From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon alt med alt.svg

This alternative medicine related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


[edit] An anecdote

In a conversation I was having with someone once, they told me that if I ever had a headache, I should drink a glass of water. When people take aspirin and their head stops hurting, it's because of the water they use to take the aspirin, not the aspirin itself. True story.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I know what you're thinking, so I'll just get it out of the way: Cool story, bro.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "Elementary Nutrition for Homeopaths"

Just read the first 3 paragraphs of the "Claimer":


It is customary to find a preliminary disclaimer in this type of book, which generally says that it does not replace proper medical advice, that the remedies or the techniques have not been properly investigated by the FDA or any other organization and that no responsibility is taken for anything happening from the use of the book.

All the information contained in this book has been clinically tested by me (with many grateful thanks to my patients) or is the result of the combination of other scientists' research, logical deduction, combination of methodologies and apparently unrelated works. Plenty of references originating from the peer-reviewed world are given.

We know how it works, we know when it works, we know why it works, we know how and when to use it and for what conditions on which patients. That this practice has not been vouched for or sanctified by any official representative or the Techno-Chemical Medical Industry is not important, not significant and not relevant. When dealing specifically with nutrition, there are biochemical and physiological explanations that cannot be contested, with no philosophical implications or point of views.

Ugh. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't Big DHMO part of the "Techno-Chemical Medical Industry"?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Add this

[ 1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work] Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] FTC Cracks down on homeopathy Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Succussion: the silica hypothesis

I recently found this: the silica hypothesis "declares that remedies made in glass do have something else in them chemically, namely silicates, and that the silicates are not irrelevant contaminants but meaningfully structured active ingredients" (allegedly, "silicates" are formed on the glass walls and dissolve into the water when the container is "succussed"). There are probably more like that. Should the article be updated to mention such hypotheses? --Cmonk (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Woo evolves constantly, like bacteria (or — less dramatically — like memes). As such, we absolutely need to keep our refutations up to speed. Good find. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The hypothesis has (predictably) some major hurdles to leap through to be shown plausible: 1) that silica is in fact released from glass by succussion 2) that is released in significant amounts and (ironically) in a dose-dependent method increasing with increased succussion (or homeopathic "potency") 3) that that the silica is biologically active (all silicates are believed inactive except for potassium and sodium silicates)[1] 4) that the biologically active silicates act differently with regard to specific ailments somehow. See also this: [2]. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] A brief message

Some people on rationalwiki are saying that users should not remove hatefu, even though a guide for what articles should be specifically says (quote down below) not to write anything hateful. The article should be made less hurtful by removing unnecessary comments. There. I talked about it. "Avoid overused jokes, obscure in-jokes, anything childish, and anything hateful."— Unsigned, by: Rbspidey / talk / contribs

How do you go outside?CheeseburgerFace (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
At RationalWiki, we hate stupid and we hate irrational. Get over it. Bongolian (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The relevant part is here: "In line with the "not an encyclopedia" guideline, RationalWiki is not required to present "neutral" articles. RationalWiki articles should uncompromising explain what is bullshit, what is not, and (most importantly) why."
Homeopathy is the poster child for bulshit pseudoscience.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools