Home

Search

Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and
Intelligent Decisions

Send This
Page to a Friend

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake

Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy
a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of quack
products legally marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two
circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was
shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator,
recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia
of the United States. Second, the FDA has not held homeopathic products to
the same standards as other drugs. Today they are marketed in health-food
stores, in pharmacies, in practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors,
through the mail, and on the Internet.

Basic Misbeliefs

Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician, began formulating
homeopathy's basic principles in the late 1700s. Hahnemann was justifiably
distressed about bloodletting, leeching, purging, and other medical procedures
of his day that did far more harm than good. Thinking that these treatments were
intended to "balance the body's 'humors' by opposite effects," he developed his
"law of similars"—a notion that symptoms of disease can be cured by extremely
small amounts of substances that produce similar symptoms in healthy people when
administered in large amounts. The word "homeopathy" is derived from the Greek
words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering or disease).

Hahnemann and his early followers conducted "provings" in which they
administered herbs, minerals, and other substances to healthy people, including
themselves, and kept detailed records of what they observed. Later these records
were compiled into lengthy reference books called materia medica, which
are used to match a patient's symptoms with a "corresponding" drug.

Hahnemann declared that diseases represent a disturbance in the body's
ability to heal itself and that only a small stimulus is needed to begin the
healing process. He also claimed that chronic diseases were manifestations of a
suppressed itch (psora), a kind of miasma or evil spirit. At first he
used small doses of accepted medications. But later he used enormous dilutions
and theorized that the smaller the dose, the more powerful the effect—a notion
commonly referred to as the "law of infinitesimals." That, of course, is just
the opposite of the dose-response relationship that pharmacologists have
demonstrated.

The basis for inclusion in the
Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is not modern scientific testing, but homeopathic
"provings" conducted during the 1800s and early 1900s. The current (ninth)
edition describes how more than a thousand substances are prepared for
homeopathic use. It does not identify the symptoms or diseases for which
homeopathic products should be used; that is decided by the practitioner (or
manufacturer). The fact that substances listed in the Homeopathic
Pharmacopeia are legally recognized as "drugs" does not mean that either the
law or the FDA recognizes them as effective.

Because homeopathic remedies were actually less dangerous than those of
nineteenth-century medical orthodoxy, many medical practitioners began using
them. At the turn of the twentieth century, homeopathy had about 14,000
practitioners and 22 schools in the United States. But as medical science and
medical education advanced, homeopathy declined sharply in America, where its
schools either closed or converted to modern methods. The last pure homeopathic
school in this country closed during the 1920s [1].

Many homeopaths maintain that certain people have a special affinity to a
particular remedy (their "constitutional remedy") and will respond to it for a
variety of ailments. Such remedies can be prescribed according to the person's
"constitutional type"—named after the corresponding remedy in a manner
resembling astrologic typing. The "Ignatia Type," for example, is said to be
nervous and often tearful, and to dislike tobacco smoke. The typical
"Pulsatilla" is a young woman, with blond or light-brown hair, blue eyes, and a
delicate complexion, who is gentle, fearful, romantic, emotional, and friendly
but shy. The "Nux Vomica Type" is said to be aggressive, bellicose, ambitious,
and hyperactive. The "Sulfur Type" likes to be independent. And so on. Does this
sound to you like a rational basis for diagnosis and treatment?

At Best, the "Remedies" Are Placebos

Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and
several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted
with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and
shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized
in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the
diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the
desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the
Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly,
dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C =
1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products
of 30C or more are marketed.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic
centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of
drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the
Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it
disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of
saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will
possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who
is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the
least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would
have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a
minimum of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000
times the size of the Earth.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like
symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active
ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's
liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered,
freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar
granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the
dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number,
which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules
in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its
February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only
one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of
$20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million
duck."

Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution
that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit,
which is related to Avogadro's number, corresponds to homeopathic potencies of
12C or 24X (1 part in 1024). Hahnemann himself realized that there is
virtually no chance that even one molecule of original substance would remain
after extreme dilutions. But he believed that the vigorous shaking or
pulverizing with each step of dilution leaves behind a "spirit-like" essence—"no
longer perceptible to the senses"—which cures by reviving the body's "vital
force." Modern proponents assert that even when the last molecule is gone, a
"memory" of the substance is retained. This notion is unsubstantiated. Moreover,
if it were true, every substance encountered by a molecule of water might
imprint an "essence" that could exert powerful (and unpredictable) medicinal
effects when ingested by a person.

Many proponents claim that homeopathic products resemble vaccines because
both provide a small stimulus that triggers an immune response. This comparison
is not valid. The amounts of active ingredients in vaccines are much greater and
can be measured. Moreover, immunizations produce antibodies whose concentration
in the blood can be measured, but high-dilution homeopathic products produce no
measurable response. In addition, vaccines are used preventively, not for curing
symptoms.

Stan Polanski, a physician assistant working in public health near Asheville,
North Carolina, has provided additional insights:

Imagine how many compounds must be present, in quantities of a molecule or
more, in every dose of a homeopathic drug. Even under the most scrupulously
clean conditions, airborne dust in the manufacturing facility must carry
thousands of different molecules of biological origin derived from local
sources (bacteria, viruses, fungi, respiratory droplets, sloughed skin cells,
insect feces) as well as distant ones (pollens, soil particles, products of
combustion), along with mineral particles of terrestrial and even
extraterrestrial origin (meteor dust). Similarly, the "inert" diluents used in
the process must have their own library of microcontaminants.

The dilution/potentiation process in homeopathy involves a stepwise
dilution carried to fantastic extremes, with "succussion" between each
dilution. Succussion involves shaking or rapping the container a certain way.
During the step-by-step dilution process, how is the emerging drug preparation
supposed to know which of the countless substances in the container is the One
that means business? How is it that thousands (millions?) of chemical
compounds know that they are required to lay low, to just stand around while
the Potent One is anointed to the status of Healer? That this scenario could
lead to distinct products uniquely suited to treat particular illnesses is
beyond implausible.

Thus, until homeopathy's apologists can supply a plausible (nonmagical)
mechanism for the "potentiation"-through-dilution of precisely one of the many
substances in each of their products, it is impossible to accept that they
have correctly identified the active ingredients in their products. Any study
claiming to demonstrate effectiveness of a homeopathic medication should be
rejected out-of-hand unless it includes a list of all the substances present
in concentrations equal to or greater than the purported active ingredient at
every stage of the dilution process, along with a rationale for rejecting each
of them as a suspect.

The process of "proving" through which homeopaths decided which medicine
matches which symptom is no more sensible. Provings involved taking various
substances recording every twitch, sneeze, ache or itch that occurred
afterward—often for several days. Homeopathy's followers take for granted that
every sensation reported was caused by whatever substance was administered,
and that extremely dilute doses of that substance would then be just the right
thing to treat anyone with those specific symptoms.

Dr. Park has noted that to expect to get even one molecule of the "medicinal"
substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two
billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus
whatever impurities the lactose contained.

Cell Salts

Some homeopathic manufacturers market twelve highly diluted mineral products
called "cell salts" or "tissue salts." These are claimed to be effective against
a wide variety of diseases, including appendicitis (ruptured or not), baldness,
deafness, insomnia, and worms. Their use is based on the notion that mineral
deficiency is the basic cause of disease. However, many are so diluted that they
could not correct a mineral deficiency even if one were present. Development of
this approach is attributed to a nineteenth-century physician named W.H.
Schuessler.

