From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 23 May 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Dutch legislation[edit]

Since 2012, Homeopathy gets treated as more of a medicine in Dutch law. This means that, among other things, specific indications must be backed up by evidence as approved by the Dutch FDA. The homeopaths of course cried foul because since they were no longer able put any specific indications on the packaging or in the leaflet (it often reads like so-and-so is a homeopathic medicine without any specific therapeutic indication). Some licences have even been withdrawn... I think this would be a good addition to the page, but I'm not sure which section? I'm a but hesitant to just edit the page since it's gold status :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Australian government statement thing[edit]

Can someone who can write sentences add to the article that the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has concluded "there is no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions."? - π 05:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This comment[edit]

Can we quote it? Plsss? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Okay, the block log will only accept messages so long.

This is a high-profile & important page. We can have snark, but as the 6th or 7th word? That's too much, too soon. As I said, it's a lame injoke for you and me, but will put people off who are actually interested in Homeopathy and don't know too much about it. Don't you think that educating people about homeopathy is important?

It's only been here for a few months; and should have been undone as soon as it was added in an ill-fated attempt at humour, imho. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing edit-war re: the "water" joke.[edit]

It's not that funny, and makes no sense to someone actually reading about the topic for the first time. Leave it out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think calling it "water" is funny because it's both snark and it's an accurate description. Perhaps we should delegate the joke to a complimentary picture of a glass of water with the caption "Homeopathy", at the top of the page, as a visual gag, next to the opening paragraph. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't really that funny, it reads like it was jammed in there for the sake of snark without regard for how it reads. Prefer it gone but could live both ways. Tielec01 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to improve it? If nothing worthwhile is suggested, I agree with it's removal. I'm holding on to hope here because I think the analogy is apt, even if in it's current state, it's hamfisted. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What analogy? Tielec01 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Homeopathy being literally water. ...Though I suppose if it's LITERALLY water, it can't be an analogy, can it? Curses. Foiled by my own logic. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Semantics aside, unless you have a brain wave, it's probably worth just letting it go to bad joke heaven. (Can I say something about Robin Williams or is it too soon?) Tielec01 (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say wait 20 years and you'll be able to invoke Adam Sandler, but that's more bad joke hell. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Now there's a reason to believe in God. Tielec01 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Amen. May His noodly appendages bless you. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

An anecdote[edit]

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)

"Elementary Nutrition for Homeopaths"[edit]

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. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (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)

Add this[edit]

[ 1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work] FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FTC Cracks down on homeopathy[edit] FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Succussion: the silica hypothesis[edit]

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)

A brief message[edit]

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?Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 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)
Rbspidey, you're not convincing anyone, and your edit warring with us isn't winning respect points from us. This article isn't "hateful". This is, at worst scathing criticism of homeopathy, the tone being mocking, sarcastic, flippant, but not hateful. The real thrust of the criticism, however, is explained already in the article, so you have to look past the tone and actually read what is being said here before you can bring up issues here and expect constructive feedback. What you're doing here is being disruptive by edit warring and ignoring our comments and we have no other choice than reverting your comments and even blocking you for disruption. Just behave and follow our advice so you won't run into issues like these. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User Rbspidey subsequently added the following while removing comments from other people:"Certain parts like the ones I have edited (namely that homeopathy is not common sense and is a fraud) is hateful and unnecessary since it is implied throughout the article. I have complied with the policies of rationalwiki, yet certain idiots continue suppressing free speech."--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

My point still stands. Homeopathy is not common sense. Two of its tenets are obvious violations, that 1)dilutions improve potency and 2)like treats like e.g. a bit of venom treats poisoning. While we don't rely on common sense for critical thinking, this isn't helped that it also violates laws of physics and common dilutions flirts or even straddles beyond Avogadro's number to the point where a single molecule is unlikely to be left. There are also other problems with the dilutions (such as exposure to particles of the environment like dust, pollen, smog particles) but I don't think Rbspidey is here to actually learn why homeopathy is wrong and focuses on the uncomfortable idea that it might be wrong and that our article is harsh on it. I find it ridiculous with claims of persecution, "suppressing free speech", yet we allow that person's comments in the talk page in the first place and even gave a few chances before banning. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Another brief message[edit]

Ok so, first off let me start by explaining past actions. I thought that the moderators thought that I was editing someone else's topic. I knew that the topic was mine and as such I mistakenly thought that the moderators were prejudiced against me and suppressing my thoughts. Hence, even when they said do not edit other people's comments, the aforementioned misunderstanding came up, namely that I thought that the moderators thought that I was editing someone else's article. My sincerest apologies to Bongolian and Bob M, and thank you for being patient (but lefty green mario can jump off a cliff).

In any case, to the point. I understand very well that rationalwiki will contain some amount of sarcastic humor and insult whatever it tries to disprove in an attempt to sound humorous. However, there is a fine line between funny and hurtful, and the homeopathy article goes more on the hurtful side. Just because it violates certain statements in physics or chemistry does not make it the opposite of common sense or a fraud. One who says science is absolute does not know the first thing about science. As such, my suggested edits would be to remove the aforementioned parrs and the entire conclusion. By Rbspidey May 15th— Unsigned, by: Rbspidey / talk / contribs

You aren't even wrong on this one. Homeopathy is very clearly against common sense, and it's a fraud. Homeopathic remedies literally get 'stronger' by diluting them with water. Think about that. The more you dilute it with water, the stronger the effects. Think about that. The close it gets to being pure dihydrogen monoxide the stronger it gets. It's counterintuitive. Vive Liberté! 22:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Homeopathy has actually worked before, so it cannot be dismissed as a fraud. Science is always trying to prove itself wrong, so just because it violates a statement in science does not mean it is a fraud, nor is it against common sense. In the first place, the definition of common sense places it outside the realm of science, hence it cannot be called not common sense. Rbspidey (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that homeopathy can cure at lease one thing? Dehydration.--Spoony (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless it's Oscillococcinum! 😉 Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We're not hurting anyone. Explaining why a concept is totally false does not mean that we need to cater for some theoretical person's feelings in the process. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If you were really not hurting anyone, do you think I would be going through all of this trouble? Clearly, this article is hurting people and has said unnecessary and hurtful things. And also, if you think I am theoretical even though I am typing all of this, then that is not common sense. Rbspidey (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I like how you play victim and act like your feelings are hurt but then you tell me to jump off a cliff which is totally uncalled for (not to mention hurl your previous insult). If there is a misunderstanding, then use your common sense and don't continue edit warring and obviously don't call people "idiots", "shitheads" or "hypocrites" all over a misunderstanding since it sends completely the wrong message and inflames tensions and casts you in a negative light to third parties like me, especially since you have already have a history of edit warring in a mainspace article. Hold your tongue, as once your insults are out, they are out. And so, your excuse of "oh, it's a misunderstanding" doesn't hold up that well when your edit history is mainly disruptive which is primarily why I gave you the block. Anyhow, I'm explaining the problems with your argument, encouraging you to read the article, and also even moderating my tone by saying "perhaps the tone is callous". However, you were breaking the rules. You were edit warring (which is against etiquette policy and community standards and very frowned upon in most other wikis) even after you were told multiple times to knock it off. It is not hurtful to say homeopathy is a fraud because it is a fraud; i.e. violates basic physics and common sense (as explained in the article), has repeatedly failed in well-designed clinical trials, is marketed to the masses despite its utter failure in both concept and practice (experiments), and has skirted tough regulations to get marketed in the first place, and I say frankly, it has probably helped people die because they abandoned more effective treatments for what is essentially plain sugar pills and water. Homeopathy has not worked when stood in actual trials. When you say "it has actually worked worked before", this statement is utterly meaningless without sources and therefore it is not a convincing reason at all for any of us to accept. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly why I told you to jump off a cliff. Are you even listening to yourself right now?? I obviously did not know it was a misunderstanding until later, hence I wrote that. Are you actually capable of understanding that? And I said before that I was edit warring since I did not fully understand why my edits were being undone until I saw the misunderstanding. As I have said several times before, homeopathy is not a fraud and does not violate common sense. Name on example where homeopathy violates common sense. It says on the original article itself that homeopathy has worked too. (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Rbspidey - Could you be price in the way this article is "hurting" you personally?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean by "be price", but if you mean that you want me to explain, then I will. The article certainly states that homeopathy violates principles of science and uses some humor when doing so. I am not hurt by most of this. However, during the opening paragraphs where the article calls homeopathy beyond common sense and fraud, my feelings are that it is jumping to unjustifiable conclusions and as such, I do not think that it can be written that homeopathy is a fraud. Rbspidey (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Bob M obviously meant "be precise". Why can't it be written that homeopathy is a fraud? It violates physics and common sense and has been proven by experiment to be no better than placebo multiple times. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
"Misunderstanding" or not, you still had the guts to call those that you reverted "hypocrites" and "shitheads" rather than explaining the problem and you still had the guts to continuously remove content even after you were blocked for a days for it (because you were breaking the rules). Common sense would've told you to read our welcome message and then learn to negotiate in the talk page first before removing stuff you find "hurtful" and not repeat your mistakes after you've been banned for them. I'd rather not discuss your conduct, but it is inappropriate. You deserve your block. You can dispute with our mods if you think I'm abusing my powers, but that's last resort.
Name one example where it violates common sense? READ THE ARTICLE AND OUR COMMENTS. We even go into depth on potentization. I've told you what you need to do several times already but you apparently haven't read them or understood what I meant and focused on my lack of patience here. (comment: this is originally LeftyGreenMario's post, but Rbspidey decided to comment and cut right inside the entire post rather than properly following formatting.) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
I have explained my actions before, and you think it would be obvious to me because of a little something called hindsight bias (hope you have heard of it). I do think you did abuse your powers when blocking me but we can save that for later. Rbspidey (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have read the article and that is exactly why I am asking you for an example. You can't just say read the article and expect me to see things from your POV. That is one of the stupidest things anyone can do (though certainly not unexpected from you). In case you do not know how to, here is an example. This article ( shows that there has been evidence for homeopathy working. Rbspidey (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking me for an example after I've provided you one? You don't want one from RationalWiki, how about this

There is a paucity of good quality studies of sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans. The available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions in humans.

Most rigorous clinical trials and systematic analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.

A 2015 comprehensive assessment of evidence by the Australian government's National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

Homeopathy is a controversial topic in complementary medicine research. A number of the key concepts of homeopathy are not consistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics. For example, it is not possible to explain in scientific terms how a remedy containing little or no active ingredient can have any effect. This, in turn, creates major challenges to rigorous clinical investigation of homeopathic remedies. For example, one cannot confirm that an extremely dilute remedy contains what is listed on the label, or develop objective measures that show effects of extremely dilute remedies in the human body.

Another research challenge is that homeopathic treatments are highly individualized, and there is no uniform prescribing standard for homeopathic practitioners. There are hundreds of different homeopathic remedies, which can be prescribed in a variety of different dilutions for thousands of symptoms.

Also, your article is from a homeopathy-promoting site. The papers also aren't satisfactory as they don't appear to be double-blinded, only placebo-controlled. It did mention double-blinding, but I don't actually see it being put to use, and I'm also highly suspicious that it lacks more controls and I'm also suspicious that there is publication bias playing a role here. Overall, if you want to give us evidence, try using evidence that isn't from a site that promotes alternative medicine. Also, stop accusing us of having an "insulting" tone all while implying that I say the stupidest things ever and telling me to jump off a cliff. You're no better than us. So tone down or piss off. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a fraud because it doesn't work per elementary-level chemistry, how dilutions work, basic mathematics like tiny exponents, failing in experiments (PER OUR ARTICLE YOU NEED TO READ) as well as plausibility, having to skirt drug regulations in order to be marketed, and marketing despite being an utter failure in experiments. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Violating chemistry and mathematics do not leave it as a fraud. Just because homeopathy violates these things does not make it fake in any way. Homeopathy has worked before and cannot be dismissed as a fraud. I am not arguing that homeopathy violates principles of science, but I am arguing that RW is unjustly labeling homeopathy as a fraud and beyond common sense in an insulting tone beyond what it needs.Rbspidey (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, you're basically saying that violations of basic chemistry is not fraudulent and that pseudomathematics is not fraudulent. A fraud is "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities" (OED).[3] Since homeopathy is demonstrably false, it is making unjustifiable claims and is therefore a fraud. If that's why your feelings are hurt, so be it, they should be for your own good. Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Bongolian, you don't realize it but your own definition of fraud proves you wrong about homeopathy. As you said, a fraud is intending to deceive others, but there is no way you can make the claim that homeopathy is intentionally deceiving others. Furthermore, homeopathy has not claimed to follow the rules of modern chemistry nor modern mathematics, so neither of the two conditions are fulfilled and homeopathy is not a fraud. Rbspidey (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Homeopaths can only be not fraudulent by being willfully ignorant. Since you say that you've read this page on homeopathy, you can't truthfully claim to be willfully ignorant. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "be precise". (My bad - sorry) Your consistent complaint, Rbspidey, seems to be that the article is "hurtful". I am asking how it is actually "hurting" you.
I have to admit that, even if you did feel that it "hurts" your beliefs in some way, it is still unlikely that we could change the facts which the article includes. I'm just trying to understand your point. So how it it hurting you?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is hurting me by unjustly labeling homeopathy with statements like calling it beyond common sense or a fraud. I think that these statements are unfounded and should be removed. I am not saying to remove how homeopathy goes against science, just to be clear. Rbspidey (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You poor little special snowflake you had your feelings hurt. I want legitimate, third party, independent and unbiased research showing homeopathy works. If it really does, you should have no trouble finding such articles and evidence. Mr Rbspidey, release the evidence! Vive Liberté! 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Scroll up to me replying to leftygreenmario. Rbspidey (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You've never explained exactly *how* it's not a fraud. All you've given is that "violating physics and mathetmatics doesn't make it a fraud" which is simply wrong. I don't understand how you think otherwise; it means it's literally violating the rules of reality. Even if we throw aside plausibility, homeopathy has never demonstrated to perform beyond placebo. And why we call it a fraud is that it's marketed as a medicine, even a cure, even though it's a patent failure in both concept and practice. That's deceit by pure definition, especially since the marketers have found clever means to skirt FDA rules to market. Homeopathy is snakeoil, even if the people who sell them honestly believes it works. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rbspidey. You write: "The article is hurting me by unjustly labeling homeopathy with statements like calling it beyond common sense or a fraud."
Your argument is really terrible. If you think the article is wrong then your argument should be "the article is wrong", not "the article hurts me". Now if you can show exactly where it's wrong and we can go somewhere.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WTF is "homeopathic aggravation"?[edit]

