

Our planet has given us everything we need to remain healthy. It is the mindless greed of some individuals who manufacture lack and dependence by creating an "evidence" based system which excludes the mysteries of nature because nature does not operate within the confined scientific mind. People who accept a reduced and limited mindset by arrogantly claiming that nature makes mistakes are the contributors to the biggest genocide that has ever happened on this planet and is continuing to happen.

There are universal laws at play here of which you know nothing due to your own self induced confinement to a materialistic subset which prevents you from seing such laws.

Having said that, the tide is turning and people start understanding that it is not important what a third party says.

How much scientific "evidence" do you think would there be if every scientific researcher or those calling a piece of research "evidence" would have to swear upon penalty of perjury and under their full unlimited commercial liability that their conclusions are true and correct? Nobody in their right mind would sign such a sworn statement and therefore, no evidence exists. However, I am happy to sign a sworn statement to the effect that everytime I have had a migraine and took a specific homeopathic product my migraine disappeared within a short period of time. Why would I sign it? Because it is my evidence pertaining to my own choice and not creating any liability or claim impacting on any other party except myself. This creates a fact in law which cannot be rebutted unless somebody proofs and swears under penalty of perjury and under his/her full unlimited commercial liability that homeopathy never helps me with my migraines, has never helped me and will never help me. You try and get a scientist to swear that his conclusions are true and he will always say that he "believes" it to be true. So, all he did was swearing an oath on his belief. In our insane world, we take his belief to be the truth and evidence when in fact the point of his conclusions being correct have not been proofen or evidenced whatsoever. In most cases of scientific research, a scientist does not even need to make a statement of liability nor does any politican promoting the research of a scientist. We accept pure third party belief at best when we let our children be vaccinated.

So, people, if you want to protect yourself against allopathic quackery, ask for a sworn statement under the full unlimited liability and penalty of perjury of the affiant who claims that this or that is evidence. You will find out that the so called evidence vanishes into thin air. To pre-empt any misunderstandings: I am not a lawyer or solicitor and what I said above is not intended to be any form of legal advice. It only is the process of sharing my own personal experience.

Evidence is the result of our own personal experience.

Brandon

Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt.

The standards of evidence you demand of medicine are of course unrealistically high. You know this. The standards you accept for your own beliefs are ridiculously low. It is an interesting double standard. You claim that every time you have a migrane and take some pill the headache clears up. There are also people in the world who believe swearing at traffic lights makes them change and dogs who believe that barking at postmen makes them go away.

Of course, in real everyday life you do not apply your own demanded standards of evidence for anything. You could not function if you did so. You do not demand sworn statements from taxi drivers to absolutely assure you that you will arrive in one piece. You make no similar demands of the people who supply your food, your electrical goods, your clothes and your electricity that everything is perfectly safe.

In reality we all live with varying degrees of risk and uncertainty in all aspects of our lives. That does not preclude us examining imperfect and incomplete levels of evidence to come to rational decisions. As new evidence is forthcoming then we may reassess our views of things. Scientists know this - and that is why they always talk about levels of evidence and degrees of proof. There are things in the world for which there is so much evidence that we can act as if we are certain - but the scientist can always express some doubt if pushed. That is the pragmatic approach to evidence.

One thing we can be almost certain about is the nature of homeopathy. It contradicts laws of science that are backed up by huge amounts of robust evidence - not perfect, granted - but very, very good indeed. People's experience with homeopathy is of course not doubted - I am sure your migranes do clear up after taking the sugar pills - but your <i>explanation</i> is much better explained by other factors - natural course of illness, selective reporting etc.

It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings. As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it. It is the very definition of dogma - unable to reassess your beliefs as new partial evidence emerges. Interesting stuff.

Andy,

Here we have again a typical NLP word and sense twister. You guys are really good at selling the most unbelievable junk to people's subconsciousness. Not one word of what you said in your last post has anything to do with what I said. Not one.

So, let me disect what you said so that other people can see the fallacies of your "logics" applied in you last post:

"Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt."

Emphasis is on "believe". You believe that it confirms your suspicions. Right? So, it is not a general statement and therefore does not apply to what I said or who I am because you do not know how I am. Let me put your mind at rest. Life has risks, no doubt. Some risks we can choose, others we are just exposed to but in the end, I could avoid all those actions which I feel are too risky for my personal taste. If you are happy to pump your body full with pharmaceutical petro chemicals, be my guest. Do what you want and stay out of other people's lives. Bottomline of you first paragraph is that you expressed a personal believe which might or might not be correct.

You said: "The standards of evidence you demand of medicine are of course unrealistically high. You know this."

Where in my last post have I expressed an expectation of a high standard of medical evidence? Could you point that out to me? Have I not expressed that there is no evidence at all as far as I am concerned due to the fact that I do not accept the utterings of a third party as evidence especially when this third party emphasises his "believe" to be correct? A third party could say anything. Just because somebody tells us that the research of the third party is all done under strictly controlled conditions and is scientifically sound, do I have to take the outcome as evidence especially in light of the fact that the raw data of a study are never published nor given out on demand? And then these "scientists" refuse to swear that the results of their research are correct even by their own standard? They only swear on their "belief" to be correct which technically creates the situation of "lawful excuse" if somebody gets injured or dies as a result of using allopathic chemicals.

So, here you put into my mouth things I never said and that makes you an unreliable or dishonorable human being unless, of course, you lack the capacity to comprehend the bigger picture in which case I appologise.

You said: "The standards you accept for your own beliefs are ridiculously low. It is an interesting double standard."

Previously, you said that I said that I had to high expectations for medical evidence when in fact I did not express any such expectation and here you talk about the standards of my "believes" to be "ridiculously low". Here, people, you have a classical example of spin. This is the conditioning of the subconscious if not read carefully and you will find that in the News, movies and advertisements all the time. So, let's debunk this piece of psychological warfare upon your mind.

Andy here suggests that medicine is related to evidence whereas what I personally consider to be evidence is believe when in fact I spoke about my personal experience to be all the evidence I need. He further associates the word "evidence" with the word "high" and the word "believe" with the word low. In the subconscious this creates the image of medicine being of high evidence and belief being of low standards. He does so by putting things in my mouth which I verifyably never said.

This is sophisticated stuff and needs professional training.

Andy said: "You claim that every time you have a migrane and take some pill the headache clears up. There are also people in the world who believe swearing at traffic lights makes them change and dogs who believe that barking at postmen makes them go away."

Well, Andy, here you have really fallen into low realms and it shows that you are out of arguments. Well, I make indeed this claim and unless you can proof the opposit my claim stands as a fact of personal experience. What exactly have people swearing at traffic lights and barking dogs to do with this? Where is the logic in your statement? Are you saying that I am a liar? Or are you trying to suggest that I am of unsound mind and if yes, what proof do you have?

Do you see the trap you have fallen into here? If you leave your own personal space and enter into another's personal space with accusations and suggestions, you need proof, otherwise, you are on shaky grounds.

Andy said: "Of course, in real everyday life you do not apply your own demanded standards of evidence for anything. You could not function if you did so. You do not demand sworn statements from taxi drivers to absolutely assure you that you will arrive in one piece. You make no similar demands of the people who supply your food, your electrical goods, your clothes and your electricity that everything is perfectly safe."

Well, rest assured that I would if a taxi driver would claim that he can drive me safely and if I believed that the association of taxi drivers is actively engaged in lying to the people about taxi safety whilst at the same time trying to plant a subconscious fear into people about busses, trains and planes. So, here again, you are twisting the sense of what I said in my previous post. If somebody makes a claim about safety and evidence when entering before the public, he/she must proof the safety for everyone. If I say that using homeopathy repeatedly with great success is sufficient evidence to me, I do not make public claims because I am the source of my action of using homeopathy. I do not claim that it helps generally and everyone. It is my choice and people have the right to choose.

On the 4th paragraph, I can only repeat what I said before: There is no evidence. Evidence is a result of research which can be verified by everyone through personal experience. This can only be achieved by giving ALL the facts pertaining to the research free of spin. This certainly is not the case when it comes to allopathic quackery.

Andy said: "One thing we can be almost certain about is the nature of homeopathy. It contradicts laws of science that are backed up by huge amounts of robust evidence - not perfect, granted - but very, very good indeed."

Homeopathy is fully supported by the latest research of quantum physics. Quantum physics seems to have advanced to such a state that it actually for the first time in history can scientifically explain the workings of homeopathy. However, since I have no way of veryifying such research directly, I can only take such results as a confirmation of my own experience but it does not alter my experience. However, it seems that the research of quantum physics is published to a much higher standard and in much greater detail than the so called medical studies. Therefore, your claim that Homeopathy contradicts the laws of science is outright false and misleading unless of course you also claim that quantum physics cannot be counted as science. A rather foolish proposition, wouldn't you agree?

Andy said: "People's experience with homeopathy is of course not doubted - I am sure your migranes do clear up after taking the sugar pills - but your <i>explanation</i> is much better explained by other factors - natural course of illness, selective reporting etc."

What a messed up thinking process you expose here. Full of false suggestions and manipulations. Oh boy! How can you be sure that my migranes clear up after talking a sugar pill? Are you promoting the old myth that Homeopathy are just sugar pills? Do you have any proof that I have not tried sugar to see whether it is the sugar taking away my migranes?  As far as I am concerned, "non-homeopathic" sugar has never helped me with anything.  You can try and explain it by any means you see fit. It has nothing to do with me and most likely has nothing to do with truth either. Most importantly, you cannot back up any explanation with any proof. So, if your ways of thinking and logic are the standards of the very realm you try to defend, I feel confirmation of my suspicions about allopathic quackery.

Andy said: "It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings."

Here, Andy tries to suggest that it is a fact that alternative medicine has obvious shortcomings. He does not explain what these so obvious shortcomings actually are. A typical NLP trick to suggest something is a fact when it is not. Well, I want to be kind to Andy after I have debunked his last post and reach a hand out to him. Perhaps he meant that original (not alternative, allopathy is the alternative medicine having caused mankind to almost forget about the original medicine) medicine has its limits. It does indeed have its limits. Original medicine is not very useful when it comes to trauma like accidents and inner injuries. But it is not a shortcoming. It is not the right place to use original medicine other than in a supportive role if it comes to trauma medicine.

Andy said: "As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it. It is the very definition of dogma - unable to reassess your beliefs as new partial evidence emerges. Interesting stuff."

I am afraid that Andy again makes a determination here which he is not qualified to make. Is he my shrink? He boldy claims that I am propagating absolutist views and dogma. Here, people, it is important to understand that it is an important tool in the spin doctors toolbox to accuse the one who tries to promote freedom of choice and will of the very things they themselves are quilty of. Original medicine (mistakenly labelled as alternative medicine) has nothing to do with dogma. Everything is done in freedom, with open mind and the only thing that counts is the result. Not everything works for everyone, we know that. Homeopathy is supported by the millions of people who have used it in the past and who use it today. If its success is based on pure placebo then an allopathic product should work as well as placebo which it even sometimes might do. This would be logical.

It really does not matter in the end. The result is what counts.

My point really is to try and make people aware of the outrageous lies with which the petro chemical pharma industry tries to kill of original medicine.

If the allopaths would just stop making their false claims about "evidence" being in existence, I would have no issue with this and everyone could just go home and exercise their free will and free choice.

I encourage everyone to do their own research and believe in their intuition or gutt feeling. Do not take my word for it. Doing your own research is rewarding and in the end you always have the choice to go with what you feel comfortable with. Don't dismiss your own positive experiences just because some study says something contray to your own experience. It is hearsay. If you do dismiss your own experiences for that reason, you should ask yourself why you did that.

