Author Archive
The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing - reprint
The following article was removed from the original host under threat of a libel suit. Using a trick that the alternative practitioners often accuse Big Pharma of, the British Society of Homeopaths is becoming what they hate. Under British law, the plaintiff is easily favoured in the case of libel. This is something of a surprise considering the sheer amount of tabloid journalism that you see coming from the Isles.
So, the Society of Homeopaths used the laws available to them and threatened Canard’s ISP. It’s not unlike every time I’ve debated a homeopath supporter; eventually they run away promising to return with Conclusive Proof or with Daddy, to shut down the argument. The SoH would appear to BE the thugs and criminals that they see in Conventional Medicine and Big Pharma. I guess it’s a case of having to be a criminal in order to recognize one.
Thanks to Respectful Insolence for the update on the story, and links to the Google Cache… it made reproducing the allegedly libelous article in whole much easier.
I say we organize a globe trotting trip for all the Homeopaths in the SoH, and allow them only homeopathic potions to protect them from malaria, typhus, bird flu, and whatever other deadlies we can arrange for them to run into in northern Africa. A swim up the ganges in Africa, a visit to a mosquito infested swamp in the middle of the summer malaria upswing, and maybe some meals of local delicacies involving broiled monkey. It will be a true test of Homeopathy if the Society will send its members out like this. Hell, let’s make it a variation on Survivor; Big Pharma will take their malaria meds, and the SoH team will imbibe only magical elixirs. 39 days; outlast, outplay, outlive.
— Quote begins;
The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.
The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.
As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:
48 • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.
• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.72 To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.
The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.
Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,
Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.
Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,
Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. … The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs…
Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.
Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,
The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.
This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.
However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that ’she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics’. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.
A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,
introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.
I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,
is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.
This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.
Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.
there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.
Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.
Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the ‘immediate priority’ to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?
I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?
It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?
At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?
Labels: homeopathy
Originally from Quackometer, by way of Google’s Cache
7 commentsWhat? No Crocmunks? Damn it.
“All the living creatures in the fossil record appear intact and in their perfect forms. For instance, before crocodiles and squirrels, there exist no fossils belonging to any strange creature partly resembling a crocodile, and in other parts to a squirrel or other living creatures. Squirrels have always remained squirrels, and crocodiles have always remained crocodiles. All these facts reveal that the claim of the theory of evolution, that “Living beings have gradually evolved over millions of years of time” is simply a product of imagination.”
This seems to be the biggest ‘fact’ proclaimed by the Harun Yahya’s epic Creationist propaganda piece “Atlas of Creation.” There are no transitional fossils of any sort, no bridge between any species, and all living animals are the way that they have always been. I think that a Crocmunk (crocodile / chipmunk of course) would be a great pet; good security around the house, and cute with its erratic scampering.
“Some fossils preserve only certain parts of living beings’ bodies. Pictured is a 15-million-year-old trout tail. As is seen, there is no difference between a trout tail 50 million years old and one that’s 15 million years old and one that ’s alive today.”
Plenty of examples of marine life and trees that ‘prove’ evolution is complete fraud and conspiracy by evil scientists by simply not changing for millions of years. We can’t see any branching or speciation when we’re only looking at two examples; one fossil and one current model. Many of the examples of perch and trout provided have fins that look noticeably different between fossil and contemporary example, with one missing a dorsal fin entirely in the fossil. The sunfish shown doesn’t even bear any similarities in fin configuration to the fossil…
There are plenty of transitional fossils that have been well documented, but these are ignored entirely, or merely explained away as coincidentally similar appearing, separately created animals that have gone extinct.
“This insect, no different from those living today, is evidence that all living beings have been created.”
There’s an example of a lobster fossil with a description about how it remains unchanged today;
Fossils that were gathered in the last 150 years proved that living species never changed or evolved from one another. This fact is underscored by this 146- to 65-million-year-old fossil of a lobster, no different from its counterparts alive today.
The primary claw looks significantly different to modern lobsters, based on the photo of the fossil they chose to use to illustrate this point; the larger portion of the claw appears to be longer and narrower. I’d want to see a better copy of the fossil before stating that they were completely unchanged.
There’s a pair of side-by-side examples with a winged ant and a pseudoscorpion that have the images swapped, which is amusing in a book aimed at showing how wrong evolution scientists are.
After pages and pages of pictures of fossils that bear resemblances to current, living animals, the author goes into explanation of how Darwin is responsible for Communism, Fascism, racism, terrorism (and the 9/11 attacks on the United States);
Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of ‘conflict’ remains. The three divine religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and unwanted concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.
For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity or Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are real Social Darwinists.
