Peter Bowditch and Homeopathy
john
Peter Bowditch takes Homeopathic Belladonna Atropa 200c in front of 100
people
this debunks homeopathy!
Peter Bowditch
The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
the efficacy of homeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
set out to debunk homeopathy (science does that), just to test the
claims of one homeopath.
By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
those magic pills for $US20. Homeopathy is a nice racket, isn't it?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
john
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
> the efficacy of homeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
> set out to debunk homeopathy (science does that), just to test the
> claims of one homeopath.
>
> By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
> those magic pills for $US20. Homeopathy is a nice racket, isn't it?
>
Most medicine is a racket, none more so than Allopathy. 20 bucks is peanuts
for your heroes, more like $1,000 for a useless bit of poison that cost 20
cents to make
I also like that guy who debunks dowsing, wonder who pulls his strings
wouldn't want the little people asking questions through dowsing would we
Citizen Jimserac
> "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5744729938179836028&ei=CxwD...
>
> >Peter Bowditch takes Homeopathic Belladonna Atropa 200c in front of 100
> >people
>
> >this debunkshomeopathy!
>
> The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
> set out to debunkhomeopathy(science does that), just to test the
> claims of one homeopath.
>
> By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Bowdie!!! I must object to your hastily written and ill thought out
fallacious condemnations of Homeopathy!
First of all, I'd like an admisison by you that your comments are
completely arbitrary and based solely on your personal opinion.
Second, you have read, what, one or TWO books, if that, on the subject
of Homeopathy and therefore your ideas about what it is must come
from, where? quackwatch or the condemnations of other sceptics or
perhaps some reading in that minefield of scientific opinion, the
"Guardian" newspaper.
Second, your mutifold condemnation of Homeopathy, I do hope you are
willing to admit, is based on a presumption, namely the presumption
that high dilution substances can have no possible Homeopathic effect
because all the molecules of the curative substance have been diluted
away. Based on this presumption, you have the utter temerity to
conclude, despite research evidence to the contrary, that Homeopathy
is some sort of fraud or snake oil salesman product. Well EXCUSE ME
for point it out....AGAIN, that researchers such as M. Ennis, a person
who originally set out to refute the Homeopathy so called water memory
theory, instead found evidence to the contrary, that, in fact, the
high dilution that she tested did indeed STILL effect biological
changes as though some molecules of the curative substance were still
present.
Sample recent research on this:
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news-and-press/high-dilation-effect-reported-in-nmr-study
This effect remains without scientific explanation but remains
confirmed in numerous labs and by several researchers. This entire
part of the objection against Homeopathy not only ignores current
scientific high dilution researchers which is currently ongoing in
several labs worldwide, it also completely ignores the non-high
dilution Homeopathic remedies which do indeed have the molecules of
the curative substance still present in the remedy.
Third, your attempt to invalidate all of Homeopathy based solely on
the high dilution controversy ignoring, as I mentioned above the
numerous low dilution remedies, in addition strives to ignore two
centuries of clinical observations and case historyies which are
archived for all to see and read, often by some of the best MD's of
their era, in Homeopathic journals some of which have a continuity of
over a century. No, not a scientific proof, but...either Homeopathy
works or some of our finest medical minds have been the subject of the
longest running hoax in the history of science. I rather think that
the former is far more likely, considering the insults criticisms and
denunciations that those fine MD's had to endure, often threatened
with expulsion from their professional medical organizations for
daring to espouse Homepathic conceptions. One does not risk one's
career and livelihood without being very sure my dear Bowditich, that
the patient really was cured.
Finally, the attacks against Homeopathy put forth the nonsense that it
has never been successfully tested in double blinded placebo tests.
Not that I'm entirely sure that is at all a valid and useful means of
testing for anything other than potentially toxic allopathic
medicines, not to mention Homeopathy "research" by Dr. Ernst who
apparently violates the rules of Homeopathy by giving the same remedy
to everyone in the test, a quick trip to any search engine will
provide ample evidence to the contrary.
