20th Century Musical Geniuses Who Loved Homeopathy

I found a great piece in the Huffington Post that I thought I would share. Please click on the link below to read it.


Here are a few quotes from the article:

Sir Yehudi Menuhin (1916-1999)

“Homeopathy is one of the rare medical approaches which carries no penalties–only benefits.” Sir Yehudi further acknowledged that homeopathy’s survival has not been easy as it has had to “withstand the assaults of established medical practice for over 100 years” (Kindred Spirits, 1989).

Dizzy Gillespie (1917-1993)

“I’ve had two revelations in my life. The first was bebop; the second was homeopathy.”

Roger Daltrey (1944- )

“I had a very, very dramatic experience with my son when he was nine months old. He had gastro difficulties, started throwing up, could not keep any food down and turned into skin and bone. At the hospital, they did every test to him, and in the end they just handed him back to me. My wife and I were in bits. My poor baby. The kid was dying. It was terrifying. I thought, there’s got to be something. I’d heard of homeopathy, so I found a local guy in the Yellow Pages and took my boy there. He gave him some powders. Within two weeks he was putting weight on, keeping the food down. The trouble recurred periodically for a couple of years, but he’s now 27, a fit and healthy young man.”

Anyway, I’ll leave it there you can read the rest for yourself.



23 Responses to 20th Century Musical Geniuses Who Loved Homeopathy

  1. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Hello Andy,

    Nice to hear from you after the Christmas break.

    Yes I thought you’d like the link. On a more serious note, you show signs of intellectual arrogance in your statement. You seem to be suggesting that people who have had positive (and in some cases life-changing) experiences with homeopathy are somehow delusional. That their personal experience of something is not valid if it doesn’t resonate with your narrow perception of reality.

    So your logic appears to be, ‘it can’t be true, so anyone who claims to be true is a nut’. Is that correct?

    Or do you not trust ’em because they are musicians? No that can’t be it…Professional Skeptics don’t trust scientists if they start espousing dangerous ideas either.

    I’d just like to quote the president of the French Academy of Science in the 18th century responding to eyewitness reports of meteors,

    “Rocks cannot fall from the sky because there are no rocks IN the sky”

    You are saying pretty much the same thing my Ostrich-esque friend, do you see?

    To your narrow fundamentalist viewpoint the entire inductive scientific method must appear suspect.



    p.s Good luck with your World of WarCraft Guild

  2. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    Good evening skepticat, I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure πŸ™‚
    Are you a full-time Professional Skeptic like our friend Andy (aka The White Ostrich), or are you just passing through on your way to the Megadeath fan forum?

    It’s a shame that you appear to hide behind a pseudonym like the other Professional Skeptics I have spoken to. It is a peculiar thing that hiding your identity & any relevant professional qualifications or experience seems to be the modus operandi for you lot πŸ˜‰

    Now that we’ve got the pleasantries out of the way, onto your comments.

    “Sir Yehudi was wrong. No penalties? What about all the people who’ve died because they relied on homeopathy instead of seeking the proper medical help that would have saved their lives?”

    Where are all these people you’re talking about? As a former teacher of mine is wont to say, ‘show me the bodies!’

    Two hundred years of homeopathic practice treating billions of people around the world has shown it to be a singularly SAFE Non-toxic, non-addictive and effective form of medicine.
    The ‘proper’ medical help you talk of is an extremely toxic & dangerous affair, brilliant in the right circumstances (the battlefield and Accident & Emergency), pretty dangerous at any other time.

    “If Daltrey seriously thinks homeopathy saved his son, he’s a bigger idiot than I thought.”

    What kind of statement is that to make? Again we have the Professional Skeptics favourite argument ‘homeopathy can’t work, anyone who sees it working with their own eyes is therefore an idiot’.

    Nice to see a new face here, but next time try & have something constructive to say…this isn’t the Sun newspaper’s Letters page. πŸ˜‰



  3. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    Hi Andy,

    Thanks for the reply. Now we’re getting somewhere πŸ™‚

    I’m pleased you come right out & said it now,

    “…to believe so is delusional as homeopathy does not work.”

    At last! Now finally you admit that we really aren’t two scientifically inquisitive people having a friendly discussion. I believe that I’m scientifically inquisitive, you however have decided on your position, and now use tortured logic & research that reinforces your preconceived ideas to defend it. (are you aware of the research that strongly suggests we make decisions first & THEN the cognitive parts of the brain fire to justify our decision with logic afterwards?)

