Homeopathy: Can it be a Success Story?

David Brent more than ever! When the jokes on you..well never mind. But we're in this together monkey. We'll be the last standing and so we'll be the winners. It might be time for another copy/paste episode and how about a 6th question..what do you think?

gratuitous, in your own very special way, you are right. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Well done Brent monkey, I dont understand what you have against red bold though, see if you can add some tomorrow. It might be just us here now you've openly given our game away, and the prudes won't talk to us because of your earlier name-calling, but that's fine because we still win as we are the last here. Stallion might hoof it back over here though, so daily copy/paste repeats will be needed, dont let me down monkey.

If anyone (not Dick, sadly) wants to have a quick view of the current state of the homeopathic trial literature, here would be a good place to start courtesy of my friend, Mojo.  It does not make happy reading for the homs. But, that should come as no surprise. Their pills are just sugar. 

Dick, I am always struck by the amount of effort that homeopaths put into not answering questions. The sheer amount of typing involved in refusing to answer seems so much more than would be involved with a simple direct answer. 1. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath? 2. Where does the 'energy' come from in one of the later pots of a 'grafting' process? 3. a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. Since you do not want to choose any, I'll now pick one of my favourites because demolitions of it are easy to find on the web, which makes this quick and easy Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, Kaye A (2005). Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest; 127:936–941. 3. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. 3. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter? 4. Should patients stop taking ARVs for HIV/AIDS and use homeopathy instead? 5. Should homeopathy be used routinely instead of antimalarial medications and preventive measures such as mosquito nets? Dick asked for a study. I provided one. He has stalled since then. For anyone less familiar with the field than I grant that Dick is likely to be you may be interested in a commentary on that Frass paper that I cited. I shall assume that Dick is well aware of the criticisms leveled at that study and can only wonder why he has not chosen to either to agree with those criticisms or attempt to defend the study. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/hom... It is worth saying that, since we are now 7 years since the original was published, if it was truly a promising pilot study for something that actually worked then its lack of replication in a more robust trial begins to be a problem. But this is typical of all of the homeopathic trial literature. They can squeak out small apparent effects in small and weak studies. These get added to the pile but are never winnowed by a process of replication to separate the wheat from the chaff. If an appropriate winnowing process is applied, which is what happens with a well-conducted meta-analysis, then the apparent effects of homeopathy in small studies turn out to be spurious and the clear picture emerges that it is a null intervention. This point is covered by my question 3c that Dick declines to answer. One can only wonder why he does this.

David brent, don't let that horse treat you like a monkey! I almost gave up on you when you quoted that paper - you were Stallion's performing monkey and he was getting ready to mount up and make you feel his rod. If you had made any points or said anything substantial, that would have been it for us. But then you just repeated yourself again - twice - I was so proud. There must be daily repetitions, preferably with red bolded bits. Perhaps you shouldn't have admitted to our cynical game plan, but I'll be here to put lead in your pencil even if no one else even reads it - our ability to say the same thing over and over and over is what makes us invincible.

Monkey, thanks for confirming that you had no intention of being constructive, as we had assumed. One wonders what you hoped to gain from such an approach, except perhaps to vent your rather bizarre and irrational bitterness toward homeopathy. What we do know is that you have not demonstrated any knowledge of the subject, you have not made any substantive points and you have not made any contribution whatsoever to the debate on either side. However, you have provided some good comedic value so overall not a total waste, hope you feel the same :).

Here's a couple more questions; 1. Should patients stop taking ARVs for HIV/AIDS and use homeopathy instead? 2. Should homeopathy be used routinely instead of antimalarial medications and preventive measures such as mosquito nets?

"approach us constructively." Tried that with homeopaths. Doesn't work. They still don't answer straight questions with straight answers. 1. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath? 2. Where does the 'energy' come from in one of the later pots of a 'grafting' process? 3. a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. Since you do not want to choose any, I'll now pick one of my favourites because demolitions of it are easy to find on the web, which makes this quick and easy Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, Kaye A (2005). Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest; 127:936–941. 3. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. 3. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter? I can't see anything "unconstructive" about these questions. Their unifying feature is that you have chosen not to attempt replies.

