Beware homeopathy: it poisons!

(Bulgarians can read this post here.)

Shortly before the end of the summer semester, I caught laryngitis. I was drinking tea every hour and other liquids every 3 minutes and nevertheless I had no voice. Two friends advised me to try the homeopathic remedy Homeovox that were allegedly very useful to them in a similar situation.

Now, I agree with those who say that homeopathy is "science for idiots". I had used it only once when I had contracted sinusitis while pregnant and an otorhinolaryngologist had prescribed me the homeopathic remedy Cinabsin. Doctors avoid prescribing true drugs to pregnant women because they could harm the baby, as if the best for the baby is to develop amidst an untreated infection. I tried the tablets, to no avail. Nevertheless, I decided to try the Homeovox as well, hoping that they could help after all.

I bought a package from the nearest pharmacy and sucked a tablet. No improvement at all. The highly recommended remedy could not even compare in efficiency with the cheap mint candy offered by a third friend. I looked into the list of ingredients to see what is (or is presumed to be) inside. You can see it here. I mentioned in the list the ingredient Mercurius solubilis, that is, soluble mercury. The medicine claims to be "toxin-free" and one indeed expects it to be safe because it is produced in France. So what was this mercury doing there? Indeed, many vaccines used to contain the mercury compound thimerosal (thiomersal) as preservative, and a few still have it; but tablets do not need such a preservative. Besides, Mercurius solubilis was listed among the active ingredients.

I searched the Web and found out that mercury is a regular component of homeopathic "remedies". The explanations why it is there, and generally how these "remedies" act, read as if their authors have some serious psychiatric diagnosis, and no adequate treatment. Here are some examples:


Jonathan Hardy, the site of the British Homeopathic Association: "Mercury is an element which has been known to man and used in medicine for millennia. Used homeopathically it is a very deep-acting and wide-ranging medicine. As is often the case we can see fascinating parallels between the chemical nature, properties, toxicology, as well as associated mythol­ogy and psychology and the homeo­pathic application of the substance... Highly toxic, mercury is most poisonous when inhaled but dangerous amounts can be ingested and absorbed through the skin over time. Our homeopathic knowledge of Mercury comes partly from the provings carried out by Hahne­mann and others and also from the extensive toxicological knowledge that has been built up over the centuries. The symptom picture gained is similar to many common diseases and Mercury is thus a frequently prescribed homeo­pathic medicine." Got it? Because mercury is toxic and the symptoms of poisoning with it resemble those of some other diseases, homeopathy considers it therapeutic! Of course, if you obtain your mercury not from a homeopathic potion but from a vaccine, do not expect any therapeutic effects, only toxic ones! The author claims below: "The FDA in the United States has admitted that children have been ex­posed to unsafe levels of mercury through vaccines containing thimerosal" - a statement that is just a blatant lie.


A site called Home Remedy Central: "When we hear the word “mercury” many of us automatically assume that it’s bad. Though high levels of it can be toxic to humans, it has also had some fantastic healing properties that have been used through the years.It was used in mainstream medicine until it was found, in its natural form, to have adverse side effects. Since homeopathy dilutes to the point that not a molecule remains, it is safe and we can reap all of the healing benefits."

For the record: in the dark ages of medical history, mercury was used by (what passed for) official medicine for treatment of syphilis, until the team of Paul Ehrlich developed a drug based on the less toxic arsenic. Other "healing benefits" of mercury do not exist. Is it at least safe at the levels used by homeopathy, as its promoters claim? Not always. In 1991, Montoya-Cabrera and co-authors published in a Mexican medical journal an article with the following abstract:

"Mercury poisoning caused by a homeopathic drug
We report an infant with diaper dermatitis and mild respiratory and enteral infections, treated with a homeopathic mercurial medicine: Mercurius 6a (cinnabar dilute 1 x 10(6)), who thereafter became seriously ill with exacerbation and dissemination of the dermatitis as well as irritability and albuminuria. Mercury urine levels were 60 micrograms/L (reference less than 10 micrograms/L). The homeopathic medicine was suspended but symptoms persisted. Therefore the chelating agent D-penicillamine was administered per os (50 mg/kg/day during 10 days). The clinical conditions improved and urinary levels of mercury decreased to normal values. We concluded that homeopathic medicaments should be recognised as potentially harmful substances."
The good news is that at least some consumers show critical thinking abilities. Below, I am copying a short discussion from the Mothering forum.

1st participant: "Sorry if this is a dumb question, but my exposure to homeopathics has been limited to just a few remedies, so far. I purchased Traumeel drops for pain, then saw "Mercurius solubilis 8X 2 ml" listed in the ingredients. I looked it up online, and the info I saw said "also known as quicksilver" "mercury" "nontoxic." It seems odd that it is a good thing to consume. What am I missing?"

2nd participant: "Sorry, not sure about your question, but I know that Arsenic (yes, the poison used in many crime novels) is a homeopathic remedy (very much diluted of course as all remedies are)."

3rd participant: "This, the arsenicum, and Uranium Nitricum made me skeptical of homepathy. While there is good from the herbal remedies (undiluted arnica for ex.), to assert that 100 million-fold dilution of mercury is good and useful? (Esp. when we're worrying about million-fold dilutions in vaccines?) Eh. It reads like a Victorian medicinal primer. Some good, some bad, and some hocus pocus..."

How covering of Muslim women affects others

"Burkini" is all-covering swimming outfit beloved by fundamentalist Muslims. (Do you imagine staying in such a garb under the sun for hours? Or how it feels after swimming, wet all over your body, as if you have accidentally fallen in water with all your clothes on? Grrrrr!)

This summer, after France suffered three major Islamist terrorist attacks in a year and a half, various French resort municipalities ban burkini. As said David Lisnard, mayor of Cannes: "Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order... I simply forbid a uniform that is the symbol of Islamic extremism..." His head of municipal services Thierry Migoule added: "We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach… But ostentatious clothing which refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us."

The text below is from the Hill, by Hala Arafa, a retired news editor at the Arabic Branch of the Voice of America.

"The burkini is a toxic ideology, not a dress choice

It is very difficult to understand the uproar caused by the French government’s decision to ban the burkini. This was a reaction to the chaos and turmoil caused by the Islamic fundamentalist sect in the Muslim world and in Europe.

The fundamentalists are the ones who reject participation in the 21st century. They prefer to isolate themselves in seventh century ideas and dress; despite that no one is denying them the right to practice their religion in private. They don’t have the right, however, to invade the public space  and impose their ideology  and belief system represented by their dress.

Any dress is a culmination of a social experience  and a representation of its core values. The fashion worn in the 21st century reflects the progress of our thoughts on equality, human rights,  and women’s rights.

Civilized nations worked very hard for centuries to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today. The clothes worn by Muslim fundamentalist women are based on seventh century beliefs. They say that a woman’s honor is directly tied to her clothes and a man is not responsible for his actions if he is tempted by a woman. This is an ideology that absolves men from any responsibility of committing the crime of rape  and blames the victim for not protecting her honor by covering up.

This old ideology was revived in the early 1980s by the introduction of hijab, a seemingly innocuous piece of cloth, under the guise of modesty  and piety. It revived ideas of women’s servitude, promoted a rape culture and led to the political  and social instability we witness today.

The hijab ideology is why young Muslims today think they have the right to sexually assault uncovered women. This was demonstrated by Muslim immigrants gang assaults in Cologne, Germany, last January. Similar attacks happened in March in Sweden  and other European countries that took in Muslim immigrants.

To say the burkini ban stifles cultural diversity is to focus on the superficial garment, not the rape ideology it promotes. That also ignores the deterioration in every aspect of social & political life in the Muslim world since the introduction of this extremist ideology. This isn’t a choice of dress. This is a choice of a very specific ideology that has proven harmful to society.

To say the ban limits their religious freedom is also an invalid argument. Religious freedom means practicing religion in private without fear of intimidation or reprisals. It doesn’t mean people are free to impose their religious beliefs on others. Then of course the Islamic fundamentalist claims that it is Islamophobia, an accusation that assumes that they represent all of Islam & not merely one sect with extreme behavior and ideas whose time had passed 1400 years ago.

The French government’s ban finally shines the light on the glaring contradictions between the fundamentalists’ words  and actions. “Hijab” means to cover/to hide. Yet, they want to participate in every aspect of public life  and invade every public domain. Since neither the hijab nor the burkini is an invisibility cloak, we must wonder: Do they want to hide  and cover their women or are they using religion as a tool to make unquestioned political/social gains?

If we are to take into account the experience of the past 35 years in the majority-Muslim countries, we must conclude that Islam is being used as a means to an end. If the hijab or burkini had anything to do with modesty or piety, the Islamic fundamentalists would have sought private beaches, not insisted on forcing themselves on the public. But as they did before, they want to become part of the accepted social scene and part of the new norm of the society.

The French government’s burkini ban, unlike Iranian laws that enforce hijab, takes into account the experience in Muslim countries where the introduction of a religious element into the public sphere led to the current strife.

The ban removes an element that has proven to be a corrupting influence and morally destructive, unlike Iran where the law is based on an untested extremist religious dogma. The ban takes into account the effect of the Islamic fundamentalist ideology on future generations.

If hijab becomes an accepted public phenomenon, a modern society cannot teach its future generations that a woman’s dress is not an excuse for rape.

Islamic fundamentalists should be allowed to worship freely. Their beliefs must be properly defined as solely theirs. The whole society  and future generations must never regard them as acceptable or allow them to become part of the shared common public scene. All groups espousing ideas that veer off the accepted norms of a society isolate themselves  and practice their beliefs in private. Nudists have private beaches. Islamic fundamentalists should not be any different.

The burkini ban is an act of a socially conscious, morally courageous and responsible government with extreme prudence  and futuristic foresight."

Update: I have added a brilliant Jesus & Mo cartoon copied from Prof. Jerry Coyne's site.

Update: The burkini ban has been overturned by court.

Using sport to promote Islam, part 2

In my previous post, I reposted text from the blog of Prof. Jerry Coine about using the Olympics to promote the hideous religion of Islam. This post will be on the same subject, because Islamophiles continue (ab)using the Olympics to glorify Islam. The text below is copied from yesterday's post by Prof. Coyne.

"More on the Western fetishizing of Islamic worship

The Canadian ex-Muslim Eiynah, also known as “Nice Mangos” —it’s telling that many ex-Muslims, but not ex-Jews or ex-Catholics, must hide their identity—drew my attention to an article in Time Magazine with this tweet:

And Eiynah’s right with her claim that similar displays by Christians would be cringe-worthy. In fact, we don’t even have to speculate about it: we already have an example in the form of “Tebowing.” Tim Tebow, a former quarterback for the Denver Broncos, used to drop to his knees on the field after a victory, genuflecting and thanking the nonexistent god he loved so fervently. Here’s one of his poses. He did this so often that it became a meme, and a subject of national debate.

And indeed, a lot of people liked Tebow’s behavior, for there are always those who prize public displays of Christianity... But, as the New York Times recounts, there was plenty of criticism of this excessive religiosity as well, with Tebow being seen by some as a “religious nut job.” There’s even a a website that mocks his gesture, showing people Tebowing all over the globe. So yes, there’s not universal approbation for public displays of Christianity on the athletic field.

But there is for Islam. We’ve already seen the huge outpouring of enthusiasm for Ibtihaj Muhammad, the American who fenced in the Olympics wearing a hijab. Even Hillary Clinton tweeted about that, even though there was nothing courageous or heroic about Muhammad’s act, and in the end she turned out to be a pretty nasty exponent of anti-Semitism. There’s nothing to celebrate about an athlete from the U.S. wearing religious garb during the Olympics, particularly a garment that is a symbol of oppression: of a religion that views women as temptresses who can incite men’s uncontrollable lust by showing a wisp of hair. Yes, women have the right, or should, to wear hijabs everywhere, and some even claim to do it by “choice”—although what does that mean when there’s often severe social pressure by family and peers to conform? But let’s not deem the wearing of headscarves to be “heroic”. What would be “heroic” would be a woman in Iran or Saudi Arabia—where wearing the head-shackle is mandatory—to take it off in public.

But of course the Western media, even on the Left, have bought into Islamic exceptionalism: what would be cringe-worthy or mocked if it were done by Christians or Jews is seen as wonderful when done by Muslims. This is done out of fear—fear of two sorts. Fear that one could be attacked physically for criticizing or not sufficiently deferring to a religion whose adherents have made “I’m offended” their trademark, and fear that one will be called a bigot for not sufficiently osculating the Oppressed. It all stinks, for it’s all about celebrating the inimical effects of religion on human behavior.

But according to the latest venue to osculate Islam, Time magazine, the religion is all positive. Have a look at this headline below (click the screenshot to go to the site)


My first temptation is to say one could write a counter-headline: “20 beheadings and 5 gays thrown off buildings show the negative power of Islam.” But, that aside, I bet that Time hasn’t used examples from the Olympics to show the positive power of Christianity or Judaism! Nope, it’s Islam that must be coddled and its “positive power” extolled at all costs.

Time gives three examples, and maybe the first one does show a salubrious influence of the faith on one athlete, Mo Farah, who won the men’s 10,000-meter dash. I quote from Time:

After he crossed the finish line, Farah fell on the track again—this time to pray. He bowed his head before a stadium of adoring spectators. That performance was just as dramatic as racing past Kenya’s Paul Kipngetich Tanui to win this third gold medal.

Farah’s prayer can help counter the damaging stereotypes of Muslims held by many around the world. For Farah, and scores of Muslim athletes, faith is not incidental, but central to their excellence in sport. “I normally pray before a race,” Farah said. “I read du’aa [Islamic prayers or invocations] think about how hard I’ve worked and just go for it.”

First of all, it’s not a stereotype of Muslims, at least one I’m familiar with, that their faith is “incidental”. We all know that it’s one of the faiths most closely bound up with politics and social lives. As far as Farah’s performance is concerned, maybe his faith had something to do with it, but we don’t know for sure. He feels it does, but that’s not even evidence for a placebo effect. All Time can really say is that Mo Farah prays before he races, and he won.

What about athletes who don’t pray before they race, because they’re atheists, and they win too? Would you say that shows the “positive power of atheism”? Does Michael Phelps’s stupendous performance in the Olympics show “the amazing power of cupping”?Why wouldn’t Time write that? What about an athlete who wins wearing his lucky shoes? Would Time say “Olympic athlete shows positive power of lucky shoes”?

Britain’s Mo Farah celebrates winning the Men’s 10,000m during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on Aug. 13, 2016. Photo: Frank Fife, Getty AFP Images.

Time‘s example number 2 is a hijab-wearing weightlifter from Egypt:

Donning all black with a red headscarf, the colors of her nation, the diminutive [Sara] Ahmed lifted a combined weight of 255kg (562lbs) to claim the bronze medal in the 69kg weight class. The feat, given her nationality and ethnicity, was unprecedented. Ahmed became an instant icon in her native Egypt, becoming the first female medalist in the nation’s 104-year history in Olympics’ competition and the first Arab woman to win an Olympic medal in weightlifting.

As she bowed her head to receive her medal, Ahmed represented world-class power, strength and Muslim womanhood, disrupting tropes that have enabled headscarf bans in France and trite oppression narratives in America and elsewhere.

Time doesn’t report anything that Ahmed said about her faith. She just wore a hijab when lifting. How does that show the positive power of Islam? We see here Time’s virtue signaling: “See, we’re not racists because we love those who wear hijabs!” And, of course, Time doesn’t point out how in places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, women are deliberately weakened by the state—on religious grounds.

The last example is Ibtihaj Muhammad:

Ibtihaj Muhammad was a star in the Muslim American community long before she stepped onto the global scene. But her story was about far more than being “the first U.S. Olympian to wear a hijab during competition.” She championed a cause long-ignored by non-Muslims and Muslims alike: the distinct experience of African American Muslims and the distinct perils often created by intersecting racism and Islamophobia.

The other cause she champions, which Time didn’t mention, is to promulgate lies about Israel on her social media site (they were pointed out to her, but she refused to retract them). But that means nothing alongside the fact that she wore a hijab and is considered “oppressed”. (I don’t find much evidence for that.) Yes, kudos to her for her persistence, but in the end, she became a fencer because no other sport was open to a women who refused to remove her hijab. Had she doffed that symbol, she could have played any sport she wanted.  The hijab limits women, even when they wear it “by choice”."

(Emphasis mine - M. M.)