View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 23rd, 2014, 12:24 pm



Reply to topic  [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
 Conversation with Nancy Malik split from Homeopathy thread 
Author Message
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
But this certainly said about non-efficacy of Conventional Medicine because antibiotics for viral infection is useless.

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


February 1st, 2009, 8:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am
Posts: 1474
Location: Forest Hill, London
Cock-ups by GP's are often cited as a weakness of conventional medicine. Most GP's (and indeed many specialists) are not scientists and most have little to do with the development or testing of medicines. They prescribe from a list of available medicines, based on their interpretation of symptoms. Some do not keep up-to-date with treatments, some are not even particularly capable of making a sound assessment of symptoms. Just because someone has passed a medical degree, it does not mean that they have a good bedside manner, which is important in making diagnoses. That is why it is often wise to seek out a second opinion.

However, the fact remains that conventional medicine is demonstrably effective when properly implemented, particularly when compared to alternative therapies.

Modern conventional medicine has its roots in the germ theory of disease and since 1835 it has developed an impressive array of incredibly effective treatments. It has eradicated smallpox and has been able to suppress the progression of new diseases like AIDS. We know for a fact that many diseases are indeed caused by bacteria or viruses and the best method of dealing with those diseases is to kill the disease-causing agent. This is something that is proven to work.

Homeopathy has been around since 1796, it was developed as an alternative to the ineffective blood-letting practices associated with the humors theory of disease that had it's formal roots in 400BC and which was utter tosh and dangerous to boot. Homeopathy was probably more effective than conventional medicine when the convention was based on unfounded nonsense, but in the 200+ years of being around, homeopathy has not delivered the goods. It is not based on any kind of evidence for either the way in which it treats disease nor for its efficacy.

The germ theory was unpopular when proposed, but it went on to demonstrate its worth, homeopathy has been around for just 40 years longer, yet it has consistently failed to deliver. Why?

This is an example of the evolution of ideas - those that work supersede those that don't.

_________________
Ask a biologist
My blog


February 1st, 2009, 10:09 am
Profile WWW

Joined: November 26th, 2007, 6:05 pm
Posts: 297
"Nancy Malik" said:

Quote:
orthodox would try to supress the fever. When fever would be gone, he would think he has treated it.


Bullshit.

"Orthodox" medicine knows perfectly well what a fever is, and what causes it, and how it is a useful part of the immune system. The only reason medicines are available which suppress fever are that a) sometimes a very high fever can be dangerous, and b) some people don't like to experience fever, even if by suppressing the fever they extend their cold symptoms.

The point of course is that while homeopathy is based on nonsense and doesn't work, fever-suppressants do actually work to suppress fever, even if suppressing the fever isn't really the best course of action (cf over the counter cold symptom remedies).

Quote:
In November 2008 a panel of FDA advisers voted in favor of a proposal that children under the age of 6 should not be given cold or cough medicines, because they have not proven to be effective or safe.


Your dates are wrong, as the FDA was looking into this question as early as a year before November 2008. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900246.html.

Science tells us, of course, that cold remedies do not cure colds. All they can do is suppress some of the symptoms. It's not bullshit homeopathy that tells us this, because homeopaths have a false understanding of disease. Science also tells us whether or not there is evidence that particular remedies are safe or effective.

It's interesting that a science-based recommendation to avoid over-medicating very young children for little or no reason can be used in support of homeopathic medicine.

When homeopaths accept science for themselves, then we will know you're not just bullshitting. But you don't, so you are.

Quote:
What to do? Homeopathy offers a risk-free, gentle and effective alternative for helping children and adults recover from coughs, colds, and flu


No, you idiot. The risk-free, gentle and effective alternative is to allow children and adults to recover from mild coughs and cold by letting the infection run its course, as it will do pretty soon. The answer is absolutely certainly not to spend money on bullshit based on rank drivel, thereby enriching disgraceful snake-oil merchants like you and your disgusting pre-germ theory brood.

Quote:
I am interested only in the results of Homoeopathy.


Bullshit. If you were interested in the results of homeopathy, you would advocate proper double blind randomised scientific trials of your absurd little concoctions, and you would spend your days attacking anti-science homeopaths on homeopathic bulletin boards than wasting everybody's time and energy on this board.

You're not interested in results at all. You're just interested in all the money homeopathy can make by lying to people who think it can help them. It can't help them, of course, all it can do is empty their wallets.

No, results are the last thing specimens like you are interested in. And the sooner organised homeopathy is smashed, and the public-funded "homeopathic" so-called hospitals ripped down brick by brick (well, at least gutted and replaced by proper health professionals) the better.

Quote:
and medicine is free from the clutches of multinational pharmaceutical and insurance companies


The influence of "big pharma" certainly hasn't been an unmitigated benefit to health provision, but I also want to see a day when medicine is free from the clutches of money-making lie machines like the multimillion dollar homeopathy industry for whom you are currently whoring.

Dan

(the snow brings out the worst in me)


February 2nd, 2009, 5:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am
Posts: 1474
Location: Forest Hill, London
Come on Dan, don't pull your punches!

_________________
Ask a biologist
My blog


February 2nd, 2009, 5:30 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2007, 10:56 pm
Posts: 749
Surely Dan however strongly you feel about this subject you do not have to be so rude. I particularly felt bad about you saying "you idiot".


February 2nd, 2009, 9:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7283
Location: UK
Val wrote:
Surely Dan however strongly you feel about this subject you do not have to be so rude. I particularly felt bad about you saying "you idiot".

I agree. Please keep it civil, in accordance with the rules of the forum, and avoid personal insults.


February 2nd, 2009, 9:45 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: November 26th, 2007, 6:05 pm
Posts: 297
Quite right. "Idiocy" makes it sound like it's not their fault.

I should have been much stronger, because the promotion of homeopathy is a social evil. Certainly homeopathy's anti-science agenda is part of a movement which is responsible for people *dying*.

Since homeopaths know that their products have no scientific support, indeed are determined that it mustn't, they are therefore acting deliberately to cause harm to other people. They've been told enough by now. They can't defend themselves by appealing to ignorance: this is wanton disregard for public health.

Nancy Malik: why do you want to kill people?

Dan


February 3rd, 2009, 11:58 am
Profile

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:07 am
Posts: 441
Being as insulting as possible doesn't actually achieve anything except make some people uncomfortable or upset and more sympathetic to the target of the insults.

It's possible for people to be neither idiots nor to mean harm but to simply be deluded and I think that's what most homeopathists are, together with people who believe in gods and religions, in spite of being highly intelligent and well-educated. Homeopathists do believe there is scientific evidence to support homeopathy and are forever quoting one scientific study or other in support of it. Even qualified doctors like Peter Fisher (Director of the London Homepathic Hospital) do that. People like him could easily find a job as a medical practitioner but he seems to truly and sincerely believes that homeopathy works.


February 3rd, 2009, 3:26 pm
Profile

Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm
Posts: 3014
Homeopathy :hilarity: It does work - for certain people, under certain conditions, but only when everyone involved believes in it.
A bit like Capitalism, really!


February 3rd, 2009, 4:44 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Dan wrote:
"Nancy Malik" said:

Quote:
orthodox would try to supress the fever. When fever would be gone, he would think he has treated it.


Bullshit.

"Orthodox" medicine knows perfectly well what a fever is, and what causes it, and how it is a useful part of the immune system. The only reason medicines are available which suppress fever are that a) sometimes a very high fever can be dangerous, and b) some people don't like to experience fever, even if by suppressing the fever they extend their cold symptoms.

The point of course is that while homeopathy is based on nonsense and doesn't work, fever-suppressants do actually work to suppress fever, even if suppressing the fever isn't really the best course of action (cf over the counter cold symptom remedies).

Quote:
In November 2008 a panel of FDA advisers voted in favor of a proposal that children under the age of 6 should not be given cold or cough medicines, because they have not proven to be effective or safe.


Your dates are wrong, as the FDA was looking into this question as early as a year before November 2008. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900246.html.

