Quack Prince should go. Now!
In
December 2009 the Foundation For Integrated Health, which Charles set up, wrote
to the Department Of Health asking it to remove criticism of homeopathy due to appears
on the NHS Choices website.
As a
result, the statement that homeopathy was ‘scientifically implausible’ was, as
a result, edited out of the NHS website’s draft guidance.
Our Chief
Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, says homeopathy is ‘rubbish’ and
homeopaths ‘peddlers’.
Homeopaths
believe that if people are exposed to minute quantities of toxins that caused
symptoms similar diseases, then they can fight disease by being exposed to the
same substances in very diluted form.
Homeopathic
products are diluted in water or alcohol many billions of times, typically as
the great FRANCIS WHEEN explains to what is termed ‘30C’ or one part cure per
million million million million million million million million million million
parts of water.
As he
writes, “If it still contained only one molecule of the homeopathic ingredient,
the amount of water required for that level of dilution would be far greater
than that in all the oceans of the Earth.”
In the
1980s, when people realised the absurdities of this extreme dilution, a French
scientist decided that what worked was actually a ‘memory’ effect in the water!
He even claimed that this could be recorded
electromagnetically, stored digitally on a computer, emailed to the other side
of the world and ‘played back’ via a sound card into new water — which
instantly acquires the same properties as the original.
Mass homeopathy ‘suicides’ and overdoses
There
have been some brilliant protests against this mumbo jumbo, taking the form of
mass overdosing and suicides. Wikipedia says,
“Overdosing on homeopathic preparations by single individuals or in
"mass suicides" have become more popular since James Randi
began taking entire bottles of homeopathic sleeping pills before lectures.[221][222][223][224] In
2010 The Merseyside Skeptics Society from the United Kingdom launched the 10:23
campaign encouraging groups to publicly overdose as groups. In 2011 the
10:23 campaign expanded and saw sixty-nine groups participate, fifty-four
submitted videos.[225]In April 2012, at the Berkeley SkeptiCal conference, over 100 people participated in a mass overdose, taking caffea cruda which is supposed to treat sleeplessness.[226][227]
The non-profit, educational organizations Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the associated Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) have petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), criticizing Boiron for misleading labeling and advertising of Oscillococcinum.[228] CFI in Canada is calling for persons that feel they were harmed by homeopathic products to contact them.[229]
In August 2011,[230] a class action lawsuit was filed[230] against Boiron on behalf of "all California residents who purchased Oscillo at any time within the past four years." The lawsuit charges that it "is nothing more than a sugar pill," "despite falsely advertising that it contains an active ingredient known to treat flu symptoms."[231]
CBC News reporter Erica Johnson for Marketplace conducted an investigation on the homeopathy industry in Canada, her findings were that it is "based on flawed science and some loopy thinking". Center for Inquiry (CFI) Vancouver skeptics participated in a mass overdose outside an emergency room in Vancouver, B.C., taking entire bottles of "medications" that should have made them sleepy, nauseous or dead, after 45 minutes of observation no ill effects were felt. Johnson asked homeopaths and company representatives about cures for cancer and vaccine claims, all reported positive results. None could offer any science backing up their statements, only that "it works". Johnson was unable to find any evidence that homeopathic preparations contain any active ingredient. University of Toronto's chemistry department found that the active ingredient is so small "it is equivalent to 5 billion times less than the amount of aspirin... in a single pellet". Belladonna and ipeca "would be indistinguishable from each other in a blind test."[232][233]
Read
more: dailymail.co.uk
Comments
Post a Comment