Monkey, given your approach its unsurprising to hear that you find it difficult to get people to engage with you, but you've finally referenced some material here, so thanks for that, but we don't know whether you've read it or what you think of it. Please give us a critique of the trial you referenced, and I'll look into it. Dont listen to gratuitous, it will only be to your credit if you can put your poor start behind you and approach us constructively.

Dick 1. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath? 2. Where does the 'energy' come from in one of the later pots of a 'grafting' process? 3. a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. Since you do not want to choose any, I'll now pick one of my favourites because demolitions of it are easy to find on the web, which makes this quick and easy, then we can move on. Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, Kaye A (2005). Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest; 127:936–941. 3. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. 3. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter? Do you have any substantive responses to make? [It is to noted that having addressed these questions again to Dick that gratuitous will now have "nothing more to do" with me. I wish I could say I regret this.]

Very well done Brent monkey, you played the victim very nicely as I suggested and if Kate calls you a hypocrite then just call her clueless and stupid like you did with Stephanie and dont forget to say "D'oh!". However you didn't heed my advice on how to handle the Stallion. Where was the red bold? And you did what he told you - I warned against being his performing Monkey - if you do it again you will be Dick's bitch and I'll have nothing more to do with you..

gratuitous, Thank you for your support. The cap and bells are very attractive, but be careful you don't knock over anyone's wine glass with your inflated pig's bladder on a stick

Dick, I always wonder when homeopaths [see note above] do absolutely anything but deal with the arguments. If your beliefs were based on strong evidence then you'd be able to blow me out of the water so easily. But here we are. You become more insulting; I ask simple questions and wait for replies. 1. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath? 2. Where does the 'energy' come from in one of the later pots of a 'grafting' process? 3. a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. Since you do not want to choose any, I'll now pick one of my favourites because demolitions of it are easy to find on the web, which makes this quick and easy, then we can move on. Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, Kaye A (2005). Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest; 127:936–941. 3. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. 3. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter?

Thank you Dick and Kate for your entertaining invective. I notice that neither of you has chosen to address any of the substantive issues. Kate, your or Stephanie has a perfect right to believe the Moon is made of green cheese. You do not have the right for that to be true. If you and a friend from the Cheese Marketing Board post in a public place that invites comments your belief in a green cheese Moon you should not be surprised when someone begins to ask you where the big green cows live. Whether my comments on Africa are "ridiculous and idiotic generalisations" could be tested by you actually commenting on the particular examples I gave then working from there. I do not try to prove the general point from just two specific examples; these are brief blog comments not lengthy research articles. However, I did ask you to comment on those two examples and you have failed to do so. So, view the videos consider their implications and then you can then say whether they are consistent with a general pattern of misbehaviour by homeopaths. I'm afraid it is a tediously frequent pattern that homeopaths and their apologists retreat into childish playground taunting when asked to defend their views. Must you really descend to that?

David Brent monkey, Stallion wants you to be his performing Monkey so, as your lawyer, I advise you to copy & paste your last reply again but this time with more bolded and preferably some red bold. When you reply to Kate, I advise you to play the victim and act hurt. You should also change your picture to a sweet little monkey, preferably sad looking. You can do this!!

Kate LOL, you tell him girl!

Monkey, you mention 'copy & paste', which is quite appropriate since this is the only faculty you've demonstrated so far. All that has been asked of you is that you demonstrate the knowledge and expertise you claim to have. This is quite reasonable given the approach you have taken here. Your continued refusal to do this will make a useful exchange unlikely, your comic value notwithstanding.

@StumpedMonkey No, you attacked and attempted to bully the author but you were called on it and exposed for the puffed prat you are. Your repeated tedious twatty questions are just that. No one owes you an explanation for anything. Your comments on Africa are ridiculous and idiotic generalisations based on a couple of anecdotes. You are quite the buffoon and you should have taken Dick's advice before because your posts here are most definitely a 'miserable waste of space'.

