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.

Militant Skepticism and the Homeopathy Denialists

This is an old Persian story - which seems to sum up the position of Homeopathy denialists!

"A man who had always lived in the city visited a farm and saw some chicken roosting and resting on one leg as they do.

"Based on his observation he reported to his older and wiser friend that chickens have only one leg!

"His friend could not change this man's observation no matter how hard he tried and how many photographs of birds and chickens all having two legs!

"He formed a group of prominent people who all confirmed that Chicken have only 1 leg!

This appears to be the way that Homeopathy Denialists function. They regularly attack these blogs. They believe that homeopathy does not work, that there is no evidence that homeopathy works, and that it is nothing more than placebo.

• Every person who was sick but has been treated successfully with homeopathy is an 'anecdote'.
• The many millions of former patients who can testify for the effectiveness of homeopathy are still just 'anecdotes'.
• Evidence produced by scientific research is not acknowledged by them: it is either ignored altogether or is 'not of sufficient quality'.

What is the best way to deal with people whose beliefs and prejudices appear to overcome what everyone can see? 

Ignore them! Allow them to continue to believe that chickens have just one leg, and continue healing illness and disease, and curing patients through Homeopathy.

We have seen before that Homeopathy denialists have little to say.

Click to see previous blogs about what Homeopathy Denialists have to say.

Recently, I have been blogging a lot from the "Why Homeopathy?" website, which seeks to examine and compare the homeopathic and conventional treatment of a variety of illnesses and diseases. In all of them conventional medicine either has nothing to offer (and admits it on the NHS Choices website), or offers drugs which can known to cause the most serious adverse reactions, or DIEs. Homeopathy offers gentle, safe and effective remedies, and in most of the illnesses covered, there is is scientific research to support it.

What is the militant skeptic response to these articles. Have a look at these typical examples, all sent to me via Twitter over recent weeks.

"Why Homeopathy is best treatment for Asthma"

It isn't, you complete charlatan.

SayNoToBullshit

Dangerous bullshit

Dangerous bollocks

Complete and utter twaddle

You dishonest charlatan

That fuckwit is currently advocating sugar pills for painful female problems which sometimes indicate serious conditions.

The public has a right to know... that you are a dangerous delusional fuckwit who smears opponents.

There's no homeopathic treatment for tetanus. Dangerously stupid and irresponsible.

So who do we have to thank for these insightful comments? Nat (@SecuLawyer); Enoch (@FruitOfNoah); Dragonblaze (who states that Homeopathy is 'faith based'); Vix (@lillal23); Anarchic Teapot; Paul Morgan; Secular Bloke, and many others.

You can see from the quality and the rationale of these comments that these are just the kind of people who, once they believe that a chicken has one leg, will continue to believe that chickens have just one leg.

But don't dismiss these people entirely, even though they produce no evidence to support their prejudices, even though their language is deplorable, even though they are clearly full of bile. There are some Homeopathy Denialists amongst theme who should know better. One of these is Edzard Ernst. Wikipedia describes him as follows:

"…. an academic physician and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medicine. He was appointed Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, the first such academic position in the world.

Perhaps we might expect something rather more edifying from him. I will be outlining some of his Twitter statements in a future blog, and unfortunately they are little better in terms of evidence and reason than his colleagues quoted above. Ernst, too, it would seem, is the kind of person who cannot be persuaded that chickens have two legs!

Militant Skepticism and Homeopathy: what do they have to say?

"The fate of militant skepticism, whatever it may be, will drift apart from the serious business of doing science. After all, no scientific discovery was ever made by negative thinking. There has to be an open-minded curiosity and a willingness to break new ground, while the militant skeptics represent the exact opposite: they are dedicated to the suppression of curiosity and protecting rigid boundaries of 'real' science".

The rise and fall of militant skepticism. Deepak Chopra.

I have noticed that a group of 'Homeopathy Denialists', Militant Skeptics all of them, are now contacting me through my Twitter feeds about Homeopathy. It is not edifying reading, mainly abusive, certainly nothing interesting or informative, and usually not justifying a response. (See also my previous blog outling the activities of these people).

Certainly, the only reason for writing this particular blog is to highlight, through their comments, how little they have to say, how little of importance they have to contribute to the health debate! Here are just a few examples of what they say - usually to my tweeting of new information and research on medical issues!

• @stevescrutton is a blivot. Namely: 2cwt of wet manure in a 1cwt bag (Guy Chapman)
• Hilarious that @stevescrutton thinks toxicity of paracetamol is a secret! Ignorant cunt (Guy Chapman)
• DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
• Homeopathy = bonanza of fallacies (Edzard Ernst).
• Homeopathy Quack Medicine (Edzard Ernst).
• You do know @stevescrutton you are an idiot. Not to mention a congenital liar (Edzard Ernst)
• Scrutton should be in jail for manslaughter. Utter hogwash. ..eg, of danger of believing in homeopathy (David Colquhoun).
• What an utterly stupid and irresponsible thing to even suggest, let alone actually do (Paul Morgan)
• A clueless article! No idea whatsoever (Paul Morgan).
• Maybe you and the Health Danger should do a little research before tweeting. May make look marginally less stupid (Paul Morgan).
• Utter hogwash. Another example of the danger of believing in homeopathy (Paul Morgan).
• No, homeopathy is just placebo. Again, stupid and irresponsible treatment suggestion. Dangerous (Paul Morgan).
• Yep. homeopathy is delusion (Spelling Patrol).
• Do you believe in miracles then? It'd take a full miracle to make either do research or look less stupid (Dragon Blaze).
• Disappointed to see that @stevescrutton is still a thing (?????) (Birmingham Skeptics).
• Homeopathy is for fuckwits and rip off scammers (Cycling Mikey).

So not much enlightenment there, then, and certainly a complete paucity of useful information! Just statements of blind prejudice, expressed by people who seem more able to write abusively than take part in a proper discussion about health issues!

Who are these Homeopathy Denialists? 
They are people who take every available opportunity to attack homeopathy, and indeed any other 'alternative' medical therapies, such as Natureopathy, Acupuncture, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, and many more. Like this comment...

Homeopathy is the biggest scam next to the blood suckers that claim there is a god" (Lee Spaner).

Why do they oppose Homeopathy? 

They claim that Homeopathy does not work, that it cannot work, and that there is no evidence that it works. In order to maintain this position they ignore any evidence demonstrating that it does work, and that it has been, and continues to be responsible for curing millions of patients, throughout the world, for over 200 years now. 

Homeopathy has a long history of effective treatment with patients, with every known illness or disease. 

But homeopathy denialists dismiss any 'individual' case of successful treatment or cure as 'anecdotal'. They claim to accept only the evidence provided by ‘Randomised Controlled Testing’ (RCTs) - which they equate with 'science'. However, there are two types of RCT that they refuse to consider: 

1. They ignore all the RCT evidence that demonstrates that Homeopathy does work - and there are now over 300 that proves this very point.
2. And they ignore the fact that each and every one of the disastrous conventional drugs and vaccines, now withdrawn or banned, that are now known to have caused disease and death, have all been 'proven' by RCTs.

Indeed, homeopathy denialists deny even the future possibility of scientific evidence for homeopathy. For instance, 'Dragon Blaze' gave this response to evidence that was explaining the working mechanism of homeopathy: "Not going to happen, as there's no science that could prove homeo, especially not QM". And Bee Rational, who told me that "homeopathy is safe because it has no active, therapeutic ingredient. This is also why it doesn't work.

Are they supporters of conventional, drug based medicine? 

Clearly, homeopathy denialists support the Conventional Medical Establishment. They certainly claim to support what they call 'evidence-based medicine', and they state unequivocally that only conventional, drug-based medicine is based on 'evidence'. And they clearly don't like anyone who speaks against conventional, drug-based medicine.

"Oh dear, @stevescrutton, you're a homeopath and an anti-vaxer" (Rah).

Correct on both counts! Oh dear!! However, it is very noticeable that they rarely (if ever) defend Big Pharma drugs and vaccines when they are criticised for the harm and damage they have done to patients, and many of my blogs do.

When I blog, tweet, or use Facebook to provide evidence of the failure, and the dangerousness of drugs and vaccines, even when I highlight the fraudulent activities of Big Pharma companies over the testing, regulation, promotion of drugs and vaccines, there is total, deafening silence.