I'm looking at the individualized homeopathic treatment versus fluoxetine versus placebo trial and I've seen mention of "homeopathic aggravation", an alleged reaction of people receiving homeopathy. Their symptoms apparently get worse before it gets better. It sounds like a more general phenomenon explained already in medicine textbooks (it sounds like a cousin of regression toward the mean for instance) at best, but anyhow, search results really suck. QuackWatch does have something to say about it, stating that it's a handwave to vindicate responsibility if a homeopathic doctor harms the patient. Anything else on this? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting (perhaps) is the fact that even in "pure placebo trials" — by which I mean; trials in which nobody is recieving any active ingredient whatsoever — test subjects still report measurable effects (admittedly mostly psychological ones) of both positive and negative character.
Focusing here on said negative effectsWikipedia; these 'adverse effects' can allegedly ramp up to the point where a noteworthy percentage of patients may even express the need to drop out of the trial prematurely (due to the supposedly 'advanced side effects' the 'drug' they're testing is apparently causing them). This, despite the fact that they're literally not taking anything but an utterly inert placebo.
As such — moving now from fact to 'theory' (in the colloquial sense) — I'd like us to consider the following hip shot. Considering homeopaths already abuse the positive placebo effect (i.e. pointing to the percieved changes, which are real, but as somehow being 'proof' of the pseudophysics inherent to homeopathy itself)...
Homeopaths would be rather silly to miss out on the golden opportunity to also take credit for the negative nocebo effect (again, in order to — at the very least — be able to point to it and say "Hey, whatever you think, ATLEAST homeopathic agents are clearly biologically active and measurably affect the people who take them!").
Is it time for me to go to bed, or could this be it (or a part of the story)? I.e., could "homeopathic aggrevation" be an attempt by homeopaths (unwittingly or otherwise) to basically misappropriate the (already aptly named) nocebo effect? Regardless; just my two cents. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

From Talk:List of fallacious quotes by homeopaths[edit]

Dunno if this is the right page or right title, but at least the quote's in an article now. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The nav templates plus the sbs... that's problematic to say the least, but this table voodoo is beyond me. PacWalker 03:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those can be nixed for now αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A single quote isn't a list of quotes. Why does it need to be separate from the list of quote mines? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Because if we had every quotemine ever it's be ridiculously long, and not subject specific. A creationist page, a homeopath (or maybe altmed) page, all make subject specific pages. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But a list consisting of one item is not a list at all. This should be merged into the homeopathy article. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Or more quotes could be added. Say, Hahnemann. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


... if the principles of homeopathy were applied to politics.

Though 'election into office' does seem to be a very potent means of diluting election promises into wishy-washy legislation. Anna Livia (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You imply that they aren't. A politician dilutes his promises until not a single molecule remains of the original substance, then resigns after it turns out he's had a few bangs. Nog Bogmire (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
And other than manifesto-homeopathy? (And there are other reasons for political resignations - hands in the till, inappropriate statements, inappropriate contacts and employees...)
Is there also a reverse-homeopathy for politicians - stated blandness transforms into something far stronger? Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

BX Protocol[edit]

1,000,000X = 500,000C = Ratio of 10-1,000,000. Is this right?. If so, you may need a whole lot of Universes just to find a single molecule of the active ingredient. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dangers of Distilled Water[edit]