"Electrodiagnosis"

Some physicians, dentists, and chiropractors use "electrodiagnostic" devices
to help select the homeopathic remedies they prescribe. These practitioners
claim they can determine the cause of any disease by detecting the "energy
imbalance" causing the problem. Some also claim that the devices can detect
whether someone is allergic or sensitive to foods, vitamins, and/or other
substances. The procedure, called electroacupuncture according to Voll
(EAV), electrodiagnosis, or electrodermal screening, was begun
during the late 1950s by Reinhold Voll, M.D., a West German physician who
developed the original device. Subsequent models include the Vega, Dermatron,
Accupath 1000, and Interro.

Proponents claim these devices measure disturbances in the flow of
"electro-magnetic energy" along the body's "acupuncture meridians." Actually,
they are fancy galvanometers that measure electrical resistance of the patient's
skin when touched by a probe. Each device contains a low-voltage source. One
wire from the device goes to a brass cylinder covered by moist gauze, which the
patient holds in one hand. A second wire is connected to a probe, which the
operator touches to "acupuncture points" on the patient's foot or other hand.
This completes a circuit, and the device registers the flow of current. The
information is then relayed to a gauge that provides a numerical readout. The
size of the number depends on how hard the probe is pressed against the
patient's skin. Recent versions, such as the Interro make sounds and
provide the readout on a computer screen. The treatment selected depends on the
scope of the practitioner's practice and may include acupuncture, dietary
change, and/or vitamin supplements, as well as homeopathic products. Regulatory
agencies have seized several types of electroacupuncture devices but have not
made a systematic effort to drive them from the marketplace.

For more information about these devices and pictures of some of them, click
here.
If you encounter such a device, please read this article and report the device
to the practitioner's state licensing board, the state attorney general, the
Federal Trade Commission, the FBI, the National Fraud Information Center, and
any insurance company to which the practitioner submits claims that involve use
of the device. For the addresses of these agencies, click here.

Unimpressive "Research"

Since many homeopathic remedies contain no detectable amount of active
ingredient, it is impossible to test whether they contain what their label says.
Unlike most potent drugs, they have not been proven effective against disease by
double-blind clinical testing. In fact, the vast majority of homeopathic
products have never even been tested; proponents simply rely on "provings" to
tell them what should work.

In 1990, an article in Review of Epidemiology analyzed 40 randomized
trials that had compared homeopathic treatment with standard treatment, a
placebo, or no treatment. The authors concluded that all but three of the trials
had major flaws in their design and that only one of those three had reported a
positive result. The authors concluded that there is no evidence that
homeopathic treatment has any more value than a placebo [2].

In 1994, the journal Pediatrics published an article claiming
that homeopathic treatment had been demonstrated to be effective against mild
cases of diarrhea among Nicaraguan children [3]. The claim was based on findings
that, on certain days, the "treated" group had fewer loose stools than the
placebo group. However, Sampson and London noted: (1) the study used an
unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme, (2) there was no
safeguard against product adulteration, (3) treatment selection was arbitrary,
(4) the data were oddly grouped and contained errors and inconsistencies, (5)
the results had questionable clinical significance, and (6) there was no public
health significance because the only remedy needed for mild childhood diarrhea
is adequate fluid intake to prevent or correct dehydration [4].

In 1995, Prescrire
International, a French journal that evaluates pharmaceutical products,
published a literature review that concluded:

As homeopathic treatments are generally used in conditions with variable
outcome or showing spontaneous recovery (hence their placebo-responsiveness),
these treatments are widely considered to have an effect in some patients.
However, despite the large number of comparative trials carried out to date
there is no evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than placebo
therapy given in identical conditions.

