Homeopathy Debate Video Stream

December 14th, 2006 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, homeopathy | 75 Comments »

The video for the homeopathy “debate” at the Natural History Museum two weeks ago is up, it’s me and Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the NHS Royal Intergalactic Homeopathic Hospital in Queen’s Square. It feels to me as if some of the discussion might be missing, looking at the timebar, but I haven’t had a chance to watch it all yet.

As I remember it, Peter’s talk involves rather a lot on how Dawkins said something a bit stupid about homeopathy once in an introduction to someone else’s book 7 years ago, and there was a TV program four years ago which he didn’t like very much either. Then I rather recklessly try and jam the entire foundations of evidence based medicine into 15 minutes of hand waving. Unfortunately the headmounted microphone they make you wear for these things made my normally excellent and big hair look a bit rubbish, which I fear may have undermined my case.

Oh, but stick with it to the end, because the homeopaths in the audience discussion are the real stars. Believe me. Enjoy:


(thanks PM for the easier embeddable vid link).

If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

75 Responses

  1. Ben Goldacre said,

    December 16, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    quality commentary from the homeopathy community continues to roll in. just received this charming email from lionel milgrom, who clearly hasn’t bothered to even watch the video.

    “Benjamin, oh lttle Benjamin,

    “I’ve just read your purile blog about the debate at the Natural History Museum. How did you know what Peter Fisher said? You missed most of it because you couldn’t be bothered to turn up on time. That makes you somewhat mendacious, wouldn’t you agree? Reporting about things for which you weren’t in attendance? A typical reorter’s scam. I thought better of you. What a major disappojntment you are.

    “Lionel Milgrom”

    if you want to check whether i was there for peter’s talk you can see me in the very first frame of the video above, and then throughout the entire subsequent video. absolutely bizarre. i personally suspect lionel’s extensive popular journalism on homeopathy and quantum physics might betray the same high standards of accuracy and rhetoric as this comment.

    somebody at a party two years ago tried very persuasively to drag me away from the friends i was talking to and introduce me to milgrom, and the more i tried to politely suggest that i hadn’t seen my friends for a while and wanted to chat to them, the more persuasive and then angry the person who was trying to get me over became. she was indignant and expressed the notion that i was somehow remiss in an important political, medical and moral responsibility to go and talk to the great lionel milgrom. at the time i was thinking, i’m having a nice time talking to friends, and i dont want to talk to an angry homeopath in my leisure time. looks like it was a good call.

    this homeopathy lot really are extraordinary.

  2. mad dog said,

    December 16, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Hello, I’m new around these parts, though I have been a grateful reader of the BS column (hmmm, not sure I should call it that) for some time (gotta love a bit of righteous anger on a Saturday morning – almost as good as going to church).

    Anyhow, Ben, I thought your performance was smashing, though ultimately futile, given the massed ranks of wilful ignorance against which you were arrayed. It would have been nice if the museum had made it clear where they had recruited (or rather, dredged) their audience from, as I spent most of the first half wondering who you were talking to.

    I have to say I think you’ve been too kind on Fisher, though. I don’t keep up to date with who’s who in the wacky world of homoeopathy, having many more interesting ways to spend my time, so I’d never before heard of the ‘eminent’ gentleman, but his talk had me spitting with rage from the very first, when he started by saying, “of course it works – it’s 210 years old and it’s all over the place.” What kind of a *scientific* argument is that, for goodness’ sake? And how is the concept of “treating like with like” not controversial? It’s at the very least highly counterintuitive.

    I actually thought that it was rather sweet and earnest, the way that he’d clearly thought long and hard about the question of how to apply the scientific method in support of his beloved (and no doubt extremely lucrative) homooooooeopathy. Unfortunately, the question a real scientist would ask would be, how can we use the scientific method to try to *disprove* my pet theory?

    One wonders what testable predictions derive from the nonsensical theory of water memory? Why is this effect so mysteriously invisible with modern measuring equipment? Would one homoeopathic tablet dropped in a reservoir cure the ailments of an entire city? Does a cup of tea stirred with a clockwise motion have different properties from one stirred anti-clockwise? If so, I want to know what they are …

  3. BSM said,

    December 16, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    “when people are LEARNING about the fundamental principles of science in schools (and also in Universities).”

    I have been interested to see in primary school science work that their experimental investigations all pay consideration to what makes that investigation a ‘fair test’.

    I think it just doesn’t stick with some people. Let’s face it, some manage to go the whole way through a university medical education and still ‘go bad’.

  4. BSM said,

    December 16, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    “I actually thought that it was rather sweet and earnest, the way that he’d clearly thought long and hard about the question of how to apply the scientific method in support of his beloved (and no doubt extremely lucrative) homooooooeopathy. ”

    Perhaps the time spent on Copacabana beach paid for by the homeopathic industry had slowed his thought processes.

    The question is, at what point does one’s enjoyment of a jet-setting internationl academic career based on water retailing become a major obstacle to critical thought? What does the phrase ‘vested interest’ mean? Clearly, these questions are entirely hypothetical.

  5. Ben Goldacre said,

    December 16, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    “I have to say I think you’ve been too kind on Fisher, though.”

    seriously, all of you who keep saying this, he’s a nice guy, informed and intelligent, the best of the lot, and a pleasure to discuss things with. can you imagine even trying to have that kind of constructive disagreement with someone like lionel milgrom, or any of the people in the audience?

  6. scentless_apprentice said,

    December 16, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    Ben, I admire your viewpoint on Fisher.

    However, the less erudite members of the homeopathy crowd come across to me like the school bully’s snivelling little mate, Fisher being the strong character supported by the weak, unintelligent rats trying to get some of his kudos and status to rub off onto them.

    Unfortunately, it’s exactly because of people like Fisher that there’s this heaving mob of pseudoscientists pedalling this crap.

  7. mad dog said,

    December 16, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    I’m afraid I disagree (with Ben, think I am agreeing with scentless_apprentice) – he might be a nice guy, but it’s intelligent , articulate, and erudite people like Fisher who cause the most damage, by giving the whole charade the veneer of scientific respectability and that it so patently doesn’t deserve. Fisher’s problem, it seems to me, is that comes from a position of faith in the thing that he is supposed to be studying. He then builds a convincing, tightly-welded cathedral of highly coherent logic around this, which is an impressive feat, but ultimately a hollow one, and in my opinion no different (except perhaps in degree of erudition) to the ways in which paranoics and religionists can justify their own idiosyncratic world views. The fact that he doesn’t question this fundamental premise ought to automatically exclude him from debating it. It’s like asking someone who’s devoted their life to Biblical exegisis whether God exists. Of course they’re going to say yes – their entire livelihood is postulated on His divine existence.

    What is needed is some real impartial studies. Unfortunately, most real scientists won’t touch the subject because who the hell wants to waste their precious time on a hypothesis with no discernable mechanism and scant, anecdotal observational data?

  8. monkeychicken said,

    December 16, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    Are you hungover, you keep drinking lots of water.

  9. dwbee said,

    December 16, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    Very interesting Saturday evening viewing! Certainly better than X-factor and come dancing.

    Well done Ben. You performed admirably against the mob. Three points remain with me:

    – “It is spiritual”, said one of the pro-homeo audience. Of course it is!! Millions of people believe in a god. No evidence for that either. (Excuse the football analogy but….) I believe that Brentford football club is the best team in West London. No evidence to support that belief in fact plenty to dispute it yet I wouldn’t dare question the efficacy of Chelsea and I will not change my believe.
    – (Ref – Ben’s post no.33) When Ben described how a member of the audience suggested making him ill, the homeopathy lobby in the audience (i.e. most people in the room) were sniggering. A very infantile uncaring approach to another person’s health. Would someone from mainstream medical profession laugh in the face of someone who doubts the value of a life saving drug?
    – Lastly, Ben has a striking resemblance to a younger version of the detective Colombo. Should Hollywood be considering a re-make I suggest they should avail themselves of Ben’s email address. Work on an Italian-American accent in anticipation Ben! (EXcuse this comment, as a baldy I am just diplaying some jealousy towards your big-hair)

  10. inicholson said,

    December 17, 2006 at 9:48 am

    I was completely baffled by the woman at the start who complained that neither of you had properly explained the diffefence between a homeopathic substance and a potentised one – it was obviously very important to her! However the woman in the green dress with bits of ostrich round her neck explained it very clearly – water with nothing in it (but a “memory”) has been potentised, if it cures your ilness it’s also homepoathic but if it doesn’t it isn’t. Thus demonstrating that homeopathy is effective 100% of the time (and therefore much more effective than a placebo).

