Here are a few links with the real deal about homeopathy:

http://www.randi.org/site/index...news/1208-feb5video.html

http://www.1023.org.uk/

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Someday these shameful companies will have to come out and face the music, and homeopathy will be in the annals of medical history right next to "snake oil".

fighting the fight against misinformation,

JBArk

James Randi is a joke IMO, and I say this without any particular interest/knowledge of homeopathy (which I don't doubt could be riddled with scams).

He is a magician turned self-proclaimed "debunker". There is the question of whether he even has the million dollars to give away, and also why he continually ignores vast numbers of challenges at his convenience or makes false claims. He claimed to have debunked the data on animal 'ESP' but on further inquiry had zero data to show for it, and said they just watched a dog of his friends once, then blatantly lied in attempts to debunk a study on it, misrepresenting the events in the tape.

He reminds me of ridiculous websites such as quackwatch and rational wiki (sites that have even said DMT causes brain damage, btw, and dismiss psychedelics altogether...which gives you an idea of their reality-tunnel), run by militant materialist self-proclaimed "skeptics" who are also launching an organized editing attack on wikipedia in order to slant any page they deem outside of their dogmatic belief system. In truth they are more like a religious organization in their behavior and rigidity, and it has nothing to do with skepticism or science for them. They'd be along the lines of the right column here
http://tinypic.com/view....98i&s=8#.U48ZNvldWmw

Well, at least in this instance, he has launched the challenge to these companies to prove their medicines do more than placebo. No one has been able to do it within the parameters of his challenge, or without. Whether he has the funds or not is sort of irrelevant - the publicity generated by his challenge (and the opportunity to lay to rest the claims of pseudoscience) should be enough motivation for a company, ANY homeopathic company, to take up the challenge. And if they did, and proved it, they would have the smug satisfaction of debunking HIM when he failed to produce the cash. But they couldn't. Or they would have. Check any legitimate study.

Long and short of it is that medicines with ZERO medicinal ingredients are not medicine. HUGE business, evidently, but evidentially null and void. Water hydrates, but has no medicinal properties. Throwing some additives in for taste and colour does not make water any more effective at treating the myriad ailments claimed on the packages.

JBArk

UC can you link us up to some more info on what you said, how he has ignored challenges, made false claims, the dog story etc?

Yes, seconded. I forgot to ask...

Not saying that I am a big believer in homeopathy at all, but I wanted to point out that "snake oil" was the original fish oil, it is a rich source of EPA which there is plenty of science behind as we all know.

Haha! Nice one - touche!

JBArk

Debunking frauds and charlatans is certainly admirable, and I have no doubts that homeopathy falls under what Randi would refer to as "woo woo". But there is another side to Randi that is not as savoury.

Dr Rupert Sheldrake was behind the ESP in dogs research, I appreciate some may consider him pretty fringe, but I have it on good authority that he is an honourable guy that wouldn't tweak data to make it fit what he was looking for, or tell lies. Not so with Randi. Sheldrake's two cents:

http://www.sheldrake.org...bunk-research-on-animals

Randi also had an out of body [type] experience. And from this single experience, which he deemed illusionary, he concluded that all OBE's to be illusionary in nature. This is very lazy scientific thinking at best. A better scientific approach would be to look for more evidence from more people before drawing any conclusions (just for starters!) As a result one could consider his stance at times to be a type of "pseudoskepticism", and not skepticism in it's purest sense. Important to remember he is not a scientist and has no scientific training, and sometimes his objectivity may be at fault.

Drawing the conclusion that all homeopathy is a scam because no one has proved it otherwise seems fallacious as an "argument from ignorance" – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. At it's core though, it seems to be an
"argument from silence" – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. It's assumed that since no one has offered contrary evidence to his claim, that all of homeopathy must be null and void. There are certainly hoaxes involved, but it's quite the sweeping generalization to make based on a lack of evidence. Just because humans have a contemporary difficulty in recording certain kinds of data and phenomena in a scientific manner doesn't mean that they are inherently invalid. 200 years ago, it would have been impossible and quite the logical conundrum to record and/or measure certain levels of radiation such as x-rays or ultraviolet or gamma radiation that is constantly bombarding and interpenetrating us, but just because they didn't have the wherewithall at the time to either conclude that such phenomena were real, much less measurable, doesn't mean that they're not real and unmeasurable because we know they are. His whole "argument" though rather valiant, and perhaps well-intentioned seems to be founded on some pretty shaky logical ground.

