Is Homeopathy Really As Implausible As It Sounds?

So in other words it's a placebo effect.

Yes and no, the dosages are at times at a potency where you would not expect to see an effect. The active ingredients however may well have a beneficial effect at the correct dosage.

From my own personal experience having used both western medicine and homeopathy was that there wasn't a massive difference between the 2, whether they were placebo effects or not the homeopathy seemed just as effective. Nowadays I just try to get regular exercise and a good diet which seems to work a heck of a lot better than any medicine for keeping me in good health.

Pop Sci should be embarrassed to have this kind of article. This is not science it is belief and has no right to even be tangentially connect to science and by even considering it gives it far too much credit. Homeopathy is fake it is just sugar water and can not work. Equal time does not have to be considered as Homeopathy is just dangerous and fake.

www.theskepticsguide.org/search.aspx?search=homeopathy

A nice piece. I once studied homeopathy...

In naturopathy school. It's a form of what I'll term junk thought / sectarian medicine.

A holdover from the 1800s.

Yet, the naturopathic 'profession' labels homeopathy on their board exams for North America a "clinical science."

Go figure.

-r.c.

With this law "...homeopathy, less is more, so homeopaths think of a large dose as a high dilution, instead of a high concentration...", quickly protects the homeopathy doctor from harming the patient and protecting himself from a lawsuit, there by continuing practice. In this the law is suspect to me, verse actually helping the patient.

Great job. I like how you used the Eddington Concession to really drive home the point. I can imagine a proponent of homeopathy reading along confident in the method of the authors reasoning and then BAM, not one molecule of medicine!

Is this article supposed to represent "science" or investigative journalism? If it is, it has failed horribly in this article and the author needs to do some more homework.
1) Dr. Hahnemann was a well known chemist in his day. He knew very well that the dilutions past 12C were past avagadro's number. So, what is the premise of homeopath?. People do your homework. Whether you want to agree with it or not, Homeopathy is an extension of "vitalistic" medicine. Please refer back to the 'father of modern medicine', aka, Paraceleus. The concept of "vitalism' has been a part of western medicine for centuries, while it has also been an integral part of Asian medicine (chi, prana). Hahnemann said the high dilutions, WHICH ARE ALSO 'POTENTIZED' (succussion)...NOT JUST DILUTED, are aimed at correcting the life animating 'spirit-like' part of the human organism, NOT the physiological basis of the being. the premise is that the vital force is where the disturbance is and from there, "functional' disease if left uncorrected can become pathological disease. So, everyone please get your facts right in regarding the homeopathic concept. No homeopath is saying a 200C potency remedy is affecting physiological change in a direct fashion. This is the misinformation of so called "science' writers who try to debunk homeopathy. (So I'm not trying to defend "vitalism', but at least get the facts right.)

Vitalism is the key concept here and this is what has to be discussed for a proper debate on homeopathy. Homeopathy has never laid claim that the ultra-dilute medicines were having a direct effect on the physiology.

2. Evidence of cure: just from a historical perspective the early homeopaths were awarded medals of honor from the Prussian govt in the early 1800's for their great successes in curing people during the cholera epidemic. Besides this there are 1000's of cured cases over the body of literature from the past 150 years. "Evidence based medicine"?

To be proper scientists, we should be observing a phenomena, evaluate the hypothesis, and then see if this is true. I find that most anti-homeopathic "science' writers are spouting their "beliefs" or repeating the "beliefs' of others, and really haven't evaluated ALL the evidence. As conventionally trained medical physician, I can attest to some amazing cured cases using homeopathic medicines that were applied via the proper application of homeopathic principle and theory. I have seen remedies that were applied contrary to proper homeopathic principle and law that had no effect -- a sugar pill result, so-to-speak. (Hence, these world wide events to disprove homeopathy whereby individuals stage a "poisoning' with homeopathic mercury or arsenic, are in themselves anti-scientific, as a remedy incorrectly prescribed will generally do nothing, and their staged mass poisoning will not poison anyone as any homeopath would agree.)

3. The human organism is amazing and not just limited to structure and chemicals. The terminal strands of our DNA emit photons. Biophotons! (Google Fritz Alfred Popp, PhD, cell biologist). Our cells communicate via photons in addition to hormones and intercellular small molecules like nitric oxide, etc. So, I ask you to open your imgainations up.

Really, I could list scores of scientific studies that have already been published over the past century that demonstrate the effectiveness, clinical studies, as well as physical science. there is no room to post this here, but basically, since the homeopathic medicines are prepared in a water based solution, the science of this has more to do with water molecule retention of energetic information from the original substance. I'll try to cut and paste just one of the many fascinating studies on this phenomena:
The Defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopaty 96 (2007):175-182 Rao ML, Roy R, BellIR, Hoover R. From the Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State Univ, University Park, PA, USA
...the presumed "implausibility' of biological activity for homeopathic medicines ...past Avogadro's number. the argument relies on elementary chemistry.
In contrast materials science focuses on the 3-dimensional complex network structure of the condensed phase of water itself, rather than the original solute molecules. ..structure of water can be determined by epitaxy (transmission of structural info from the surface of one mateiral to another w/o the transfer of any matter, temperature pressure processes during succussion (an important part of homeopathic preparation in addition to dilution! mine), and formation of colloidal nanobubbles...and the remedy source material..
...data using Raman and ultra-biolet spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nuv vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another...in 6C, 12C and 30C potencies.

This is just one of several basic science studies to demonstrate a plausible mechanism for the ultra-dilutions to work. There is also nuclear magnetic resonance field studies than can distinguish solutions contrived from different homeopathic medicines, showing each with a unique MRI pattern. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies: J. Holistic Med. 5:2:172-177.

As for clinical studies, there are scores. MD Anderson demonstrated cancer cells going into apoptosis when the top 5 "cancer" homeopathic medicines where used. A recent Dermatology study show efficacy of homeopathy in eczema. "A 225 patient study in atopic eczema showed that after 2 yrs of homeopathic treatment, patients could reduce their use of conventional drugs (Witt, Ludtke, Willich. Acta Derm Venereol 2009;89(2) 182)

I would don't mind healthy skepticism, but what I'm seeing being passed off as scientific journalism is hardly that, but really is just elementary school penmanship devoid of any real study of the scientific literature out there that supports homeopathy. The literature and blog commentary is more akin of religious fanaticism that comes from the idea that homeopathy just can't be, so therefore it is dismissed. I would instead like to see a really informed article for a change, and a more informed conversation!

I read this article just now. There r certain scientific points in this article but saying Homoeopathy implausible is non sense.  Dr Ballery of Biotechnology Deptt. Mumbai has scientifically proved  & we r proving d efficacy of our medicines daily------

1. So what you are saying is that homeopathy when using potencies below 23X is plausible?

2. You comments regarding the vital force are incorrect. Hahnemann was well aware that external factors like epidemics could create sickness as well as hereditary factors. What he is saying is that symptoms (in mind and body) are caused by a derangement of your vital force.

3. From where did you get the quote "In homeopathy, less is more"? Hahnemann advocates for the minimal dose. In his book Chronic Diseases he writes:
"which had been hurtful only because of its over-large dose- can be used again, and, indeed, as soon as it is homœopathically indicated, with the greatest success, only in a far smaller dose and in a much more highly potentized attenuation, i.e., in a milder quality".

4. I think you have missed the basic concept of homeopathy, which is that it is not the drug that cures - it is your own self-healing powers (vital force, immune system) that cures. What you are looking for from the well chosen homeopathic remedy is to create a reaction from your vital force in order to start this self-healing process. Some call this the placebo effect, but homeopathy is much more. You can treat animals, babies and even plants with homeopathy and it still works. Check for instance Darwins experiments with the Sundew plants.

5. Also you try to explain homeopathy from a molecular perspective. I think the molecular system is not the end of all knowledge and that homeopathy goes beyond the molecular level. Just imagine that beyond the molecular level is a sub-system and beyond this sub-system is another sub-system and below this sub-system is another subsystem and so on.

The very fact that Homeopathy helps cure diseases in animals suggests that it is not a mere placebo effect.
Research in the area of how homeopathy works is still ongoing. Here is one such example paper from the Elsevier Journal:
"Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticle perspective" wherein it was shown that certain highly diluted homeopathic remedies made from metals still contain measurable amounts of the starting material, even at extreme dilutions of 1 part in 10 raised to 400 parts (200C)

Wow... a 'conversation' about homeopathy on a scientific website... what is the world coming to

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/homeopath-thomas-sam-guilty-of-daughter-glorias-death/story-e6freuy9-1225723018271

Homeopathy is fraudulent and can kill you if you attempt to treat a serious illness with it's false claims. For pity's sake, never EVER seek a homeopathic remedy for you or those you care about. It's snake oil, sugar water and too shameful in it's scam to be called a placebo.

Is it really suprising PopSci would have a pseudo-science article on here? I mean, they talk about evolution all the time.

"Dr. Hahnemann was a well known chemist in his day. He knew very well that the dilutions past 12C were past avagadro's number."

Well except that Hahnemann died before the Avogadro constant was even defined...

Doesn't stop homeopathy believers making things up as it suits them.

A few things:

1. We should not overlook the real value of the placebo effect. Whether we are talking about homeopathy or conventional medicine, patient confidence affects patient outcome.

2. We need to distinguish between homeopathy and naturopathy, between herbal remedies and techniques of application.

3. We can describe high-tech treatments in woo-woo terms, and we can discuss homeo/naturo treatment in scientific terms. Let's not base judgment on jargon, but on results.

4. "The higher the dose the more effective the treatment" is not a fact of conventional medicine. "The right dose" is what you want.

5. As we learn more, our attitudes change. Some homeo/naturo treatments have rotated into the realm of conventional medicine once the science had been established. It continues to happen. Remember when nobody knew how useful turmeric could be in diet? Ayurvedics knew. What you sneer at today could be the wisdom of tomorrow.

6. A cornerstone of this is lifestyle. Someone with bad habits who assumes science will save him from paying the piper won't be as healthy as someone who is mindful and prudent.

7. Conversely, bad habits plus a few weird herbs and tinctures does not equal homeopathy failure. And all the healthy mindfulness in the world does not replace a mastectomy. Each has a place.