  11. john souray said,

    December 17, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    (inicholson:) I don’t think that’s what she was saying, though she certainly wasn’t clear. I understood her to be saying that a progressively diluted substance was only potentised. A potentised substance only becomes a homoeopathic remedy when it is “prescribed” (do they use that word?) by a homoeopathic practitioner following their specific (holistic) analysis of the symptoms.

    If my understanding was right (and I’m not at all confident) then the interesting thing is it renders fraudulent all those bottles of potentised substance on sale in Boots and Holland & Barrett and so on which you buy just like you buy an ordinary medicine (they even have handy booklets listing the diseases – not, note, symptoms – to which they’re appropriate).

    We might legitimately think it’s those manufacturers and retailers they ought to be getting angry with, not just Ben Goldacre.

  12. Ken Zetie said,

    December 17, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    Just caught up with this thread after a lovely weekend in the Lake District. Having just finished reading Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” I can’t help see an awful lot of overlaps between the homeopathy debate and what Dawkins portrays as the struggle for atheism to be accepted as a valid philosophical position.

    Not least amongst the similarities is the presence of appeasing moderates. In the religious debate Dawkins talks about the problem with moderates is that they accept de facto that faith stands above evidence and place faith above other philosophies. Therefore another faith – even one they must avowedly dismiss – is given prominence over no fatih (rationalism). Hence the problem of trying to appease everyone’s views. The similarity with Ben’s debate with the faith-based medicine lobby is only partly the fundamentalist, extremist leaders – it it mainly with the moderate audience. Moderate in that they accept some science (they get in a jet plane to go on holiday, microwave their dinners and can probably use a word processor to spell-check the word ‘hypocrite’ accpeting along all the scientific advances to produce these things) but are all too ready to dismiss the whole of science when it doesn’t accord with one shot of personal experience – usually Aunt Edna smoking 60 a day and living to be 93. If they don’t have an Aunt Edna who kippered herself then they have to resort to the old standard of bumble bees (about which I could write at excessive length…and have done). It is the masses who refuse to accept that science is a system, whole and complete and you cannot just take the bits you like, who are the problem.

    Can it really be down to schools to help sort it out? If so, we need teachers in school who understand science. And there are fewer and fewer of those. How many primary teachers have any science background at all?


  13. Dr Aust said,

    December 17, 2006 at 9:43 pm

    That’s right, John – over-the-counter homeopathic remedies don’t count as “Genuine” homeopathy as they are not individualized, or prescribed with the ritual incantations of a “qualified” homeopath. Therefore a “proper” homeopath should regard them as ineffective and essentially fraudulent.

    In this connection, when the alt health companies were pushing the MHRA to allow them to sell things labelled “homeopathic cold cure” over the counter, the homeopaths were startlingly silent about this perversion of their cherished therapeutic system. Funny, that.

    Also why I was repeating on the Lionel Milgrom thread that I would always like to see “serious” homeopaths like Peter Fisher asked the question “Can Over-The-Counter homeopathic remedies work?” in a debate. I think this is the medically-qualified-homeopath equivalent of asking an old calculator the square root of minus one. Essentially the only way they can claim the pills do anything is via the BELIEF of the person taking it that it will work, ergo placebo.

    Then, once they have admitted that the pills themselves have a placebo effect, they can be asked “So given that you have admitted the pills have a placebo effect, and that we KNOW from many studies that there is a “therapeutic consultation” effect, what exactly IS homeopathy beyond the sum of these two perfectly explicable things?”

    I know what my answer is.

    BTW, Ben referred above to the differences between UK homeopaths (largely barking reject-nasty-drugs alternative crystals-and-Mayan re-birthing fringe loony types) and the ones from places like Switzerland and Germany. One difference is that in those countries many homeopaths are people who started as conventionally-trained doctors but who use homeopathy. I have always suspected that the tacit belief there is that, for people with vague “don’t quite feel right” non-specific and largely non-treatable ailments, they are happy to “mobilize” the power of patients’ beliefs to try and make them feel better.

    The other difference is that if the patient clearly has a serious conventionally-treatable problem then they get told to seek conventional treatment, rather than being told that “18c homoepathic rattlesnake venom” will lower their blood pressure.

