I don’t assert that there is anything dogmatic about the "western" use of acetaminophen, you misunderstand, I claim that its efficacy is valid without the knowledge of its mechanisms and the same is true of homeopathy. An "unknown" is exactly that in both cases. We know that acetaminophen works based both on "how people feel" (from RCTs) and other things we can observe and measure like fever reduction and effects on prostaglandins. The unknown is the exact mechanisms behind fever reduction and pain relief. The exact same thing can be said for certain homeopathic remedies. We know homeopathic dilutions of arnica work based both on "how people feel" (measured by RCTs) and observable physical changes like increased activity of white blood cells, vascular changes and a marked decrease in bruising and swelling, etc. Also certain homeopathic remedies are extremely popular with veterinarians who have much less of an idea of how their patients "feel" and instead rely on observable differences.

Classical homeopaths basically have not changed in the 200 years since its conception where as modern homeopathy has attempted to integrate with "western" medicine to a larger degree. Modern homeopathy, like the work of Alfred Pischinger that you ask about, attempts to scientifically validate homeopathy by shedding some light on the actual mechanisms behind "like cures like". It is still called homeopathy because the medicine is made by diluting all natural botanical, mineral, and animal parts but its efficacy is validated largely in the same way many modern medicines are, by what is considered the "gold standard" or RCTs. In addition there are a number of brilliant Dr’s out there who currently integrated many different "schools" of medicine to form a more comprehensive approach to wellness. A perfect example is Dr. Center incidentally from you neck of the woods, you can check out his website here:here

And yes because homeopathy is not as strictly regulated as other forms of medicine there are also a lot of quacks out there peddling all kinds of crap in addition to people ascribing groundless remedies like the malaria example in the article that spawned this thread. This is not an argument for regulation but rather the recognition that it is the consumer’s responsibility to be savvy to the market.

Mr. Mullens, you make the following comment I find confusing upthread:

"There are basically two different schools of homeopathy, classical and modern. The classical approach is based on “like cures like” and the modern approach is based more on the works of Professor Alfred Pischinger and his system of Ground Regulation or Biological Matrix as explained below."

Then you go on to post an impressive-sounding paragraph which goes into detail about a specific treatment and how it works mechanically and so on.

My question is, what does something like the treatment discussed--which I gather you would call "modern" homeopathy--have in common with what you call "classical" homeopathy?

The treatment described in detail sounds just like ordinary "Western" medicine to me. Why is it called "homeopathy" at all?

Are we now to the point where advocates of the "snake water" are trying to blend together proper medicine with voodoo medicine under this "homeopathy" term in order to try to legitimize the second kind and generally confuse people as to which is which?

Sorry to hit you with two questions at once.

You keep claiming that nobody has any idea why acetaminophen works, in order to assert that there's some "dogmatic" faith in Western medicine at work here and to put Tylenol in the same category as your voodoo homeopathy nonsense. (I'm reminded of the "faith in reason" silliness from religionists.)

But the "unknowns" about the specific mechanism by which acetaminophen works are not the same kinds of "unknowns" surrounding homeopathy, are they?

Acetaminophen reduces pain by preventing production of chemicals called prostaglandins. Prostaglandins make pain receptors more sensitive to stimulation. Yes, it's unclear what is the exact mechanism by which acetaminophen does this, but the effect is certainly scientifically observed and verifiable.

My understanding is that homeopathic treatments claim to "work" based on reports by the patient about how the patient "feels", not anything as specific as observing the decrease in production of certain chemicals in the body.

So, why try to make that comparison?

I never said or implied that I support forcing anyone to do anything. I find it interesting that you and some others here rather dogmatically follow western medicine and dogmatically denounce anything not "western" with little reason or justification but based on feeling and emotion.

Homeopathy clearly has its place in modern medicine and whether or not you choose to recognize it as a value is a personal choice. Personally I choose not to ignore certain bits of knowledge and information because it all adds to my ability to make choices regarding my health and that of my loved ones.

...go ahead and swallow the water pill or wave the magic wand or whatever it is you do next time you have a medical problem. No one is stopping you. Prove to us how much wiser you are than us, while I'll continue with clinically proven and conventional western medication (when I need it). There is no better teacher than reality.

Just don't expect me to pay for your voodoo nonsense, nor will I expect you or anyone else to unwillingly pay for my orthodoxy.

Marnee,

Do you mean to tell me that you believe that every conventional drug performs exactly as advertised and works all of the time?

Consider my main point that there are several conventional medicines with as much or less known about their operating mechanisms than homeopathy, take acetaminophen for example (not Aspirin as I posted earlier). By what standard should you judge the efficacy of medicine? Most people have not even thought about this but they accept whatever conventional medicine claims with little or no doubt and they don’t accept the value of homeopathy because they buy into the media hype and general bias. These decisions aren’t being made by a careful examination of the facts but by empty rationalizations or as Ayn Rand would say, “faith in the superiority of others”.

Besides, it is a mistake to judge any medicine by a strict scientific standard requiring proof or knowledge of all mechanisms. Instead, “one can better practice medicine by using other evidentiary standards in addition to the “scientific”. To employ only the scientific standard of proof is inappropriate, if not impossible…” On Evidence, Medical and Legal

Most people have no idea that, “most medical evidence does not meet the scientific standard of proof…”.-Clifford G. Miller MD Link

Indeed, if we hold homeopathy to the same “gold standard” as other medicine its value is probative. To clarify, “Only well-designed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) produce medical evidence that can meet the scientific standard of proof. Systematic reviews (“meta-analyses”) of multiple RCTs are even better. Meta-analyses are the “gold standard” of scientific medical evidence…” Sackett DL, Rosenburg WMC, Muir Gray JA, et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71-72.

Homeopathy performs remarkably well under (RCTs) when employed correctly and meta-analyses also demonstrates favorable results, see the studies referenced Here.

Also Marnee you claim that, “If a medical treatment is seen to have no effect it isnt used” which is a great argument FOR homeopathy. If it didn’t work why is it still used and growing in popularity? Why do homeopathic dilutions of Arnica continue to gain in popularity with plastic surgeons across the US? Why would the International Journal of Aesthetic and Restorative Surgery claim that “Arnica Montana promotes healing, minimizes bleeding, and diminishes swelling. Arnica has no reported side effects and is compatible with commonly used surgical medications, is well tolerated by patients with good compliance, and is claimed to be an effective anti-ecchymotic. In addition, it is a natural product and free of side effects...Conclusion...Natural and homeopathic regimens are starting to be recognized as beneficial in enhancing patient healing and comfort.” Perioperative Considerations in Laser Resurfacing The Atherton Plastic Surgery Center, Stanford University International Journal of Aesthetic and Rstorative Surgery Vol 5, Number 1, 1997 21-28 OR the Aesthetic Surgery Quarterly to write, “Arnica is being used by a number of plastic surgeons, who have been very pleased with its effects. Arnica is a homeopathic remedy that is known to affect the blood vessels in some way that prevents or rapidly relieves bruising...Homeopathic remedies have no side effect’s; they have been used for a very long time and they really do work.” Judith Petry MD Preoperative and Postoperative Management of the Body Contour Patient. Aesthetic Surgery Quarterly Winter 1996, 221-2

So JT is correct in that the facts are clear, homeopathy works and is safe and effective as judged by proper medical standards. While it’s true that there are only theories that provide any possible clues as to it’s mechanisms this does not invalidate homeopathy anymore that it invalidates the efficacy of Tylenol.

Greg you claim that we all couldnt beleive that all treatments in medicine work. What does this mean? I do not agree. It doesnt help your case, anyway. If a medical treatment is seen to have no effect it isnt used. I cant think of anything commonly used to treat the most ailments that hasnt been shown to have some effect. Ho about an example. Thanks.

Do the terms of use of the report permit you to post it here for everyone to read? If so, I can assist you with doing that.

Honestly, I can't even believe there is a debate about this. The facts are clear. As it is said in the law, res ipsa loquiter: the thing speaks for itself.

Homeopathy is a pathetic movement based on anti-rational principles. Deal with it.

Could someone please edit Greg's post of Tue, 2006-07-18 10:03 to shorten the excessively long url. It makes the posts unreadable without annoying horizontal scrolling.

Yes Marnee, regarding the very highly diluted homeopathic remedies there is certainly less of a rational leg to stand on however, the most promising line of research has come from the use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). This technique is sensitive to changes in the way water is organized at a molecular level. See Dr Demangeat at the Service de Medicine Nucleaire at Hagenau in France (Ref: Demangeat L, Demongcol C, Gries P, Poitevin B, Constanstinesco A. ‘Modifications des temps de relaxation RMN a 4 MHz des protons du solvant dans les tres hautes dilutions salines de silicic/lactose.’ J. Med. Nuc. Biophy. 1992;16(2):135-45).

Understand that I don’t believe that ALL homeopathic remedies do what they claim to do just like I’m sure you wouldn’t claim that ALL conventional medicines do what they claim to do. And I certainly don’t condone the efficacy of the snake water you presented as a straw man against homeopathy. As I said the vast majority of homeopathic remedies are not diluted anywhere near Avogadro’s number, so if you don’t think a diluted substance will have an effect on on your body I propose a little experiment. Find some poison ivy. Dilute it once or twice and proceed to rub it all over your body and tell us how you feel.

There are basically two different schools of homeopathy, classical and modern. The classical approach is based on “like cures like” and the modern approach is based more on the works of Professor Alfred Pischinger and his system of Ground Regulation or Biological Matrix as explained below.

“Low and middle potency homeopathic dilutions work (on inflammation) because they activate regulatory lymphocytes through a reaction known as the Immunological Bystander Reaction. In simple terms, the anti-homotoxic substance stimulates macrophages to produce antigen motifs, which activate non-antigen-specific lymphocytes to bind the motifs to their receptors and become Th3 regulatory lymphocytes. These Th3 cells home in to the nearest lymph node, where they multiply and are released into the bloodstream. When the Th3 lymphocytes lock into a similar motif they synthesise and release the Transforming Growth Factor beta (TGF-ß), which decreases the activity of Th1 and Th2 lymphocytes, thereby quenching the inflammation.”

Link

Also if you think that the science is so well grounded in the world allopathic medicine please and show me the proof that Aspirin works or why Lithium helps schizophrenic patients or mechanisms behind the DILUTTED Glonoine that allopathic doctors use to treat the symptoms of angina and cardiac arrest. Also if homeopathy is nothing more than then the placebo effect then why are some RX? And why are homeopathic remedies Traumeel and Zeel listed in the Physicians Desk Reference (the allopathic Dr’s bible).

Thanks,

Greg

Here is a link to (the Amazing) James Randi on Homeopathic Water or Fast Water, also being marketed as Penta Water. Yup its not snake oil its snake water!

http://www.randi.org/jr/032505really.html

"Now, the University of Toronto has shown that the "memory" of any distinct structures in water molecules will not last for more than 50 femtoseconds. That's fifty thousandths of a millionth of a millionth of a second, one tenth of what was thought previously by scientists. That means two things in the quackery field: if using Penta Water, you gotta open the bottle real quick and chug it down or the effect will surely go away, and in regard to homeopathic preparations it would be better for you to stand right on the Boiron Pharmaceuticals assembly line as those magic pills come down the chute, or you're apt to miss the therapeutic effect of this notion, because the "memory" only lasts 1/20,000,000,000,000 of a second!"

Greg: Is anyone here arrogant enough to assume that they know enough information about the incredibly broad topic of homeopathy to write off the entire school of thought as irrational garbage?

OH YES Im arrogant enough. See the whole field was explained just fine on that site you linked to Greg. Its not based on science and hasnt been proven. Are you so "arrogant" as to say that the skeptics must now prove a negative because Homeopathy is a broad field? Medicine is a broad field but its cures and treatments have facts to back them up. What does Homeopathy have? PLEASE present your evidence.

Greg listen to yourself. You are saying that this signature of water is strong enough to effect the immune system in such a way that it can dull pain and cure disease! DISEASE man. Are you sure about this? Really? So now its not *Like Cures Like* but some sort of electromagnetic thermodynamic (my bad) effect caused by the process of diluting water.

If it isnt the principle of Like Cures LIke that is the central tenet of Homeopathy then why do they all promote it as such? Please explain. What is it that Homeopathy is based on? We are surrounded by magnetic fields and heat sources, we eat all kinds of things with diluted chemicals and water in them. Why do we still have disease?

Homeopathy after 200 years has yet to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it works. And now you are telling me that its not chemicals but a signature or imprint of the water. This has yet to be demonstrated as well. Pleas tell me what is so compelling about Homeopathy that one should beleive that some imprint of water has any effect on the immune system.

Think about what you are saying.

The first law of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed so the idea is that when these substances are being diluted and sucussed the energy is not being diluted out, but only changed into a different "shape" or frequency. The closest they have come to measuring this is by looking at the nuclear magnetic resonance signatures of different substances. They looked at water that contained dilutions of substances well over 24x (I think 60x and higher) and found that this water had a different NMR "signature" than the water that did not contain the dilution. They even found different signatures in water that didn’t actually contain anything, but that was simply exposed to electromagnetic fields to "imprint" it. So even though there were technically no molecules left, the water "looked" completely different than water that contained nothing.

Greg - you refer to homeopathic "remedies" that "don’t claim to work on a chemical level." What "other level" is there for chemicals to work at? Is that an admission that those remedies only work at the "psychological level" - that is, that they only "work" by means of the placebo effect?

It is abhorrently irresponsible for anyone to suggest a homeopathic remedy to prevent malaria. I can only imagine some idiot thought and recommended this because of the 200 year old story of Samuel Hahnemann’s (the founder of homeopathy) first discovery of "like cures like" when he dosed himself with quinine - a common treatment for malaria and to his astonishment he developed the symptoms of malaria one after another, despite not having the disease. The article states that it was only one out of ten clinics recommending a homeopathic remedy - which means that nine out of ten clinics recommended a proper prophylactic; nine out of ten isn’t so bad and what do you expect when environmentalist hippies are allowed to make decisions for themselves?

Also this Times article does misrepresent homeopathy when it claims that, "Remedies are created by diluting substances to an extreme degree, usually so not a single molecule of the main ingredient is left." […] "they contain no chemically active ingredients" because the vast majority of remedies are not diluted that much and the small amount that are don’t claim to work on a chemical level.

What a great title Marcus, lol
Isn't Homeopathy just "folk medicine" without the application of real science?
Used to prevent Malaria!! in England of all places. This is similar to the stories you read coming out of Africa where the most sickening practices are used to cure aids.

Fred,

There is understandably a lack of funding and a plethora of bad studies. But there are also some compelling ones.

The German company Heel Inc funded a study with 3,422 patients on the effectiveness and patient tolerance of Traumeel S. I have a copy on PDF I can send you.

Greg

Marnee,

The practice of homeopathy is over 200 years old. Understandably some medical procedures practiced hundreds of years ago seem archaic and barbaric to us today. And yes, homeopathy started with the principle of "like cures like" (which dates back to Hippocrates) however the real science behind modern homeopathy lies in the Immunological Bystander Reaction not "like vs. like".

Also Dr. Stephen Barrett is just a Big Pharma crony who’s has been sued and made a fool several times in court. He doesn’t even believe in vitamins for christs sake! He gets paid not to believe.

This issue is not unlike global warming in its one-sidedness in the media and perception of the public and professionals. Is anyone here arrogant enough to assume that they know enough information about the incredibly broad topic of homeopathy to write off the entire school of thought as irrational garbage?

Greg

Greg, I'm also not very impressed by a study only involving a dozen or so patients. Even though the difference seems to be dramatic, I wonder if there is any "statistical significance" given the low number of subjects.

Serious clinical trials typically involve at least hundreds of subjects.

In the link Greg gives, there is a study about hot flashes that claims this:

"Evidence of a homeopathic "drug proving" in the subjects receiving the homeopathic combination medicine who were not taking tamoxifen also was found."

Drug proving is where HEALTHY persons are used as the subjects to determine the effects of a chemical, etc. This is how they "prove" a possible homeopathic drug, by showing it has an effect on healthy people (beyond a placebo) and then they use the so-called principle of "Let likes cure likes" to carry on with the use of the "drug" to treat actual health problems. So if something CAUSES hotflashes it is used to treat hotflashes. Uh huh! That’s the whole crux of it. It appears that everything in Homeopathy is based in this principle. Yet I can find no reason to say that this principle is valid (other than their own circular reasoning, which is not surprising since it is a circular notion!)

Read this for more on the "science" of Homeopathy.

Considering this I have serious doubts about these studies Greg presents.

On the site Greg links to it is suggested giving Belladona(!) to children with earaches BECAUSE the symptoms of nightshade poisoning included earaches. So then it must be concluded that giving a child a deadly poison will cure his earache based, presumably, on the principle of "Let likes cure likes", no matter what the cause of the infection, never mind the actual biological mechanism at work. I suppose.

Dont be fooled. Homeopathy is not based on the same principles as immunization. Immunization is used to prevent disease. Not to mention that it is based in demonstrable biological processes, and can be tested, ie it is based in science and reason. Homeopathy, so far from what I have read, is apparently used to treat existing problems and is assumed to cure by coincidence and a blind reliance on a single principle.

The Belladona treatment was given as an example of Homeopathy and presumably an argument in favor of its use. How can anyone buy into this?

Greg - the fact that a supposed "replication" was submitted for publication in 1994, 12 years ago, and is still not published, speaks for itself.

Here are some replicated, double blind, controlled, clinical studies published in peer reviewed journals.

D. Reilly, M. Taylor, N. Beattie, et al.,
Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?
Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
This study successfully reproduced evidence from two previous double-blinded trials all of which used the same model of homeopathic immunotherapy in inhalant allergy. In this third study, 9 of 11 patients on homeopathic treatment improved compared to only 5 of 13 patients on placebo. The researchers concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled studies don't. Their work has again be recently replicated and is submitted for publication.
http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm

AND

Inflammation Research
Publisher: Birkhäuser Basel
ISSN: 1023-3830 (Paper) 1420-908X (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s000110050376
Issue: Volume 48, Supplement 1
Date: April 1999
Pages: 17 - 18
Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial
P. Belon A1, J. Cumps A2, M. Ennis A3, P. F. Mannaioni A4, J. Sainte-Laudy A5, M. Roberfroid A6, F. A. C. Wiegant A7
A1 Boiron, 20 rue de la Libération, F-69110 Sainte-Foy-Les-Lyon, France
A2 UCL 7369, 73 avenue Emmanuel Mounier, B-1220 Brussels, Belgium
A3 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute of Clinical Science, The Queen's University of Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BJ, UK, Fax +44 12 32 23 61 43, e-mail: m.ennis@qub.ac.uk
A4 Department of Pharmacology, Viale G. Pieraccini 6, I-50139 Florence, Italy
A5 Cerba, F-95066 Val d'Oise cedex 9, France
A6 Laboratoire de biotoxicologie, UCL 7369, 73 avenue Emmanuel Mounier, B-1220 Brussels, Belgium
A7 University of Utrecht, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, P.O. Box 80.056, NL-3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands

Link

As I said before I think more research on homeopathy needs to be done as there are numerous studies that I have read that produce unexplained results. In addition my experience with homeopathy has been quite good. Homeopathy has far fewer side effects or drug interactions as compared to allopathic drugs so I see it as the optimal second line of defense after my own immune system and as an adjunct to allopathic treatment as necessary.

Yes, under the previously described conditions the placebo effect is solid, replicable etc. I am way from university databases until mid-August. If you want refs to the original studies please ask again after August 20.

Homeopathy works. And the Mozart effect makes you smarter.

Paging Penn and Teller...

Adam, just curious. Has the "placebo effect" been proven? I mean has it been compared in double-blinds with doing nothing?

Doing nothing, you know, has a very high success rate.

then placebos are bloody helpful things

Claudia - once your reason for originally believing that a remedy might work has been disconfirmed, and there is no longer any objective, evidence-based grounding for such a belief, then indeed a placebo effect would need to be considered the most likely explanation for whatever relief you experienced.

So, if I understand this correctly, I just need to suspect that a remedy "might" be right - and a placebo effect would be the most likely explanation to any relief?

Claudia - you write, "If I have only experienced a placebo effect, ANY remedy should work..." Not really. There are two requirements for a placebo to be experienced as "effective:" (1) the patient must believe that the treatment is effective, which excludes anything that you might suspect of being a placebo; and (2) if must not have any actual adverse effects, known or not.

All I would like an answer to then is; If I have only experienced a placebo effect, ANY remedy should work on me regardless, should it not?

Greg,

You write that there are "numerous double blind studies indicating the effectiveness of homeopathic medications over that of placebo." If you mean the "publish the one experiment out of twenty that came out statistically significant at the .95 level" then of course. But for evidence, one needs studies that have been replicated and for which the replications have a success rate of .5 or better. That is the minimum necessary to eliminate confirmation bias. Cite a homeopathic remedy with favorable effects replicated at .5 or better in successive double-blind studies, and you'd have evidence. Otherwise it is not even junk science, just voodoo pretending.

Homeopathy is not voodoo. I know that there is a lot of quack dr.s out there who use homeopathy and there some junk science mixed into the field but that is no reason alone to discount this type of medicine. Keep in mind we still don’t know all the mechanisms behind what makes Aspirin work and nothing but further scientific investigation can yield some answers. The same is true for homeopathy. There are certain homeopathic medications listed in the PDR (Traumeel and Zeel) and numerous double blind studies indicating the effectiveness of homeopathic medications over that of placebo. In addition homeopathic medications are well known to be effective on infants and animals both of which are immune to the placebo effect.

Regarding high dilutions, I remember reading somewhere that there was still some unexplained differences on the molecular level of water long after passing Avogadro’s number (I’ll see if I can dig up where).

I agree with Claudia. Don’t believe hype and bias against homeopathy.

Claudia,

Homeopathic preparations are too dilute to trigger the immune system - that "explanation" is chemically impossible. On the other hand, nothing is too dilute to have a placebo effect, which is probably what you experienced. Why postulate bizarre anti-physical explanations for what is fully explained by known biological processes, such as, in this case, the placebo effect? Or are you in fundamental disagreement with Objectivist epistemology on the point, that the attributes that make up an existent's identity can be objectively identified, and thus known, only by objective measurement?

Claudia,

If you think that there is any common sense attached to the claims of homoeopathy, then sadly you have been misled.

Immunisation only works as long as the antigen is in high enough quantity to evoke a significant immune response in your body. You may be aware that for certain immunisations such as Hepatitis B, you actually need to go back to the doctor and check that you have had a significant enough reaction to raise antibodies against the pathogen in your blood. (This is a check on a scientific basis).

Charlatans that peddle homoeopathy can only give weird explanations of spiritual healing or water having a memory of a previous substance -because that is what is what they give you in practice - water. These snake-oil merchants never cease to find suckers for their wares.

Ignoring scientific reproducibility and substituting coincidence for causality makes unproven nonsense sound valid – when it is absurd. For example: "I got over my cold on the same day that I picked my nose. Therefore, picking my nose cured my cold!!!"

Does homoeopathy make sense? No. Is it plausible? No. Is it reproducible? No. Is it credible? No. Is it voodoo shit? Most definitely - Yes.

I disagree that any government money should be put into something so unscientific as alternative medicines.

But to write something off as "shit" because it is not understood according to known scientific principles seems unnecessarily reactive.

Homeopathy has to be specifically chosen according to the symptoms of the sufferer. A remedy that matches the emotional and physical symptoms will bring about a cure. An inaccurate match will not. If the argument for any clinical effectiveness is just put down to a placebo effect, then any remedy taken should bring about a positive improvement. This is not the case. Administering Nux Vomica will not shift a Natrum Muriaticum headache. Nausea consistent with the patterns of Arsenicum will not be eased by taking Sulphur.

Homeopathy claims to stimulate the body's natural immune function. From what I've experienced, that claim holds up. I don't claim to know how but I'm not going to write off what I see can work.

Maybe the molecular structure of water is affected by poisons in a way we can't explain. Like curing Like is the same principle as vaccination. Vaccination doesn't always work either. All my children were vaccinated against measles, yet all of them still came down with the illness when they were exposed to it. Same with chickenpox - and have flu vaccines ever actually worked on anyone?

Homeopathy may be one of those things that has some validity but has not yet been validated by science. Mystics make too much of it with little to support their grand claims, and scientists make too little of it despite the cures that can be remarkably quick.

Thanks for posting this. Very disturbing indeed.

"The Enlightenment idea that beliefs should be based on evidence and reason is losing ground."

That quote sums up precisely why those of us who value such things as evidence and reason need to be even more active in advocating such things and fighting against stupidity. What was it Rand said? He who fights for the future lives in it today.

The best way to fight malaria is with DDT. Since it was banned, the number of malaria cases has grown exponentially. It is a case of the environmentalists causing death and misery with their irrational policies.

It is hard to understand those who choose ignorance over knowledge.When the homeopathy xpos'e was on the tv a few years ago I found that believers still believed even though it had been made realy obvious that the solution they use is 100% water due to the number of times they dillute things.Simple maths prooved that there were no traces of the original additive.Pure water had been sold for years as a cure and when it all came out,homeopathy brought out the new batch and you realy can smell there is something in it now.And the punters line up like sheep wallets at the ready.There is a sucker born every minute they say,And no shortage of people willing to take advantage of their ignorance.