Really you guys?
Fatal flaw of the whole article
" Let's ignore, for example, the homeopathic notion that illness is caused by a disturbance in an individual's "vital force" rather than something external, like a bacterium or virus."
That's like turning off the power to a computer and asking "how does thing work?" The vital force is the distinct difference between a living body and a freshly dead body. It's the exact reason that, as we start from birth we don't decay, as the law of entropy would have us do. If the law of entropy was the only force at work in the body ,we would never grow from the sperm and egg to develop into a multi-trillion cellular organism.
At one point it was mentioned about measuring outcomes. But where are the stats?

Pop. Sci. Should be embarrassed, this is a stain on a great reputation.

So just out of curiosity : Who funded this article? Some pharma corporation? Seriously, you're looking at the entire aspect wrong: you're applying chemical quantitation mechanisms to measure an effect of a drug that is based on physics. The way homeopathic remedies are active is not by introducing a chemical active ingredient into the patient's body (and that's what you were looking for). The main premise is that by diluting an active ingredient, the ingredient itself should not be present in the drug. It's physical signature, however, i.e. molecular spin will affect the molecules of the dilutant (water). When such "imprinted" dilutant is introduced into human body, it affects the cells on a molecular level - correcting the spin. There are some other responses here that go into homeopathy in more detail, so I'll try to summarize: in your article you're simply using a wrong tool for a job, and that's why your conclusion is very wrong. What really bothers me, is how easily you call millions of people who are successfully using homoeopathy "quacks".

I wonder how many people commenting have actually used homeopathic medicines? I've been using various individual and combinations of homeopathic medicines for 43 years and have found them to be frequently effective. If they are strictly placebos I'm pleased that my brain is so powerful. Either way they certainly work for me and everyone in my family.

Vital force is a quaint term describing the body's innate ability to heal itself. If you arent familiar with ELF fields and intercellular communication with very small amounts of chemical compounds, perhaps you should be arguing so vociferously about the ineffectiveness of homeopathy.

I wouldnt argue otherwise except i have seen a homeopathic remedy named cantharsis outperform antibiotics consistently. (used in the treatment of chronic bladder infections. ) In certain cases where every antibiotic used to treat bladder infections became useless, cantharsis cured it with no recurrence after 3 years in 2-3 days.

My suggestion is that it acts similar to floc in a pool. (allowing smaller particles to stick together so that they can be excreted) I could be wrong about its mechanism, but its effectiveness is unquestionable to me. I have also tried other homeopathic remedies that have had no success.

I would suggest that discounting all homeopathic remedies is akin to discounting all commercially produced pharmaceuticals, many are effective, and many are not worth it when you weigh benefits vs side effects.

Homeopathics , while not as generally effective as brute force high dose chemistry, does have some benefits, even in the small doses , which havent been properly tested or standardized in some cases. Some enzymes are tremendously active in small doses.

Recently Switzerland did a thorough scientific project on Homeopathy and determined that it worked and added it to their healthcare program.. Since there was no big money behind this study and the results were positive I suggest all the nay Sayers do some serious thinking.. With the negative history of pharmaceutics and resulting deaths as well as debilitating reactions Homeopathy seems a no brain er in safety.

Vaccines do not not work on the principle that "like cures like". They work on the principle that "like inoculates against like", but only in some cases. This is an important distinction: homeopathic cures are supposed to cure an existing condition, vaccines train your immune system for a future attack.

Even if you accept that homeopathy is on to something with the "like cures like" principle, how is duck liver supposed to be like the flu? My two year old makes more sense than this, which is why Boiron uses Latin to obscure the non-existent "active" component of their Oscillococcinum. What an utter scam!

This article, while showing the utter absurdity of homeopathy, nevertheless gives it too far too much credit.

Just one thing that has bothered me for a long time. Some moths will respond very quickly to the release of small amounts of a suitable pheromone over a mile away. What concentrations are we dealing with there? Sometimes what we don't know colors our ideas. Remember back in 1912 when everything that was going to be invented had already been invented?

In due respect, the above article is totally lame, especially for a POPULAR SCIENCE article.

This article is totally theoretical and doesn't choose to cite any of the many (hundreds!) of basic science or clinical trials, most of which have found biological activity and/or clinical effects of homeopathic medicines as distinct from placebo.

First of all, using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have demonstrated for the first time using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.

The # of nanoparticles remaining in EACH of the 6 samples were considerably higher than the # of many hormones that circulate in our bodies (which are often in extremely low doses!).

I assume that your magazine will next assert that the atomic bomb was also a placebo because those exceedingly small particles could not "possibly" have significant effects. Well, so much for theory. Please refer to RESEARCH next time.

As for Avogadro's number, such important concepts are not relevant when dealing with complex systems such as water and vigorous shaking in glass vials (do you understand that 6 parts per million of silica fragments fall off the glass walls from shaking?)(do you understand that the shaking creates bubbles and "nano-bubbles" that dramatically change the water pressure?)(is it possible that these factors influence what is being diluted?...the answer is CERTAINLY!).

By the same token, I can therefore conclude that nanotechnology is a con because the particles are just too small for me to see.

Brilliant science guys.

I've used homeopathy on my family and my pets with remarkable success and no side effects. I cannot say the same about modern medicine.

Homeopath’s own studies show – it doesn’t work
http://vicskeptics.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/homeopath%E2%80%99s-own-studies-show-%E2%80%93-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-work/

A new review by Prof Edzard Ernst inclusive of studies by Homeopaths, fails to yield positive results.
Announcing a new review of Homeopathy to be published in the Medical Journal of Australia, the review is authored by Prof Edzard Ernst. A press release by the MJA follows this short introduction.

-------------------------------------

http://skepticalvegan.com/2011/02/05/homeopathy-unethical-quackery/

---------------------------------------

Prove Homeopathy works and get a million dollars!

Here’s Randi’s latest challenge to the homeopaths.
www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1208-feb5video.html

When it was developed, homeopathy "worked". So did "the power of sympathy", osteopathy, and who knows how many other practices now lumped together as "quack cures" or "alternative medicine", depending on who is speaking.

However, they did not "work" for the reason claimed. When homeopathy was developed, mainstream medicine often treated people by bleeding and purging them, as well as administering medicines which contained heavy metals and other toxins. George Washington was effectively bled to death by his doctors. Napoleon may have died as the result of a medicine containing arsenic. President James Garfield might have survived his assassin's bullet had his wound been allowed to heal instead of being kept open by doctors who routinely inserted their unsterilized fingers into it (he died of blood poisoning).

Meanwhile, various cures that advocated a healthy diet and lifestyle or just plain did nothing at all allowed the body to heal itself. Times have changed. Holistics has become a concept used by mainstream medicine, and the tools, techniques, and medicines used by mainstream medicine are subjected to a certain amount of scientific review (not always with perfect results, but that's another subject). The conditions under which homeopathy "worked" no longer exist. Its creator should be applauded for promoting the idea that a good diet, fresh air, and exercise lead to improved health. But it must not be mistaken for medical treatment, and the distilled water and sugar pills sold as homeopathic remedies may safely be ignored.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion" --Thomas Jefferson.

I was expecting a mathematical analysis of the results. Antidepressants are more dangerous, and perform no better than randomly psychoactive placebos in tests. The ads are based on testing against sugar pills, which don't fool the control group.

When the medical world proves they KNOW what they're doing, then I'll dismiss alternative methods!!! I don't see that happening any time soon!

I'm glad that every glass of water I drink has infinitely small concentrations of every possible homeopathic remedy, so I know I will never get sick from anything.
:)
Doug Selsam

Homeopathy is great news for heroin addicts! They can buy it once and keep diluting the same batch for life, getting higher and higher with each dilution.
:)
Doug Selsam

The principle of like cures like, however, is valid: Beekeepers never get arthritis, since the body's defense against bee stings also cures other inflammation such as arthritis. A new cause of inflammation (sting) brings a cure to inflammation from the old cause (arthritis). Not that complicated really. But a billionth of a sting is unlikely to have any effect, no matter how many times you shake or hit the container.
:)
Doug Selsam

"10380 pills" is a pretty small universe. Maybe 10[sup]380[/sup] pills?

To me (and I've never tried homeopathic remedies), the interesting thing is that one of the fundamental Laws of Magick is the Law of Contagion, which basically states that "things once in contact continue to interact after separation." Real New Age woo-woo garbage, eh? ("Hey, Ranger, can I have a couple of those brownies you've been munchin' on?" ;-) ).

Wrong! Ever heard of Quantum Theory, or Quantum Mechanics? No? Look it up for yourselves because I don't really understand it myself.

However, and to get to the point, there is something called "Quantum Teleportation", which very roughly means that a packet of information can be transported between one location and another without the packet actually being transmitted -- so long as the two locations have particles which were once connected! [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation for more information]

Currently the record distance claimed for Quantum Teleportation is aprox. 143 km (89 mi).

And my point (for those of y'all who are still with me) is that perhaps there is some sort of "quantum teleportation" of healing information between the molecules of whatever is used in a given homeopathic remedy and the agent in which it was originally suspended (water or alcohol, I believe), even after there are no molecules left in suspension in the remedy.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

"...a standard dilution of 400X.
At this low concentration, to ensure you actually did ingest one molecule you would have to swallow about 10 380 pills—many, many more pills than there are atoms in the universe."

In other words whatever you claim to be putting in this pill simply does NOT exist in this universe. Otherwise, there would be molecules of it.

"Joubaur" shows his ignorance, though I wouldn't be surprised if he arrogantly assumes he's correct. He obviously doesn't account for the issues I raised an above post about water, silica fragments, or nano-bubbles. Instead, he can only quote rudimentary knowledge about Avogadro's number, which works in mathematics but NOT in biology (which is far more complex than simple numbers)...but heck, skeptics like to over-simplify (their reductionistic mindset requires it).

And I bet that he will say that there are "no drug molecules" on the end of an acupuncture needle, and therefore, he'll consider acupuncture to be "quackery" too.

The good thing about conventional medicine is that it disproves itself every day...and it still fools people into "believing" in it. Suckers.

My sincere sympathies.

