Jan 17 2011

CBC Marketplace on Homeopathy

Yes, I know I have been writing about homeopathy a lot recently. I am consciously making this one of my main topics of interest for 2011. Homeopathy is one phenomenon where the disconnect between public and official acceptance and the level of pseudoscience is greatest. It is also an area where acceptance is often based upon simply not understanding what homeopathy really is. If scientists keep beating the drum about how unscientific homeopathy is, perhaps we can have some effect on public belief and policy. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, but then so is all activism.

Today I have some good news to report. The Canadian program, Marketplace, did an excellent piece on homeopathy. (You view it on YouTube in two parts: part I and part II.) Usually such mainstream media attention to homeopathy and similar topics falls into the trap of false balance – telling both sides and letting the audience decide. This is a reasonable journalistic default for political and social topics, but not for science. In science there is a level of objectivity and the logic and evidence is not always balanced on two sides of an issue. We don’t need to “balance” the opinions of an astronomer with the illogical ravings of an astrologer.

Fortunately, the Marketplace program did not default to the false balance mode.  Rather they took the far more appropriate consumer protection angle – which is the format of this particular show. I was especially happy about this because I have been saying for years that consumer protection advocates need to realize that fake medicine (so-called complementary and alternative medicine or CAM) is a huge consumer protection issue. Regulations meant to protect consumers from fraud and harm are being systematically weakened in the favor of product manufacturers and distributors and practitioners. It is a scandal worse than anything Ralph Nader has taken on in the past, and yet he seems to be nowhere on this topic.

My sense is that consumer protection advocates have been successfully put to sleep on the issue of CAM because of the successful propaganda of CAM proponents – selling it in the context of “health care freedom” and “patient-centered medicine” and other rhetoric that is essentially nothing but a bait and switch. The Jedi-mind trick has worked, and consumer protection advocates are asleep. Well now it’s time for the sleeper to awaken (if I may mix my sci-fi metaphors).

The Marketplace episode was hopefully the stirring of this sleeping giant. Watch the show for yourself – they do an excellent job of explaining just how silly the underlying claims of homeopathy are. While they leave much out, it was a decent primer for those who have no idea that homeopathy is not simply “natural” medicine, but literal sugar pills with nothing on them. They also point out that relying upon sugar pills as if it were medicine can be very dangerous.

My favorite scenes are ones in which the reporter confronts homeopaths, the head of Boiron, a French company that makes homeopathic products, and a regulator pushing for licensure of homeopaths in Ontario. Their fumbling reply to very simple and straightforward questions is very telling. Their obsfuscations are reminiscent of con artists. At one point, when asked how homeopathy can work, the Boiron executive retreats to – your science cannot yet detect how homeopathy works, and then “it’s a mystery.” The politician promised evidence to back his claim that homeopathy works, but then never came forward with that evidence.

The show also did a great sting – they simply called a homeopath in Canada, the investigator saying she had breast cancer, and the homeopath (who did not realize, apparently, that she was being recorded for television) confidently proclaimed that her homeopathic concoctions can cure breast cancer, and would start working in 15 days. There was no hedging or uncertainty – just a simple, “homeopathy works” – for cancer. Another practitioner was confident it would work to prevent polio – so no need to take the vaccine.These scenes effectively destroyed the “shruggie” response of “what’s the harm.”

Marketplace also used the local skeptics, CFI Vancouver (I recognized some familiar faces from our recent SGU appearance in Vancouver) as a resource. Their influence on the content of the show was obvious, but also they were featured in a mass homeopathy overdose – a stunt meant to show how ineffective homeopathy is. Well done, guys.

Homeopaths knew this show was coming, and they were already preparing their counter-offensive. In a communication to fellow homeopaths and supporters they encouraged spamming the Marketplace website with pro-homeopathy comments. The comments are indeed full of the usual pro-homeopathy, pro CAM propaganda – anecdotes, false statements about the evidence, appeals to conspiracies and “Big Pharma”, appeals to authority, and exhortations to “keep and open mind.” It’s the same recycled nonsense over and over. The comments certainly need a non-homeopathic dose of skepticism.