Some links, my dear Bowditch:
To the web site of a prominent physicist and Nobel prize winner who
dispels the "it's just water" reductionistic argument against
Homeopathy in a single paragraph:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html
To a presentation on the validity, extent and scientific merit of
current Homeopathic research,
by an MD and PhD researcher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
To some particular Homeopathic research articles:
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/
Everyone is invited to visit Mr. Bowditch's excellent web site,
advertised at the end of his postings, though I am in disagreement
with much of it, he is a good sceptic (stubborn as a mule sometimes,
it probably comes naturally)
and some his articles are quite good.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> On Nov 18, 2:57 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> > >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5744729938179836028&ei=CxwD...
>
> > >Peter Bowditch takes Homeopathic Belladonna Atropa 200c in front of 100
> > >people
>
> > >this debunkshomeopathy!
>
> > The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
> > the efficacy ofhomeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
> > set out to debunkhomeopathy(science does that), just to test the
> > claims of one homeopath.
>
> > By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
> > those magic pills for $US20.Homeopathyis a nice racket, isn't it?
>
> > --
> > Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> > The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> > Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
> > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
>
> Bowdie!!! I must object to your hastily written and ill thought out
> fallacious condemnations ofHomeopathy!
>
> First of all, I'd like an admisison by you that your comments are
> completely arbitrary and based solely on your personal opinion.
> Second, you have read, what, one or TWO books, if that, on the subject
> from, where? quackwatch or the condemnations of other sceptics or
> perhaps some reading in that minefield of scientific opinion, the
> "Guardian" newspaper.
>
> willing to admit, is based on a presumption, namely the presumption
> that high dilution substances can have no possible Homeopathic effect
> because all the molecules of the curative substance have been diluted
> away. Based on this presumption, you have the utter temerity to
> conclude, despite research evidence to the contrary, thatHomeopathy
> is some sort of fraud or snake oil salesman product. Well EXCUSE ME
> for point it out....AGAIN, that researchers such as M. Ennis, a person
> theory, instead found evidence to the contrary, that, in fact, the
> high dilution that she tested did indeed STILL effect biological
> changes as though some molecules of the curative substance were still
> present.
>
>
> This effect remains without scientific explanation but remains
> confirmed in numerous labs and by several researchers. This entire
> scientific high dilution researchers which is currently ongoing in
> several labs worldwide, it also completely ignores the non-high
> dilution Homeopathic remedies which do indeed have the molecules of
> the curative substance still present in the remedy.
>
> the high dilution controversy ignoring, as I mentioned above the
> numerous low dilution remedies, in addition strives to ignore two
> centuries of clinical observations and case historyies which are
> archived for all to see and read, often by some of the best MD's of
> their era, in Homeopathic journals some of which have a continuity of
> over a century. No, not a scientific proof, but...eitherHomeopathy
> works or some of our finest medical minds have been the subject of the
> longest running hoax in the history of science. I rather think that
> the former is far more likely, considering the insults criticisms and
> denunciations that those fine MD's had to endure, often threatened
> with expulsion from their professional medical organizations for
> daring to espouse Homepathic conceptions. One does not risk one's
> career and livelihood without being very sure my dear Bowditich, that
> the patient really was cured.
>
> has never been successfully tested in double blinded placebo tests.
> Not that I'm entirely sure that is at all a valid and useful means of
> testing for anything other than potentially toxic allopathic
> apparently violates the rules ofHomeopathyby giving the same remedy
> to everyone in the test, a quick trip to any search engine will
> provide ample evidence to the contrary.
>
> Some links, my dear Bowditch:
>
> To the web site of a prominent physicist and Nobel prize winner who
>
> To a presentation on the validity, extent and scientific merit of
> current Homeopathic research,
> by an MD and PhD researcher:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
>
> To some particular Homeopathic research articles:http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/
>
> Everyone is invited to visit Mr. Bowditch's excellent web site,
> advertised at the end of his postings, though I am in disagreement
> with much of it, he is a good sceptic (stubborn as a mule sometimes,
> it probably comes naturally)
> and some his articles are quite good.
>
> Citizen Jimserac
First, Second, Second, Third??!!!
Er... make that First, Second part A, Second part B, Third....
Some people have inordinate trouble with ordinals, believe me it's not
out of the ordinary.
Citserac Jimizen....er no, that's not it, I meant to say...
Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
>> the efficacy of homeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
>> set out to debunk homeopathy (science does that), just to test the
>> claims of one homeopath.
>>
>> By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
>> those magic pills for $US20. Homeopathy is a nice racket, isn't it?
>>
>
>Most medicine is a racket, none more so than Allopathy. 20 bucks is peanuts
>for your heroes, more like $1,000 for a useless bit of poison that cost 20
>cents to make
So how much could a homeopath make selling 20 pounds of hundreds and
thousands at 10c each, the price I have seen in one shop?
>
>I also like that guy who debunks dowsing, wonder who pulls his strings
>
>wouldn't want the little people asking questions through dowsing would we
>
>
Why am I not surprised that you believe in something as ridiculous as
dowsing?
Mark Probert
>
> >> The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
> >> the efficacy of homeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
> >> set out to debunk homeopathy (science does that), just to test the
> >> claims of one homeopath.
>
> >> By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
> >> those magic pills for $US20. Homeopathy is a nice racket, isn't it?
>
> >Most medicine is a racket, none more so than Allopathy. 20 bucks is peanuts
> >for your heroes, more like $1,000 for a useless bit of poison that cost 20
> >cents to make
>
> So how much could a homeopath make selling 20 pounds of hundreds and
> thousands at 10c each, the price I have seen in one shop?
>
>
>
> >I also like that guy who debunks dowsing, wonder who pulls his strings
>
> >wouldn't want the little people asking questions through dowsing would we
>
> Why am I not surprised that you believe in something as ridiculous as
> dowsing?
Don't laugh, becauseit is far from funny, but some in Iraq look for
IEDs using a method similar to dowsing.
Peter Bowditch
>On Nov 18, 2:57�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>> >http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5744729938179836028&ei=CxwD...
>>
>> >Peter Bowditch takes Homeopathic Belladonna Atropa 200c in front of 100
>> >people
>>
>> >this debunkshomeopathy!
>>
>> The pills were sent to me by a homeopath in order to convince me of
>> the efficacy ofhomeopathy. I tested them. They did nothing. I never
>> set out to debunkhomeopathy(science does that), just to test the
>> claims of one homeopath.
>>
>> By the way, I found a place on the web that would sell me 8 pounds of
>> those magic pills for $US20.Homeopathyis a nice racket, isn't it?
>>
>> --
>
>Bowdie!!! I must object to your hastily written and ill thought out
>fallacious condemnations of Homeopathy!
>
>First of all, I'd like an admisison by you that your comments are
>completely arbitrary and based solely on your personal opinion.
>Second, you have read, what, one or TWO books, if that, on the subject
>of Homeopathy and therefore your ideas about what it is must come
>from, where? quackwatch or the condemnations of other sceptics or
>perhaps some reading in that minefield of scientific opinion, the
>"Guardian" newspaper.
I have read many more than two books about homeopathy, most written by
homeopaths. I have also read many books about physics, chemistry and
mathematics which clearly demonstrate the delusions which underlie
homeopathy.
In any case, shouldn't the Law of Infinitesimals make my knowledge
stronger if I read fewer books?
I rarely look at Quackwatch (although when I do I am often pleased to
see that Dr Barrett comes to the same conclusions that I do about
certain matters). I assume by the Guardian you mean the excellent
columns by Dr Goldacre. I don't read everything he writes but again,
hr seems to agree with me on many points.
>
>Second, your mutifold condemnation of Homeopathy, I do hope you are
>willing to admit, is based on a presumption, namely the presumption
>that high dilution substances can have no possible Homeopathic effect
>because all the molecules of the curative substance have been diluted
>away.
A very reasonable assumption to make, given what we know about the
universe.
> Based on this presumption, you have the utter temerity to
>conclude, despite research evidence to the contrary, that Homeopathy
>is some sort of fraud or snake oil salesman product.
I also base it on the example given above, where tiny balls of sugar
can be bought for $20 a pound and resold for 10 cents each. Financial
fraud added to medical fraud.
> Well EXCUSE ME
>for point it out....AGAIN, that researchers such as M. Ennis, a person
>who originally set out to refute the Homeopathy so called water memory
>theory, instead found evidence to the contrary, that, in fact, the
>high dilution that she tested did indeed STILL effect biological
>changes as though some molecules of the curative substance were still
>present.
