Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy


Ben Goldacre, Guardian columnist and author of Bad Science, explores homeopathy and the placebo effect. Not all alternative therapies are equal, you know

26 thoughts on “Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy

  1. Ha! So this proves that sugar pills can cure whatever ails you! He said so!! I’m convinced homeopathy doesn’t work, but now I am going to buy sugar pills for my cancer 🙂

  2. “can’t prove their claims that Homeopathy doesn’t work in any double-blind study”
    It has already been “proven”.

    “What makes us our argument for Homeopathy viable is it’s SOLID scientific evidence base”
    And praying to your teapot cures AIDS.

  3. mohan: Don’t let a skeptic be better than you, right? I mean, all you’re doing is playing childish games and being constantly wrong. You’re making your position laughable.

    Own up to your problems and errors. Or show others reading this that homeopaths are truly childish, irrational people.

  4. mohan: Strange, you called me a liar for saying that he was a homeopath. But in his book and in his About the Author blurbs, he is listed as a homeopath. I remarked that you failed to state this when listing off his credentials (a medical doctor who supports homeopathy), and you lied by omission.

    It doesn’t matter that he has other degrees. You listed him as a medical doctor supporting homeopathy without also stating he was a practicing homeopath, then called me a liar for saying so.

  5. Mohan: So you won’t apologize for calling me a liar, when I pointed out, correctly, that Dr. S. C. Madan is a homeopath? And you won’t admit you’re wrong for making a tirade that somehow labeling him a homeopath was wrong, in the context that you were pushing him as a medical doctor writing books supporting homeopathy?

    And you still haven’t shown any evidence for homeopathy, but want me to present some kind of rebuttal for that which doesn’t exist?

    Crazy nutter you are.

  6. Why aren’t you taking your disputes of the SCIENTIFIC evidence base for Homeopathy to the Nobel Laureate scientists, nuclear physicists, oncologists and clinicians who conducted them?

  7. csbair: I’m still awaiting your apology for calling me a liar when I pointed out your, PSEUDOskepticphony lies. The author is a trained MBBS & holds FRCS in ENT from UK. He is a conventionally trained medical doctor who uses Homeopathy in his practice. So again you prove that you lied.

    Keep calling people names, but you’ve been consistently and blatantly wrong.

  8. mohan: Still awaiting your apology for calling me a liar when I pointed out your author was indeed a homeopath, and pointed out that he himself labels himself as such.

    Keep calling people names, but you’ve been consistently and blatantly wrong.

  9. PSEUDO/PHONYskeptics can’t prove their claims that Homeopathy doesn’t work in any double-blind study, and no PSEUDO/PHONYskep can explain their dubious claims.

    What makes us our argument for Homeopathy viable is it’s SOLID scientific evidence base unlike your religious PSEUDO/PHONYskeptic dogma and unfounded claims.

  10. csbair: Uh, PSEUDO/PHONYskeptic nobodies who don’t believe in homeopathy does not make “scientific evidence..” That’s an argument from PSEUDO/PHONYskeptic authority, and there are Nobel Laureate scientists and nuclear physicists who have given us the SCIENTIFIC evidence base for Homeopathy.
    See? Authority can go either way. So what makes it a viable argument?

  11. Why don’t you take your claims to the Nobel Laureate scientists, nuclear physicists & oncologists who have given us the SCIENTIFIC evidence base for Homeopathy?

  12. mohan: Uh, Nobel Laureates who believe in homeopathy does not make “scientific evidence supported by…” That’s an argument from authority, and there are medical professions, organizations, governments and so forth who have concluded that homeopathy is not a valid science nor medical discipline.

    See? Authority can go either way. So what makes it a viable argument? Homeopathy can’t show that it works in any double-blind study, and no homeopath can explain how it works.

    Game over.

  13. mohan: How is “where is the evidence?” a “PSEUDOskeptic authority?” If you have no evidence, then asking “where is the evidence?” is a perfectly legitimate question.

    Instead of offering the evidence, your mocking reply gets auto-listed as spam. Congratulations, nutter.

