When humans are afflicted with sickness and misery, when they are searching for a cure, sometimes reason is shoved aside in desperation.
There was a recent story in the mainstream media about a naturopath who went to Jacmel, Haiti to dispense homeopathic "remedies". Ailing Haitians who had lined up thinking they would have access to medicine, left after learning that what was being offered had no medical value.
The naturopath seems to have had good intentions: his "remedies" were supposedly designed to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder. But I see this as taking advantage of vulnerable people with a concoction that fails every on every scientific front.
In the United Kingdom, homeopathy is thought to have some air of legitimacy because it is provided and funded under the National Health Service (NHS). Attempting to get a handle on how much the NHS spends on homeopathy has been elusive, but estimates indicate about £4 million per year (according to the Society of Homeopaths) not including operational costs or a one-time capital cost of £20 million updating the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.
Indeed, a recent report by British House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology stated that: "When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it." But finding the evidence for homeopathy profoundly weak, the Committee recommended that: "The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS."
I'm not here to savage homeopathy, ridicule its users, and then offer no substantive comment.
I certainly understand what it's like to be struck by an illness, mental or physical, and want to find a cure. But just because something gives one hope doesn't mean it works.
Advertising
Further, faulty reasoning can easily come into play. There's the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") thinking. For example, taking an unproven "remedy" for an ailment and healing after five days. That could very well have been your body healing itself and not the unproven "remedy". That would be the same as consuming "blessed" water during a full moon and then finding my chest cold has cleared up. Most of us would say that my body healed itself and that neither the moon nor the "blessed" water had any bearing on my chest cold.
So it goes with homeopathy.
In short, homeopathy is water. The idea is that the effect of substance that has been diluted out is retained somehow and that this non-existent but "remembered" molecule of substance "treats" the patient.
Proposed in 1796, a time when illnesses were thought to be the result of an imbalance of the bodily humours - phlegm, blood and yellow and black bile - and a time where bloodletting and leaching were common, homeopathy was devised to be a less harmful way of treating patients. A laudable goal, but we have made significant scientific advances in the past 200 years. Homeopathy defies the basic premises of physics and chemistry.
The central belief of homeopathy is that like cures like; so an insomniac might be "cured" with a remembered molecule of coffee.
But how present is the original molecule in the preparation? Products are sold using a dilution range of 6X to 30X where X represents the Roman numeral 10. So, 6X equals one part in 10 to the power of 6, or one in a million. Some products use "C", the Roman numeral for 100. If one were to ingest a preparation of 30C, that would equal 1 followed by 60 zeros, or the number of atoms in our galaxy. At this point, you are consuming nothing more than water.
You shouldn't be surprised that not one person has overdosed on a homeopathic remedy.
So that leaves the potential for a placebo effect.
But if homeopathy is no better than a sugar pill, that it merely fools the body into thinking a curative medication has been consumed, then this defeats the notion that homeopathy is an effective medicine. Further, if a placebo, then homeopathy shouldn't work on infants, yet its defenders vouch for homeopathy's efficacy in treating babies.
The only way to ensure that homeopathy actually works is to subject it to a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial.
Results would then of course have to be repeatable in different labs, with different patients, by different researchers.
But homeopaths are reticent to do this. Some aren't willing to subject homeopathic substances to this rigorous, gold-standard trial because homeopathic supporters see this experimental design as flawed. Or that the "cure" is too individualized; but one can design a DBCR trial and maintain individualized treatment.
Homeopathy's champions don't adequately explain the flaws, but I think this gives them cover to keep making money off people desperately seeking treatment. Not only does homeopathy fail scientific testing, if it preys on the vulnerable, it is unethical.
Most of us who recognize the anthropogenic cause of climate change do so because the science supports this assertion. We condemn the deniers because we become suspicious of their motives even when they are faced with a preponderance of evidence. We stand on the strength of our science.
An open mind is a skeptical mind. It's a mind that desires evidence, but it's also a mind that welcomes change when delivered proof. If homeopathy can pass double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials, I will change my tune.
Until then, homeopathy is a sham, it preys on the desperate, and despite all the good intentions of its practitioners, they should mull over the ethics of their actions.
Every so often some 'skeptic' pumps out off-the-shelf bilge like this. Besides having no understanding of the scientific method the authors are so ill-informed that they are evidently unaware that this has already been done. Over. And over. and over. Never anything new either.
