Originally Posted by JamesGully
The article is just citing the same letters that have already been demonstrated not to support your claims about Darwin and homoeopathy.
Doesn’t mention homoeopathy: it refers to Gully’s treatments as “the Water Cure”. Here’s the first passage you quote from it, with the rest of the paragraph to give the context of the treatments he was receiving:
You later present the “eruption” Darwin suffered over his legs as a homoeopathic aggravation or “healing crisis”; however there is nothing in this letter to suggest that this “eruption” was caused by homoeopathy.
at least mentions homoeopathy. It is a little ironic that you criticize the Quackometer article for quoting out of context; here’s the passage you quoted yourself (in bold) in the context of all the other treatment Darwin was receiving:
You also quote from Letter 1240
, but once again rather selectively:
Again, there is no mention of homoeopathy: the only treatment mentioned is the “Water Cure”.
Most extraordinary is your treatment of Letter 1352
. You quote a passage from it:
You assert that skeptics never quote the whole passage. Try looking here
, or try looking at the Quackometer article
. You will find the entire paragraph quoted in both places.
You also claim that Darwin “express[ed] surprise that she was cured, either by water-cure and/or homeopathy”. Nowhere does the letter express surprise that she recovered: it merely says that she did. And there is no indication in the letter that Darwin thought that the recovery was caused by any of the treatments given: it merely says that one event followed the other. Once again, you are attempting to rely on the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy. Note Darwin's comment on Quetelet's remark that "no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done".
And then you refer to Darwin’s experiments with Drosera. As has been pointed out, these experiments have nothing to do with homoeopathy. While the solutions used were very dilute, they were not ultramolecular: there will still have been actual amounts of the ammonium salts present. There is no suggestion that the solutions were succussed (something that homoeopaths claim is an essential part of the homoeopathic process), the principle of “like cures like” is not involved…
Nothing to do with homoeopathy, and I’m sure that if a negative trial had been reported using the sort of preparations Darwin used in the manner that he used them, you would be the first to say it wasn’t using homoeopathy.