Homeopaths have also responded with a full frontal assault against skeptics. They apparently have figured out that organized skeptics are about the task of revealing their con to the public, and the best defense is always a good offense. Get a load of this characterization of skeptics from this blog supported by the National United Professional Association of Trained Homeopaths and other Canadian homeopathic professional organizations:

The skeptical movement is an offshoot of the Communist Party. (Really: see the top two links below.) Its top organizers were hired by pharmaceutical company and medical industry representatives to recruit malcontents in bars to spread hate propaganda against non-conventional medical systems. One of the first such skeptic groups referred to itself as “Skeptics in the Pub”. Not surprisingly, their rants against Homeopathy sound like the drunken cacophony of soccer hooligans.

The entire blog post is an attempt at poisoning the well – skeptics are mean, and their motives are suspect. It’s interesting how the author feels they can just make up whatever libel they wish, based upon the flimsiest of justifications. Skeptics are communists? Really? I bet most skeptics would be very surprised to hear that, especially the libertarians. And of course the pharma shill gambit – hired by pharmaceutical companies. How about naming names, unnamed author of this hit blog? Who, exactly, in organized skepticism received money from a pharmaceutical company? I can tell you that this blog, and also Science-Based Medicine, receive no money from any company or industry group. We are completely independent. We just have the sense and scientific background to recognize that homeopathy is a scam.

It is no surprise that homeopaths are using the same sloppy scholarship and utter disregard for intellectual integrity to attack their critics that characterize homeopathy itself. But still the utter contempt for the truth and the sheer stones of these charlatans is something to behold.

Conclusion

The CBC Marketplace episode on homeopathy was well-done and presented the correct overall impression -homeopathy is a scam, it is a con on consumers, who are being sold a bill-of-goods with misdirection. In response homeopathy are desperately trying to attack their critics and defend their nonsense, but in so doing are just revealing themselves to the be charlatans that they are.

To those anonymous authors of the “Extraordinary Medicine: the truth about homeopathy” website that seems intent on attacking skeptics – here is an open challenge. Put aside the vague innuendo. If you have any evidence that organized skeptics are an arm of a political party or are hired guns by industry, then name names and show the evidence. Otherwise put up or shut up –  remove those libelous and ridiculous claims from your website.

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “CBC Marketplace on Homeopathy”

  1. eeanon 17 Jan 2011 at 10:18 am

    Um, not sure you would want to compare homeopathy to dangerous cars. Homeopathy is a rip-off, but needlessly dangerous cars directly killed people.

    True ignoring science-based medicine because you think sugar pills can cure you certainly does kill people (people who would’ve ignored the quack mirandas). But I dunno, its just not as direct. Its not a comparison that you’d win.

  2. Steven Novellaon 17 Jan 2011 at 11:04 am

    eean – I disagree. My point is that both are consumer protection issues. I don’t see how direct harm vs indirect harm makes any difference – at the end of the day, you’re just as dead.

  3. bluedevilRAon 17 Jan 2011 at 11:12 am

    I really enjoy the description of skeptics as both communists and pharma-shills. If evil Big Pharma is all about capitalism, then why would the communists be shilling for them? Talk about grasping for straws…

  4. Adam_Yon 17 Jan 2011 at 2:11 pm

    True ignoring science-based medicine because you think sugar pills can cure you certainly does kill people (people who would’ve ignored the quack mirandas). But I dunno, its just not as direct. Its not a comparison that you’d win.

    The ignorance displayed is giving me third degree burns. There is enough bad news stories for you to just go straight to the jugular with consumer protection. Some of the most gruesome and distusting cases of poisoning were related to homeopathic medicine which is why the homeopathic suicide stunt is a little bit on the risky side. Given past and recent events I wouldn’t at all be surprised someone would drop dead because of an actual overdose.

  5. siodineon 17 Jan 2011 at 2:34 pm

    [quote] Usually such mainstream media attention to homeopathy and similar topics falls into the trap of false balance – telling both sides and letting the audience decide. This is a reasonable journalistic default for political and social topics, but not for science.[/quote]

    It most certainly isn’t. For any political or social topic there are conflicting subjective conclusions, however they’re not necessarily equal, and just because they’re subjective doesn’t mean another conclusion can’t be more well supported by a general argument or evidence. The disparity can be so great that one side of an issue can be laughable, and treating it equally is potentially dangerous or morally objectionable (look into meta-ethics where subjective conclusions can be supported by logic and empiricism). Take, for example, gay rights. You’ll be hard pressed to find an argument for denying gay rights that’s logically consistent and agrees with the facts–it would be a laughable position if it wasn’t so wrong.