"Beware the rational kernal in the mystical shell". Know who wrote that? It undoes everything the author has said. In medical parlance, the measure is 'Outcomes' a matter reveallingly avoided in this article. Homeopathy has a long history of empirical outcomes. Measured objectively against pharmaceutical medicine, homeopathy comes up looking very good. Skeptics always site the 'placebo effect' a serious subject they know nothing about. You will never see a skeptic weigh and examine the role of the placebo effect for drug-based medicine. Apparently this only - and conveniently - occurs for non-conventional medicaments or therapies.
Skeptics instinctively avoid this kind of comparative analysis. It would mean applying the same rules of evidence and evaluation. Skeptics revert to 'moving the goalposts' or cherry-picking their judgemental criteria to beforehand damn homeopathy and whtewash pharmaceutical medicine. Pretty low stuff.
Another thing. You will never see a 'skeptic' dare to risk standing before an audience and submitting to an honest debate on the subject. No running away. No hiding behind a masthead or a podium or a title. Stand and deliver and be contradicted.
By the way Mike Harris used alternative medicine personally and backed Monte Kwinters Health Freedom legislation in the Ontario Legislature.
As Ned points out, it seems its more the case that writers who are trying to posture as critical "evidence based" thinkers prey on easy targets that don't fit squarely into the quantitative methodology of analysis used to "prove" other medical therapies. If Eric would have spent any time reading literature from one of the many Integrative Medicine or CAM research organizations he might have learned that researchers are well aware of the challenges that exist in researching traditional or non-conventional therapies. But these difficulties represent opportunities for innovative research rather than occasion for dismissive rhetoric.
I wonder if Eric knows what percentage of practices that are used day to day in a normal medical practice are evidence based?
I also wonder if he would consider the health care insurers in the US as predators, particularly in relation to the elderly and chronically ill? Speaking of fraud, the fact is that Pfizer was convicted in 2009 of the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, $2.1 billion. http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/us-justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-in-its-history-3073.html
I suspect the earnings from the sale of so-called fraudulent homeopathic remedies pale in comparison to "normal" medical fraud.
No mention of that fraud in this article for some reason.
Eric:
Keep up the good work. I particularly liked your analogy to climate change deniers. As we see in most scientific debates, most people won't be convinced by evidence.
SIGH!
Though Eric's line of argument is shopworn it's quite reasonable for him to say from his position How Do You Respond? Which is a far cry from I Have It All Figured Out And The Matter Is Closed. As a matter of interest there is a great deal about homeopathy and things resembling it that are not closed or settled but in fact subjects at the cutting edge of current physics and biochemistry not to mention improved clinical efficacy, patient outcomes, medical economics and public policy.
Last year there was a big howl about a U.S natural health product called Zircam which was driven off the markets and into the courts due to allegations of adverse effects. The howl was that Zircam was homeopathic so therefore 'scientists' were quick to damn the whole practice. One problem with that is that Zircam isn't really a homeopathic medicament. The manufacturers just made the claim because it was a cool marketing term. Not very admirable but also not very homeopathic.
The case has gone to court and the prosecution brought in an 'expert' witness. But the judge refused to recognize this 'expert' when he announced that his testimony ws based on ludicrous experiments on cadavers and on studies from the 1930's showing adverse effects to zinc sulfate and not zinc gluconate which Zircam actually contained. The expert said they were the same thing. The judge found he was a witless witness and threw him out. This is the calibre of expertise from the religion of scientism that clouds reasonable investigation and discussion about the merits and qualities of things homeopathic.
There are several fundamental errors of judgement being exercised by the responders to this fairly well-written post.
The first error is the assumption that one (or even many) examples of Bad Science means that Science Is Bad. For those of us who spend our time thinking, this is known as the Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy.
The difference between what Eric wrote and the mistaken responders wrote is that Eric pointed out how (exactly) the system of Homeopathy is flawed. The responders rejoined with "look at this one particular example of Bad Science". You're not responding apples to apples, Ned.
The second error is the claim that Homeopathic trials have empirically positive outcomes. They don't. People who are actually interested in data, Science and Medicine (yes, capital letters for those) can take themselves to PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and do a search for things like "homeopathy double blind" and see what comes up (about 192 references). A lot of that is likely to be crap, sure, but that's where a basic understanding of protocols come into play.