Hey guys, um, I was brought to this article by redirect from distilled water Which seems reasonable enough, 'xcept I really was looking for some rational perspective on claims I've heard and read about just plain old distilled drinking water. Some folks are saying that it somehow sucks the nutrients out of your body, leeches nutrients out of the food you cook in it (more so than regular water even) And some of those folks coincidentally have home water filtration systems to sell. Also, apparently the severe purity of distilled water partially dissolves some of the cheap plastic containers it comes in? Then there's also "baby water" for use with infant formulas & such, which is distilled, with "minerals added for taste" at least one brand of such baby water (which I drink, when I don't have handy access to tap water, because it is usually the cheapest stuff at the store, and somehow tastes better than other bottled waters) comes in flouride and non-flouride varieties (a whole 'nother type of woo which has already been covered on this site) Then there's articles saying not to use distilled water when you fast, or that it will shorten your life, or can just straight up kill you (if you drink too much of it, or something). Meanwhile, I 've heard at least one story of a lady dying, because she drank gallons and gallons of water at some contest to win a car. I don't remember any mention as to whether that water was distilled, but I'm pretty sure overdosing on water is a real thing, right?

Meanwhile, since I'm babbling about water like a Brook, I should mention that my girlfriend is currently trying to pass a drug test, so she's spent a bunch of money on de-tox products to help her pass. Of course all of those products instruct the user to drink copious amounts of water, with some claiming that your urine will only be clear for about 7 hours (It all sounds like a lot of handy disclaimer-ing & "special instructions", but ok) I know there is an article here about "cleansing woo" and such, but is it really some how possible that any of these products would clean out your THC, or at least help you to briefly pass a drug test? Or that just drinking large quantities of water (whether distilled or otherwise) would do the trick? Searching the internet for answers to that one found me a lot of "profeasional"-looking websites eager to answer my questions, while helpfully mentioning a few specific products by name. Also, and such-like sites seem to be riddled with shills on the subject. Do any of these products have any sort of legitimate scientific claim?

And finally, one of the products she took today was in pill form: "take 5 of these pills that have special ingredients to remove the THC/etc, drink bunches of water, and then pee like 3 times an hour until your urine stops being NEON YELLOW."
Dude, did my gf really just buy a whole bottle of magic pee-colour pills??? — Unsigned, by: Amishrobots / talk / contribs

Your body has organs which detoxify your body at the rate they detoxify it. Like your liver and kidneys. I would suspect that whatever your girlfriend is taking is not going to have a lot of effect on the rate at which they work - though I don't doubt that a lot of people will be happy to sell you stuff which claims it does. But I'm not a doctor.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you'd like to have a look at the Wikipedia article for more information on distilled water.
As far as your girlfriend is concerned, from what I know, nothing substantially helps and instead of those pills, she might as well have thrown the money into the toilet. But instead of asking strangers on the internet, you might want to talk to a professional for medical advice.
RSamys (bla) 09:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I thank you guys for your opinions and unlicensed medical advice. Regarding the effectiveness of whatever "detox" crap she bought, I can offer this anectdotal evidence: It has been 18 days since she last used marijuana, she has used home drug testing kits several times now, and every last one of them has shown positive for thc. If there is any sort of magic detoxifying product, she has not found it. About the only effect these products have had on her was an upset stomach, and loose bowel movements. So if anyone is in need of a laxative that will make you feel like crap, I can ask her for the product name. Amishrobots (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


If homeopathy 'worked' would not people 'going to the locality of a full solar eclipse' (and ensuring due protection of their eyes) end up with a full tan? Or does it not work that way? Anna Livia (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to hit the moon in a particular way. It's all about the shaking. --Annanoon (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The dark side of the moon? Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The far side. The sun shines on both sides ;) --Scherben (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
A nod at this - and it is a discussion about eclipses. Anna Livia (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Explain why my resource was deleted, please.[edit]

Why was my resource deleted by Bongolian? Please explain. Titofrito (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian didn't "delete" it and also, your "resource" is crap. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
How so? Give five reasons. Titofrito (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Unengaging, low quality, virtually no views, adds nothing to the article, you wasted my time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter that it has no views? It's funny. Titofrito (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Titofrito You're trying to get page views for your crappy video by linking it from here. It's not going to work. Bongolian (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not my video, I just found it. Titofrito (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, nobody else wants to see it. Don't put it back here. Don't link to it anywhere else. Just give it up. Spud (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Spud You know, all this drama reminds me of someone else with a desperate need for attention... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. I give up with this. Titofrito (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sorry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It was a good resource. Titofrito (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but it had real problems. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You give up with this, I hear? Please move on, notLogicnsuch. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Paying for homeopathy[edit]

Surely writing out a cheque for 'a large sum of money' and waving it at the homeopath/the products should suffice as payment - but you are likely to end up in legal trouble if you attempt this. If homeopathy works, why is this so? Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)