    In fact, poor science reporting is relatively trivial when compared with the current state of political and social reporting, and honestly, far less important.

  6. tmac57on 17 Jan 2011 at 2:38 pm

    The entire blog post is an attempt at poisoning the well – skeptics are mean, and their motives are suspect. It’s interesting how the author feels they can just make up whatever libel they wish, based upon the flimsiest of justifications.

    Well,look at it this way,they’re already telling one ‘Big Lie’,what harm could a few more do?Lie,shake repeat.Lie,shake,repeat…

  7. Watcheron 17 Jan 2011 at 3:01 pm

    @Siodine

    In fact, poor science reporting is relatively trivial when compared with the current state of political and social reporting, and honestly, far less important.

    You act as if they are mutually exclusive to one another. I think many people would agree that the majority of mainstream reporting of many issues are lacking.

    Also, what Steve is pointing out is that with science, there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) much of a gray area. The facts show homeopathy as nothing but water. Stating that a homeopathic remedy can cure cancer, or prevent disease, is tantamount to murder in most cases. As such, this topic and many others in science are a bit more cut and dry than your standard, bias-filled, social issue.

  8. Watcheron 17 Jan 2011 at 3:02 pm

    And i flubbed that one. 🙂 I wish i could go back and edit it …

    Anyways, the second quoted area are my own words, not Siodine’s.

  9. siodineon 17 Jan 2011 at 3:08 pm

    No, watcher, you’re entirely wrong. Using qualifiers like “less” and “relatively” immediately excludes the possibility of me acting as though they’re mutually exclusive.

    “Also, what Steve is pointing out is that with science, there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) much of a gray area…”

    He may be pointing that out, watcher, but that’s not what he said. And if that’s what he meant, he should edit his post so that it’s more clear. As the post stands, it’s at the level of “it’s just a theory” type ignorance and is inexcusable (he’s basically saying these issues are “just” opinions).

    The rest of your post is a lazy straw man, so I’ll ignore that.

  10. BillyJoe7on 17 Jan 2011 at 3:33 pm

    This is an example of how homoeopaths prepared the homeopathic community for an all out attack on the program before it aired. Postings were to be prepared beforehand so that could post them immediately the show ended:

    http://conscioushealthnaturaltherapy.weebly.com/war-on-natural-health-freedom.html


    1. Check your TV listings for the Marketplace timeslot in your area and record the programme if you can, so that you can quote it accurately if necessary.

    2. Spread the word. Tell your friends, colleagues, patients, etc. about the show and share with them your thoughts and recommendations about how they can respond.

    3. Write a testimonial about how homeopathy has worked for you and send it to homeopathy@csoh.ca for inclusion on the CSH website. Ask your friends, colleagues, patients, etc. to do the same. Over the coming weekend, we will use these testimonials to draw attention to the effectiveness of homeopathy.

    4. Be prepared to leave a comment on the CBC and Marketplace website immediately after the programme airs. Go to http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/blog/ and check out the comment function right now. Sign up now to create a user’s account so that there will be no delay when you are ready to send your comments. Once the programme has aired, you can leave a comment by clicking on the title, which will take you to a summary page concluding with a link “Share your comment”. This leads to a comment box, which requires that you sign in. CBC monitors and reviews all messages so you may want to read the Submission Guidelines page before planning to send your comments.

    5. Know what you are going to say so that you can post a response without delay. Choose to focus on a single point per comment, elaborate on it, and conclude with a strong, affirming statement. Often the most effective messages are short, concise, and to the point. Send as many of these as you can.

    6. Familiarize yourself with the issues. We suspect that the programme may contain some of the common criticisms and mis-information that have been published in the past. We have compiled a list of these erroneous statements and will e-mail them to you upon request. If it’s helpful, you can make use of our material in your comments to the CBC.

    7. Watch Out for Follow-up Enquiries
    If you are a practitioner, be prepared for phone enquiries from the media. Most will be asking you for a comment regarding the Marketplace programme.

    (I posted this in the science based medicine blog before the show aired)

  11. Draalon 17 Jan 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Thanks for the post Steven! This morning I showed the CBC report to my mom, a nurse for over 30 years. She too thought that homeopathy was just another natural or herbal remedy, which from personal experience, most people believe too.