Last but not least, if anybody makes a claim about a medicine being based on third party evidence, somebody must have liability. If you do not get anybody's signature accepting liability, you are basically agreeing to being used like a laboratory rat which accepts all risks. Always read the leaflets of any product. The section called "side-effects" is very important. These are effects that were observed during trials on human beings. Ask you doctor to see the leaflet listing the "side-effects" of vaccines BEFORE you give the go ahead.

Now the legal stuff:

Everything stated above is an expression of some of my personal opinions and experiences.

If you have any health problems, get in touch with your state licensed doctor and please note that nothing aforementioned is intended to be medical or legal advice in any shape or form. I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer nor a solicitor.

Brandon

I have followed this discussion for a while and have a few thoughts from the point of view of someone who has many years practical experience of science as well as having direct experience and involvement in an area of complementary therapy.

Jack of Kent: “In what circumstances would they accept any allternative medicine to be invalid?”

Whether mainstream medicine, other forms of medicine, or anything else, to prove a negative requires infinite evidence; basic logic as you are, presumably, aware. In real science everything is probabilities, no absolutes. There is evidence in the Complementary and Alternative Medicine field but not necessarily of the standard that many of us would wish. At least in part, that is because there is a great deal of “research” carried out by people who do not understand what they are researching, which is not a very good basis on which to do any research. It is perfectly possible to apply science to CAM, though the way it is applied by many at present has flaws that are obvious to those of us who understand the field. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Healer, among other things; well versed in science, while being very aware of its limitations, as well as having knowledge, experience and insights, let alone abilities, that by far the greater majority of those who have become involved in research in those fields do not have.

There were obvious flaws in several of the televised “experiments” in recent years. Similarly, there was a very obvious flaw in Edzard Ernst’s reported experiments on Spiritual Healing. To some extent I am surprised he found Healers willing to participate, though most Healers would not necessarily pick up on experimental flaws as readily as someone with a technical background, even those flaws close to qualifying as “howlers”.

Science at the classical physics level is insufficient to make any real headway in many aspects of CAM. Mainstream scientists do not seem to go beyond that. The pioneer researchers do go beyond the classical level and appear to be making progress. There is both theory and experiment which makes a great deal of sense from both my experimental point of view as well as the science point of view.

There is also the problem of premises; mainstream science is based on false ones. At the relatively rudimentary level of most  physical science that does not show (but it does at the quantum physics and cosmology levels, or at least begins to do so), other than in areas of misunderstanding, ignorance, such as the so called placebo effect, leading to, essentially, “we have proved that does not work because, as far as we can tell, it has the same effect as something else which we do not understand”.

“It is disappointing that you blog without establishing facts first. It makes you appear rather unreliable on all your other points.”

On one page alone in “Trick or Treatment” there are almost twenty errors in 350 words. How unreliable does that make Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh? How does someone research a subject area for over a decade and still confuse different types of Healing, fail to get definitions right, etc., as well as other anomalies? To spend so much time on research and still appear to not understand important areas that research covers is quite an achievement, if a somewhat perverse one.

Andy Lewis: “There is also the choice to believe in evidence and reason - science.”

The implication seems to be that evidence and reason equals science, and vice versa. There are means of evidence and reason that are not necessarily science. Much of the science pedalled is little above early secondary school level, with the logic and reason being of a similar standard.

There is no proof that science is the best way of acquiring knowledge and understanding, or the only way. That is not to decry science; that is to recognise its limitations. Science cannot prove science; that is a circular argument. If anything else is used to prove science, that other process is at least equivalent to science. Of course it is entirely acceptable to have faith that science is the best method, which raises other interesting issues and thoughts.

Many of the proponents of the science, reason and logic approach also indulge in non-scientific language and abuse; “woo”, “quack”, etc., which is also junior school level, like the science, or worse. Descent into abuse is surrender of reason and argument; nowhere near “evidence and reason - science.”

Brandon: “There are universal laws at play here of which you know nothing due to your own self induced confinement to a materialistic subset which prevents you from seing such laws.”

It is easier than most for me to concur with that as my senses are open enough to be well aware of that directly, though, of course, many people are aware without sensing in as much detail.

Andy: “Brandon - your views on evidence are fascinating - and I believe confirm my suspicions that advocates of alternative medicine are people who have difficulty coping with risk, uncertainty and doubt.”

That would hardly fit with me, or anyone else I know in the complementary therapy field; we have no particular difficulty in coping; probably less than many people. From my own point of view from the late 1970s and through the 1980s I was involved in research in the field of design allowable properties for advanced composite materials at two aerospace companies, though a forced change of career prevented me completing a PhD at the University of Surrey in the subject; 75% of the way there at the time I submitted he proposal, according to my supervisors. So, I know a fair amount about risk, uncertainty, levels of proof, etc.

I am not involved in homeopathy, nor do I know a greater deal about it, though I suspect any mechanism may well be at a similar level to that of my own field; I am a Healer and have enough higher sense perception, as Barbara Brennan refers to it, to be aware of more just the physical. I do not sense as much as she does, though what I do sense concurs with what she describes in her books and on her Web Site; similarly with my many colleagues in the field. That also fits with the work of Korotkov, Levichev, et al, though none of my fellow healers can get their head round the idea of the aura represented by a stress energy tensor in non-Minkowski/Einstein space time. I wondered about the tensor approach to auras as I feel them with ease and, sometimes, see them as well, and Internet research led me to Korotkov and Levichev’s work, which makes a great deal of sense from my dual perspective. I have no problem with the concepts though Alexander Levichev’s mathematics is somewhat ahead of my engineering mathematics – he has two PhDs in mathematics, whereas engineering mathematics is at about mathematics Pass Degree level, or was in my day (Brunel University, 1967-1971); though I can get quite a long way through Roger Penrose’s book, “Road to Reality”, before my mathematics really runs into the sand; no trouble at all with any of the concepts. The aura is not magnetic, certainly not in the conventional sense, and does not emanate from the physical body. The problem is that many complementary therapists do not understand science and most scientists do not understand complementary therapies; there are a few of us with both understandings, even fewer with both capabilities; I just happen to be one of the latter.

