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.



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
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul P. Mealing said…
You may be interested in this. There is also a Part 1.

Regards, Paul.
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.
anderapadoker said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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A friend of mine was part of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee that suggested government funding should be withdrawn from the homeopathic hospitals in the UK – but the government backed down: despite overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is just sugar pills and make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:

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


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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

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