It goes on, quoting Darwin, Steven Jay Gould, and a host of other scientists out of context and making leaps of faith like I’ve rarely seen before. It’s hard to read much of this book, but if you’re insane or looking to make yourself so, it’s available online if you’re not one of the lucky scientists that were mailed free copies of this volume of nonsense.
No commentsNon-skeptical skeptics of the religious sciences
For giggle, I joined a Facebook Group for Red Deer based skeptics. They needed a bit of help in boosting the discussion and getting things moving, so I thought I’d stop in and see what would shake loose. Well, we found a True Believer who claims to be a skeptic… my favorite type of believer, to be honest.
The whole thread can be found at Facebook still, but for my own sake I’m clipping some of my own responses here in the event I need to use similar bits again.
Chris starts off with:
To make things plain, the reason I find creation much more plausible is due to the massive holes found it evolution (and they are massive!).
The second thing is to call evolution a science and creation a religion is shear non-sense. They are BOTH a religion. Neither can be proved. Both must be BELIEVED.
You don’t call science a religion and get away with it if I can help it; they’re not even close to being similar things. From this point, I’ll just paste my own pieces that stand on their own to some degre. There were other comments that were direct one-liner questions or replies that I’m not including as they aren’t complete.
I’m a fan of #8, personally.
*** 1
There is one common misconception that keeps popping up in these evolution vs. creationism “debates”; that these two topics are even comparable, let alone that they are mutually exclusive.
Evolution does not address, nor claim to address the following:
- the origin of the universe
- the origin of life on our planet
It is not logically impossible that evolution took over after the point of initial creation of life, whatever that spark came from; god or random organization of atoms.
Ask a farmer about artificial selection; breeding cows for a specific trait such as higher milk production, or sheep for thicker, better wool. This is evolution in a visible, real way. Natural selection merely removes the hand of man in the equation, such as with Darwin’s finches, in a geographically restricted environment.
This is evolution; the gradual genetic change and adaptation of beings over the course of generations to a more perfect form for their environment.
As for belief, anyone with a jar full of fruit flies can witness evolution in their own kitchen. There is no room, nor need for belief in this scenario; it’s raw data that adds evidence to evolution being viable.
You don’t have to believe in the evidence of science, but I would suggest that those who don’t forgo such impossible beliefs as modern medicine and the computer.
*** 2
Evolution has nothing to do with where light comes from, or where life itself comes from; it’s outside the scope.
You may as well expect an answer on why plants grow from a repair manual for a Dodge Dart.
*** 3
The evolution of life is entirely distinct from what you’re referring to as “cosmic evolution”, or the creation of the universe. So-called cosmic and organic evolution are entirely separate fields and different arguments.
Of course it’s ludicrous to suppose that a chicken would birth a dog, or grow a limb spontaneously from another species. This is a gross misunderstanding of the evolutionary process that often is tossed out by the creationist in such a discussion.
The only type of evolution that you will hear discussed by scientists is what you refer to as “variation”, also termed micro evolution by some non-scientists. Evolution as far as science is concerned is a slow process, that is visible over many many generations. Speciation is even slower, on the order of thousands of generations.
Science can be proven wrong through experimentation and direct observation, while religion can not really be disproved, as God or miracles or the existence of an afterlife are not generally falsifiable concepts; no amount of experimentation or observation can provide evidence to logically disprove them. This is where science is different, as each of the claims made are fully falsifiable.
This isn’t to say that the claims are false or likely false, but that the claims are subject to testing and observation which could conceivably prove them wrong. Religion, faith, heaven, and creation aren’t falsifiable concepts, and are distinct from science.
A scientist doesn’t have faith that gravity exists or acts on bodies in space; he has experimental data, all of which is logically falsifiable.
*** 4
I’m thinking that you aren’t even wanting to agree on definition of terms here, so I’m not sure how any discussion will progress…
The only people who believe in the macro-evolution you refer to are people who believe in creationism; more specifically they believe that scientists believe it. Scientific consensus does not now, nor has it ever, suggested that one creature spontaneously gives birth to a whole new species, phylum, or class of creature.
Find me a scientist that will agree with your assertion that science claims that spontaneous speciation occurs. You are taking one claim, that speciation, “Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.”
Often this is a result of geographical isolation; the birds on one side of the mountain possess these traits, and the birds on the other possess these traits. They evolved from a common ancestor, but over time have become separate species.
To suggest that a fruit fly could “turn into” a human is a ridiculous exaggeration. A 2 winged, red eyed fruit fly could beget a wingless variant and a winged variant, that continue to breed offspring similar to themselves. They might eventually be classed as separate species, but they both remain well away from the subphylum that homo sapiens occupy. Speciation may be observable in the lab under certain conditions, but the creation of whole a whole new subphylum? Not yet.
There is only one type of evolution that any scientist would suggest were real, and that’s what you’re referring to as micro-evolution or variance.
I suppose you have evidence of a teacher teaching that a cat has borne a dog or similar “macro evolution”?
*** 5
Macro-evolution has two main definitions as I’ve seen it; that of the scientific and the non-scientific. The scientific will allow macro-evolution as evolution that is the “compounded effects of micro-evolution.” This is not something that has been observed in the lab, but that has been THEORIZED based on fundamental similarities between different groups; apes and humans, hippos and whales, etc. This is not a belief, but a set of working theories that have evolved over time.
My suggestion that people don’t teach macro-evolution is based on your “Fly gives birth to a human” example, which I would also argue against being taught. I haven’t seen a high school text book in quite some time, but I happen to have recently acquired a new intro level college biology text, so I’ll take a flip through that to see what the current state is there. I don’t expect to see spontaneous macro-evolution there, but who knows?
*** 6
Quoting myself:
“The only people who believe in the macro-evolution you refer to are people who believe in creationism; more specifically they believe that scientists believe it. Scientific consensus does not now, nor has it ever, suggested that one creature spontaneously gives birth to a whole new species, phylum, or class of creature.”
I am referring to the kind of macro evolution you mention…. no scientist believes in this. Macro-evolution is a term applied to the effects of many speciation events; it is not an immediate, spontaneous event, and does not cause a link between a fruit fly and a human, no matter what you might think.
Twyla: my question regarding the age of the universe was specifically to see if we we dealing with a universe that is billions of years old or one that is only 6000 years old.
Let’s play “Spot the logical fallacies”!
See if you can find the following in this short thread:
- Hasty generalizations
- Appeal to consequences
- Argument from incredulity
- Appeal to ridicule
- Appeal to probability
- Others?
*** 7
“Science (from the Latin scientia, ‘knowledge’), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.” — Wikipedia on Science
Creation Science… where is the scientific method? Where is the body of knowledge? Even in the broadest sense of the word, there is no science in Creation.
As for being skeptical, the whole point of skepticism is not accepting anecdotal stories as evidence. The stories of the bible do not provide scientific evidence of any sort, and so is useless in determining the age of the Earth, the origin of life, or how life has evolved. What we do have as evidence is a boat load of radiometric data that establishes the age of the Earth quite well, as well as the age of fossils. We have geologists and biologists and astrophysicists and all sorts of -ists that have been working independently over centuries, adding to a wealth of knowledge about the world around us.
If Creation “Scientists” have evidence outside of the bible, they have been hiding it well. Please enlighten us as to the body of evidence that we’re missing.
*** 8
Chris: “I will openly admit that Christianity, and the Bible are religious. One must BELIEVE them to be true. Evolution is a religion masked as a science.”
Things I accept on “faith”:
- There is a Paris, France
- That 2+2 is, in fact, equal to 4 under most circumstances
- That there is a planet slightly further out from us in the Solar System that we call Mars
- That the sun is a huge ball of fusing hydrogen
- That 2000mg of caffeine will stop the human heart
- That anthrax can kill you if you snort enough of it
- The moon will not come crashing down tomorrow, no matter how much I want to avoid work
- That people continue to exist once I leave the room
- Removing the brain from the skull is almost always fatal
There are whole reams of things every day that you end up taking based on the advice of authority alone. This is not in question. Why do we believe some things without questioning?
Empirical evidence.
I can look up a mathematical proof to show how 2 and 2 sum, if I so choose to question it. I can go to school and study hard and become a doctor in order to see what happens when you remove a brain. All of these things are verifiable to a certain degree of confidence, should you have the time and the inclination to do so. There is such a huge volume of data in the earth sciences that no one person could digest it all or understand it all, so some of it you’re going to have to trust to the experts or risk losing your mind.
The key is that it’s POSSIBLE to find the evidence, and with effort, all of that evidence and all of those theories are falsifiable. You might have to yell and scream and make pretty graphs, but with empirical data, you can sway people to your side of the argument.
Can I find an independent record of the loaves and fishes? Perhaps an independent witness to Moses descending the mountain with the tablets? How about someone to swear an affidavit to the whole resting on the seventh day thing? There’s no empirical evidence, and until there is hard data on creation, it remains non-scientific.
Again, as I do with my more common discussion “opponents” in the energy healing sector, I invite a single source of hard data to show that creationism should be allowed within 100 yards of science.
*** 9
I thought that this summed up the “Why Science isn’t a religion” argument well enough….