    Homeopathy MAY have been the cause of the change in their health, to state otherwise is dogmatic in the extreme. Like the Jesuits of old you cling on to & defend ‘the truth’ passed down to you…those other scary ideas CANNOT, MUST NOT BE TRUE. Am I right? πŸ˜‰

    No one is claiming musicians are authorities on anything, nor am I relying on them as such. I’m presenting some cases with a ‘human interest’ angle.
    Why does everything have to be so black & white, right/wrong, bloody dogmatic with you Andy?…I’ve teased you before about exhibiting signs of being on the autistic spectrum, have you been tested? The world is fuzzy, haven’t you noticed that? Like the drug trials that are successful & the drug is clinically effective. Then further trials are unsuccessful & the clinical effectiveness ceases…weird stuff Andy, perhaps the best thing to do is pretend you don’t know about it… the ‘fingers in your ears singing “La la la” school of science’ if you will…oh you are familiar with it I see πŸ˜‰

    I think you’ve intentionally mangled my meteor quote Andy, it’s really quite straightforward. In the French academic’s view there can be no rocks in the sky because his world view doesn’t permit it. So (sigh) I’m suggesting that you & he are similar as you say homeopathy doesn’t work…because your world view doesn’t permit it.

    Hopefully I have clarified a few points there Andy & look forward to hearing some more tortured logic from you soon.



  4. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Hi Skepticak,

    I’ll keep this brief.

    How exactly do you know what I value above anything else? You are using the old debating tactic of ‘my opponent is an idiot, therefore I win’. It is unbecoming of an educated person (I’m assuming you are educated & a person…though you aren’t giving much away).

    Ah a ‘former user’ eh?…well as someone that is concerned exclusively with anecdotes can I just say that I’m devastated…you win, homeopathy is obviously nonsense. I’m a former user of a fishing rod…tried it for 10 minutes, didn’t catch a thing. I don’t believe in fish anymore so I know where you are coming from.

    I had a quick look at your rant-a-blog…. very… er… interesting. Something about a cat…inter-species-erotica…something called an orgasmatron (!). Whatever floats your boat, although can you REALLY say the cat is enjoying itself when you need those clamps?! I shudder thinking of your comment ‘there’s plenty more where that came from.

    Tell me you didn’t harm an ostrich too?!


  5. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    Lovely to hear from you again so soon Andy, and such a thorough response πŸ™‚

    “Do you feel the ‘good guy’ in this discussion?”
    Now Andy…are you seeing things in black & white again? lol
    There are no good guys, just two people on a blog Andy, this isn’t a simplistic hollywood movie world (no matter how much that idea might be comforting to some people).

    I haven’t time this evening to answer all your points. However I am disappointed that you have once again failed to grasp what homeopaths & homeopathy is all about. Homeopathy is simply proven (though not in the way you suggest)…. flying carpets aren’t so easily proven. (I’m working on it)
    The fact that you will not countenance the possibility that homeopathy can work doesn’t make it implausible, and I fail to grasp why you keep referring to homeopathy as akin to magic & homeopaths as unthinking religious zealots.

    Many (most) homeopaths come to it as a second career…we have many many mid-wives, nurses, pharmacists, scientists, engineers & whatnot in our midst. These people are quite capable of looking at data & reaching conclusions based on it. The engineers are trained to separate the signal from the noise, the mid-wives have observed 1000s of births & observed the effects of homeopathic remedies in hundreds of these births…this is (as I’ve said 20 times to you before) an inductive science…we see the results in front of us, people get better after con-med has failed them again & again & again.

    To suggest that the thousands of people practicing homeopathy in the UK today are under a collective delusion says more about your world view than it does about them… 1000s of formerly clever & effective professionals become deluded fools when they become homeopaths because…. HOMEOPATHY MUST NOT WORK?????!
    haha…are you self-aware enough to see what I’m saying here Andy?

    Your assertion that there is no clinical evidence is bunkum. There is lots of research, though admittedly of varying quality (unlike your friends in Big Pharma, homeopaths don’t have billions to spend on dodgy-research and bribing journals with advertising revenue).
    Several meta-analyses have shown homeopathy to have effects well above placebo. The one meta-analysis that doesn’t show this (and coincidentally the one you quote from) is deeply flawed and is useful only as an example of a piece of ‘scientific propaganda’. Even one (reproducible) experiment into ultra-dilutions should be enough to pique an interest…hint: there are lots out there, I suggest you just ignore or deride them simply because they threaten your world view.

    Observe the results, sit in with a homeopath…hell go & sit in a homeopathic hospital in India for a few weeks…then come back & see if you still spout your scientific fundamentalist mantras. Hopefully if you expand your mind a little you will observe just how effective this form of medicine is again & again & again, and then maybe you’ll stop worrying so much about the ‘how’ of it all.

    There’s no need to feel threatened Andy, when the ‘how’ is discovered it will slot in with the rest of science. However your friends in Big-Pharma SHOULD feel threatened…they are selling a lie, knowingly poisoning the population while attempting to suppress a harmless & effective rival…I think they know we’re coming for them. (the first 200 years was just a warm up)

    My little piece in my little blog isn’t going to change the world, just add imperceptibly to the MOUNTAIN of evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine & hopefully turn a few people on to the fantastic healing modality that it is my priviledge to practice.

    Your definition of ‘dogmatic’ is um peculiar Mr Lewes… inverted hierarchy? I presume this is some reference to the sacred Evidence Based Medicine model? The impossible standard that 90% of con-med drugs fail to meet (with all it’s Β£100s of billions to invest in research every year). Please read my points above so I don’t have to repeat myself on this point.

    Your view of what constitutes ‘science’ is extremely narrow & dogmatic…scientific method is a (powerful) tool to learn more about the world, the edifice you call ‘science’ is more like a religious dogma, a small off-shoot totally missing the original point & intolerant of any dissenting views (please see The Life of Brian for more information).

    Kind regards,


  6. homeopathyuk January 4, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    Nice to hear from you again Sceptic-cat,

    You are free to campaign any way you wish…maybe I’ve got you all wrong πŸ™‚
    And there was me thinking you were just a mouthpiece for muderous Big-Pharma trying to shut down their harmless clinically effective rivals.

    The ‘charlatan’ & ‘quack’ jibes might be accurate if homeopaths were embarking on the career for financial reasons (like, say medical reps)…however the vast majority of us in the UK have taken large pay & benefit cuts & paid for our courses from our own income for reasons other than monetary gain. A quick review of the trade would show this, but I suppose it is more comforting to pretend that we are unscrupulous carnival ‘miracle cure’ salemen, hey? πŸ™‚

    I’m sorry I didn’t get down to the bit about ‘tragic deaths’ in your blog, but honestly, how do you expect any normal person to continue reading once they see that picture of that poor cat in nipple clamps?!



    p.s PLEASE don’t post pictures of the ostrich in any un-natural poses

  7. homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    My goodness Andy, you have formidable stamina. Sometimes it might be useful for you to take a walk outside, unscrew your face from the screen for a while, breath the sharp fresh air…interact with reality for a while. Before plunging back into cyberspace. (How is your level 14 Snow Elf doing by the way?)

    To ask for ‘a simple demonstration’ shows that you still fail to understand homeopathic principles. First of all ‘homeopathy’ does not necessarily mean highly-dilute. I’m astounded that you still fail to realise this (while seemingly being conversant with other aspects of homeopathy). A simple demonstration of ‘homeopathy’, or ‘like cures like’ is con-meds technique for dealing with allergies…exposing their patients to allergens until their immune systems stop over-reacting. There are many examples of ‘like curing like’ – cooks exposing burns to heat to speed their healing etc, but I suspect that you are more concerned with defending your position than exploring this concept. One example from my own life occurred a few years ago & you can easily try it yourself: I burnt the edge of my finger with a soldering iron & immediately held it under very cold running water for 10 minutes. The next day I burnt the same finger on the other hand & this time placed my hand in a basin of luke-warm water…it stung like hell!. Then I compared their rates of healing. (homeopaths test things on themselves, it’s a character trait I think). Anyway to cut a boring story short, the ‘like cures like’ finger healed MUCH more rapidly, the other still showing a scar months afterwards.

    What you really want evidence of is ultra-dilute solutions having a biological effect I imagine. There are many cases in the literature of this effective being measured as you must be well aware. Here is one example:

    “MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen’s University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

    In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These “basophils” release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs around the world, found that homeopathic solutions – so dilute that they probably didn’t contain a single histamine molecule – worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths’ claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.”

    You are well aware of this research I am sure Andy, and you do yourself a disservice to claim otherwise. I am not going to provide a link (it’s in the Inflammation Research Journal Vol.53 page 181 if you want to look)

    Now, we’ve talked about the ‘like cures like’ aspect of homeopathy & the ultra-dilution aspect. Now let’s look at clinical trials of this healing modality. Again you do yourself a disservice to claim there is no evidence of effacy. (although I notice your get-out phrase ‘..tests should be unequivical’ lol. I suspect you haven’t worked in scientific research to make this statement Andy, it leads me to suspect you have a computer science background…all those 1s & os…all that binary certainty, so unlike the fuzzy messy real-world)

    Rather than spouting studies that you will quibble over Andy I will simply provide a link to the British Homeopathic Associations (The homeopathic doctors who work within the NHS) website where you can find evidence that 4 out of 5 systemic reviews of RCT (randomised controlled trials)showed that homeopathy had a clinical effect greater than placebo among other things. I trust you will ignore or dismiss this as you have every other link to research I have sent you.


    Boiron IS a big company I suppose, although I suspect it’s about the same size as the amount Glaxo spends on stationary every year! Anyway I was referring to the size of homeopathy in the UK (Β£20-30 million in total I estimate)
    Here’s a link to their research page: http://www.boironusahcp.com/homeopathy/homeopathic_research.aspx

    Andy do you honestly think that people in frontline healthcare refer to ‘reviews of evidence to inform their practice’?! Again I would recommend that you unscrew from your screen & take a walk outside in the ‘big room’ (see I know all you online roleplaying gamers buzz words).
    This is a totally seperate subject that I don’t have space to get into right now…but we can revisit it again if you want.

    “Quite clearly homeopaths are incapable of understanding the science of what they do or they would not be homeopaths.”

    I refer you to my earlier post Andy, I can’t be bothered going round-and-round these arguments with you.

    “Do you deny homeopathy is implausible? If no, what plausibility mechanism(s) do you go by? (I am watching to see if you can answer a simple direct question, buy the way.)”