  14. Ben Goldacre said,

    December 17, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    its obviously true that the over the counter homeopathy pills presents a major logical problem for the sane homeopathswho try to be consistent, but to me it’s just another example of the total failure to engage in everyday critical self-appraisal in the homeopathy industry which is, as i keep saying, 200 years old, so we are perfectly entitled to expect it to behave as a mature discipline.

    as far as i am aware there have not been discussion papers on the problems posed by the huge over and prominent trade in counter homeopathy pills in the homeopathy and CAM literature, even the grey literature, but i may be wrong. i’d love to see one example.

    as for the stark difference between the rabid and hateful UK homeopathy community and their reasoned and moderate continental counterparts, i don’t really know what’s going on there.

    i think perhaps in germany, for example, they are less fearful and paranoid about their professional identity and standing, so they don’t flip out so viciously when someone pops up and says “hang on that’s just a survey with inadequate follow-up, that doesn’t trump a meta-analysis at all…”

    it might also just be a national temperament thing. we have more street violence and teenage pregnancies than anyone else, too, you know. i think rabid hateful homeopaths might just be an intellectual expression of the same unmediated impulsiveness, and lack of self-regulation in the most individualistic sense.

  15. Mojo said,

    December 18, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    john souray said, “I don’t think that’s what she was saying, though she certainly wasn’t clear. I understood her to be saying that a progressively diluted substance was only potentised. A potentised substance only becomes a homoeopathic remedy when it is “prescribed” (do they use that word?) by a homoeopathic practitioner following their specific (holistic) analysis of the symptoms.”

    This is certainly something I’ve seen at least one homoeopath say in print. See the comments to this story:


    “Although Prof Ernst claims to have studied homeopathy, his comments regarding the use of serially diluted remedies which he writes for his journal, FACT, do not demonstrate an understanding of homeopathic prescribing principles.

    1) To become a homeopthic remedy, a serially diluted remedy needs to be prescribed to homeopathic standards.

    2) A serially diluted remedy not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a homeopathic prescription.

    3) Research on the effectiveness of serially dilluted remedies which are not prescribed to homeopathic standards is not a test of homeopathy.

    – Jerome Whitney, London UK”

    Unfortunately for Mr. Whitney, one of the trials mentioned in the article was a randomised placebo-controlled trial of individualised homoeopathy; in other words a test of homoeopathic remedies that have been “prescribed to homeopathic standards”:


    Milgrom’s stuff about “Patient-practitioner-remedy entanglement” is another attempt to invoke the same excuse. For a recent paper see Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings:


    You couldn’t make this stuff up!

  16. Mojo said,

    December 18, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Sorry, the comments seem to not be linked from the version of the Mail story I linked to above. I’ll try this one:


  17. ayupmeduck said,

    December 18, 2006 at 9:09 pm

    I probably cannot speak for Germany as a whole, but in Bavaria, Austria and North Italy, homeopathy is rampant. We live in the “artists quarter” of Munich and it is scary. Many of the mothers carry around their €500 a shot homeopathic kits ready to check the accompanying guide and hand out sugar and water for any ailment. Quite a few chemists sell homeopathic “remedies” without telling you anything about what you are getting, never mind a second of consultation. Can you guess how effective a homeopathic remedy is for head-lice? There are at least 10 homeopathic “doctors” in walking distance from my office.

    So maybe, as you say, the German homeopaths aren’t so fearful, but that is possibly because they have the market tied-up. And I could just about live with this, if it wasn’t for the fact that the same people paying out €500 for their water kits are the exact same ones whining on about the poor state of the German health system.

    Most of these homeopaths share offices, or also engage, with other sidelines such as herbal remedies, feng shui, pyramids against e-smog, magnets on water pipes, etc.

    I’ll sit in the Glasto healing fields and talk esoteric bollocks just like anybody else, but this is not just hippy nonsense, this is dangerous mixture and greed and stupidity.

  18. David Colquhoun said,

    December 19, 2006 at 12:25 am

    Yes I think I too have been influenced by Dawkins’ talk of appeasement by agnostics.

    I doubt very much whether I could have kept as cool as Ben did. I’ve come, rightly or (quite possibly) wrongly, that it might be better to just say straight out that these guys are frauds, even Fisher (never mind the unspeakable Melanie Oxley). ‘Fraud’ is short, simple and to the point. Everyone understand it. Since most people don’t seem to understand what makes good evidence and what doesn’t, even masterly expostions like Ben’s don’t seem to cut much ice. I couldn’t resist posting something about magic water being like a memory stick (i managed, with some difficulty, to capture a frame of him brandishing his gigabyte proof that all is OK at
    www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#goldfish )

    By the way, You and Yours (Tuesday 19 Dec 12.04 Radio 4) is doing something on the snoring scam.

  19. Ben Goldacre said,

    December 19, 2006 at 1:51 am

    “I doubt very much whether I could have kept as cool as Ben did. I’ve come, rightly or (quite possibly) wrongly, that it might be better to just say straight out that these guys are frauds”

    ha! this is a difference in approach which i very much look forward to exploring in the colquhoun badscience interview podcast, sorry we didn’t get to do it at the CAM conference, i didn’t have the equipment.

    the odd thing about the memory of water business is that for all their chatter about it, homeopaths actually hand out little sugar pills. you never hear them taking about the memory of sugar, remembering things it picked up from the water, or do you?

  20. three tigers said,

    December 19, 2006 at 7:26 am

    Homeopathy is part of the normal curriculum for medics and pharmacists in Germany rather than a looney fringe activity, practiced by deluded ex-medics and never-medics to make money selling water, as in the UK. It must be something to do with the fact it was a german who first came up with the daft idea and they feel it’s a patriotic duty.
    Dr Aust is absolutely right in #63. If you are a ‘worried well, time-waster’ or they are confident the condition is self-limiting, Swiss doctors do give all manner of suger-pills to patients.
    As a parent, I had to decide if my son could be given a homeopathic treatment if he fell over and bumped himself in his gymnastics class. I said no. Plasters yes, quack drivel no thanks.

  21. john souray said,

    December 19, 2006 at 8:36 am

    I think some of you are being a bit unfair about Dr Fisher’s brandishing of a memory stick. I don’t think he was saying “water may well have a memory in the same way that this stick does”. I think he was pointing out that twenty or thirty years ago, nobody would have believed that a thing like his memory stick could have stored the quantity of information that stick held, and that a scientific analysis of it would have failed to reveal it.

    (We all have fun laughing at the science fiction films of old, with their master computers: even the ones with solid scientific advice, like 2001. A particularly interesting example is Nigel Kneale’s The Stone Tape, a BBC Christmas ghost story in which a team of computer scientists retreat to a country house to “brainstorm” a technical solution to a memory storage problem. This is interesting not just because it’s a fine ghost story, but because it deals directly with exactly this problem and because we can all have a good laugh at the awful clunky computers they actually have to work with, just one step up from a punch-card machine. )

    I don’t think this is any more convincing as an argument though. It’s just a sophisticated dressing up of the “more things in heaven and earth” ploy. It doesn’t so much assert that a thing is possible as say “well, it isn’t impossible”.

  22. autism diva said,

    December 19, 2006 at 9:54 am

    My favorite comment from the audience was from a young man asking if a homeopathic dilution of polonium 210 would have saved the Russian spy from a nasty death by polonium 210.

    Regarding the problem of homeopaths threatening skeptics with harm through homeopathic remedies….
    Link to a video of Peter Bowditch commiting “homeopathic suicide.”

    Peter Bowditch attempted “homeopathic suicide” by taking 200C belladonna pills, which were sent to him with a wish for Mr. Bowditch’s death or something.

    Later, Bowditch posted to the healthfraud listserv which is public but really hard to search through,

    “I was accused by a homeopath of not understanding homeopathy and being
    frightened to try it. I asked him to send me some pills, which he did.
    Since then he emailed me twice accusing me of gutlessness, so I told him
    that I would be taking a mass of the tablets.

    You can se me committing suicide at the first link on

    He has now told me that by taking a lot of tablets at once I am again
    illustrating my ignorance, as I was specifically instructed to take one
    per hour for 12 hours to get the effect (such effect being unspecified but
    apparently obvious).

    I am now up to hour 5 and I am still alive and showing no effects of
    belladonna. My problem is that the symptoms of belladonna poisoning
    according to my herbal manual are: “Strange indescribable feelings with
    giddiness, yawning, staggering or falling on attempting to walk; dryness
    of mouth and throat, sense as of suffocation, swallowing difficult, voice
    husky; face at first pale later suffused with a scarlatiniform rash which
    extends to the body; pupils widely dilated; pulse, at first bounding and
    rapid, later becomes irregular and faint”. As this sounds like the normal
    me it may be hard to detect the real effect.

    (The pills would be recognisable to any child in the civilised world,
    although some would call them “nonpariels” while others would say
    “hundreds and thousands”. Tiny balls of sugar.)”

    Since he still had pills he continued to take them one per hour, but still surivived.

    But one of the people in the audience said that homeopathic remedies do nothing if there isn’t the proper imbalance already present in the person’s body.

    Still, the homeopath who sent the 200C Belladonna pills must have known what they were supposed to do,, that is kill or maim Bowditch.

    Interesting stuff about occilococcinium which was sort of alluded to by the woman talking about a cure made with a duck egg (?). It’s duck liver and heart.

    “Oscillococcinum, a 200C product “for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms,” involves “dilutions” that are even more far-fetched. Its “active ingredient” is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck’s liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck’s heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird “the $20-million duck.”:

    I just wanted to add to the “nice hair” comments and say that I enjoyed the explanation of placebo effects.

  23. Penta said,

    January 3, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    I am not a scientist, but as athiest.

    I saw how the whole Quackery of Homeopathy was being bandied about like a religion. “Scietific methodology cant measure the effects….. so change the methodology”……. What nonsence!

    Shame you are wasting much needed NHS funding on such stuff in the UK.

    The NHS is already one of the weakest showcases for proper science and medicine in Europe, if not hte worst exmple. By wasting more money on Homeopathy, some little old lady isnt going to get her hip replacement operation this year!

    Finally I loved the reference to a data key being simply cilacone etc, and a CD being…. so somehow water could hold equivelent properties……. well I can just imagine Cilecone Valley suddenly being turned into a lake….. as it would be so much cheaper and Intel et al, wouldnt need to employ all those highly trained staff in clean rooms preparing chips! All they wold need to do is buy the rights to Penta Water and bob´s your Uncle!

  24. drcarley said,

    January 7, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Dr. Goldacre,

    One of my clients in the UK sent me the link to the debate you had with Dr. Fischer at www.badscience.net/?p=339#more-339, in which you discussed homeopathy’s “scientific” basis, along with the comments you made afterwords. You also brought up that the majority of homeopaths recommend that the MMR jab not be administered to their children. I hereby challenge you to a debate on homeopathy, vaccines, and science itself.

    I just sent the following e-mail to the National History Museum in London:

    “I am writing to request you sponsor another debate on homeopathy as well as the MMR vaccine, which was brought up as well in the debate. I am a medical doctor, the only court qualified expert in vaccine induced diseases in the world (to my knowledge), and I have developed a protocol to reverse all autoimmune diseases (including autism) and cancer, in people and in pets, using homeopathic remedies and other natural supplements.
    I would like to debate Dr. Goldacre in these areas; in particular, the documents on my website at www.drcarley.com. You will see that I have offered a $10,000 reward to any vaccine promoter to refute these documents; to date, no takers. Perhaps Dr. Goldacre would like to do so; and your museum could get the worldwide attention that such a debate would draw..
    I commend you for your willingness to bring these issues to the light of day, for the good of humanity.

    In Service to the TRUTH, I AM,
    Rebecca Carley, MD”

    I am attaching 2 of the documents on my website (“Inoculations; the True Weapons of Mass Destruction” and my “Response to the CDC’s Public Health Protection Guide”) for your critical evaluation. I would be very grateful for a chance to have a debate with you, as no one in the states is willing to debate me on these issues. I invite you to prove my documents wrong. If the NHM in London is not willing to do so, perhaps we can debate on my worldwide internet broadcast on www.againstthegrain.info. I will post this letter on my website, as well as your response. Let us debate what “bad science” really is….

    Rebecca Carley, MD

    2 attachments — Download all attachments
    VIDS Mechanism Paper 0706.doc
    84K View as HTML Download
    Response of Rebecca Carley, MD to CDC’s Protection Guide.doc
    62K View as HTML Download

  25. jiangjiang said,

    December 8, 2009 at 2:34 am

    ed hardy ed hardy
    ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
    ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
    christian audigier christian audigier
    ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
    ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
    ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
    ed hardy store ed hardy store
    ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
    ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
    ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids