As far as I can tell, Psych-K is just the same idea as “The Secret”, just repackaged for a different audience.

As for his other treatments, there is still the increased risk of blood clots and arterial tearing in cervical spinal manipulations. It’s not a matter of being a good person and serving your community, it’s using treatments that have been proven either ineffective, or outright harmful to your patients.

I do not care one wit for your anecdotes. As I said in the blog, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is NOT ‘data’. If you really have a science background, you would understand this.

You are right when you say that I can not prove that homeopathic remedies do not work. And it is totally IRRELEVANT, since the burden of proof lies with those claiming that homeopathy works! If the healing power of homeopathy is as incredibe as you describe, it should be a very simple matter to demonstrate that it works. Have homeopaths done the requisite studies demonstrating efficacy? No. They have not done any of the work that would be required of any new therapeutic technique. Instead, supporters of homeopathy rely on anecdote and can’t be bothered to properly show efficacy. If you really have a science background, you would understand this.

Medicine is not just about what works. It is about what can be SHOWN to work, not about what we believe works. It is not up to the medical community to disprove homeopathy. Homeopathy does that all by itself by refusing to do any proper study on the matter. We maintain the null hypothesis (that is, that homeopathy has no effect) until there is good reason to accept the claim that homeopathy works. And homeopathy is spectaculary lacking in this regard. But, if you really have a science background, you would understand this.

All of the examples you give can be explained by placebo effect or happenstance where the problem goes away on its own but there is an unsubstantiated connection made with a homeopathic remedy. Who’s to say that the toddler stopped screaming simply because she told the child that the unproven remedy she gave it would make the pain go away? The placebo effect is very powerful. To show efficacy, properly blinded and controlled studies are necessary showing dose response must be performed. If you really have a science background, you would understand this. And I’ll say it again: the plural of ‘anecdote’ is NOT ‘data’.

When discussing public health care policy, we do not implement programs which do not have science to back them up. Homeopathy has no science to back it up. Consider the disaster that would occur if instead of immunization (the success of which is unarguable), health care programs were implemented with claims having nothing better than anecdote in support, yet turn out to be no better than placebo. This is the height of irresponsibility and is probably criminal. Yet this is what homeopaths endorse. Homeopathy is an uncontrolled industry with unsubstantiated claims. If you really have a science background, you would understand this.

Despite your ad hominem to the contrary, if the claims can be shown through tried-and-true scientific study - that is, multiple double-blinded, properly-controlled experimentation demonstrating a statistically-significant effect - I would accept them. So would the medical community. But when the best that supporters of homeopathy can muster is unverifiable success stories, such people set the bar for what is and is not good evidence far, FAR too low, particulary considering the consequences to public health. It is up to the homeopathy community to provide this evidence, not its detractors to provide evidence that it does not work. This is simply where the burden of proof lies. But if you really have a science background, you would understand this.

I am indeed skeptical of homeopathic remedies. The anecdotes and outrageous claims (none of which are substantiated and many have been falsified already) do nothing to remove my skepticism. Some of the claims of homeopathy, such as water retaining some kind of ‘memory’ of the active ingredient, violate unbelievably well-substantiated rules of physics and chemistry. This doesn’t dampen my skepticism either. But to accept homeopathy without good quality evidence and fall back on the old ‘but you can’t disprove my claim’ logic fallacy shows that people such as you are so open-minded that their brains have spilt.

But if you really have a science background, you would understand this.

I come from a science background. I encounter parents, adults and children who have attained incredible healing with homeopathy.

Children cannot manufacture the responses noted by family and caregivers, nor can animals. How to explain this? For me, my personal knowledge gained by my personal experience gathered with the experiences of others leads me to the acknowledgement that homeopathy works - and profoundly. You won’t find cautionary labels on a remedy(as long as your arm) warning about serious “side-effects” otherwise known as drug induced disease.

While the author of this diatribe against homeopathy notes that there is no proof that homeopathy works, I offer that nor can he prove it doesn’t. For that I say first hand knowledge is always best. Your belief is not required and skeptisism is both healthy and necessary.

Appropriately chosen remedies simply work. Ask a mom whose toddler is screaming with an earache that is relieved within minutes of the remedy being given. There are numerous examples. All that is required is an open mind which this gentleman does not posess.

While I don’t really have a problem with those who have abandoned the more vitalistic thinking and have moved to a more therapeutic and physiotherapy style of chiropractic, there are still issues with practicing physiotherapy without a license, and the additional treatments and adjustments that can cause blood clots, or tearing of the arteries travelling through the cervical vertebrae.

The vitalistic stuff is simply not scientifically plausible, and is completely lacking in effectiveness in clinical trials.