Here is the full quote that was cherry picked from here;

2.8 We are, however, satisfied that many therapies listed in our Group 2 give help and comfort to many patients when used in a complementary sense to support conventional medical care even though most of them also lack a firm scientific basis. Nevertheless in relieving stress, in alleviating side effects (for example of various forms of anti-cancer therapy) and in giving succour to the elderly and in palliative care they often fulfil an important role.

Interesting that they decided to exclude the part that points out the nature of the science behind it.

The author is wrong here. Complexity and reality mobilise passions just fine.

The author claims Judith Curry's work is important, yet this article has not, at all, covered any of it.

Curry isn't a "myth-buster", she's a climate change denial propaganda mouthpiece with conspiracy theorist tendencies and a borderline anti-science bent.

Curry isn't a pragmatist.

There has been no research from her presented or cited in this article.

Curry presented no data or citations in this article. The claims she made are, for the vast majority of them, easily refuted with minimal effort and access to a half way decent search engine.

The author is correct on one point here. Reality is exceedingly complex. It is very clear that Curry doesn't come close to understanding it or the tools we have to examine it.

Nope. No, it really doesn't.

Less damage to human life. The infrastructure damage is on the increase though. Rebuilding allows for better buildings to go where the last wreckage was. But with the intensity increasing even those, eventually, need replacing.

Wouldn't it be nice is that didn't have to happen? Wouldn't it be nice is we could get the insane weather to settle at a point (or even ease up a bit) so that things we build now aren't looked at later with the thought "Oh, that could have been stronger."

So... if she considers treaties to be futile what would she recommend as the vehicle to get countries to work together to "better prepare [them]selves for the consequences of climate change"?

Curry has given up. She looks to be one of those deniers that, for years, would have said "it's not real" only to come to the realisation to late that it is actually real and now responds with "it's too late, why bother"

I note that she's not offering any suggestions on what this preparation looks like. I have ideas, they're all rather dark though.

Curry has her head buried in the sand. The thing she 'recommends' here is what is already happening.

It is not the fault of the scientists in the field that it turns out that a major contributing factor is the human factor. Given the human factor is 1) a factor we can actually do something about and 2) a significant input it does actually make sense to focus on that.

1) I call bullshit again. Just because Curry thinks they're too unpredictable doesn't mean climatologists wouldn't update models with these inputs. 2) Wouldn't this be more the field of a glaciologist rather than a climatologist?

Again, another uncited opinion with no evidence or research that backs it up. This, in the face of the vast quantities of research that shows the claim she argues against is actually happening.

This is a blatant lie.

I suspect data had to be cherry picked heavily to reach this conclusion. Here in New Zealand the temperature record runs like this;

• 2017 - average
• 2018 - above average
• 2019 - above average.

The thing to realise here is that 2018 would have moved that average, so the 2019 above average is greater that 2018's. This can be checked on the NIWA website.

They are models...

They are also, literally, the only tool we have for this. And the more accurate data we get the better the models become. They are also refined over time. This is the nature of models.

Curry appears to have a particular disdain for predictive models. This is odd in my mind. She claims to be a climatologist. The vast bulk of the tools available there are a) data collection methods and b) predictive models. One of the important things this profession does is work on these models. Yet Curry looks to have little trust in them.

Curry, at this point, in my mind, is a farce and a joke. If I was a climatologist I'd be questioning her claim that she is actually credentialed in the field.

But it would be a reduction. If we keep going the way we are we're fucked. Well, maybe not us, but our kids and grandkids will be. But who cares about them?

So Curry is one of those climate change deniers that thinks it's too hard, so why bother.

Out of the crank column and into the denier column. Or maybe she's in both.

Correct. The consensus comes from that scientific research.

No-one in the scientific community would think this was a thing. Which again, is a massive red flag against Curry. More reason for the addition of Curry to the Crank column.

Ah.... no.

"Scientific research is based on contradictory views"?

I've tried a number of times to write a response to this but ended up deleting them and starting again.

This is so wrong it's not even wrong. It's ridiculous.

Agreed. This make zero sense. It is also not how it is in reality. the only place you see this claim being presented is among those with shitty research methodology that can't get their work through the peer-review process and are unable to accept that they may be the problem.

The thing that allows the claim that a scientific consensus exists is that there are mountains of studies and papers and research out there that we can now filter through to find what the vast majority of them conclude. If the vast majority conclude the same outcome then it is a reasonable thing to say that there is a scientific consensus.

This is the case with climate change.

Curry does, of course, have this conversation on record as part of the public record. Right?

If not, this an an unverifiable anecdote and not worth the electrons used to download it with.

If this was true, ignoring the implications of the Grand Conspiracy required, do you not think that these scientists would be producing research that better aligns with the current government policy for the country that many people still consider to be the most powerful in the world?

Funny how that administration is currently at odds with the scientific consensus and often takes a decidedly anti-intellectual, anti-science stance.

What posible political policy is being referred to here?

Does the cognitive dissonance hurt?

...and there we have it. Curry is a conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand how science, the Scientific Method, or the scientific community works.

Curry, at this point, has moved into the Crank column for me.

And it is.

The fact that Curry's 'ideas' are constantly shot down should be cause for reflection on the nature of those ideas. Any rational person would wonder if they may have something wrong and investigate why their ideas are not well received.

To think that something as large and distributed as the scientific community can be part of such a cover up would definitely fall into the grouping of a "Grand Conspiracy."

This change in terminology was a result of the science updating itself with the addition of new research. Global warming is still a thing. But when you get an idiot like Senator Inhofe bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor as "evidence" that global warming can't be real "even though it keeps getting cold" it becomes clear that terminology is important.

The thing here is that the climate denier will often claim that these things aren't considered and that they are the actual cause.

The truth of the matter is that the current best models we have do take these things into account and it still turns out that human inputs into the systems are still screwing it up for everyone.

So, no, interest in natural inputs to the models is well regarded. It is well regarded because we need to get these inputs right.

Curry's arbitrary claim that they're not well regarded is just false. It also, again, feels like something said by someone that has trouble having their research published because it is of poor quality.