    Andy, have you actually read (and understood) ANY of my previous communications with you?! As I have said (several times!) before I do not believe that the mechanism of HOW homeopathy has been explained yet I hope that this answer is simple & direct enough for you πŸ™‚

    “Would you like to sum up in a few sentences why the β€˜one meat-analysis’ of homeopathy is β€˜deeply flawed’?”

    Sigh…Is this a real question? Again we have been here before. To be short, the analysis looked at 110 homeopathy trials & 110 allopathy trials…with a positive treatment effect observed for each group (I notice you skirt around this little fact). Then the study took a strange twist & they selected 8 homeopathy trials & 6 allopathy trials (without describing their selection criteria or even what the 8 homeopathy trials were!) & from this hand-picked sample reached the conclusion that homeopathy was no better than placebo. So…it failed to reference the cherry-picked trials it used, invalidating any conclusions drawn (the great thing about properly referenced research is that others can replicate what you’ve done & see if they get the same result, something impossible in this case.) Now Andy…PLEASE tell me 1. If this is normal meta-analysis protocol? (Hint: It’s not) 2. How the heck this got published in a reputable peer-reviewd journal? 3. How any person with any semblance of scientific integrity can go on using it?

    Once again I doubt you will seriously consider what I have said above & will be asking me the same question in a few weeks.

    “And by the way, there are at least 5 meta-analyses that fail to show any significant effect for homeopathy. Are you up to date with the research?”

    Really? Could I have the references for these alleged studies? It is my understanding that of the most recent 5 meta-analyes published, 4 showed that homeopathy had an effect above placebo, with the flawed & bias Shang study discussed above being the 5th.

    “Can you also reference any reproducible results with ultra-dilutions that has withstood any scrutiny?”

    Please see above my forgetful correspondent. Again I like the caveat ‘that has withstood any scrutiny’ as if negative scrutiny by Professional Homeopathic Skeptics somehow negates published trial results!

    “And so to dogma – this is the big question. I have given you a very simple experiment that would challenge my wordlview. Can you do the same?”

    As I have said repeatedly, the design of your trial shows your lack of understanding rather than anything else…it is designed not to work.
    I have a trial, I’ve mentioned it to you at least 6 times previously, you chose to ignore it. What more can I do Andy if you fear the inductive method & stepping away from your computer screen for a while? πŸ™‚

    “Can you describe a test, that is achievable and fair, that would challenge your worldview if it failed to work? Can you think of a reasonable way of falsifying your beliefs? Your answer to this will demonstrate just how dogmatic you are.”

    Placebo controlled clinical trials would demonstrate this, it’s really not complicated. The petri dish experiments of prof. Ennis would demonstrate this too. My answer to this has nothing to do with being dogmatic, I’m not a research homeopath, I’m a clinician…I am interested in clinical results (and take a peripheral interest in lab research)…but I’ll tell you what WOULD change my world view: Failing to get clinical results. Sorry, I’ve been interrupted by a patient I’m treating for Crohn’s, she’s already had part of her bowel removed, symptoms unchanged. Con-meds next step is immuno-suppressants!! (she’s 23). Now… my little Arsenicum Album 200C tablets have stopped all her symptoms (I’m not claiming she is cured yet, the symptoms return if she stops her little white pills). This isn’t a boast, I simply matched her presenting symptoms with a homeopathic remedy with the same symptoms.
    Another anecdote you say dismissively, but it is my expectation that when I give a well-indicated remedy the patient’s symptoms will be improved. If my patients consistently see no change then I will start analysing what I’m doing wrong. Can you see the difference of my real-world experience, my practical application of the inductive scientific method & your obsessing in front of a computer screen? πŸ™‚

    I have faith Andy, faith that you will not change your dogmatic position & will still be around in 1 year, 5 years, 20 years time saying the same things no matter what evidence is placed in front of your eyes. I’m not really interested in your conspiracy stories, it doesn’t matter much if you are paid by Big-Pharma or just do voluntary work πŸ™‚

    Have a good day & for the love of the Alan Turing get some fresh air!



  8. homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Good afternoon Andy,

    I’m going to keep this reply short as I got bored ‘debating’ with you some time ago.

    Your absolute inability to understand any of my points underlines my concerns that you might be on the autistic spectrum. This is not intended as an insult, merely one explanation for your extreme inability to consider other points of view or deviate from your regular pattern of behaviour, and your obsession with one ‘thing’.

    I’m unsure what you mean by ‘reputation of my trade’. I use my real name freely, I stand by all I have said, I am open about myself & I use humour to lighten my posts. In contrast Professional Homeopathic Skeptics take themselves very seriously & hide behind cloaks of anonymity while sending their barbed tweets to each other.

    As for the rest of the post Andy, well it is a rehash of your earlier posts that I have given up trying to answer for you…your ears & mind are closed.

    As I’ve said before, you have decided that homeopathy is impossible in your world view & therefore you will look to things that support your viewpoint while ignoring everything else. It is a well understood phenomenon in psychology.

    As I have explained again & again, I am a clinician & I get good clinical results with homeopathy…I see it working again & again. If I didn’t see it working then either:
    a. I’m applying it wrongly or
    b. It doesn’t work
    Quite how you conclude from this this that I’m dogmatic…rubbish at critical appraisal…you don’t read original research…and on & on I really do not know. I practice the inductive scientific method everyday, you posts links to research papers on the internet that supports your point-of-view. There is a world of difference between us Andy.

    “If homeopathy was so wonderful, wouldn’t you expect stronger evidence?”
    To make this comment speaks volumes about you Andy. It suggests to me that:
    a. Well I don’t want to bring up ‘the spectrum’ again, but it suggests that you see the world in a very black & white, right/wrong way.
    b. That you have no experience of research in the biological sciences, things are rarely black & white. Have a wee look at any clinical trial or the evidence for effacy of Prozac for evidence of this.
    It’s this old problem of yours again Andy, the real world is fuzzy… that’s the danger of being a ‘one issue cyber campaigner’, you often lose touch with reality.

    I’m not going into the big middle bit of your post (you know, the one where the research shows positive results for homeopathy)…you are unflexible in your fundamentalist viewpoint, I can see that now. You remind me of a politician, you use research as a weapon to defend your dogmatic position rather than for anything else. And any research disagreeing with your prejudices is ignored or labelled as somehow suspect.

    I’m sorry I couldn’t make out what the hell you were talking about with ‘plausibility criteria’…and it is too late in the evening to bother finding out.

    ‘…A test of your intregity…blah blah’ wow, I sure as heck hope you don’t question ma integrity Mr Lewis (note: that was sarcasm, a -low- form of humour. I understand that you have problems distinguishing implied meanings in some of my other posts).

    “You have not stated under what conditions you would doubt your belief in homeopathy. You have merely stated what things would confirm your belief in homeopath. This is very interesting.”
    Andy, did you understand what I wrote? I answered your point above. The repetition is getting irksome now. Are you just pulling my leg here?

    Thank you about my patient…I think her prognosis is good.
    The might of Con-med has been totally unable to help her (from systemic steroids, to surgery, anti-depressants & lots more ) & my little pills of nothingness thankfully remove her symptoms. When she STOPS my little pills, her painful symptoms return….then disappear once my insubstantial medicine starts again.
    Andy…can you see…there MIGHT be a cause & affect here? Tell me please that you can see the possibility of a cause & effect? You can’t be THAT blinkered surely?! I like how you have twisted my real life anecdote of a girl who con-med can’t help but who gains benefit from homeopathy to say that I’m somehow ‘dangerous’…the only danger I pose is to the profits of Big-Pharma. The girl still sees her G.P regularly & has a scan later this week which I am encouraging her to go to. This is proper integrated medicine (in spite of the NHS).



  9. wakeupplease January 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Fantastic discussion, it contains all the usual components and provides great entertainment.

    So are mice subject to placebo response or is this research flawed too?


    • homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm #


      So by your logic we can discount any & all con-med research funded by big-pharma? Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed journals Andy?

      I fear we’re back to ‘It can’t be correct, homeopathy is nonsense…therefore these results have to be wrong’ argument, I’ve felt it to be a very fruitful way to try & understand things in the past too. (<— that was sarcasm)
      …. very errr 'scientific' Andy


    • homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

      I like the masterful way you steer the conversation away from any suggestion that homeopathy could POSSIBLY have an effect Andy! lol

      The whole system (when it works correctly) should be self correcting. A team publish a paper, other teams replicate the experiment & see if they get the same result…a nice mechanism.

      BUT from one side of your mouth you say Boiron (and by proxy ‘homeopathy’) has lots of money so they could do research….& from the other side you say any research funded by Boiron will e suspect. Are you even aware of this split Andy?!

      Meanwhile Big-Pharma schemes & colludes & bribes & conceals it’s poisonous products onto pharmacists shelves. (sometimes getting caught, mostly getting away with it, but hey, that’s business!)…I bet it makes you proud you’re on the right side, eh Andy? πŸ˜‰

      Just to recap: There are RCTs out there showing that homeopathy has an effect above placebo on animals πŸ™‚


  10. homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    Lol, hello again Andy.

    At the risk of repeating myself until one of us dies of old age…it might surprise you to know that I, like all my 60-odd classmates, had prior careers in jobs that required us to think logically, and distinguish cause & effect. Why do you persist with this nonsense that homeopaths are all unable to think logically? Well I’ll answer for you, it’s because it is the way you psychologically deal with people having a different world view from you.

    “You fail to see the simple alternative explanations each time and instead wonder at the amazing power of your pills.”

    Wow…you see right through me Andy, this is exactly what I do, I’ve been such a self-deluded idiot. (<— that was sarcasm). Actually I do wonder at the amazing effects sometimes…it's a perk of the job! πŸ™‚

    I'm still slightly stunned that you are painting the fact that 4 out of 5 meta-analyses of RCTs concluding that homeopathy has an effect above placebo as meaning that homeopathy doesn't work. I guess this is the only way you can reconcile your faith that ultra-dilute remedies can have no affect with reality (the world outside your computer screen)!

    You are becoming increasingly arrogant & patronising in your posts. Do you HONESTLY think I'm not aware of the common fallacies you are talking of. You presume anyone who doesn't think the world works the way you do is an idiot. I remember when I thought that way too & gradually as I entered my later teen years I realised my mistake. It is a human compulsion…the drive to establish a consensus of reality…it gives you a nice warm secure feeling to think that everyone around you sees the world in the same way you do….therefore that is reality. I get it Andy, I do. But what you exhibit are aspects of your own psychological need rather than any 'eternal truths' from the church of Scientism. (science has moved on a little from this viewpoint…about a century I think)

    "there is only one way to establish causality…"
    Stand-by – Here we go again with the blinkered linear black & white thinking!

    Homeopaths frequently prescribe only one remedy at a time. This is because we learned the lesson from biology lessons in school – only change one variable at a time… then you can measure it's effect (of course the messy/fuzzy real-world isn't as straightforward as this, but that's the aim).

    "And so, I fear, this discussion must come to an end. I will end before you do the usual homeopath blog trick of closing comments or blocking when the argument does not go your way."

    Yes Andy I getting bored with this affair now. Could I suggest that 'the usual homeo blog trick' that you've experienced in the past is just the cyber equivalent of being at a dinner party & walking away from the boring fart with the strange staring eyes that stands in the corner & talks AT you….a one way conversation with someone with a fixed & narrow mind isn't the most entertaining way to spend an evening. You might have some experience of this? πŸ˜‰

    "Last year I got nearly a million page reads, with 200,000+ absolute unique visitors, and with a peak weekly unique readership of 20,000."

    I've been such a fool. I realise now this blogging business is all about penis size! lol. Well done Andy.

    No homeopathy isn't herbalism, I agree with you there.

    Ta ta, I've enjoyed having you over on my little blog. Let me know next time we're coming & I'll get the good cups out.



  11. homeopathyuk January 5, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    Hi Sceptic-cat,

    Lovely of you to drop in again πŸ™‚
    Are you sticking up for your pal Andy again? lol
    Say, did you know over 100 million people look at his blog every month?

    Sorry I don’t understand your 1st paragraph. You are quoting yourself & then asking me to respond as if you’ve made a valid point? Yes there are lots of good quality studies showing homeopathy to be more effective than placebo… I’m very confused here, are you suggesting there aren’t? Do you have access to PubMed? Well go check then…there are lots. Repeating your Professional Skeptic Mantra often enough still won’t make it true you know.

    Look, before we go any further I have to know, was the picture of the shaved cat with nipple clamps Photoshopped? (please say ‘yes’!)

    I fear you aren’t reading the same thread I am sceptic-moggy, Andy comes across as a slightly deranged loon who appears to be living in a parallel universe where reality is just how you want it to be if you just wish hard enough.

    My anecdotes are worthless? No it’s my jokes that are worthless, my anecdotes resonate with the experiences of anyone reading this who IS a homeopath, or has ever been to one.

    I have to ask….just why is it do you hardworking Professional Homeopathic Skeptics have no discernible sense of humour, I find it very odd.

    As I said before, my autism comments were not intended to be insulting, they are simply me attempting to understand how Andy can be so narrow & focused, to see things in a totally black & white, binary way, and to just ignore any evidence that runs contrary to his very rigid beliefs…do you see how as I’m explaining this, it sounds like he’s on the autistic spectrum? How is that insulting…google the symptoms.

    Yes I remember about your dire warnings about tragedies Septic-Cat, I still am utterly baffled what you are talking about. And please don’t provide a link to any more S&M household pets, I can’t bear it! Homeopathy is a non toxic, non addictive, safe & above all effective system of medicine…. If you believe it is in fact dangerous please provide some concrete evidence (and not that tragic story of the stupid Australian couple…that is evidence of stupidity, nothing else).

    Thank you for the newsflash….but I know what I saw πŸ˜‰



  12. wakeupplease January 5, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Hi Andy,

    You only get 20,000 readers a week. Well here’s a site that’s skeptical of what you are promoting that has bigger numbers than yours.


  13. Le Canard Blanc January 6, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    These sceptics go on and on singing the same boring tune. I agree with you Homeopathyuk I suspect that you are dealing with people in the autistic spectrum as they are so fixed on the same ol’ thing. Personally I wouldn’t bother to even reply to them as you cannot educate a closed mind. By the way homeopathy has never killed anyone as it is not possible for a homeopathic remedy to do so. A responsible homeopath would never tell anyone to stop their medication without first seeing their GP so clearly there may have been the odd irresponsible homeopath just as there are doctors who make bad decisons. My own dear mother died because of a doctors bad advice. Bad things happen but by human error not through homeopathy.

  14. kevin morris January 6, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Dear Andy,

    I remember a Bob Crumb cartoon. A box stands on a desert island. The surrounding sea is a beautiful blue, the sand is white. Birds in the palmtrees are singing and the sun is high overhead. One of the people trapped in the box has evidently suggested that they try and escape, but one of others says, ‘No we’d better not- we don’t know what we might find.’

