Zak Debunks Homeopathic Medicine

This is an interview I did for a short documentary. I discuss why homeopathic treatments are bunk. I explain how it “works”, the “science” behind it, and why people continue to use it, and…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. Bob Smith says:

    Zak’s full of himself.

  2. Angela Andrews says:

    Agree….even a dog can be cured on an energy level – it’s really not about
    the placebo it’s about your own human energy on levels undetected by
    scientific machines 

  3. Angela Andrews says:

    Homeopathic meds are all about human energy the diluted meds are undetected
    by machines because they perform on a cellular level it’s the entire point
    of homeopathy – balance and energy (everything is made up of energy) the
    entire point is to repair on the undetected energy levels our own body
    performs on, it’s like sending a message to your body cellularly – you
    can’t harness this energy on man made machines ( you can’t make a machine
    to detect human energy) it goes along with miracles you can’t
    scientifically detect ones relationship with God, or detect faith, if
    people have an understanding of spiritual things in regard to healing let
    them have that – if believing that the human energy and balance can heal or
    restore on that level where machines can’t detect what’s wrong with that?
    It obviously works for some people ,,whats the alternative ? pharms which
    by the way, don’t cure anything – let the individual decide – you can’t
    scientifically explain spiritual things but you can agree scientifically
    humans have energy that’s the whole point, even an animal can be cured on
    an energy level undetected by machines – it’s really not about placebo it’s
    more about humans natural energy 

  4. mjl353535 . says:

    Actually Zak, some of them are extremely harmful like the bleach enema
    treatment for autism. Others are harmful because they are denying
    themselves necessary medications such as vaccines or the homeopathic asthma
    inhaler which is no more than water.

  5. Hooya2 says:

    @farmerjohn010 Let’s be clear here; if two patients have the SAME symptoms,
    will they be given the same treatment or won’t they? You seem to be caught
    up in saying that homeopathy is more discriminating than real medicine, and
    I get that and accept it. What real medicine would classify as being one
    illness, homeopaths might classify as several. Got it. But the fact
    remains, you do have groups of people with the same symptom picture,
    getting the same treatment, correct?

  6. farmerjohnn010 says:

    @Hooya2 No I got blocked by Zakieboy. He doesn’t like difficult questions.

  7. Hooya2 says:

    @farmerjohn010 “So, you think that in homeopathy the patient with the above
    symptoms would get one remedy for the itch, another one for the mental
    state…” No, I recognized from the start what you were saying; that a set
    of symptoms gets a single drug. I haven’t replicated it because I don’t
    have access to a spectroscope. As for speculation about ‘Dr. Nirvellala’,
    it seems like a red herring; the fact remains that all Roy has is one
    experiment, 90% of the data from which he’s not published.

  8. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 Coulter writes Vitalism, in the sense of reliance on the body’s
    reactivity, it’s ability to achieve homeostatic equilibrium, is also found
    in twentieth century allopathy. In the disciplines of immunology and
    allergy, therapeutics has been oriented toward this self-healing capacity
    and the consequent need to employ the “similar” remedy. But recognition of
    this capacity contradicts the rationalist assumption of the organism’s
    passivity before external assault. And reactivity is refracto…

  9. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Smithpromotions Don’t worry about Zakieboy. He can’t even name any such
    study.

  10. Hooya2 says:

    @farmerjohn010 “The patients had bad reactions but apparently not due to
    homeopathy.” Where did you get that silly notion? No, that’s not what that
    means. When someone says ‘adverse drug reaction’ they usually mean a severe
    effect that comes after taking the drug, like having an asthma attack; he’s
    saying no one had anything severe like that. Jeesh, use some common sense
    please.

  11. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 You have not explained chemotaxis. I’ll show you what you’ve done.
    Isaac Newton showed the manner in which gravity acts (inversely
    proportional to the product of the masses over the square of the distance)
    I’ve argued on these Dawkins sites that physics can’t account for gravity,
    which it can’t, and then people just like you have responded with nonsense
    about Newton explaining the action of gravity. You have not explained
    chemiotaxis any more than Newton or physics has explained gravity.

  12. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 In the Trial results of the studies of the homeopathic versus
    placebo group our valiant scientists claim on the one hand that “In this
    study homoeopathic remedies were no better than placebo in the treatment of
    asthmatic patients who are allergic to house dust mite” and on the other
    hand our wise and all knowing medical scientists write that “Perhaps
    differences in patient recruitment or other unknown factors may explain the
    inconsistency of the results between these two studies”

  13. indoctus41 says:

    If you look at vaccination studies very often you will see the phrase “no
    causal effect”. But if you look at the text itself there are temporal
    unwanted side effects, a clustering of negative effects around a certain
    number of days. That is translated in the conclusion as “no causal effect”
    which to the unsuspicious means “completely safe”. And that’s completely
    untrue. It’s done all the time so pharma can pump unsafe products into the
    market. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s good business.

  14. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 This is an aspect of vitalism in allopathy. And I note that you
    accept this without any double blinds. Why do you accept this without any
    double blinds?

  15. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 Roy is only showing the absurdity of the claim that “if it’s
    diluted beyond avagadro then there’s nothing in it.” No difference between
    different remedies or different potencies, which can’t be distinguished. I
    can’t see any refutations by any materials scientists. Name one materials
    scientist who refutes Roy’s paper and Roy’s claims. By agreeing that 30c
    dilutions (that’s 10^-60) of dust mite changed the outcome in non-linear
    manner, different to placebo, you have validated Roy’s claim.

  16. indoctus41 says:

    More BS. Universities don’t fund studies of this kind. Studies are
    extremely pricey and they just don’t have the money. In fact they are
    strapped for money most of the time. What happens is someone provides the
    funding from outside, usually a corporation with an interest. That’s
    reality. Zak is living in his own conceptual world that has nothing to do
    with the real one.

  17. Hooya2 says:

    @Hooya2 After a quick google I realized ‘Coulter’ was probably referring to
    Catherine Coulter, so to correct myself: this Coulter WOMAN thinks that
    rationalists assume human bodies are passive? Is SHE retarded, or just
    ignorant?

  18. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 you still don’t understand. Here you have first quoted me and then
    your response shows you don’t understand, and I quote- “”An individualized
    remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion
    and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the
    real remedy.” How is that not a plain pharmaceutical clinical trial? It’s
    so weird, you’ve been ranting on and on about ‘pharmaceuticalism’ being
    wrong, but you think this experiment is fine? Lol?””

  19. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 Garbage. Roy’s experiments relate to structure of water. Remedies
    are 87.5% water and 12.5% alcohol. Irrespective of whether or not
    homeopathy works, it is truly bizarre that people trained in pharmaceutical
    prescribing are incapable of understanding homeopathic methodology.
    Homeopathic methodology is simple and concise, with clear and easy to
    follow rules for anyone who has not been schooled in the allopathic
    profession. (You can’t even understand “individualized.” Can You?)

  20. farmerjohn010 says:

    What rubbish “However, there was a different pattern of response within the
    homoeopathy group, characterised by alter­ nating deterioration and
    improvement. This pattern is inconsistent with homoeopathic theory and with
    previous reports of data in related studies, in which there was aggravation
    of symptoms or mid­study improvement.9 10 21 The cause of this significant
    oscillating pattern is unknown, but we cannot exclude a type 1 error
    arising from the use of the multiple outcome variables.”

  21. Hooya2 says:

    @farmerjohn010 No, I haven’t watched Roy’s presentation, but I haven’t
    condemned it either. Like I said earlier, I looked up his PEER-REVIEWED
    RESEARCH and condemned that. I actually would rather sift through Iris
    Bell’s slides without the presentation lol; it’s the talking that bugs me,
    not the reading. I seem to have her slides, if you Google “clinical
    research in homeopathy iris bell drshevin 1007” it’s the second hit.

  22. Hooya2 says:

    @farmerjohn010 So this Coulter guy thinks that it’s a rationalist
    assumption that our bodies are passive to external assault? Is he retarded,
    or just ignorant? Of course the body responds to ‘external assault’–heck,
    we were just talking about one way, leukocytes moving toward the site.
    There’s also blood coagulation, fever, vomitting, sweating, etc. Nothing
    about this is vitalistic, though; all of these responses are induced by
    purely physical chemical reactions.

  23. farmerjohn010 says:

    @farmerjohn010 of course the field strength is inversely proportional to
    the square of the distance. But you get the point.

  24. indoctus41 says:

    Just a quick word to those reading my posts. People like Zak are
    essentially apologists for the corruption, greed and propaganda within our
    society. They are not analysts. Zak chose conventional medicine but it
    could be anything. He bows down to medical science as a god, and fails to
    understand the complex structure that has created this failed system. The
    system is fighting back, fearing the millions that are walking away from
    the nonsense that brazenly calls itself medical science.

  25. farmerjohn010 says:

    @Hooya2 The emphasis is on the peculiar, symptoms which can separate the
    patients, not the common ones. You should just look up some common remedies
    from the materia medica and read them to get the idea.. Natrum muriaticum,
    sulfur, lycopodium, calcium carbonicum, hypericum, arnica etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *