I believe this falls under the ‘do not try this at home’, ‘do not under any circumstances allow this method to be used on anybody, call the Police’, ‘what do physicians know about medicine?’ and ‘nine out of ten quacks prefer this method’ headings.

It’s almost as bad as suggesting that the victim of a gunshot might be cured by being shot again with a smaller bullet.

found via
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/homeopathy_is_an_embarrassment.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DenialismBlog+%28denialism+blog%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

        De Selby said:

It isn’t actually a claim of homoeopathy that the dilute remedies produce opposite effects to the undiluted substances. This is a popular misconception, and one which homoeopaths make no effort to dispel (see, for example homoeopaths invoking hormesis) because the reality is even sillier.

Homoeopaths believe that symptoms are part of the body’s healing process (something to do with the mythical “vital force”). Homoeopathy therefore involves administering remedies which will intensify the symptoms and thus stimulate healing. Hence “aggravations” (i.e. worsening of the symptoms) is seen by homoeopaths as a sign that they have chosen the correct remedy.

Hahnemann at first used material doses of substances to treat patients, having also “proved” (i.e. determined what symptoms they caused) the remedies using material doses. However, he found that this had a regrettable tendency to poison the patients, or as a recent book about homoeopathic pharmacy puts it, cause “aggravations that, in some cases, amounted to dangerous toxic reactions” (see Kayne SB (2006) Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice, Elsevier Health Sciences, p.52). Hahnemann therefore decided to dilute the remedies in the belief that this would reduce the toxic effects while somehow preserving the healing properties by the magic shaking.

By the 5th edition of the Organon Hahnemann was prescribing carrying out “provings” using 30C remedies in the belief that this dilution would exhibit the full power of the remedy (see aphorism 128), and pretty much all provings nowadays are carried out using remedies so dilute that they no longer contain any of the active ingredient (see Kayne, p. 52). The remedies are given to healthy volunteers, who then record all their feelings and symptoms over a period of days to weeks, and then a homoeopath (who is aware what remedy they have been given) decides which symptoms or feelings are characteristic of the remedy. The remedies are then used to treat patients reporting the same symptoms that they are alleged to cause. the idea that the remedies cause the opposite effect is a myth.

An old comment, but I feel the need to respond:

I understand what you’re saying, but I stand by the idea that if homeopathy is to work, then the substances must, in treating the condition they cause, do the opposite of high doses. This is a simple logical extension of the basic reasoning.

That which is used to treat excessive tiredness is, by definition, an alertness aid. This would be something that, undiluted makes you tired. That which treated inability to sleep is, by definition, the opposite of what would keep someone awake.

If it treats, it must remove the effects it would otherwise make. Food acids, which cause indigestion, would have to become antacids or acid blockers.

To cure what it causes is the opposite. It has to be.

        Finrod said:

I was wondering about the manner in which you would chose to respond to Healer. It’s kind of difficult to chose where to begin, or to decide if it’s worth doing at all.

In cases like this the depth of the posters stupidity is so apparent, and so self-destructive to the very point he/she is trying to make, nothing more needs to be said.

        drbuzz0 said:

You’ve got to be kidding me.

I was wondering about the manner in which you would chose to respond to Healer. It’s kind of difficult to chose where to begin, or to decide if it’s worth doing at all.

Homeopathy does indeed work by transferring information to the water molecules, but do you think this means they must stop and have little conversations? You are so funny! The information is transferred by their energies and is scientific in how it works. No little talking water molecules! When you copy information to a disk to you think there are little people in your computer to do it?

The water is like a blank disk, or perhaps like undeveloped film. The substance added leaves its impression on the water by means of energy. This is exactly how light leaves its impression on film so you can have a beautiful picture.

All substances are energized with a field of quantum energy.

Your final little joke is also wrong. Homeopathic substances do not activate with receptors. You see, it is not about the water, but about its essence or energy. We now know that the body has two components, the physical and spiritual. Most alopathic doctors care only of the physical. The body to be healthy needs to have balanced energy too. The Chinese knew it for thousands of years and they called it qi. Today we call it bioenergy. This is also how acupuncture and energy healing work. The energy fields are what changes and this is how health is restored.

there are two parts to health, both the physical body and the spirit and energy of the body. Medical doctors have been told to only see the physical and treat the body like a machine. People are not a machine. This is why our health is so bad today.

No good homeopath will tell you to never see a regular doctor, because both sides need to be kept atune for good health. A doctor can mend the broken bones and when a body part sick, but true health needs to look at the whole person and not only the body. For this, nothing is more powerful than homeopathy. The water is only how we deliver the information into the body. The water does not talk. The water is the paper we write on.

“Notice, however, that the water has only remembered the properties of the substance added, but has not actually started to oppose the effects it has in the body” (my emphasis).

It isn’t actually a claim of homoeopathy that the dilute remedies produce opposite effects to the undiluted substances. This is a popular misconception, and one which homoeopaths make no effort to dispel (see, for example homoeopaths invoking hormesis) because the reality is even sillier.

Homoeopaths believe that symptoms are part of the body’s healing process (something to do with the mythical “vital force”). Homoeopathy therefore involves administering remedies which will intensify the symptoms and thus stimulate healing. Hence “aggravations” (i.e. worsening of the symptoms) is seen by homoeopaths as a sign that they have chosen the correct remedy.

Hahnemann at first used material doses of substances to treat patients, having also “proved” (i.e. determined what symptoms they caused) the remedies using material doses. However, he found that this had a regrettable tendency to poison the patients, or as a recent book about homoeopathic pharmacy puts it, cause “aggravations that, in some cases, amounted to dangerous toxic reactions” (see Kayne SB (2006) Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice, Elsevier Health Sciences, p.52). Hahnemann therefore decided to dilute the remedies in the belief that this would reduce the toxic effects while somehow preserving the healing properties by the magic shaking.

By the 5th edition of the Organon Hahnemann was prescribing carrying out “provings” using 30C remedies in the belief that this dilution would exhibit the full power of the remedy (see aphorism 128), and pretty much all provings nowadays are carried out using remedies so dilute that they no longer contain any of the active ingredient (see Kayne, p. 52). The remedies are given to healthy volunteers, who then record all their feelings and symptoms over a period of days to weeks, and then a homoeopath (who is aware what remedy they have been given) decides which symptoms or feelings are characteristic of the remedy. The remedies are then used to treat patients reporting the same symptoms that they are alleged to cause. the idea that the remedies cause the opposite effect is a myth.

Homeopathy & Nutritionists vs Real Science!

        George Carty said:

Isn’t one of the reasons why homeopathy became widespread the fact that it emerged at a time when most “mainstream” medicines were worse than useless (so that homeopathic remedies — which at least weren’t actually dangerous — looked good by comparison)?

Yeah I’ve heard that, but at best that argument is over 100 years obsolete.

Medicine circa 1800 was hit or miss. There were certainly some things that medicine was starting to understand and begin to provide treatment for that was better than nothing. There were also some things that medicine was really causing more harm than good on. But medicine progresses and it got better and still continues to get better. Homeopathy doesn’t.

One big thing that really changed everything was germ theory. Medicine was really in the dark when they didn’t even realize that it was a good idea to clean your surgical instruments of the last patients blood before using them. That all started to come together in the 1880’s.

The thing about Homeopathy is that it was just one of the many ideas that was not evidence-based and ranged from semi-useful to harmful before evidence based medicine really took over. Germ theory was only one aspect of what became an age of medical enlightenment. The late 1800’s saw the end of many practices because they were not supported by evidence. Why did homeopathy survive? Perhaps because it wasn’t quite as harmful directly?