OK, Dick. Still wanting to take the stonewalling and prevarication route? Modern computers have a facility called Copy & Paste. Watch and learn. 1. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath? [Hint: your answer need not refer to Stephanie's own view of the subject. Not sure why you think it might. It was a question directed at you so I'm not sure why you would want us to exercise our psychic powers on her.] 2. Let us examine 'grafting'. Homeopathic remedies are supposed to convey 'energy' to the intended target. I place a pill in a pot of 100 pills to 'graft' the energy onto the 100. I take one of that 100 and place it in another pot of 100. I repeat this process as many times as I wish. Where does the 'energy' come from in one of the later pots? 3. You continue to tell me what I have and haven't read. I'm quite happy to proceed, if you like, on the basis that you are more familiar with the literature than me. I really don't mind. So, great and mighty Dick, from your lofty position of knowledge of the homeopathic trial data my three questions remain; a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter? I'm quite happy to forego the answer to a. Discussing the minutiae of small and/or badly conducted studies is always a bit tedious, but I'm happy to go through a paper of your choice. Make it a good one. I've been trying to give you the opportunity to pick what you think is a good one rather than me simply choosing a bad one.

Monkey, I'm a little disappointed with your 'what is a homeopath?' fizzle, but you could yet surprise me with the grand reveal of what Stephanie meant? You boasted to 'Kate' the other day that you had 'expertise' in this field, but its clear you have only the most superficial and generalised knowledge of the subject. Make a proper effort, find and provide references to mechanisms you want to discuss, demonstrate that you have read the material, and I'll look at it. Similarly for the meta-analyses or even individual trials - I dont mind which ones you want to read or what you say about them, but just show us some evidence that you have done at least some reading on this topic.

Evilcyber no shit? Wow no-one's ever asked that killer question before, case closed.

Monkey you are the David Brent of this thread, I'm sure you can work out why :).

I have one question: How can a substance that is so highly diluted that not even with an electron microscope you can detect a single molecule of it in a solution make a difference in an illness?

Kate you attacked the author on matters of writing style and not knowing about use of antibiotics because she was just telling her story and you couldn't attack on any substance, this is why you have been ridiculed and not treated seriously. What more needs to be said? Stephanie Kramer with help from a homeopath [see note above] published her single case anecdote on the use of homeopathy as if it had something to say about the efficacy of homeopathy. She did this from a position of ignorance on simple medical facts. She then tried to deflect any requirement to defend her assertions by asking readers not to pass judgement on her opinions. With respect to Africa, watch these videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXiHnsEzrdo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fGKNsk-UwQ Are you confident that these convey the message that anti-retroviral drugs are the only provably successful way to control HIV/AIDS and that if homeopathy is practised on these patients it should only be done in an adjunctive way that does nothing to dissuade people from using ARVs? If rich westerners are spending time and money in Africa then it is not true that literally "nothing" is being done. Something is being done, by them. But, any resources devoted to homeopathy would be better spent on useful interventions. Are you happy that homeopaths advise using their remedies for malarial prophylaxis instead not just of conventional drugs, but also instead of normal protective measure such as use of mosquito nets?