  12. Watcheron 17 Jan 2011 at 4:57 pm

    The rest of your post is a lazy straw man, so I’ll ignore that.

    Wow, I touched a nerve didn’t I. Maybe you should edit your post to make it more clear. 😉

    Also, where’s the lazy strawman? I’m not putting words in your mouth, or changing your argument to better attack it. You said, regardless of your inconsistent qualifiers, that science reporting quality is less important than social issue reporting. I said they’re not mutually exclusive and we can have it both ways. I even pointed out that in many ways science reporting can cause a loss of life through ignorance and have as much of an impact on lives as any social issue. So where’s this idea come from and how is it a strawman that you won’t deign to tear apart?

    I look forward to more acerbically worded answers! 😀

  13. siodineon 17 Jan 2011 at 5:43 pm

    “The facts show homeopathy as nothing but water. Stating that a homeopathic remedy can cure cancer, or prevent disease, is tantamount to murder in most cases. As such, this topic and many others in science are a bit more cut and dry than your standard, bias-filled, social issue.”

    That’s a lazy straw man because it has nothing to do with anything in my post–you’re arguing against a false position. Of course homeopathy is nothing but water, and can be harmful. That doesn’t change or ameliorate Steven’s comment, in fact, it has nothing to do with anything in my post. It doesn’t support an argument, and it doesn’t point out flaws in mine. Yes, there should be attention paid on all types of bad reporting, and nothing in my comment claimed otherwise.

    “You said, regardless of your inconsistent qualifiers, that science reporting quality is less important than social issue reporting. I said they’re not mutually exclusive and we can have it both ways.”

    They’re perfectly consistent, and I think you need to look up mutually exclusive in the dictionary, because science reporting being less important than social issue reporting doesn’t mean that we should solely focus on one type of reporting (obviously!). Mutually exclusive entails a boolean choice (look it up), while saying something is less important than something else entails a continuum (also look it up). Let me try to put this simple concept even more simply: “Science reporting is less important than political/social issue reporting, *therefore we can only focus political/social reporting.*” Does that follow logically? No, and therefore it is not mutually exclusive.

    “I even pointed out that in many ways science reporting can cause a loss of life through ignorance and have as much of an impact on lives as any social issue. So where’s this idea come from and how is it a strawman that you won’t deign to tear apart?”

    Yes, and that’s a straw man, because loss of life through ignorance doesn’t mean science reporting is necessarily as important as social/political issue reporting (and that’s what you need to argue to address my claim, but not my criticism of Steven). It’s analogous to arguing the sky is purple because 2+2=4.

  14. Steven Novellaon 17 Jan 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Siodine – you are making too much of a side point that was not the focus of the article.

    A “reasonable default” does not mean that all stories dealing with a political or social issue should be equally balanced, if the issue itself is not balanced. The reporting should optimally reflect the validity of all sides present.

    But when an issue is dominantly a value judgment, you can argue that a reporter should avoid inserting their own values and should, rather, aim for “fair and balanced.” Otherwise everyone will think that their opinions should be presented as the “correct” ones.

    With an issue that is dominantly evidence-based (like science), then that basic approach is flawed. The better approach, rather, is to accurately reflect the scientific consensus of the evidence.

  15. PScotton 17 Jan 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Sorry that this is a bit off-topic, but I wonder if any followers of this blog also follow the podcast Stuff You Should Know. It’s probably too light on the science for most of Dr. Novella’s fans, but for a non-scientist like myself I’ve found it to be fun and informative.
    However today I was listening to their podcast on acupuncture and I kept waiting for some of the hard criticism to come in, criticism that I’ve come to expect from this blog–only to find that it was glanced over over ignored.
    If any of you listen to the show, and are up for sending in a letter, please so. I’m afraid that my own knowledge of the subject would lead to a pretty lame rebuttal.
    Thanks,
    P

  16. siodineon 17 Jan 2011 at 7:19 pm

    I think you would make point about someone saying how “X is just a theory,” even if it wasn’t the focus of an article.

    “A “reasonable default” does not mean that all stories dealing with a political or social issue should be equally balanced, if the issue itself is not balanced. The reporting should optimally reflect the validity of all sides present.’