These double blind studies look directly into "outcomes", as Ned Ludd succinctly put it, and it comes up wanting in every rigorous test. Note to the True Believers: I'm not defining it as a 'rigorous test' *because* homeopathy came up wanting, the 'rigor' is based on scientific methodology. As opposed to the nonsense that is "homeopathic provings": http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm
They'd be the main ones to begin with. But I'm sure I'll be accused of being a shill for the medical industry any moment now, or Dr. Ock (doctor of what, exactly?) will put some reasonable term into "quotation marks" in some sort of passive aggressive form of denigration...
Oh Eric? Good job. Don't let the b*stards grind you down. ;)
Brian Lynchehaun
Well, that clinches it for me. If you can't trust Mike Harris's good judgment, whose can you trust?
And Dr. Ock makes an ironclad case for the benefits of homeopathy by pointing to fraud on the part of a drug manufacturer.
Finally, Ned Ludd reminds us of the Zicam (not "Zircam") fiasco, but assures us it "isn't really" a homeopathic medicament. Never mind that it markets itself as a homeopathic cure for the common cold [take that, scientists!].
Ludd is in fact correct, since Zicam actually contains ingredients other than plain water, and therefore doesn't qualify as homeopathic.
Then, in true homeopathic fashion, Mr. Ludd presents a single anecdote of a judge disqualifying an expert witness, thereby proving conclusively that homeopathy is completely reliable and scientific.
Yeah, I'm convinced!
In the first place you are addressing a Science Director who knows the difference between poseur science and Good Science. You didn't see anything in what I wrote except criticism of Bad Science.
Secondly, all Eric and Brian are talking about is empty theory. I draw your attention to my quote: Beware the rational kernal in the mystical shell. What Marx meant was the weight and colour of the empirical evidence stands on its own. It doesn't matter what fanciful 'explanations' and theories anyone has about them. It doesn't matter if homeopaths think the remedies work because of Divine Intent anymore than the many laws of science are undone because Newton who described them was a passionate alchemist. The facts stand on their own homefully awaiting more thorough analysis and understanding. Which by the way we will never get to if the way is blocked by 'scientists' quoting Scripture.
As for all that double blind stuff it's as lame as you can get. Methods of scientific analysis, evidentiary examination have to be tailored to the properties of the matter and data under consideration. The rules (and they are not very good ones) that are applicable to gross pharmacological drugs are inappropriate to highly dilute substances. You are using the wrong yardsticks. You don't get to pick. The nature of the material under study decides and that is an objective thing conditioned by the limits of our technique and purposes.
A good scientist polishes her sword against the hardest arguments.
"Science Director"!!
Ned Ludd should spend less time polishing his sword, and more time learning science.
You just said that "outcomes" determine what works and what doesn't.
The double-blind tests compare the "outcomes" of one group of people taking x medication, and a second group taking y medication.
You appear to be committing bullshit.
Homeopathic remedies *aren't* tailored to the individual. I can go into many a 'health food' store, and pick up off-the-shelf homeopathic 'sleep remedies' and other such garbage with no difficulty whatsoever.
Please, Mr Science Director (of what?), could you list of "scientific analysis, evidentiary examinations" you have completed? In what journal did they appear? I need to search Pub Med using what phrases to locate these articles? I also have the full catalogue of UBC at my disposal, so please don't worry on my part that I won't have access to the journal.
You don't get off by merely *asserting* that I'm talking about "empty theory". I'm talking about the practice of science. Please avoid lies and deceit here, I'd appreciate it.
Now, that list?
Dear brilyn
You seem to have jumped from the logical and scientific to the personal "ad hominem" attack quite smoothly. I put that in quotation marks to further my passive aggressive stance.
Try to keep your character analysis out of discussion forums, thanks.
None of your statements answer the questions asked. Yes we are all aware of RCT's are and the gold standard, and many researchers are also aware that this methodology is not suited to measure certain treatment modalities. Research methodologists can't simply dig their heels in and insist the only way to prove something is RCT. If that is state of the scientific minds of today than science will become a self serving artifice rather than a tool to explore and investigate.
Brylin is just quoting scripture. You ask me to go quote from the bible to 'prove' atheism to you.