Dick It's OK, I am well used to homeopaths evading and prevaricating, disputing the legitimacy of any questions and engaging in tedious meta-argument instead of exploring the substantive issues. Your tactics are quite familiar. 1. I'll change this question a little in case you can be encouraged to answer something that is a little less open-ended. How does someone acquire the status and title of homeopath 2. Let us examine 'grafting'. Homeopathic remedies are supposed to convey 'energy' to the intended target. I place a pill in a pot of 100 pills to 'graft' the energy onto the 100. I take one of that 100 and place it in another pot of 100. I repeat this process as many times as I wish. Where does the energy come from in one of the later pots? 3. You seem very keen to tell me what I haven't done. You have been wrong. You continue to evade the questions I asked and your response is interesting in its careful incompleteness. It is true that initial small medical trials often show effects that larger trials do not confirm in their magnitude. Various mechanisms underlie this including publication bias. However, for a genuinely effective intervention the effect size will still be statistically different (and clinically usefully different) from nil (Google "funnel plots" as a way into this topic). If this is not true then this intervention, at least for the indication under trial, should be abandoned. I have no problem with this idea and would be happy to see conventional therapies withdrawn on its basis. The problem with homeopathy is that the effect size in well-controlled large studies overlaps zero quite comfortably. Conventional medicine comprises a range of interventions with a range of evidence quality to support them. Homeopathy is only supported by soft and woolly evidence that disappears under closer examination. Homeopaths are keen to highlight parts of conventional medicine that have weaker evidence bases as if this confers legitimacy to homeopathy. It does not. But here we are, meta-arguing again, when you have failed to answer some very specific questions that I shall now repeat; a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter?

gratuitous, you make some excellent points on the relative benefits of having a plausible mechanism, maybe too much info on your 'roid remedies though :).

Monkey, you haven't asked a straight question that makes any sense yet. Except maybe the rather bizarre bolded repetion of 'what is a homeopath?' And you never let me in on the secret of what Stephanie meant by it either. We give in, what did she mean and what is a homeopath??? As for SLT and homeopathy, there is no conflict as I have said before. However if you want to talk about a specific mechanism or effect that has been proposed, then you'll need to provide a link to the relevant peer reviewed paper so we know exactly what you're talking about (you tend to be somewhat unclear about things). Then, you'll need to precisely set out why you think this mechanism or effect violates SLT, and I'll look at it. I don't want to be mean or inferential, but lets face it, you haven't read a meta-analysis in full as I suggested. The correlation of higher quality studies to less significance is not limited to homeopathy trials and is far from the whole story, as you'll find out if you take the time to read the meta-analyses. Do that, come back and tell us how you got on, and maybe we'll discuss it.

@StumpedMonkey, you attacked the author on matters of writing style and not knowing about use of antibiotics because she was just telling her story and you couldn't attack on any substance, this is why you have been ridiculed and not treated seriously. On your twitter page you say that people should send a link to a homeopath to their worst enemy and you here describe homeopathy and pernicious and dangerous. You seem to have quite a marked bitterness as if you have a personal experience and the 'jokes' seem forced. You mention Africa, do you really believe that homeopathy in Africa is a problem? When leaders meet in the UN is it homeopathy that exercises them or poverty, malnutrition, lack of clean water, electricity and roads etc etc. Even if homeopathy doesn't work its better than nothing which is the likely alternative.

Stallion you crack me up, love it bro but Monkey has one point in that your pet therapy does have a slight issue with SLT as I'm sure you know. At least the explanations offered for the remedy mechanism have an issue with SLT. But so what - homeopathy sorted out my 'roids and works like nurofen on my headaches - and yes if you were wondering I did apply the 'roid remedy topically :). And that leads me to a thought. It seems to me that the closer homeopathy comes to a scientifically accepted mechanism, the more likely homeopathy is going to have the **** regulated out of it. Probably be doctors only like in France. So it would be wise for homeopaths to never ever come out with anything that will not be immediately branded impossible by the sceptics. Homeopaths have a sweet deal with no regs, no qualification required etc., the very last thing they need is for it to be scientifically proven.

Kate The author, as is often the case, presented a promotional piece for homeopathy on the public interwebs and has then adopted the "don't hit me, I'm a poor innocent kitten" ploy as a means of avoiding the serious criticisms that are levied at what she has written. Homeopathy is a pernicious and dangerous nonsense. No, I have had no personal bad experiences with a homeopath, if by that you mean have I sought treatment from one and been disappointed. I have, however, had many bad experiences if you mean trying to get them to answer questions honestly and be held to account for the actions of their representatives exploiting sick people throughout the world, but most appallingly in Africa where they set up clinics to treat AIDS patients and raise funds for these activities from their gullible followers. There are many evils in the world and it is true that I could spend time attacking a range of other injustices and wrongs. It so happens that I have expertise in this area. I also try to find it interesting to meet the many excuses for homeopathy and confront them with a range of arguments. If you can't laugh at homeopathy, you'd be forced to cry.

@StumpedMonkey you have come on this post insulting the author so its unlikely you will get much apart from contempt or mocking. I visited your twitter page and this seems to be all you do, so I'm interested in what happened, did you have a bad experience with a homeopath?

Dicky I am used to the prevarication and stonewalling of homeopaths and also their reluctance to answer a straight question with a straight answer. I can be patient. 1. What is a homeopath? 2. Homeopathic remedies are typically solvent or sugar from which any original remedy substance has been rinsed away and replaced. It is asserted that some sort of energy signature persists. a. This energy signature is said to persist indefinitely. b. This energy signature can be propagated without practical limit by a variety of processes including 'grafting'. Please, show that these two assertions are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. 3. You seem keen to infer what I may or may not have done with respect to the literature purporting to support homeopathy. I shall grant you the courtesy of making no such assumptions about you. The large meta-analyses show that, as controlled trials are run with better numbers of participants and with better discipline in blinding etc., then homeopathic remedies become indistinguishable from placebo. This is well-trodden territory and not interesting. However, I asked you some specific questions and you have not answered them. a. Choose some trials from the SoH's list and give us an account of them with specific reference to the competence of their design. b. Explain what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. c. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter?

You understood what she meant by 'homeopath'? I'm very impressed monkey! I think we all did - it was your use of the word that was unclear..but you've suspensefully set this up now, so I can hardly wait..what did she mean by homeopath??? Thanks for using gravity to illustrate your 'huge weight of theoretical knowledge', very amusing albeit unintentionally. But then you spoilt it by darkly invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics..I say darkly because it's not clear what you're trying to say. Is this the theoretical knowledge, the huge weight of which squashes homeopathy? SLT is not violated by homeopathy, but again, we can only guess at what you meant. Empirical data alone does not 'allow' you to make any qualitative 'judgements' or 'statements' of the sort you were. If you'd ever read one of these studies then you'd know that there are all sorts of interpretative steps in order to turn the data into the conclusions that you may have read in the abstract. So again, its not clear whether you're asking us to believe that you have looked at the raw data, interpreted it and come to your own conclusions..or maybe you've read all of the studies, accepted their interpretations of the data but drawn your own conclusions or..who knows what. If you've got something interesting, clear and substantive to say about one or more of the trials then I'll look at it, but I wont be having a long exchange about trial results with you, sorry about that, but have a look at the large meta-analyses, making sure you read them properly, then come back and tell us what you think.

Here's a further thing that is worth doing with respect to that SoH list. Compare and contrast their use of it and its naive trinary categorisation (Positive, Inconclusive, Negative) and the methods of a well-conducted meta-analysis. Why might one elect to promote the former rather than the latter?