To satisfy my wife, I reluctantly went to a homeopathic doctor. I was so uninterested as to what homeopathic meant that I didn't even look it up - I thought maybe it was some specialty like a urologist or neurologist, not an entirely different branch of medicine. My problem was "Hyperhidrosis" a medical condition in which a person sweats excessively and unpredictably - from which I suffered from puberty. You cannot appreciate hyperhidrosis unless you have had to change shirts, sweaters and even suits 3-6 times a day because your underarm perspiration has completely drenched them. I won't even go into the embarrassment part, you can guess that. I had tried every relevant mainstream M.D. and suffered electrical shock machines to the underarms; prescription perspiration deodorant;, pads; diet; supplements; ad nauseum. The doctor spent an hour asking the most inane questions and stood up, grabbed a little dark pill bottle, took out two little white B.B. looking pills; he said take this; I did; and, he said good-bye. I asked him wasn't there some prescription I needed? He replied , "No, that's it." Not much of a "bedside manner." I thought I had been either on candid camera or had been ripped off, or both. The next day, however improbable, inexplicable or just plain crazy, I did not sweat profusely or even got damp. That was over 25 years ago and my hyperhidrosis has not returned. I have believed ever since, even though scientifically, it is laughable. I have been laughed at and laughed at myself, but it worked on me. My wife and I raised two healthy kids with it also. And no, I don't have a homeopathic doctor in the family or sell any kind of homeopathic or naturopathic items. The few (very, very few) people who believed enough in my story to go to a homeopath initially thought they had been ripped off, too. But they had similar results. Placebo effect? No way, I didn't know what I was walking into and afterward thought I had been scammed. The last thing I thought would happen was anything resembling an improvement, much less a cure.

There are only three problems with homeopathy.

The first is that there is no reason to suppose it should work: the purported "law of similars" is not a law of nature, it is Hahnemann's axiom and has never had any credible scientific basis.

The second is that there is no way it can work. The purported mechanisms of homeopathy (e.g. "water memory") are no more than retcon, the dilutions used in homeopathy are contradicted by everything we know about physics, chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology and... well, science in general. It even violates the second law of thermodynamics!

The third is that there is no good evidence it does work. Many trials have been done, and the finding in every analysis of these trials is that the more rigorous they are, the more likely they are to show that homeopathic "remedies" are simple placebos.

Homeopaths are fond of saying that science cannot explain homeopathy. That is simply false. Science understands and can explain homeopathy perfectly. It is a blend of placebo effect, false inference, the natural history of disease, and plain old fashioned fraud.

I challenge any homoeopath to cite a single credible scientific study that refutes the null hypothesis in respect of homeopathy. Free clue: P=0.05 means a 5% chance of a random false positive and so cannot, by definition, refute anything.

lemonslaw,
Wo-a! You were actually touched by an alien!

Guy Chapman has simply shown his own limited intellectual abilities, his unscientific attitude about a subject he knows little, and a head-in-the-mud view of the world. He pretends to ask for "evidence," when such evidence has been repeated provided to him. He's been busted (again).

Check out what The Amazing Randi thinks of Homeopathy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

If you are going to try to defend homeopathy, you need to first and foremost explain any possible way in which a "medicine" which has literally NO active ingredient could possibly work, even hypothetically.
Not "a very small amount". Zero. ZERO! active ingredient. In other words: water (or oil, or whatever filler is used for a delivery medium).

That was the whole point of this article, and many people somehow missed it. There is no possible way. That's it. Game over. That alone discredits homeopathy.
Obviously a lot of people have some very strong emotional stake in believing, but its time to let go. If dilution to zero was medicine, then simply drinking water would also cure every disease. Unless you can refute molecular theory, and deny that matter is made of tiny particles. In which case, why are you even reading a science website?

The defenses that have been posted here show a profound lack of understanding of the basic principals of science.
"the early homeopaths were awarded medals of honor from the Prussian govt in the early 1800's for their great successes in curing people"
This is not evidence that it worked, only evidence that the Government BELIEVED it worked. Have you ever heard the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes? Of course people back then didn't know modern medicine, and can be forgiven their mistake. People through history have mistakenly believed LOTS of wacky things had effects they didn't actually have. Today we are aware of the concept of placebo, and we know that the body naturally fights off most illness most of the time, with no treatment at all. Epidemics end on their own. If someone offered a magical cure and got lucky with their timing, they end up with a medal. That is not evidence.
Uncontrolled anecdotes are not evidence.
Discrediting publicity stunt attempts at discrediting homeopathy is not evidence.
Evidence would be consistent, repeatable results, by independent scientists and doctors (including ones who are NOT homeopaths themselves), in double-blind placebo-controlled studies. If they don't work in those circumstances, they don't work, period. There is no getting around that simple test. Legitimate alternative medicine can pass that test. In limited cases chiropractics and even acupuncture have passed that standard. Homeopathy has not.

"The human organism is amazing and not just limited to structure and chemicals. The terminal strands of our DNA emit photons. Biophotons! (Google Fritz Alfred Popp, PhD, cell biologist). Our cells communicate via photons in addition to hormones and intercellular small molecules like nitric oxide, etc. So, I ask you to open your imaginations up." So, in other words, because we don't understand 100% of all biology, you interpret that as "anything is possible".
Perhaps then you would also care to speculate that maybe telekinesis and levitation are untapped potential of the human mind? You are free to open your imagination as wide as you like, just be aware that it isn't science.

"water molecule retention of energetic information"
1) this doesn't happen. Basic chemistry and physics.
2) if it did, every molecule of water on the planet would already have the signature of every substance that has ever been, because the water cycle has been going on for about 6 billion years and it all gets churned up constantly. So, again, if homeopathy worked, just drinking plain untreated tap water would have the exact same effect.
If there were really a "memory of water" which was detectable by any means, then any lab in the world should be able to take an unlabeled sample of homeopathic medicine, and one of plain water, and using whatever techniques are claimed to be able to detect the difference, figure out which was which. This has never happened. The only people who have claimed to be able to tell the difference are those who were already proponents of homeopathy in advance of the experiment, and they do not explain their methods, (or when they do, those methods don't work for anyone else).

"Dr Ballery of Biotechnology Dept. Mumbai has scientifically proved" One, doctors are not scientists, and Two, there is no such things as "scientifically proved" - especially not in the field of medicine. You have mathematical proofs. You have scientific THEORIES.

"homeopathic remedy is to create a reaction from your vital force in order to start this self-healing" - ummm... Wouldn't the actual illness that the remedy is supposed to be treating have already created a reaction from the body's natural self-healing? (The answer is yes. That's why the vast majority of the time people recover from illness and injury with no treatment at all. Its also why placebos work. And its why homeopathy works - but now I'm being redundant)

"Just imagine that beyond the molecular level is a sub-system"
There is. Its called atoms. We have the technology to literally see them, with an electron tunneling microscope. Nearly all 21st century technology is dependent on an understanding of how they work.

"and beyond this sub-system is another sub-system"
There is. Its called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Our understanding of them is vital for nuclear power (and bombs). We also harness electrons constantly. Its called "electricity"

"below this sub-system is another subsystem"
You mean like neutrinos, and the higgs boson, and all the other identified sub-atomic particles?

"and so on."
Thats called string theory. It is controversial. What does all this have to do with homeopathy? Is your argument that science doesn't know enough to debunk any claim? If so, you used some pretty bad examples, since we absolutely know what molecules are made of and how subatomic systems work.

"The very fact that Homeopathy helps cure diseases in animals suggests that it is not a mere placebo effect."
Only if it does it better than actual placebos.
Just because you give an animal a treatment, and it gets better, does not mean the treatment worked. Placebos also help cure diseases in animals. As does petting them and being nice to them. Also, healthy food, clean water, and rest. That does not make these things medicine.

"The vital force is the distinct difference between a living body and a freshly dead body."
? Are you defining "vital force" as "the production of free energy required for vital cellular metabolism, the production of enzymatic and structural protein, the maintenance of chemical and osmotic homeostasis of cell, and cell reproduction"? Because those are all distinct and observable differences. Those cellular effects lead directly and causally to the macro level effect on consciousness we as humans associate with death. You don't need to invoke a "soul" to explain the difference between life and death.

"It's the exact reason that, as we start from birth we don't decay, as the law of entropy would have us do."
Life does not violate entropy, because it requires a constant energy input to sustain the order that it consists of, and in fact it requires a substantially larger input of energy than the level of order might hypothetically require. In other words, for each step along the food chain, 9/10th of the original sunlight energy captured by the first order producer is lost in the consumption and metabolic process. That massive input of energy is what allows us to not decompose, and also not violate the basic laws of physics.

"So just out of curiosity : Who funded this article?" Its popsci. They are funded by subscribers and advertisers.

"It's physical signature, however, i.e. molecular spin"
Electrons have spin. Molecules do not normally spin, unless induced to do so by some constant external force (such as an MRI machine). The physical structure of a molecule is determined by its structure. This structure may change in some complex molecules, such as proteins, from introduction to other substances, but the structure of water and other simple substances does not. As I mentioned above, water molecules have been circulating the earth for 6 billion years. They have already been in contact with every substance in existence. If that leaves behind a "signature", then its already there in every glass of plain tap water. No homeopathist's fee needed.

"I wonder how many people commenting have actually used homeopathic medicines? I've been using various individual and combinations of homeopathic medicines for 43 years and have found them to be frequently effective."
That's the whole reason that medical science has created the double-blind placebo study: our brains ARE that powerful. As a general rule, anecdotes are not evidence. Not even when its your own personal experience.

"cantharsis outperform antibiotics consistently."
Antibiotics are becoming more and more useless, due to being grossly over-prescribed. Microorganisms are gaining resistance to them. In some cases doing nothing - giving no treatment, and letting the body heal itself - actually works better than antibiotics. Antibiotics kill bacteria indiscriminately, including many that are healthy and beneficial, and which actually help keep pathogenic bacteria in check. So ending a course of antibiotics leading to recovery does not necessarily mean the Spanish Fly (which is what cantharsis is) actually did the curing. Although, since it is a relatively high (low?) 30C dilution, and it tends to be recommended to that several pills be taken at once, several times a day, its feasible that between them there is actually enough active toxin present to directly attack the infection. Since the body filters the toxin from the bloodstream rapidly, it would tend to accumulate in the bladder. But because a particular treatment works by accident, does not vindicate homeopathy as a whole.