Canada, the U.S, Germany, France, India, the U.K and just about every country have fully elaborated regulations regarding homeopathy, official pharmacopeia, materia medicas, rules of pharmacy and protocols of evidence. These have been in place for a long time are meticulously updated and subject to continual review and generally by folks with a lot of letters after their names, mostly begining with M.D.
But you jon't know anything about that do you? You are innocently unfamiliar with this entire universe. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing Sarah Palin.
Like your explanations, my credentials and yours are not relavent to what you say. If I was a doberman I still make more sense than you on this subject. Retreating to 'arguments by authority' is what one does when reason and facts don't favour you.
I agree with Spector that Zicam is a fraudulent product. It's marketing claims are unsupportable by any standards. But since we agree it is not a homeopathic product it cannot be damned for that. Yet that is the route the prosecution took because it looked like they could buffalo the court with anti-homeopathic mumbo-jumbo. Whack the sucker for what it is.
That was my point and it cannot go further than that.
I haven't made a single ad hominem here at all. I defy you to quote the ad hominem.
When one claims that one is a Science Director as a means of demonstrating one's authority, it's an entirely reasonable thing for those credentials to be evaluated.
Likewise for the (legally protected) term of Dr. It's the difference between being Dr. Feynmann and Dr. Steel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=MIcBfJw__k0).
Furthermore, there's a difference between a personal attack (which I quite happily engaged in with moron-boy (aka Ned Ludd, aka who knows?)) and an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one attacks the person *instead* of the argument and then claims victory over the argument.
I attacked moron boy in addition to attacking his argument. As a Doctor, you'll understand the subtle difference there?
Why the escalation in personal attacks? Because, idiot child, you and Ned Ludd are evading the very simple and direct questions that would cut to the heart of the matter here. The ones I asked in my prior post. For repetition sake:
could you list of "scientific analysis, evidentiary examinations" you have completed? In what journal did they appear? I need to search Pub Med using what phrases to locate these articles? I also have the full catalogue of UBC at my disposal, so please don't worry on my part that I won't have access to the journal.
These would be the ones that demonstrate the efficacy of Homeopathy.
Please note (ie read carefully, I realise it's difficult for you): I am not demanding RCTs, or any kind of double-blind study. I am asking for *any* studies that ye believe demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy.
And finally, idiot boy, I can't answer any questions that haven't been asked. You have claimed that "None of your statements answer the questions asked": please list the asked questions. None have been directed to me so far...
So to differentiate yourselves from the unwashed fools who claim homeopathy is efficacious with no evidence whatsoever: please list your sources.
And Ned Ludd: none of those countries (and certainly not Canada nor the UK nor France) have any "protocols of evidence" for homeopathy. Please keep the lies to yourself. And the moronic "scripture" references. That actually is an Ad Hominem attack.
Brylin has painted himself into a corner. Look and see, ladies and gentleman at the thinking and behaviour of a 'scientist' at work! I do not share a common frame of reference with Brylin to permit rational discourse, though he raises a slew of old canards. To address Bylin on this level would mean shifting to the terrain of political polemic. I would sorely like to do that and rip his head off but I'm afraid he wouldn't miss it since it's not much in use.
We are all just ploughing over old ground here. The exchange is not enlightening to any degree and no one is learning anything new. We should have better explored the public policy implications in Eric's main article.
So when asked for evidence, your response is to babble inanely and claim that we don't share a common frame of reference?
What a joke...
I really don't get the sensationalist headline to this story? Did the naturopath volunteer his own time and finances to try and deliver a little bit of reprieve to the Haitians? Oh shame on this human being who desires to help those who no one else is helping. Remember, there is a shortage of aid for these people. Preying on the desperate implies some kind of monetary exchange??
Then the story takes a usual turn to ignorantly slandering homeopathy. A medicine which has helped millions over the last 2 centuries. You relegate it to quackery, yet there are many empirical studies of good quality and low bias that show improvement above and beyond placebo/control. If you took the time and did some quality research (and pubmed is not the most vigorous of sources for accessing research in CAM) try searching for homeopathic RCT using animal models. Many great studies, especially looking at livestock and finding viable alternatives to the increasingly damaging use of antibiotics. Wow, but maybe cows and pigs and chicken embryos are also subject to the placebo effect!