    I don’t know why you’re quoting “reasonable default,” since those words or a paraphrased concept never showed up in your post. Going by the following quote, you’re saying the journalistic default for political and social topics should be at a similar default to the current journalistic default for homeopathy:

    “Usually such mainstream media attention to homeopathy and similar topics falls into the trap of false balance – telling both sides and letting the audience decide. This is a reasonable journalistic default for political and social topics, but not for science.”

    Also, you now say the reporting should optimally reflect the validity of all sides present–I agree. However, if this were the case, the journalistic default for political and social issues would be the same as the journalistic default you’re advocating for science, and the previous quote become inconsistent. I say this because I know of no issue with sides that are exactly commensurate in empirical and logical support.

    “But when an issue is dominantly a value judgment, you can argue that a reporter should avoid inserting their own values and should, rather, aim for “fair and balanced.” Otherwise everyone will think that their opinions should be presented as the “correct” ones.”

    What issues are dominantly value judgments? The issues I can think of start from axiomatic positions, and then are capable of being argued for and against by using logic and empiricism. For example, if someone starts from the axiom that personal freedom is paramount, they’ll soon run into problems if they wish to be logically consistent (e.g., Schenck v. United States). Another example, arguing for and against abortion starts from a simple axiom: killing a human being is wrong. And, then you’re the proper footing to argue as to whether a fetus is a human being, and so on. Also, some opinions are more valid than others depending on their supporting argument and reasoning: this is clearly true. For example, do you think a Ray Comfort’s opinion that intelligent design should be taught in school is as valid as your opinion? No, your opinion has empirical facts and logic behind it.

  17. eiskrystalon 18 Jan 2011 at 4:15 am

    Given the drugs companies’ solid entry into sugar pill sales these days, it must be so nice to have all those homeopaths working for big pharma for free.

    Cruel irony is often an affliction of the happily deluded.

  18. Watcheron 18 Jan 2011 at 12:29 pm

    That’s a lazy straw man because it has nothing to do with anything in my post–you’re arguing against a false position.

    I’m arguing against the idea that quality of science reporting is “relatively less important” than social issue reporting. My “lazy straw man” was an attempt by me to tie in the idea that poor reporting can lead to a loss of life similar to that seen in any social issue. So, take it for what you will. If loss of life isn’t enough for you, I’m not sure what would be.

    Yes, there should be attention paid on all types of bad reporting, and nothing in my comment claimed otherwise.

    No, you never come out and say it, but you definitely inferred it with that last sentence. By assigning importance, you assign priority. In denigrating the importance of science journalism you in essence say that quality of social topic reporting should have more attention paid to it. That’s what the idea of importance implies.

    Let me try to put this simple concept even more simply:

    The snark is strong in you! Keep it up, you may eventually convince someone! 😉 I know what mutually exclusive means, and boolean, and continuum. But keep the insinuations up, it may actually win you points.

  19. Steven Novellaon 18 Jan 2011 at 1:02 pm

    siodine,

    I don’t see the sense in your position. First, to nitpick – you say I did not write or even paraphrase”reasonable default”, then you quote where I wrote “a reasonable journalistic default.”

    Then you dismiss the notion that many political issues are dominated by value judgments stating – “start from axiomatic positions, and then are capable of being argued for and against by using logic and empiricism.”

    See what you did here – by starting from an axiomatic position you are essentially saying – assuming one value judgment. Yes – you can then analyze an arguments for logic and evidence from that point. But it is exactly the axiomatic positions, or starting values, that mostly determine different political positions. How much to you value freedom vs life vs safety, etc. It is the relative importance of all these axiomatic positions that mostly determine the different political positions.

    It is important to be fair and balanced to these positions. But science does not consider such things. Within the realm of science there should be one consistent set of value – truth, transparency, intellectual honesty, etc. And so you by definition are comparing different claims on a level field, and so can stick to logic and evidence.

  20. siodineon 18 Jan 2011 at 2:55 pm

    steven,

    Your nitpick is correct, but the point still stands–you think a reasonable default for political and social issues is similar to the current default for homeopathy or pseudoscience, and I think that’s unreasonable.

    Axioms being preference oriented doesn’t discount the points I made, because while you can’t say one axiom is better than another, you can still analyze everything that follows from them logically and empirically. I don’t presume to have journalists arguing against political positions or axiomatic beliefs, but what conclusions a significant amount of the public have made by following those axioms (polls make this possible). This is the cornerstone of an adversarial press, and ensures accurate information is provided to the public. It’s a large part of how science functions, through harsh criticism, and I can’t imagine not wanting the press applying this standard everywhere possible.

