Why does homeopathy reek of fraud, even if some people behind it are trying to help people? It's not just the medicine, it's the people behind it who place themselves into a terrible position. Some show low or nil signs of honesty and overall intelligence, but some are giving away non-intentional mis-information (information which they thought was correct from their best effort, but was infact not in reality).
First of all, if there is some psychological reason found in the future, that homeopathy does work in little ways, it is still wrong for people to have pretended that it worked for other mechanical or medicinal reasons, such as potency, shaking, vibrating, memory of water, etc. This is what many people don't get.
You shouldn't go around telling people that banana seeds help or in some cases cure
stomach ulcers, and say that you did "provings" just because you just noticed that
a few people around you without cancer had bananas for dessert often. A few people
were eating bananas without cancer, so let's call this
proof that bananas must have some drastic effect on cancer...
Even though the above "proving" isn't a proving, and even though it sounds ludicrous to call it a proving.. it seems that in homeopathy this "proving" above is acceptable. That is how the original homeopathic provings were "proven" - and people still follow them!
Why is this wrong:
That's not an actual proving! But some people will still believe it is, because of
the words you used and the specific information that you gave that side tracked
them from the fraud of the situation. First, just by calling it a "proving" even if
it isn't one tricks plenty of half-intelligent and gullible people into thinking
that it is "proof". It is dishonest to call it a proving, but 90 percent or more of
the world is gullible. What people read and hear in a book.. must be true!
Especially a book that uses words like "potency" and "provings".
Fishing for justification:
The fact is, it could be that the people at the swimming pool one day didn't have
cancer. So does this mean that all swimming pools must stop cancer?
If you choose to call things "provings" that aren't really "provings" you are being
very dishonest, because you can convince many nice, normal, and gullible people
that what you did was actual "proof". This is misleading.
The word "provings" is actually not even word - which again is more dishonest
trickery - as the person using the word "provings" could argue that it is not
dishonest to call them "provings" since we made up that word to mean whatever we
Then in 10 years, let's say it is found that coconut cures stomach ulcers, and that
a lot of people eat coconut with bananas. Some people were eating coconut with
their bananas often. This is not a justifiable way to now say that you
were "correct in practicing banana seed treatment, because now it's proven that
eating bananas helps cures stomach ulcers." You are misleading and dishonest, and
this is not proof that bananas cure stomach ulcers.
On the same note as the (made up) banana example above, the placebo effect or
psychological effects of having a nice homeopathic doctor to talk to is not a
justifiable way of saying that homeopathic pills and vials are curing your
diseases! Even if the placebo and psychological effects are helping your diseases,
you SHOULD NOT justify or say that you have "proven" homeopathic pills work due to
"shaking", "memory", and reversed "potency".
Some homeopathic doctors or regular people practicing homeopathy are are not "trying" to defraud you with homeopathy. They do actually "believe" in the practice. Although this is not intentionally dishonest, it is still a problem. The people who actually believe in the practice could be caught in a similar trap as all the people who believe that aspartame, diet coke, sugar free gum, and Becel must not cause any problems in the body, since they aren't saturated or high calorie. If you truly believe and actively practice that Becel, homeopathy, or diet coke, aspartame, etc. is good for you, then you are caught in a trap which isn't intentional dishonesty, but still a problem, and an overall effective long term issue.
Sadly, some people practicing homeopathy are just not aware enough to analyze the practice. They may appear to be intelligent people, some with Ph.D.'s and some who have every day lives just like yours. But they did not research homeopathy's history and practice enough. Some people are are willing to believe in something just due to what they have read in articles that appear to be scientific. Homeopathic history and homeopathic articles do appear on the surface to be scientific, because of the choice of words used. The articles that most people have read about homeopathy have words in them like "provings" and "potency". But looking further, the keen eye can see that these are just words, and do not relate to how correct or honest homeopathy really is.
This is what separates the people who start falling for homeopathy, and the ones who start researching it further with still a critical eye. If you fall for tricky wording and experiments that appear to be scientific on the surface, you will fall for homeopathy.