Look deep within and really challenge yourself on why you are so threatened by the public's increasing demand for homeopathy. Just because science hasn't disproven homeopathic effectiveness doesn't mean it is a fraudulant science. Homeopathy is realy beginning to come into its own with better clinical trial designs and increasing scientific research. The real reason homeopaths seem reticent to conduct clinical trials is the cost associated with such endeavours!! Homeopaths do not have the gigantic funding and sponsorship of massive pharmaceutical corporations, and usually rely on their private resources.
I imaging if you are a post grad student, surely you would know how to conduct a thorough search of a database for research and be able to look at a paper and critically appraise it. Maybe not.
Homeopathy is a different paradigm to the standard practice of medicine. Unfortunately, current medicine relies heavily on pharmaceuticals, which causes many iatrogenic diseases to the unwell patient. Thousands of deaths are attributed each year to pharmaceutical use. How do you explain this? Homeopathy is an individualised treatment, meaning it is very difficult to formulate an effective RCT. But despite this fact, good trials have been conducted. Again, look to animal models and in vitro models to remove the placebo risk that you are so adherring to.
Really, the homeopathic community are benefiting from the slanderous propaganda spat out by opponents. It is inviting a lot more interest into this contentious issue and challenging homeopaths and scientists into better articulated hypotheses. So thank you Eric and all the other opponents out there!
Most people don't know what homeopathy is, and I suspect that includes some who have posted responses here. They wrongly assume that because the word starts with the letters "home" it's some kind of warm and fuzzy, down-home medicine, as opposed to that nasty pharmaceutical stuff that's made by giant corporations. Some of these people would be surprised to learn that homeopathic "medicine" is also Big Business. They would also be surprised to learn that the Greek root "homeo-" has nothing at all to do with the English word "home".
The poster who calls him/herself "ticketyboo" obviously believes that "millions" of people have been helped by homeopathy - without a sliver of evidence to support such belief. It's nothing short of religious. Unless, of course, you consider that "helping people" includes giving them plain water to keep them hydrated. Because that's what homeopathic "medicines" are - plain water.
The same poster seems to think the homeopathic industry is run by poverty-stricken individuals who just can't afford to do the proper scientific testing to prove the efficacy of water as a cure for disease. Worse, (s)he assumes that such imaginary poverty actually excuses peddling quack remedies!
"Thousands of deaths are attributed each year to pharmaceutical use" - most of it by people taking the wrong drug or in wrong amounts or combined with other pharmaceutical, herbal, or naturopathic remedies that create a lethal combination. The reason is that pharmaceuticals actually have an effect on the human body - whether good or bad. The same cannot be said for any homeopathic "remedy". Nobody ever dies from homeopathic treatment because it does absolutely nothing!
Meanwhile, millions of lives are saved every year by pharmaceutical use.
"Homeopathy is an individualised treatment" we are told. Well, as "brilyn" has already pointed out above:
People who believe in homeopathy without evidence are like people who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. No, strike that; there is at least plenty of anecdotal evidence for their existence, given the sudden appearance of gifts at Christmas and eggs at Easter. Belief in homeopathy doesn't even come close.
The 800 lb gorilla
For at least 150 years homeopathy has been applied across the globe for therapeutic purposes to many millions of persons as patients. Mostly, by many thousands of conventionaly trained medical doctors. Satisfactory patient outcomes from homeopathic treatment is very high. This, despite the official medical opprobrium for homeopathy and the ease of availability of alternative pharmacological medicaments.
Why is it that for so long, in so many places and against official opinion have regular folks persisted in taking homeopathic medicines? Because, for them, it works. The end consumer judges the intervention sufficiently efficacious, cost effective, and free of downline side-effects to warrent a favourable elective choice. And this, measured against other, usually pharmaceutical, alternatives. This judgment has been rendered millions and millions of times.
People tend to pay for what works. Especially over time, across cultures, class, sex and circumstance. The sample is huge. Homeopaths are particularly good at documenting their case taking and clinical follow up. Consequently, there is a massive documented database of homeopathic treatment in existence. This is an emprical phenomenon that cannot be wished away or avoided. It is the 800 lb gorilla for this subject. Especially when it comes to public policy.
A person's wellbeing is an intimate and motivating force. If official pharmaceutical medicine was so good why does homeopathy remain a treatment of choice by so many people? If homeopathy was so ineffective why would so many people persist in finding satisfaction from it?
How can such a large-scale phenomenon be accounted for? Are people just stupid? Is it all a mass-placebo effect? Where is there evidence of other such mass stupidity and placebo phenomenon taking place? Such a powerful force in the affairs of life must be surely a subject of intense academic study. Not.
Try as you like, on the subject of homeopathy the ground matrix of empirical facts have to be faced up to. Or you are just a blowhard.
There are lots of phenomenon like this across science and in medicine. It means we don't yet know everything. We have technique but not theory. There is not enough evidence to sustain a viable theory for the mechanism underlying the homepathic effect. But it can be firmly stated that something is going on.
The best investigation going on plays out along two lines. One regards nanopharmacology and the other is the structural epitaxy of water. Look it up.
None of this matters when it comes to public policy. Why is it that homeopathic skeptics cannot rouse up any support among the general public? Why is it that any move to restrict public access to homeopathy or other natural medicament is met with a huge public outcry of opposition? It was the public's resistance that scotched Stephen Harper's Bill C-6 and then Bill C-51 which threatened natural health products and homeopathy. It was public support that allowed the Ontario McGuinty govenment to regulate homeopathy on a par with medicine.
Lots of people like homeopathy. It works very well for them. And who the hell are you buster to presume to force me differently? Them's fightin' words. Get it?
When it comes to public policy homeopathy doesn't have a thing to worry about. It works well enough for enough people and they'll fight for it. There's no public constituency that will fight against homeopathy. On top of that, for yer politician, homeopathy is really inexpensive, mostly paid for out of pocket, and there's no risk of adverse effect blowback. Game set and match.
I ought to know since I have long been working that field in this country. No politicial party nor any faction of any political party in Canada is hostile to natural health generally or homeopathy in particular. You want to fight about it. Knock yourself out.
All because of the 800 lb gorilla.
'Beware the rationale kernal in the mystical shell'.
Homeopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine
Any skeptic of an 'energetic information' therapy like homeopathy is bound, for puposes of honest consistency, to be equally disparaging of other 'energetic' disciplines like acupuncture and Ayurveda neither of which are rooted in or expressed in conventional biochemical language.
Go ahead. Dump all over them. They're all mass-plecebo deluded and stupid people. All those Chinese and East Asians, all the East Indians and the many other foolish non-scientific, insufficiently drug-worshiping primitives. Piss on the centuries of evidence. Don't even consider it a worthy subject of study. Screw trying to deepen scientific understanding. To hell with whether people find it works to their satisfaction.
You are the self-appointed illuminati of science. You are the Guardians of the Party Line of Science. You do not have to stand to be contradicted by the mere hoi polloi. Stamp you foot and public policy should be made accordingly.
Yeah, I don't see much of this going on anywhere in the entire world. Because if you were honest, and consistent and tried it you'd get lumped in with phrenology.
So, the coward's way out is to use homeopathy as a 'safer' whipping post. Skeptics beat on homeopathy because they haven't got the guts to equally go after acupuncture.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
Gee, what a surprise!
There's nothing like a personal financial interest to help people come up with the most outrageous lies and rationalizations!
The poster who calls him/herself M.Spector has obviously never been involved in orchestrating a gold standard RCT and has no inkling of the costs involved. Maybe you actually need glasses as it seems you did not read my post accurately. You speak of religion, but the only dogma I can see is in your posts M.Spector.
Historically, millions of people have used homeopathy in pandemics (a great example is the 1918 Spanish flu that lead to the death of up to 50 million). This pandemic and others in the last 2 centuries are fully documented. But more importantly, and Ned Ludd is absolutely right, the global public demand is massive and constantly on the rise. It must be a dreary existance for you to live in denial with no real awareness of what is going on around you.
And we all know what a huge success homeopathy was in fighting that particular virus!
I'm sure millions of people also tried prayer, voodoo dolls, and slaughtering chickens. What exactly does that prove?
It seems MSpector needs to be spoon fed so I have pasted a link to a fully referenced transcript which supports my comments:
http://kenthomeopathic.com/downloads08/Response_to_WHO.pdf
As a matter of fact, Spector working for a cause - in this case natural health - has always been done by me on a voluntary and pro bono basis. And doing this work openly and in public for no benefit has always been a badge of honour. After all, we unpaid volunteers whipped all the well paid industry shills and Health Canada hacks.
Kinda like with you. Better watch your mouth fella. Just because you can't put together a decent argument be very careful about accusing me of any personal impropriety in your desperation to land a blow.
I will apologize for not making it clear in my initial comments that my purpose was to expose yellow journalism rather prove here in this discussion the validity or invalidity of homeopathy. I doubt the final analysis on homeopathy or any traditional medicine will be reached here, as much as some would like to believe it will.
I would agree that pointing to pharmaceutical fraud is no defense of homeopathy, I'm no brilyn so I wouldn't want to throw around red herrings to confuse the issue. My concern is, it is quite easy to discredit and criticize ideologies or practices that are not part of the accepted wisdom of the day. It's also rather lazy and lacking in courage. What is more difficult is to challenge the accepted wisdom(s), the status quo, and institutional certitude. From this article I can only assume the author wants to appear to be a free thinking skeptic, but being a skeptic necessitates liberating one's mind from orthodoxies. The author has clearly failed on that front.
As for brilyn, I am delighted to know that he has finally come up with an intellectual rationalization that gives him license to simultaneously engage in vitriol and name calling while standing on the morally superior podium of objectivity and science. In all my years as a Health Professions administrator I have rarely encountered such an utter disregard for the most basic of professional decorum, as I am assuming brilyn that you are a professional of some sort. As for your preoccupation with my stage name, I'm not a doctor, the name is an allusion to pop culture, sorry you missed that (http://marvel.com/universe/Doctor_Octopus)
Well that's spot on, doc. Really. I quite agree with you on the author's good intent. Brilyn's remarks are perfectly representative of those typical of that nasty class of greedy, closed mined buffoons who imagine they are 'scientists' or some such fraud. Cutting them down a few pegs is a hobby. Very easy to do to. I'm sure Brilyn is a decent chap when he's at home.
I am not a homeopath. When it comes to deceipt there are no favorites. The natural health business is riddled with rackets and scams and they should get their just deserts. The conventional world only stands out because of the scale of its harm and utter debasement.
Thank you for the link which I will follow up on.
"...for the purposes of popular discourse, it is not necessary for homeopaths to prove their case. It is merely necessary for them to create walls of obfuscation, and superficially plausible technical documents that support their case, in order to keep the dream alive in the imaginations of both the media and their defenders."
- Ben Goldacre
Ned,
We've been had.
According to his own site, brilyn is a forth year philosophy student. He says he studies Socrates, Russell, etc, and has a particular interest in... ETHICS. Not ethics in blog debates of course, just abstract ethics that you write papers about. I also studied philosophy and ethics oh so many years ago, and what a pleasant memory it is, living in the world of ideas and discourse.
But some of us are are working professionals with experience in the world of health care, rather than PubMed-surfer sophists. We have to interact with other professionals, even ones we disagree with. In the working world most professionals understand that name calling won't serve to advance their position or case, nor their reputation. Quite the contrary really.
My only words for the 30ish brilyn are... time to be a bit more mature with your debating skills. Someday you might need to act like a professional, even if doesn't appeal to your sense of potty mouth entitlement.
There is justice in the universe Doc. A philo what, grad? not yet Hons grad? That's OK. He's put in hard work. Probably figures he's pretty well schooled. For sure the in-bred crowd around him keep telling him so. But they're just technicians. They only think inside the box. They're clever but not smart. As soon as we descend into the infinitely complicated real world the poor lambs run out of gas. I see you've figured this out, doc.
Ethics, you say. Medical and scientific ethics is my beat. I'll look forward to a future encounter with Brylin and hopefully on a more challenging subject that homeopathy. Homeopathy is easy.
Your point doc about 'being professional' is important. It means having discipline. It means taking responsibility. It means conducting yourself according to some standard greater than than personal wanking.
Example: Would you doc send the above discourse to Bylin's profs? Post it on the department bulletin boards? Show it around to humiliate him? Of course not and neither would I. But, mutatis mutandis, Brylin would. There's ethics for you.
I have no idea what Maurice Spector is going on about and I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. His last post concerns nothing that hasn't been satisfactorily addressed already.