There are a few, rather pathetic exceptions to this general rule. Paul Morgan attempted to defend Paracetamol.

"Oh dear! Paracetamol OD has been popular suicide attempt method for years! Unbelievably ignorant if you think this is news".

What Paul forgot was the article was not about overdosing - it was taking this dangerous painkiller in normal doses! Click here to see original blog.

Why Denialism is such a strange activity? 

Most people will support the causes they believe in, and the stronger their belief, the stronger their support - quite rightly. The peculiarity of Denialism is that their enthusiasm shows that they are 'against' something rather than 'for' something.

What do Denialists have to say? 

When their activity is analysed it becomes clear that they have only one, very simple message - Homeopathy does not work. Yet even when you examine the evidence they use to support their beliefs (they claim to be interested in science) - there just isn't any!

• They use humour (which I admit is sometimes quite funny, if a little pointless, and ill-informed). Alan Henness is particularly inspired by laughter!
• Hilarious drivel
• LOL!
• Here is a list of diseases that can be safely and effectively treated by homeopathy……………………………………………... That is all.
• And this from Antonio Johnson: "Homeopathy is the second most used healthcare system? You mean after medicine?
• And this response from Clay Jones. If homeopathy qualifies as system of healthcare then so is prayer or crossing your fingers.
• Well, I guess we all need to get our water and sugar from somewhere (Mark Chatterly).
• How Homeopathy helps our family to lose money on over-priced sugar (Edzard Ernst).

All clever, perhaps even amusing stuff - but totally devoid of any semblance of argument or enlightenment!

• Convinced that homeopathy does not work, they proceed to say that anyone who says that Homeopathy does work is making 'dangerous' and 'misleading' statements, which, of course, would be correct (and if they had any evidence to support the initial premise - which they fail to provide).
• No, it isn't. Homeopathy = a failure to act. DANGER (Carnum Marcus-Page).
• have you read the page on whooping cough? dangerous nonsense (Jonathan Mason).
• Whooping Cough. Homeopathy more effective than conventional medical treatment << DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
• Autism and Homeopathy - should not be mentioned in the same sentence (Edzard Ernst).

This is particularly so if mention is made of the treatment of cancer. The law of the land, of course, says that no-one can advertise the fact that they can treat cancer. However, what the law cannot do is to ignore the fact that increasing numbers of people are moving to alternative treatment, including homeopathy, to treat their cancers - and that many people have been successfully treated. See (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).

• Homeopathy and cancer: stupid, malicious or criminal? Edzard Ernst.
• What?! How dare any homeopath quack go near a breast cancer sufferer or any ill person for that matter (Vix+ Comquat).
• I beat breast cancer. I'd like to say Thank you to medical science & a big Fuck you to (Amy Sloman). I know many people who have survived cancer via homeopathy; they would not dream of making such a nasty and abusive comment about conventional medicine, or conventional medics.
• I know of two active prosecutions for Cancer Act. Now is not a good time to push your luck (Guy Chapman).

Yes, there are always plenty of threats too - especially from Guy!

And Malaria is another disease that gets the homeopathy denialist going! This is the blog that caused the problem for the denialists!

• You're off message. Even @SOHhomeoapthy admits homeopathy can't prevent malaria. Mendacious quack! (Guy Chapman)
• Anti-malaria drug. Liar. It's just not recommended for oral use any more. Do you even read your own nonsense? (Mark McAndrew).
• No dear chap, it's because doctors don't want people to die from the ignorance and lies - unlike you. How's your malaria? (Mark McAndrew).

• In all this, homeopathy denialists always make an implicit assumption - that conventional medical treatments are both safe and effective, and that therefore, to suggest any other form of treatment diverts or prevents patients from seeking it. Of course, what this denies is that increasingly people are turning away from conventional drugs and vaccines, and looking for safer, more effective treatments.

• Whilst all this would suggest that Denialists are making an argument in favour of conventional medical treatment. Yet, as I have already said, they never respond to any criticism that Conventional Medical treatment is at best ineffective, and at worst, highly dangerous to our health.

• And Homeopathy denialists always seem to want to engage in argument at a 'Pantomime' level. So if, for example, I say that "Homeopathy works": they respond with"Oh! No it doesn't!.

And by contacting me directly through Twitter I must assume they want me to continue the argument by saying "Oh! Yes it does!" I always refrain from doing so!

Who funds the activities of the Denialists? 

The truth is that I don't know (and really, I must admit, I don't care) who funds these people. Much of their activity, and the views and opinions they express, run in parallel to the aims and objectives of the organisation "Sense about Science" (SaS), which itself is  largely funded by Big Pharma money, and which supports both the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines industry, and the GMO food industry.

Yet would the Pharmaceutical industry really want to fund the rather absurd and cretinous activity of Homeopathy Denialists? 

If they do it would suggest that Big Pharma is becoming more desperate then they really need to be. In matters relating to health, Big Pharma interests (the Conventional Medical Establishment) already exercises virtually total control over the Government, the Department of Health, and the NHS, as well as the regulatory agencies such as the MHRA, and NICE. 

And as far as the dissemination of information is concerned, Pharmaceutical interests still have a large measure of influence and control over the mainstream media, and what they say about health issues, as well as many other influential organisations, including the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Indeed, the ASA is one of the latest vehicles being used to attack homeopathy ASA is currently seeking to control what Homeopaths can say about what homeopathy can offer to patients. As far as health issues are concerned, the ASA appears to be actively supporting a restraint of trade - certainly as far as the practice of medicine is concerned!

Homeopathy Denialists are making much about the fact that the ASA has recently said that my own personal website breaks their advertising rules. ASA's stance is that they do not believe there is any evidence supporting Homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS, and the Denialists), and that as a result homeopaths cannot make any claim for 'treating' illness, or 'curing' disease - despite the fact that this is the only thing homeopathy does! 

ASA does not accept the evidence of successfully treated, or cured patients (mirroring the views of SaS and Denialists). And ASA does not accept the RCTs that demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS and the Denialists). So these are just some of the comments coming my way!

• Still peddling that mendacious nonsense, Steve? How's the ASA viewing it?" (Guy Chapman)
• You are breathtakingly stupid. Trading Standards are now ASA's legal backstop and they CAN AND WILL prosecute Cancer Act (Guy Chapman).
• Yes. ASA need to initiate prosecutions against @stevescrutton for repeated breaches of  CAP (Paul Morgan).
• I second @SceptiGuy assertion that you are dim indeed. #Homeopathy is #bunk AND the ASA WILL prosecute (CaPPsiE).

So have I broken the rules of ASA? In terms of the way ASA are currently interpreting their rules in relation to Homeopathy, and other alternative medical therapies, I most certainly am, and will continue to do so. Why?

I will do so in the interests of defending Health Freedom, and promoting Informed Patient Choice.

Homeopathy denialists wish to continue the health monopoly currently enjoyed by the conventional medical establishment. I am opposed to it. Too many people are suffering from drugs and vaccines that are largely ineffective, and certainly dangerous - indeed, drugs and vaccines that our conventional doctors know to be dangerous. 

The public has a right to know. And so I will not be silenced by militant skeptics.

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.

131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi

And still the denialists deny it! Please see the comments on my previous post.

It would seem that there are some people who would defend anything that Big Pharma, or those allies of Big Pharma (like Bill Gates) does.

I have been accused of 'making things up' and 'repeating untrue rumour'. Isn't that awful of me? Well, here are some more reports of the same, dreadful incident.

131 Children Vaccinated At Gunpoint in Malawi | Health Freedom Alliance

131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi — The Healthy Home Economist

Media Lens Message Board: Children vaccinated at gunpoint in Malawi

131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi | Face of Malawi

131 Children Vaccinated At Gunpoint in Malawi. “Either way, the children get shot.” | Truth Frequency News

131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi | The Refusers

Gates Foundation partner forces vaccines on Malawian children at gunpoint, arrests parents

131 children vaccinated at gunpoint in Nsanje | Malawi Voice

» 131 children vaccinated at gunpoint in Malawi Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

I doubt that will not be sufficient for some people. But all I am saying is this:

What a dreadful, dreadful medicine that seeks to force people into having vaccination, medication they do not want.

Homeopathy Denialists and Homeophobes

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that there are a number of homeopathy denialists who regularly respond to my blogs.

It has recently come to my attention that these denialists are paid to respond to blogs like this one. The problem is, apparently, that we seek to support safer forms of medicine, and have the 'audacity' to criticise ConMed, and pharmaceutical drugs!

I have often wondered why homeopathy denialists are so quick, and so ready to respond; and always with such negative stuff. But I did not believe that they were paid 'per response' - which explains why they respond so quickly to anything I have to say.

I suppose it is the drug companies who are paying. They certainly can afford to do so. But in future, I will not be accepting comments from denialists or homeophobes on this blog unless they confirm that they have not been paid for sending their response.

The activity of homeopathy denialists

For anyone wanting to make sense of what the homeopathy denialists are saying about homeopathy, the following 'tweet' from a denialist may be informative. It can be found at www.twitter.com/crispian_jago

'Right we've done Spine Wizards & Dilution Druids. While my torch is still
burning, and my pitch fork's still sharp, who's next?'

'Can we do Reiki next? Can we? Go on. Lets have a go at Reiki Masters, Eh. Go on. It'll be fun.'

So Crispian Jago believes that the health debate is fun, something to do to have a laugh.

How very sad! Homeopaths, chiropractors and Reiki Masters take health far more seriously.

The homeopathy denialists, and a 'mass overdose'

There is to be an anti-homeopathy demonstration outside several Boots stores on Saturday (30th January). They are trying to prove that homeopathic remedies don't do anything, regardless of how much you take. This blog is based on a press release I sent to all mainstream news media outlets on behalf of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths today.

"Homeopathic remedies are safe to take. You cannot ‘overdose’ on them. The demonstration by a small group of anti-homeopathy skeptics, perhaps more accurately described as ‘homeopathy denialists’, will have proved this point quite conclusively.

It is a pity the denialists know so little about the system of medicine they seek to denigrate. Whilst understanding they speak for the Pharmaceutical Drugs industry, any homeopath could have told them that homeopathy works only when there is a close similarity between the symptoms of the patient’s illness, and the known therapeutics of a particular homeopathic remedy.

If there is no match there will be no reaction.

The real question that needs to be addressed is not the safety of homeopathy, but why homeopathy is such an effective medical therapy, and why so many people throughout the world, and for over two centuries now, have used it with such success.

There are numerous high quality scientific studies that clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy. The challenge facing the bona- fide scientific community is to discover why homeopathy is so effective.

The absurdity of the denialists

Readers of this blog will notice than whenever a posting is made, there are people responding whose sole intention is to rubbish homeopathy as a safe and effective medical therapy. We call them denialists. What they are doing has been described very effectively at the following website. Please take a look.

http://www.1023homeopathy.org.uk/1/post/2010/01/the-absurdity-of-the-denialists.html

Thomas Jefferson and Medical Tyranny

Given that the homeopathy denialists are determined to attack our safe and effective therapy at every opportunity, and the Conventional Medical Establishment seems intent on forcing their vaccines and drugs on us, these words by Thomas Jefferson are as true, if not truer today than when he spoke them.

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

NICE Chair criticises RCTs

Sir Michael Rawlins has been chairman of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) since its inception in 1999. He has attacked traditional ways of assessing medical evidence, particularly for pharmaceutical drugs.

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/royal-college-physicians-sir-michael-rawlins-attacks-traditional-ways-assessing-evidence-$1245035$365674.htm

In particular, he is critical of Randomised Controlled Test (RCT's), for so long the main totem for homeopathy denialists, and the chief means of testing pharmaceutical drugs. Sir Michael outlines the limitations of RCTs in several key areas:

# Impossible - for treatments for very rare diseases where the number of patients is too limited.

# Unnecessary - when a treatment produces a "dramatic" benefit - imatinib (Glivec) for chronic myeloid leukaemia.

# Stopping trials early - interim analyses of trials are now commonly undertaken to assess whether the treatment is showing benefit and if the trial can be stopped early. Around 30% of recent trials in oncology have been stopped early for apparent benefit. Although the desire to stop trials early is understandable, the possibility that an interim analysis is a "random high" may be difficult to avoid - especially as there is no consensus among statisticians as to how best to handle this problem.

# Resources - the costs of RCTs are substantial in money, time and energy - a recent study of 153 trials completed in 2005 and 2006 showed a median cost of over £3 million and with one trial costing £95 million. One manufacturer has estimated that the average cost per patient increased from £6,300 in 2005 to £9,900 in 2007

# Generalisability - RCTs are often carried out on specific types of patients for a relatively short period of time, whereas in clinical practice the treatment will be used on a much greater variety of patients - often suffering from other medical conditions - and for much longer. There is a presumption that, in general, the benefits shown in an RCT can be extrapolated to a wide population; but there is abundant evidence to show that the harmfulness of an intervention is often missed in RCTs.

Far better, perhaps, to rely on a medical therapy like homeoopathy, with its long history of effective treatment, and safety.

Alliance Boots now under attack by the Denialists

The homeopathy denialists, through their new 10:23 campaign are attacking homeopathy again, now by attacking Boots - for selling homeopathic remedies! I have sent the following email to Stefano Pessina, CEO of Boots (The email address is stefano.pessina@allianceboots.com). I urge all homeopathy supporters to write a similar letter demonstrating why their is a demand for homeopathic remedies to remain on sale.

"A democratic society is based upon the premise of freedom of expression and equality. The UK is a democratic society and seeks to allow it's citizens the freedom and choice, one of the most of which concerns our healthcare.

Homeopathy is an extremely popular and effective choice of treatment that approximately 10 million people in the UK have used. It is a treatment that has
been proven to work for over 200 years in the treatment of disease, and there are much scientific research that now confirms that it is more effective than placebo.

Unfortunately in the UK there is a movement to suppress people's freedom of choice to healthcare. They call themselves "sceptics", and they want to see the end of homeopathic medicine in the UK. Although homeopathy has been observed many times to have a strong therapeutic effect, the way it works is not completely understood by science.

Alliance Boots provide a great service to their customers in that by stocking homeopathic remedies they enable them to exercise the freedom of choose that so many people want. Boots customers have the choice to purchase conventional pharmaceutical medicines, or homeopathic medicines. There are very few multi-national companies that allow their patients such wide choice, and Alliance Boots need to be commended for doing that.

I am sure you are aware of a recent online letter produced by a group known as the 10:23 campaign. They are asking for Alliance Boots to stop selling homeopathic remedies. I urge Alliance Boots to continue to provide their customers with homeopathic remedies, customers who know that they work, and for this reason, there is huge demand in the UK for them. In an open, democratic society we should all allow people access the the medicine of their choice.

#ten23

Why is Homeopathy under attack?

There is a new attack on homeopathy on the way. This is nothing new, perhaps, but it does raise the question 'Why?'.

The answer is relatively simple. So-called 'Quackbusters', and organisations like 'Sense about Science' speak for so-called 'scientific' medicine, based on Pharmaceutical drugs. They support hugely powerful vested interests, and they do so in the name of 'science'.

However, how scientific are they? Let us use an analogy to describe what they do. It is well known in the game of cricket that bowlers can get the cricket ball to 'swing' after it is bowled. Every cricketer knows this.

Good swing bowlers have learnt how to swing the ball, both ways, and use the technique to get batsmen out. A bad swing bowler would be someone who observed the swing, but stated that there was no scientific evidence to suggest why this should happen, and refuses to believe it could happen.

Good batsmen know that swing bowlers can swing the ball, and take this into account when playing the ball. A bad batsman would know that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the ball will swing, and does not allow for it.

In a similar way, a good scientist is someone who observes the world, notices that for over 200 years people have got better after homeopathic treatment, and seeks to explain why this should be. A bad scientist, the denialists, like those in Sense and Science, just dismisses the evidence before their eyes.

Science, say the denialists, has no explanation that suggests homeopathy can work; therefore it cannot work, and does not work. Homeopathy is no more than placebo (even when animals are treated). Anyone who says that homeopathy has has worked for them are dismissed as deluded, or mad, or both.

Even when these denialists are presented with scientific evidence (and there is plenty of it), they dismiss it as 'inadequate' in some way. They ignore it. And they continue to repeat, ad nauseum - homeopathy does not work, because it cannot work.

Just ask the question. What if Newton, or Galileo, or Einstein had said this? We would have much less understanding of our world today. Good, perhaps, for the Pharmaceutical companies; bad for patients.