Others have taken courses and invested in homeopathy, and continue to practice it even if they consciously know about possible fraud. But they couldn't possibly just give it up if their income is from it. Imagine spending 3-7 years taking courses, spending money on courses, and 1 or more years buying and spending money on homeopathic medicine? Are you going to just critically look into the practice for possible fraud or possible mis-information? Probably not. You figure you've already spent so much time on the practice, that you might as well just ignore all the possible negative issues about it, and start believing in it more than you already have (without doing further research and critical analysis).
But what about the nux vomica, silica, and all the detailed books out there on homeopathy? How can it possibly be incorrect if there are books that tell me and pinpoint what type of pill to take for my exact problem?
If we wrote several books on tobacco and cigarettes and coffee, and each brand or type of tobacco leaf or coffee bean had different raw antioxidants in it, and each bean or leaf could match up to a certain personality or disease, would you still smoke tobacco and cigarettes because of these books written?
If I specifically pointed out to you that Marlboro cigarette tobacco had a small amount of antioxidant in it that pinpointed your disease, and could actually help lung cancer if burnt only in a specific way, would you believe that it could solve your lung cancer? And only if the Marlboro cigarette was a specific length, with a specific color of rolling paper.
Even if that leaf really did contain a small amount of antioxidant, would you not prioritize other effects and other issues of the subject, such as possibly the smoke and tar of the burning causing more harm than any benefits of the antioxidant?
From A Homeopathy Critical Website
"What they came up with was the memory of water. I assume lactose has a similar memory, but nobody seems to be talking about it. The memory of water voodoo says that water remembers things that it has been in contact with even after all traces of the substance have been removed. Strangely, however, it doesn't remember the bottles or bladders it has been stored in, or the chemicals that may have come into contact with its molecules, or the other contents of the sewers it may have been in at one time, or the cosmic radiation which has blasted through it. It just remembers the one thing that the "researcher" wants it to remember."
"How does the preparer ensure that only the excrement is remembered and nothing else? Remember how I mentioned that water is an almost universal solvent? How was the preparation controlled to eliminate the possibility that the water remembered any of the non-excremental molecules that it might have come in contact with? For example, if it had instead remembered the molecules in the glass preparation vessel, we might have ended up with a treatment for silicosis.
Agreed. Yes, what about all the urine, feces, etc. that water has seen and memorized? What about all the blood and death water has seen in oceans? What about all the murderers that have washed their hands in water, and all the murder victims that have been dumped in bodies of water that we drink out of?
What about the computer keyboards we touch every day? Do we get plastic homeopathic vibrations from tapping the keyboard? Or only if I invent the method at which some pace I must tap the keyboard? Surely I could prove that tapping the keyboard would treat my disease, and not just vaguely assume that my intentions are correct? Surely that if I was comparing keyboard tapping to actual food intake or mineral supplementation, I could come up with some valid proof of the cure working?
Our earth wasn't designed to have memory in water because if it did, feces and etc. would make the water a very complicated water. People would die just from drinking crystal clear water, due to some bizarre memory that the water had from 1 drop sulfuric acid that someone accidentally dropped down the sink. Animals would be walking around with car parts growing on their backs from us dumping car oil in the sink accidentally. The less dilute the solution of poison in the water, the more powerful it is?
What if the preparer had breathed out through her mouth and the air above the preparation vessel had become contaminated by mercury vapor coming off her fillings. Some of this could have become dissolved in the water and then we might have come up with a treatment for _____ (fill in whatever mercury in fillings is causing this week). If she smoked, we might get a cure for lung cancer. If some of the nitrogen in the lab air had got into the water, a cure for the bends might have resulted, and a tiny fragment of asbestos blown in from a nearby demolition site might have been remembered and a treatment for mesothelioma been produced. None of these would be of any use to the poor person sitting outside waiting for a cure for diarrhea"
Agreed. How does the homeopathic medicine in plastic bottles stop all the chemicals in the plastic from getting into it? Will we have a cure for plastic? How about the alcohol in the liquid homeopathic bottles? What if the alcohol was stored in metal or plastic containers before being placed into the bottle? What if the plastic bottles were sitting in cardboard boxes while being shipped? Will we be curing cardboard disease? In fact, even more effective, the cardboard must be even more powerful since it's so dilute (the cardboard particles and smells are just floating in the air).
The answer is simple: homeopathic doctors could not profit off the pills and liquids if we start questioning these factors. If you tell a homeopathic doctor that the plastic bottle could be causing all sorts of issues, he will see his income go down the drain. They have to sell something. They have to have something concrete that they can put on the shelves to sell.
QuackWatch Homeopathy Critical Article
"The dilution/potentiation process in homeopathy involves a stepwise dilution carried to fantastic extremes, with 'succession' between each dilution. Succussion involves shaking or rapping the container a certain way. During the step-by-step dilution process, how is the emerging drug preparation supposed to know which of the countless substances in the container is the One that means business? How is it that thousands (millions?) of chemical compounds know that they are required to lay low, to just stand around while the Potent One is anointed to the status of Healer? That this scenario could lead to distinct products uniquely suited to treat particular illnesses is beyond implausible."
News Article on Homeopathy
"In 2002, American illusionist James Randi offered $1m to anyone able to prove, under observed conditions in a laboratory, that homeopathic remedies can really cure people.
To date, no-one has passed the preliminary tests."
Other ridiculous thoughts in order to make a few bucks:
What about soaking? Why just the shaking? Why does homeopathy stop at "shaking" and dilution? Soaking for specified periods of time, and diluting after, could be a new invention. Why not practice soaking? Who says that we're all finished and done with shaking? Why not soak water in bad substances and do "proofs", after diluting these soaked substances? For example, a piece of nose snot or mucous could be soaked in 4oz of water for 4.2 hours and it could have a 4.2X effect. Or maybe even a 4.2Y effect, or a 4.2T effect. Then this 4.2X mucous soaked solution could be diluted significantly in order to be safe to sell and "potent". This solution could be called mucousitis medicine.
What about lights? Why not shine lights through two substances? The bad substance could be located near a glass of water, and a flashlight or other light could "shine" through the bad substance and "bring" the molecule memories over to the water. Again, why stop at "shaking" and "diluting"? Surely the flashlight beam could carry a memory from one substance to another. Surely this could be "the next generation homeopathy" that could be invented. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
Come to think of it, why not just play hockey or soccer to cure all your diseases, due to the "puck slapping" and "ball hitting" that might jiggle and disturb diseases?
Surely the slapping of the hockey stick sends vibrations through the body which rumbles and disturbs diseases.
Looking at and critiquing a pro-homeopathic website
"Five years ago, Jacques Benveniste was all but ostracized from the scientific community after claiming that water has a "memory" and that this may be the mechanism of how homeopathy works.
Notwithstanding continued ridicule from scientific experts, there is now another study, soon to be published in the prestigious scientific Journal Physica A that asserts Benveniste may have been right after all.
According to a recent article on the website of NEW SCIENTIST a paper is about to be published in the reputable journal Physica A claiming to show that even though they should be identical, the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water is very different from that in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions. Could it be time to take the "memory" of water seriously?"
"The paper's author, Swiss chemist Louis Rey, is using thermoluminescence to study the structure of solids. The technique involves bathing a chilled sample with radiation. When the sample is warmed up, the stored energy is released as light in a pattern that reflects the atomic structure of the sample."
This guy is justifying homeopathy, because of someone going fishing NOW for a way to find out if water has memory. Does this remind you of the people who go fishing in the bible for messages which read backwards on certain pages?
What about the reasons for homeopathy being practiced in the first place? What does this "memory of water" that someone is fishing for NOW, have to do with the reason homeopathy was practiced umpteen (hundreds of?) years ago? So it's okay to justify homeopathy just because someone has stated they are going to go fishing for ways to see if water has a memory? And if water has some sort of memory unrelated in all ways to anything homeopathic, on a completely different topic, this means we can justify the practice of homeopathy umpteen years ago?
This means that it was honest and correct for the homeopathic advocates to justify practice umpteen years ago, based on their "belief" that water had a memory? Is he stating that there is no proof of homeopathy, and that we can just go fishing for proof now? Or is he stating that there was proof back then, but that it was so rubbish that we have to look for further proof today? Or is he stating neither, and is he just an attention whore? So if someone twists their water "memory" findings just to make homeopathy look good now, umpteen years later, this is a truthful and honest justification to practice homeopathy?
Any intelligent human knows that people who fish for things after something has already been fraudulently practiced for years are dangerous people. This is like someone cheating on an exam in school and then 5 years later saying "but I've found evidence that people who cheat are successful in life".
Other articles on this man's site (Sepp Hasslberger's, Josef HasslBerger's, Tim Bolen's), consist of bashing and making fun of Barrett and Baratz. Instead of Sepp (Josef) Hasslberger/Tim Bolen helping people and scientifically or critically but reasonably analyzing Stephen Barrett's articles, this man Sepp chooses to bash and immaturely make fun of Barrett and Baratz.
Josef's (Sepp's?) Bashful and Useless Revenge Attempt Article on Homeopathy
What Sepp/Bolen is doing is taking your attention away from facts, reasonable critique, and relaying you or distracting you with negative bashing, poking fun, etc. This Sepp man is like the immature child, who instead of responding to a foe with an intelligent thoughtful and helpful remark or analysis, he bashes and swears immaturely instead. He is like the child who yells, shouts, swears, and makes fun of the other children in school just to gain attention and just to distract people from seeing his own stupidity (hiding behind a curtain of bashful, useless, negative remarks). Please understand, that the author of PasWiki does not agree with Barrett or Baratz on some topics either, but in no way does the PasWiki author resort to useless battering and bashing about people's shyness, red face, or minor sweat issues. Surely, Sepp is also exaggerating in order to bias his articles toward himself.
The article above being entitled "Homeopathy Goes Scientific" allows Sepp to make even more of an ass of himself. Since when does something become scientific when you write an article about what's going to happen possibly, maybe, depending? Since when does a practice become scientific when you go fishing for proof, hundreds of years after you have supposedly already proven the practice? Since when does a practice even need to "Go Scientific" if it's already so true and honest? Why would you need to prove homeopathy or write articles about you "going to prove it some time", if it's already so true and honest?
This has nothing to do with the memory of water that homeopathic advocates have supposedly claimed. Again, Sepp, you are just fishing for new ways to prove something with proof that has nothing to do with homeopathy, by distracting the person's attention to new fishing material. You can prove that a battery has electricity in it, but this doesn't prove that the human brain has electricity in it.
"A possible mechanism for the homeopathic memory of water can be found at http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html"
Hmm, the link didn't work September 2005. Anyway..wait a second now Sepp, now you are discussing "possible" mechanisms for proving homeopathic memory? What about the original people who thought up the idea years ago? Are you saying you can justify hundreds of years of fraud because you found some little article that "possibly proves" memory of water in year 2003-2005? Even if there was some memory in water, wouldn't' it be correct and true that it was dishonest and false for homeopathic advocates to just "guess" about the memory of water for hundreds of years?
Again, Sepp/Bolen is just using Distraction And Fishing Tactics. He is using completely or major unrelated science that has nothing or little to do with the practice that was thought up and supposedly "proven", to try and justify homeopathy TODAY, after all those years.
Also note, that the author of PasWiki does not work for either the medical or health industry, whereas Sepp makes his living selling health supplements.
HomeoWatch comments and quotes on Homeopathy
"In front of reporters from Belgium?s major newspapers and television stations, 23 volunteers respected medical professors, a well-known TV producer, a top publicist, and several ordinary citizens gulped down large quantities of over-the-counter homeopathic solutions based on deadly poisons. These included snake venom, deadly nightshade, arsenic and, just for the hell of it, dog milk. Dog milk was included because a homeopathic reference book (materia medica) actually says that undiluted dog milk can cause such disturbances as vomiting, bloody pus discharges, sciatica (right side) and 'dreams of snakes.'
Even more ominous, the solutions were labeled 30C. This meant that one part of the original substance had been diluted in 100 parts of water or alcohol, shaken, and then diluted again at a ratio of 100 to one, a process that was repeated 30 times. According to homeopaths, each time a solution is shaken, the properties of the original substance are miraculously transferred to the water or alcohol solvent, and each cycle enhances or dynamizes the properties of the solution. Shouldn't that make the original poison even more potent? Apparently not. All of the 23 volunteers survived, but some who came by car had to wait before returning home because the alcohol in their homeopathic solutions had made them too dizzy to drive."
"Permitting yourself to be deceived by a silly theory that was outdated and untenable even in the nineteenth century does not show an open or tolerant mind. It only shows you are gullible and an easy prey to smooth-talking quacks."
The typical response (non-intelligent one) from a homeopathic advocate would be:
"It must be because they just didn't believe in what they were taking. It wouldn't work if you didn't believe in it."
Spiked-Online homeopathy Article
Politics of Health Fraud
Small Essay on Homeopathy with correct points.
To quote, from a HomeoWatch article:
Response by William T. Jarvis,
President, National Council Against Health Fraud
Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Loma Linda University Schools of Public Health and Medicine
Isadora Stehlin's article was useful in that it reveals that
there is no level playing field for those who market medicines.
Homeopathy is a fraud perpetrated on the public with the government's
blessing, thanks to the abuse of political power of Sen. Royal
Copeland chief sponsor of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
There are at least six reasons why users may say homeopathic
- The placebo effect. This was inadequately dealt with by Stehlin
and obviously misunderstood by Jennifer Jacobs, M.D. Placebo
responses are due to more than just pep talks. Belief in a substance
is only one mechanism of placebo action. Suggestibility and conditioning
are among some others. Animals are subject to both. Recall Pavlov's
classical experiments. Animals also respond well to attention
by humans. Further, whether the animal is better or not is determined
by humans observing the creature, not objective reporting by
- Natural ups and downs of symptoms or natural remission. The
person (or animal) would have gotten better anyhow through natural
healing processes. Such responses can be long term and are unpredictable.
- The remedy contains an effective dose of real medicine. There
is no way of interpreting the labels of homeopathic products
because active ingredients are not quantified. There have been
reports of toxicity from homeopathic products. Most products
are not 24X dilutions.
- Adulteration. Remedies may be spiked with real medicines
or stimulants not named on their labels. These may work effectively
or produce a "Dr. Feelgood" response.
- Denial of discomfort. For true believers, homeopathy is a
religion. Homeopathic vitalism validates the existence of soul
for many. Such believers are delusional and see only what they
want to see.
- Liars, with a financial interest in selling the products
or with a self-interest in selling a good story.
The National Council Against Health Fraud believes that all
medicines should comply with standards American consumers have
a right to expect:
- Interpretable labels
- Premarketing proof of safety
- Premarketing proof of efficacy
- Good manufacturing standards that guarantee product quality
- Effective tracking to uncover unanticipated adverse effects
- Truthful advertising.
Let's have a level playing field.
"I drank a homeopathic remedy. I urinated and flushed. Soon the remedy will spread throughout the world, becoming ever more powerful as it becomes more diluted." - Timothy Gorski, MD
"This means that the contents of the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian oceans can be used as homeopathic remedies for anything we wish. One poor duck's life can be saved, since it won't have to offer its liver and heart to make a homeopathic potion that is enough to supply the entire earth's needs for an entire year. But the manufacturers won't be happy. They'll miss the profits. "U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck." There's big money in quackery! "Quack, quack", said the duck!"
The author of PasWiki feels that there are troubles in both the medical and alternative industry. He works or is affiliated with neither. There are many problems with the medical industry and the homeopathic industry, and the nutrition industry.
In no way does the above discussion recommend medical drugs as the end all perfect solution to everything. In fact the author practices and has used all sorts of foods and supplements, and in no way finds the medical industry perfect or one hundred percent honest either.
Coming from a person open to (reasonable) alternative methods, you should understand again that this is not a biased writing. Please also understand that the author's immediate family actually practices homeopathy, and he is strong and willing enough to risk his entire relationship with immediate, closest family by taking this negative position toward homeopathy, in favor of honesty and intelligence.
The article and critique of mine above is trying to bring out intelligence and honesty. It is not a praise for medical drugs. In fact I do not in general even take medical drugs.. I've only had tylenol and aspirin a couple times in my life, and have never really been on any medical drugs - unless I was in some emergency setting such as during my nose cauterization when I had pain killer.
I want to make it clear that I am not a biased medical advocate... as a lot of people think that critical articles on homeopathy must be written by the medical association. Not so.. there are plenty of homeopathic skeptics who are not medical advocates of any sort.