None of what I know of the higher levels clashes with physical science, at least no more than quantum mechanics and cosmology clash with Newtonian mechanics; the latter being valid, up to a point, at which the others take over. Similarly, mainstream science is valid, up to a point, then other matters take over. Mainstreams science is a crude approximation within certain limits; when it goes beyond those the anomalies arise, like the so-called placebo effect.

”As I say, this is the result of a absolutist view of evidence that is incompatible with reality - it creates a closed mind where it would take unreasonable levels of evidence to change it.”

Which reality?

According to quantum mechanics, “solid” matter, is 99.9999999999999 % empty, non-existent. As Marcus Chown wrote in “Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You” (pp12), after explaining, broadly, the nature of the physical, how an understanding of the true nature of matter came about: “Despite its appearance of solidity, the familiar world was actually no more substantial than a ghost.” That is remarkably close to the esoteric understanding; the ideas of string theory seem even closer. So, even self styled sceptics, mainstream scientists, are, essentially, ghosts in a ghostly existence, adamantly claiming that all that is ghostly is real and that nothing else exists.

Would Richard Wiseman’s reported moving of the goalposts for acceptable levels of evidence for the non-physical, just as that evidence is mounting, also be a case of a closed mind?

“It is extroardinary that you have so much faith in alternative medicine despite its obvious shortcomings.”

The third largest cause of death in the United States in 2006 was the medical profession. Depending on the way the figures were put together, apparently, it is arguably more lethal than that. According to Dr Phil Hammond you are 30,000 times more likely to use your life if you entrust it entrusted to a hospital doctor than to an airline pilot; partly because doctors, unlike airline pilots, are not routinely retested and taken through simulated crisis situations. According to the BMJ Web Site only 13% of commonly used treatments is supported by good evidence; evidence based medicine!?

“A statistical analysis of World Health Organisation data reveals that the poor performance of the NHS is causing 17,157 deaths per year”, the Taxpayers Alliance.

Along with many others, I find the shear arrogance of the mainstream medical profession, as well as mainstream science in general off putting on one hand and humorous on the other, though the former when it comes to making decisions on my health. (An obvious question, or comment, is anticipated; the answer is equally obvious, from this direction at least.)

I have yet to meet a healer who caused anyone’s death by what they do in the healing sense. Like Ted Fricker, the first Healer I met and experienced, as well as, again, any other healers I know, I never advise against the use of conventional medicine; it is part of the physical life experience and healing is over and above anything done on the physical level.

Wow Brandon, that was a long post and too much to pick apart in one go. Let me focus on one are to show how little you understand what you are talking about. You said:

"Homeopathy is fully supported by the latest research of quantum physics. Quantum physics seems to have advanced to such a state that it actually for the first time in history can scientifically explain the workings of homeopathy. However, since I have no way of veryifying such research directly, I can only take such results as a confirmation of my own experience but it does not alter my experience. "

Now, first off. Quantum theory does not support homeopathy. This is just false. Please show me references. If you suggest Milgrom, I will just laugh. His musings are absurd as anyone who actually knows about QM will tell you. He cannot decide whether his thoughts are metaphors or models. If metaphors then QM does not explain homeopathy. If models - he is simply wrong. He thinks quantum entanglement has something to say about he 'patient-practitioner' relationship. Hogwash. Entanglement occurs between a few quantum particles - not macroscopic objects like people and pills. Milgrom's musing have the affect of bamboozling an eager homeopathic audience, as you demonstrate in your next sentence.

Let me quote a physicist on Milgrom:

"In summary, Milgrom seems to have copied out a few equations from articles, textbooks and popularizations of quantum physics, assigned arbitrary and shifting properties to the entities within them, and then claimed to have a model/analogy/metaphor for homeopathy. The more seriously the metaphor is taken, the less sense it makes."

http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8644.html#cutid1

You admit you cannot check this for yourself, but you accept it because it fits in with preconceived ideas of how the world should be. This is classic quack thinking - selectively cherry picking which pieces of evidence you like in order to confirm your axiomatic beliefs.

Andy,

There we go again. Avoiding the issues, twisting, tinkering and making false representations. It must be pathological. I rest my case and I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.

"any therapy that doesn't involve powerful pharmaceuticals" should read "Any therapy that doesn't have clinically proven efficacy". You advocate leaving up to the patients "common sense" which treatment to go for, but surely the whole point of having medical professionals (or professionals of any kind really) with a training that meets exacting standards and is as up to date with current research as possible that you as a lay person cannot hope to make an informed decision regarding your medical needs? The whole reasoning behind sympathetic magic (and homeopathy surely falls into this category) may seem reasonable to someone relying more on common sense than scientific knowledge, but when it comes down to it I really do prefer to be treated by a professional.

Cirkux,

If homeopathy is sympathetic magic (which is your opinion), then what is allopathic medicine? Black magic?

And to just point out your flaw in logic. You say that as a lay person one cannot even hope to make an informed decision regarding one's medical needs. This is true to a certain degree and I tell you why: No average human being understands so called "medical evidence". Therefore, no average human being can make an informed decision. Therefore, many people go by hearsay because that's what it is as far as they are concerned.

People who look beyond hearsay understand that and will try out other forms of medicine like the original medicine (mistakenly labelled "alternative medicine") which also evolves more and more.

You can choose any "professional" medical form you like, it is your choice. Why not try a professional homeopathic doctor? You might be surprised.

"There we go again. Avoiding the issues, twisting, tinkering and making false representations. It must be pathological. I rest my case and I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves."

I have decided.  You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but you are happy talking about it anyway.  

'Evidence is the result of our own personal experience.'

Wrong.  Personal experience, not evidence, is the result of personal experience.  But you raise an interesting point.  I does seem that proponents of alternative medicine support it because, in their own personal experience, it has worked out for them.  Of course, forget the people for whom it did nothing at all, but for some they feel better after they use it and so its good enough for them.  Can't argue with that.