So... That's just plain wrong.

This is a typical response from someone that disagrees with a scientific consensus but can't get their work published. Rather than taking the peer-review on board they cry censorship.

It's not the "UN consensus", it's the scientific consensus. The UN has a suitable level of respect and understanding at the moment to get the nature of what that means and backs it.

If you go against this consensus you're not "banned" from anything. You just need to have exceptionally high quality research to back your claim because of the mountain of research that establishes the current state of that consensus. If your research is of high methodological quality people will pay attention to it and try to replicate it. If replication is successful there is an interesting thing there that may, after a lot more research, move the consensus. If it can't replicate it this is also interesting. The question of why an attempted replication failed becomes relevant at this point. If there's many attempts by different people and some work while others don't it is even more interesting.

If you feel like your research is being 'banned' for going against a topic where there is a scientific consensus perhaps it is because your methodology is just crap.

Complex, yes. no one is claiming otherwise.

Poorly understood? Maybe by Curry, but there are a large number of climatologists out there that can understand this.

Curry's self confessed inability to understand this should have been a red flag for the author to not take her as seriously as they have. But, from an earlier comment we can see that the author was looking for someone to back their position rather than to get an understanding of the scientific consensus.

Indeed they are. And here Curry lies, or misleads the author due to her ignorance, about this point.

Perhaps Curry would have done better by herself than relying on her fallable human memory and actually checked if this was a myth.

Just a quick search shows there is research around this claim that looks at the nature of research at the time.

• https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
• https://history.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
• http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Curry can, of course, show where these models were wrong. Correct?

This is also the point where I'm beginning to thing that Curry doesn't understand the nature of how models are used.

A naked and an unfounded assertion.

A citation is needed to demonstrate how such a conclusion can be reached.

And despite this we see every summer month reports of it being "the hottest [insert any summer month here] on record".

It appears that literally every other place can't find this data Curry claims to have.

If you look at the annual temp over time the data is pretty clear.

It is indeed a matter of scientific debate. But to claim it is currently an "intense" scientific debate is inaccurate.

That debate is made in the research and studies that are done. Their current consensus is extremely clear.CO2 is a significant contributor and human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.

The only place that this is still an "intense scientific debate" is within the climate change denial echo chamber. And, yes, I intentionally quoted the whole thing there because the "debate" isn't "scientific" any more. It falls into the area of the "evolution debate" or the "flat earth debate". The research in this area is at that level.

Read: I disagreed with the scientific consensus and my research was constantly rejected during peer-review.

That's my take on it. I would love to see some of her papers from that time to see if I'm right or not.

On the assumption the above is even a halfway acurate reflection of reality it would be more that her work was substandard or had poor methodology than it went against the consensus. Going against a consensus with good research/study methodology is interesting. It gives new takes on the existing understanding of how things are and opens up areas of research that hadn't been considered.

So, rather than allow your uneducated opinion to be informed by the consensus opinion of the educated you have sought out, and found, one of those educated people that agrees with your prefered outcome and have raised them above the vast majority of her peers.

When there is enough research done on a topic, and that research is aggregated to establish what it actually says that outcome will fall into something like a bell curve. You have found someone that is at the thin edge of that curve. You've found an outlier. In terms used in research, just because something is methodologically sound, it doesn't mean it can't still be wrong. This is why research on those outliers is repeated by others.

Also, "Curry is a true climatologist"? Not "Currey is a qualified climatologist"? The implication I take from this is that you think that anyone that disagrees with her isn't a true climatologist. You have literally made the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I, also, am not a climatologist.

For this reason I will let my opinion be informed by the scientific consensus on this field. I will listen to the collected knowledge and wisdom that this very large number of people have amassed and currently understand as the best interpretation of all of their research.

Is this not a reasonable position to take on a topic you're not an expert in?

Has the author considered that these voices are "isolated" because the claims they're making are largely unfounded, easily disproved, have no evidence to back them, or are just plain batshi crazy conspiracy theories?

Can you even google? Strawman argument as well. Climate change has brought new extremes in temperature and increased mortality as a result.

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/07/heatwaves-in-2019-led-to-almost-900-extra-deaths-in-england
• https://www.vox.com/world/2019/6/26/18744518/heat-wave-2019-europe-france-germany-spain

Not so much "expanded", but a shifted growing area. As these areas become suitable for planting the other side of that "grain belt" moves away as areas closer to the equator become unusable for grain planting.

Funny how the climate denier "forgets" to mention this part of the discussion.

Clinical trials of homoeopathy.

tl;dr; evidence is positive but source data is poor and no good enough to reach a conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.

If this "Critical Review" was being honest Theriault would have mentioned that the conclusions pointed out that this result isn't be be trusted and more, better quality, studies need to be done.

Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review.

tl;dr; The numbers show it barely better than placebo but the source data is from poor quality research. Better research is needed.

CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.

While Adams is paraphrasing the supposed "official message" the use of bold to highlight this section is a blatant message to his readers.

From an e-mail conversation with an employee of Cochrane Australia about this claim:

Happy to give some background to this.

Cochrane Australia was contracted by NHMRC as technical advisors to provide a methodological assessment of the NHMRC Homeopathy Review (a review of the evidence that was undertaken by a third party). The statement quoted below (with vital text omitted) comes from our technical report. It’s our understanding that our report was obtained through an FOI request by Brauer; it’s not publicly available.

We addressed this issue last year when we were contacted by The Guardian, see https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jun/30/homeopathy-company-investigated-over-ebook-advocating-treatment-of-babies.

The statement from the report is a technical comment on generic wording used in the Review. In our report we repeatedly agree with the conclusions of the NHMRC Homeopathy Review, as reiterated in the quote from The Guardian article. The deletion of text by Brauer is misleading. (We’re essentially making the general point that you can have reliable evidence that there is no evidence of effectiveness.)

How is it a reasonable conclusion when you literally have not read it? The only reasonable conclusion is to hold no opinion at all except to get it released so you can read it and then form one.

How does the anonymous author of the "Official Homeopathy Resource" site know that the conclusions were positive if it was "squashed"? Surely the only way they could claim this is if they'd seen it. And if they had seen it they would be pushing it for all to see.

Due to the fact that they are not publishing this supposed report the only reasonable conclusion is that they don't have it. And if they don't have it then the claim they make in it being positive for homeopathy is a fabrication made on nothing but wishful thinking.

Or, in plainer terms, a lie.

The Govt response was to soften this. The response from the Govt was to allow individual pharmacists decide what they would and wouldn't carry. However, there is a requirement for pharmacists and their staff to now be knowledgeable enough to "ensure that consumers are provided with the best available information about the current evidence for, or lack-of efficacy in, offered treatments and therapies."

This will leave pharmacies open to being challenged if they do not present the state of the current scientific consensus.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Recommendation

Wow... hardly surprising that everything about this headline is wrong. You don't even need to go to the source document to establish that too.

1. It was a recommendation, not a ban.
2. The govt basically handed off the decision to follow the recommendation to individual pharmacists.

There was no ban and the govt didn't "block" anything,

While this argument has been done to death and the continued use of it demonstrates an inability to accept or understand drug reactions in a biological entity I’m more interesting in the final point.

A quick search on “the leading cause of liver failure in children” did not reveal any hits that included paracetamol. Please don’t suggest I add paracetamol as a term. This would show a fundamental misunderstanding of how cherry-picking, begging the question and search engines work.

Could you please provide a reliable, unbiased and respected source for this claim?

While there are many cases that disprove your point (as in the case of Francine Scrayen and the influence she had in the death of Penelope Dingle) this isn’t the typical criticism laid against homeopaths.

On this specific criticism that concern is that people will rely on homeopathy for things that are actually real and won’t resolve themselves given time.

And looking at the way homeopaths speak online I don’t see anyone being able to honestly say that this isn’t a thing that happens.

How do you think conversations work?

Typically a conversation starts with a question. An answer is presented, considered and usually followed by another question. The questioner can swap amongst all participants. When no further question is offered this usually indicates the end of a conversation.

A conversation without questions isn’t a conversation.

In all fairness there is zero credible, good quality evidence that it works. There's heaps of "evidence" that it works, it's just that is it crap research.

Steve, the list of examples of "how little" we have to say is quite entertaining. It's very clear that you can't link to the source of these comments because that would put them in context. That context being that you are so utterly unable to defend your position in the face of genuine enquiry that you will ultimately twist anything and everything so your narrative is met. This disingenuous and dishonest manner of engagement is what leads otherwise rational and calm people to post things like this.

You should remove this list unless you are also willing to link to the source so it can be read in context. If you don't, you will at least know a little more about yourself.

Dana Ullman has also appeared as an expert witness on the topic of homeopathy in a number of court cases. In at least 1 of these he has been described as being "not credible"[1] [2]

Nanodoses are a real thing.

Claiming that this is a potential mechanism for how homeopathy supposedly works, despite the rigorous research that shows it doesn't, is a stretch though. Making a claim like this demonstrates that the claimant doesn't understand the nature of the scales involved with the level of repeated dilutions that are occurring in your typical 30C "remedy".

If there are any molecules of the active ingredient left to form the nanodose it would be more plausible to suspect that the manufacturing process was at fault.

So, literally people that don't have all the training yet. This would be an interesting thing if they were to complete their training and then run the survey on the same students again. As it stands though, this is less than worthless.

But again, we end up is a situation where Dana is taking something that sounds positive and uses it to impress those that may not know what to question.

Dana is demonstrating all the integrity of wet paper bag.

1. Not the largest (and Dana knows this)
2. Not a Government review (and Dana knows this)

At best the "Swiss Report" was a very limited assessment of select literature. The ongoing misrepresentation of this publication caused Felix Gurtner of the Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Health and Accident Insurance Directorate, Bern, Switzerland posted a letter to the editor of Swiss Medical Weekly entitled The report “Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs” is not a “Swiss report” to clarify this. Dana is very aware of this, but continues to misinform his readership with this blatantly and demonstrably false claim.

Given how often this has been pointed out there is only one reasonable conclusion for him continuing to put this out there.

Dana Ullman is a liar.

Reality shows that high quality research actually demonstrates, conclusively, that homeopathy is no better than a similarly administered placebo. i.e.; doing nothing.

"Efficacy"?

In reality the strong bias on Wikipedia is towards robust citations and sources. It is not the fault of Wikipedia or their editors that fans of Homeopathy (and other alternatives to actual medicine) are unable to meet these standards.

This AKA is an internal thing withing the skull of Dana. I've seen it used by a very small number of other homeopaths but it has not gained common use either in or out or homeopathy circles yet.

"AKA" is a bit of a stretch here.

They are compelling if you are scientifically illiterate.

Dana Ullman has also appeared as an expert witness on the topic of homeopathy in a number of court cases. In at least 1 of these he has been described as being "not credible"[1] [2]

The linked paper is from 2007. The National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has much more recent numbers from 2015.

This has been pointed out to Dana a number of times in the past, but, as with most things that he doesn't like, the more recent data paints a worsening scenario for homeopathy so he ignores it.

See the previous correction on the title of this section for the commentary on the actual figures.

This is a classic misrepresentation of the facts that is typical of Dana. While the number may be right, the representation of it as being "large" is designed to leave the reader with an impression that is actually wrong.

Homeopathy in India is a fringe therapy.

India has a huge population. You take any tiny fringe group and you can come up with a very large sounding number. Right up until you look at that number as a percentage.

For context: NSSO - Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India Health

Here, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reports on medical modality choices. The "other" category makes up about 5-7% usage. In "Other" we have AYUSH. So that's only part of that 5-7%. The "H" in AYUSH is Homeopathy so that makes up a part of a part of the 5-7%.

Looking at it from this angle you get a much more realistic representation of Homeopathy usage in India. An fraction of a fraction of 5-7% of 1.5 billion people still sounds like a lot if you look at it as a stand alone figure.

