Ziztur swallows a bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills
Over the weekend, I decided to finally bite the bullet and swallow a whole bottle of Calms Forte ‘sleep aid’, which can be found right alongside the other sleeping pills at your local drugstore. Obviously, I am just fine. The only thing I noticed is that a whole bottle of pills tastes like chalk, and afterward it felt as though I had eaten a large bowl of ice cream, probable due to the fact that Calms Forte pills are made primarily with lactose. I know that homeopathic true believers will tell me that being able to swallow a whole bottle of pills is one of the magical wonderful things about homeopathic ‘remedies’ -taking too much does nothing. Taking too little does nothing. I got a few things wrong in my video, which was 7 minutes entirely without script. Most of my mistakes were in the explanation of how homeopathy works, so I will explain it here: The basic principle of homeopathy is that a substance which will create the symptoms of a disease in a healthy person will actually cure the symptoms of the disease in a sick person. To administer a homeopathic remedy, a starting material (plant extract, dog urine, or whatever) is diluted with 99 parts of diluent (usually alcohol and water). The mixture is then “succussed” or “potentised”, which means they shake the liquid in a certain way to release the energy within the substance. This dilution is a 1C homeopathic potency. The process of dilution can be repeated with the 1C potency to make a 2C potency, then a 3C potency …
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Why should we not try this at home? And why on earth should it be obvious?
@den151redbank I’ve done quite a lot of research into homeopathy and I know exactly why Ziztur didn’t die. My answer doesn’t require the suspension of the laws of the Universe. My answer doesn’t appeal to woo woo, magic, the supernatural, or pseudoscience. My answer to the question why Ziztur didn’t die is because SHE TOOK SUGAR PILLS!!
@LAnonHubbard
Read the past comments here or do a little studying and research. Then you’ll have the answers.
I saw an article where a guy fell into a vat of DHM (di-hydrogen monoxide), the main constituent of homeopathic medicines. He died, due to inhalation of the DHM, thus proving the potency and danger of it.
So I say stay away from homeopathic medicine as it is really dangerous.
@den151redbank Homeopathy works so well does it? So how come Ziztur’s not dead from the bottle of sleeping pills then?
Homeopathy…. there’s nothing in it.
@den151redbank “Ernst admitted he never took any courses in homeopath so IS NOT AN EXPERT and CANNOT GIVE AN EXPERT OPINION ON IT”
You don’t need to take any courses in homeopathy to realise it doesn’t work. You just need to read the conclusions of quality clinical trials. Note I used the word quality. That means rigorous and repeatable. The trials you quote aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
@den151redbank
Homeopathy is water. Or sugar. It DOES NOT WORK.
@Ziztur Here is the citation for your one positive study, which actually appears to not even be a study on homeopathy. How did it even get into this review?:
P. Pommier, F. Gomez, M.P. Sunyach, A. D’Hombres, C. Carrie, X. Montbarbon Phase III Randomized Trial of Calendula Officinalis Compared With Trolamine for the Prevention of Acute Dermatitis During Irradiation for Breast Cancer Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 22, No 8 (April 15), 2004: pp. 1447-1453
@den151redbank I also picked up and read the one positive study, which was not double blinded nor placebo controlled. This kind of study would never pass muster in what you dub “western” medicine. This kind of study would not pass FDA approval. I would not, therefore, trust it over medicine shown effective by more robust means.
@den151redbank Also, here is an actual citation of your study:
Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2
It’s not difficult to cite studies properly.
@den151redbank In fact, the study itself says, “There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of other homeopathic medicines for adverse symptoms and skin reactions” and, “Further RCTs of homeopathic medicines for adverse symptoms
and skin reactions related to radiotherapy are needed to confirm
the results described in this review.” So your amazing evidence is one review in which one single remedy showed promise, but is uncomplicated in further studies. That is not impressive.
@den151redbank I just read that study. It more or less says that reviews on studies of homeopathy for cancer were studied, and half of those studies showed a negative effect, half showed a positive effect. Only one of them was a high quality study. If you were looking at a medicine in which half the studies showed a positive effect and half showed a negative, effect (taking into account that positive studies are more likely to be published) would you say that medicine was amazingly effective?
@den151redbank Well, when you make an empirical claim, you immediately lose the argument if, when asked to back up your claim, you tell people to go find the evidence for themselves. You need to provide the evidence for your claims. It’s not a hard concept to understand.
@den151redbank
“Evan Harris lost his MP seat” – oh, so every time a politician does not get re-elected, that means everything he did is null and void? This is an Ad hominem. You imply he lost his seat because of the report. This is not true. He simply lost re-election.
Ernst can look at statistics and give an expert opinion on whether something works or not from looking at the studies without taking a course in homeopathy. This is another ad hominem. If he made that claim, citation needed.
@den151redbank @den151redbank You keep repeating yourself. You also said you weren’t going to waste your time with me, yet here you are again.
If the report was debunked, citation needed.
@Ziztur
Interesting that the Sci and Tech Committee report was debunked and that the UK government states that homeopathy will continue to be available on the NHS AT THE PATIENT’S CHOICE.
Evan Harris lost his MP seat. Colqhoun was ousted from the Ethics Committee for lack of……..ETHICS…….., and Ernst admitted he never took any courses in homeopath so IS NOT AN EXPERT and CANNOT GIVE AN EXPERT OPINION ON IT.
Ziztur,
I’m not going to waste my time talking with closed-minded individuals who have personal agendas such as yourself.
Anyone with a true interest in studies evidencing for homeopathy will find many of them at the web site for the National Center for Homeopathy.
There are 100′s proving h’pathy works and a hand full not proving it works. Here’s just one. It proves that h’pathy ameliorates the negative effects of conventional cancer treatment: Kassab, et. al., 2009.
This post is for readers with an interest in and who want to use a truly curative system of medicine.
@Ziztur
You go round and round in tiny circles……repeating the same nonsense, asking for the same material (which you could obtain for yourself) over and over again.
What you have is a delusion, not a case or an argument. Attempting to influence people not to use truly curative medicine is a form of evil, one of the worst forms. Hitler worked his evil person to person. “Skeptics” work it long-distance via pills.
@den151redbank I’ll “acknowledge” that there are “100′s of studies proving h’pathy works” when you show me them. You haven’t. You only quibble over tiny details like the definition of a pill and then lie that I am the only one in the world unconvinced by homeopathy when I have put my references backing up my position in the description of my video.
@den151redbank Caulfield T, DeBow S (2005), “A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals”, BMC Complement Altern Med 5: 12,
You still have not provided ONE citation of these “100′s of trials” worth any salt whatsoever.
@den151redbank Caulfield T, DeBow S (2005), “A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals”, BMC Complement Altern Med 5: 12,
So no, it is not [me and only me]
You still haven’t provided ONE proper citation of any of these 100′s of studies.
@den151redbank Boissel J, Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M (2000), “Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group”, Eur J Clin Pharmacol 56 (1): 27–33
Mathie RT (2003), “The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature”, Homeopathy 92 (2): 84–91
@den151redbank Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005), “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy”, Lancet 366 (9487): 726–732,
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (February 1991), “Clinical trials of homoeopathy”, BMJ 302 (6772): 316–23,
@den151redbank “Homeopathy – Issues”, National Health Service, retrieved 2009-07-30
Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007), “Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials”, Mayo Clin Proc 82 (1): 69–75