feeling a lot of nervousness and excitement about what is happening
1455 stories

Homeopathy Explained – Gentle Healing or Reckless Fraud?

1 Share
From: Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Duration: 08:32

What are the principles behind Homeopathy and does it work?

Kurzgesagt Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/cRUQxz

Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h

Kurzgesagt merch: http://bit.ly/1P1hQIH

The MUSIC of the video:

Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2BI1Wb5
Bandcamp: http://bit.ly/2sJaEmh
Facebook: http://bit.ly/2qW6bY4

We would like to thank Dr. Natalie Grams, Dr.-Ing. Norbert Aust and Udo Endruscheit as well as Dr. Robin Fears and Professor Paul Glasziou for supporting us with our research.



Main principles of homeopathy:



Information Network Homeopathy Germany:

Homeopedia – German Online Encyclopedia:

List of homeopathic remedies:

Information regarding different homeopathic potencies:



Physical examination of dilution


Hahnemanns explanation for the efficacy of homeopathy despite dilution:

§ 270 Sixth edition

18th century medicine


Hahnemanns rules for taking homeopathic remedies, Organon of medicine §260 Sixth edition:


Studies about the lacking efficacy of homeopathic products:

Statement of the European Academies Science Advisory Council September 2017:

Australian Study from the National and Medical Health Council, 2015:

Systematic reviews from Mathie et al, employees of the Homeopathy Research Institutehttp://bit.ly/2GaWI7x

Statement from the FDA demanding homeopathic companies must prove efficacy of their products:

Statement from the FDA regarding their approach towards homeopathic remedies
Quote: There are no drug products labeled as homeopathic that are approved by FDA.


The Placebo and Nocebo Phenomena: Their Clinical Management and Impact on Treatment Outcomes

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome


Placeboeffect on children and animals

Caregiver placebo effect in analgesic clinical trials for cats with naturally occurring degenerative joint disease-associated pain.



Homeopathy is big pharma:



Homeopathic anamnesis/ initial interview:

Exemplary questionnaire for initial interview:

Marketshare and market development for homeopathy


Further reading:

Blog beweisaufnahme-homoeopathie.de (German, some articles in English)

ORGANON OF MEDICINE by Hahnemann Samuel (Original text)

Free ebooks on „Materiae Medicae” (German and English)http://bit.ly/2DtjNQW

Deutsches Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie
(Short english version)

US Department of Health: Information overview about homeopathy

Homepathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States
(Official Compendium of Homeopathic ingredients)

List of over 5000 homeopathic ingredients A-Z

FDA warns against the use of homeopathic teething tablets and gels


Flavio Storino, Alice Balcon, Hari Krishnan, Warren Wiscombe, Sara Zeglin, Asiryan Alexander, maarten sprengers, William Northern, Kerem Mimaroglu, Yana Kultysheva, Josh, Keaton Anderson, Croconaw, Peter Steinberger, Jonathan Diamond, Troy McConaghy, Paddy, Darko Sperac, Peter Burkhalter, Chris Amaris, Tyler Lovell, John Ruble, Chase Henson, Arpita Singh, Edward C.P., Andreas Edlund, Ryan Bubinski, Paul Greyson, Jerry Ding, Austin Sundquist, Daniel Link, Tim Johnson, kayleigh dreste, Johan Sjöblom, Max Stuart, Mush Rain, Andor Baranyi, Eduardas Afanasjevas, Bill Clem, Jake Smith, Stephen Woerner, Jeff Sorensen, Christopher Damsgaard, Eduardo AV, Michael Gawenka, Florian Hoedt, Lucas Nyman, Nathanael Baker, Martin Wierzyk, Mauricio Streb, Karl, Rameet Chawla, Joachim Andersen, Avinash, Erik Golden, Glenn Stoltz, Elliott Nelson, Andrew Averett, Ben Wei

Read the whole story
6 hours ago
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story

The Second Amendment Is an Anachronism

1 Comment

The U.S. Constitution provided for a permanent navy, but it would not do the same for an army.

The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….


Raising an army was supposed to take a special legislative act and be limited in time to meet some crisis. Of course, even at the slower pace of the 18th century, in a time of crisis it could conceivably take too long to raise an army, so state militias were the first line of defense. The Constitution provided for this too.

The Congress shall have Power To…provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


At the time, the states were vastly more divided than they are today, particularly on the issue of religion. The Congregationalists of Massachusetts, the Presbyterians of New Jersey, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Catholics of Maryland, the Anglicans of Virginia and the Baptists of the Carolinas did not trust some overarching federal government to control their militias. This is why the states maintained the right to appoint their own officers and the training of their own soldiers. They would not have submitted to anything like the National Guard that we have today.