Oh, good, we can have a semantic argument about homeopathy. Try this one, Dick. What is a "homeopath"? I understood what she meant Did you? What did she mean? Certainly she invited us to have an opinion on the matter and not judge the opinions of others. But that does not constrain me from judging the opinions of others. I find myself well able to do so. The opinions of homeopaths and their deluded followers are fallacious and wrong. Not difficult. Hahaha.."theoretical knowledge", monkey? No wait it was a "huge weight" of theoretical knowledge..that is some focucssed, forensic thinking right there..not at all sloppy, and yes I'm sure you use your "theoretical knowledge" to pass all sorts of judgements. Maybe you'd like to supply us with some of this "empirical data" next? :)) OK, that's wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. First I'll make the obvious point that my theoretical knowledge of physics causes me to expect an apple to fall to the ground in the Earth's usual gravitational field. Does gravity not work the same for you? It's pretty reliable round my way. If you say apples fall upwards in your garden, I'd use my theoretical knowledge of gravity to doubt the truth of what you say unless you can provide extraordinary empirical evidence to cause me to reconsider. It is actually very difficult to respond to your comments because they don't actually make coherent sense, but let me give you a couple of threads to follow and se whether we can manage something like a disciplined exploration of the topic. 1. Theoretical knowledge that contradicts the basic tenets of homeopathy. Start with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and work through its implications for the claims made for homeopathic remedies. 2. Empirical data. You advance yourself as a defender of homeopathy and a defender of its defenders, so I will assume you are familiar with the trial data. I will not do the usual boring thing of simply citing the meta-analyses of trials, which show conclusively that homeopathic pills are inert. Instead, I'll ask you to do something much more interesting. Tell us about the Society of Homeopathy's list of "142 controlled trials". Illustrate for us the problems with those trials by reference to a representative selection. I'll let you decide which ones to choose. I would suggest you pick some of the more flagrantly incompetent ones. You could also comment on what the SoH means by a "negative" trial. http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-b...

Stumped monkey, it was a joke? So sorry for not getting it, I thought you were attacking someone for needing the advice of their doctor on medical matters, next time maybe put some smiley winky faces so we know. "However, I do tend to use the word "Homeopaths" in online commentary because it is much quicker to type than the phrase Homeopaths and their deluded followers. You're going to have to forgive that foible." If you're going to arbitrarily decide to use words differently from everyone else, it might be a good idea to tell us so we understand you and don't (immediately) dismiss what you say as nonsense. "None of this alters the fact that the author of the piece seemed to think that antibiotics could treat her viral conjunctivitis even after she had been told it was viral, but from the lofty height of her medical expertise tells us that sugar pills made her better." The very clear point was that Stephanie claims no lofty height of medical expertise, so again you're attacking someone for requiring advice on medical matters..or are you joking again? "Our author also further demonstrates her cluelessness when she wrote.." And now you're attacking her for allegedly imperfect phrasing and grammar..and sloppy thinking. I understood what she meant as did everyone else..we are invited to have an opinion on the matter without being judgemental on the opinion of others..but I bet Stephanie wishes she could put together some towering prose like..this for instance: "A huge weight of theoretical knowledge and empirical data allow us to make this statement with confidence" Hahaha.."theoretical knowledge", monkey? No wait it was a "huge weight" of theoretical knowledge..that is some focucssed, forensic thinking right there..not at all sloppy, and yes I'm sure you use your "theoretical knowledge" to pass all sorts of judgements. Maybe you'd like to supply us with some of this "empirical data" next? :)) Thanks for the laugh, appreciated that.

Dick, I did not say that Stephanie was a homeopath. I am perfectly capable of reading an article. She is a new Tru Bleever. However, I do tend to use the word "Homeopaths" in online commentary because it is much quicker to type than the phrase "Homeopaths and their deluded followers". You're going to have to forgive that foible. Dick, you seem to represent that class of homeopaths [see note above] who can't get a joke. The class of homeopaths who can get a joke is a small one. It may have no members. Do cheer up, old son! Homeopathy is funny. If you are not laughing at it you are being laughed at. None of this alters the fact that the author of the piece seemed to think that antibiotics could treat her viral conjunctivitis even after she had been told it was viral, but from the lofty height of her medical expertise tells us that sugar pills made her better. Our author also further demonstrates her cluelessness when she wrote; "With the help of Lia I thought it would make an interesting piece. I hardly think this can be 'misinformation' because I've simply written out a true account of events, I'll leave you to decide the reasons why I got better so quickly, and don't pass judgement for what you decide. I only ask that you offer the same open-minded attitude to those that have had positive dealings with it." Articles like this do not exist in a vacuum. They are not merely "interesting". Homeopaths [see note above] engage in concerted campaigns to gain media prominence for stories like this as if they carried evidential weight. It is not equivalent to publishing a picture of a butterfly with a caption saying "Ooh, look. A pretty butterfly." I will repeat one part of the quote I have just made, "I'll leave you to decide the reasons why I got better so quickly, and don't pass judgement for what you decide". Stephanie invites us to "decide" without "passing judgement". Sloppy thinking, or what? Be that as it may, the methods of science do allow us to pass judgement very successfully on anecdotes such as hers. She (probably) had a viral conjunctivitis and she got better. At the same time she took sugar pills labelled as homeopathic remedies. These conferred zero benefit. A huge weight of theoretical knowledge and empirical data allow us to make this statement with confidence. See? Passing judgement is easy when you have the right information. You may choose not to close your mind to falsehoods. In a free society, you have this choice. Exercising it is not sensible. A final word for now to all those who have chimed in to complain about the criticism directed at sugar-pill retailers [see note above]; "Offense is what people take, when they can't take argument." - Richard Dawkins

StumpedMonkey, you have not read the article or have failed to understand what has been very clearly and simply set out, but you chose to pontificate about it regardless. Stephanie is not a homeopath or medically trained, not everyone knows that antibiotics do not treat viral conditions but this was then explained by her doctor (sentence after the one you quoted). Please read articles before posting, which may prevent your comments being such a miserable waste of space.

"I had something known as ‘adeno viral conjunctivitis’....I was pleased that I finally had a solid diagnosis and could finally get the right antibiotics to target the demons in my eyes." You were told you had a viral conjunctivitis then expected antibiotics to work. D'oh! Or did you think antibiotics cure demons? Homeopaths seem to occupy a special circle of Hell reserved for the deeply confused.

Penelope Dingle's letters to her homeopath are well worth a read for people interested in how homeopathy works.

Hat eater, its actually neither of them who work at Ainsworths. You obviously didn't read the article, nor did the writer of the rather poor reply you linked to, as I pointed out there.

I've read elsewhere that "On Ainsworths sales site, you can buy remedies made from Asbestos, Positronium, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Brillo Pad and Twiglets." Is that true? Stephanie, you work there, you should know the answer. As to the homoeopathy working - there are no good quality trials that would prove that. Countless anecdotes "proved" for thousands of years that bloodletting works wonders, you know.

Bravo Stephanie, With a family tree being father, grandfather and three great uncles all well qualified manufacturing pharmacists along with an uncle being a medical doctor you have taken a very brave stance and achieved a timely cure and showed that homeopathy has its place in an everlasting saga that continues to exist in the world of medicine and its various treatments. As your grandmother quotes continually "There are no rules"

In my experience the anti-homeopathy brigade are the true enemies of science. Not only do they regularly distort facts and tell lies about homeopathy, they have an a priori prejudice against a treatment which, according to their rigid preconceptions, cannot possibly work. However, as millions of grateful patients all over the world know perfectly well, homeopathy does work, often with spectacular results, and often when all conventional treatments have failed. Just because the mechanism by which homeopathy works is not understood does not for a moment diminish its therapeutic usefulness. It is all very well sceptics putting down the success of homeopathy solely to the placebo effect. What they fail to explain is why there is no comparable 'placebo effect' with conventional medicines when these fail to alleviate symptoms or effect a cure.

The body is a natural living organism and when you have any outward bodily response that shows infection or illness,  one or more of your glands are stressed and need nourishment.  Finding the root cause of the issue and working to feed or alleviate with natural remedies, from my experience does more to heal and strengthen the body.  My research started with Chinese herbs and during this past decade, I haven't done an OTC or prescription drug. Every drug adds toxins to your body and only covers up the symptoms. Learning more about what your body needs to stay healthy and to keep your immune system working strong, try taking a pH test to find out if your body is acidic or balanced.  By changing your eating habits to more plant based and less sugar, most illnesses can be eliminated. Thank you Stephanie for showing an alternative that worked for you. Having an open mind to experiment with natural ingredients is the key to controllng your healthy destiny.