The problem arises that many such people seem to out their hands over their ears when told about placebo effects.  I;m not sure whether they don't beleive in the placebo effect, don't understand it or just willfully ignore it, but the effec is the same.  

All effects seen or described so far of alternative medicine are entirely consistent with placebo effect and can be totally accounted for by that phenomenon.  That is the exact definition of alternative medicine.  Once such effect cannot be accounted for by placebo effects due to repeated and consistently demonstration of this then the treatment is consider evidence based.  

Accept your own experience for your treatments, fine.  But the problems start when people start to advise others.  By your own definition, your personal experience cannot be applied to anyone else.  Your subjective experience is utterly useless for anyone else.  You can only say something works for you.  So why then do people advise others to use alternative treatments?  For that you need objective evidence and it is that evidence that alternative medicine, by definition, has so far failed to provide.  

Oh Harradine,

Still touting the same old nonsense and then making such catastrophic mistakes when it comes to logic.

The placebo effect might indeed be quite a powerful helper. I do not contest that at all.

The only problem when it comes to homeopathy and placebo is that it actually seems to also work great on animals and baby's. So, as far as I am concerned, the placebo argument is nullified at least as far as homeopathy is concerned.

Now, let me teach you a little bit about evidence. You are basically in your mindset endorsing products purely on the basis of third party "evidence" without actually trying them out, at least the majority of allopathic products. That is your own choice but to suggest that such third party "evidence" which cannot be verified by the vast majority of people should be accepted by others as "the evidence" whilst, at the same time, playing down the personal first hand experience of people, testifies to the fact that you have a vested interest in convincing people to accept a third party opinion and put that above their own experience. You appeal to the herd instinct of people according to the principle: "I have seen in on TV so it must be true". Have you ever watched Darren Brown? He shows how easy it is to manipulate the subconscious of people to such a degree that people actually think he is a magician.

So, unless I can personally verify a drug trial, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the published outcome is correct, unbiased and in the best interest of the people. This is supported by the many people I know who have fallen into the allopathic drug trap and are getting sicker and sicker whereas those around me who stop taking such drugs are starting to feel better. The ones who then are even openminded enough to at least try an original form of medicine (allopathy is the alternative medicine, homeopathy and other natural remedies are the original medicine and have been for a very long time), I can observe improvements and often outright disappearance of their ailments. Again, personal experience which supports my own experience and hence it has become evidence as far as I am concerned. Easy to understand, isn't it? Other's might make different observations, others again might actually be helped by allopathy, I do not know anyone who is but that does not mean that there are not some who are helped by allopathy.

By the way, in case you have not noticed. The only people urging, pushing and almost coercing others to use a specific form of medicine are those who have a vested interest in allopathy. Original medicine is supported by the millions and millions of people who actually have made their own personal experience that it helps. Of course, the hundreds of thousands of people who die annually from the side effects of allopathic drugs in the US alone can no longer talk.

Anyway, I am fully confident that the days of Big Pharma are numbered and I wonder what people in the future will be saying when looking back at our time.

Brandon - have you ever read andy Derren Brown? I recommend Tricks of the Mind. He gives no succour to homeopaths and exposes the tricks that lead unprepared people to fall for such idiocy.

One such trick is to fail to understand how quackery works - you display this perfectly Brandon. You say homeopathy cannot be a placebo because it works on babies and animals. Placebo is but one method you can fall for it. 'Regression to the Mean' is another big one with post hoc reasoning and wishful thinking. Before you educate others, perhaps you could look these up.

Regarding placebo effects.  Placebo effects are also seen in babies and animals.  Why wouldn't they be?  To think that they would not be is to misunderstand what constitutes placebo effects.  Have very marked effects which involve much more than simply the expectations of the patient.  The incidental recovery from illness as well as the act of intervention itself can have effects on babies and animals as well as adult humans.  Again, there has yet to be an effect of homeopathy that cannot be fully accounted for by placebo effects- the two are identical and so far cannot be discriminated.  

Which is why I find it so puzzling that supporters of homeopathy do not show more interest in placebo effects.  Instead they deny that their treatment has anything to do with them (despite not being able to provide any evidence for this, and when tested the results only confirm that placebo effects are where they should be looking to explain their treatments).  But they don't.  Instead they have chosen to promote a system of vital forces (a medieval term), ultra-dilutions, water memory and an entire system of demonstrably false beliefs.  

One thing you haven't noticed Brandon is that many of those who oppose such systems have nothing at all to do with the heath care system, but instead come from the scientific community.  They reason for this is that the bread and butter, the core tennet of science is to determine cause and effect.   For about the last 500 years (since the enlightment), mankind has developed a system of testing falisfiable hypotheses through experimentation with a view of determining cause and effect.  It is the best system we have for finding out what is going on and what is in fact, simply a result of our own inherently biased views, prejudices and basically believing what we want to believe.  

When the scientific method is applied to the study of homeopathy, the evidence so far demonstrated no difference from placebo and so the current best hypothesis is that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo effect, which suggests it is due to placebo effects.  This has nothing at all to do with drug companies, it is to do with apllying the correct system of scepticism and logic to any claim made about the world.  I really don't care what treatments people use at all- pharmaceutical ,alternative- is makes no difference at all to me.  Whatever people want to use, go and use it and feel happy doing so.  

My interest, as someone from a scientific background comes is in observing that there is an alternative ideology at play among the alternative health supporters.  An ideology that promotes a system of health care by making claims that it cannot support via evidence- i.e., a non evidence based ideology.   Since I disagree with this ideology, I address it and engage it, invite it to put its case forward and present the basis for my evidence based ideology.  This I would do for people who believe in ghosts, elves, who make any health claims at all (including pharmaceuticals), etc, etc, etc.  

You promote an ideology of accepting personal experience as the most robust evidence available and I disagree with that for many reasons.  You will find that if you promote systems and ideas that disregard the value to objective evidence long enough and loudly enough, rational people will disagree with you.  

Andy,

"Brandon - have you ever read andy Derren Brown? I recommend Tricks of the Mind. He gives no succour to homeopaths and exposes the tricks that lead unprepared people to fall for such idiocy."

I am sure that he does not make any references to homeopathy. Where exactly did I make such a claim?  With that you have again discredited yourself.

He gives however plenty of examples of how suggestions work and he is a master in NLP. The very tools you are using in your posts.

Andy, you have to live with what you are doing, not me. I hope that people realise that.

Harradine,

Good that you state your opinion. It provides me with the opportunity to debunk the techniques used in such posts so that readers at least have a chance to learn more about it. And here once more for the record loud and clear:

Evidence is what I can verify to be true. Anything else is hearsay no matter which mouth it is coming out from. This includes all of my statements until such time somebody else can verify for him(her)self my experiences. Then he/she has all the evidence (s)he needs.

Your error lies in the fact that you propagate as fact the mere assumption that so called "medical studies" constitute evidence to those who have no way of verifying the result. You then have the arrogance to put that hearsay above the personal experience of people. There is no "objective" evidence and there can never be. Also, best endeavour is not good enough for me especially if by law pharma companies are exempt from liability for vaccine damages. This speaks volumes.

Also, please refrain from converting into claims what I have clearly stated to be my experience and belief. You are a master in sidelining the actual issue, picking out a narrow point and then elaborate on it. For a change, try to rebutt any of my above posts point for point.

Otherwise, thanks for the great opportunities you provide to me for practicing my NLP deconstruction skills.

Brandon, you are sure that Derren Brown makes no reference to homeopathy? Without reading the book? Wow, you are a a magician - or a faker.

Brown is scathing of the nonsense of homeopathy and describes it as just one more 'trick of the mind'. In his programme 'The System' he also explains it as nothing but confirmation bias. Something bountifully displayed in this web site. He is also very critical of NLP and has never claimed to use it in his tricks. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Andy,

You need to get up a little earlier in the morning if you think that you can spin, twist and distort things I say.

Try a little logic. It was your false suggestion that I associated Darren Brown with Homeopathy. Based on that I have to uphold the logical flow of my argument. And where did I state that I did not or did read his book(s)? And since when is a lack of claim of using NLP proof that he does not use it? And how do you know that he never claimed to use NLP? Does being critical of something mean that one has no use for it? Have you been party or witness to all the conversations he had? Last but not least, since you have introduced the association between Darren Brown and Homeopathy, is Darren Brown an expert on Homeopathy?

What evidence do you have that Homeopathy does not work and how would such evidence be superior to millions of people's own experiences?

And why have you not addressed Richard Kings post above who gave an extremely balanced view in my opinion?

Andy, this was just another attempt to discredit me and to side track the issue. Perhaps you care to make a point-for point rebuttal of my posts from September 16, 2008 01:09.

Brandon - you are quite special. Perhaps you might like to read what I said. I did not suggest that you associated Derren Brown with homeopathy. I merely pointed out the irony of you using him in any way to defend your beliefs when he is quite outspoken against homeopathy. He is also very critical of the lack of evidence for NLP. Derren Brown does not need to be an expert in homeopathy to point out the ridiculousness of it. The little boy did not have to spend three years at college learning Imperial Invisible Textiles to point out that the Emperor had no clothes. You do not need to be an expert in Greek mythology to believe that Zeus is a fiction. Nor do you need to have studies a correspondence course from a made up homeopathy college to point out its basic premises are ridiculous. I would argue that having a diploma in homeopathy rules toy out from sensible conversations about homeopathy as you have obviously been stupid enough to fall for the charade.

I will leave the evidence for homeopathy up to those who believe it works. The onus  is on them and in 200 years have failed in the most spectacular fashion. Can you think of any other 200 year old science with a similar disgraceful lack of evidence?

And as for you long post - it is too difficult to wade through. Perhaps you could cleary summarise you points in 2 or 3 sentences? Brevity and Clarity are our friends.

Well, Andy, you just keep re-inforcing what I have said with regards to your posts all along. You make claims after claims after claims and you just are not up to logically refute anything I say. Instead, you avoid and evade and fall back into your own mantra's of self-deception and deception. Really quite obvious especially in this thread. Where does one learn such evasion tactics?

You and Harradine are my favorite SPIN doctors and when spin does not work anymore then you fall for personal insults. Do you not see how deep the hole is you have dug for yourself and your credibility?

So, now my favorite part: Debunking your nonsense:

You said: "I did not suggest that you associated Derren Brown with homeopathy."

Really, perhaps you should revisit the logical flow of your arguments.

You said: "I merely pointed out the irony of you using him in any way to defend your beliefs when he is quite outspoken against homeopathy."

I consider this to be backpaddling. Further to this, you claim that I defend my believes. I do not need to defend my believes. Against whom would I want to defend my believes? Are you attacking my believes? Be my guest. It is pointless because my believes are grounded in my own experiences and the results of such experiences constitute evidence for me personally.

You say: "He is also very critical of the lack of evidence for NLP."

Is he? And yet, he seems to be a master in using it and this is my observation. What one says and what one does are obviously two different things, would you not agree?

You say: "Derren Brown does not need to be an expert in homeopathy to point out the ridiculousness of it."

In other words, you are suggesting that anybody not knowing anything about something is capable of making a true assessment about it. This certainly underlines exactly your illogical style of arguing. Phew, this one blew up into your own face I am afraid.

Then you are diving into the realm of mythology in order to create non-existent associations. Oh boy, are you out of arguments big time.

You says: "I will leave the evidence for homeopathy up to those who believe it works."

I did not ask for evidence that homeopathy works (I already have that evidence), I asked for your evidence that it does NOT work.

You say: "The onus  is on them and in 200 years have failed in the most spectacular fashion. Can you think of any other 200 year old science with a similar disgraceful lack of evidence?"

One really wonders how homeopathy has survived for over 200 years if according to your claims it does not work. I realise, however, that you have recognised it as a science and wonder whether you recently had a change of mind ?! Well, you know my argument about evidence. There is no such thing as evidence as far as I am concerned unless I can verify AND understand all the details of a trial including its outcome AND can verify all this through personal experience. Therefore, there can also not be a lack of evidence as far as I am concerned.  

You say: "And as for you long post - it is too difficult to wade through. Perhaps you could cleary summarise you points in 2 or 3 sentences? Brevity and Clarity are our friends."

Are you saying that you have a mind that can only digest snippets? Are you not able to follow more complex thoughts and if that is so, how do you expect others to follow your arguments if you cannot even apply simple logic?

So, here again for the record:

If anybody tells you that there is a lot of evidence of this or that then what (s)he is really telling you is that there is an unspecified number of people who believe that this or that is true in specific circumstances. Unless YOU can verify and experience all aspects of this or that, there is no evidence of anything.

Brandon.  First of all, I am interested in what you are saying.  This site has its fair share of strong opinions and although I disagree with you, you raise some pertinent points.  You views are indicative, and therefore they are important.  So lets be straight, I trained as a scientist and that's why I am interested.  I don;t know how to use NLP and I have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical company.  So lets be sensible for a while.

Ok, you beleive that there is no such thing as objective evidence and that, fundamentally, the best evidence is our own experience.  What constitutes evidence is something scientists spend many years of their lives debating, so I think it is important to do so now.

On one level, you are correct.  After all, if all we did was trust what we were told by a so called authority, then how could be ever truly know which authority to trust?  As you say, TV?  There is so much misleading nonsense there, then I (and all scientists I know) would strongly disagree.

But what about scientific evidence?  Well, I know just how hard it is to actually know something.  To have a scientific statement confirmed as true is much more difficult than any other form of truth to confirm.    One has to have evidence.  Good evidence. Evidence that one has verified via experiment, and which has been confirmed by repeated experiment and tested to destruction by ones peers.

Subjective experience, of course we have to at the most basic level trust only our senses and the like.  But they can also be wrong.  Someone could say "I smoked 50 fags a day for 40 years and it did me no harm" but of course, that would be very misleading if it was interpreted by others that smoking was not an unhealthy thing to do.  That's is one example.

But this is why your points are indicative.  Most people honestly cannot be expected to understand scientific evidence.  When deciding what treatments is effective and safe, it would be nigh on impossible for your average joe to walk into The British Librbary and spend a month reading all the relevant scientific papers and come up with an informed view.  They have not spent the years learning how to judge such evidence.  How to tell bad science from good, how to see the wheat from the chaff as it were.  So why on earth should you trust the process if you cannot understand it?  

This is not an easy question for scientists to answer.  We are so accustomed to the process, we forget how impenetrable and seemingly inconsistent the process seems, espeicially when people do become harmed from medicine, lots of them.

But lots and lots of people do get better thanks to scientific based treatments.  Millions and millions of them are alive because of the process of whittling away through experiment and coming up with best evidence.  Some die, some are made very ill.  This must be very dissatisfying to those people whom it has failed.

So with all this confusion and frustration especially if one has suffered as a result, it must of course be very plausible to rely only on what works for one self.  IMO this is what underlies most strong support for alternative medicine.  People who have been burned by modern medicine, either because it has made them worse, or hasn't worked at all.  I think scientist ignore this at their peril.

But what I object to though, is the deliberately misleading attempt by site such as this to convince people that scientific study ha no merit at all.  To play on people's misunderstanding and mistrust.  Convincing people that science is wrong, or cheerypick that research which agrees with their views and ignore everything else.

Its ok for me- I can interpret scientific data and judge good evidence and experiment from bad.  I know what to trust and what to treat with suspicion.  I do not have to trust the men in white coats.  I can tell them they are wrong when I know they are.  

In my view, this is an argument for greater scientific literacy across the board.  My eutopia would be a world where we all were scientifically literate.  That way, there would be no need at all to take anything on trust.  One day.

Bythe way, I am not saying that homeopathy doesn't work.  Just that is doesn't work any better than placebo.  Placebos appear to work too, that's why so much care is taken to determine which that medicines do actually work better than placebo.  It is this that homeopathy, although tested, tested and restested many time, has failed to demonstrate.

So what?  That's fine.  Homepathy and placebo are one and the same.  But that tells us something very interesting.  There are some groups that respnd to placebo very well.  I have heard a serious argument withing the medical community that perhaps placebos should be used to treat children for illnesses hwere they are known to work.  If there are illnesses that have a very high response rate to placebo, such as depression, asthma, fibryomyalgia, chronic fatigue, pain, anxiety, etc, then why not use placebo since they have no side effects?

For a long time the argument has been that this is unethical where better treatments exist.  I.,e. those that make more people get better than placebo alone.  But there is a good case for treating children this way, if it works.  

What saddens me is that homeopaths are among the best experts in placebo responses around, but yet they hide this light under a bushel, waste this knowledge and instead argue for s system of pseudoscience that it demonstrable false and therefore loose all credibility.  I think this is a crying shame.  One day, I hope, they will realise the potential strength they could have if they decide to explore to nature of placebo responses (which is not a dirty word), of which they are adept at delivering.

Brandon - you really are struggling to keep up. Of course if you know nothing about a subject it would be unfair to criticise it. But the basics of homeopathy are freely available and can be understood readily. And it is quite possible to dismiss a subject when you spot the premises are false. You woud not be worrying about whether the wallpaper in the attic is lines up if the house has cracked foundations.

And that is why people like me and Derren Brown can so easily dismiss homeopathy - because it has no foundations. Its premises are absurd. And to top it off - there is no reliable objective evidence available. But, wading through your words, you appear to reject the idea of objective evidence and live in a world where only your personal experience counts. Its a handy philosophical position to take if you hold a daft position and do not want it to be challenged by reality - but that is all it is. I doubt you really practice it in real life.

Harradine,

In principle, I am not against science as such. I also know a number of scientists who have high standard. They operate under the principle: I have a theory. I will test that theory. For this test, I need to find the best and most objective setup and procedures available. If the test confirms my theory, I have to retest and retest until I am satisfied that that my test and the outcome is correct. However, I still cannot be 100% sure because there might be factors which I do not know about. If my test does not pass then it is either because I chose the wrong test or I have not yet found a suitable setup and/or procedures or my theory is not correct.

A real scientist who tests independently and is not financed to achieve a certain result but simply to test will not claim that his results are absolut because he understands that he is on a mission of discovery. Every day, new things are discovered which nullify or substantially alter the results of previous experiments. The list of pharmaceutical drugs falling into that category is endless. Previously "proven safe" they all of a sudden are shown to be very harmful, having killed or devastated the lives of millions of people. It has to be understood that science is experimental unless a specific law of nature or the universe is really understood which cannot be said about medical studies. Far from it.

As far as you and homeopathy is concerned, let me make an analogy. 3000 years ago, people did not know anything about the laws of gravity. They could not explain it because they did not have the right tools and knowledge to understand it in a scientific way. And yet, I believe that also 3000 years ago, things fell to the ground when dropped. Nobody needed "evidence" because everyone could easily observe that this was the case.

You have no knowledge about how homeopathy works because you do not understand the superior principles governing the universe, our earth and our human body. You basically claim that just because you cannot find evidence with your current scientific tools to proof that homeopathy works, homeopathy does not work.

You will therefore understand that your inability to proof that homeopathy does not work (or does work) can never be superior to my personal experience, no matter how much "placebo" you scream. The placebo card is always played when something occurs that cannot be explained within a limited frame of mind. A saying of Schoppenhauer comes to mind:

"All great truths go through three stages: First, they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed and finally they are recognised as self-evident".

The placebo effect is a real effect but again, you fail to understand how and when it applies. I recommend a book written by Bruce Lipton called "Biology of Belief". It is a very intersting book where he as a scientist explains his experiments and analysis of the power of mind when it comes to influencing our DNA and general health of cells.

An outright contradiction to what is being taught at medical schools. Do I know whether he is right? No, I do not. It just shows that for every one opinion, there is another one to the contray. Hence, there can be no "objective" evidence outside my own realm of experience.

To come back to my migranes and the years of modern medicine which could not help me. I find it amazing that modern pharmaceuticals are free from placebo effect. Nothing helped me. I finally got used to my migranes and just accepted that I had to live with them and it is amazing what one can get used to. Then I somewhere read that homeopathy might help. I thought, well, let's give it a shot but I was not very hopeful and I was sceptical myself. I was in for a surprise and did not even notice it until one day I realised that I had not had a migrane for a long time. I then tried homeopathy for all sorts of other things and found it to work really well. Placebo? Who cares? I am free of my migranes, it helps me in so many other medical situations, why do you think that I care? If using homeopathy somehow triggers a huge placebo response (which by the way is not my belief at all), then we know that placebo is the means by which homeopathy works. The case for homeopathy is therefore made and closed.

You see, you have provided me with all the arguments I needed to make a case for homeopathy by using your parameters and putting them into the correct logical context.

And you can be sure that I will be equally strict when somebody claims that there is "objective" medical evidence by means of a study which shows that homeopathy works. The only thing I can say that it does in my case and that somebody else has made a similar experience. Unless I can understand and verify that "evidence", there is no evidence as far as I am concerned and if others want to take it as such, they are welcome to do so because it is their business and not yours and not mine.

By the way, by continuing to slander the homeopaths in your subjective style, you actually provide a lot of credibility to them. It certainly prompts me and others to verify your claims, which I have not found any "evidence" for.

Whatever you say, it is your personal opinion as you have no proof that homeopathy does not work. Read my previous post in response to Harradine.

As far as my personal "philosophy" is concerned: You might have noticed following my previous posts that my philosophy is not a theoretical construct upon which I base my experiences but that it is my experiences upon which my current philosophy is based. If at any time, verifyable and understandable "evidence" emerges that allopathic drugs are the answers to all our ailments and that homeopathy does not work, I might just change my philosophy. But until that day, there is no evidence for neither and especially not for your claims.

You cannot get passed my personal experiences because they are mine and not yours. As hard as it is for you to accept that this is just the way it is, so, just live with it.

Whatever you say, it is your personal opinion as you have no proof that homeopathy does not work. Read my previous post in response to Harradine.

As far as my personal "philosophy" is concerned: You might have noticed following my previous posts that my philosophy is not a theoretical construct upon which I base my experiences but that it is my experiences upon which my current philosophy is based. If at any time, verifyable and understandable "evidence" emerges that allopathic drugs are the answers to all our ailments and that homeopathy does not work, I might just change my philosophy. But until that day, there is no evidence for neither and especially not for your claims.

You cannot get passed my personal experiences because they are mine and not yours. As hard as it is for you to accept that this is just the way it is, so, just live with it.

I just noticed that for some reason, my words appeared as if they had been written by Andy. Probably my mistake and appologies to Andy. I  have therefore reposted my words using my name.

Brandon, I have no proof that there are not unicorns in the world too. I do have very good reasons to presume they do not exist though. The same goes for homeopathy. I have very good reasons to believe homeopathy is a placebo treatment.

Your analogy with gravity is false. Yes, apples still fell to the ground before Newton, but people had no idea that this force was the same force that propelled the planets in motion around the Sun. The theory of gravity was a magnificently unifying theory that explained much much more than the speed with which apples fall. Homeopathy has failed to demonstrate any similar unifying idea. It has proposed ideas, but failed to show they are true. It you object to this, then show me the evidemce. You are also wallowing in the confusion of misunderstanding your critics. You say, "You basically claim that just because you cannot find evidence with your current scientific tools to proof that homeopathy works, homeopathy does not work.". No. Critics do not say this. They say "Homeopathy is totally implausible and incompatible with what we know about chemsitry, physics and biology. There is also no good objective data to show that there is an effect of homeopathy. It is therefore reasonable to conlcude that it is a placebo therapy".

You say "The case for homeopathy is therefore made and closed.". I would suggest that the only thing closed is your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong. I am open