Even the best scientists can have incorrect results from an
experiment. That is why replication by other scientists is essential.
It is far too easy for someone to become so mired in self-deception
that they accept only results that confirm the mistake. Pons and
Fleischmann, anyone?
>
>Sample recent research on this:
>http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news-and-press/high-dilation-effect-reported-in-nmr-study
You know how research by pharmaceutical companies is tainted by
self-interest? Do you have anything not done in the laboratory of a
homeopathic "medicine" manufacturer?
Oh, and anyone who submitted a Statistics 101 assignment claiming that
the scatter plots in the paper indicate correlation and that therefore
some effects could be inferred would be given a failing mark.
Summarising the last two paragraphs, have you any science suggesting
that homeopathy is even possible?
>
>This effect remains without scientific explanation but remains
>confirmed in numerous labs and by several researchers. This entire
>part of the objection against Homeopathy not only ignores current
>scientific high dilution researchers which is currently ongoing in
>several labs worldwide, it also completely ignores the non-high
>dilution Homeopathic remedies which do indeed have the molecules of
>the curative substance still present in the remedy.
The "research" seems confined to interested parties or the
self-deluded.
And if there is real medicine there then it isn't homeopathy.
>
>Third, your attempt to invalidate all of Homeopathy based solely on
>the high dilution controversy ignoring, as I mentioned above the
>numerous low dilution remedies, in addition strives to ignore two
>centuries of clinical observations and case historyies which are
>archived for all to see and read, often by some of the best MD's of
>their era, in Homeopathic journals some of which have a continuity of
>over a century.
There are astrological journals going back much further than that.
> No, not a scientific proof, but...either Homeopathy
>works or some of our finest medical minds have been the subject of the
>longest running hoax in the history of science.
I agree.
> I rather think that
>the former is far more likely, considering the insults criticisms and
>denunciations that those fine MD's had to endure, often threatened
>with expulsion from their professional medical organizations for
>daring to espouse Homepathic conceptions. One does not risk one's
>career and livelihood without being very sure my dear Bowditich, that
>the patient really was cured.
>
>Finally, the attacks against Homeopathy put forth the nonsense that it
>has never been successfully tested in double blinded placebo tests.
Well, has it?
>Not that I'm entirely sure that is at all a valid and useful means of
>testing for anything other than potentially toxic allopathic
>medicines, not to mention Homeopathy "research" by Dr. Ernst who
>apparently violates the rules of Homeopathy by giving the same remedy
>to everyone in the test, a quick trip to any search engine will
>provide ample evidence to the contrary.
>
>Some links, my dear Bowditch:
>
>To the web site of a prominent physicist and Nobel prize winner who
>dispels the "it's just water" reductionistic argument against
>Homeopathy in a single paragraph:
>http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html
>
>To a presentation on the validity, extent and scientific merit of
>current Homeopathic research,
>by an MD and PhD researcher:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
>
>To some particular Homeopathic research articles:
>http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/
>
>Everyone is invited to visit Mr. Bowditch's excellent web site,
>advertised at the end of his postings, though I am in disagreement
>with much of it, he is a good sceptic (stubborn as a mule sometimes,
>it probably comes naturally)
>and some his articles are quite good.
Thank you. I apply the same critical thinking skills to several areas,
just one of them being the bizarre illogic of homeopathy.
>
>Citizen Jimserac
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Citizen Jimserac
Well old Bowdie, shall we just make note that despite whatever number
of books you've read, you've got nothing more than an opinion about
Homeopathy.... a rather negative one at that, so be it. But only an
opinion!
> In any case, shouldn't the Law of Infinitesimals make my knowledge
> stronger if I read fewer books?
I don't know but I suspect if rabidly anti-alternative mediciners
would post less, it might avoid the suspicion from their far more
frequent and unnecessary repetitions have them running scared from
something.
> I rarely look at Quackwatch (although when I do I am often pleased to
> see that Dr Barrett comes to the same conclusions that I do about
> certain matters). I assume by the Guardian you mean the excellent
> columns by Dr Goldacre. I don't read everything he writes but again,
> hr seems to agree with me on many points.
I quite agree! It would be expected that some are in agreement with
you, it is a rather, pardon my mentioning the obvious, a rather easy
position to take!
>
> >Second, your mutifold condemnation of Homeopathy, I do hope you are
> >willing to admit, is based on a presumption, namely the presumption
> >that high dilution substances can have no possible Homeopathic effect
> >because all the molecules of the curative substance have been diluted
> >away.
>
> A very reasonable assumption to make, given what we know about the
> universe.
Ah, but we do not know it all, just yet, therefore thanks for
admitting the existence of this presumption, an acknowledgement which
validates my objection and confirms it.
> > Based on this presumption, you have the utter temerity to
> >conclude, despite research evidence to the contrary, that Homeopathy
> >is some sort of fraud or snake oil salesman product.
>
> I also base it on the example given above, where tiny balls of sugar
> can be bought for $20 a pound and resold for 10 cents each. Financial
> fraud added to medical fraud.
Rather curious double standard. And, compounded by ascribing fraud!
What, one wonders, would Bowdie say about the profit ratios of
standard pharmaceutical companies?
> > Well EXCUSE ME
> >for point it out....AGAIN, that researchers such as M. Ennis, a person
> >who originally set out to refute the Homeopathy so called water memory
> >theory, instead found evidence to the contrary, that, in fact, the
> >high dilution that she tested did indeed STILL effect biological
> >changes as though some molecules of the curative substance were still
> >present.
>
> Even the best scientists can have incorrect results from an
> experiment. That is why replication by other scientists is essential.
> It is far too easy for someone to become so mired in self-deception
> that they accept only results that confirm the mistake. Pons and
> Fleischmann, anyone?
Pretending that Ennis' experiment was never duplicated? I shall
allow you your illusion rather than spoil your day by posting links to
the repetions. If the water memory theory is wrong, it won't matter.
> >Sample recent research on this:
> >http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news-and-press/high-dilation-effect-r...
> You know how research by pharmaceutical companies is tainted by
> self-interest?
OH YES!!! I DO!!!
Do you?!!
Do you have anything not done in the laboratory of a
> homeopathic "medicine" manufacturer?
> Oh, and anyone who submitted a Statistics 101 assignment claiming that
> the scatter plots in the paper indicate correlation and that therefore
> some effects could be inferred would be given a failing mark.
>
> Summarising the last two paragraphs, have you any science suggesting
> that homeopathy is even possible?
Well, PhD and Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Brian Josephson seems
to think it is possible, as do many other PhD's, if that counts for
anything.... but I wonder, have you got any science suggesting that it
is impossible? That is, anything more than an opinion?
> >This effect remains without scientific explanation but remains
> >confirmed in numerous labs and by several researchers. This entire
> >part of the objection against Homeopathy not only ignores current
> >scientific high dilution researchers which is currently ongoing in
> >several labs worldwide, it also completely ignores the non-high
> >dilution Homeopathic remedies which do indeed have the molecules of
> >the curative substance still present in the remedy.
>
> The "research" seems confined to interested parties or the
> self-deluded.
If you say so, after all, it's your post and your opinion!
> And if there is real medicine there then it isn't homeopathy.
Now now Bowdie, altering the definition to help your argument is not
allowed here!!
There is indeed REAL medicine there in the Homeopathic low dilutions
and and most certainly IS Homeopathy. Are you even aware that a
tremendous schism and argument broke out among the Homeopaths
themselves on this issue? One group, we'll call them the Bowdians,
believed that it was impossible for the high dilution remedies to be
anything other than placebo effect implementations while the other
group, we'll call them the "transcendentalists" thought otherwise.
There was quite a heated debate about it, as you can imagine. But
low or high, it most certainly WAS and IS Homeopathy.
Now...., if you want to call the Homeopathic low dilutions Herbal or
something, you go right ahead, this is your show.
> >Third, your attempt to invalidate all of Homeopathy based solely on
> >the high dilution controversy ignoring, as I mentioned above the
> >numerous low dilution remedies, in addition strives to ignore two
> >centuries of clinical observations and case historyies which are
> >archived for all to see and read, often by some of the best MD's of
> >their era, in Homeopathic journals some of which have a continuity of
> >over a century.
>
> There are astrological journals going back much further than that.
I prefer Nostradamus myself.
