This has actually happened recently, when French Homoepathic remedy company Boiron mislabelled their “mother tinctures” (the stuff that is concentrated enough to have some ingredients) of two ingredients prior to diluting to make the “remedies”. They noticed some months later and “recalled” the remaining supplies. As far as we know no-one noticed any difference.

I am sure the irony of what happened will not be lost on anyone, except perhaps any passing homeopaths.

Interesting. Can you give us a reference for this please?

As regards Indian homeopaths, the only one I have heard of who claims to treat cancer is Ramakrishnan, and his claims are so woolly that they are unverifiable.

*An example: I disagree with your remarks on bacteria, antibiotics and use of homeopathy for treating bacterial infections. If someone has a bacterial infection then they need antibiotics rather than a homeopathic remedy. Particularly if it is a serious infection, such as bacterial meningitis (NB - bacterial meningitis is a medical emergency and even suspected cases need emergency medical attention).

(I should point out that I don’t wish to use meningitis as a stick to beat you with but, having failed to make a distinction between more serious viral / bacterial conditions and the less serious infections in my original post, it later occurred to me that this is actually one example where reliance on homeopathy could lead to serious harm. Or even death - untreated bacterial meningitis has a high mortality rate. I am in no way implying that you would not take the correct course of action and call for emergency medical attention if bacterial meningitis was suspected - but M&M has previously covered a piece in the Brighton Argus where a homeopath and columnist had given dangerous and inappropriate advice on this very subject).

It does not matter what I think, but that homeopaths themselves would not know of the error, and so in their eyes, misdiagnose. That this problem goes undetected, and seemingly unremarked, is another piece of proxy evidence that is in accord with the skeptical view that the remedies have no effect.

I also think that most people do not like putting their hands in sewage.
If in diagnosis, 100 patients in a row are revolted by the idea, but are followed by one who doesn’t mind, how would you know that you have not simply come across the say, 1 in 100 people who don’t mind?

What instigates revulsion is certainly culturally bound, (though pulling a face and putting a hand across the mouth seems to be universal) it is not necessary that failure to do so indicates an unhygienic attitude.
Also, an individual’s response may be due to some experience or a lower innate threshold. It could be argued therefore, that a ’symptom’ is defined as some characteristic or behaviour that is simply not ‘expected’.

Antibiotics attack an invading pathogen (not normally found in the body) and are usually specific to certain types of bacteria. Penicillin for example, prevents proper formation of the germ’s outer wall as it divides in multiplication, eventually killing all of them. The body restores the damage, and the patient is then considered entirely cured. (It is true that antibiotics can kill the flora in the gut, resulting in diarrhoea, but this is temporary).

There is no evidence that antibiotics leave the disease suppressed within the body. Blood tests can confirm this.
How could you know? The patient says he/she is healthy, so which indicators could remain to refute that claim? Could you then ‘read’ a patient and accurately report any diseases or group of symptoms that may be used to identify the suppressed condition? An interesting trial, perhaps.

My recent opinion, sadly, has been eroded by remarks posted on several blogs. If they are not representative of homeopaths in general, then that would be a good thing. I don’t have an opinion of homeopaths per se, but rather the ideas they support. Though it is that very lack of support that is the problem.
There is a great deal of mysticism on these blogs concerning the vital force. Some homeopathic researchers do not want to go down this path, sticking perhaps as do you, to the remedies and susceptibility, because they are all too aware of the hydra’s head it represents.
Mysticism and spiritualism defy exposition, leaving skeptics to uncritically accept homeopathic ideas, or give up in despair. That is a dead-end, and the font of derision.