(...continued)

'Qualified' simply means that it has a quality, an attribute, an adjective if you like. The fact of having been somewhere at a certain time, or of having had some procedure done to it in the past, is a perfect case of qualification. It restricts for example the possibility of the object in question being in a different place at that time.

Homeopathy does not stand on its own - it is a part of a way of life, of a spiritual approach to life, of a philosophy that looks beyond the materialistic single-life-span approach, taking a longer-term approach where one's current body, though of importance, is not everything. This is opposed to conventional medicine which offers quick fixes, but often at the expense of the longer-term spiritual well-being, which means that illness will sooner-or-later need to be revisited, if not in this lifetime then in a subsequent one. Call this even a religion if you like, although no deities are necessarily involved.

If you do not recognize the spiritual, or anything beyond the physical/material, or care not for it, then indeed there is no sense for you to turn to homeopathy. I think that people who try to convince you to use homeopathy without the accompanying perspective may mean well, but are in the wrong. It is your choice whether you prefer an immediate fix or a more painful but enduring one. Similarly, I think that the purpose of Chrys Stevenson and his like in writing this article, is not to promote science, but to promote religious persecution.

Well, Yuyutsu, that's an interesting new meaning of the word 'qualified' that you've made up out of thin air. I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty: 'When *I* use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less'.

Still, why stick with appending new or erroneous meanings to existing words, when you can make up your own? Worked for Shakespeare.

For instance, yours is a prime case of what I call 'Sci-co babble', a fun little term of my own devising, similar to the term 'psychobable'.

Essentially it means: 'using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. The term implies that the speaker of sci-co babble lacks the experience and understanding necessary for proper use of a given scientific term'.

Which is exactly what your last two replies consisted of - lots of scientific terms, used with no apparent understanding of what they actually mean, and with no relevance to the topic at hand.

Interestingly, though, you unwittingly give the game away by (in a rather circular way) admitting that homeopathy has no evidence, no validity and no genuine medical value, because it is not medicine, it is mysticism.

Calling homeopathy out as pseudo-scientific quackery is not 'religious persecution', though, it's consumer protection.

Finally, Pelican: you just can't admit that your statement revealed an uninformed, irrational chemophobia, can you? Of course there are harmful chemicals, but that's not what you said, is it?

What you originally implied, and later clarified abundantly, is that you consider all non 'naturally occurring' chemicals used in food production to be harmful. Which is patent nonsense.

Basically Clownfish;
The principles of stimulating the immune system with diluted pathogens is perfectly sound, but the methodology of achieving this is completely insubstantiated;
And evidence to success (mainly Swiss studies), at best points to about a half or quarter of Swiss patients in the survey- which is made more difficult to gauge as, either way, their own immune system was ultimately responsible for their recovery.

Nonetheless, I can't say I would oppose over-the-counter homeopathy drugs being permitted- labelled as a water-solution, and as un-confirmed medicine.
For the main reason is aside from the principles of letting patients shop around for whatever options are possible, is that market forces might highlight various treatments that patients would sooner drink "magic water" than undergo more clearly, and as a result help medical researchers identify which areas of treatment need to be looked into (or institutions put more funding into research).

As it is, people suffering from cancer aren't exactly spoiled for choice- with only a few drugs available, their only real options are to either have the cancerous part surgically removed (at the moment, the best option by far), or undergo chemotherapy- (or refuse both and let the cancer remain). For them I'd say if they want to take a shot at homeopathic drugs, there really isn't any reason why they should not.

I'm actually with you there Hazza, I also think terminally ill patients should be able to choose the manner of their death.

Clownfish
"Finally, Pelican: you just can't admit that your statement revealed an uninformed, irrational chemophobia, can you? Of course there are harmful chemicals, but that's not what you said, is it?"

Your claim that I have an irrational chemophobia is just wrong and you know it - you are continuing a game of semantics. Clearly anyone with a skerrick of brain matter who is aware of my posting history would know I would not give the same status to DDT as I would to a naturally occuring plant chemical that does no harm. The key here is 'harm'.

I did not use the term "harmful chemical" but I assumed the readership had an intellectual capacity that would discern my intent. Clearly in that I was wrong - you have my apology for that.

One very good reason, King Hazza: you can get water from the tap pretty much for free; why pay substantial amounts of money to a quack who believes in 18th century mysticism, for water?

Oh, and Yuyutsu, I was heartily amused by your statement about 'matter is connected by invisible strings'. Is that your understanding of string theory? How quaint ... but wrong.

String theory, in essence, hypothesizes that different elementary particles are in fact manifestations of 1-dimensional 'strings' vibrating in 10 or more dimensions.