Comments on: The War Against Gobbledygook

By: Mark Trodden, not afraid of consequences, except from Slam « Bob Dudesky

Mark Trodden, not afraid of consequences, except from Slam « Bob Dudesky — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:40:03 +0000

[...] harder than others to find a way to pick a rhetorical fight with a person. In Mark’s post, The War Against Gobbledygook, there’s not much of a problem with it. It appears to me that his complaint is legitimate. [...]

By: homeopathy » Blog Archive » The New (Homeopathy handbook) England Skeptical Society …

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:48:33 +0000

[...] To condemn homeopathy because you do not know how it works, does in no way prove or disprove the efficacy of a remedy applied according to the rules of homeopathy. Pseudo skeptics have the common blind spot of believing that if a … …more [...]

By: UCL change tack: Colquhoun is back « The Sceptical Preacher

UCL change tack: Colquhoun is back « The Sceptical Preacher — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:38:54 +0000

[...] The War Against Gobbledygook [...]

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:44:52 +0000

Hmmm, I guess the problem here is that for the placebo effect to be effective for Homeopathy, you must believe in it and thus cannot accept the scientific truth about Homeopathy.

So, should someone who benefits from Homeopathy change his mind when reading this blog? Then the cheap Homeopathic drugs would no longer work and the eczemas, bronchial asthmas, migraines, etc. etc. would come back. That’s a rather heavy price to pay for scientific knowledge

By: Sue Young Homeopathy » The Parliament of Owls begins…

Sue Young Homeopathy » The Parliament of Owls begins… — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:40:51 +0000

[...] studies later when all the fuss has died down Follow this blog from the oppositions own web site!! See how homeopathy fights back and the response it gets!! Witness how unpleasant these ’scientists’ become when someone does try to talk to them [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:03:03 +0000

Look, your personal anecdotes are all fine, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of anyone commenting here. However, personal anecdotes are no substitute for actual evidence. There are extremely sound arguments that homeopathy shouldn't have any effect beyond placebo, and since there are no convincing studies (please don't tell me there are - I've read the meta-analyses that discuss how flawed and biased homeopaths' favorite ones are), it really is necessary for you to follow the biological equivalent of Sean's advice. In fact, you should also follow the physics version, since that is what tells you there should be no effect.

By: Purushottama

Purushottama — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:01:17 +0000

Hi Dear Critics of Homoeopathy
No matter you stick to argue the same
thing that Homoeopathy does not work, no scientific data
etc. etc. the people who have been benifitted will never give it up. Keep your “science” to your arguments and if possible use it to find out why people take to Homoeopathy. I and many like me who never knew anything about that system had been driven into it by your scientific medicines. We repent why we did not take to Homoeopathy earlier. I have taken it for all sorts of fever, hypotension, GI tract problems and so on and it has never failed us. A cut or wound or burn we take homoepathy and it has worked extremely well with us since last two decades. So what if someone is convinced or not.
It appears that some want to REDISCOVER Homoeopathy as a new invention and Patent the system and it is only a concerted effort in this direction. A few years ago the Ayurvedic system was being attacked and now Pharma companies are in the race to patent Neem and Turmeric preparations which have been traditionally used in India since ages. I have been going through many Blogs and while on the one hand the Homoeopathic fraternity is bringing forth all the proof that their system works , the other side pretends not to see the truth. Nevertheless we are with Homoeopathy no matter who claims what.

By: prabhat tandon

prabhat tandon — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:33:29 +0000

Hi Richard ,
I entirely agree with you. Whatever reason the Lancet & other disapproves homeopathy I personally have a number of good experiences with these tiny sweet pills with myself & my family . My son suffered from infantile eczema , myself too had a long history of bronchial asthma , my mother suffered from migraine ; all are now free from these diseases since long time. I have also seen no of allopaths here in my city are practising homeopathy sucessfully.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:41:50 +0000

Hi Howard,

I would choose homeopathy in a heartbeat, but that’s because I know enough about it to make an informed decision that would lead me in that direction.

In your case, of course you should choose something you feel both comfortable and familiar with.

My own experience (both of my own medical history and the experiences of others I know of) tells me that a homeopathic treatment is likely to be deeper and more long-lasting, freer of side effects, and accompanied by a standard of care that is difficult to attain within the standard medical world.

Given that, my choice is simple.

By: Howard Leigh

Howard Leigh — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:24 +0000

Out of curiosity, if you were suffering from a serious, potentially terminal illness for which there was a claimed orthodox medicinal cure and an claimed homeopathic cure, which would you choose?
All the arguments appear to be based from personal standpoints, so how would all of you react to a possible real life situation?
Would the pro-homeopathists stick to their guns?
Personally I’d go with the known orthodoxy.

And so it seems would my friend who is a fervent believer in homeopathy, except when it comes to controlling his cholesterol levels!