In December 1996, a lengthy report was published by the Homoeopathic Medicine
Research Group (HMRG), an expert panel convened by the Commission of the
European Communities. The HMRG included homeopathic physician-researchers and
experts in clinical research, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, and clinical
epidemiology. Its aim was to evaluate published and unpublished reports of
controlled trials of homeopathic treatment. After examining 184 reports, the
panelists concluded: (1) only 17 were designed and reported well enough to be
worth considering; (2) in some of these trials, homeopathic approaches may have
exerted a greater effect than a placebo or no treatment; and (3) the number of
participants in these 17 trials was too small to draw any conclusions about the
effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for any specific condition [5]. Simply
put: Most homeopathic research is worthless, and no homeopathic product has been
proven effective for any therapeutic purpose. The National Council Against
Health Fraud has warned that "the sectarian nature of homeopathy raises serious
questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic researchers." [6]

In 1997, a London health authority decided to stop paying for homeopathic
treatment after concluding that there was not enough evidence to support its
use. The Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham Health Authority had been referring
more than 500 patients per year to the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London.
Public health doctors at the authority reviewed the published scientific
literature as part of a general move toward purchasing only evidence-based
treatments. The group concluded that many of the studies were methodologically
flawed and that recent research produced by the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital
contained no convincing evidence that homeopathy offered clinical benefit
[7].

In 2007, another review team concluded that homeopathic provings have been so
poorly designed that the data they have generated is not trustworthy [8].

Proponents trumpet the few "positive" studies as proof that "homeopathy
works." Even if their results can be consistently reproduced (which seems
unlikely), the most that the study of a single remedy for a single disease could
prove is that the remedy is effective against that disease. It would not
validate homeopathy's basic theories or prove that homeopathic treatment is
useful for other diseases.

Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential benefit of
relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed against the harm that can
result from relying upon—and wasting money on—ineffective products. Spontaneous
remission is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most
people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would have fared
equally well without it.

Homeopaths claim to provide care that is safer, gentler, "natural," and less
expensive than conventional care—and more concerned with prevention. However,
homeopathic treatments prevent nothing, and many homeopathic leaders preach
against immunization. Equally bad, a report on the National Center for
Homeopathy's 1997 conference described how a homeopathic physician had suggested
using homeopathic products to help prevent and treat coronary artery disease.
According to the article, the speaker recommended various 30C and 200C products
as alternatives to aspirin or cholesterol-lowering drugs, both of which are
proven to reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes [9].

Illegal Marketing

In a survey conducted in 1982, the FDA found some over-the-counter products
being marketed for serious illnesses, including heart disease, kidney disorders,
and cancer. An extract of tarantula was being purveyed for multiple sclerosis;
an extract of cobra venom for cancer.

During 1988, the FDA took action against companies marketing "diet patches"
with false claims that they could suppress appetite. The largest such company,
Meditrend International, of San Diego, instructed users to place 1 or 2 drops of
a "homeopathic appetite control solution" on a patch and wear it all day affixed
to an "acupuncture point" on the wrist to "bioelectrically" suppress the
appetite control center of the brain.

America's most blatant homeopathic marketer appears to be Biological Homeopathic Industries (BHI) of
Albuquerque, New Mexico, which, in 1983, sent a 123-page catalog to 200,000
physicians nationwide. Its products included BHI Anticancer Stimulating, BHI
Antivirus, BHI Stroke, and 50 other types of tablets claimed to be effective
against serious diseases. In 1984, the FDA forced BHI to stop distributing
several of the products and to tone down its claims for others. However, BHI has
continued to make illegal claims. Its 1991 Physicians' Reference ("for use only
by health care professionals") inappropriately recommended products for heart
failure, syphilis, kidney failure, blurred vision, and many other serious
conditions. The company's publishing arm issues the quarterly Biological
Therapy: Journal of Natural Medicine, which regularly contains articles whose
authors make questionable claims. An article in the April 1992 issue, for
example, listed "indications" for using BHI and Heel products (distributed by
BHI) for more than fifty conditions—including cancer, angina pectoris, and
paralysis. And the October 1993 issue, devoted to the homeopathic treatment of
children, includes an article recommending products for acute bacterial
infections of the ear and tonsils. The article is described as selections from
Heel seminars given in several cities by a Nevada homeopath who also served as
medical editor of Biological Therapy. In 1993, Heel published a 500-page
hardcover book describing how to use its products to treat about 450 conditions
[10]. Twelve pages of the book cover "Neoplasia and neoplastic phases of
disease." (Neoplasm is a medical term for tumor.) In March 1998, during an
osteopathic convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, a Heel exhibitor distributed copies
of the book when asked for detailed information on how to use Heel products. A
2000 edition is larger but does not have the neoplasia section [11].