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceReligion.htm
“Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern, godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious ideology”
*** 10
Using the word “science” while not utilizing the scientific method is disingenuous at best, and a bold lie at worst.
One of the theories used to support the existence of large insects (I’m not sure about mammals) is the high concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere.
At best a dome of water over the earth would have to ignore something called gravity, but assuming that there was a “sea above the sea” how would that contribute to larger animals through reduced radiation?
One of the reasons that I ask for empirical data from people I have discussions with is that they’re the subject matter experts in their field as far as I know. I have no idea where the “pro Creation Science” data is stored, and Google is of little help in finding raw data. I can find plenty of Kirk Cameron videos, but little quantitative data.
On a side note aren’t creationists just a little bit embarrassed to have Kirk and Rev. Comfort on their side after that banana video?
1 commentThe Bible Poster
Because all the works of science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animals species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house
Found elsewhere
No commentsI received a vision today
Lamb Chop appeared to me on a concrete wall and gave me a vision of exactly what’s wrong with the world. A real miracle, and the picture above is PROOF!
Bad news is that there’s a lot of killing to be done in the names of Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop. There’s going to be some fierce puppet retribution leading in to the End Times, people.
1 comment
The aliens or the angels were here!
I had my camera last night on the way back from the office, which is good, because it would seem that my alien visitors were gone by the time I could get a witness to go outside and verify my story. Isn’t it always the way? You see something spectacular that PROVES the existence of aliens and angels and God and that Global Warming is bogus, and you can’t get a witnes.
Of course, taking a picture of a tiny little light in the sky with a digital camera is a bit of a pain. They’re not the best at dealing with low light situations, so images can be open to a fair amount of interpretation. Is that photo with the little blurry blobs evidence of ghosts? Does the one with the blurry line show a ghostly species of rods? Does my green light photo show an alien ray lifting people up for anal probing?
Initially I was surprised to see a green glow in the clouds; it was dim and diffuse, like the last time I saw the Aurora Borealis, but that was in Alberta; I haven’t seen the Northern Lights in over a decade. The clouds shifted a little bit, and a non-organic shape emerged; a beam! Rat bastard aliens.
I switched off the auto focus on the camera, set the speed to 3200, and after editing, the above two images are the best you get. The beam appeared to originate somewhere on the Dalhousie campus; or terminate there if you’re into the alien theory. In reality it would appear to be a green laser… it wasn’t moving visibly, so I’m assuming that it was mounted in some way; telescope aiming, navigation, broken Pink Floyd laser show?
Update: Okay, it’s just LIDAR.
1 commentDiluting Homeopathy
I once thought that the way to make money from homeopathic tinctures was through buying distilled water, and putting it into nice bottles with pretty labels, and selling those little bottles for $10 each. I’d even include a warning stating that the bottles contained absolutely no medicinal properties, and contained 100% distilled water. It would be a positive gold mine, even without the warning, as there is no way of testing a homeopathic remedy for effective ingredients, and so fraud could never effectively be proved in a court of law. However, I think that the real money is in ‘pure’ sea water, though, as it’s positively loaded with infinitesimal quantities of all sorts of things; maybe I’d even go with a name like Deep Sea Homeopathic Holistic Water.
I know people who purchase homeopathic products, and I was trying to come up with a good example to try to lay out the pure numbers on this, to try to show that what they’re buying is little more than diluted snake oil, with very little actual snake oil in it. I’ve seen proofs on web pages, but they tend to rely on numbers that other people have given, accepting them as gospel, and I wanted to know exactly how many atoms of something were in each bottle of 200C Snake Oil. I’m really surprised at just how little there is, and I think that the best example I can use to illustrate this is by turning the entire volume of Earth’s oceans and seas into a homeopathic cure. After all, covering 70% of the surface of the planet has to be a pretty visible metaphor.
“One approach is to use homeopathic remedies to target the tumors themselves. In this case, the homeopath selects remedies which match the symptom picture of the tumor itself (e.g. Conium Maculatum for hard immovable tumors that develop slowly). Homeopaths using this approach might also consider other symptoms (such as the individual’s food cravings, disposition, etc), but their primary focus is to target the tumor and reverse its growth. Some physician homeopaths also give remedies at the tumor site itself (in the form of an injection) to more aggressively stimulate a response. ” — The Cancer Cure Foundation
Conium Maculatum might be more recognizable to people as Poison Hemlock; the state poison of ancient Greece. Now, hemlock does have sedative and antispasmodic properties in small doses, so it’s not all about killing philosophers.
“To produce different remedy potencies, the mother tincture is diluted in an alcohol/ water mixture according to one of two scales, the decimal (x) and the centesimal (c). Between every stage of dilution the diluted tincture is succussed (shaken vigorously) in the decimal scale the dilution factor is 1:10 and in the centesimal it is 1:100. To produce a 1c potency of the allium remedy for example, one drop of the mother tincture is added to 99 drops of an alcohol/water mixture and succussed. To produce a 2c potency, one drop of the 1c mixture is added to 99 drops of an alcohol/water mixture and succussed. The number of a homeopathic remedy shows how many times it has been diluted and succussed, for example, Allium 6c has been diluted and succussed six times.” — Healthy New Age
ABCHomeopathy.com lists a 15mL, alcohol-diluted bottle of “3X” Hemlock for $8.99 and explains the different potencies of dilutions “Chronic illnesses should be treated with high potencies (30x-200c) and acute conditions with low potencies (6x or 6c)… Really high potencies such as 200C.” See, the more you dilute something, the stronger it is. The lower the chance that there is even an atom of Hemlock in that bottle, the more powerful it is…
“DECIMAL - potency based on the ratio of 1 part substance to 10 parts dilution. Designated with a X (in Europe designated with a D) after the remedy name. X potencies are considered low potencies. X potency is often used for children, sudden illness and first aid treatment.
CENTESIMAL - potency based on the ratio of 1 part substance to 99 parts dilution. Designated with a C (or left blank in Europe) after the remedy name. C potencies are considered medium potencies. C potency is often used for seasonal problems and chronic conditions.
MILLESIMAL - potency based on the ratio of 1 part substance to 1000 parts dilution. Designated with a M after the remedy name. M potencies are considered high potencies. M potency is used by practitioners for constitutional treatment.”Elixirs.com
Back to sea water. Using numbers from a 1968 publication, it appears that there are 0.0009 ppm of Copper, 0.021 ppm of Barium, and 0.0026 ppm of Arsenic in your average sample of sea water (Sea Friends - a part per million can be seen as mg / L); these are all valuable homeopathic tintures on their own, and would likely need to be diluted even further in order to approach the “potency” of a 200C mixture.
So, for the “C” scale, the Mother Tincture is a 1:100 mixture of water and/or alcohol to the essential ingredient. Let’s just say we start with a gram of the active ingredient and it’s diluted in a Liter of liquid; 1g/L. This isn’t exactly how the dilutions are made, as they tend to refer to “drops” of the tincture to solvent, but as you’ll see in a second, once the numbers get to where they are going, the difference in volume between a 1 mL ‘drop’ and a full Liter are insignificant. Even a kilogram of product diluted into a Liter of water to make the Mother Tincture, were it even possible, would yield little more effective compound in the 200C dilution.
Nevertheless, (in my experience) in cases of deep pathology (such as cancer), most patients have a profound level of resistance to feeling their feelings. Usually this is because of a built-in survival mechanism which protects them from feeling feelings which could destablize them and/or be more destructive than the disease itself (e.g. suicidal feelings). As a result, patients with deep pathology will tend to either have very moderate reactions to homeopathic remedies (because of the built in protective mechanism), or the remedies will release thoughts, emotions, and memories which are extremely toxic and destabilizing. In either case, there is strong initial resistance to the release process.
When patients are able to release suppressed toxic emotions (via homeopathy or other means), the optimal scenario is for the patient to work with accompanying practitioners (psychotherapists, counselors, healers, etc). Some homeopathic practitioners will provide some support, but often other professionals are needed. ” — The Cancer Cure Foundation
C indicates a power of 100, and X indicates a power of ten. 6X actually refers to a 106 dilution, not the 1:6 most people would assume. As 106 and 1003 are mathematically identical, a 6X dilution is scientifically, atomically, identical to the 3C product.
Assuming that you take the full Mother Tincture and produce the absolute maximum volume you can of a 200C solution, you’re looking at a huge resulting volume.
A 1C dilution is the mother Tincture diluted by 1:100; resulting in 100L of solution holding that same gram of ingredient.
2C is diluted from 1C at 1:100 to yield 10,000L (1002)
3C is diluted from 2C at 1:100 to yield 1,000,000L (1003)
200C is the same thing again, 198 steps later, where we’re now at 100200 L of solution
That’s 100200, or a google2, or with all the zeroes;
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 L
All of the world’s oceans and seas contain an estimated 1.370 * 1021 L of water, or
1,370,000,000,000,000,000,000 L (Encarta)
What if we were to take that gram of initial product and dilute it to fill merely all of the world’s oceans? The resulting mix could be labeled as approximately “10.5C”, as 1.370* 1021 is mathematically the same as 1.370 * 10010.5.
10010 == 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 L
10011 == 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 L
Diluting that gram of initial product to somewhere between 10C and 11C would referred to as a medium or high potency dilution according to sources I’ve found.
1.370 * 109 km3
1.370 * 1021 L
1 cubic kilometer = 1,000,000,000,000 (1012) L
By way of explanation, let’s take something inert like sand and make that into a homeopathic remedy to cure… oh, I don’t know. Let’s say this dilution will cure sun burns, because those have been seen to occur on sandy beaches.
We’ll use a gram of pure Silica sand, finely ground of course, with the chemical formula SiO2; composed of 1 Silicon atom, and 2 Oxygen atoms.
How much does this molecule weigh? Well, Silicon weighs 28 atomic units, and Oxygen weighs 16 atomic units, for a total of 60 atomic units
Thanks to high school chemistry and the periodic table, we know that there are 6.023 x 1023 atomic units in a gram. From there we can find that there are 6.02 x 1023 / 60 = 1.00 x 1022 SiO2s in a gram, or 3 x 1022 atoms in a gram. Of course, when those atoms break down beyond the groups of three that make up SiO2,
30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. that’s plenty, right?
If we were to dissolve that gram of sand in all of the water that comprises all the Earth’s oceans and seas, complete with agitation and re-dilution again and again, and assuming absolutely perfect distribution of the sand atoms, we would see
(3 x 1022 atoms) / (1.37 x 1021 L == 21.8978102 atoms per L in all of the world’s oceans. If you look at the huge number above for 200C, you can readily see that a small amount of water such as that contained in all of the Earth’s oceans would need to be diluted many many more times at 1:100 to yield the full volume of 200C. Once we have surpassed 22 times the oceans’ volume, we have dropped past the point where you might statistically be able to expect a single atom to exist in a Liter of water, but yet this is a very strong product?
(3 * (1022))atoms / (1.37000 * (1021)) Liters = 21.8978102 atoms / Liter if that one gram of silicon were spread equally throughout the world’s oceans and seas. That’s pretty impressive, actually, considering that that one little tiny gram of sand could be spread throughout the entirety of the world’s oceans. One might even be able to see seven full SiO2 molecules in that Liter if you were lucky.
The problem comes that we’re dealing with a relatively small amount of solvent (water) as far as homeopathy is concerned. This is only 1021 L of water, not the 10400 L of water that a proper dilution to 200C would require. With the sample of sand, we’re limited to 3×1022 atoms; any dilution past that point becomes problematic. Once you have 10400 L of dilution,
(3 * 1022 atoms) / (1 * 10400 L) == 3 / 10378
There are only enough atoms to have THREE of them in 10378 L of water. Three individual, effectively indivisible (no amount of simply shaking the water is going to split them up, anyhow), atoms. How many 15mL bottles would you have to consume to statistically be able to say you had consumed 3 whole atoms worth of active ingredient to get both your Silicon and Oxygen atoms? Had we started with one kg per L of product, we’d still only have 1000 times as much product, or 3/ 10375; statistically insignificant difference, as you’d still need to consume the world’s oceans many times over to be certain that you had consumed your handful of atoms.
Interesting volumes that don’t come close to being large enough to hold a fully diluted 200C elixir;
Earth’s volume is roughly 1.0832 * 1024 L
The Sun which we orbit is said to be able to contain 1.3 * 106 Earths, for a total volume of 1.4082 Ă— 1030 L
That’s not much volume either, so how about a sphere that has a radius that’s a full light year?
1 light year = 9.4605284 Ă— 1018 decimeters
(4 / 3) * PI * ((9.4605284 * (1018))3) = 3.54678441 * 1051 L
Not even close, but imagine that single gram of sand, held in your hand, with its 3 x 1022 atoms. See how not every Liter in that massive sphere that is so massive it would take light from the center a full year to escape the the orb could contain even one single atom of the original material? Not even close.
Water doesn’t have memory, or it would be able to remember all the fish crap it had in it over the years; that couldn’t possibly be good for you. To believe that zero quantity of a medicine is effective in curing what ails you is to believe in real magic. Expelliarmus! Hmmm… nope.
5 commentsOur spies have infiltrated the Creation Museum
Our agents have reported back after a successful infiltration of Kentucky’s very own Creation “Museum”. Claudia has posted pictures of herself and her partner in crime as they attempt to fit in with the creationist. The t-shirts were a nice touch, proclaiming that “God don’t need no science” and “I pity the foo that don’t love Jesus!” (Artworks courtesy of the kids at Objective Ministries)
The photos are good, but many of the comments being left are comedy gold. Watch for the handful of Creation Scienticians that show up to dispute the lies and misdeeds of the Evil Evolutionists who leave comments.