> > No, not a scientific proof, but...either Homeopathy
> >works or some of our finest medical minds have been the subject of the
> >longest running hoax in the history of science.
>
> I agree.
Good! Now we're getting somewhere (.... I think).
> > I rather think that
> >the former is far more likely, considering the insults criticisms and
> >denunciations that those fine MD's had to endure, often threatened
> >with expulsion from their professional medical organizations for
> >daring to espouse Homepathic conceptions. One does not risk one's
> >career and livelihood without being very sure my dear Bowditich, that
> >the patient really was cured.
>
> >Finally, the attacks against Homeopathy put forth the nonsense that it
> >has never been successfully tested in double blinded placebo tests.
>
> Well, has it?
It has. But why bother, because, unlike standard pharmaceuticals,
the Homeopathics are tested on real people. Unlike pharmaceuticals
which are invented, used for a while, found to do their thing but
latter admitted to have had rather bad side effects and are to be
replace by an "improved" version, the Homeopathics remain the same,
their operational principles, it must be confessed, derived solely
from induction and from the conception of matching (finding the
similium) the properties of the homeopathic remedy elicted in a
healthy prover, with the properties and aspects evinced by the
patient. Read on old Bowdie, this gets interesting....
Have you noticed (this was something that raised my eyebrow when I
first read of it, a sort of key to understanding Homeoapthy) that
substances which are a poison, sometimes even a deadly poison, such as
Lachesis (snake venom) or Belladonna or Arsenic, in normal doses,
become curative, perhaps even tonics in Homeopathic doses. If there
is any truth to the possibility of a logical framework in Homeopathy,
it can be seen from this, that the Homeopathic preparation (the
dilution and succussion) of these toxic substances must really be
producing an effect, triggering some sort of high level physiological
reaction because otherwise, the provings for these toxic substances
would have resulted in the exact same descriptions (which, I believe
you already know, are conducted double blindedly with neither the
prover nor the dispensor knowing if they are using Homeopathics or
placebos) . But such is not the case, instead, we see quite explicit
patterns of symptomological descriptions from the various provers
falling into cateogires depending on which high dilution toxic they
were testing.
> >Not that I'm entirely sure that is at all a valid and useful means of
> >testing for anything other than potentially toxic allopathic
> >medicines, not to mention Homeopathy "research" by Dr. Ernst who
> >apparently violates the rules of Homeopathy by giving the same remedy
> >to everyone in the test, a quick trip to any search engine will
> >provide ample evidence to the contrary.
>
> >Some links, my dear Bowditch:
>
> >To the web site of a prominent physicist and Nobel prize winner who
> >dispels the "it's just water" reductionistic argument against
> >Homeopathy in a single paragraph:
> >http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html
>
> >To a presentation on the validity, extent and scientific merit of
> >current Homeopathic research,
> >by an MD and PhD researcher:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
>
> >To some particular Homeopathic research articles:
> >http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/
>
> >Everyone is invited to visit Mr. Bowditch's excellent web site,
> >advertised at the end of his postings, though I am in disagreement
> >with much of it, he is a good sceptic (stubborn as a mule sometimes,
> >it probably comes naturally)
> >and some his articles are quite good.
>
> Thank you. I apply the same critical thinking skills to several areas,
> just one of them being the bizarre illogic of homeopathy.
Well you may have something there, that business about the remedy
getting stronger as you dilute it more and more certainly has me
thinking more and more and understanding it less and less. However,
the good news is that if I don't think about it at all, I'll probably
understand it.
(I think that made some sort of sense.... didn't it?).
Oh well, talk later old Bowdie, see ya!
--
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Citizen Jimserac
john
> thousands at 10c each, the price I have seen in one shop?
Put it this way, a homeopaths salary would be 15-30� depending on their
quality or marketing ability, a GPs salary is �100,000 usually, some make
300,000�
Go figure
> Why am I not surprised that you believe in something as ridiculous as
> dowsing?
>
Spent years investigating and proving dowsing, while you haven't spent 1
nano-second
you pseudo-skeptics are led around by the nose by the government who
certainly do use dowsing, that is how Geller made all his money
http://www.whale.to/y/er.html
All skeptic operations are spook psyops, you are dumb enough to fall for
that, they want to keep dowsing out of the hands of the little people, like
the paranormal:
"I said that was quite interesting. I asked the dean whether he had taken
part in such rituals. He said yes, but declined to describe the ceremonies.
He was essentially telling me that a secret society was the proper home for
the paranormal. His attitude as I read it implied that the paranormal was
THE PROPERTY of secret societies---and the great unwashed masses were barred
from such knowledge. It was the first time I realized there might be more to
the prejudice against paranormal research than meets the eye..." For some
people, so-called scientific opposition to allowing and funding paranormal
research is merely a pose. These people are actually perverse mystics, and
they want to protect their "monopoly" on the subject. They also want the
kind of psychic control over others they think is possible through their
ritualistic practices. THE PARANORMAL AND SECRET SOCIETIES ---JON RAPPOPORT
I have watched closely the 2 best dowsers in this country, for days and
double checked their lines with a sensitive, and so on
I researched Malcolm Rae who was the Radionic genius, his question and and
answer with the pendulum was something else. They don't want the little
people to have access to Universal knowledge and ask questions such as:
are Sweatman and Smith spooks?
who set up the Skeptics, was it MI6 oroginally or the CIA?
CSICOP, is the original skeptic organisation, from which all other skeptic
groups have flowed over the last thirty years. It was founded originally as
a Marxist /atheist organisation that poured its academic energy into
disputing everything spiritual, religious and other-worldy. For much of its
early years, while the CIA searched for psychic weaponry, CSICOP was on hand
to publicly dispute the possibility of such Psycho-technology, ensuring that
if it was viable it didn't fall into the wrong hands. However, in the
eighties with the cold war coming to an end and the CIA turning its
interests to the protection of corporate rather than cold war America,
CSICOP became more and more involved in the defence of pharmaceutical
company competitiveness.
The British branch of CSICOP also played a part in setting up the
Campaign Against Health Fraud, which later became HealthWatch. The 'only
Professor of alternative medicine in Britain' (very sic) Edzard Ernst, is a
CSICOP fellow traveller and spoke deridingly of all forms of CAM at their
11th International Conference in London. [Jan 2008] Shaking Hands With
Monsanto and Big Pharma: The Guardian and Observer's ongoing war against
alternative medicine. A review of Suckers by Rose Shapiro By Martin J Walker
Oh, and you debunk UFOs, how convenient for the government secret UFO
projects http://www.whale.to/b/ufo_man_h.html
Of course, you could be in on the scam, well, spotted
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> So how much could a homeopath make selling 20 pounds of hundreds and
>> thousands at 10c each, the price I have seen in one shop?
>
>Put it this way, a homeopaths salary would be 15-30� depending on their
>quality or marketing ability, a GPs salary is �100,000 usually, some make
>300,000�
There's a lot of 10c pillules in 8 pounds of cake decoration sweets,
John.
>
>Go figure
>
>> Why am I not surprised that you believe in something as ridiculous as
>> dowsing?
>>
>
>Spent years investigating and proving dowsing, while you haven't spent 1
>nano-second
Actually, I have spent some time investigating dowsing. I taught my
daughter to do it when she was about 6 and I still have the rods
around here somewhere. I use a crystal pendulum now, and it is on the
desk here next to my keyboard.
Wow! That is one of the best paranoid rants I've seen for a long time.
john
>
> --
yawn http://www.whale.to/a/paranoia_h.html
ie no argument
Peter Bowditch
john
> "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Wow! That is one of the best paranoid rants I've seen for a long time.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>yawn http://www.whale.to/a/paranoia_h.html
>>ie no argument
>>
>
> Do I detect a whiff of Scopie's Law?
>
Yawn, no argument #2: http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:09kgg5dllcp7i5s92...@4ax.com...
>> "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Wow! That is one of the best paranoid rants I've seen for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>yawn http://www.whale.to/a/paranoia_h.html
>>>ie no argument
>>>
>>
>> Do I detect a whiff of Scopie's Law?
>>
>
>Yawn, no argument #2: http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
>
John, that page appears to be even less coherent than the typical
whale.to page. Excellent. Keep up the good work
john
> whale.to page. Excellent. Keep up the good work
>
Thanks, and you keep up the lies and logical fallacies, excellent in that
regard.