They also had the responsibility for arming their own militias, and this was partly because the federal government sure as hell didn’t want to pay for the expense. In fact, after the Whiskey Rebellion broke out in 1791, Congress decided that they needed to codify how militias were to be used in the future. In the Militia Acts of 1792, Congress was clear that the responsibility for arming the militias lied not just with the states but with every male citizen.

Militia members, referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified”, “…shall within six months thereafter, provide himself…” with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

Now, we’re working a little outside of a strict chronology here, but it’s easy to see how the Second Amendment’s concern with a “well-regulated” militia fits in. How, for example, could a man provide his own musket if he was prevented from buying one?

So, on the one hand, the distrust of standing armies and of an overarching federal power led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, and state militias would remain under state control as much as possible during a federal muster. On the other hand, to make this practicable, the Congress soon concluded that every man must own a firearm. The Second Amendment only restricted what the federal legislature could prohibit, but the Militia Acts applied to the states and their citizens.

Now, consider that we have had a National Guard since 1903 and a standing army for much longer than that. I’ve never met anyone who wouldn’t move from one state to another because they didn’t want to live under a foreign religion. We haven’t had a draft since the 1970s, and the idea that the federal government could compel you to buy a firearm seems tyrannical to every American citizen. If the government does compel us to serve, we expect them to pay for our equipment.

We got over our religious differences. We got over our fear of a standing army. We allowed the federal government to play a large role in our state’s militias when they were organized into national guards and reserves. But we somehow never got over our adherence to the Second Amendment. In fact, about ten years ago, the Supreme Court for the first time in our nation’s history ruled that citizens have an individual right to a firearm irrespective of their potential service in a militia.

We’re not living in a country anymore where everyone owns a gun or where every male citizen can be compelled to own a gun. We aren’t relied upon to race to the country’s defense if an emergency arises so immediate that there is no time to raise a standing army.

Almost every element that was present when the Second Amendment was enacted is absent now.

I recognize that many people still believe that an armed citizenry is a bulwark against tyranny, but it’s not much of one―as the standoff at Waco made clear. The primary way that the Constitution tried to prevent tyranny was by denying the federal government a standing army. To do this, the founding fathers devised provisions to make a standing army unnecessary or limited in duration. The state militia system was their device for accomplishing this, but it’s a solution that predates the Napoleonic Wars. It proved itself unworkable over 200 years ago.

The rationale for the Second Amendment is an anachronism. This is true if you look at the narrow language they used (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary…”), and it’s also true if you look at the wider context and purposes of the amendment. Not only is a militia no longer necessary, but the whole scheme we use for our national defense is a gigantic violation of the principles the amendment sought to preserve and protect.

When we get rid of our army, marines and air force, and we eliminate our national guards and reserves and reapply the principle that our citizens must be ready to muster to the nation’s defense and provide their own equipment, then we can talk about how necessary it is to preserve the Second Amendment.

In the meantime, anyone who tells us that the Original Intent of the Founders requires us to consent to the easy availability of AR-15s and similar weapons, is completely misinformed.

Read the whole story
12 hours ago
«The rationale for the Second Amendment is an anachronism. This is true if you look at the narrow language they used (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary…”), and it’s also true if you look at the wider context and purposes of the amendment. Not only is a militia no longer necessary, but the whole scheme we use for our national defense is a gigantic violation of the principles the amendment sought to preserve and protect.»

There's a couple of good disagreements to be had with this, but it's not exactly wrong.
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story

Violent Video Games Argument Receives HD Remaster

1 Share

WASHINGTON — Fans of recycled arguments rejoiced earlier this week, as President Donald Trump unveiled an updated, high definition remaster of the allegation that video games are to blame for real life atrocities.

“I’m hearing more and more people seeing the level of violence in video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts,” said the President on Thursday.  “And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies. You see these movies, and they’re so violent a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn’t involved, but killing is involved, and maybe we need to put a rating system for that.”

The remaster is available across all media platforms, and the new version has introduced social media compatibility, something the original 1999 version was only able to touch on. Though today’s technology allows for crisper graphics and smoother animations, many have said that the fundamental problems that have always plagued the series remain.

Read More From Hard Drive, The Only Ethical Gaming Journalism Site on The Internet:

“Sure this new one looks and sounds great,” said blogger Anna Farley.  “But just like the original, the characters just don’t come across as relatable or human or anything.  It really makes it tough to buy into.”

