Skip to main content

Simon Singh and Andy Lewis on homeopathy

Simon Singh and Andy Lewis (Quackometer) discuss homeopathy, filmed by myself at the CFI UK Trick or Treatment event (preceded by 10:23)

Postscript - now showing new version kindly edited for CFI UK by Mark Williams.


Unknown said…
There isn't any credible evidence to show that homeopathy works. Any impartial person who looks at the evidence knows this. I think it is an interesting psychological question of why so many people seem to believe they are effective. Obviously the personal anecdotes of people who have been "healed" by these types of "medicines" are important. Also, the credibility given to them when they are placed alongside actual medicines in shops like Boots. With regards to the mass overdose, Paula Ross (The Society of Homeopaths chief executive)said: "This is an ill-advised publicity stunt in very poor taste, which does nothing to advance the scientific debate about how homeopathy actually works."
If someone had suffered severe side effects from the overdose I'm sure The Society of Homeopaths would have jumped on this case of evidence that they're "treatments" actually work. The really worrying aspect of this story though is that "from 2005 to 2008 the NHS spent almost £12m on homeopathic treatments"
Although £12 million is not that much in consideration of the whole NHS budget over three years, it is still a considerable amount. It also gives the impression of credibility to homeopathic treatments which they simply don't deserve. If the NHS had spent £12 million on a type of reverse voodoo in which little dolls of patients are treated there would be outrage. Why? Because it is clearly quack medicine. Why? Because there is no credible research at all which supports it. Hopefully the mass overdose and other events like it will help to persuade people that homeopathy is bogus, but it'll be a hard task.
Marc Zeller
Actually, Dieticians are trained by propaganda from outfits like General Foods, ADM, etc. Nutritionists are Biology BS with graduate degrees in specialized nutritional science from places like Harvard, UCB, UCLA, etc.
O'Brian is misinformed as to the source of nutritional truth. True nutritionists are scientists, dieticians are meal planners from hell.

Popular posts from this blog


(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

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Why do atheists think Christians believe unreasonably, if they don't?

How reasonable is it for the religious to believe the central tenets of their respective religions? According to many atheists: not very. Many atheists suppose it is in each case unreasonable for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá’ís, Quakers, Mormons, Scientologists, and so on to believe what they do. The religious person usually takes a different view of at least their own religious belief. They suppose science and reason do not significantly undermine, and may indeed support, the core tenets of their own faith. The same is true of non-religious theists. They consider their brand of theism is reasonably, or at least not unreasonably, held even if no particular religion is. Indeed, many theists consider atheism unreasonable. Even when participants in discussions between atheists on the one hand and defenders of some variety of religious or theistic belief on the other include intelligent, philosophically sophisticated and well-informed people striving to think carefully and objec