    The world of homoeopathy is one of warmth and of vivid colour. We know this because we have seen it change our worlds and our limiting self-perceptions, but the denialists like the flat earthers before them would rather stay in their boxes.

    I say, leave them to it. It’s their loss!

  15. Le Canard Blanc January 7, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    Dear Kevin

    I think the term denialist is a perfect word to describe those who refuse to not only see out of the box but think out of the box.


  16. homeopathyuk January 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    Hello again Andy,

    I thought you had decided my ‘little blog’ didn’t merit any more of your attention?

    I would ask you to read YOUR comment back to yourself, the intellectual arrogance knows no bounds!
    Kevin related experiences from his own life to you & you dismiss them as of no consequence. Are you REALLY so blinkered? A normal human values their own experiences above all others, it is entirely rational. Your computer-like reliance on ONLY scientific research papers to inform your world view is frankly bonkers (and a little unbelievable).

    Andy, are you the type of person who chooses what new car to buy by solely looking at objective comparative tests… power delivery curves, NCAPP safety ratings that sort of thing? Yes perhaps you are, however most normal balanced people use a balance of anecdotal evidence & these objective tests. They ask their dad (an experienced source they trust), they talk to friends in the motor trade, they buy car magazines to find out the views of motoring journalists. After they’ve narrowed their choice down, then they might take a cursory look at NCAPP & pretty graphs. Do you see that a BALANCE of anecdote/experience & objective data is the normal way people make important decisions Andy?

    And it is the same with healthcare. Speak to any busy homeopath & they’ll tell you that their practice was built by word of mouth. People don’t read journals & ranty-blogs to choose their healthcare, they go to their G.P (it’s free after all). If the G.P is unable to help, they might ask friends for advice. So a mother whose child is suffering from eczema might ask other mothers about their experiences. If someone has had a successful homeopathic experience with their own child’s eczema, they are likely to recommend.

    Do you see how reality works Andy? There are checks & balances… an effective clinician gets more recommendations & hence more work. There is nothing silly about this…this is rational. It is one of the problems with the NHS, it is a monolith unresponsive to the needs of it’s users. If I hurt my back I don’t go to my G.P for 2 weeks of painkillers followed by a physio appointment in 4 months time, I go & see a local Osteopath or chiropractor immediately.

    ‘Denialist’? I like it! It indicates the cult-like nature of the skeptical-brigade.

    ‘pre-scientific notions of life-force’: I might use this as the theme for one of my articles. In short the beginnings of recorded Western medicine (ancient Greece) showed a split between those doctors who used medicines to suppress symptoms & those who used medicine to stimulate their patient’s own innate healing ability….and look we’re still disagreeing all these millennia later πŸ™‚

    Homeopaths recognise that people’s symptoms are often their bodies attempt to regain health, rather than some external ‘disease’. Allopaths, in contrast, confuse these symptoms with the disease & give strong medication to suppress them. Of course this is why common cold & flu OTC medication has been shown to prolong a bout of illness. I know which way sounds more rational, effective & scientific to me!



  17. kevin morris January 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Dear Andy,

    My response to the whole list of closed minded flat earth responses to the article on musicians who had found homoeopathy had changed their lives was to say, ‘Leave them to it- it’s their loss!’ but since your response was reasonably good natured, I’ll treat it with respect and reply to you.

    You mention, ‘the one true way’. Actually, to me there is no such thing- there are myriad ways- many different routes to the mountaintop. Just under twelve years ago when after vomiting every other day for months I went to see my GP who told me he thought I had cancer. I think it’s fair top say that my cancer was the final culmination of my blinkered and unhappy thinking over many years.

    A few weeks after that discovery I had my cancerous left kidney removed, together with its large grapefruit sized tumour. Less than two weeks after I left hospital, my oncologist gave me an eighty to ninety percent chance either of recurrence or secondaries or both. Four months later I had a scan which showed up a new, golfball sized, inoperable tumour. My oncoogist gave me four options, the last of which was, ‘Do nothing. You may not live as long but your quality of life will be better’. I chose that option but sought out a homoeopath who had successfully treated several cancer patients. I have a copy of his letter to my GP in which he states, ‘Mr Morris has decided to follow some homoeopathic options and I believe we should respect his wishes.’

    I won’t bore you with a story that went on for a number of years, but there were certain landmarks. On one of those I bumped into my GP almost nine months after that fateful meeting with my oncologist. He expressed great surprise at my condition and asked me, ‘What’s your secret?’ Needless to say, homoeopathy was high on the list, but being Sri Lankan, he knew perfectly well what homoeopathy can do.

    Whereas for many, a terminal diagnosis is a downward spiral into considerable pain and suffering, for me it was a time of great self discovery. I was given a homoeopathic remedy around a fortnight after my last visit with my oncologist and a few days later I knew I would recover- and so it came to pass. I saw before me all the stupid mistakes I had made throughout my life, and slowly, over several years I found myself changing.

    There is very little fixed in the human condition. Change is possible but it requires a great deal of courage. The homoeopathic remedies helped me face my problems and find the courage to deal with them.

    But it didn’t just do that. Many people with cancer will relate to you the many difficulties they have with their digestion- the acidty that makes the stomach churn. A short period of time and my stomach felt relaxed as did I in ways that I hadn’t felt for years.

    I am a musician, but as I sank into my cancer, I had found myself unable to play because it depressed me. I couldn’t listen to music because that depressed me also. Much later I discovered that one of tne mental symptoms in the symptomology of the remedy I was given is, ‘Depression on playing the piano’ A day or two after taking that remedy, I had an urge to listen to records for the first time in ages and I was surprised at the vividness of the music that I found myself enjoying for the first time in years.

    You see, what had happened to me over many years was that I had closed down, slowly in such a way that I hadn’t noticed, and that very little of anything touched me anymore, but what did usually upset me greatly. The end result was my cancer- described by one philosopher as ‘the consequences of a life not lived’. That remedy started to open me up again and I was surprised to find myself opening to the joys of life once more.

    Yes, homoeopathy is very important to me and I will not let you tell me that I’m a deluded soul. I’m a far happier and a far more useful individual than I was before I took those remedies that treated my cancer. We live in a fairly faithless age, but the founders of homoeopathy often spoke of the hand of God being in the remedies. I think what they meant was that when you are prescribed the correct remedy, things change, but they change from inside out, in such a natural way that it is almost as if has been done by God. Conventional medicine can change lives. It can put together bodies broken in road accidents, but it cannot do what homoeopathy routinely does by changing lives that have become broken.

    Please don’t tell me I’m deluded because I’m not. It was twelve years ago but much has changed since then. I wouldn’t still be here if it wasn’t for homoeopathy. Give it a try. It could do a lot for you, but if you want to be truly skeptic, not just like the flat earthers of old, don’t say it can’t work because of Avogadro’s rule. Say, ‘Okay there are a lot of intelligent people who claim homoeopathy has transformed their lives and the lives of their loved ones. To be fair, we should exhaust all possible explanations before we can say, hand on hearts, that it doesn’t work.’

    Of course I know that in the 200 years that homoeopathy has been practiced, first in Germany, but now around the world, many tried to disprove it, but what often happened was that those who had true intellectual honesty often became converts. In a sense we are all converts and that is one of the reasons why we are so determined in homoeopathy’s defence.

    In the meantime, best wishes, and- keep well.


  18. Le Canard Blanc January 7, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    What a beautiful story Kevin. It just goes to show how homeopathy works on the emotional level as well as the physical level. You were obviously meant to be here to spread the word, may you do so for many, many years to come.

    Peace and blessings,

  19. kevin morris January 7, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Dear Blanche,

    Yes they are denialists. It’s a name that suits them well but it does saddens me, given homoeopathy’s ability to tranform lives, that these denialist insist on on burying their heads ever more firmly in the sand. In many ways that would be fine. When I was in the sixth form, an expression that was trotted out frequently by our teachers was, ‘I vehemently disagree with you but would defend to the death your right to say it.’ THat is an ideal worth supporting.

    Sadly, the denialists not only bury their heads but also expect everyone else to do the same. That has all the hallmarks of totalitarian thinking. I’m not sure my teachers would have accepted such behaviour in a liberal democracy such as ours.

    Perhaps their denials would be okay of it wasn’t for the real mess that conventional medicine seems to be in at the moment, with reports that in the US the greatest cause of death is now iatrogenic- ie doctor caused disease- and with reports that by 2020 US medicine will consume the country’s entire gross domestic product.

    It is neither wise nor practical sensible to try and undermine a medical system that is both effective and inexpensive at a time when conventional medicine is in such crisis.


  20. Le Canard Blanc January 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Dear Kevin

    It is so sad that doctors and Conmed are causing the greatest numbers of deaths in the US. That is what killed my mother twenty odd years ago. She always saw doctors as some sort of gods and their drugs the answer to everything.

    However after seeing her suffer so much at the hands of these blinkered fools who finally killed her with their poisons my family looked for more natural ways to stay healthy. We embraced herbs, naturopathy, homeopathy, and acupuncture and have all been fit and healthy and drug free since, including my 90 year father.

    The denialists maybe will see one day how stupid they are to reject such a safe and dynamic method of healing. Let them have their Conmed if that is what they want with all the side effects for at least they will know that all those side effects they suffer have been scientifically proven to harm, and even kill.


  21. kevin morris January 7, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Firstly Blanche, thanks for your kind words about my story and I’m sorry about what happened to your mum. By the sound of it her experiences had a lot to do with you coming to homoeopathy. Life changing moments like ours make us fierce in the defence of the wonderful healing science- yes flatearthers- science!

    We have time and right on our side and like you, I believe many of them will eventually join us. I know and have met several doctors who secretly see homoeopaths. Doctors know full well how abominably poor so many of their treatments are!

    Best wishes,


Leave a Reply