  14. mohan: When I ask you to provide studies to back up your claims, you offer bogus, or faulty, or non-peer-reviewed, or quotes, or so forth, but never any real clinical trials that show homeopathy works.

    Keep trying to defend your delusions, but in the end, you lack evidence, regardless of how much you think skeptics need to persuade you otherwise.

  15. cs bair: Unlike you who believes in the religion called PSEUDOskepticism, we believe in SCIENCE and the scientific evidence base for Homeopathy supported by Nobel Laureate scientists, material scientists, physicists and clinical oncologists.

  16. csbair: Why would we want to believe someone like you rather than find out from SCIENCE? If you only have an argument from PSEUDOskeptic authority, then you’ve already lost your case.

    Show me the evidence. Until then, it matters that you are a nobody; my point is more valid. You have nothing to support your argument, therefore it’s invalid.

  17. mohan: Why would you want to believe someone rather than find out for yourself? If you only have an argument from authority, then you’ve already lost your case.

    Show me the evidence. Until then, it won’t matter that I’m a nobody; my point is more valid. You have nothing to support your argument, therefore it’s invalid.

  18. csbair,

    Who are we to believe?

    Nobel Laureate scientists, physicists, material scientists & oncologists or a NOBODY like you?

    Come back when you’ve won a Nobel prize!

  19. Read “Structure of Water” by Rustum Roy, William Tiller and others. Roy is the founder of the material sciences department at Penn State, Tiller was head of Stanford’s. Read Georgos Agnagnostatos’ report on homeopathic clathrates. Agnagnostatos is a nuclear physicist. These are science heavy weights who are introducing supramolecular chemistry as the basis for homeopathy. It adds up.
    What doesn’t add up are PSEUDOskeptics claims that homeopathy cures are due solely to the placebo effect.

  20. csbair,
    No, PSEUDOskeptics must show clearly that their dubious claims are true. Science has established Homeopathy as a method of self-healing, even if it’s not fully understood.

    Extraordinary PSEUDOskeptic claims require extraordinary evidence. You can’t make claims without support, only assertions, and then say it’s up to others to disprove them. That’s precisely what creationists do, and it’s just as invalid.

  21. mohanaturo: No, homeopaths must show clearly that their preparations work beyond placebo effects. Science has established the placebo effect as a method of self-healing, even if it’s not fully understood.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can’t make claims without support, only assertions, and then say it’s up to others to disprove them. That’s precisely what creationists do, and it’s just as invalid.

  22. cs bair: Actually, no one in PSEUDOskepticism has shown that homeopathy doesn’t work, or if it’s the placebo effect. The burden is still on the idiotic PSEUDOskeptics. Quotes, anecdotes and bad experiments by PSEUDOskeptics still don’t make evidence. Double-blind studies have conclusively shown that homeopathy fairs better than placebo. And that homeopathic water have curative effects.

    Burden’s still on you PSEUDOskeptic idotic-nutters.

  23. mohan: Actually, no one in homeopathy has shown that homeopathy works, or how it works. The burden is still on the homeopaths. Quotes, anecdotes and bad experiments still don’t make evidence. Double-blind studies have conclusively shown that homeopathy fairs no better than placebo. And that homeopathic water has no molecules of the original medicine nor any special powers.

    Burden’s still on you nutters.

  24. 5 META ANALYSES showing positive results on Homeopathy:

    1. Cucherat et al 2000* 16 Hi-Quality studies – POSITIVE.
    2. Linde & Melchart 1998* 32 Hi-Quality studies – POSITIVE.
    3. Linde et al 1997* 89 studies – POSITIVE.
    4. Boissel et al 1996 15 Hi-Qt studies – POSITIVE.
    5. Kleijnen et al 1991 105 studies – POSITIVE.

  25. csbair: Uh, PSEUDO/PHONYskeptic nobodies who don’t believe in homeopathy does not make “scientific evidence..” That’s an argument from PSEUDO/PHONYskeptic authority, and there are Nobel Laureate scientists and nuclear physicists who have given us the SCIENTIFIC evidence base for Homeopathy.
    See? Authority can go either way. So what makes it a viable argument?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *