Monday, February 1, 2010

Getting Over It

Guest Post By Christopher Johnson, ND

Samuel Hanneman Memorial
Monument to Samuel Hanneman founder of the
homeopathic school of medicine. Photo by dbking
via Flickr, used under the Creative Common's License.

A group of so-called “skeptics” recently staged public relations events at various cities in Great Britain designed to discredit the science of homeopathy. Yawn.

These hooligans purport to stand up for scientific principles, while in fact their zealous dogmatism and denial of evidence would make Galileo’s persecutors proud. Score one for book burning and witch trials.

But me thinks thou dost protest too much.

They named their campaign “10:23”, a reference to Avogadro’s number. This number is significant to chemists in that it supposedly sets the limit below which no material elements are likely to be present in a given dilution. Homeopathic remedies are made with solutions far more dilute than Avogadro’s number.

Do these “skeptics” really think the public cares about Avogadro’s number when homeopathy has just significantly improved their toddler’s autism or offered help with any of a vast range of diseases which respond so well to homeopathic (and often not to conventional) treatment?

This is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community that can’t understand why the people don’t praise them for their ideological purity and courage, even when the fruits of their scientific labors rot like a brown banana. Note to protestors: maybe they’re just not that into you.

As Peter Fisher, personal physician to Queen Elizabeth II and editor in chief of the journal Homeopathy so eloquently pointed out in a letter to the Canadian Pediatric Society, “[you are] not alone among bodies representing the medical establishment in countenancing almost any explanation for the popularity of homeopathy except the obvious one – that it is effective!”


  1. And saddest to me, as a scientist as well as physician, is that they ignore the voluminous scientific literature that clearly supports homeopathy. I am sure if you asked the majority of those protesting what, if any of the literature they had read, the answer would be none!

  2. Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone

  3. Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It's a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.

  4. A. Basic Fundamental Research
    B. High Dilution Research
    C. Clinical Research
    1. Double-blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial
    3. Double-Blind Studies
    4. Cohort/Observational/Pilot Studies
    5. Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis
    6. Homeopathy as a Genetic Medicine
    7. Evidence for specific disease conditions
    8. Homeopathy superior to conventional
    9. Homeopathy cost-effective than conventional
    10. Homeopathy equals conventional
    11. Homeopathy superior to placebo
    12. Homeopathy improving quality of life
    13. Evidence-based homeopathy
    14. To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another
    15. To distinguish homeopathy medicine from water
    16. Animal Studies
    17. Plant Studies

    Papers related to the above domains are available at Which of them you would like to see?