Nanodoses are a real thing.

Claiming that this is a potential mechanism for how homeopathy supposedly works, despite the rigorous research that shows it doesn't, is a stretch though. Making a claim like this demonstrates that the claimant doesn't understand the nature of the scales involved with the level of repeated dilutions that are occurring in your typical 30C "remedy".

If there are any molecules of the active ingredient left to form the nanodose it would be more plausible to suspect that the manufacturing process was at fault.

So, literally people that don't have all the training yet. This would be an interesting thing if they were to complete their training and then run the survey on the same students again. As it stands though, this is less than worthless.

But again, we end up is a situation where Dana is taking something that sounds positive and uses it to impress those that may not know what to question.

Dana is demonstrating all the integrity of wet paper bag.

1. Not the largest (and Dana knows this)
2. Not a Government review (and Dana knows this)

At best the "Swiss Report" was a very limited assessment of select literature. The ongoing misrepresentation of this publication caused Felix Gurtner of the Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Health and Accident Insurance Directorate, Bern, Switzerland posted a letter to the editor of Swiss Medical Weekly entitled The report “Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs” is not a “Swiss report” to clarify this. Dana is very aware of this, but continues to misinform his readership with this blatantly and demonstrably false claim.

Given how often this has been pointed out there is only one reasonable conclusion for him continuing to put this out there.

Dana Ullman is a liar.

To quote a fictional character...

Reality shows that high quality research actually demonstrates, conclusively, that homeopathy is no better than a similarly administered placebo. i.e.; doing nothing.

Actually, this is more because study at this level would expect the students to dig deeper than an overview on a topic. The references section, and discussion page, for an article on Wikipedia are often a very good starting point.

In reality the strong bias on Wikipedia is towards robust citations and sources. It is not the fault of Wikipedia or their editors that fans of Homeopathy (and other alternatives to actual medicine) are unable to meet these standards.

This AKA is an internal thing withing the skull of Dana. I've seen it used by a very small number of other homeopaths but it has not gained common use either in or out or homeopathy circles yet.

"AKA" is a bit of a stretch here.

They are compelling if you are scientifically illiterate.

Patients would leave a free service for one they have to pay for?

You are describing the current scenario for healthcare in the US. That appears to be working well for them.

[edit] That last sentence is sarcasm. i know you may have an issue recognising that so I figured I should say it.

It would mean that the lighter load on the NHS would allow the limited resources they have to better service the patients they get.

That's a big "if".

This confidence despite the evidence that shows homeopathy doesn't work.

This scenario sounds like a funding issue. This would also suggest that your new endeavour would need significant funding to succeed. Which means higher subscriptions fees. which means even more of the people you are trying to serve won't be able to afford your subscription.

You'll be helping even fewer people.

Do you have professionally assessed market research to back this claim? Or is it just a gut feeling?

If the latter, surely you would want to do the former so that when you approach the entrepreneurial business people mentioned earlier you can present them with that. Because they will want to see that before supporting your endeavour.

The best and most robust research we have on this conclusively shows homeopathy to not be effective.

How do you address this problem?

So... This is on top of the taxes that they already pay. The taxes that fund the NHS.

The major complaint from homeopathy supporters is that removing homeopathy from the NHS means that those that can't afford to pay for healthcare won't have access to it any more. Despite the claims of it being so cheap.

So your solution is to create a new thing and charge them what effectively equates to a subscription fee.

Do you realise that the people you are trying to save homeopathy on the NHS for are, by your own description, the people that couldn't afford this subscription? You do get that, right?

So you are promoting an organisation with no regulatory powers over it's membership what so ever?

Even within the ranks of homeopaths there are those that accept that they should not be touching some areas. Actual serious conditions that won't resolve on their own. Yet there are others that are quite open about being able to treat literally anything at all. For the most part we don't heat about these because they never actually get the chance to inflict there claims on others. Occasionally, when they do though, it typically ends in a fatality.

c.f. Gloria Thomas and Penelope Dingle and a truck load of others.

and under educated

The moment Homeopathy meets the observable world in a manner that removed observer bias the "effectiveness" also goes away. The purpose of the removing observer bias is to work out what is real.

...aaaaand there you differ from what the robust scientific body of evidence conclusively demonstrates.

You claim to know, but consistently fail to actually demonstrate. So, how do you "know".

You are in agreement with the science here.

We have always been susceptible to them.

This would fly in the face of everything else you represent...

...because fuck 200 years of medical and scientific advances.

Why would you need a petition to oppose an open consultation? You were literally trying to suppress the free speech of others. Also, if the weight of evidence for homeopathy was actually there this would only reinforce homeopathy's position on the NHS.

Actually, the NHS wants to be fiscally responsible with the limited taxpayer funds they have so are weeding out demonstrably ineffective treatment options. It's not their fault homeopathy falls into that category.

To quote a certain fictional character; "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Homeopathy is only different in that it is an inert thing that has no effect beyond that of a similarly administered placebo.

"When"? LOL. :)

That's an unwarranted level of confidence... :)

I don't think this means what you think it means. Just because you didn't like the information it doesn't mean that it was biased or misleading.

Perhaps this was because it was factually correct and a reasonable interpretation of all the evidence presented.

I can understand Sandra Hermann-Courtney thinking that the comment from Eco Witch deserves a wider audience but all it has done is demonstrate that neither Sandra or Eco Witch understand what science actually is.

My initial response to this reposted comment was "You've started by quoting the word 'Science', and the statement immediately following it indicates that they are intended as scare quotes. You've already lost any credibility you could have had.

The rest of the reposted comment just demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method. Some may argue that Eco Witch is arguing against a Strawman. But I'd have to disagree. In order to form a Strawman argument you first have to have at least a basic understanding of what you're arguing against in order to form an easier point to knock down. Eco Witch and, by extension via the reason for the repost, Sandra have demonstrated that they have little grasp on what the Scientific Method actually is.

At best, they are arguing against a caricature of science. Until they realise this they will continue to be relegated to the category of Crank when they talk on the topic.

I would be interested in the source of this 28% claim. From my limited research Homeopathy in India is a fringe therapy.

India has a huge population. You take any tiny fringe group and you can come up with a very large sounding number. Right up until you look at that number as a percentage.

For context: http://www.thehinducentre.com/resources/article7378862.ece

Here, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reports on medical modality choices. The "other" category makes up about 5-7% usage. In "Other" we have AYUSH. So that's only part of that 5-7%. The "H" in AYUSH is Homeopathy so that makes up a part of a part of the 5-7%. Taking that into account the claimed growth of 26.3% in homeopathy is hardly any movement at all amongst the wider medical treatment community. Looking at it from this angle you get a much more realistic representation of Homeopathy usage in India. However, this survey was taken in 2015. If there is a more up to date survey from the NSSO I would be very interested in seeing that.

Looking at the NSSO link, Homeopathy is part of AYUSH and AYUSH is part of “other”.

“Other” makes up 5-7% of the respondents. Given the number of respondents I would expect this to be a fair representation of the population. Due to the nature of the NSSO I would be surprised if it wasn’t.

Anyway, Homeopathy still comes in as a fraction (part of AYUSH) of a fraction (part of “other) of, at best, 7% of the population. Messing with polling criteria isn’t going to have much of an impact on such a tiny fraction.

You state: “In the semi-urban, rural and remote areas (which translate areas with poor people and areas of lower literacy), homeopaths and homeopathy retain a substantial amount of influence…”

So your argument here is that homeopathy is popular amongst the poor and undereducated? That’s not a good look.

Also, popularity is irrelevant. The best quality research we have today shows, conclusively, that it doesn’t work and this is being acted on by multiple governments around the world. Australia, the UK, Spain, multiple government departments in the US… All have removed, or are in the process of removing, subsidies and recognition of homeopathy because of the weight of evidence against it.

Science is a hard thing to argue against.

I will stick to my opinions. I am of the opinion that on any topic that I don't know enough about I will concede my position to the scientific consensus regardless of how much I like or dislike that position.

As for homeopathy being promoted and expanded in the UK it appears to be on it's last legs there. Spain has also recently come out and restated its heavily pro-science position on the topic and it's looking like Scotland NHS is about to dump it too.

If there was any reality in your claims you would expect to see things as you wish they were. And before you claim Big Pharma is doing this Big Pharma would be all over it if there was anything in it.

I would ask for a citation on the 550 million homeopathy users, but you've never provided one in the past and I have no expectation that you'll do so now.

Regardless, by your own standards of logic that means there are 6.5 billion people that don't use it so your point is sufficiently countered.

Personally I think your argument from popularity and my argument from the opposite position are irrelevant. The best research we have today demonstrates that it doesn't work. The small number of poor quality papers you cite do not manage to overcome the good quality research that is out there.

I've used homeopathy, so I guess I'm not one of these "about 2000" that you refer to.

I would love to see your source for the number too. Or are you just making that up based on your opinion from your interactions with them online?

I'm sorry that you can't actually grasp what it is to be a skeptic. You have had it explained to you time and time again yet you persist with this caricature.

A skeptic would update their position in the face of evidence that they understand and back the scientific consensus in areas they're not knowledgeable in.

You phrase being a skeptic like it is a bad thing. This alone indicates that you don't understand what you are talking about.

You do realise that it is typically your crowd that is pushing for opinion based healthcare, right?

If you have reached the point where you are even arguing against the opinion of the masses some part of you has realised that you are losing the popular vote. That you no longer have the numbers to be able to influence something like this.

Some part of you is realising that homeopathy is indeed on the decline.

You should listen to that part of yourself and ask it why this is the case.

The "leading journal" in the field of homeopathy was added to the Title Suppressions list in 2016.

“SKKKepticLover: The bottom line is that their intent is malicious and they spread lies, hate, and disinformation about a healing modality that has been proven to benefit millions.”

If this was the case you(the royal “you” that is the pro-homeopathy side of this discussion(not you personally)) would be able to easily counter their(the royal “they” of the pro-science side of this discussion) claims with the evidence that backs your position. You would also be able to defend that evidence should it be challenged.

What you shouldn’t need to do is;

• You shouldn’t need to resort to special pleading to explain away the poor quality of positive studies and the paucity of replication within the literature.
• You wouldn’t need to make comparisons that don’t matter (actual medicine has a bodycount) because it doesn’t validate or support the actual claims in the discussion.
• You shouldn’t promote scientific studies that support your claims while saying science can’t test it when it disproves your claims.
• You shouldn’t need to resort to anecdotes and insist they should count as solid data when it has been explained time and time again why anecdotes are not useful and have repeatedly failed to explain why this claim is incorrect.
• You shouldn’t need to repeatedly copy/paste the same arguments that have been demonstrably debunked time and time again just in case the pro-science crowd don’t show on the current comment thread.
• You shouldn’t need to avoid answering uncomfortable challenges to your position.

I’ll add the caveat here that the list above is more in reference to the commenters on discussion forums that the positions of organisations.

I think that the takeaway message of the above is that if you can’t defend your position perhaps you should reconsider it. This is what science does and this is what the pro-science crowd should be doing, IMHO.

If the majority of the best quality research showed homeopathy worked (not how it works, just that it works) the pro-science crowd would be backing you.

“SKKKepticLover: They masquerade as pro-science when, in fact, they are libelers and slanderers.”

The accusation that they are “libelers and slanderers” would be fair and valid if the science being claimed was incorrect and you could demonstrate they knew this to be the case when they made the statements.

If the pro-homeopathy crowd is so confident that they’re right on the science and the statements are indeed libelous and/or slanderous why do we not see these accusations being won in a court of law?

“ChristyRedd (to UK Homeopathy Regulation): Using a screen name which implies you are a representative of some agency within the UK government is unethical.”

This is a prime example of the sort of thing that I was referring to in my earlier post about the nature of the online discussion.

In this comment, Christine has addressed a commenter but rather than address the points of the message she has chosen to just attack the poster themselves. She goes on to make unfounded claims about the poster and the nature of the popularity of homeopathy.

This “550 million homeopathic patients” claim is one of her regular copy/paste claims that she never addresses when asked for a reliable source for the numbers.

This approach doesn’t help the case of the larger homeopathic community. When you get down to it these commenters are the voice of the wider community when it comes to online interactions outside of any safe, insulated self imposed community silo that may exist.

“SKKKepticLover: The homeopathic community needs to become more politically organized to fight this small band of extremists who believe in depriving others of their freedom of medical choice.” I agree, somewhat. The homeopathic community needs to stop the rhetoric that the pro-science crowd believes in depriving others of their freedom of medical choice. It has been pointed out on almost every comment thread that this isn’t the case. The pro-science crowd promotes responsible spending of public funds. e.g. taxpayer money shouldn’t subsidise healthcare options that are unproven or disproven. This isn’t the same as saying that it should be banned. The other thing that the pro-science crowd support is informed decision making. The pro-homeopathy crowd regularly claim that the pro-science side are trying to restrict their freedom of speech while they express their freedom of speech. If their claims were true they wouldn’t be able to make the claim in the places they are. Their own complaint is the evidence that the complaint is invalid. Often, in the same post where they claim this they will be calling for the pro-science crowd to have their freedom of speech curtailed. This approach need to stop. It just makes those posters look foolish. That the pro-science side is pushing for is the ability for those trying to make informed medical choices to have access to accurate information about the treatments on offer. If your claim is challenged you should be able to defend it. If you can’t defend it you should go and learn more about it so you can better defend it. The current approach from the pro-homeopathy commenters is to complain, dodge the point, ignore it, which about suppression of freedom of speech, change the topic, make irrelevant comparisons to other things, copy/paste a repeatedly debunked claim, resort to ad hominem attacks, claim an ad hominem attack has been used against them (even after the concept of ad hom has been clearly described and it’s been pointed out why it wasn’t one), name calling… The list goes on. But at this point they do anything but counter the challenge to defend the claim made. The portion of the homeopathic community that are engaged on forums and comment threads need to show a little respect for the topic and for themselves. None of the current tactics that are used by the homeopathic community that is engaged on forums and comment threads is helping their position.

Comparing your narrative to the sources he cites his narrative does appear to be the more accurate.

You do come off as the villain.

I find it astounding that you would think the tweets you post would embarrass the tweeters. They point out, effectively, your irrational position. You posting them demonstrates a massive lack of self awareness on your part. I'm consistently surprised that you can't see this. Consistently enough that I'm surprised that I'm surprised by it any more.

Just to point it out yet again... Pro-science, not anti-homeopathy. It's not our fault that the best quality evidence doesn't match your preferred world view. Science doesn't work that way.

In all fairness, this referenced page is currently an extremely heavily redacted version of the original page. While it could still be considered a misrepresentation of the events you have removed almost all of your original posting to get it to this state.

This is what is referred to as cherry picking.

The science is quite clear on this. It isn't looking for an explanation. Before you ask "how" you ask "if". When actually looking at the claims and testing to see if they are real it is found that the more observer bias we can remove from the experiment the less of an effect there actually is. To the point where it is indistinguishable from a similarly administered placebo.

Science doesn't bother trying to explain things that don't exist.

There is no mystery here.

The only debate that exists here is between Homeopaths and the science groupies that promote a scientific approach to healthcare.

Amongst the scientific community there is no real debate happening here because the topic is well understood and considered to be quite settled. The only reason you think the jury is out on this topic is because of the echo chamber you live in. It seems like there is debate because you are always able to find someone to argue against your "science".

...such as a poor manufacturing process that allowed for inconsistent amounts of active ingredient to be deposited on the pillules. This could lead to a build up of active ingredient that periodically gets deposited. This could be a reasonable explanation for the inconsistent and actually measurable amount of active ingredient found on the pills. This inconsistent amount would fall on a bell curve and at the thin ends of that we have the "nothing at all" and the "way too much" amounts. The fact that the limited number of pills tested did not fall into the "way to much" end of the curve is not only unsurprising, but it would be unexpected. This doesn't mean it can't happen. As 10 families have discovered already.

If the manufacturing process of Hyland's Baby Teething Tablets was consistent this would be a fair statement. As it stands though, the FDA findings demonstrated that there was a very large and inconsistent range.

This is true if the product was manufactured to a consistent standard. It was found that this was not the case.

A history of good manufacturing processes does not speak to the current quality of that process. The fact is that it has been found that this process is no longer as good as it used to be.

While this item is included the manufacturing process of Homeopathy should remove any useful amount of it from the end product. Hyland’s Teething Tablets offer no relief from the redness, inflammation and discomfort from this ingredient.

Also; this: https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm230762.htm

While this item with a latiny sounding name is included the manufacturing process of Homeopathy removes any useful amount of it from the end product. Hyland’s Teething Tablets offer no increased sense of wakefulness from this ingredient.

While it is included the manufacturing process of Homeopathy removes any useful amount of it from the end product. Hyland’s Teething Tablets gain no calming benefits from this ingredient.

While it is included the manufacturing process of Homeopathy removes any useful amount of it from the end product. Hyland’s Teething Tablets gain no teeth formation benefits from this ingredient.

From himself?

The Russian Academy of Sciences has just come out and formally announced it considers homeopathy to be pseudoscience and a health hazard.

So... non-specialist in actual medicine want to rely on "hoping really hard" to make bacterial infections go away...

That'll work out well.

"Could" permanently damage long-standing alliances?

"Could"?

I think we're a bit past that stage.

These would be the pro-homeopathy people that are unable to address the valid challenges that are presented.

The difference here is that these other treatments have a good grounding in the scientific literature. Unlike homeopathy, which has the exact opposite outcome when robustly tested.

How many actual doctors or nurses could be employed for that sort of money? There's a lot of better things this money could go towards.

Homeopathy was not discovered. It was invented out of whole cloth (or "dreamed up") by a person that was frustrated by the medical knowledge of the day. That medical knowledge wasn't great by today's standards but it has progressed in the last 200+ years where homeopathy has not.

This article is being passed around even today as evidence of homeopathy being on the rise. As of this post the article is 12 years out of date and even when it was current homeopathy was on the decline in most first world countries. An example of the trend in the UK is documented very well on the post Another homeopathy fail by Alan Henness

Many of the comments on this post appear to be pointing out that Amygdalin is not a homeopathic thing and that homeopathy isn't what should be being looked at. I see them as missing 2 main points;

1. This is the case of an MD who believes in dis-proven treatments accidentally killing a child due to the application of these beliefs.
2. The boards that were the most forgiving or slow acting were the boards that backed the quack treatments.

Only the "allopathic" board reprimanded her?

Allopathic is term coined by the inventor of homeopathy to describe all medicine that wasn't homeopathy (including other alternative medicines of the day.) Using the term in this context implies a certain level of credibility to alt-meds that they just don't deserve. After all, every alternative medicine that has every been proven to work has become an actual medicine.

I think this could be better phrased;

"Only the actual medical board reprimanded her" "Only the credible medical board reprimanded her" "Only the respected medical board reprimanded her"

Other ideas?

And shill for #BigAqua

This was bugging the crap out of me. If this was mentioned in any tutorial or guide in the game I totally missed it. It is, however, a pretty good mechanism.

I'm not a doctor so this is just speculation, but this sounds like a migraine from an addiction to (or general overuse of) painkillers.

Given what we know about homeopathy in the treatment of anything it feels like this person used a placebo (the homeopathy) and managed to wean herself off the painkillers.

An individuals experiences of anything mean nothing in a vacuum. Homeopathy for this has been extensively tested.

The conclusion doesn't support it.

What ever was causing your migraines it wasn't the homeopathy that fixed it. You were healing yourself, you may as well give yourself the credit.

Homeopathy has been tried and tested. ...and tested and tested and tested. It has been found to be no better than placebo.

It has been pointed out time and time again to Sandra that the "Swiss report" was not, in fact, commissioned by the Swiss Govt.

It has been misrepresented as such so much that the Swiss Govt did actually speak out on it to clarify this.

Actually, for what you get and what it can do Homeopathy works out to be one of the most expensive ways of getting water there is.

For a site that can answer this question in less than 5 minutes check here. The data is up to date and the site maintainers keep it that way. They also promise to update the site with new findings as they are reviewed and found to be of good quality.

Actual research will show that water is fairly good at blocking radiation. Once the damage has been done however, there is nothing a few drops of water/alcohol/sugar will do to assist. If you have suspected radiation damage see an actual doctor.

This is an easy one.

Homeopathy is a disproven process of treatment that came about when doing nothing was often better than going to the doctors of the day. It has remained popular among a fringe group of people that don't understand science or why everything else that was popular at the time (leeches, blood letting, etc) has been discarded.

Naturopathy is an umbrella term used by people that don't understand science, nature or what is actually natural and try to lump alternatives to actual treatment together to give it a more believable status. What they don't appear to be capable of seeing is that despite the vast bulk of these things being totally implausible and actually disproven the various things promoted under the term Naturopathy often contradict each other.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in these ones.

"Practitioners claim..." They have to claim this because they don't actually know. What they also won't tell you is that there are no good quality studies that support homeopathy having any effect at all.

Actually diluted so much that there is so little it would be not inaccurate to say there is literally nothing left of the original source material. They forgot to mention the ritualistic "succusion" of the solution or, as I like to refer to it, "spanking the water".

This thought process is often without any basis or evidence in the real world. As with every request for citation or evidence of her claims Sandra has never provided any.

I suspect Sandra will not allow this comment to be published and if it is no I will at least know that she has read it and made the decision to not allow a right of reply by one of the people she is talking about which would just reinforce the opinion I, and many others have of her.

So...

"This tweet of mine (bottom in the image) was tweeted after seeing a post about how much longer people who use homeopathy live compared to those who use conventional medicine."

Despite this not being the bit the majority of us glomed on to Sandra has repeatedly refused to back up that claim despite being asked to repeatedly whenever she make it.

"I was very tired (still am) of the nasty language skeptics tweet to and about me, so thought how nice if homeopathy users would survive longer than the skeptics and homeopathy supporters like me would not need to endure the nasty accusations..."

"Gleefully" is one of the words I regularly use to describe how Sandra's tweet came across.

""liars", "you're lying", "you're killing people" and worse.....therefore the tweet.

I don't think I've ever accused you of "killing people". Homeopathy can, when relied on for anything serious. But I don't think I've accused Sandra of being directly responsible. I just think it's horrible that someone would have such a gleeful response to the thought of a section of the population dying. I still do.

As for the lying accusations this would easily be remedied by not lying. The accusations I've seen have only been made when you've been caught in an obvious lie.

"I have no apologies for it."

Uh... Are you lying now or were you lying when you posted this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11566362/Homeopathy-on-the-NHS-to-be-reviewed.html#comment-2021578766

Acleron >> Sandra Courtney • 2 days ago Apologise for it, that's the least you could do.

Sandra Courtney >> Acleron • 2 days ago I did at the time, then deleted it.

Alan Henness >> Sandra Courtney • 2 days ago You apologised for something, then you deleted your apology???

"I'm a human being with feelings and emotions just like everyone else. Now, on article chats where I defend homeopathy someone will post the image of my tweet in an effort to stop me for speaking out in support of homeopathy."

It's not about stopping you speaking out. It's about allowing people know the psyche of the person they are dealing with.

Regarding the post of mine above; I stand by that.

"Note to the anti homeopathy "skeptics"...I don't plan to stop speaking out on behalf of homeopathy. Deal with it!"

The pro-science crowd has been put on notice. We appear to be dealing with it fine already...

We're fairly effective it seems.

An idiot’s guide to understanding NHS homeopathy prescription data

Pro-science supporters are people and people say some dumb stuff. Sandra herself is guilty of this too. You can look at her Twitter stream, read her blog or any of the comment threads she participates in to see that. My go to example of this;

The list may have impressed Sandra but the Saatchi BIll was axed.

The authors have set up a premise that reality as we observe it is dependant on life being present to observe it. They then create a scenario where they attempt to shoehorn homeopathy into that scenario.

Before they try that surely they should establish that the initial premise is an actual thing. Without that the rest is Sci-fi.

Does this then imply that homeopathy is an unnatural thing?

The sad thing here is that if it is not an outcome that Sandra likes she will vilify those involved with the decision making process rather than taking it on board and asking why it worked out that way.

While some hold a strong enough position to say it should be banned or criminalised (as a con) most many Skeptics would say that this isn't the case. The argument being made is that something that is demonstrated to be of no beneficial use should not be subsidised by a health care system that is paid for out of public funds.

If people want to buy their snake-oil they can. Just don't expect anyone else to unwillingly support your decision.

The claim of a "continued rise in disease" needs to be established. I don't believe that this is a thing given the advancements in medical techniques over the centuries. The statistics for any vaccine treatable disease certainly don't support this and many others are manageable these days.

These statements are true according to the best evidence we currently have available.

"Conventional practitioners" trust in synthetic drugs because they have been tested to hell and back to establish what it was in the original remedy that had the actual therapeutic effect. This was then synthesised and quantified so that when prescribed it is better known what the expected outcome is for any given dose.

The fallacy that "natural" is better is a common one amongst supporters of alternatives to actual medicine. This is just a little messed up when you consider homeopathy. You take a thing, dilute it until there is nothing of it left and call it a "natural" remedy.

The accusations basically boil down to the pro-science crowd claiming there is no good quality evidence to support homeopathy and this needs to be presented before we consider its ongoing use and the supporters of alternatives to medicine refusing or failing to produce anything but snide remarks.

You can check the comment thread to verify my claim above.

Ahh... no. Those peddling alternatives to medicine are the only ones that think that way. They often go so far as to claim Big Pharma are actively working towards keeping you sick to keep you buying the stuff that... makes you sick? How does that work?

Sandra is misrepresenting those speaking for the pro-science crowd. I am one of those people that Sandra would lump into those that would make the quote above. I would like to think that the majority of us would think that the majority of Homeopaths are well meaning people that are ignorant of the good quality research that has demonstrated beyond any doubt that homeopathy is no better than a similarly administered placebo. I would suspect that these people are the ones that don't have exposure to the research that is being done or, if they do, that they are reading within the echo chamber of homeopathy and alternative medicine journals.

Those that are exposed to the wider research from respected journals that take things a little more seriously (i.e. have reviewers with a decent grasp on the scientific method and its application within research) and yet still hold firm to their belief that homeopathy is a thing to be taken seriously are the ones that are questionable.

So... Not a doctor Golden. Kind of like Not a Doctor Wakefiled?

For a Doctor to be making such firm claims that they would refer to it as a "fact" I'm certain they could provide the very solid evidence to back it up.

I, for one, would love to see this evidence. I'm one of the pro-science supporters that rally against the quackery that is Homeopathy. If there is the possibility of being paid for doing what I currently do for free I would love to get my share.

I would say that Dr Issac Golden is misrepresenting the wider medical community here. Before bothering to ask for how something works (which is an interesting enough question) it needs to be first established that something works. As the scientific method has been further and further refined to remove experimenter bias from influencing the results of a study it has become very clear that Homeopathy is no more than placebo effect, regression to the mean and confirmation bias.

Again, not bad advice, but for the wrong reasons.

Wikipedia is a good starting point and a great place to get a reasonably reliable overview. The real resource that Wikipedia provides is the Citations and References sections. These are the sources for the detail in the article and recommended further reading to get to the guts of what you're researching.

Other sources are always recommended. More reliable references are always a good thing and being able to get them cited in a Wikipedia article is a good way of giving extra validation given the process required to get something added to an article. It makes the Wikipedia article better and will cause the source article to appear higher in search results also.

This is a fair thing to ask of people. The explanation is flawed and the advise is a little too firm but in general it is not bad.

If you are referencing a general topic linking to Wikipedia is fine.

If you are referencing a specific thing you should link to the source material rather than a general article. Chances are reasonably good that if your source material is well researched you could get it added to the sources in the Wikipedia article and maybe even update the general article too.

Wikipedia has rules around editing that ensure factually correct information makes it through. Editing can be challenging but if you adhere to these editing can be quite rewarding.

Gabrielle, I would be interested in seeing your research. Can you point me at the peer-reviewed journals with a decent Impact Factor that it was published in?

The Minister of State for Ayush is an idiot. They should be the one asking scientists for advice, not the other way around.

I would be very interested in seeing any of these journals that are peer-reviewed, respected within the wider scientific community and have a good impact factor. My experience to date suggests these don't exist. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

In any respected scientific arena this form of information is of no use. At best it could be used to identify something that could become the subject of an hypothesis, which in turn may lead to research to establish validity and hopefully, one day, a theory.

The fact homeopathy still relies on this form of "evidence" is a major red flag.

NHS Lanarkshire has just announced that they will no longer be referring new patients to the Centre for Integrative Care (CIC, formerly known as the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital). The Nightingale Collaboration have a good write up of the announcement.

The Nightingale Collaboration has won many ASA complaints against the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine.

What this article won't tell you is that Homeopathic Hospitals in the UK are on the decline. As science progresses and the evidence against homeopathy grows it becomes increasingly difficult to justify spending money on "witchcraft". The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee - Fourth Report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy reached a similar conclusion, albeit in a much more politically correct verbiage. The recommendation of this report was that homeopathy shouldn't be getting public funding. The research is sound, its claims do not reflect in the data.

Given the background is demonstrably incorrect with a simple search I'm not holding high hopes for the rest of this. Not only do these systematic reviews exist there is a systematic review of the systematic reviews...

I've seen a reasonable number of these over the years. I've been a big supporter and user of them too. Really liking the description of how this one may go. Really hoping it has the staying power...