Between October 1993 and September 1994, the FDA issued warning letters to
four homeopathic manufacturers:

BHI was ordered to stop making claims that BHI Cold, which
contained sulfur and pulsatilla, were effective against mumps, whooping cough,
chronic respiratory diseases, herpes zoster, all viral infections, and
measles. In addition, when combined with other BHI remedies, it had been
illegally claimed to be effective against otitis, pleurisy, bronchitis or
pneumonia, conjunctivitis, and tracheitis.

Botanical Laboratories, Inc., which distributed Natra-Bio products, was
ordered to stop claiming that BioAllers was a homeopathic remedy for
reliving symptoms of allergy due to pollen, animal hair, dander, mold, yeast,
and dust. The products were promoted as homeopathic even though some
ingredients were not in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.

L.B.L.-Bot.Bio.Hom.Corp, of Roosevelt, New York, was ordered to stop
making false claims that products could prevent AIDS, reduce cholesterol, cure
diabetes and other pancreas disorders, and cancerous blood disorders.

Nutrition Express, of Houston, Texas, was warned that products it was
marketing for the temporary relief of infection, minor liver disorders,
lymphatic disorders, and menstrual discomforts were misbranded because their
labels or labeling included statements that represented that the products were
intended to be used for curing or preventing disease.

Greater Regulation Is Needed

As far as I can tell, the FDA has never recognized any homeopathic remedy as
safe and effective for any medical purpose. In 1995, I filed a Freedom of
Information Act request that stated:

I am interested in learning whether the FDA has: (1) received evidence that
any homeopathic remedy, now marketed in this country, is effective against any
disease or health problem; (2) concluded that any homeopathic product now
marketed in the United States is effective against any health problem or
condition; (3) concluded that homeopathic remedies are generally effective; or
(4) concluded that homeopathic remedies are generally not effective. Please
send me copies of all documents in your possession that pertain to these
questions [12].

An official from the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research replied that
several dozen homeopathic products were approved many years ago, but these
approvals were withdrawn by 1970 [13]. In other words, after 1970, no
homeopathic remedy had FDA as "safe and effective" for its intended purpose. As
far as I can tell, that statement is still true today.

If the FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in order to
remain marketable—the standard it applies to other categories of drugs—homeopathy
would face extinction in the United States [14]. However, there is no
indication that the agency is considering this. FDA officials regard homeopathy
as relatively benign (compared, for example, to unsubstantiated products
marketed for cancer and AIDS) and believe that other problems should get
enforcement priority. If the FDA attacks homeopathy too vigorously, its
proponents might even persuade a lobby-susceptible Congress to rescue them.
Regardless of this risk, the FDA should not permit worthless products to be
marketed with claims that they are effective. Nor should it continue to tolerate
the presence of quack "electrodiagnostic" devices in the marketplace.

In 1994, 42 prominent critics of quackery and pseudoscience asked the agency
to curb the sale of homeopathic products. The petition
urges the FDA to initiate a rulemaking procedure to require that all
over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic drugs meet the same standards of safety and
effectiveness as nonhomeopathic OTC drugs. It also asks for a public warning
that although the FDA has permitted homeopathic remedies to be sold, it does not
recognize them as effective. The FDA has not yet responded to the petition.
However, on March 3, 1998, at a symposium sponsored by Good Housekeeping
magazine, former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D., J.D., acknowledged
that homeopathic remedies do not work but that he did not attempt to ban them
because he felt that Congress would not support a ban [15].

References

Kaufman M. Homeopathy in America. Baltimore, 1971, The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review of
Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990.