"Recently Switzerland did a thorough scientific project on Homeopathy and determined that it worked and added it to their healthcare program"
No, they did a review of existing studies, and the government reinstated homeopathy for a trial period until 2017, pending an independent investigation. They were focused almost exclusively on "cost-effectiveness" because, you see, there IS big money behind it. Big money in the form of the government having to pay the bills for the state-funded insurance. Homeopathy is relatively cheap because all it requires is plain water, as opposed to drugs and surgery and MRI machines and other incredibly expensive stuff. But just like the comment above about winning medals, the government is made of politicians, not scientists, and government policy does not determine reality.

"Some moths will respond very quickly to the release of small amounts of a suitable pheromone over a mile away. What concentrations are we dealing with there?"
The difference is the homeopathic remedy is bottled, corked, and given to the patient. The moth is in a giant field of open air. That one part per billion molecule of pheromone is free to float around and eventually, randomly,
make it to the moth's nose. The one molecule of remedy in a thousand bottles of water can not randomly travel between the different bottles in order to effect every patient.

"physical entities in these extreme dilutions in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates."
A nano-particle is just a small particle. It is at least one molecule, or else it would no longer be the same substance. In the case of metals, which are elements, a single molecule can consist of a single atom. As long as there is one atom, it can potentially be detected. If a sample containing one atom is diluted by putting half of the sample into two different containers and then adding filler to each, one of those two containers will not have a detectable level of the original material, because there is nothing there to detect. Maybe you didn't look closely enough at the graphic in the article.

"As for Avogadro's number, such important concepts are not relevant" For all the fancy words (which you apparently copy and pasted from somewhere) do you even know what Avogadro's number is and means? What do you mean it isn't relevant? Molecules have some finite size. There are a finite number of them that can fit in a given container. We can calculate that number. Using Avogadro's number. If we know how many are in the starting sample, we can easily calculate how many dilutions it takes to get to 0 molecules remaining. We aren't just talking about small amounts of active ingredient. We are talking ZERO active ingredient.

"By the same token, I can therefore conclude that nanotechnology is a con because the particles are just too small for me to see." See above

"I've used homeopathy on my family and my pets with remarkable success"
Anecdotes are not science.

"The principle of like cures like, however, is valid: Beekeepers never get arthritis, since the body's defense against bee stings also cures other inflammation such as arthritis. "
That's not a cure, its a form of vaccine. Vaccines only work if taken in advance of getting sick, by teaching the body how to respond properly. Neither vaccine nor bee sting can cure after the fact (in the case of rabies, the idea is to get the shot as quick as possible, before the bacteria travels from the site of the bite to the brain)

"Quantum Teleportation..." only works if the two particles were initially spin coupled or entangled, and they have to be subatomic particles, not just any two random bits of matter that happen to have been close to each other. And the only "information" transmitted is what state (spin or polarization) the other entangled particle is in. If anything, it implies that, although it is impossible for the observer to know or measure the state, it may actually have had a concrete state, (and not just a quantum probability) all along.

"Guy Chapman has simply shown his own limited intellectual abilities"
That is your second ad hominem attack, so I bet I'm next :)
What is your angle? You sell homeopathy pills for a living?

And finally, to all the many people who posted saying that Popsci should not have dignified this topic with an article:

Popsci is not here to provide original scientific research. That is what academic journals are for. Popsci stands for POPULAR science, i.e. something for the masses. It provides vital readability for the average person who can't or won't read a real scientific study or review first hand, which helps to educate and inform the citizenry, which is pretty dang important.

It is obvious that this role is sorely needed - just look at how many of the comments are in support of homeopathy!
If something this blatantly false is still believed by so many, how can we expect understanding of much more complex ideas like anthropogenic global warming, or evolution? I talked to someone recently who wanted to invest in a company that claimed it had invented a way to compress hydrogen to a level with about 5-10 times the energy density of gasoline. I tried to explain that this was not just a matter of technology, it was simply impossible on a basic chemistry level, but to no avail. Our school systems have failed us miserably in teaching basic science, (let alone advanced science!)
I for one am glad we at least have PopSci.

Some people above actually believe that we should trust James Randi! He's that magician who is a master of deception and mis-direction...and he fools a lot of people.

However, he is not fooling the FBI anymore. His long-term live-in partner was arrested for a federal felony for identity theft. It seems that he is either very easily fooled OR was a part of this criminal activity (time will tell).... You are welcome do a google to find out more info here.

As for other comments above, it is so embarrassing for people to claim the mantel of "science" and yet be so mis-informed and who then have the sheer audacity to provide misinformation.

In actual fact, above, I cite a study conducted at the most prestigious scientific institution in India testing 6 different metals that underwent "homeopathic dilution." Each of these 6 metals were found in "nanoparticles" even in the homeopathic "high potencies."

No skeptic has ever shown that there are "no molecultes" left in the homeopathic doses. If I'm wrong, please cite a specific study...but nope, the above skeptics simply theorize...and have no real solid evidence. Whoooops.

BTW, citing a skeptics ignorance is not an ad hom; it is a statement of fact about a behavior.

Ullman, I didn't have to time to check your studies and what not, but, according to the NIH, "Most rigorous clinical trials and systematic analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition."

Link-http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy

How about Sheng? "there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for
specific effects of conventional interventions"

Link-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16125589

If there was overwhelming evidence in support of homeopathy, rational thinkers and scientists would adjust. They would go back and try to understand this fundamentally different perception of the universe. However, when the opposite happens, when homeopathy is as close to being disproved as possible, they shrug it off.

I'm going to try and keep this simple and focused for the author of this pop-science article and for the scientists who are corresponding on this site, as there are too many aspects to debate about and too many articles I could post here.
(...and just a brief comment to the rebuttal to my comment that Dr. Hahnemann died before Avagadro's constant was discovered. Yes you're correct in this fact. Is that a victory "gotcha" moment? my point was that Hahnemann being a chemist knew that the homeopathic solutions had no more substance left in those high dilutions.)

1. Homeopathic solutions are not simple dilutions. There is a process of succussion that is employed between dilutions. What I see lacking here, and in other anti-homeopathic pseudo-scientific rebuttals is a complete lack of discussion about the role of succussion in the process of dilution. (I can only assume the author of this article has not fully researched homeopathic medical science!)

I'll repeat more of the study I listed in my first post:

Manju Lata Rao1, , , Rustum Roy1, 5, Iris R. Bell2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Richard Hoover1
1The Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
2Department of Family and Community Medicine, The University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
3Department of Psychiatry, The University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
4Department of Psychology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
5Department of Medicine (Program in Integrative Medicine), The University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
6College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Received 20 March 2007;
accepted 27 March 2007.
Available online 31 July 2007.

Rao ML, Roy R, Bell IR, Hoover R. The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy 96( 2007):175-182
Homeopathy, Volume 96, Issue 4, October 2007, Page 292
PDF (103 K)

Abstract
The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed “implausibility” of biological activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro's number of molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry), in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand–receptor interactions), is the essential consideration.
In contrast, materials science focuses on the three-dimensional complex network structure of the condensed phase of water itself, rather than the original solute molecules. The nanoheterogenous structure of water can be determined by interactive phenomena such as epitaxy (the transmission of structural information from the surface of one material to another without the transfer of any matter), temperature–pressure processes during succussion, and formation of colloidal nanobubbles containing gaseous inclusions of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and possibly the remedy source material.
Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies. Materials science concepts and experimental tools offer a new approach to contemporary science, for making significant advances in the basic science studies of homeopathic medicines.
Keywords: homeopathy; succussion; materials science; structure of water; epitaxy; nanobubbles
Article Outline
Introduction
Overview
Materials Science Models for homeopathic medicine
Implications of materials science models for basic science research methods in homeopathy
Preliminary studies of homeopathic medicines using Raman and infrared spectroscopy
Method
Results
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References

Figure 1. Comparison of two different homeopathic medicines: Natrum muriaticum (NM) and Nux vomica (NV) showing representative UV-spectra demonstrating the differences between the remedies.

Figure 2. Envelope of differences within a series of 10 preparations supplied of each Homeopathic medicine: Nat mur and Nux vom.

Figure 3. UV–VIS spectra of: (a) succussed and unsuccussed ethanol, (b) comparative UV–VIS spectra of Nux vom (NV) 6c, 12c, 30c with unsuccussed ethanol, (c) comparative UV–VIS spectra of Nat mur (NM) 6c, 12c, 30c with unsuccussed ethanol.

Figure 4. Comparison of the Raman spectra of the same potencies, 6c, 12c and 30c, for two different homeopathic medicines. The differences in the peaks identified as (a)–(e) is clearly visible in 30c samples of Nat mur and Nux vom, compared to other diluting of the same medicine.

Figure 5. Raman spectra of plain ethanol and succussed 6c, 12c, 30c. Note that peak positions identified from (a)–(f) are prominent only in 6c sample. Also note that the intensity of peaks in the unsuccussed ethanol is significantly lower than the succussed samples.