Well, frankly, it has never been proven to be effective, so logically why would one assume it was?

And there is actually loads of evidence that it is NOT effective - homeopathic medicine has been proven, in countless clinical trials, to be no more effective than placebo, so the onus is on those claiming it IS more effective than placebo to prove so, no?

We're not talking about immeasurable phenomena here, as you suggest, but rather about comparing the effect of an alleged medicine's effects to something that is known to be completely ineffective - that is the definition of "placebo". And homeopathic medicine, according to various sources quoted on wikipedia and elsewhere, has never performed better than placebo.

And the so-called Randi challenge is actually very generous - it allows the companies themselves to apply the rigours of the scientific method on their products TO PROVE THEIR OWN CLAIMS!! (claims that are seemingly pulled out of a hat and not based on any evidence whatsoever).

It is not a question of the "unmeasurable", or of disingenuous sceptics - the companies themselves have EVERYTHING to gain by providing the most rudimentary of proof to back up their claims - but they haven't and they won't, up to now. I can only guess, given the clinical trials against placebo, that it is because they just simply cannot provide that proof.

How is this "argument from ignorance" or "argument from silence"? I must firmly disagree with you...

And why is it that people are so quick to jump on Big Pharma conspiracies but will not entertain the idea that an unproven and ineffective alternative medicine may just be based on the same greedy instincts to make cash? (not meaning you Global, of course )

Cheers,

JBArk

Perhaps we're at some sort of misunderstanding because his challenge seems to be more broad than homeopathic medicine. I was a bit unclear on the exacts of what we're talking about because when I followed your links, it seemed rather ambiguous.



You're probably right, that there is little in these homeopathic waters or whatever it is we're talking about, but the log of applicants here include clairvoyance, tuning fork diagnosis, "eyeball energy" (whatever that is), dowsing, etc...It seems to be a rather large swath of hard-to-test things.

Now of course the eyeball energy one seems kind of silly, but to create a testing situation where its presence can be conclusively conveyed to others would be difficult to set up. For example, many of us, perhaps yourself included have interacted with the seeming energy of the DMT experience which can create autonomous motions in the body. I have learned how to summon and "play" with this energy without the aid of DMT, but there's no real easy way for me to measure or detect the energy with a physical instrument, much less discern the effect that it may be having on my body or nearby surroundings.

In the Nexian, I talked about discovering the physical locations of my chakras, and how I devised a personal experiment that I feel conclusively proved their existence (but not their function). The experiment is a bit self-referential however because it hinges on the relay of my own observations upon interacting with the alleged energy. The experiment revolved around the involuntary motion of my hands around the various chakra positions, but the experiment is predicated on you having to take my word that I'm not moving my hands and not moving them voluntarily. The energy involved cannot actually be measured.

So again, I have no doubt that there are probably lots of herbal supplements or whatever that have no effect (beyond maybe placebo which could be beneficial at least some of the time), and that there are probably lots of "energy healers" or whatnot that may have no effect (even if they feel that they are validly working with the energy in the same way I have), but the challenge doesn't seem restricted to homeopathy, and that's where I became a bit confused.

Try the first two links global. The third was posted to give a broader scope, but the first two are specifically about homeopathy, including the challenge. Maybe I shouldn't have included the third - it seems to have diluted my point. (yes, pun intended, of course )

Homeopathy sells water and sugar and colouring under the guise of medication, and is a BILLION dollar industry.

from wikipedia:

"Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility[9] and the axioms of homeopathy have been refuted for some time.[10] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[11][12] and not physically possible.[13] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[14][15] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. Overall there is no evidence of efficacy.[11][16][17][18] Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it increases the suffering of patients by discouraging the use of medicine that works,[19] with the World Health Organisation warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.[20] The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[21] quackery,[4][22][23] or a sham.[24]"

and from the World Health Organization website:

"The WHO states that Homeopathy is the second most used medical system internationally, with over $1 Billon in expenditures for such therapy. In the United states, there are more than 500 physicians and 5000 non-physicians using Homoeopathy in clinical practice, and 2.5 million Americans currently use Homeopathic medicines – of which two-thirds are self-prescribed spending more than $250 million annually."

Cheers,

JBArk

Well I can get on board with you on sugar-water medicine

That's actually the ENTIRE basis of homeopathy.

"Three logarithmic potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann created the "centesimal" or "C scale", diluting a substance by a factor of 100 at each stage. The centesimal scale was favored by Hahnemann for most of his life. A 2C dilution requires a substance to be diluted to one part in 100, and then some of that diluted solution diluted by a further factor of 100. This works out to one part of the original substance in 10,000 parts of the solution.[77] A 6C dilution repeats this process six times, ending up with the original substance diluted by a factor of 100−6=10−12 (one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000). Higher dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency, and more dilute substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting remedies.[78] The end product is often so diluted as to be indistinguishable from the dilutant (pure water, sugar or alcohol).[7][79][80] There is also a decimal potency scale (notated as "X" or "D" in which the remedy is diluted by a factor of 10 at each stage.[81]"

"Another example given by a critic of homeopathy states that a 12C solution is equivalent to a "pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans",[83][84] which is approximately correct.[85] One-third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C.[86][82][87] A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name oscillococcinum. As there are only about 1080 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance"

Both from wikipedia


You are being sold water, people, at 30-180 dollars (or more...) for a 300ml bottle.

JBArk

Actually the more I research this, the more I am willing to go on record saying that homeopathy is by far - by several orders of magnitude - the BIGGEST medical scam ever perpetrated.

No one thus far has been able to sell purported "medicine" to millions of people, generating billions of dollars annually, when there is absolutely zero evidence of its efficacy beyond its being statistically equal to, or inferior to, placebo.

And as an added coup - and additional layer of irony - it is by and large those who eschew conventional pharmaceuticals, calling those companies "Big Pharma" conspiracies and scams, who spend their hard earned money on the water and sugar offered by homeopathic brands!

(OK, rant over. )

JBArk

PS - I apologize in advance if this offends, riles or agitates anyone. But you really need to know. This is not a question of beliefs, or my attacking a belief system - the stuff, by any standards or measurement or comparison, simply doesn't work. Who would really expect it to when they learn there is no "medicinal" ingredients left in it after diluting it so incredibly?

(OK, rant really over now. )

I haven't studied homeopathy or even participated in it, so I make no claims about it here.

My point is that the Randi challenge (which 'challenges' much more than just homeopathy) does not debunk anything because of the mere fact that no one has passed it. Many people tout this fact that no one has passed it as evidence or even 'proof' that anything outside of the materialist paradigm is fraud or wishful thinking, but this line of thought is lazy and fallacious for a number of reasons...

Please remember that first off, it is not even a genuine scientific challenge. If it was, then Randi and his organization would not be the sole (biased) judges/controller of the results/data, and it would not require participants to waive legal action against him and other more ludicrous clauses in the rules (which btw would also deter many possible contestants). In addition the statistical requirements for a trial to actually pass the challenge are completely absurd, even by scientific standards (more on those points in the links).

There is a number of problems that can be found with Randi and his 'challenge' with a quick search, including how he has ignored requests, slandered people, and distorted information as bancopuma has pointed out, citing one case of many. Here is just two links that summarize a small portion of reports out there and issues with Randi and the challenge.

http://www.dailygrail.co...million-dollar-challenge
http://www.skepticalinve...ptics/Randi_problem.html

I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that Randi would willingly give away $1,000,000 ...thereby effectively not only ending his career/organization and tarnishing their/his image/legitimacy, but publicly disproving his entire personal belief system as well and basically validating the work of scientists whom he has attacked, often quite unprofessionally, for decades.

If he was genuinely interested in any possible scientific verification of so-called paranormal, supernatural, or extra-sensory phenomena, you would think he would at least have the test in line with scientific protocol and also have a more objective, unbiased outside person or group to judge and present the results instead of...himself...

And whether he has the money or not is far from being 'sort of irrelevant'... since if not, then that speaks volumes about himself and his motives, and clearly highlights the answer to the question of whether or not he would ever even let someone pass it to begin with!

Note that no one has ever even been let past Randi's preliminary trial (if you don't believe any of the reports out there about being ignored afterwards), but is it any wonder considering how much he has riding on their failure?

The main reason I spoke up though is because many use the challenge as an excuse to ignore or discredit the large number of scientific studies on so-called psychic or 'paranormal' phenomena that have shown statistically significant results (I think words like supernatural or paranormal are ridiculous and do us a disservice...Just because we may not understand something doesn't make it outside of the scope of natural phenomona, so these terms are overall misleading and presume they somehow lay outside reality. "Witchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name".). Some of these can be found on Sheldrakes site and several other database, many of which are linked to here, and at the group at princeton who have done very interesting work but are largely ignored and dismissed. http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

And here is also a decent summary of a more recent study that connects it with previous work in this area that I've had lying around in my bookmarks, both published in the journal of frontiers in human neuroscience.

It's so simple to assume that because no one has passed the Randi challenge and claim the million dollars, they must be frauds. I mention these studies and problems with the challenge to show how lazy and unrealistic this type of mindset is.

Unfortunately an organized group of dogmatic materialists who call themselves 'guerrilla skeptics' have teamed up with CSICOP and literally hijacked a huge amount of wikipedia pages related to this area in attempts to slander and discredit them and anyone who studies things outside of their BS (Belief System), making such ridiculous statements as "no scientists agree with..." etc., posting bogus citations, and, in the case of Ralph Abraham, a mathematician, psychonaut and friend of Terence McKenna, possible tongue in cheek death threats. But I digress and all of that is a google away if you want to dig deeper into that can of worms. The point there is that wikipedia is no longer an even remotely reliable or unbiased source when it comes to pages on people/topics of this kind.

Saw this today. Not the best article (mostly utter crap imo, and I only read the beginning parts) but a few good points. In re to Randi's million dollar challenge and psychic research-

"...And then you have Randi who doesn't acknowledge the existence of any of these studies from what I can tell (hasn’t even looked at the data), but uses the calculated sleight of hand of his million dollar challenge to create the illusion that all this stuff has been proven to be nonsense scientifically. It’s a pretty convincing illusion, created by a professional illusionist (not a scientist mind you) with a stated bias against psi and a blatant monetary motive for inventing and perpetuating such a trick.

...but from a truly scientific perspective, what’s more rational? Listening to the teams of scientists who studied conjoined mind telepathy, reading the data carefully, and talking about the implications of their research? Or instead continually citing the results of a magic trick perpetuated by a professional stage magician because you want to believe in the illusion the trick creates so desperately?"

http://disinfo.com/2014/...hash.ywV82zcT.dpuf"

I don't know if something got lost in the works there or if wikipedia has made a mistake, maybe that quoted 1080 atoms should be an exponential expression of some sort. I'm almost certain there are trillions of atoms in a pin head.

On the subject of homeopathy.

One thing that never seems to get a fair hearing in any debunking of homeopathy is the energy of the practitioner him/herself. A flow of energy occurs whenever two people meet and if one of those people in any meeting is there for purely selfish of financial reasons then that flow of energy is impeded or biased in one direction. The selfish greedy type is an energy vampire by nature whether they acknowledge it or not.

When I compare a visit to a normal G.P. to a visit with most alternative medical practitioners there are some major differences and the way I see it the structure of a visit to conventional doctor is set to block that energy transfer to the point where healing just can't happen and it can even steal energy and make the situation worse.

In my country you go in to the G.P. and he/she sits behind a desk looking at a computer screen and pays almost all of his/her attention to that screen, you really feel like you could just google it and find the answers you need yourself. The doctor doesn't look in your ears or your mouth have you say aaahh or take your pulse or blood pressure anymore. It's like they don't really have time for you and just want to write a script to suppress your symptoms so you go away and they get the next customer in. I say customer because you don't feel like you're getting any level of care at all these days.

I've walked out of some doctors (particularly specialists) offices in a state of of anger because I was humiliated by their demeaning arrogant ways. No healing can occur under those circumstances.

If you go to an alternative practitioner there is normally a feeling of care and that they genuinely want to help and if possible cure you. A lot of alternative practitioners will even give free treatment or offer deferred payment for those that are in desperate need of help - something that doesn't seem to happen much with regular chemical company doctors.

So in my mind to debunk homeopathic preparations is somewhat missing the point. I'd rather go to someone that has a genuine interest in healing me than someone who just wants to take my money and get the next customer in & out without even touching or examining anyone.

I went to the dentist (first world, best practice) some days ago and had a complicated tooth cavity to fix. Afterwards the gum was bleeding and the assistant gave me homeopathic Arnica pills. I was like: Srsly? Are you kidding? and she said: try it. So I went home and thought, oh well, they are the specialists, not me, they know what they do.

So I researched the internet and found this:



Remember, this is The Lancet:

I posted a thread about this earlier today but in a broader sense. (Merge maybe in order?)

Having been 'treated' with homeopathic remedies for most of my childhood, I will openly say that I think it is placebo, at best.