unicornP

"This is information for Bronwyn which I am sure she will not bother with as she has her own anecdotal evidence so it must be real. It will be dismissed right away."

An arrogant and unwarranted assumption on your part.

" <<What is really happening, is that the vet who is using homeopathic remedies, is using his authoritative position to convince the animal owner that the animal being treated with homeopathy is getting better>>."

Again, another insulting and patronising assumption. My defence of this vet's treatment is based on hard cold evidence - things like ECGs, coughing, breathlessness, lethargy, fluid retention, etc. It is definitely not, as you so arrogantly assume, all in my head. Apart from the observable physical differences in my dog's health, the other way this vet impresses me is the time he takes to question me on all areas of my dog's life. His approach is holistic, caring and thorough, much more so than any other vet I've been to. The other thing I like is his cost effectiveness.

"... direct cut and paste for Bronwyn who I am sure is not interested in points of view."

I wouldn't read OLO if I wasn't interested in others' points of view. I am. But what speaks to me in this instance, far more effectively than the most persuasive of rhetoric, is the clear unambiguous state of my dog's health.

Sorry Clownfish it is you who is unable to read properly:
"When you dilute something as much as homeopaths do, then there is NOT ONE MOLECULE of the original substance left. It is not diluted: IT IS GONE."

And I am explaining to you, in words even YOU will understand, THAT NOT ALL HOMEOPATHS DILUTE THEIR SUBSTANCES IN WATER.

(I even used big words for your benefit)
I even recall explicitly stating that in some cases "the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet"
and that
"The practice is, essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system."
Both of these are stated as such on plenty of medical index sites.

So, to say it in a slightly different way: is that ANY treatment involving trying to relieve symptoms (runny nose) by administering small doses of the raw allergenic pathogen (things that cause a runny nose) to someone to stimulate their immune system, is essentially, a homeopathic treatment.

You anger is blinding you to the point of being unable to read properly it seems, which makes me wonder why you are even trying to discuss this topic?

King Hazza, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know the first thing about homeopathy.

Nice try at sophistry, btw: 'Not all homeopaths dilute their substances in water', huh? So what do they dilute them in? Because whatever it is they dilute them in, that's all you have. Nothing else.

If they're *not* diluting them at all, then they're not homeopaths. Dilution by factors of hundred at a step is the foundational practice of homeopathy - they call it 'potentising'.

'the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet' - no they don't. They give them a dose of water, or whatever base it was that they diluted the original substance in. Time and again, it has been proven by simple chemistry and arithmetic that there is not a single molecule of the original substance left, once it has been 'potentised'.

On that basis alone, your analogy to vaccination fails completely.

'essentially, nothing more than a primitive form of vaccination or drug therapy, on the basis of treating symptoms with symptom-catalysts in small doses to stimulate the immune system.'

No it isn't. I'm sorry, but that's just so much bullsh!t. At best, homeopathy *apes* vaccination, but that's like saying believing that demons can possess one's body is a primitive form of psychiatry.

Homeopathy is founded on the primitive, magical belief that 'like cures like'.

'Homeopathy is a vitalist philosophy which interprets diseases and sickness as caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force. It sees these disturbances as manifesting themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy maintains that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the law of susceptibility. The law of susceptibility implies that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called miasms to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.'

Ahem... errr, Clownfish?

>>the homeopath simply gives the patient a dose of the actual substance directly, or even in a tablet' - no they don't. They give them a dose of water, or whatever base it was that they diluted the original substance in. Time and again, it has been proven by simple chemistry and arithmetic that there is not a single molecule of the original substance left, once it has been 'potentised'.<<

Excuse me for butting into your lively disagreement with King Hazza, but I'm afraid that he is perfectly correct.

They are called "remedies", by the way. And they frequently are delivered in tablet form - or, as the homeopath likes to call them, "pillules"

A simple Google search will unearth many examples - there's a whole page of 'em on eBay, would you believe - but here's just one example.

http://www.amazon.com/Ipecac-30C-Homeopathic-Pillules-60/dp/B003XKI4LG

What the heck - here's the eBay page.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Thuja-30C-Homeopathic-Pillules-x-60-Warts-Sarcoids-/180610806631?pt=UK_Health_Beauty_Natural_AlternativeTherapies&hash=item2a0d3e3367

If you are still in any doubt, ask a homeopath. Most of them are highly intelligent, and very articulate. Very few actually drag their knuckles along the ground.

Pericles, like King Hazza, you just don't get it. Have a look at the link you posted - the substance is 30C. For those of you who apparently understand neither homeopathy nor genuine chemistry, that means that:

'[a] patient would need to consume 10^41 pills (a billion times the mass of the Earth), or 10^34 gallons of liquid “remedy” (10 billion times the volume of the Earth) to consume a single molecule of the original substance. Moreover, since even in a 15C solution there would very likely be no molecules of the original substance left, the 30C solution would probably contain no molecules of water that had come into contact with the original substance.'

Please explain to me how a vial of water that contains not one molecule of the original substance, nor most likely a single molecule of water that has even been in contact with the original substance, is in any way, shape or form akin to vaccination?

As for Pelican, I'm arguing nothing of the sort: merely pointing out that blanket condemnation of 'chemicals' is just silly. As you acknowledge, 'chemicals are everywhere and they are not all harmful, everything is made up of chemicals'.

'There is a huge difference between chemicals that do harm and chemicals that are beneficial or neutral' - absolutely; I'm glad we're getting that far at least. So, your original statement regarding 'a healthy diet with as many freshly grown food (no chemicals)', is clearly nonsense.

All food is chemicals. Now we've established that some chemicals can be harmful, others beneficial: On what criteria do you distinguish the two?

'Natural' vs 'artificial', perhaps? Well, that won't do: many 'natural' substances are very harmful; many 'artificial' ones are extremely beneficial.

I'm curious to know now what chemicals are verboten in your healthy diet, and which aren't.

"Please explain to me how a vial of water that contains not one molecule of the original substance, nor most likely a single molecule of water that has even been in contact with the original substance, is in any way, shape or form akin to vaccination?"

No molecule of your brain is present here in this message, not even a molecule that has been in contact with your brain is present on my screen. Your message has gone through your keyboard, your computer, your home-network, outside cables, your ISP, more cables, my ISP, my computer, my screen, and over the thin air into my eyes: how could it possibly affect me if it contains no molecules? yet it does!

Such is the nature of information!

"everything is made up of chemicals"

Nowadays when physical science discovers a host of sub-atomic particles and a 10-dimensional string theory underlying our limited perception of its 3-dimensional shadow, isn't that a bit old-fashioned view?