Some quality signage from the museum is quoted below, and I’d critique the grammar, but that would detract from the argument over CONTENT.
Shark Teeth Variety
There are more than four hundred species of sharks in the world. In a sin-cursed world, most sharks consume swimming creatures, so their teeth are designed to prevent captured animals from escaping. Yet the teeth are also loose enough to break off if an animal is struggling too much. Some sharks have teeth specialized for very different diest, such as the flat teeth of the Port Jackson shark, which uses its rounded teeth to crush mollusk shells.
Flat or round? I’m confused… but such is the way things go in a sin-cursed world such as ours.
Fossils - The Biblical View
Views about fossils have come and gone. But fossils themselves do not tell us where these creatures came from or how they died.Fortunately, we have another source of factual data — the first book of the Bible, Genesis. This book makes it obvious that carnivory [sic], disease, and death, as seen in the fossil record, came after sin. So the fossil record had to be formed after sin entered the world.
Genesis also give an eyewitness account of a catastrophic, worldwide flood, about 4,350 years ago, which covered the whole earth in water and destroyed the air-breathing animals on land. God send this Flood during the days of Noah, as a judgment for mankind’s sin. This Flood and its aftermath would have formed massive fossil layers all over the world.
God’s Word holds the key to our understanding of God’s world. Most fossils are a silent testimony to God’s worldwide judgment.
I really have nothing to add to that; it speaks volumes all on its own.
The comments on the pictures managed to extract responses out of me on a couple instances, interrupting the process of trying to put together a post on this. One creationist posted a list of “known Christian scientists” in an attempt to claim that God has a place in science, and I had to respond;
You can have Newton; he was also an alchemist and loved mystical things; I’d rather the Christians claim him that foist him off on us atheists like you do with Hitler and Stalin.
It’s not that Christianity and Science are incompatible; they’re completely different things. Apples and Oysters aren’t incompatible; they’re completely different things, and it’s conceivable that you might enjoy each of them for their own merits. However, one does not compare to the other on the same scale, even if a Christian does work in science, it doesn’t affect anything unless they bring faith into things;
1) Magic orb in sky lights up world
2) Magic orb goes away
3) God performs a miracle
4) Profit!
or …
4) Prophet!
Skeptical Dog has no ties to the duo of interlopers; I use the word “our” loosely in the title. Apparently that lucky photoset has been listed on Digg; should drag in a couple thousand more eyes and an Ark-load of pithy comments.
No commentsWhen is a skeptic not a skeptic?
In a moment of memory lapse, I typed in the address for the Skeptics Guide to the Universe site with the wrong top level domain. Rather than typing in http://www.theskepticsguide.org, I typed in http://www.theskepticsguide.com/ and was lead to a site for someone who needs to use a dictionary when choosing a name for a book.
“The Skeptic’s Guide to the Adventures of Life” is a light-hearted look at life’s deeper lessons and mysteries as it chronicles business strategist Connie Siewert’s personal experiences, and those of her healers, during a three year journey to wellness.
The table of contents reads as a who’s who of pseudoscience:
- Past Life Regression-Hypnotherapist
- Healing Touch/Guided Imagery/Trauma Release
- Reiki Master/Shaman/Earth Goddess
- Iridologist and Doctor of Naturopathy
- Colon Hydrotherapist
- Angel Channeler
- Astrologer
- Medical Intuitive/Healer
- Gem and Mineral Show
- Our Connection with Colors
- Acupuncture/Chinese Herbalist
- Reflexologist
- Sounds and Vibrations
- Equine Assisted Psychotherapist
- Psychics, Dowsers, Intuitives, Channelers
- The Traveling Soul
I checked out some sample excerpts on the site, hoping that maybe this was a skeptic who went in with mind open, but not empty. I was hoping that this might be a good resource from the perspective of someone evaluating claims directly. Instead, I find poorly written examples of dictionary definition gullibility and empty-mindedness; very zen, but not at all skeptical.
Regarding Reflexology;
Just when you think you have learned everything you need to know about different energy modalities, you have an experience that helps you understand there is still a wealth of information out there to explore that you have yet to even touch on.
Well, she hasn’t learned everything, but she’s learned to speak the mumbo-jumbo with the best of them;
It was during this part of the session that I started seeing purple energy blobs appear in my closed-eye darkness. I am always entertained when something like this happens, but this was even more unusual than what I had experienced before. Typically I would see little purple blobs changing shapes and coming towards me indicating little spirit guides coming to aid in the healing process. But this time, the purple blobs were big and coming from behind my eyes and then disappearing into a yellow blob of energy.
