When I first heard about ten23 (which in case you don’t know was the mass suicide attempt using homeopathic products which took place recently – you can read Martin Robbins description of that event here http://bit.ly/cX9bTH) in relation to homeopathy, I thought that it might have been when homeopathy started up. I mean it would explain a lot if it had been with us through the ages. Imagine Harold at the battle of Hastings with an arrow stuck in his eye, and ye olde homeopathy surgeon standing pouring bottle after bottle of water into his eye socket to restore his vision.
I’m being deliberately facetious here but the question has occurred to me why homeopaths stop with just the curing of diseases that we still struggle to cure with conventional medicine. Why for instance did they not pump homeopathic remedies into JFK as he lay mortally wounded in a Dallas hospital? Because it wouldn’t have worked? Why then do they persist in pretending that remedies which have been diluted beyond the level where any possible active ingredient could be present can work? There’s no more evidence for that than there is to suggest that homeopathy can cure loss of life due to horrific gunshot wounds.
Is it something so shallow as mere profit? Hardly… (I am being understandably careful here because I have heard that the homeopathic associations are a little touchy on the subject – though perhaps they also have a remedy for paranoia!)
Homoepathy still tends to be a widely blogged and written on subject, and yet doesn’t seem to gather the same level of scepticism that, say, climate change does? Why? Answers on a postcard please…

{ 2 comments }