What homeopathy denialists / skeptics deny

Homeopathy denialists are a small, but vocal group of skeptics whose single task in life appears to be to deny that homeopathy is an effective and safe medical therapy. 

Of course, everyone can and should have an opinion, but homeopathy denialists usually express their opinions in a derogatory and abusive way. Bad language and abuse is usually the preserve of people whose message is tenuous and unsupported, who are limited in the arguments, and short of evidence to support their opinions.

• "Homeopathy does not work!"
• "Homeopathy is placebo!"

These are not so much opinions but statements. Rarely do denialists produce evidence to support their statements. Instead, they turn the burden of 'proof' on to homeopathy, and claim that 'there is not evidence' that homeopathy works, which then leads them into more denial when they have to deny the large and increasing amount of evidence that clearly shows that it works.

So what do homeopathy denialists have to deny?

First and foremost denialists have to deny the experience of hundreds, thousands, and millions of people who have been successfully treated with homeopathy. Homeopathy is now practiced throughout the world. And Homeopathy has been practiced for more than 220 years. What this means is that there are a lot of sick people who have been cured by homeopathy! All the denialists can do is to suggest that we are 'mistaken', or 'lying', or that it is just 'placebo'.

Denialists say they are 'scientists'. Yet the first duty of any scientist, worth the name, to observe the world, and to see what is happening there. If there are things happening that we cannot explain, the responsibility of 'real' science is to seek to explain it. Throughout the ages, this is how human society has developed! Real scientists do not observe that millions of patients have been, and are being cured by homeopathy - and then just deny it!

This gives rise to the second area of denial. There are 'real' scientists who are looking into the homeopathic phenomenon, and several interesting areas of study are emerging that suggest that homeopathy's working mechanism can be explained. But the response of homeopathy denialists is just to deny that these scientists are doing this, or alternatively they denigrate their work, or even undermine the science they are undertaking.

Homeopathy denialists favour another kind of science. They believe that the 'gold standard' of science are randomised, double-blind, controlled tests, or RCTs. This is the kind of science that has told us that conventional medical drugs and vaccines (including many hundreds that have been withdrawn or banned) are effective, and sufficiently safe to give to patients. The problem is that there are now about 200 RCT trials that indicate that homeopathy is more than placebo, that it is more effective than conventional drugs, and that it can and does cure illness and disease.

So this is the third area of denial that homeopathy denialists have to get involved in. The evidence supporting homeopathy provided by these 'gold standard' RCT trials, they say, is poor quality evidence. The numbers of people involved in these studies are too small. The control factors used are inadequate. The data produced does not support the conclusion.

Implicit in this denial is that the RCT evidence supporting conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines ARE valid. Homeopathy denialists tell us that they support of 'evidence-based' medicine, by which they mean conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Now, these denialists rarely, if ever, openly defend conventional medicine. Whilst they routinely denigrate homeopathy, by contrast, they seem blissfully unconcerned about the damage, disease and death caused by the medicine they believe to be RCT supported!

This, then, is the fourth area of denial that homeopathy denialists are forced to adopt - they have to deny that most conventional medicine is unsafe, and that most is ineffective in the long term. For denialists conventional drug and vaccines are evidence based, and therefore 'good'. Homeopathy, having summarily dismissed and denied the 200 RCT trials supporting it, is 'bad'.

This process leads homeopathy denialists to another conclusion, illogical and unsupported as it is. Anyone opting for homeopathy is putting their lives at risk, because they are refusing to accept the questionable 'benefits' of conventional medicine! Consequently, in their minds, homeopathy becomes a 'dangerous' medical therapy!

The denialists cannot present us with evidence about any patient who has been harmed directly by homeopathic treatment, but this does not prevent them claiming that homeopathy is dangerous! Such a position fits in with their world view, and their deeply unscientific prejudice. Indeed, it marks them out as being some of the most 'unscientific' people who express any views on issues relating to health!

Homeopathy denialists are a small band of people, dedicated to (and perhaps even paid by) the pharmaceutical drugs industry, who largely talk amongst themselves on social media, especially Twitter. I have blogged before on their foul-mouthed and abusive attacks on homoeopathy and homeopaths. This raises an important question. What should be done about them?

My advice? Ignore them! Let them carry on their rants! They have little to offer anyone looking to maintain or regain their health except bile. Homeopathy has a very positive message about an extremely effective, and entirely safe medical therapy that so many people need to know about. With conventional medicine failing so badly (antibiotics, painkillers, statins, et al), homeopathy offers hope for the future, and homeopaths should not expend any energy or time with such people.

For more information about the homeopathy denialists, look at these blogs (some of which contain some extremely foul and abusive language they have used).

• Militant skepticism and homeopathy. What do they have to say?
• Quack! Just another personal attack from a homeopathy denialist.
• Homeopathy and brain haemorrhage? Why such an abusive skeptic response?
• Skeptics insist homeopathy does not work. So what do they have to say?
• Paul Morgan. An angry homeopathy denialist.
• Homeopathy winning the battle against the denialists
• When everyone should give up on homeopathy

When considering the activities of homeopathy denialists, the wise and concise words of William Alderson should be considered.

          “The vitriol of opponents of homeopathy does not reflect an interest in science, but the scale of the threat homeopathy poses to an unscientific, dangerous, but highly profitable exploitation of illness”. William Alderson 3rd March 2016.

Homeopathy and Brain Haemorrhage. Why such an abusive skeptical response?

Recently, I read an article about the treatment of brain haemorrhage with homeopathy. It was an amazing article written in the Hpathy website by Manfred Mueller, a homeopath, who presented several cases of brain haemorrhage, or stroke. On the basis that stroke victims, and their carers, might like to know how effective homeopathic treatment can be with this condition, I decided to tweet it, without comment, on 24th December 2015.

The article described several cases that Manfred Mueller had treated.

• A woman called Eleanor, aged 70, who had suffered a stroke. She was described as “semi-conscious” and unable to speak. She could only respond by making sounds and shaking or nodding her head. She had developed pneumonia with a fever, and was on three types of conventional drugs. It describes the course of homeopathic treatment she was given, and describes her almost complete recovery.
• A young girl Rachel, aged 10, who had fallen and had brain surgery for a subarachnoid haemorrhage, after which she went into a coma. It describes the homeopathic treatment he gave her, and the obstruction he received from the conventional medical staff he encountered. Treatment ended before an outcome could be followed through because Rachel’s mother was imprisoned for child abuse.
• Bill, aged 65, had fallen from a ladder hitting his head, suffering also a fractured rib, a punctured lung, and other injuries. A scan found that he had suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage. After receiving homeopathic remedies for some time, he decided against the operation conventional doctors were recommending. He had another scan, and much to the doctors surprise the haematoma had gone!
• Claire was a 42 year old mother of two who was treating herself for a head injury. Her self treatment, and the treatment given to her by Manfred Mueller, was described, and she made a full recovery.

The response to this article from skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, was quite amazing, and I quote them here. Anyone with a delicate disposition should skip the next two paragraphs, which are direct quotes from the denialists - people who do not want you to know that homeopathy is a safe and effective medical therapy.

For instance, Liz, Queen of Bogans (??) responded on the same day.

“… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe”.

Sebastian Armstrong seems to agree with this, although apparently not knowing about the content, or even the subject of the article I had tweeted!

“… (My) targeting child cancer patients with homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.”

Yodaj3di sought to defend the article, and my tweet, suggesting that such abuse cannot be justified. Paul Derbyshire, Sebastian Armstrong came back defending their abuse.

“… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not #homeopathy lies.”
“… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you.”
“… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt.”
“… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud.”

Note. For anyone interested, I have left a longer version of this rather pointless, and endless ‘debate’ at the end of this blog.

This kind of response is typical of skeptics, or homeopathy denialists. Yodaj3di tried to engage them in a conversation, to get them to accept that such abuse was inappropriate, that anyone who wanted to know about homeopathy should be allowed to hear about it. Sandra Courtney expressed her disgust, and reported the abuse to Twitter. Neither is likely to be effective in discouraging skeptics from abusing homeopathy! I have reported on skeptic abuse on several occasions on this blog.

‘Quack’! Just another personal attack from a homeopathy denialist.
Skeptics insist Homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say?

There are several points to be considered about skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, in order to understand what they say, and why they are saying it.

Bad language and abuse usually comes from people who have no arguments. Certainly it usually comes from people who are unable to argue their case with reason and logic - in other words, scientifically!

Skeptics are in chronic denial. In particular they are unwilling to accept that there are people with serious (and indeed non serious) illnesses who have been cured by homeopathy, and that this has been happening every day, throughout the world, for the last 220 years.

Ignoring or denying this evidence is deeply ‘unscientific’. Science involves (or should involve) observing what is happening in the world, not denying it. Science should then seek an explanation for what has been observed. Skeptics, to the contrary, say that there is no explanation for homeopathy, therefore it cannot happen, it is just trickery or fraud!

Actually, in recent years great strides have been made in identifying the working mechanism(s) of homeopathy, diluted substances can be scientifically identified, and about 200 trials have proven that homeopathy does work. Again, skeptics merely deny this, and continue to say ‘there is no evidence’ quite regardless of the evidence!

Instead, skeptics (who claim to love science) place their faith in the ‘science’ of RCT’s, or ‘randomised controlled tests’, that they describe as the ‘gold standard’ of proof. Yet skeptics not only ignore (or deny) the RCT evidence supporting the fact that homeopathy works, they also ignore the fact that people are being harmed, damaged and killed by conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been ‘scientifically’ tested and approved as safe, presumably to their satisfaction.

Skeptic denial serves only one purpose. The skeptic community is a small, but particularly nasty part of a massive conspiracy that seeks to prevent a real debate on health and medical treatment in our society, dominated as it is by huge economic, financial and commercial interests, not least of which is the pharmaceutical industry. The conventional medical establishment is now so rich, so powerful, so pervasive and dominant in our social life, that it has gained complete control of governments, politicians, national health services, and the mainstream press and media organisations.

Most people believe that drugs and vaccines are the best route to health because this is all they have been told for many decades.

What this means is that the internet is the only vehicle available to alternative medical therapies, such as homeopathy, to inform people that this is not so, that there are alternatives, and that these alternatives are both safer and more effective.

However, there is another reason why a real health debate is important, and urgently needed. Conventional medicine is failing.

• Conventional hospital are full to overflowing. Doctors surgeries cannot cope with the health demands of patients. 
• Many forms of chronic disease, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, et al, are all now at unprecedented levels. 
• One of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason for this sickness epidemic, is that conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not only ineffective, they are also a primary cause of these diseases.

So when homeopaths deal with illnesses, such as brain haemorrhage, and do it successfully, the skeptics go into denial, they get annoyed because their medicine has nothing to offer, they get abusive when homeopathy does have something amazing to offer patients. And as they have no rational or ‘scientific’ argument to fall back on, they resort to abuse and obfuscation. It is all they have!

It is a tough, unrewarding, and ultimately a hopeless cause they pursue!

A Record of Skeptic Abuse
24th to 26th December 2015

My Tweet.
Homeopathic treatment of brain haemorrhage.
http://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/homeopathic-treatment-brain-hemorrhage-several-cases/

Liz, Queen of bogans
… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe

Sandra Courtney
This potty mouth tweet is disgusting. Homeopathy supporters should report. I plan to.

Sebastian Armstrong
… targeting child cancer patients with #homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.

Yodaj3di
That reason can't justify verbal abuse. You know that.

Sebastian Armstrong
… come off it the vile exploitation via lies is accurately described

Yodaj3di
There's no exploitation when there's a choice. & verbal violence isn't a solution.

Sebastian Armstrong
… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not homeopathy lies

Yodaj3di
… er, what lies? I only see a link to clinical cases.

Paul, Derbyshire
… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you

Yodaj3di
Don't be embarrassed for me. why for? That's just projection.

Paul, Derbyshire
… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt

Yodaj3di
… that’s a crazy conclusion from the statement ... how did logic take you there?

Paul, Derbyshire
… explain dilution science...

Yodaj3di
Since it's what you do, I expect you know the science of it. It isn't what I do.

Paul, Derbyshire
… so you put your head in the sand huh

Yodaj3di
It doesn't bother me not knowing everything. I'm grateful to know at least something.

Paul, Derbyshire
… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud

Yodaj3di
It isn't, that's my point. It is a healing system, different from allopathy. That's all.

Yodaj3di
The real difference to me is: we know the limits of allopathy & don't of #homeopathy. They both work.

Yodaj3di
And you are full of fears and anxieties.

Simon
Another piece of guesswork you've got wrong? This is becoming such a habit eh?

Simon
I don't guess much. Arguing is my addictive habit. And yours, apparently. Good holiday?

Paul, Derbyshire
... but your facts and thus your argument are totally false. Therefore you lose a lot

Yodaj3di
Go and be amazed by homeopathy, dude. Live a little!

And it does go on, but it is all trivial stuff, as arguing trying to discuss health skeptics is a pointless and unenlightening task! Which is why I never take part in it!

Jesus heals a man born blind, and the modern Pharisees

With thanks, and appreciation, to John 9

And with thinks to the Gospels for its insight into Skepticism

But with apologies to Christianity for any offence, which was not intended

• As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
• His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
• “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
• As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 
• While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

• After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 
• “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
• His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” 
• Some claimed that he was.
• Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”
• But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”

• “How then were your eyes opened?” they asked.
• He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”
• “Where is this man?” they asked him.
• “I don’t know,” he said.

The Skeptics Investigate Homeopathic Healing

• They brought to the Homeopathy Skeptics the man who had been blind. 
• Now the day on which Samuel Hahnemann had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes without using conventional medicine. 
• Therefore the Skeptics also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes, diluted with water,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.”
• Some of the Skeptics said, “This man is not from conventional scientific medicine, for he does not use pharmaceutical drugs”
• But others asked, “How can a non-believer in RST's perform such signs?” So they were divided.

• Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.”
• The man replied, “He is a homeopath.”
• They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. 
• “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”
• We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 
• But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 
• His parents said this because they were afraid of the Skeptics, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Samuel Hahnemann could do this would be put out of the conventional medical establishment.
• That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

• A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to BigPharma by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”
• He replied, “Whether he is a conventional doctor or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
• Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”
• He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?”

• Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Big Pharma! 
• We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”
• The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 
• We know that Big Pharma does not listen to alternative medical practitioners. Big Pharma  listens to the people of medical science who does his will. 
• Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 
• If this man could not heal, he could do nothing.”
• To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

Medical Blindness

• Samuel Hahnemann heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in Homeopathy?”
• “What is Homeopathy, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe.”
• Samuel Hahnemann said, “You have now seen it work; in fact, it is a homeopath who is speaking with you.”
• Then the man said, “Homeopathy, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
• Samuel Hahnemann said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
• Some Skeptics who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
• Samuel Hahneman said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of an unscientific approach to medicine; but now that you claim to be scientists, your guilt remains.

Skeptics insist Homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say?

Warning. 

Please don't read this blog if you want to avoid reading bad language and extreme abuse!

Many people, indeed a growing number of people, do not want to take pharmaceutical drugs. Although they are not being informed by those who should be informing them - the government, the NHS, GP's, the mainstream Media - there is a growing realisation that Conventional, Drug-based Medicine, does not work, and that worse still it is dangerous. Many have already moved to CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine), and Homeopathy in particular. Many, many more are just 'uneasy' about the treatment they are being offered.

The Big Pharma industry is under pressure, and it is worried. It has every right to be. They are still sufficiently powerful to ensure that Regulators don't, or can't regulate their drugs effectively, and thereby protect patients - which should be their primary objective. They still hold a virtual monopoly within the NHS. And most serious of all, the mainstream media is unwilling to question an industry that are their major advertisers. But BigPharma's older drugs are either out of patent, under severe restriction, withdrawn or banned. Their newer drugs are doing no better, and probably much worse. Confidence in them is waining, and they are desperately trying to maintain their profits.

Big Pharma is also well organised. Over recent years have sought to attack CAM, and Homeopathy has borne the brunt of this assault. One part of their campaign are a number of 'denialists' who like to call themselves 'Skeptics'. These people can be found responding to this, and other blogs, and they are active on Social Media platforms, such as Twitter.

Just Pure Denial.
So what do these 'homeopathy denialists' have to say? I don't usually engage with them (see some of the language below to understand why) but I have spent some time looking at some of their recent responses to my Tweets (follow me at @stevescrutton). Usually it is just pure denial; 'homeopathy just cannot work'; yet in support of this statement Denialist's offer no evidence. It is just pure denial.

Scott Hansen "How homeopathy is a complete scam perpetrated by quacks on the vulnerable and gullible alike. A clear statement, Scott. Any evidence that homeopathy does not work? Perhaps you explain this to the millions of people throughout the world who, for over 200 years, have been successfully treated by Homeopathy?

Ahh! But of course. Is this the explanation, from Peter Vintner? "Homeopathy survives in India because of corruption and ignorance. And parasites taking advantage of the poor". So anyone who says that 'Homeopathy Heals' is just wrong, Peter knows best! Denialists actually believe anyone who says that Homeopathy has helped them is either 'corrupt and ignorant'. And actually, Peter, homeopathy in India is not 'surviving' - it is flourishing!

Yet Peter Vintner has more useful insights too. "Homeopaths come in basically 2 types. Deluded or dishonest. Both are vain and self-important". So the patients are wrong, and so are the Homeopaths! Only the evidence (not to mention the credibility) is missing.

4tis.  "Homeopathy is incapable of generating resistance because it doesn't affect malaria. Simple really". So having made a statement we are just to believe what 4tis says! Simple really.

Edzard Ernst. "Healthier way to treat depression. Another bogus claim". Any evidence for that Edzard?

Homeopathy just can't work!

Denialists will always repeat, ad nausea, the argument cannot work because there is no 'active' substance in homeopathic remedies.

This comment is typical when Denialists talk about Homeopathy "...and completely useless. It is just water after all".


David James makes this comment. "Homeopathy is water with water in it".

Guy Chapman, again. "Homeopathy is irrelevant to the treatment of infertility. The 'remedies' are completely inert". Again, just a statement, even though Homeopaths have been using these 'inert' remedies for over 200 years with considerable success.

"A celebrity who used homeopathy for her arthritis - effect due to consultation, not remedy". This is another reason used by Denialist's seeking to maintain their position that Homeopathy cannot work - it is not the remedy that works - it is the consultation! I wish Homeopathy was that easy! And I wonder why, if this is so, why GP's don't learn from the techniques.

Swiss Government Report.
Take this more specific example, Some of my tweets have highlighted the recent Swiss Government- backed research on Homeopathy, probably the most intensive and comprehensive look into Homeopathy that has ever been attempted.

Pete Crowe. "...that should have read 'Swiss homeopaths have looked at homeopathy - and found it good"

4tis. "Amazing you still misrepresent the Swiss HTA. It's simple the CAM case for the defence. Of course it'd be pro homeopathy" 

These 2 Denialists, amazingly, are asking us to believe that the Swiss Government established a Committee to look into Homeopathy - and loaded it with Homeopaths!

And in another, 4tis (denialists often don't use their real name) Tweet, he just added "Not" in front of the wording of the article I referred to. Obviously, a very powerful argument!

Alan Henness. "LOL! No, the Swiss Gov didn't decide homeopathy to be good". Back to pure denial, without, of course, evidence to support his assertion.

Peter Vintner then chips in with a statement, that I "know Swiss govt doesn't support homeopathy. Facts don't suit the business model of peddling medical fraud". However, the Swiss government now includes Homeopathy in its National Health Insurance scheme.

Patient Choice

Denialists don't like any mention of Patient Choice, or Medical Freedom. It means that people might be able to choose for themselves the medical therapy they wish to use for illness, and they seem to want us all to go on taking Pharmacuetical drugs - although they never admit this. When tweeting about 'Patient Choice' and "Medical Freedom', these comments have been made.

Guy Chapman. "The 'freedom you assert is the freedom to lie to people for profit. You have no right to this, quack". Such insults are often used by denialists - and it gets much worse than this, as does the language used!

It is always easy to tell when one side of an argument is losing - they revert to personal insults!

Peter Vintner. "Homeopathy has no place in primary care because it's not medicine. It has no intrinsic value either". So listen closely to Peter; and search in vain for any justification for what he states so dogmatically.

Whooping Cough Epidemics

When presented with evidence that Homeopathy has helped anyone, for any illness or disease, the insults always get worse - and the supporting arguments dwindle even more. Following several Tweets that have arisen from the recent Whooping Cough epidemics in the USA, it has become clear that the Pertussin vaccine is just not working. Worse still, for denialists, is the growing evidence that vaccinated children fare worse than the unvaccinated, and that the vaccinated who get the disease get it far worse. So what do the skeptics say?

4tis. "Stupid and dangerous" and "Dangerous nonsense" - without him providing any indication why the results of research were any of these things. He tried a bit harder with "I wish I could say that I can't believe @stevescrutton said that, but it is too typical of his posts" but his incredulity about the facts presented to him (in the articles) is not particularly enlightening for anyone else!

Guy Chapman. "Utter bullshit. You are a merdering fucktard quack". Yes, both the spelling and the abuse does get worse! Much worse.

And so now, finally, on to just pure, foul-mouthed Abuse!

I will just repeat these comments here, without comment, as no comment is really necessary. These comments tell you all you really need to know about Homeopathy Denialists, and Skeptics. 

Pete Crowe.  "What a fucking asshole. Its like he wants children to die".

Guy Chapman. "It's pretty clear that @stevescrutton is a profiteering quack with no scruples whatsoever".

     "Your mind is entirely closed to the mass of evidence that the scams you shill are dangerous quack".

     "Malaria vaccines just make disease worse. Murdering, morally bankrupt fucktard quack

     "Obviously @stevescrutton hasn't heard homeopathy not promoted for acute any more to avoid appearing like murdering quacks". Well, just one comment then. Homeopaths have always, and will always work with acute illnesses, as it works very well with them. This is just pure misinformation.

     "Protect your child from dangers of shameless fuckwit quacks; don't go near @stevescrutton @health ranger and their ilk. Lying fuckers".

And finally, responding to the mounting evidence, case after case, that most mass shooting in the USA and elsewhere are perpetrated by people on anti-depressant drugs, came this remark

     "Were Big Pharma drugs involved in Aurora killings? No. Now fuck off you ghoul".

Unfortunately, it is not quite so easy to get rid of Homeopathy. Homeopathy is a safe, effective and inexpensive medical therapy that has survived this kind of abuse for over 210 years. Drug-based medicine is in terminal decline. Homeopathy is the medicine of the future.

And this blog is dedicated to providing information about health, and the treatment of ill-health, so that people can make up their own minds.

Why do skeptics hate homeopathy? Homeopathy and the treatment of autism.

"Perhaps because it is one of the most threatening alternative modalities – financially, philosophically, and therapeutically. Actually, homeopathy has been a threat to allopathy ever since the 1800s, when German physician Samuel Hahnemann developed the homeopathic system".

So says Amy L. Lansky, PhD (see http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/22/Why-Skeptics-Love-to-Hate-Homeopathy.aspx).

Amy used ConMed treatment for herself and her family until her 3 year old son showed signs of autism, and that started her search for a safer form of medicine. She found homeopathy, and as she says, "after two years of treatment, he was testing normally and was released from eligibility for special education benefits".

The skeptics will dismiss this experience as anacdotal; but then they would, wouldn't they! The safety and effectiveness of homeopathy is a threat to ConMed, and skeptics want to stop people getting access to any treatment that is safer and more effective than their favoured treatment.

For more information, look at Amy's website, http://www.impossiblecure.com/.

Dana Ullman, Homeopathy, and Skeptic Interference

Dana Ullman is writing an amazinging good blog on the Huffington Post. To see his latest go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-homeopathic-medicines_b_389146.html?show_comment_id=36324951#comment_36324951.

You will see that his blog comes under the same kind of 'skeptic' interference as this one, from the self-style quackbuster, Black Duck. My advice to everyone, including those who have written in to support homeopathy, is to stay calm. This is what I have written to Dana's blog - and I reproduce it here because I believe it is good advice.

"Stay calm, Dana! The skeptics have been placed here to annoy us personally, and undermine homeopathy particularly. I am having the same problem on my blog http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/. The purpose of my blog, and yours, is to try to inform people about the benefits of homeopathy, particularly at a time that conventional medical drugs are proving to be so dangerous, and based on such bad science. Indeed, it is strange that skeptics don't have anything to say about the almost daily revelations about the cheque-book, junk science that serves as the 'evidence base' for conventional medicine.

So for readers - don't be put off - skeptics are widely believed to be funded by the drug companies, who don't like homeopathy because it is not good for their business!

And Dana - stay calm. I thoroughly enjoy your blog, and I hope that you are bringing more people to question conventional medicine, and to realise that that there are safe and more effectives forms of medical therapy out here".