Banned from NCH forum

[Peter S.]

I just got this in my email:

Dear Members,

Under the directive of NCH office, those who are non-believer in homeopathy and those who consider homeopathy is quackery are permanently banned at NCH forum. The policy has no distinction with skeptics / homeopaths / Allopaths / common members / any other profession etc. The step was not taken on members reporting messages but on the directive of Council Office. The decision has no link with any other forum policy. This is an automatic generated message, if you feel that this is received by you by mistake then please contact at nchpakistan@hotmail.com

Worldcall

Congratulate me, it's the first time I've been banned from anywhere!
(At least I think I'm banned; it looks like their server is down.)

Edited to add: The server is up, but not only can I not post, I can't even read the forum!

[Zep]

Join the ever-increasing crowd of people who aren't camped on couches in Dr. MAS's living room.

[Ersby]

Congratulations!

[JLam]

Good that you have banned to MAS prize for being nonbeliever. I have proof for to Randi that I haved won the challenge. You lose.

[Meffy]

Think of this not as a shake-up and a massive purge, but as a succussion and dilution.

[kieran]

It's almost as if they are admitting that, if they encounter anyone that is not yet convinced of the efficacy of homeopathy, then they have no definitive proof or arguments that they can use to convince them, and they can't cope with even the most trivial of queries on the subject. (*Sigh*) If only they would admit it openly ... :boggled:

Peter S. - not wanting to accuse you of anything - but for my own peace of mind ... did you engage in any antagonistic or insulting behaviour on the NCH forum that would have led to your own ban? :o

[Psi Baba]

Think of this not as a shake-up and a massive purge, but as a succussion and dilution.
:clap:

[Peter S.]

Peter S. - not wanting to accuse you of anything - but for my own peace of mind ... did you engage in any antagonistic or insulting behaviour on the NCH forum that would have led to your own ban? :o

I never said I didn't believe in homeopathy; I said I was skeptical and wanted to be shown some evidence.

After some evasion from MAS, I did say I didn't trust him, but added that I was willing to change my mind if he would produce the evidence he said he would provide.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Oh by the way Peter, that video never arrived. But I'm sure you knew as well as I did MAS would never send it.

LLH

[FreakBoy]

Think of this not as a shake-up and a massive purge, but as a succussion and dilution.

If they sufficiently dilute the skeptical body on the forum, wouldn't that make the Skepticism overpowering?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If they sufficiently dilute the skeptical body on the forum, wouldn't that make the Skepticism overpowering?

Not if they truly know they are selling water and sugar pills, in which case the results will be what they expect.

[Meffy]

If they sufficiently dilute the skeptical body on the forum, wouldn't that make the Skepticism overpowering?
Only if homeopathy really works. Otherwise it won't. :-}

(yes, I admit it: I was waiting for that question)

[Tricky]

You gotta wonder what it would take to stay in that forum. It might be interesting to play the obliging troll there, glomming on to everything they say and adding your own increasingly fantastic stories. How far could you go before they realized you were taking the piss out of them?

"There were a hundred and twenty-seven of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road."

[Curnir]

"There were a hundred and twenty-seven of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road."

Cardboard box?




sorry sorry old Monty Python quoting habbits surfacing.

[MRC_Hans]

I just got this in my email:



Congratulate me, it's the first time I've been banned from anywhere!
(At least I think I'm banned; it looks like their server is down.)

Edited to add: The server is up, but not only can I not post, I can't even read the forum!If you want to read the forum, clear its cookie on your computer. Not that there is anything to see.......

Hans

[Zep]

...not wanting to accuse you of anything - but for my own peace of mind ... did you engage in any antagonistic or insulting behaviour on the NCH forum that would have led to your own ban? :oWell, I was WAY out of line, apparently. I was both polite and restrained in the subject matter, and NEVER insulted anyone. But I suspect those outrageous sentences in the form of questions (you know, ending in question marks), were what got me the chop.

[Zep]

If you want to read the forum, clear its cookie on your computer. Not that there is anything to see.......

HansDid that - no luck. They are also filtering on IP's, and possibly IP ranges and domain names.

Which gives me an idea... ;)

[Suzan]

Just surfing around the Randi site, and came upon this thread. I can't help but ask....but how can a person not believe (or be accused of it) in using natural remedies? Isn't that what homeopathy is? I am clue-less, anyone care to explain?

[Hellbound]

Just surfing around the Randi site, and came upon this thread. I can't help but ask....but how can a person not believe (or be accused of it) in using natural remedies? Isn't that what homeopathy is? I am clue-less, anyone care to explain?

Homeopathy is entirely un-natural.

A lot of people make this assumption. But homeopathy actually involves taking any substance (natural or not, sometimes they even use real drugs) and mixing a very small part of it in water. Then they shake it, and take a very small part of that solution and mix it in more water. Etc, etc, etc.

Essentially, by the time they get to a 12C rememdy (which means 12 successive 1 to 100 dilutions), there's only a very small chance of a single molecule of the original substance remaining. Yet they go all the way to 200C, 500C, or 1000C dilutions. And the claim is that the more you dilute it, the stronger it is.

Basically, homeopathy is giving people water, alcohol, or sugar pills with no active ingredient and claiming they feel better.

On a broader note, natural cures are usually worse than "unnatural" cures. A large portion of our drugs and other treaments were developed from natural cures. The reason they were developed is to standardize the dosage, get rid of ingredients besides the ones you are interested in, and reduce side effects. Natural remedies often vary wildly in dosage (as growing conditions, weather, and many other factors affect how much of various chemicals each plant produces), include many chemicals besides the main ingredient that may have a physiological effect (resulting in more possibility for bad interactions with other drugs/medications and more possible side effects, not to mention the posiblity of allergy), and are often less effective. "Natural" is a buzz-word that was developed to sell. A pill full of Ginko is no more natural than a prescription medication, and contains far more chemicals than synthesized drugs.

[Mojo]

Just surfing around the Randi site, and came upon this thread. I can't help but ask....but how can a person not believe (or be accused of it) in using natural remedies? If there was no evidence that the "natural" remedy in question works, then it would be foolish to believe that it does, wouldn't it?

Isn't that what homeopathy is? Even if it works (and there is no good evidence that it does) Homoeopathy is not a "natural" remedy. It is an idea invented by a German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, around 1800, and involves carefully preparing dilutions of remedies in a laboratory. If homoeopathy is a natural remedy, then all the water in the world is a homoeopathic remedy, because it would at some point have had pretty much anything dissolved in it.

Have you any idea how many kidneys the water you drink has passed through?

I am clue-less, anyone care to explain?1) No comment.