Despite the mixed reaction from the public, the President and several other prominent politicians insisted that the argument is more relevant now than ever, citing the current state of video game culture.

“It’s garbage. It’s the same as pornography. They have desensitized people to the value of human life, to the dignity of women, to the dignity of human decency,” said Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, who famously spoke at a pro-cockfighting rally in 2014.

“We’ve got to do something about these video games this time,” he added.  “The fact that we didn’t after Doom and Grand Theft Auto came out in the ’90s is unforgivable.”

Article by Mark Roebuck @mark_roebuck. 

Hard Drive is the most ethical gaming journalism on the internet. Follow us on Facebook to keep up.


The post Violent Video Games Argument Receives <b>HD</b> Remaster
appeared first on The Hard Times.

Read the whole story
13 hours ago
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story

Here’s Why People Are Working Less

1 Share

Via Andrew Van Dam, a new paper tries to estimate why there are fewer people working than in the 90s. Much of this is due to the aging of the workforce, but even among prime working-age people the employment rate is down. Here’s the employment-population ratio for those aged 25-54 since the mid-90s:

The peak of the dotcom boom is probably not the right comparison, but even if you use the mid-90s more generally as a baseline, about 2-3 percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the workforce over the past two decades. Why? Here’s what the authors came up with:

For practical purposes, the entire story is China and automation. The other three factors had a minimal effect, and the following things had no effect:

  • SNAP (food stamp) expansions
  • Obamacare/Medicaid
  • More generous EITC
  • Increased rates of spousal employment
  • Increased difficulties due to lack of family leave
  • Expanded immigration
  • Decline in unionization

The China effect is a one-off phenomenon, and it’s pretty much over. We’ve lost all the jobs we’re going to lose. Automation, however, is just getting started. I don’t personally expect it to have a big impact in the near future, but starting in the mid 2020s I think it will. This is the biggest economic challenge of the next few decades.

Read the whole story
15 hours ago
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story

Teenagers Are Pretty Awesome These Days

1 Share

High school students are protesting guns, and that’s prompted some folks to dredge up a decade-old tweet from NRA flack Dana Loesch:

They can be annoying, all right, especially when they’re protesting guns. But all jokes aside, it’s worth being in awe of just how much better today’s teenagers are than those of Loesch’s era. Naturally, I’ve got a chart:

Bad behaviors have declined substantially since the mid-90s and good behaviors have increased. It’s pretty astonishing how widespread this is. They may annoy us with their smartphones and insistence on doing good works, but they’re in a helluva lot better shape than us Boomer/Gen X folks ever were.


  • Cigarettes: National Survey on Drug Use and Health (1995 here, 2016 Table 2.2B here). 12-17 year-olds reporting cigarette use in past month: 4.2% vs. 20%.
  • Arrest rate: Dept. of Justice here. Raw arrest rates, 1995-2016: 2,553 per 100,000 vs. 8,228 per 100,000.
  • Teen pregnancy: Dept. of Health & Human Services here. 15-19 year-olds, 1995-2014: 24.2% vs. 56%.
  • Drunk driving: CDC National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 1995 here, 2015 here: 7.8% vs. 15.4%.
  • School fights: NYRBS. Physical fight within past 12 months: 22.6% vs. 38.7%.
  • Alcohol use: Same as cigarettes.
  • Drug use: National Survey on Drug Use and Health (1995 here, 2016 Table 1.2B here). 12-17 year-olds reporting any illicit drug use in past month: 8.8% vs. 11%.
  • Carried a weapon: NYRBS. Carried a weapon at least once in past 30 days: 16.2% vs. 20.0%.
  • NAEP reading: Long-term NAEP assessment here, 17-year-olds, 2012 vs. 1994: 289 vs. 288. Note that two points were added to 2012 scores to compensate for assessment format changes.
  • NAEP math: NAEP. Scale scores: 308 vs. 306.
  • Attend college: National Center for Education Statistics here. Percent of recent high school completers enrolled in college: 69.8% vs. 61.9%.
  • School sports: NYRBS. Played on at least one sports team run by school or community group: 57.6% vs. 50.3%.
  • High school units: NCES here, 1987-2009. Average number of Carnegie units earned by public high school graduates: 27.15 vs. 23.00.
Read the whole story
15 hours ago
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story

Arming Educators Violates the Spirit of the Second Amendment

1 Comment
Read the whole story
16 hours ago
"Not only is the efficacy of these measures dubious, they run counter to the ideals of the Second Amendment that are often invoked to justify them—extending the power of a militarized state at the expense of individual liberty."
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Next Page of Stories