You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘homoeopathy’ tag.

A common criticism of nullopathy is that it cannot be combined with other modalities. Skeptics say that it is impossible to do something and nothing at the same time. This is certainly true, but it is naive: you can combine the principals of nullopathy with other modalities. For example, nullopathic pills are called “homoeopathy”.

I’ve just read about a very interesting study on David Colquhoun‘s blog about acupuncture. Apparently, some German researchers have compared acupuncure to conventional medicine and found it to be better. They also tried an arm of “sham” acupuncture, where the acupuncture was done all wrong, which worked just as well as the real acupuncture. The so-called “bad science bloggers” say that this shows that acupuncture is a placebo, but this fails to consider the nullopathic component of ‘sham’ acupuncture, which is a potentially confounding factor. This study equally well supports the conclusion that nullopathy is as good as acupuncture.


Nullopathy is closely related to Homoeopathy.

Homoeopaths cure diseases using a medicine so dilute that not even one molecule of the original substance remains in the water. They have a lot of other mythology, of course, such as ‘succussion’ and ‘provings’ and ‘like-cures-like’, but the fundamental essence of homoeopathy is treating disease using no medicine — the same paradigm that powers the science behind nullopathy. The synergy between the two modalities is clear: homoeopathy can be modelled as a more systematic variant of nullopathy. This raises the question of which is most effective. I am unaware of any currently known answer to this question.

There are thousands of homoeopaths and homoeopathy users around the world — because they have unwittingly harnessed the power of stimulating the body’s natural healing ability by doing nothing at all: nullopathy.

Monthy Archive