2) I just did.

[Donks]

Just surfing around the Randi site, and came upon this thread. I can't help but ask....but how can a person not believe (or be accused of it) in using natural remedies? Isn't that what homeopathy is? I am clue-less, anyone care to explain?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with natural remedies. If they really work, a pharmaceutical will eventually extract the active ingredients and package them in controlled dosages. But homeopathy is nothing of the sort. Homeopathy is based on a few postulates which make absolutely no sense. One is the "law of similars" which states that a remedy which causes symptoms A, B and C will cure a disease that causes symptoms A, B and C. There is absolutely no reason why this should work in the general sense. It would work in a few cases, but there is no reason why it would be a "law." But then that doesn't matter, because they also work with dilutions or "potencies" where they take the "mother tincture" (the remedy itself) and dilute it beyond the point where there's anything left other than solvent and impurities. So even if the mother tincture actually cured whatever ails you, it doesn't matter because you aren't taking any of it. That's the short version.

Edit: Huntsman and Mojo, stop posting before I do.

[FreakBoy]

Only if homeopathy really works. Otherwise it won't. :-}

<sarcasm>
Wait, you mean it doesn't work?
</sarcasm>

(yes, I admit it: I was waiting for that question)

I figured, I felt obliged to accomodate.

[Mojo]

Wait, you mean it doesn't work?WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[Meffy]

I figured, I felt obliged to accomodate.
Well, now I'm the one muchly obliged so thanky kindly.

[Ceinwyn]

Homeopathy is based on a few postulates which make absolutely no sense. One is the "law of similars" which states that a remedy which causes symptoms A, B and C will cure a disease that causes symptoms A, B and C. There is absolutely no reason why this should work in the general sense. It would work in a few cases, but there is no reason why it would be a "law." .They may have gotten the idea from smallpox and cowpox vaccinations, which involves injecting the actual virus into the body in order to induce antibodies. However, the virus used is always dead, not a live virus.

[Hellbound]

They may have gotten the idea from smallpox and cowpox vaccinations, which involves injecting the actual virus into the body in order to induce antibodies. However, the virus used is always dead, not a live virus.

Good theory, except that homeopathy and its principles were developed before vaccines.

However, you are correc tin that homeopaths point to vaccines as an example to show that they aren't lunatics. Not that it's remotely the same thing, but still.

[Ceinwyn]

Good theory, except that homeopathy and its principles were developed before vaccines.

However, you are correc tin that homeopaths point to vaccines as an example to show that they aren't lunatics. Not that it's remotely the same thing, but still. Well yes, and also the fact that the pox virus isn't reduced to one millionth of its original part. That would just be silly.

[Hellbound]

Well yes, and also the fact that the pox virus isn't reduced to one millionth of its original part. That would just be silly.

Yep :)

[wipeout]

You gotta wonder what it would take to stay in that forum. It might be interesting to play the obliging troll there, glomming on to everything they say and adding your own increasingly fantastic stories. How far could you go before they realized you were taking the piss out of them?

"There were a hundred and twenty-seven of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road."

Yeah, I was just about to suggest that if critical thinking is banned, how about mindless enthusiasm? :D

[Rolfe]

Good theory, except that homeopathy and its principles were developed before vaccines.

However, you are correc tin that homeopaths point to vaccines as an example to show that they aren't lunatics. Not that it's remotely the same thing, but still.Well, yes, they do use that argument. While at the same time being rabidly anti-vax. Logic was never their strong point.

Rolfe.

[Suzan]

Sounds like ole time snake oil salesmen.... water it down, one part stuff...99% stream water....
Thanks all for explaining....interesting what some people will do to make money.

[Donks]

Sounds like ole time snake oil salesmen.... water it down, one part stuff...99% stream water....

If it were 1 part stuff 99 parts water it'd actually [i]do[/i[ something, but they take it to 1 part stuff, billions or trillions parts water. So what you pay for is... bedside manner :)
Thanks all for explaining....interesting what some people will do to make money.
That's the thing about homeopathy, many people think it's just herbal remedies, and when told what it actually is are shocked.

[Suzan]

If it were 1 part stuff 99 parts water it'd actually [i]do[/i[ something, but they take it to 1 part stuff, billions or trillions parts water. So what you pay for is... bedside manner :)

That's the thing about homeopathy, many people think it's just herbal remedies, and when told what it actually is are shocked.

Yes, sounds as if they have perfected being crooked...
could be....one got caught watering it down, and had to make up some verbal gobbalti gook to continue sales?

[Gr8wight]

Well yes, and also the fact that the pox virus isn't reduced to one millionth of its original part. That would just be silly.

One millionth? That's only a mild, 3C dilution. Try 6C...or 30C.

[Meffy]

Yes, sounds as if they have perfected being crooked...
I think some of them, maybe the majority even, are sincere to some degree. That's probably mixed with self-delusion in those who understand enough science to begin seeing why it's nonsense but not enough to really "get it." My guess is that more than half sincerely want to help people and think that homeopathy really works, even if they can't explain why.

No doubt there are some plain-and-simple crooks too, and various shades of shadiness. And whether sincere or not, they're all doing wrong by those they treat.

[BillC]

Hey, I just registered! Now what should I do?
Post a long series of symptoms for some mystery illness and ask them to try their best, or try to debate them on the nature of homeopathy?

[gfunkusarelius]

i like how you were banned and then it said it was an automated message, as if that somehow alleviates the guilt of banning someone who challenges you.."it was the computer that banned you!"

[MRC_Hans]

Hey, I just registered! Now what should I do?
Post a long series of symptoms for some mystery illness and ask them to try their best, or try to debate them on the nature of homeopathy?Whatever makes your day. Just don't expect them to make much sense.

ETA: If you want to have some fun, look up the symptoms of some acutely life-threatening condition and post that. See if they waffle around with remedies long enough to let you "die" or if one of them says "Quick! Consult a real doctor!" ;)

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

News: I notice there is now one MRC_Hans posting there. Not me, of course. Incredible how low they will go.

Hans

[Rolfe]

could be....one got caught watering it down, and had to make up some verbal gobbalti gook to continue sales?The history is quite different, and extremely interesting, if you've got a few hours to spare. This is quite a good article (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.668/healthissue_detail.asp). Or you could ask Hans to post the url of his annotated critique of the main publication by Hahnemann, the inventor of that nonsense.

Rolfe.

[Suzan]

The history is quite different, and extremely interesting, if you've got a few hours to spare. This is quite a good article (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.668/healthissue_detail.asp). Or you could ask Hans to post the url of his annotated critique of the main publication by Hahnemann, the inventor of that nonsense.