    With the current standard of news media, they simply mediate two opposing and extreme positions, and often try to present a false compromise between the two (golden mean fallacy). Instead, they ought to be eviscerating both positions (the conclusions made from those positions) with whatever accurate information and clear logic they’re able to muster, and then allow the public to decide. This more broad standard (rather than the specialized one you’re advocating for), would work with science reporting as well as political and social issues. In fact, I think it would work far better for science than what you’re advocating.

    The fact remains, that most science at the fringes of our understanding is inconclusive, and I say that just from the simple fact that frequentist statistically analysis allows for many false positives–not to mention how much bias skews results. It can take years or decades for enough regression to the mean to occur so that we can make definite conclusions. Yet, many universities and prominent journals still advertise these inconclusive results, and the press eats them up because they’re not adversarial.

    So, while it’s important to be fair and balanced when considering axioms or political positions, it’s just as important to be adversarial to nonsense that follows from those positions. You mentioned that under science different claims are on a level field, but this is also true with the conclusions that follow from a political position.

  21. TheRedQueenon 20 Jan 2011 at 12:49 am

    Yes logic and evidence is important but so is well-done satire

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

    Homeopathic lager any one?

    “That’s strong stuff”

  22. TheRedQueenon 20 Jan 2011 at 1:02 am

    And for another critique of the mis-application of the “balanced presentation” standard along with a pithy laceration of alt-med/CAM
    especially homeopathy

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbFgRv8-Kw

  23. mindmeon 27 Jan 2011 at 3:03 pm

    CBC turns up the heat some more. This time they spank chiropractors and their junk advice about vaccines:

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Health/1244503490/ID=1769156356

    (You have to get by the stupid ad before the news item rolls.)

  24. BMerizaldeMDon 03 Apr 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Though I agree wholeheartedly with the pieces’ general message of caution about using homeopathy as vaccinations or as an exclusive treatment forf cancer ((for which there is no proof), I don’t agree with the contention that there is no evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy, though the evidence is not great it is significant if you take the time to review the data (there is a list of over 250 publications showing effect compilled with Dr. Iris Bell, from the University of Arizona).

    Science is not based on evidence, but on a process; if the scientific method is not followed, the cornerstone of science, you can’t find any evidence. I don’t know of any skeptic who has taken the time to read Hahnemann’s Organon and followed the protocol he designed and found a negative effect; instead, they get bogged down by Hahnemann’s explanations, which were done according to his 18th century scientific knowledge!

    Nevertheless, many serious physicians have put in practice the principles Hahnemann presented, through the course of 200 years and have found it effective. I have been practicing homeopathy for 30 years and found it effective in relieving suffering in many patients, though not in everyone. I have also seen responses which I know can be attributed to placebo, but have seen a good number of them which are definitely not placebo responses. I don’t find homeopathy to be just a method of treatment but an ethical obligation; it is clinically and cost effective.

    There is significant apriori bias and “Cherry Picking” in many skeptics of homeopathy, as demonstrated by Dr. Peter Fisher in his review of Dr. Shang’s Lancet article. Besides, there is research coming from outside of the homeopathic circles, such as Professor Edward Calabrese from the University of Massachussetts, involving the principle of hormesis, and Nobel Laureate Professor Montaigne’s work, which demonstrates biological effects with ultramolecular dilutions akin to homeopathy; yet, they are not homeopaths, or even supporters of homeopathy.

    An all-or-none proposition in the evaluation and critique of homeopathy is also illogical or irrational position. It is only truly unbiases individuals, willing to do their homework, conscientiously, who will be able to make the truthful assessment of this domain.

    And, by the way, mass intake of homeopathic medicines will not show toxicity, because a “proving” depends on sensitivity, and repeated intake, usually not a single dose. You can fill up a theater with healthy people and show the movie “Platoon” and they will be fine; but fill it up with people with PTSD, particularly Vietnam Vets, and you will see a different result. Oh, by the way, how many atoms of “movie” are the viewers taking in that is causing a biological response?

    None! case in point, you don’t need atoms to cause a physiological response.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.