Jacob J and others. Treatment
of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial
in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93:719-725, 1994.

Sampson W, London W. Analysis
of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964,
1995.

Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group. Report. Commission of the European
Communities, December 1996.

NCAHF Position Paper on
Homeopathy. Loma Linda, Calif.: National Council Against Health Fraud,
1994.

Wise, J. Health authority stops buying homoeopathy. British Medical
Journal 314:1574, 1997.

Dantas E. A
systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published
from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 96:4-16, 2007.

Hauck KG. Homeopathy and coronary artery disease. Homeopathy Today
17(8):3, 1997.

Biotherapeutic Index. Baden-Baden, Germany: Biologische Heilmittel Heel
GmbH, 1993.

Biotherapeutic
Index, 5th revised English edition. Baden-Baden, Germany: Biologische
Heilmittel GmbH, 2000.

Barrett S. Letter to FDA Office of Freedom of Information, Feb 7, 1995.

Davis H. Letter to Stephen Barrett, M.D., April 24, 1995.

Pinco RG. Status
of homeopathy in the United States: Important ominous developments. Memo
to Willard Eldredge, president, American Association of Homeopathic
Pharmacists, Jan 17, 1985.

Kessler DA. Panel discussion on herbal dietary supplements. Consumer
Safety Symposium on Dietary Supplements and Herbs, New York City, March 3,
1998.

Related Topics

Quack
"Electrodiagnostic" Devices Used for Selecting Remedies

FDA
Compliance Policy Guide 7132.15 for Homeopathic Products

Homoeopathy
and Its Kindred Delusions (Essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1842)

Homeopathy
and Science: A Closer Look

Petition
to Ban the Marketing of Homeopathic Products

Why
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

Alternative Medicine and
the Laws of Physics

Samuel
Hahnemann's Book: Organon of Medicine

The
Scientific Evaluation of Homeopath

Hahnemann's Homeopathy
(Seven articles debunking homeopathic theory and practice)

Homeopathy: All
the Idiocy That Fits (Satire by Peter Bowditch)

READER RESPONSES

From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce
stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":

I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes .
. . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is
counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the
many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum
biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge
that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the
molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy
works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN
THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD
THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH
THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT.
The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited
band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A
CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.

From an unidentified homeopathic enthusiast:

Homeopathy works and you simply are too narrow-minded to understand
that this world is made up of more than the mere physical and chemical
natures. You overlook the spiritual and the energetic. You are the
quack.

From a retired criminal investigator:

Homeopathic practices tend to be from the biblical roots of good
natural medicine. There are millions that will fight any intrusion on
homeopathy and its tenets. God have mercy on the persecutors.

From another homeopathic enthusiast:

What a sad sorry piece of shit masquerading as science your article
is. Which drug company are you a front for? Do you know how many people
die each year as a result of prescribed "scientifically validated"
drugs? How many people do you murder (sorry treat) each week? How it
must irk you that homeopathy is making a huge resurgence worldwide and
safely treating iatrogenic and "incurable" diseases. We must start a web
site to encourage people to sue doctors and drug companies for harmful
side effects, lying and murder. It will be a huge counter punch to
established medical quackery.

P.S. Oh I nearly forgot—FUCK YOU!!!!

This page was revised on October 4, 2007.

Make a
Donation  |  Search All of Our Affiliated
Sites  |  Home

Links to Recommended Companies

Vonage:
Save money on unlimited phone service. Extraordinary value. Free 30-day
trial.

Netflix: Free 2-week trial of
DVD rentals by mail; over 85,000 titles available.

Amazon
Books: Internet's leading source of books, electronics, tools, toys, and
many other consumer goods.

ConsumerLab.com:
Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products.

Healthgrades: Check
your doctors' training, board certifications, and disciplinary actions.

OnlyMyEmail:
Award-winning anti-spam services.

Herbal
Medicine, 3rd edition. Excellent reference book, discount-priced.