What about homeopathic poisons? I'm looking to murder my step father but I don't trust commercial poisons.

>> ^messenger:

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.


It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

>> ^messenger:

For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.


How could she as a journalist make any effort other than visiting scientists and talking with them? Should she have obtained a degree in chemistry? What else could she have done?

There being no active ingredient in the medicine doesn't need to prove they don't work, it proves flat out that they CAN'T work. Water doesn't cure cancer.

Homeopaths claims their remedies contain things which they don't and the regulators don't notice and/or care. What worries me most is they could also contain something not revealed and nobody would notice and/or care either.

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.

The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.

For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.

The sceptics standing outside the hospital provide evidence that homeopathic sleeping pills don't knock you unconscious, but it doesn't say on the bottle that they will knock you unconscious. We're just accustomed to Adavan and Imovane doing that, because that's how they work. The homeopathic stuff may help people sleep in another way. Exercise during the day, for example, helps me sleep well at night, as do light stretching and warm milk and honey before bed. And no amount of those would make me need to go to the hospital. So that whole line of reasoning is unscientific and misleading.

While we're invoking science, and using it to prove or disprove a claim, the only way to conclude that a medicine does or doesn't work is a double-blind placebo test with people who have symptoms that should be treatable by homeopathy, just like any other medicine. Do that, and I'll be satisfied. Don't do it, and they're both just blowing smoke. In fact, as it stands, without any clinical trials, users who claim it works at least have some evidence of success.

There is so much unknown science and medicine, that it's possible that they do work, just in a way that we don't yet have a medical model for. I doubt it, but that's the difference between being sceptical and being cock-sure without evidence, like this journalist.

Those skeptics trying to overdose are doing it wrong! Homeopathic medicines are more powerful the less you take them, they're just making sure they don't accidentally overdose by taking dozens of them at a time...

I don't think it would take long to change a person's mind if they were to use a homeopathic pain killer for dental surgery.

Very entertaining.

Futurama had it right:
"I've got a degree in homeopathic medicine."
"You've got a degree in baloney!"

Have you considered using a playlist of both parts? Or since the second part is out of sync, maybe this one?

Woah, did anyone pick up that she's building a homeopathic bomb? Containing actual H2O? You do realise the destructive power of such a dilute solution? If the bomb hits critical mass it could literally drown her neighbour's dog when it goes off. This woman is a homeopathic terrorist, we need to inform authorities.

Ok, I just have to comment as I watch...

Don't you love it when some completely debunked and bullshit 'science' like this or creationism tries to pretend that real scientists have 'taken an interest in' or are in any way taking seriously their 'science'... please, they don't care about your bullshit.

Holy shit this is brilliant... 'Self Replicating Hydrate Clathrates'... man... that really is worthy of Star Trek. (And I know, well, now anyway, that Clathrates are real, but not in any relation to homeopathy)

And I love how they throw in some real words (electrons, neutrons etc.) so those listening go 'oh, yeah, I've heard about those, so the rest must be real too'... grrr.

Holy shit... she really tried to spout off science and then threw in 'God, in his infinite wisdom'... holy shit these guys are full of it.

And then... WhhhhaaaAAA? The definition of disease is what now? "We have transformed our energy state into something different"... that's a definition of disease is it? riiiight.

Argh, homeopathic 'medicine' is no more radioactive than water... because that's all it is, water and sugar, or water and lactose... it's no more radioactive than that.

So... this video can just get you enraged, because it's full of mumbo jumbo... I do prefer James Randi's presentation on homeopathy, as it eloquently shows what they believe and why it's utter, utter, utter, utter rubbish.

Clearly, as with Iocane Powder, he has taken the homeopathic sleeping pills so often that he has become immune.

"Maybe it's a homeopathic thing"... oh that was gold... I actually lolled at that one (yes, I'm one of the few people who refuse to use lol if they are not ACTUALLY laughing out loud)

Wikipedia on Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann - the inventor of homeopathy:

Hahnemann claimed that the medicine of his time did as much harm as good:

My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me, so terrible and disturbing that I wholly gave up my practice in the first years of my married life and occupied myself solely with chemistry and writing.[3]

After giving up his practice around 1784, Hahnemann made his living chiefly as a writer and translator, while resolving also to investigate the causes of medicine's alleged errors. While translating William Cullen's A Treatise on the Materia Medica, Hahnemann encountered the claim that cinchona, the bark of a Peruvian tree, was effective in treating malaria because of its astringency. Hahnemann believed that other astringent substances are not effective against malaria and began to research cinchona's effect on the human body by self-application. Noting that the drug induced malaria-like symptoms in himself, he concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual. This led him to postulate a healing principle: "that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms."[3] This principle, like cures like, became the basis for an approach to medicine which he gave the name homeopathy.

So, homeopathy is based on an idea from a man who thought that medicinal drugs in the late 1700 was potentially harmful. No shit. The understanding of chemistry and medicine is incomparable to today's sciences, the periodic table, a vital part of the basics of chemistry wasn't invented until nearly 100 years later. Belief that this kind of treatment is as effective, if not more than conventional medicine is beyond me.

I'd like to quote Dara Ó Briain "people say 'well, science doesn't know everything' - well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it would stop."

and

"Well herbal medicine, 'herbal medicine has be around for thousands of years', indeed it has, and the stuff that worked became, medicine"

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dara-O-Briain-on-Homeopaths-and-Nutritionists

homeopathic quacks beware.....they are using you for test dummies