Being a skeptic does not mean that you’re a blank slate waiting for any loonie to come along and fill in what you should believe in chalk. It’s not about being so open minded that your brain falls out; it’s about evaluating evidence and judging.
What we have here is a skeptic that believes everything she’s told by anyone who uses the word ‘energy’. What’s next, cats that bark? atheists that pray? a Pirates of the Caribbean movie that’s good?
(from foo.ca)
No commentsPicking and choosing your skepticism
I listen to the Kevin Smith “Smodcast” every so often, but paitence wears thin on some of the topics of discussion. The premise is that Kevin Smith and Scott Moser get together and bullshit about whatever the hell they want; blowjobs, politics, kids, etc. They give their unprofessional, uninformed opinions on whatever the hell they can think up; giving a bit of credence to something Bruce Willis expressed not so long ago.
“I don’t think my opinion means jack s**t, because I’m an actor. “Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act? You just caught a break as an actor. There are hundreds - thousands - of actors who are just as good as I am, and probably better. “Have you heard anything useful come out of an actor’s mouth lately?”
I think that Kevin and Scott might agree that they’re just sitting around bullshitting, and that they really shouldn’t be believed or trusted. They don’t appear to be THAT full of themselves to believe their opinions really matter. Kevin is joined by pals Walter Flannagan and Malcolm Ingram on episode 14 when Scott is out of town. Episode 14 covers how it’s easy to believe that aliens are responsible for recent technological advances like the Stealth Bomber and MP3s.
Keep in mind that Malcolm, a Canadian, states that the leader of Canada is Paul Martin (absolutely 1000% positive - I will cut off my little finger right now if that’s not it) who left office in 24 January 2006. He doesn’t cut off his finger when the Americans correct him thanks to their superior use of Google.
These guys have obviously spent much too much time getting high, as they move on to ‘Loose Change’ and UFO documentary and rods. They say that rods are claimed to be sticks with wings that move too fast for anyone to see, and they tell stories about the UFOs and rods they have seen, including one that allegedly appeared on a TV broadcast of a hockey (Devils Stanley Cup game 3 in Dallas) game, and nobody has any problem believing it.
There’s a period where they argue about the origins of rods; one expresses belief that they are an earth-based insect of some sort, and the other is incredulous; he can’t believe that he’s sitting there with someone who honestly doesn’t believe that rods come from OUTER SPACE!
Marijuana doesn’t hurt you, but you will believe nearly anything you’re told, you’ll hallucinate, and maybe you won’t even remember who is running the country you live in. Just as I start to think that these xenophiles would believe anything, they express skepticism over the existence of the monster in Loch Ness.
Episode 14 was a near complete suspension of disbeliefe in crazy, but Episode 15 became an example of strange historical skepticism. Kevin put forward a thought that maybe, just maybe, Helen Keller wasn’t really deaf and blind. I can see how there might be a possibility if Anne Sullivan was the only person who translated between Helen and the world. Like with facilitated communication and the severely autistic, it is conceivable that Anne Sullivan might have been the brains behind the speech and writings or Helen if she was the sole conduit. I’m not so sure that was the case, without further research, and it’s not something that Wikipedia really touched on.
I don’t really understand partial skepticism; it’s okay to believe in ghosts, but UFOs are insanity, or it’s okay to believe in an all-knowing god who performs miracles, but it would be insanity to believe in werewolves.
—–
Smodcast at Quick Stop Entertainment
In which things go back to normal and our heroes [...] incur the wrath of all right-thinking and decent people by spending nearly an hour trying to figure out whether Helen Keller was truly impaired or just party to an elaborate ruse.
In which our heroes cross the border with a guest from the True North, analyze the “Loose Change” of UFOs, posit that even unidentified species worship the Devils, lament the loss of Bigfoot, question Nessie’s diet, theorize how the Republicans can take the White House for the next one hundred terms, and reveal Canada’s greatest shame.
(From foo.ca)
No commentsJust how skeptical is this dog?
When your dog is more skeptical than most people you meet in a day, you begin to question just what kind of future the planet has, even ignoring global warming, nuclear weapons or anything.
Our skeptical dog is Sera, the dog that will be featured here on skepticaldog.com in the header and assorted images over time. She appears to be a Rottweiler / Corgi mix, though other theories have been floated regarding Bassett Hound or Dachscund involvement in recent generations.
She has encountered unidentified flying people twice in her young life, with people floating past our 22nd floor window. She was very shocked this past week to see someone right outside our window; a lesser dog might have attributed this U.F.P. magical powers of flight, but not Sera. She was right there to check things out, looking for ropes and other tricks.
No comments