Comments on: Homeopathy: The Test

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:49:00 +0000

I’ve bought a lot of random over the counter homeopathic medicine and I disagree with the premise from my experience that homeopathic medicine contains what makes you sick. Homeopathic medicine contains nutritional stuff that if you had been getting from your regular diet, your body would have used it to repair itself already. Like for example a homeopathic medicine for cholesterol might have garlic that helps lower cholesterol. Cold medicine will have echinacea etc. You can go to vitamin shoppe’s or iherb or vitacost’s website and look at the ingredients of the homeopathic medicine they sell. It’s actually modern medicine that gives you a bit of what makes you sick as in immunization or flu shots. Actually both have their uses. One relys on herbs and food stuff and one relys on manufactured chemicals from a lab. But best to try to get what your body needs from your diet. Both dayquil by Vicks (modern medicine) and Cold relief by natrabio (homeopathic) give you relief from cold symptoms when it’s in your system (when I’ve had a cold and taken this stuff) but the cold still runs its course.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:17:00 +0000

Another interesting documentary however I think there is a basic problem with science. I’m not a skeptic of homeopathy, nor I’m I a fan. I think that if science proves there is no substance left in the water, maybe scientist ought to investigate water properties. In fact I’m sure there is still a x factor in particles which do have influence on their sorroundings. So it might not be the substance to provoke the cure but the change initially provoked by the substance in the water. If any other nano change is not traceable yet in the diluted water maybe some other kind of approach (electrical / magnetic) could prove a change (induction). Like some scientists (very few) stated, it’s worthwhile to investigate why sometimes things happens extremely rarely instead of considering them simply an error. Afterall dna mutation are rare but should we consider this an error?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:45:00 +0000

The last part of this documentary doesn’t make much sense. They first claim there are double blind studies showing that homeopathy has a positive effect on patients (beyond placebo), then they say water doesn’t have a memory and from both these things they conclude that homeopathy doesn’t work. Which is nonsense. If double blind studies would show that homeopathy had an effect on patients than that would mean that homeopathy works. And if water doesn’t have a memory than that would mean homeopathy would still work but we had no clue how.

But that’s not the case.

To my knowledge the majority of double blind studies show that homeopathy has no effect on patients (beyond placebo). And THAT is the prove. Not this water memory thingy. So, even if the water memory test would have been successful Randy would still not have to pay the money because that would only show that water had a memory but not that homeopathy works (which it doesn’t, as shown by double blind studies).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:00 +0000

How come Randi is there? Seriously?

Randi did not take part in the experiment. He did not touch the test tubes. He was there to observe that the experiment was taking place in a controlled environment. Horizon was trying to win his money remember. What did you expect him to do? Say “you do the experiment and send me the YouTube video.”
Also, this Big Pharma excuse does not hold water. These are multinational companies. Homeopathy is also business, people make big money off it. If homeopathy were proven true Big Pharma would just cash in on it.
As far as asking who decided that a few cells represent a whole being, do you know anything at all about physiology? The chemical they diluted was histamine. The cells they used were cells that react to histamine. Had they used all kinds of cells everyone would be complaining that they did not guarantee that all tubes had cells in them that react to histamine. Had they used living beings you would all be saying that different people react differently to different substances, or that every one’s vibrations are not susceptible to homeopathy, or other such nonsense. Tubes with cells that react to histamine is the most controlled situation. Also, they were repeating the experiments that homeopathy proponents claimed proved homeopathy. They were testing the relevant cells for the chemical used. That’s like saying there is no proof that my car can’t fly from Manchester to Birmingham because I removed the leather seats and radio.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:18:00 +0000

is homeopathy real ? well theres plenty of ways to find out. If it is claimed it can heal the sick, then it would be equally true that the carrier liquid in the case of homeopathy, water, would also be able to make things ill and die.
So quite simply test homeopathy out with poisons such as nicotine, arsenic, cyanide and others with known lethalities and results at given dosages. Start with a lethal concentration, dilute, then see if for instance, a plant withers or dies when fed such a liquid, if it does then i might start to believe there is something in this.

Geez, why does science have to make everything so utterly complicated, scientists, have to start working together and reaching agreement on there findings, its becoming completely ridiculous. This does this, no it does’nt, yes it does, no it does’nt, well it does in these people, but not these people, no, it does’nt in any people, yes it does, no it does’nt, 50 million dollars later……………INCONCLUSIVE.

By: Anne Christie

Anne Christie — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:12:00 +0000

The BBC was founded with the purpose to educate, inform and entertain. The narrator did lead the audience, along with the background music, but that was, in my opinion, for dramatic effect. The BBC would have gained a lot more money ie the 1 million dollars, if It had proven homeopathy as a viable option. I think the show was quite good at providing both points of view, and in a way, the matter still seems unsettled as the testing with animals suggested positive results.

By: sotos sotos

sotos sotos — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 03:43:00 +0000

Notice how the narrator leads the audience to place their hope on homeopathy and their sympathy on the French omeopath Doctor.
The narrator talks in a way so we think that homeopathy is going to be proven. So we FEEL our hope in homeopathy and then we see it getting CRUSHED. This is a neurolinguistic programming technique. It leads emotions. People, dont forget. BBC world IS a corporation. Its main purpose is to gain money. Not to inform people.
Experiment yourself to find the truth.

By: samern

samern — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:38:00 +0000

Homeopathy: The Test

By: samern

samern — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:37:00 +0000

…

By: Tiffany Loh

Tiffany Loh — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:19:00 +0000

If you would think like a big pharma, then it will all make sense to you. Making homeopathic scientific evident means there will be a tendency of people making big shift to choose homeopathic medicine rather than a conventional med. Which in turn going to cause a big decrease in their profit. People are arguing that simply relying on homeopathic med will ‘kill’ u, then how about conventional med?? How many misdiagnose, overdose, and failure of a certain drugs to heal?? They are the same, none is 100% perfect yet. Media is controlled by big pharma and they will do anything to make a big fuss when homeopaths screw up, while trying to cover up their mistakes…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 22 May 2011 11:04:00 +0000

You say “There is a whole world of energies that influence an “exotic” system of interaction that science is slowly coming around to getting a grips with” (sic). Just what energies are these? Please expound further. The Backster effect has been looked at many times by using real science and found wanting.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 May 2011 06:56:00 +0000

Can you please offer any source which shows Einstein ever wrote or said what you claim? I cannot. Please enlighten me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 May 2011 06:48:00 +0000

Nonsense Joe. In non quantum experiments the act of observation cannot affect the outcome. How could any simple experiments or observations be performed if what you say is true?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 May 2011 06:43:00 +0000

You must be observing an experiment in quantum mechanics at the quantum level to have the observation affect the outcome of the experiment. In our ordinary, non quantum world, the act of viewing an experiment will not affect its outcome. If this were true, no experiments could ever be performed.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:48:00 +0000

How come that mr. magician (who has 1 mill to loose if the experiment succeeds) is present everytime the experiments fail? I find this highly suspicious. Also, what makes him qualified to be part of the research at all?
I find that this aspect questions the test-studies. there is obviously a lot of interest and money invested in proving homeopathy wrong in the laboratory whilst the experiments are being done – real science should be inpartial.
Also, who on earth made the assumption that a few living cells can represent a whole living being?
all of the research has been made without even taking into consideration that homeopathy works on whole living beings. Claiming that the results made from a few cells is equivalent to what the results would be in a human is bizzar. it is as ridiculous as claiming a car to be “a scientific impossibility” when only testing if the clutch, isolated from the rest of the car, can or cannot drive from Manchester to Birmingham.