Rolfe.

Thank you, I went and read it. Very interesting.

You are all correct... as I was one of the millions who thought that homeopathy is the use of natural medicine. I had never heard of this guy....or his ways.
Thanks for the heads up :)

[tkingdoll]

Suzan, isn't that "they believe WHAT??" moment enlightening? But then the realisation hits that these people are not just snake oil salesmen, they are responsible for deaths. It is well documented that many people (often cancer sufferers) will go down the homeopathy and CAM route before getting real treatment (simply because the real treatment is unpleasant and scary and not perceived as 'natural') - and by the time they realise it's not working, it's often too late. Whilst I fully believe that everyone is responsible for their own choices and their own education regarding what they consume, the CAM industry go to great lengths to market their products to emotionally vulnerable, scared people, and that is simply immoral.

If this forum helps to educate even one person about the nonsense of homeopathy, then it's done it's job.

[Bronze Dog]

Suzan, isn't that "they believe WHAT??" moment enlightening?
I believe it's referred to as the "homeopathic spit-take."

[exarch]

However, you are correc tin that homeopaths point to vaccines as an example to show that they aren't lunatics. Not that it's remotely the same thing, but still.
If only most of them weren't opposed to vaccines because it's regular medicine (which they call "allopathy"), and thus of the devil as far as they're concerned.

News: I notice there is now one MRC_Hans posting there. Not me, of course. Incredible how low they will go.
Do you have a link? I'm interested to find out what homeopathic MRC_Hans is saying ...

[Legalduck]

Just wondering...What is the homeopaths take on alcohol? By their reasoning (I use the term loosely), adding water to an alcoholic beverage should increase its effects on the drinker (intoxication and presumably BAC). As the unfortunate victim of many a watered-down drink, this just isn't so. I did a few google searches, but I couldn't find an explanation by them trying to excuse this easily testable fact.

Logic and science has dashed my hopes of using tap water to endlessly resupply my liquor cabinet.:(

[Ririon]

Just wondering...What is the homeopaths take on alcohol? By their reasoning (I use the term loosely), adding water to an alcoholic beverage should increase its effects on the drinker (intoxication and presumably BAC). As the unfortunate victim of many a watered-down drink, this just isn't so. I did a few google searches, but I couldn't find an explanation by them trying to excuse this easily testable fact.

Logic and science has dashed my hopes of using tap water to endlessly resupply my liquor cabinet.:(
If you try to apply relatively sane logic to homeopathy, even in small amounts, it quickly becomes ridiculous. A highly diluted solution of alcohol, would by extension of homeopathic logic be the perfect hang-over cure and make drunk people sober. I am all for drinking water in those situations, but that is not the point. The point is: Don't overdo this, or your father will notice... :D
:welcome5

[Blue Bubble]

Dr Rubi (the former chief administrator at the NCH Pakistan) has just sent an e-mail to (presumably) all of us banned skeptics. She's clearly very embarrassed by the whole situation. I'm not sure if I should post the contents here ...

[Meffy]

IMO it would be proper to ask the sender before posting.

[Suzan]

You all are correct, I had not even considered the effects of this on a sick patient. I have just recently been made aware of this (Just surfing threads)
I didn't know that it existed. I don't know of anyone that uses it or is considering it.
Yes, first comes awareness, I am in that phase.

"Lighten up on me mojo" infact, I will make my way out.....:) Good day

"Thanks for the heads up from the rest of you"

[vbloke]

You all are correct, I had not even considered the effects of this on a sick patient. I have just recently been made aware of this (Just surfing threads)
I didn't know that it existed. I don't know of anyone that uses it or is considering it.
Yes, first comes awareness, I am in that phase.

"Lighten up on me mojo" infact, I will make my way out.....:) Good day

"Thanks for the heads up from the rest of you"
You might be interested in my latest project - I'm taking a homeopathic course to become a registered and qualified homeopath and I'm writing a blog about it here:
The Bad Homeopath (http://badhomeopath.com)
From what I can see so far on the course, it really is just full of "we believe" and "it has been said" and then launches into a long list of what remedy is supposed to cure what disease - there's no clinical evidence, case notes, experimental data - nothing at all, just "we believe".
The whole edifice is built on assumptions, lies, misdirections and ignorance.

The reason I'm taking the course is mostly because time and again, we come across the same arguments from homeopaths - "you don't understand the subtle energies", "you're not qualified to say that" and "vital forces cause disease - you don't know how that works".
Well, I'm on my way to becoming qualified and I can still see it's all nonsense, despite getting this crap fed to me.
I was banned from the NCH forum for going on there and asking 10 questions that they could not answer - and they were simple questions too: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1598170&postcount=50
3 weeks later, and not a single answer that has addressed anything I asked. (except for saying that it might be to do with the Koran!) (http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=817)
I'm now banned there and cannot reply further to that thread unfortunately

[tsg]

Just wondering...What is the homeopaths take on alcohol? By their reasoning (I use the term loosely), adding water to an alcoholic beverage should increase its effects on the drinker (intoxication and presumably BAC). As the unfortunate victim of many a watered-down drink, this just isn't so. I did a few google searches, but I couldn't find an explanation by them trying to excuse this easily testable fact.

Logic and science has dashed my hopes of using tap water to endlessly resupply my liquor cabinet.:(

According to "like cures like", watered-down drinks should make you less drunk than when you started...

[Mojo]

"Lighten up on me mojo" infact, I will make my way out.....:) Good day

"Thanks for the heads up from the rest of you"Sorry about that: I had misread your "how can a person not believe in using natural remedies?" as the sort of rhetorical question believers in homoeopathy tend to throw into an argument. My apologies.

[Suzan]

Sorry about that: I had misread your "how can a person not believe in using natural remedies?" as the sort of rhetorical question believers in homoeopathy tend to throw into an argument. My apologies.

Thanks :)

[Porterboy]

I'm not a follower of every alternative medicine going, but I have used homeopathy a couple of times to treat myself for alergies, specifically hayfever and eszema and had good results, better than I got from hydrocortizone and antihistermine. Of course this doesn't constitute a medical trial, but if something works for me then I'm gonna use it!

But I'm always suspicious when people are banned from something, or censored for expressing a certain opinion. It's like the directors are trying to hide something or keep something supressed. The most obvious example is churches. You can't go into a church and ask awkward questions without getting harrassed (at least you don't get burned at the stake nowadays!). My mother's friend is a Christian and I once asked what I thought was a good question: "God is so great and powerful that He created the whole universe. How is it possible to commit a sin, because nothing a mere person could do could possibly hurt such a mighty entity?" He gave me a very round-about answer and looked quite offended and antagonized, even though I was perfectly polite. It must have been a good question!

This banning from a site incident sounds very similar.

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not a follower of every alternative medicine going, but I have used homeopathy a couple of times to treat myself for alergies, specifically hayfever and eszema and had good results, better than I got from hydrocortizone and antihistermine. Of course this doesn't constitute a medical trial, but if something works for me then I'm gonna use it!
Hay feevers and eszema are things that tend to come and go. Thus, it is very difficult to judge whether a given medicine works. Since there is no scientific background for homeopathy and since it had never been objectively shown to work, it is more likely that your observations are due to other things.

What kind of homeopathic remedies did you use? Many drugs marketed as homeopathic contain various active substances as well.

Hans

[Zep]

Yes, I have found a few products being sold labelled "homeopathic" that are listed at 3X potency. In the real world, that's 1:1000 dilution of the original full-strength drug, which still makes it highly likely to have real active ingredients in it. And depending on what they were, the effect on humans could range from "most harmless" to "fatal".

There's also the "hangover" effect from modern drugs. People try them for a few weeks to cure their problem, it takes a while to work usually, but the patient isn't prepared to wait. So one day they drop the drug cold, and immediately take a homeopathic remedy - no time gap to allow the drug to wash out of the system. Then the cure effect starts, and the patient immediately attributes it to the homeopathic remedy. But it's actually due to the accumulated modern drug actually starting to work, not the remedy at all. This "homeopathy cures when drugs do not" caper gets tossed up so often that it causes severe eye-rolling-muscles strain when the details come out. A classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc (look it up!). But the homeopaths still use it to justify their cause...

[Darat]

Hay feevers and eszema are things that tend to come and go. Thus, it is very difficult to judge whether a given medicine works. Since there is no scientific background for homeopathy and since it had never been objectively shown to work, it is more likely that your observations are due to other things.

What kind of homeopathic remedies did you use? Many drugs marketed as homeopathic contain various active substances as well.

Hans


I see "you" have been granted a new account.... ;)



http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=869

MRC Hans
New Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 453
Joined: 5-June 06

Posted: Jun 5 2006, 06:38 AM
Dr. MAS has lost his credibility I would not believe on him unless he comes with clear evidence with documentary proof. Has his document published in any standard scientific journal?

[Orb]

Wow Hans, your English skills have really gone downhill! ;)

You must be spending too much time at the NCH Forum.

[MRC_Hans]

Isn't it just typical of those people? One thing is to shut out criticism, but no, that is not enough; they also need to impersonate skeptics. So it is to be a total inbreed: Homeopaths "debating" with other homeopaths, posing as skeptics.

I predict the content of that debate will be truely homeopathic.

Hans

[Mojo]

Do you have a link? I'm interested to find out what homeopathic MRC_Hans is saying ...The homoeopathic "MRC Hans" lacks the underscore, but this isn't visible in posts because all user names are underlined.

Its only post so far is in this thread: Report on Research Project:, Comparative Study of Anthelmintics (http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=869), which is about the study that MAS et al. have been touting around, about some proprietary remedy called "Trematox".

For those who can't see the thread, "Hans's" post reads: Dr. MAS has lost his credibility I would not believe on him unless he comes with clear evidence with documentary proof. Has his document published in any standard scientific journal?I think they're trying to give the impression that the real Hans is still able to post.

ETA: Sorry, I missed Darat's post about this; I somehow got here from the "NCH Pakistan, MAS's stamping ground, undergoing policy upheavals" thread.

[Mojo]

Isn't it just typical of those people? One thing is to shut out criticism, but no, that is not enough; they also need to impersonate skeptics. So it is to be a total inbreed: Homeopaths "debating" with other homeopaths, posing as skeptics.

I predict the content of that debate will be truely homeopathic. Homeopathetic?

[Meffy]

I do not believe on that post. Has Hans' nick stolen of a falsifier?

[tsg]

I'm not a follower of every alternative medicine going, but I have used homeopathy a couple of times to treat myself for alergies, specifically hayfever and eszema and had good results, better than I got from hydrocortizone and antihistermine. Of course this doesn't constitute a medical trial, but if something works for me then I'm gonna use it!

You might want to read this: Why Bogus Therapies Often Seem to Work (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html)

[Rolfe]

Just surfing around the Randi site, and came upon this thread. I can't help but ask....but how can a person not believe (or be accused of it) in using natural remedies? Isn't that what homeopathy is? I am clue-less, anyone care to explain?Now that we've got the little matter of "homoeopathy" and "natural remedies" being rather different things out of the way, can I answer your original question?

Because "natural" does not mean either "harmless" or "effective". Some of the most poisonous chemicals know to science are of "natural" origin - for example pufferfish toxin and botulinum toxin. Those will kill you at doses which are tiny compared to the amount of a nerve gas that would be needed to do the same thing.

The chemicals which are found in plants (and sometimes animals), which is what is usually referred to by the rather loose word "natural", are only therapeutic by a happy by-product. Their purpose, so far as the original organism is concerned, is often to act as a poison to keep away predators and other threats. However, sometimes, these chemicals do indeed have positive medical effects. On the other hand, sometimes they don't - either being inert or positively dangerous. And which they might be at any given time will vary with the dose, and maybe with the season or the variety of the plant.

When all we had was plants, then of course it made sense to use them for the good that could be done. But remember, poisoners liked them too! However, why take that risk when you don't have to?

A very large percentage of modern drugs are of plant or microbe origin. Aspirin, digitalis, tamoxifen, morphine, atropine, lots of stuff. However, unlike the raw plant, the active principles have been purified and standardised for dose, and the potentially poisonous ingredients have been removed. Pharmaceutical companies know about the potential of the plant kingdom, and they employ botanists to comb the world's forests to try to find some overlooked herb with a previously undiscovered active principle - but not so that they can feed you the entire herb and perhaps poison you, but so that they can identify the active agent, find out about its biology, and make a purer, more standardised and perhaps even more effective version.

These botanists are terribly interested in the herbal lore of the local people, because that is one of the best ways to find out what has potential. However, they're not that intrested in the herbalists of the civilised world. Why not? Because they have already strip-mined that area, and got away with the aspirin and the digitalis and so on. If they're not selling you tablets made from the active principles of arnica or pulsatilla, guess what? It's not because these miracle cures are great secrets they don't know about, it's because when they looked, there actually wasn't any activity there.

A new treatment for malaria was recently found in a common plant - artemisia. However, the researchers looked at about 300 Chinese herbs with a history of being used as malarial treatments before they found that one and purified it. The other 299 things they looked at were actually useless.

So, there it is. That's why I really wouldn't be particularly interested in "using natural remedies".

Rolfe.

[Patricio Elicer]

Congratulate me, it's the first time I've been banned from anywhere!Congrats! :D

Anyway, you're not alone. I was recently banned from a UFO forum for being a "fanatic anti-UFO" user. Mind you, for them:

Fanatic=a guy who asks hard questions

[Cynric]

Why do I suspect that the NCH "MRC Hans" is going to undergo a dramatic and inexplicably sudden Road to Damascus moment regarding the efficacy of homoeopathy?

I suppose I must be psychic.

Or cynical.

I always get those two confused.

[rjh01]

Actually 'MRC Hans' (not ours) has not posted there since 16 May. Maybe he has been banned there? I cannot tell.

Edit to add - Also he has been a member since March 2005. Any conversion would have taken place by now.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually 'MRC Hans' (not ours) has not posted there since 16 May. Maybe he has been banned there? I cannot tell.

Edit to add - Also he has been a member since March 2005. Any conversion would have taken place by now.

No, MRC Hans joined on June 5th, 2006. After the banning of skeptics.

MRC_Hans, on the other hand, joined Mach 2005 (and he is not likely to convert anytime soon ;)).

Hans

[Suzan]

Now that we've got the little matter of "homoeopathy" and "natural remedies" being rather different things out of the way, can I answer your original question?

Because "natural" does not mean either "harmless" or "effective". Some of the most poisonous chemicals know to science are of "natural" origin - for example pufferfish toxin and botulinum toxin. Those will kill you at doses which are tiny compared to the amount of a nerve gas that would be needed to do the same thing........



Rolfe.

Thank you for your post, very informative.

I bet you, most people are like me, and had no idea the word homeopathy means something other than natural. My mother is nearly 80 and often uses the word.. to describe taking natural remedies. I know what she means when she uses it: Tea, or any substance that is in plant form, or taken from a plant that has original properties....such as ginko.

Her nor I (I shared this thread with her) had no idea.... that the word meant a people/group who are such as these. I am glad we have never bought into it accidently. I will certainly pass it on to those that are interested.

Some one should write a piece to Glen Beck (the new show on after Nancy Grace) and he might air it, as its blown me away and I am sure others out there would be interested.

Just an idea....

Suzan

[exarch]

Some one should write a piece to Glen Beck (the new show on after Nancy Grace) and he might air it, as its blown me away and I am sure others out there would be interested.

Just an idea....
I think people just don't want to hear the skeptic's point of view. Heck, the Prince of Wales doesn't even want to hear how he's making himself look like an idiot (then again, maybe it's best he doesn't know, or he would never be able to leave the house again).

And the same thing goes for psychics. People just don't want to hear how their favorite psychic is actually just a fake, and not really talking to the dead. If you do tell them, you're dismissed as a cynic, someone who doesn't know any better because "you haven't tried it for yourself yet".

And of course, when talkshows and such do a section on such woo-woo stuff, the audience consists mostly of woo-woo believers anyway, so in order to keep the ratings up, the show can't become too critical of their target audience's pet beliefs, or they would zap away. Keeping the illusion of critical examination however is important, because it vindicates the woo-crap. So the token skeptic is lured in (there's always one somewhere who's willing to give it another try), and all his/her answers and refutations get edited into 5 second sound-bites that make them look either vengeful or retarded.

So then, what's the point of that, really?

[tsg]

If you do tell them, you're dismissed as a cynic, someone who doesn't know any better because "you haven't tried it for yourself yet".

This is by far my favorite fallacy: "You must not understand (or heard, or tried, etc.) or you would believe." In my experience, practiced most by those trying to convince you their religion is the right one, but it also applies to homeopaths, psychics, etc.

[Suzan]

I think people just don't want to hear the skeptic's point of view. Heck, the Prince of Wales doesn't even want to hear how he's making himself look like an idiot (then again, maybe it's best he doesn't know, or he would never be able to leave the house again).

And the same thing goes for psychics. People just don't want to hear how their favorite psychic is actually just a fake, and not really talking to the dead. If you do tell them, you're dismissed as a cynic, someone who doesn't know any better because "you haven't tried it for yourself yet".

And of course, when talkshows and such do a section on such woo-woo stuff, the audience consists mostly of woo-woo believers anyway, so in order to keep the ratings up, the show can't become too critical of their target audience's pet beliefs, or they would zap away. Keeping the illusion of critical examination however is important, because it vindicates the woo-crap. So the token skeptic is lured in (there's always one somewhere who's willing to give it another try), and all his/her answers and refutations get edited into 5 second sound-bites that make them look either vengeful or retarded.

So then, what's the point of that, really?

It is important to spread the word about false products, and people. Yes, people who are suffering reach out in an attempt to find an answer, or hope... and often time get more hurt then helped. Here is a thread where the Mother (KellyJ) of a missing boy (Jason) is fending off psychics through a blog through awareness, to help other families avoid them who have a lost a child/loved one. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52101&goto=newpost
psychics hurt people, and also false products.
I would do it myself, but I am not that familiar with the way and the claims of
this topic.
I understand your point though...

[Suzan]

This is by far my favorite fallacy: "You must not understand (or heard, or tried, etc.) or you would believe." In my experience, practiced most by those trying to convince you their religion is the right one, but it also applies to homeopaths, psychics, etc.

I can understand a person believing in God, I am a Christian myself. It is a belief. An understanding...which causes me to be a better person. (personally- speaking) It deals with ones' after life.

A false product is a "real thing" and can be....and has been tested. And in this case proven non-effective. You can literally die....waiting for it to take affect, in real time...In this life.
A psychic: points to places where the Missing or are located... Families..running here and there......looking. Wasting precious time and resources. It is a hoax, and takes place in real time...in this life.



JMO Suzan

[tsg]

I can understand a person believing in God, I am a Christian myself. It is a belief. An understanding...which causes me to be a better person. (personally- speaking) It deals with ones' after life.

I wasn't begrudging anyone their own personal beliefs, just their inability to accept the idea that I do understand them and choose to reject them anyway. The comparison to homeopathy, psychics, etc was in terms of the argument, not the belief.

[Suzan]

I wasn't begrudging anyone their own personal beliefs, just their inability to accept the idea that I do understand them and choose to reject them anyway. The comparison to homeopathy, psychics, etc was in terms of the argument, not the belief.

Yes, but to understand them...you have to see that they are there to begin with.... this is what is important to me, that others may know, so they can choose through knowing the whole.
You know what it is…..?

Where some people make claims to help others, (religion, products and claims) and often times the claims are not to help others, but the “intent” is to increase one’s riches or gain attention for self-gratification.

Isn’t that what its all about?

All these different topics. Religion in itself is not a bad thing…..it is supposed to be for self enlightening to get through this life for a better life afterwards.

As is with false products: Selling something that is no good, with the claim that it is beneficial.

And also with psychics, they claim to have a personal in, with entities in the next life….. Giving false hope to those who are suffering.

It seems for every good thing, medicine, or a healthy belief in God, there are imitators attempting to cash in on the ignorant.

I have been very fortunate, as I have discovered this thread. With out it, I would have gone on not knowing…and maybe someday being sick myself and perhaps sought it out. Or that of my mother…she may have used it.

As is with psychics, I have no use for one. But, through my own clients have had to deal with them who give false hope of finding a loved-one.

And also…..Religion, where I have found peace in myself, and do not cause harm to others, there are some that exploit others for personal gain through their belief system.

It is through the trials we all share with each other where we can help another person be aware of the webs of deceit out there…. that cause to separate us from our money and our joy.
God or not…it is a good way to be. :)

[Rolfe]

Thank you for your post, very informative. Glad to be of sercice!

What did you think about what I said in the post itself? I'm pleased that you realise the truth of homoeopathy now, but you originally expressed approval of "natural remedies". I tried to explain why "natural remedies" might not necessarily be quite such a good thing as many people believe them to be. Did you understand my argument?

Rolfe.

[Suzan]

"Never under estimate the power of a smile"
Glad to be of sercice!

What did you think about what I said in the post itself? I'm pleased that you realise the truth of homoeopathy now, but you originally expressed approval of "natural remedies". I tried to explain why "natural remedies" might not necessarily be quite such a good thing as many people believe them to be. Did you understand my argument?

Rolfe.

You posted a very informative bit of information, for the persons such as myself that did not know it even existed.

To clarify what I believed, I will tell you of my pre-mindset.

I had always heard the term natural remedies, and homeopathy. I wrongly assumed it was one in the same thing. Having never needed either...but I can appreciate a cup of tea :) and without having met anyone who had previously been fooled by them, I just plainly had no clue. I probably represent a majority of people. My mother who can recite all the goodness in veggies....and the like, can tell you if you have leg cramps...eat a banana. I don't mean to be simplistic on the subject, but it is a general thought that homeopathy and natural properties of foods and their qualities are one in the same thing.

I was just plainly ignorant of the group called homeopaths (sp?) that existed that intended on using the words "natural". Everyone can appreciate good food.... and not giving another thought as to "what's in it".

Finding this thread and being told what is going on....

When I first read it, I could not comprehend what was going on. You all were gracious enough to explain to me, and I am still taken back by something being right in front of me...and not knowing.

How fortunate for those who happen to be enlightened on the subject, who may have been using it to treat a life threatening sickness.

Of course those.....who are not with us now, are not able to say..... "it does not work".

[exarch]

A false product is a "real thing" and can be....and has been tested. And in this case proven non-effective. You can literally die....waiting for it to take affect, in real time...In this life.
A psychic: points to places where the Missing or are located... Families..running here and there......looking. Wasting precious time and resources. It is a hoax, and takes place in real time...in this life.
You'd be surprised at how hard it can be to make people understand that something proven ineffective or non-effective really is a waste of time, effort and/or money.

And then there's a load of quackery out there that's not yet proven ineffective entirely, but what has been tested has been proven not to do as claimed (e.g. accupuncture). Yet, people still claim it actually does those things that have already been tested and dismissed as wrong.

It's not only a race to innoculate people against the virus that the woo-woo claims are, but once they've been infected, it's very, very hard to cure them of their disease of gullibility regarding the specific brand of woo they fell prey to. No amount of logic seems to help. And to complicate matters, newer viruses keep popping up all the time, a lot of which are just mutations of older existing ones that most people are already resistant to.

[Mojo]

I tried to explain why "natural remedies" might not necessarily be quite such a good thing as many people believe them to be. There's a splendidly illogical bit of "natural remedies" nonsense here (http://www.archturus.co.uk/Herbs.htm): Why use herbs instead of modern drugs? Herbal medicines are chemically very complex and are much safer than pharmaceutical drugs, which are refined down to a single chemical compound and often cause side effects and secondary health problems. Herbs don't cause side-effects because they contain chemicals other than the desired active ingredient? :nope:

What can you do in the face of this kind of "reasoning"?

[exarch]

I suppose beating them over the head with a club with nails sticking out of it is so much less painfull than just throwing a single nail at them ...

[Ririon]

You'd be surprised at how hard it can be to make people understand that something proven ineffective or non-effective really is a waste of time, effort and/or money.
(...)
I still think we have a moral obligation to try to get this information to our friends and relatives. If you hear about a fantastic cure, you should tell them about the article about it on www.quackwatch.org before they spend their hard-earned money on a scam. After all, this could even save their lives. It may be a difficult and thankless job, but it is the right thing to do.

I would like to compliment Suzan on her enthusiasm. Keep it up, and please stick around here. You may come across a few anti-christian posts, but I think you will learn quite a bit. And we could always use more religious skeptics. As you might know, many of the prominent skeptics are atheists.

[Belz...]

Dear Members,

Under the directive of NCH office, those who are non-believer in homeopathy and those who consider homeopathy is quackery are permanently banned at NCH forum. The policy has no distinction with skeptics / homeopaths / Allopaths / common members / any other profession etc. The step was not taken on members reporting messages but on the directive of Council Office. The decision has no link with any other forum policy. This is an automatic generated message, if you feel that this is received by you by mistake then please contact at nchpakistan@hotmail.com

Worldcall

"If you don't agree with me, you're banned."

Well, seems that's the norm, now.

[Suzan]

I still think we have a moral obligation to try to get this information to our friends and relatives. If you hear about a fantastic cure, you should tell them about the article about it on www.quackwatch.org before they spend their hard-earned money on a scam. After all, this could even save their lives. It may be a difficult and thankless job, but it is the right thing to do.

I would like to compliment Suzan on her enthusiasm. Keep it up, and please stick around here. You may come across a few anti-christian posts, but I think you will learn quite a bit. And we could always use more religious skeptics. As you might know, many of the prominent skeptics are atheists.

Yes, I understand there are some who do not believe in God, and some that go to far....and believe in psychics. This is only my opinion though....and I am afraid I have one like everyone else.

Personally, I hate to see people dooped, by those that have self gratification at the base of their "product". Especially on those that are already suffering. Do you think....the people that run this homeopathic stuff know they are hindering the sick? Or do they do it under the thoughts....it really works? I guess it would be hard to know the intent of the heart behind the products? Has anyone done a background on the people behind the products, to see what they do...morally, criminally... (we call this fruits in Christian faith). Where a person can create with words the ill illusion that they are good people, but their actions say other-wise.

I know that....most psychic's "know" they are fake... and give reason by saying they give the "hope" a person needs.... but, knowing full well...they are lying. Soon they will be exposed. :blush:

[Rolfe]

[quote=Suzan;1691930My mother who can recite all the goodness in veggies....and the like, can tell you if you have leg cramps...eat a banana. I don't mean to be simplistic on the subject, but it is a general thought that homeopathy and natural properties of foods and their qualities are one in the same thing.[/quote]Food is great stuff. Full of vitamins and minerals and lots of yummy goodness. Leg cramps are often caused by a lack of potassium. Bananas are high in potassium. So if you have leg cramps, it makes sense to eat a food high in potassium. This is normal good nutritional advice.

"Natural remedies" as peddled by the true believers, are something else.

By the way, I'm a Christian myself, and although I choose not to get involved in arguments about matters of faith on this forum, I don't keep it a secret either. There are quite a few others here, talking perfect sense about the natural world, so don't be shy.

Rolfe.

[Suzan]

Food is great stuff. Full of vitamins and minerals and lots of yummy goodness. Leg cramps are often caused by a lack of potassium. Bananas are high in potassium. So if you have leg cramps, it makes sense to eat a food high in potassium. This is normal good nutritional advice.

"Natural remedies" as peddled by the true believers, are something else.

By the way, I'm a Christian myself, and although I choose not to get involved in arguments about matters of faith on this forum, I don't keep it a secret either. There are quite a few others here, talking perfect sense about the natural world, so don't be shy.

Rolfe.


Yes, exactly....I am in agreement with you. and...Thank you for the warm welcome :) Where I know about nutrition as I am a mom myself, I am not up to speed on how the homeopaths market their wares. I know how psychics operate :eek:

.... and at least athiest's are honest about how they feel...as you and I express our selves honestly, but, the homeopathic guru's how do they get away with this. Is it that those who have psychosomatic (sp?) symptoms believe they are sick (when they are not) and then go on to claim their cure (when they were not to begin with?)
Or....are they decieving others "knowing".. it's a fraud? Please tell me your opinion.

[Rolfe]

Or....are they decieving others "knowing".. it's a fraud? Please tell me your opinion.That is a much hotter potato than you know! I haven't time now, but I can explain later.

Rolfe.

[exarch]

Personally, I hate to see people dooped, by those that have self gratification at the base of their "product". Especially on those that are already suffering. Do you think....the people that run this homeopathic stuff know they are hindering the sick? Or do they do it under the thoughts....it really works? I guess it would be hard to know the intent of the heart behind the products? Has anyone done a background on the people behind the products, to see what they do...morally, criminally... (we call this fruits in Christian faith). Where a person can create with words the ill illusion that they are good people, but their actions say other-wise.

I know that....most psychic's "know" they are fake... and give reason by saying they give the "hope" a person needs.... but, knowing full well...they are lying. Soon they will be exposed. :blush:
There's two kinds of homeopaths: those that know it doesn't work but are simply out to make a buck (like most of the manufacturers probably). Sadly, they are the minority though. Most of the homeopathy believers are of the second kind. Those who've, by some fluke of fate, used a homeopathic remedy on either themselves or someone else, and had it appear to work like a charm (or perhaps they've heard some glurgy miracle story from a friend of a friend who has no reason to lie to them, and why would they exagerrate? Right? yeah :rolleyes:). No matter how often you tell them that solid, trustworthy research says it's all bollocks, and the remedies are all just tap water, they can't be persuaded, because they've already fooled themselves into believing it works. They've seen something which they think was caused by homeopathy, and to think otherwise they'd have to drop years of experience and tons of money spent as nothing but self delusion. Nobody really likes to do that. So they do the worst thing you can do, they assume that everyone else must be wrong, that science must be wrong, that all the research is lying unless it seems to support their point of view, because after all, they've seen that ... IT WORKS!!

So they keep peddling that s**t, because they think it's for real. And they won't stop until someone dies. And even then, they've got a few excuses ready, like "conventional medicine already poisoned the patient beyond what homeopathy could cure" (you'd think I was making this up). Or if the medicine doesn't appear to be working? Well, there's all kinds of excuses. Aggravation, similimum, finding the one elusive exact cure that matches all the symptoms. You name it, it's just excuses they wield around when the patient's illness isn't clearing up right away. Which is the normal course when a disease remains untreated: first you get worse, than you either get better all by yourself, or you die. Either way, they keep claiming homeopathy either couldn't help any more, or it cured the patient.

It would be hilarious if it weren't such a damn tragedy, because they actually believe all that stuff, and you can't make them see how they keep fooling themselves every single time.

*sigh*

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Hey, I’ve created a conspiracy theory about homeopaths! I’d like to add one type of homeopath!

#3. The noble liar homeopath. This kind of homeopath knows that it does not work, but realizes that for fiscal reasons it is impossible to provide proper care to everyone. Homeopathic medicine is ridiculously cheap; at 30C you could create enough homeopathic medicine from one drop of active ingredient to treat the entire world several times over. So instead of providing quality health care for some members of society and leaving others high and dry, homeopathic remedies are provided to the underprivileged for their placebo value only.

Being a CT’er is fun!
LLH

[tsg]

Hey, I’ve created a conspiracy theory about homeopaths! I’d like to add one type of homeopath!

#3. The noble liar homeopath. This kind of homeopath knows that it does not work, but realizes that for fiscal reasons it is impossible to provide proper care to everyone. Homeopathic medicine is ridiculously cheap; at 30C you could create enough homeopathic medicine from one drop of active ingredient to treat the entire world several times over. So instead of providing quality health care for some members of society and leaving others high and dry, homeopathic remedies are provided to the underprivileged for their placebo value only.

Being a CT’er is fun!
LLH

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why homeopathic treatments are three times as expensive as the real stuff.

[TjW]

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why homeopathic treatments are three times as expensive as the real stuff.
The beauty of a conspiracy theory is that it doesn't have to actually explain anything.

[tsg]

The beauty of a conspiracy theory is that it doesn't have to actually explain anything.

I forgot. I'd never be a good CT'er. I have this compulsion to examine all the evidence, not just the stuff that agrees with me.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why homeopathic treatments are three times as expensive as the real stuff.
Wow my CT didn't even survive one posting! Thanks a lot!

But seriously, is it really that expensive?!?

LLH

[tsg]

Wow my CT didn't even survive one posting! Thanks a lot!

But seriously, is it really that expensive?!?

LLH


In another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54557), I shamefully admitted to buying a homeopathic earache treatment (short version: screaming five year old at 6am. I needed something.) It was ten dollars for 0.3 oz of glycerine and a list of non-ingredients. 4 oz of glycerine in the next aisle over was $3.



And no, it didn't work. Not only didn't it work, but when we got the real medicine from the doctor he wouldn't let us put it in his ear because he didn't like the fake stuff.

[flume]

No, MRC Hans joined on June 5th, 2006. After the banning of skeptics.

MRC_Hans, on the other hand, joined Mach 2005 (and he is not likely to convert anytime soon ;)).
When the NCH forum banned the skeptics my account was not banned. I didn't know what to think - not a good enough skeptic maybe, or too quiet.
Anyway, I did post Wednesday to point out that the new MRC Hans was not the same as the well-known skeptic MRC_Hans. Nothing argumentative, just pointing that out. Now I am banned too.
(or maybe it's just the forum as a whole - no way for me to tell)

[tsg]

I'm going to go see if I can get banned for one post.

[Zep]

As I said earlier, unless you are one of the loonies camped in MAS's lounge room where you can be recognised, you are "a skeptic" by definition, and thus banned.

[exarch]

I'm going to go see if I can get banned for one post.
Like that hasn't been done before.

I think the record stands at posting, being banned and having the entire thread removed in less than an hour. And for a fairly inocuous post at that. I simply responded to the conversation that you can read in my signature with a handle called "Randi's Million" saying something like: "Would you care to put that to the test?"
Great set-up from Badly Shaved Monkey on that one BTW ...

[Qureshi1_78]

I never said I didn't believe in homeopathy; I said I was skeptical and wanted to be shown some evidence. .

hello peter, NCH has no problem with those who have such kind of opinions liek you have. but if you say, homeopathy is quackry then it means you were sick, you consulted to a homeopath and got no result and this happens number of times. There is a lot of different between those who have the opinion similar to you and those who consider homeopathy quackry.

[Gravy]

hello peter, NCH has no problem with those who have such kind of opinions liek you have. but if you say, homeopathy is quackry then it means you were sick, you consulted to a homeopath and got no result and this happens number of times. There is a lot of different between those who have the opinion similar to you and those who consider homeopathy quackry.
How's that double-blind study on camphor-30 coming along, my friend?

[rjh01]

hello peter, NCH has no problem with those who have such kind of opinions like you have. but if you say, homeopathy is quackery then it means you were sick, you consulted to a homeopath and got no result and this happens number of times. There is a lot of different between those who have the opinion similar to you and those who consider homeopathy quackry.

The Soviet Union said it was perfect. Anyone who said otherwise was mad. We all know what happened to the Soviet Union. Likewise with the NCH.

The NCH only wants 'yes men' so people who ask any questions about the validity of homeopathy or Dr. Mas get suspended for a year (like I was) or banned.

[Qureshi1_78]

no if you call homeopathy is quackry after experience then we have no objection to it.

[Gravy]

no if you call homeopathy is quackry after experience then we have no objection to it.
I have experience with reality. Homeopathy is quackery. Why aren't you working on that double-blind, placebo-controlled study to prove me wrong? Are you afraid of what you'll find?

[anor277]

hello peter, NCH has no problem with those who have such kind of opinions liek you have. but if you say, homeopathy is quackry then it means you were sick, you consulted to a homeopath and got no result and this happens number of times. There is a lot of different between those who have the opinion similar to you and those who consider homeopathy quackry........................................... .........no if you call homeopathy is quackry after experience then we have no objection to it.

I don't know if you are a spokesmouth for NCH, but I can assure you that the new NCH organisation did have a problem with persons who doubted the effectiveness of homeopathy - so much of a problem that they banned them wholesale. It is news to us that a variety of skepticism was tolerated on the NCH board - some of us had actually participated in homeopathic provings and they were banned with all the rest. You should also be advised that "quackry" is your term not ours.

[rjh01]

Just thought I would bump this thread. The NCH forum 'Forum will run off line for short period (http://nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=1094)'.

Just thought I would tell you that there have been only three threads with posts since 10 November. The reason is 'we are not taking up new posts till we finish up new necessary changes in the website according to the new present NCH set up after election .'


They also have lost nearly all of their posts made in September.

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/

[ponderingturtle]

Good theory, except that homeopathy and its principles were developed before vaccines.

However, you are correc tin that homeopaths point to vaccines as an example to show that they aren't lunatics. Not that it's remotely the same thing, but still.

No vaccination has a longer history than homeopathy, it was introduced to england from turkey in 1721 by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu . But that is not modern vaccination as it was deliberately causing a mild case of smallpox through controlled exposure. This significantly reduced the mortality rate.

The weirdest claim I have heard is that allergy shots are based on homeopathic principles.

[Zep]

The NCH forum has been off the air for over a month now. They are waiting on some sort of words of guidance from their new president (they had an election again recently). I suspect the wrong person/faction won, and now the forum "admins" (inc. Dr. MAS) won't play nice and open up the forum again because they were backing the other faction. The alternative - that the new NCH committee have stamped out the forum because it was being exploited by obvious nutters and kooks from the region who wouldn't know homeopathy (or chemistry or physics or maths or reality) from a mud-pie - is probably less likely.

[rjh01]

<snip>
The alternative - that the new NCH committee have stamped out the forum because it was being exploited by obvious nutters and kooks from the region who wouldn't know homeopathy (or chemistry or physics or maths or reality) from a mud-pie - is probably less likely.

You mean you are telling us that there are some homoeopaths who are not obvious nutters and kooks who know something about chemistry, physics, maths or reality??:confused:

Pity the forum is only a small one. There is at least one other larger similar forum.

[Zep]

You mean you are telling us that there are some homoeopaths who are not obvious nutters and kooks who know something about chemistry, physics, maths or reality??:confused: Surprisingly, some do. And they are the ones who were the most vocal there about the nutters and kooks. They were also the ones who turned on them, although only mildly in most cases. Then they just voted with their feet...

Pity the forum is only a small one. There is at least one other larger similar forum.Which is?

[rjh01]

Which is?

I have sent Zep a PM which contains the name of the forum. I do not like to give such forums any publicity.

If Zep thinks the forum should be posted here he can do so. I will not.

[Zep]

Having seen how they operate, I agree - they deserve no extra publicity. In fact, I've opened a new thread on my very brief adventure there so far.