***(sorry, but the graphs just did not cut and paste)

2. It appears many of the scientists here have come up with the obvious and clear answer that homeopathy only appears to work either because of a placebo effect, or in the case of veterinary medicine simply because the animal was already on its way to homeostasis -- innate healing.
As a physician who uses pharmaceuticals in addition to biochemically applied nutraceuticals, and homeopathy, I do understand placebo, and the lasting cures brought about by the proper applied "homeopathic axioms" or "homeopathic laws" is far different from the way investigational pharmaceutical companies view placebo. Most placebo effect is as best temporary.
Now when it comes to living cells, it is difficult to ascribe a placebo effect:

a) from the International JOurnal of Oncology:

Int J Oncol. 2010 Feb;36(2):395-403.
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells.
Frenkel M, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P.
Source
Integrative Medicine Program-Unit 145, Department of Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA. frenkelm@netvision.net.il
Abstract
The use of ultra-diluted natural products in the management of disease and treatment of cancer has generated a lot of interest and controversy. We conducted an in vitro study to determine if products prescribed by a clinic in India have any effect on breast cancer cell lines. We studied four ultra-diluted remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja) against two human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and a cell line derived from immortalized normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE). The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis. These effects were accompanied by altered expression of the cell cycle regulatory proteins, including downregulation of phosphorylated Rb and upregulation of the CDK inhibitor p27, which were likely responsible for the cell cycle delay/arrest as well as induction of the apoptotic cascade that manifested in the activation of caspase 7 and cleavage of PARP in the treated cells. The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses. Further in-depth studies with additional cell lines and animal models are warranted to explore the clinical applicability of these agents.
PMID:
20043074
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

b) here is the same study but with a different abstract from, Oncology Reports:

Oncol Rep. 2008 Jul;20(1):69-74.
Cancer patients treated with the Banerji protocols utilising homoeopathic medicine: a Best Case Series Program of the National Cancer Institute USA.
Banerji P, Campbell DR, Banerji P.
Source
PBH Research Foundation, Kolkata 700020, West Bengal, India. pbhrfindia@dataone.in
Abstract
Although many studies have been conducted on the role of alternative medicine in the treatment of cancer, only a few reports have been published regarding the total regression of malignant tumors. At the PBH Research Foundation (PBHRF), two of the authors have used homoeopathic therapy to treat many patients with various malignant tumors. The objective of the present study was to have their treatment procedures evaluated and validated by the United States (US) National Cancer Institute (NCI) Best Case Series (BCS) Program. Lung and oesophageal carcinoma patients were treated with homoeopathic remedies at the PBHRF according to Banerji's protocol until there was complete regression of the tumors. Case records including pathology and radiology reports for 14 patients were submitted for review by the US NCI BCS Program. Four of these cases had an independent confirmation of the diagnosis and radiographic response and were accepted as sufficient information for the NCI to initiate further investigation. These four cases are presented in detail in this report along with follow-up and outcome information. This study describes the process and outcome of a selected case series review through the NCI BCS Program. The results of the review were deemed to be sufficient to warrant NCI-initiated prospective research follow-up in the form of an observational study.
PMID:
18575720
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

OK, for the purpose of scientific discussion, I'll keep it to these three journal abstracts for now. The first is about a proposed "mechanism' for homeopathic remedies and how they might be working despite the lack of material substance being present. The later two articles are demonstrating apoptosis of cancer cells using ULTRA-DILUTE homeopathic solutions...hardly a placebo effect.

Again, for the scientists here, my apologies for limiting this to just the 3 studies, but who is going to spend the time reading all of this if I posted more. My blog response would be way into double digit pages.

I appreciate any scientific commentary in response.

#Guy Chapman: You give 3 reasons:
1. There is no way homeopathy should work.
2. It cant possible work.
3. There is no evidence???

You views in #1 and 2 aren't very scientific are they? And there are plenty of evidence on the net and even shown in some post here in this discussion.

#jacobazizi
funny your conclude this article says homeopathy doesnt work? I have read it 3 times now and I still conclude the article says if you use remedies below 24X homeopathy is plausible?

As to James Randi and his 1 million dollar challenge. I have written to the JREF foundation asking for the following simple experiment to be tested:

1. You get hold of 100 sundew plants
2. You give at random 50 plants placebo and 50 plants ammonium carb. 6c
3. The test will show that 50 plants react to homeopathy.

But the test was not admitted by the foundation, which I think is unfair. I want my million bucks!

Well thank god that Emily Elert, a lay person writing for the medically oriented publication "Popular Science", wait it isn't, never mind. Well thank god those above have a background in alternative medicine and can....wait, only a few have an experience with it, never mind. Check out CaptainKnow's response. NO LESS than those idiots at MD Anderson err... wait, those are legitimate researchers at a prestigious institution, well anyway, those guys no matter how unqualified they must be decided to subject homeopathy to a test which in no way could have any placebo affect (for those above who seem to know this is how it works) by testing homeopathic dilutions on breast cancer cells and by golly, it worked. So either those guys (MD ANDERSON) are less than ideally gifted in the intelligence department or the nay sayers are. I'm going with the one where the guys who do MEDICAL research at MD Anderson aren't. How many of the people who think homeopathy is gunk also go to church? Ironic, yeah? How come some athletes are so much better than others? no one knows and there isn't a test on earth that can tell us, does that mean they are't better? Before we had the LHC, we didn't know there was a Higgs Boson, yet there it is. I don't know how hard you have to work to ignore valid studies just so your paradigm doesn't have to shift, but they are out there. If a person wishes to dismiss them so they can feel they know all that is right on earth and sleep better, that is their choice, but it doesn't really make them right, does it? We don't have a test for how acupuncture works, but study after study shows it does and it doesn't use any substances. Go figure. I guess if it takes more than ten minutes to make graphs and not actually interview anyone who could have pointed the author to valid studies, we might have actually had a balanced article. My concern is that I know this article is garbage and the evidence is there, many subjects written about by Pop Sci I don't, now I don't know whether to trust their reporting and insight into other areas.

OH yeah, to answer the question in the title, with today's technology, homeopathy is as implausible as it sounds. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I learnt lot of science also in the process of reading the reader's comments too.
Learned of "Biophotons" emitted from DNA.
"Memory retention of water molecules"

That convinced me of two things .

1.Its good that material science is slowly realizing that the validity of their "two hundred years young scientific methods" is no more valid if they don't "scientifically" review it ,pronto.

2 Material scientists have carried the world on their frail back for about 200 years now
Its time that Life-scientists "stood on the shoulders" of material scientists and, with different tools and vision and insight looked beyond to see further out.

Reality ( whatever it is ) is a mix of both qualitative and quantitative aspects almost in equal proportions .
Its not engineering precision and mathematical logic thats only there to reality but, "reality" is riddled with chaos ,uncertainties and probabilities ,holes(=absence of negativity for example) and, fractals and discontinuities ,randomness and spontaneity, vacuums and nothingness,dark energies, quantum entanglements, "life" (yes, vital energies) itself and a host of other entities of which our material scientists have no clue of and lie beyond their ken.

It's high time that Life Scientists break away from material scientists and strike out on their own with their own brand of "logic" not necessarily built up on "quantifiable measurements" based on the mathematics of numbers (that material scientists consider as Gospel truth) .
For the material scientists everything that cannot be quantified is meta-science or philosophy or,myth.
While they are at liberty to hold their own views, its not necessary that Life-scientists who deal with non-material aspects of the universe such as "Life" also need to toe the same line .
Life science must proactively consider a paradigm shift .

anyhow i find the readers' comments part , which the original article provoked, the more interesting part .

Its not just about Homeopathy at all,that i am interested in but the more interesting to me was the exposure of the pathetic limitations of material science that emerges every time.

Chillo everyone :) IMO, this is as much a crappy article as it is unscientific ie "Not knowledgeable about science or the scientific method." It's basically written by an ill/non informed individual who seems like a flunkie of Big Pharma. I'm glad I decided to read more than the first six comments posted though, as I began to feel somewhat annoyed and saddened by the lack of critical thinking skills or prudent research on the part of these commenters [some would prefer to be a victim and play the blame game when things don't turn out well than to take charge of their own health and well being]. "Americans are among the sickest people in the world. There’s a reason for this. Most people know nothing about how to maintain their health. Conventional medicine doesn’t address this, but holistic health does, pointing out that illness typically arises for three reasons: nutritional deficiency, toxic overload, and stress. Most people now have all three and are completely unaware of it. Nutritional deficiency occurs because conventional produce is grown in depleted soil, and because most people don’t eat enough produce anyway. The typical Western diet is high in sugar, fat, and refined carbohydrates. Obesity is commonplace — Americans are overweight but undernourished. You can’t eat that kind of food and expect to stay healthy." [excerpt from "A Better Health Plan"]

I was very relieved to say the least, to read the interesting, well informed and thought provoking comments of other individuals like CaptainKnow, Olavius, DannyOfAllTrades, ladiesbane, Dana Ullman; thanks for your valuable input and for the learning experience. :)

@ starman1695..."When the medical world proves they KNOW what they're doing, [ME: other than the great work western medicine does with broken bones], then I'll dismiss alternative methods!!! I don't see that happening any time soon!"
I'm with you on that!

@ suzaned..don't know what all is in your promotional product, however, I do know that Damiana, Ginseng, Johimbe and Maca Root to name a few, do the very same thing for just a few cents on the dollar. [combos even better!] WOW! Gotta LOVE Mother Nature! "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food" ~ Hippocrates (circa 450-350 BC)

peace 'n' love y'all!

dadster rocks!

It is absurb to think that a few ppm of impurity in a wafer of silicon can replace a vacuum tube.
It is absurb to think one youtube video among billions can lead to world wide riots.
It is absurb to think a less than a erg of radiation can create images on my ipad. How to they fit those vacuum tubes in there?

From what I can see Homeopathy doesnt use active ingredients, a 18th century concept invented to reducing a complex biological to a single useful molecular widget for chemical analysis. The action intented is the organism's sensory capacity to observe a homeopathic remedy. Here would be a 21st century model allopathy comparison. Imagine dropping lines of code randomly into a software program trying to debug a program. Very implausible way to cure a PC.

#Olavius "not totally implausible" is a long way from "actually effective".
It wasn't implausible when Aristotle said that heavier things fall to the Earth faster than light things - but it was still just as wrong, which was discovered once it was tested.

#Dana I appreciate that you can use Google to find something that supports what you already believe. I didn't bother to copy and paste any of the dozens of examples of independent research that has discredited homeopathy, nor any of the meta-analysis of existing studies that show that the looser the controls and less well developed the experiment, the more likely it is to find in favor of homeopathy. The same skills that helped you cut and paste that one study of yours can help you find lots of counter evidence by legitimate scientists, if you are as interested in information as you are in being right.
At least you are looking for studies at all, but the thing about science is: so-called "experts" are still just human. They make mistakes. Which is why science has developed concepts like peer-review and repeatability. It is not enough for one lab to come to one conclusion and then say you have proof. ANY lab should be able to run the same experiment and find the same results.

Regarding the finding trace elements in samples using new technology specifically, neither you nor the material you quoted addresses what is meant by "nano-particles". I raised this question in my first response. Nano just means "really small". One molecule is really small. It is hard to detect, but it is there. If technological advances have been able to capture ever smaller concentrations of metals, great. That has nothing to do with homeopathy, which acknowledges that there are ZERO molecules left in many preparations, and claims that the mere fact of having been in contact with the medicine changes the "signature" of the water molecules. That is in no way the same as "nano-particles".
Which is all irrelevant anyway. Finding out that there is a non-zero detectable level of diluted metals in a sample is not even remotely evidence that said dilution has a positive medically significant effect on illness.

If you are going to look for studies that support your belief in an attempt to convince others, you don't have to resort to lots of technical jargon or mention the prestige of the university in hopes that people will grant it credibility on that basis.
Just find a properly controlled double-blind placebo study using a statistically significant sample size which is published in a peer-reviewed journal that finds a statistically significant affect in favor of a 30C or greater homeopathic remedy compared to placebo which has been replicated at least once.

As other commenters have said, it isn't even supposed to be about providing an actual substance. The water is supposed to "remember" that it was once in contact with the medicine. And that magic water isn't even suppose to interact with the chemistry of biological cells. It is supposed to interact with the "vital force" - also known as "chi" in the east or the "soul" in Christianity.
I don't understand why you are so many others are so dead-set on trying to force a form of spirit healing to fit in with medical science.

With all the money changing hands from big pharma to the NIH in at least the last 6 years (YES, SIX!), it is beoming difficult to separate the fact from fiction..at least for us "common folk" (much like most of our "professional" and "authoritarians" and " experts" more and more these days. Nobody talks about that. There was a brief mention of CAMtherapies/alternative medicine, etc, not being as profitable as traditional medicine [and often, many, many times more effective], but it certainly makes a difference if ANY relevant studies are being funded by drug companies themselves and manipulated or altered to favor their desired results. Oh yeah, then there's "...the practice of "ghostwriting" medical articles. For medical journals, ghostwriting usually refers to writers sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major but uncredited research- or writing contributions.

The articles are instead published under the names of academic authors. "

According to the article in the British Medical Journal:

"Inappropriate authorship (honorary and ghost authorship is an important issue for the academic and research community and is a threat to the integrity of scientific publication.

Our findings suggest that 21 percent of articles published in 2008 in the general medical journals with the highest impact factors had an inappropriate honorary author, and that nearly eight percent of articles published in these journals may have had an unnamed important contributor.

The highest prevalence of both types of inappropriate authorship occurred in original research articles, compared with editorials and review articles.

...Both honorary and ghost authorship are unacceptable in scientific publications, and each form of inappropriate authorship has important consequences.

...Honorary authorship has implications for scientific integrity... Likewise ghost authorship has important implications and consequences. If un-identified authors are involved in the work and manuscript preparation, readers not only will be unaware of the contributions, perspectives, and affiliations of these individuals, but also may not appreciate the influence or potential underlying agenda these individuals may have on the reporting of material in the article (such as may occur with ghost authors employed by industry)."

but then...the BMJ has also had their comeuppance over their lies and harrassment of Dr Andrew Wakefield.
"The man has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies."

we got our work cut out for us peoples in regard to taking the power back for our own health and well being...which means taking the time to do important research to better inform and arm ourselves..Knowledge is Power...the "$ick care" machine keeps on steam rolling all over this country with mis/disinformation and they want YOU and YOURS onboard. Take your meds, watch tv and be quiet.

this is really interesting you guys, thanks! :)

I think, the article proofed quite no point...

As my mother was an alternative practitioner, but also a very capable nurse, I know a bit about it.
First of all it has to be said, that often also the conventional medicine has a lot of flaws. There are treatments, which were used [perfectly "scientific proven"] over decades only to be totally stopped, because the treatment resulted more harm than good.

The problem of the article is, that it mixes the methods of homeopathy with the logics of conventional medicine. Homeopathic doctors don't say, that the substances are the real active ingredients - their theory is, that the active ingredient interacts with the solution. That means the property of the solution changes and the solution becomes the active ingredient.

Does it work or doesn't it? I don't know. My mother was always an advocate, who sent people with serious health problems [like cancer] to the hospital and only offered supporting treatments. For other illnesses like allergies, it seems really to work...

The real problem is, that we don't understand the body 100%. We don't even completely understand our environment. Scientists and even more normal people are fast to say, that everything is nonsense... but simply they don't know for sure...
To be less harsh [even if opinionated] and a bit more open and communicative surely helps...

I went to a homeopath once, on the recommendation of a friend. The homeopath explained that some of the medicines are so extremely diluted that not a single molecule of the orginal medicine remains in the bottle, but that the solution still contains "the essence" of the medicine.

What nonsense.

If water retains "the essence" of medicines that were once in it, even at extreme dilutions, why doesn't my drinking water contain the essence of all of the piss and shit that has been in it since the beginning of time?

Plus, worse yet, this article explains that homeopaths imagine that the homeopathic cure is more powerful when it is more diluted. Well, the piss and shit that was in my drinking water a hundred years ago must be very diluted now, as well as very ripe, so I must be drinking some really powerful Essence of Excrement now, don't you think?

Yuk.

You kids are craaaaazy. I love that some of the posts are longer than the article lol. First world problems are fun

Some of the respondants jump to conclusions that Homeopathy is invalid and cannot work, but I think this is shallow thinking. It may well be that some homeopathic treatements do not work, but there is fair evidence that some do work. It is not good logic to decide that just because we don't understand how something works means it cannot work.

When we lived in Italy for three years, our older son had a rather severe allergy problem living in the relatively polluted Poe Valley in Milan. Our Italian doctor prescribed a homeopathic treatment for our son, and his allergy problem went away. We took a trip, driving to England, and during that trip his allergies came back with a vengence. While in a book store in England, we found a book on homeopathic medicine that said that many homeopathic treatments that cure a sick person would give those same sickness symptoms to a healthy person. We decided that having left Milan, we also left the pollutants that were causing our son's allergic reactions. But, since he was still taking the homeopathic medicine, it was now, in fact, causing his allergic reaction. When he stopped taking it, his allergy problem went away. When we returned to Milan, his allergies returned. When he resumed the homeopathic medicine, the allergic reactions stopped.

I can't claim an understanding of how this stuff worked, but I am convinced IT DID WORK!

So then my '1000 HOME remedies your doctor may not know' book of plain wisdom is all actually bs? I guess the doctors know best every time one of us is buying eardrops instead of trying a hairdryer, peanuts, or oatmeal first if no sign of infection is apparent when our kids get earaches. Peanuts again are best at equalizing ear pressure, which I'm sure a whole bunch of doctors know, but they never had to tell me, nor did I have to read it in a book. Wind chill variables I got from a book. This is supposed to be about a true quest for life, and that means crowdsourcing, folks.

Just a simple refuting claim in favor of what the ACTUAL word means to me. Don't trip, I get the opportunist side of this basic medical war too.

RLeBlanc -- I wonder if that cure in Italy was Zicam or similar. It claims to be homeopathic, but actually has active ingredients: zinc acetate (2X = 1/100 dilution) and zinc gluconate (1X = 1/10 dilution). That qualifies it as a conventional medicine (even though on the bottle it is "homeopathic"). Those zinc molecules don't work on imparting molecular spin on water molecules or whatnot, but are actually contained within the dose. Zicam LLC put homeopathic substances (water) in with medicine (zinc acetate and zinc gluconate) and claimed it was homeopathic, allegedly to get around patents and FDA scrutiny.

Second point: As to all of the folks who claim "Big Pharma" doesn't work, or is corrupt, or whatever. Um, so? Proving that a medicine in the past was thought to work and has been proven later to not work *does not* prove that homeopathy could work. It just means that you should no longer take that medicine and expect it to work. Proving one thing false does not prove that an unrelated thing is true.

My points:
1) Just because something claims to be homeopathic, doesn't mean it is. It might actually have active ingredients (instead or in addition). Thus, no need to look to homeopathy for an explanation of effectiveness.

2) Proving something else false (or ineffective) does not make anything (or everything) else true (or effective). For example, proving Darwinism is incomplete or false would not prove creationism true (nor reincarnation, etc.)

#Popslacker
1) I dont understand you? Are you saying using lower X potencies are not homeopathy?

2) Agree with you there, but you have to understand where most critics are coming from.
Statements like "There is nothing in it", "It is just placebo" are lies repeated again and again until the lies becomes the truth (typical spin tactics).

Further, when you hear critics from the big pharma camp also saying "There is no evidence" you would think that what they support must have plenty of evidence - well it is even termed "evidence based medicine" - funny when it is so rare that there are actual evidence to support their claims.
According to BMJ only 11% of all treatments used actually carries evidence of efficiency.

"Homeopaths are quacks earning big bucks on sick people". I know many many homeopaths and none of them are millionaires or anything close. All of them care for their patients well being and could easily earn much more if they were to change trade. And then look up the word quack and look at the 11% evidence - who are they calling who quacks? Not to mention billion dollar lawsuits, back-handers, etc. in big pharma industry.

Even worse when you now face "homeopathy is dangerous"!!! Nobody to my knowledge ever died from taking homeopathy. Arh, but it is because homeopaths keep patients away form "real treatment". Statistics shows "real treatment" is the 3rd biggest killer in the US. How hypocritical can you get.

Thanks to CaptainKnow for a decent defense of the homeopathic phenomenon. A couple of minor additons/corrections. Avogadro first expressed his hypothesis that there are a fixed number of molecules in a chemical equivalent weight of a substance in 1811. However, his hypothesis was not proven until 1910 by Robert Millikan (cf. h*t*t*p*://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant)

In contrast, Hahnemann first discovered the homeopathic effect in 1797, and by the time Millikan came along, homeopathy was a well accepted, and in fact preferred, medical modality throughout Europe and the Colonies.

As a long-time homeopathic practitioner with impeccable scientific credentials, I can attest to its efficacy. I have treated many scientists and engineers over the years, all of whom are amazed by its healing effects. To those who call homeopathy "nonsense" I say : your arrogance exceeds your intelligence.

Admittedly, when a robust and repeatable phenomenon violates a known law of science, we scientists are put into a dilemma. A good scientist, however, will investigate the phenomenon first hand, recognize its efficacy, recognize that this conundrum indicates that a new, previously unknown law of science must exist and WILL NOT merely dismiss the phenomenon out of hand.

A thorough recounting of the in vivo and in vitro evidence validating the homeopathic effect is available here: [h*t*t*p*://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=4619820&da=y] This paper, titled "Hypothesis for the Structure and Action of
Sub-Avogadro Homeopathic Dilutions", also offers a plausible hypothesis explaining the homeopathic effect which hypothesis relies solely on known scientific facts and principles.

ahhhhhhhhhh intellect. As a newcomer to Popsci.com I am utterly refreshed by the logic, reason, and intuitive debate I find here in comments. Such a stark contrast to the moronic babblings of other sites. Homeopathy? Doesn't this equate to a desire to say hey we know what we're doing to? Isn't it a claim to intellect and surety outside of standard medicine? Isn't it little more than an arguement of empowerment over one of our greater feelings of weakness, our health? The most common reason of distrust of doctors being we don't really know or understand what they do so in our brilliance we'll claim to believe in homeopathy instead. Yea yea ok homeopathy you've got the basic mechanics of medicine down. You've figured out to diagnose and treat disease with some sort of refined substance. But isnt the refusal to concentrate and further refine your cures and treatments just willfulness and control grabbing on the part of the one who wants to claim knowledge. No silly if mint cures sore throats give em as much as ya need to cure it and dont interject some foolish minimal dosage nonsense. Yes, I concede home remedys do work in certain circumstance if you posess the specialized knowledge of what works for what problem. Only don't we have a profession allready created to do this for us? Why not trust the doctor to give a refined dose of the cure?

Just another hit piece and yellow journalism by the presstitutes. You totally disregard you own premise that the bottom line is whether it works or not. (It does)

You also ignore the elephant in the living room. The current medical monopoly.

well, I see two groups here, one of which represents "true believers," the other of which represents science.

What the true believers say IMHO essentially boils down to:

it works.
it cured my dog.
it cured my uncle's bladder condition.
we don't understand everything in the universe, so it could be true.
there is a vital force that is affected by it.
the body defies physics by defeating entropy.
it has stood the test of time.
mainstream medicine has weaknesses.
everyone who disagrees with me is bought off by Big Pharma.

I believe that is most of the essence of what that group says, stripped of abstractions.

The other group - science - says:

Homeopathy has been proven multiple times in placebo controlled, double blind studies to equal the placebo effect. There are multiple links provided to such studies. Some have been run by homeopaths.

It violates fundamental laws of physics, the ones that let us use electricity, chemistry, atomic energy, electronics, etc. We probably should not toss those out to make room for homeopathy, since it has been proven not to work multiple times.

How could it possibly be that water remembers that it once had a molecule of interest in it more than all the other kinds of molecules the water has contacted?

The body heals itself most often if left to itself, unless there is something quite serious going on, so getting better as an anecdote is not proof of anything.

Medicine has weaknesses, but tries to learn scientifically how to go forward. That's why in my parents' generation kids were dying of diphtheria, or strep infections (scarlet/rheumatic fever) or "blood poisoning" (staph), but not any more (within the limits of vaccine effectiveness and antibiotic efficacy), for example.

Get James Randi's $1,000,000 if you're so sure you're right (I like that one!). No one has collected it yet.

One more point that has not been made so far by anyone in this thread is that there is no standard formulary for homeopathic remedies. Every homeopath has his/her own favorite way to do the dilution thing - what type of tube, how many shakes, how to standardize starting doses, etc., etc. It's horribly sloppy methodology whose only saving grace is that there isn't enough of anything in it to do harm.

So the 2 groups make their points. Only the scientifically minded will actually read about those placebo controlled double blind studies and be affected by the results. The rest will happily go along thinking water remembers that one molecule of cat liver stuff it once had much more fondly than it remembers the test tube walls or the stopper.

My uncle had a flourishing practice as a Homeopathy "Doctor". Observing him and his numerous patients I could sense some common traits of followers of Homeopathy:
1) They all "Believed" in Homeopathy, till their problem was minor enough not to need Hospital care.
2) In normal life also, they were not prone to using established "Logical" arguments. They led their lives ensconed in "Imperical" thought.
3) They always knew they were right, in everything. While others were always wrong. No discussion.
4) Besides Homeopathy, most of them also believed in Magic, Destiny, Fate.

My uncle could never explain to me as to why his patients died of Cancer, Heart ailments, Dengue, Meningitis etc; or as to why some women under his long care had to undergo Ceasarian Sections, when he knew all the medicines to prevent and cure such maladies?

He used to write the names of medicines on the corks of small bottles in his Medicine chest. One day in his absence, I interchanged the corks randomly. I also drained several of the "Mother Tincture" bottles and filled plain Alcohol in them. Believe me no one was wiser. The magic of Homeopathic medicines continued unabated. It only confirmed my belief that there was never any Medicine in the pills he purveyed. Only Faith.

And I am too small an entity to challenge anyone's Faith.

#sci001
1. You are wrong when you state there is no double blind controlled trials showing homeopathy is more effective than placebo.
Just recently I have read a few (one for women in menopause, one for children with allergy) both concluded improvements from homeopathic treatments beyond placebo. There are plenty more of such studies. Other studies show that pancreas cancer patients 5-year survival rate increased dramatically with homeopathic treatment.

2. You claim homeopathy violates basic laws, but fail to demonstrate how? Do you understand how homeopathy works at all?

3. You claim that opposing homeopathy stands science. No true scientist will ever take such stance. What you represent is close mindedness.

4. Then you mention James Randi and his so called million dollar reward. Have you read my earlier post? That guy owns me a million bucks. Also he owns George Vithoulkas a million. There is no reward - it is just a hoax.

5. Hahnemann gives exact instructions how to prepare homeopathic remedies.

#ag0176
Death rate during Spansih Flu in 1918 for those treated by conventional doctors was above 25%. Death rate for those treated by homeopaths was less than 1%. It is a statistical fact and happened i real life - not just in their minds.

That homeopathy doesn't work is your faith.

Olavius, sound and fury signifying nothing, I'm afraid.

1. Note that the skeptics among us have provided numerous peer-reviewed scientific, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, complete with references - url's linking to the publications, as I said, including some of them run by homeopaths. All of them show that homeopathy = placebo. For you to counter that by stating that you recently read something without citation is meaningless in this discussion. You're not operating at a level worthy of this debate.

2. If you don't understand enough about molecular motion, thermodynamic agitation, and distribution of energies to see how meaningless it is to claim that water somehow remembers what was once in some small part of it, then you have nothing to contribute here. You are correct to say that I have no idea how homeopathy works, because it has been proven that it doesn't (see above). Again, it = placebo.

3. Not closed-mindedness at all, I'm afraid. Rather a mind that is eager to accept new and exciting findings that come along regularly in science, as long as they withstand the rigors of scientific test. It's the best test we have. It got us to the moon, it allows us to usually make good flu vaccines every year, it discovered antibiotics, and genetics, and evolution, and transistors, and quantum physics, and relativity, and chemistry, and astrophysics. Notice that homeopathy is not on that list, because it is not science and has been proven to = placebo (see above).

4. James Randi has indeed accepted challengers who want to claim extraordinary psychic powers or the reality of various forms of quackery. I have no specifics in your case, but there is plenty of reliable information out there about the repeated failures of claimants to win the money. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izxPEn3lvBY for the original challenge, interested readers. Your proposal was to test ammonium carbonate at some concentration on plants. Ammonium carbonate is known to affect plant growth - if there's any present. I have no knowledge of your self-reported attempt to get Randi's attention. The Vithoulkas "controversy" has been dealt with decisively and repeatedly, and no one except homeopaths accept V's version of events. See, e.g., http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/364-a-correction.html . All he needed to do was fill out an application. Randi never "backed out." He was well-prepared to proceed.

5. Hahnemann supposedly figured all this out in the 1700's. Since then his ideas have been proven wrong many times (again, see above: homeopathy = placebo). Other contemporaneous ideas, like vaccination, were proven correct and were adopted by medicine. If someone told you that you could step off the Empire State building because vital forces can defeat gravity, would you do it? If you trust homeopathy for anything serious, you can be endangering yourself or your loved ones.

Flu death rates? Again, you state things as facts but without any credible source.

Ideas are testable or not. If tested and they fail, they're false. If they're false and you believe them, then that's your problem.

Niacin, a class of B-Vitamins in it's pure irritated flush causing form cures sunburns. Red skin nice and sunburned? Skin pealing away? That irritated flush from taking full strength, flush inducing niacin will cure any sunburn in it's tracks. As well as all of it's side effects.

So what is all this? I am stating something that qualifies as a non-medical remedy that I am guessing you don't all know about. Is it tested you may ask? Oh, yes it is. I am talking about fully qualified medical professionals discovered this back in the 50s and there are millions of test cases all the way up till present and yet still, you don't all know about it. Why? it's not a drug, it can have nasty irritation and itching and so on. I should mention that the irritation is the niacin removing the effects of radiation damage. No radiation damage = no flush. (Note that unless you are educated in it's use, you should only take it under qualified supervision as the effects are varied based on metabolism, dosage, amount of radiation damage to be cured, blood circulation and reactions can be quite severe. Also damage cured is retroactive for radiation damage you have accumulated over your entire lifetime.)

The point? It works, and yet most doctors don't know about it either. They prescribe moisturizers and pain killers when niacin can cure all sunburns and all there effects in less than 1 hour. This and other unknown pockets of information are why these subjects stay alive. Someday they will reenter mainstream medicine but until they do, these odd "cures" will never die out while they share a place with John Doe's perfect cure for what ails you.

What does this have to do with homeopathy?

Are you saying that because high doses of niacin cause flushing of the skin, that homeopathy is true?

Are you saying that because there is some knowledge that doesn't get into standard medical practice, therefore homeopathy is true?

By the way, there are many uses for niacin, and the level of confidence in its efficacy - based on solid clinical trials - varies for specific conditions. If you check via the NIH, you will find them listed. Curing sunburn is not one of those known to be improved by niacin.

#sci001

How hypocritical can you get? I blame you for not giving one reference for your claims and you instead of giving these blame me for the same thing. If you are so sure why cant you give one reference proving homeopathy doesnt work?

If you want evidence try ccrhindia or homeopathy.soh both org sites. There is all the evidence you claim doesn't exists.

Also the statisical facts about deathrates during the spanish flu is easily found by google.

And I dont give anything for James Randis lame excuses. He owes Vithoulkas an apology and a million bucks.

As to my suggestion with the sundew plants - it is not my idea - it was Darwin that first carried out these tests. And then you have to understand the plants will react instantanely when the homeopathic remedy hits the leaves - this will not happen when the placebo hits the leaves. But go on try for yourself it only costs a few bucks.

You have you views and I have mine, but dont pretend you stand on the side of science. You stand on the side of denial.

Next time you buy your remedy from a homeopath, offer to pay your bill with money "diluted" to the same factor, to see if they follow their own religion.

Don't knock it until you try it.

After spending thousands of dollars on my dog's traditional vet, and at vet specialists, we had no solution to our problem. We were recommended to see a holistic vet here in Indianapolis. I was a huge skeptic. I always thought anything holistic was a joke and a waste of time/money. However, when my dog's fever reached 105, and he hadn't eaten or drank on his own in weeks, we had to do something different.

Upon arrival, the holistic vet took a swab of my dogs mouth, and cut off a bit of his hair. She placed these things into a machine that had a wand attached to it. She then proceeded to touch the wand to different areas of her body, which she said represented internal stress areas. The machine displayed readings that were supposed to represent the intensity of stress. She diagnosed the stress as being in his liver, and said that he's most likely had a bad reaction to flea medication, and his liver is shutting down.

She gave us some homeopathic remedy, and some nutritional supplements. She also gave him a dose of the homeopathic before we left her clinic. By the time we got home, my dog went straight to the water bowl and started drinking on his own for the first time in nearly a month. That night, he ate some wet food for the first time in just as long. He was back to normal within days. I can't explain it, other than it worked.

In the following months, as the medicine ran out, we didn't order follow-up doses. He seemed to do ok for a while, but had regressed. His fever returned and he wasn't eating again. We put him back on the homeopathic, and he was better again immediately. Now, I keep him on the homeopathic daily, and take extra care to keep him away from chemicals. He's happy and healthy.

Homeopathy doesn't work without the appropriate healing crystals. You should also know if your medicating on the cusp of a month with your moon sign.

This "article" is ridiculous. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the body will heal itself if given the chance. The main reason it is so ridiculed is because it takes much of the profit away from mainstream medicine and empowers the patient. True many people in Naturopathic medicine are quacks but so are medical doctors that push drugs and surgery needlessly which happens on a daily basis.

An example would be going to the doctor for heartburn. Most medical doctors would prescribe medications, tell you to take them for the rest of your life and then move on to the next patient. If things get worse then you can have surgery to prevent stomach acid from rising up. Maybe I'm in the minority but that is not a solution, that's a lazy doctor interested in his Porsche payment and mortgage on his second vacation home.

What I want is a Naturopathic doctor that will listen to me and take the time to find out WHY I have heartburn. Too much stress, poor diet, lack of exercise or what. THEN put together a plan to heal naturally which could involve meditation, acupuncture, diet changes, exercise plan, certain herbs, etc. All of which have been PROVEN scientifically to help heal many ailments. And none of them will make a medical doctor or hospital as much money as they want.

I am thankful for naturopathic medicine and an option to our ineffective, failing, medical system.

" The main reason it is so ridiculed is because it takes much of the profit away from mainstream medicine and empowers the patient."

Sure, there are financial interests, but that's quite a claim to pass off as an empirical fact. Personally, the science for homeopathy seems a bit too mysterious and a little too indistinguishable from the placebo effect. It's totally fine to believe whatever you want, but please don't try and make it out as some huge conspiracy. Secondly, wouldn't a person who administers homeopathic treatment have all the same interests to make money as anyone else?

it also seems like you're kind of bigot, with that whole stereotype of doctors that you've presented.

"An example would be going to the doctor for heartburn. Most medical doctors would prescribe medications, tell you to take them for the rest of your life and then move on to the next patient. If things get worse then you can have surgery to prevent stomach acid from rising up."

Doctors are always telling patients to stop eating fatty foods and get more exercise for just about everything. Wanna get rid of heartburn? well then eat better, quit smoking, don't eat before you go to sleep, stop the alcohol consumption, etc. etc. This is all well within the confines of modern medicine.
You are certainly offered the right to go to an alternative medicine, but it's not like they're gonna do any better. IF you need someone to life coach you into doing the things you're supposed to do, then I definitely don't recommend going to your family doctor.

It's also important to remember that once something like homeopathy becomes accepted into modern medical practices, then health insurers will have to start covering it. This can be extremely expensive for everyone. Let's keep to things with more observable effects.

I understand that heartburn was a poor example, but it was the one you provided.

"it also seems like you're kind of bigot"

Calling me a bigot is a great tool to cut off conversation and it is a lazy and stupid comment. And it won't work.

The point is our medical system is too profit motivated, too expensive and is failing miserably. It's time to have an adult conversation about some out of the box ways to improve our healthcare system. And I think Naturopathic medicine has many great treatments that have been proven effective and are much cheaper than many of our mainstream treatments.

"...please don't try and make it out as some huge conspiracy. Secondly, wouldn't a person who administers homeopathic treatment have all the same interests to make money as anyone else?"

That our medical system is failing in a fact. It's not working. Yes a person who administers homeopathic treatment has an incentive to make money. In my comment I referred to a Naturopathic Doctor not just someone who administers homeopathic treatment. Do you know the difference?

But the amount of money charged by a Naturopath is much less than a hospital or current medical doctor would charge. $1000 a night to stay in a hospital!! Give me break! Stomach stapling surgery because someone eats too much? Ridiculous. 3 hour waits in emergency rooms? What a joke!

I was just saying you seemed like a bigot for making doctors out to be these lazy individuals that only care about buying porches and vacation homes. It just seemed like you were creating a straw-man for a rather large group of people, that's all. Don't worry, I'm sure you got black friends or whatever...

"That our medical system is failing in a fact. It's not working."

you seem to be fond of blanket statements. I'd say that you have a totally legitimate gripe about the cost of health care in America, but we're talking about effectiveness of treatment. so, yes, it's fucked. But, no, it's not because of the effectiveness of the treatment that it's built on.

"Stomach stapling surgery because someone eats too much? Ridiculous."

What are you talking about? What should a doctor do instead of gastric-bypass? Sit next to you all day and watch what you eat for you? Prescribe you pills? They always recommend diet and exercise, but what else can they do?

Doctors also recommend physical therapy, massage, and yoga. notice how none of those things had trouble getting accepted by the practitioners of western medicine. I bet it has something to do with strong clinical results.

whatever, you can believe what you want. It doesn't matter what I think. If rubbing a magic lamp cures your tummy ache, then I'd be a jerk to tell you not to do it. I would just advise not spending any large amounts of money and time getting magic lamps.

America is having financial troubles with it's health care system that many other developed countries are not dealing with. Obviously, it's not about the methods of healing people or the way in which western medicine has come to view the inner workings of the human body, but the ins and outs on a bureaucratic level. I don't see why adding homeopathy is going to make the situation any less convoluted. If methods have shown effective treatment, then they become part of western medicine. Homeopathy(the subject of this post) does not seem to have a clear cut result in it's effectiveness. The closest thing I've seen to validation is what this article is saying from one guy. But, you know, that doesn't really sway me. I'd love to see something a bit more comprehensive in just how homeopathy has shown, on a clinical level, results that expand well beyond a placebo.

May I suggest that the next time you need major surgery that you try a homeopathic anesthetic ! Ha! Ha!

I'm mystified as to why a respected science website would give credibility to this snake oil with such a column headline as this one has. You can be pretty sure the homeopathy websites will be referencing your article on their websites: "Popular Science Investigates Homeopathy As Possible Alternative Medicine."

I think the comparison of vacinations to homeopathic preparations is unfortunate. True homeopathy does not prevent disease it treats symptoms of disease. Vacinations specifically provoke immune response to prevent disease. They are not based on the principle that like treats like.

Homeopathy came about as the result of the observation that excessive doses of choroquine used to treat malaria causes the same symptoms as malaria - chills and fever. Therefore very small doses of substance that create a disease symptom can be effectively used to treat the same symptoms. This is the basis of homeopathy.

The good thing about true homeopathy is that, even if the substance is toxic there is not enough of it it the preparation to cause any harm. True homeopathy also consists of substances vetted by the homeopathic community and prepared and diluted in very specific ways.

The bad news is that the health fraud marketers have latched onto homeopathy and are selling products labeled as homeopathic that are not really homeopathic. They are not based on like treats likes, are not part of the homeopathci pharmacopea, and more important are not diluted. These products may contain substances for which there is no safey data at dosages that may cause harm and which do not treat the diseases the claim to.

@ACuriousMind: No, there is no scientifically defensible connection between homeopathic "remedies" and the disorders they purport to treat, at any level of dilution. Remember, the core tenet of homeopathy is "like cures like" - this is simply not true, other than in a few coincidental cases. The way that homeopathy seeks to establish a link between a "remedy" and a symptom looks as if it was specifically designed to result in confirmation bias!

One can cite studies till kingdom come, but with the lack of a plausible hypothesis (much less replicable evidence), homeopathy's going to be taken as seriously by the scientific community as it has been for the last couple of centuries.

Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Prove what you're saying, or shut it. I'm sure there are people vociferously defending some other snake oil that is also a magical cure.

Is this for real?

Yes magical thinking does not make it so.

Oh when will people evolve away from such easy cons.

Can any homeopath tell me where this 'vital' life-force is?

I wonder if there is a homeopathic hangover cure for all the homeopathic vodka I've been drinking all day ?

How to destroy a homeopathic remedy ? - Take the label off the bottle :)

How to make one ? Yep, you got it, stick it back on ;)

I've heard there is a homeopathic Viagra on sale but you need to rub it on really well :)

And lastly, Do you know why there isn't a homeopathic contraceptive ? Because you are either pregnant or you are not !