Skip to main content

Dangerous Homeopathy

This is of interest...and relevance re. the supposed "harmlessness" of homeopathy. Fron Zeno's blog.

It’s bad enough when homeopaths take good money from people, claiming they can cure their colds or clear up their eczema with sugar pills. It’s another thing entirely to claim to prevent or treat serious diseases with identical sugar pills.

But this is precisely what the BBC’s Newsnight programme discovered homeopaths were doing. Broadcast in January, Pallab Ghosh exposed the disgraceful behaviour of a north London homeopath and a homeopathic ‘pharmacy’ selling sugar pills as a malaria preventative.

Continues...

Comments

Dr. Nancy Malik said…
204 studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 86 peer-reviewed international medical journals out of which 98+ are FULL TEXT out of which 95 are PDF which can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/b3uvDW
July 27, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
July 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
You may be interested in this. There is also a Part 1.

Regards, Paul.
August 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM
chezemm said…
I was wondering; completely off the subject, Im sorry; what is your view on animal testing? Personally, im neutral on the subject - I thought it would be interesting to hear (or read, as the case may be) your opinion on the subject :)

Also, your second philosophy files book, which I read when I was eleven, really helped me to categorise my thinking; I thought it was wrong to doubt god and stuff, but your book opened my mind and I realised I was free to think what I want :)

please reply,

Chelsea Martin.
August 3, 2011 at 1:08 AM
anderapadoker said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
August 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Anonymous said…
A friend of mine was part of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee that suggested government funding should be withdrawn from the homeopathic hospitals in the UK – but the government backed down: despite overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is just sugar pills and make believe. In part the Royal connection – i.e. old Jug Ears believes in the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine (try sugar pills and water the next time you break a collar bone playing polo, Charlie boy!) – was seen as part of the reason why taxpayers’ money should be showered on charlatans and dupes! See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

So with its Parliamentary blessing it is wonder homeopathy practitioners can say and do what they like.

P.
September 2, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more