I came across this rather interesting blog post that seems to suggest homeopaths are misguided in thinking that water can be purified beyond the purity required for approx. 4C remedies: http://lesmondine.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/homeopathy-theres-something-in-it/.

While I am not a scientist, the arguments presented there seem pretty water-tight. Perhaps you would like to read it and give us your opinions?

As a side note, lesmondine’s blog posting is about water, yet I imagine that the purification of the sugar used for pillules must be even harder to achieve. Or is normal sugar used?

One might also add that the purity of both sugar and water (and alcohol, since I believe that this is also used for h’pathy) was presumably extremely poor in Hahnemann’s day, and h’paths are still following his teachings (e.g. via the Organon, correct?) as if everything has stayed the same.

That’s enough to be going on with, I think, so I’ll just look forward to your comments.

Either way, the placebo effect will kick in – this is why people see ‘amazing’ results. The body has an amazing ability to treat itself merely through suggestion, but it is unethical to prescribe placebos.

Odd that you need to try several different pills before you get an effect.
Aspirin (for example) doesn’t work that way – each and every time, aspirin works, you don’t have to mess about with aspirin: ‘oh that didn’t work… let’s try paracetamol; oh , hang on, not that good, let’s try ibuprofen instead…’

You talk about not mixing apples and oranges as if we are not dealing with real diseases here, as if homeopathy is curring a different “kind” of disease. You don’t feel it’s right to compare your “medicine” with mainstream medicine even when treating same real-world illnesses? where is logic in that?

You also did not answer my other question; what evidence would it take to convince you homeopathy didn’t work? Do you think you could pass my test? Can you answer any of Ed’s questions?

And homeopathic skeptics can take as many pills as they want, but why? This actually will prove nothing to anyone who knows anything about the principles of homeopathy.

Plus I have successfully used homeopathy for years and would much rather you spend your energies trying to get rid of the so-called scientifically proved medications that are now proving to cause serious side-effects, addictions and complications to health. Homeopathic remedies do none of that.

Nothing could be simpler than a ineffective overdose of course which is what makes the 10:23 campaign so good.

In addition to your suggestion, I would offer another three areas in which the homeopathic “scientific method” could be investigated, namely:

1. SUCUSSION. What reasons led them to substitute automated succussion for “banging on a big leather book”? Has research been conducted in this field as to the differences this has or has not made? If so, what were the results? If not, why not?

2. POTENTISATION. If remedies are potentised, how long does this potentisation last? That is: do homeopathic remedies have such a thing as a “sell-by date”? If not, why not? If so, how is this determined? Research? Bonus “paradox” question: what happens to potentised remedies that enter the water supply — as they indeed must if taken by healthy people (since we have homeopaths on record as stating that remedies have no effect on healthy people)?

3. PROVINGS. Lastly, what is the procedure for designing remedies to match illnesses or conditions? We are aware of the “provings” aspect, which this addresses. Yet how does this work with new illnesses (such as new strains of flu), new conditions (e.g. RSI, which was less widespread before computers) or rare (genetic) disorders? Is the system standardised? If not, why not? If so, how?

That’s all just off the cuff, but it should be enough to keep them going for a while.