Science tells us, of course, that cold remedies do not cure colds. All they can do is suppress some of the symptoms. It's not bullshit homeopathy that tells us this, because homeopaths have a false understanding of disease. Science also tells us whether or not there is evidence that particular remedies are safe or effective.

It's interesting that a science-based recommendation to avoid over-medicating very young children for little or no reason can be used in support of homeopathic medicine.

When homeopaths accept science for themselves, then we will know you're not just bullshitting. But you don't, so you are.

Quote:
What to do? Homeopathy offers a risk-free, gentle and effective alternative for helping children and adults recover from coughs, colds, and flu


No, you idiot. The risk-free, gentle and effective alternative is to allow children and adults to recover from mild coughs and cold by letting the infection run its course, as it will do pretty soon. The answer is absolutely certainly not to spend money on bullshit based on rank drivel, thereby enriching disgraceful snake-oil merchants like you and your disgusting pre-germ theory brood.

Quote:
I am interested only in the results of Homoeopathy.


Bullshit. If you were interested in the results of homeopathy, you would advocate proper double blind randomised scientific trials of your absurd little concoctions, and you would spend your days attacking anti-science homeopaths on homeopathic bulletin boards than wasting everybody's time and energy on this board.

You're not interested in results at all. You're just interested in all the money homeopathy can make by lying to people who think it can help them. It can't help them, of course, all it can do is empty their wallets.

No, results are the last thing specimens like you are interested in. And the sooner organised homeopathy is smashed, and the public-funded "homeopathic" so-called hospitals ripped down brick by brick (well, at least gutted and replaced by proper health professionals) the better.

Quote:
and medicine is free from the clutches of multinational pharmaceutical and insurance companies


The influence of "big pharma" certainly hasn't been an unmitigated benefit to health provision, but I also want to see a day when medicine is free from the clutches of money-making lie machines like the multimillion dollar homeopathy industry for whom you are currently whoring.

Dan

(the snow brings out the worst in me)


According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. b). any branch of this.

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


February 3rd, 2009, 5:46 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Dan wrote:
"Nancy Malik" said:

Quote:
orthodox would try to supress the fever. When fever would be gone, he would think he has treated it.


Bullshit.

"Orthodox" medicine knows perfectly well what a fever is, and what causes it, and how it is a useful part of the immune system. The only reason medicines are available which suppress fever are that a) sometimes a very high fever can be dangerous, and b) some people don't like to experience fever, even if by suppressing the fever they extend their cold symptoms.

The point of course is that while homeopathy is based on nonsense and doesn't work, fever-suppressants do actually work to suppress fever, even if suppressing the fever isn't really the best course of action (cf over the counter cold symptom remedies).

Quote:
In November 2008 a panel of FDA advisers voted in favor of a proposal that children under the age of 6 should not be given cold or cough medicines, because they have not proven to be effective or safe.


Your dates are wrong, as the FDA was looking into this question as early as a year before November 2008. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900246.html.

Science tells us, of course, that cold remedies do not cure colds. All they can do is suppress some of the symptoms. It's not bullshit homeopathy that tells us this, because homeopaths have a false understanding of disease. Science also tells us whether or not there is evidence that particular remedies are safe or effective.

It's interesting that a science-based recommendation to avoid over-medicating very young children for little or no reason can be used in support of homeopathic medicine.

When homeopaths accept science for themselves, then we will know you're not just bullshitting. But you don't, so you are.

Quote:
What to do? Homeopathy offers a risk-free, gentle and effective alternative for helping children and adults recover from coughs, colds, and flu


No, you idiot. The risk-free, gentle and effective alternative is to allow children and adults to recover from mild coughs and cold by letting the infection run its course, as it will do pretty soon. The answer is absolutely certainly not to spend money on bullshit based on rank drivel, thereby enriching disgraceful snake-oil merchants like you and your disgusting pre-germ theory brood.

Quote:
I am interested only in the results of Homoeopathy.


Bullshit. If you were interested in the results of homeopathy, you would advocate proper double blind randomised scientific trials of your absurd little concoctions, and you would spend your days attacking anti-science homeopaths on homeopathic bulletin boards than wasting everybody's time and energy on this board.

You're not interested in results at all. You're just interested in all the money homeopathy can make by lying to people who think it can help them. It can't help them, of course, all it can do is empty their wallets.

No, results are the last thing specimens like you are interested in. And the sooner organised homeopathy is smashed, and the public-funded "homeopathic" so-called hospitals ripped down brick by brick (well, at least gutted and replaced by proper health professionals) the better.

Quote:
and medicine is free from the clutches of multinational pharmaceutical and insurance companies


The influence of "big pharma" certainly hasn't been an unmitigated benefit to health provision, but I also want to see a day when medicine is free from the clutches of money-making lie machines like the multimillion dollar homeopathy industry for whom you are currently whoring.

Dan

(the snow brings out the worst in me)




Dan uses bullshit 5 times in a single post. Dan you are showing symptoms of frustation

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


February 3rd, 2009, 5:50 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Dan wrote:
Quite right. "Idiocy" makes it sound like it's not their fault.

I should have been much stronger, because the promotion of homeopathy is a social evil. Certainly homeopathy's anti-science agenda is part of a movement which is responsible for people *dying*.

Since homeopaths know that their products have no scientific support, indeed are determined that it mustn't, they are therefore acting deliberately to cause harm to other people. They've been told enough by now. They can't defend themselves by appealing to ignorance: this is wanton disregard for public health.

Nancy Malik: why do you want to kill people?

Dan


You don't beleive in Homeopathy. It's your choice. Have I forced you to believe in it. Like wise each one of us is free to accept or reject it, dan you are unnncessarily getting emotional. Be rational grow up.

You don't consider homeopathy as science. You have every right to think so. But many countries and their governments has homeopathy on their national health schemes.

You don't beleive in homeopathy. it's perfectly ok. But why are you forcing others not to beleive inm homeopathy. Let them decide for themselves. Or you think they are not grown up?

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


February 3rd, 2009, 5:58 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Dan wrote:
Nancy Malik: why do you want to kill people?

Dan


Ask anyone which of the two had resulted in deaths. Here some example for you

Deaths due to side effects of Conventional Medicine

http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nu ... deaths.htm //Prescription drugs causing death
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 79/15/1200 //adverse drug reactions
http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/ //a book by Dr. Carolyn Dean MD ND
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... 125683.900
http://parated2k.joeuser.com/article/30 ... _by_Doctor
http://www.hugesettlements.com/articles ... actice.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080317/ ... 8.676.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 6820080215 //
http://www.detoxmetals.com/index2.php?o ... view&id=54

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


February 3rd, 2009, 6:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm
Posts: 375
Location: Aylesbury, UK
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. b). any branch of this.

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

Although Webster's Dictionary is useful for the layman, when investigating scientific "truth" the commonly held definition of a question addressable by a scientific approach is that of a falsifiable hypothesis, as set out in works such as Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery. Homeopathy clearly falls into this category because its hypotheses are falsifiable by the application of approaches such as double blind clinical trials. Popper makes it clear that scientific hypotheses cannot be proved positively, they are not even really verifiable, and are at most only subject to corroboration from time to time as particular pieces of evidence emerge from experimentation. Falsification of a hypothesis using scientific methods trumps any amount of corroborative evidence.

I think that most scientists across many disciplines would now assess the weight of evidence around homeopathy, with corroboration of claims on the one hand and falsifications of its hypotheses on the other, as falling firmly on the side of "falsified hypotheses". If there are positive effects seen in experimental work on homeopathy they are possibly explained by some other factor not currently considered as part of the homeopathic hypothesis, such as psychological factors.


February 3rd, 2009, 7:35 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15331
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Ask anyone which of the two had resulted in deaths.
Perhaps we should talk about the number of lives that the conventional medicine you so despise has saved? Homoeopathy has saved precisely zero lives; conventional medicine has saved millions and doubled our life expectancy in the past 100 years.

Quote:
Here some example for you

Deaths due to side effects of Conventional Medicine

Nancy, whether or not people have died because of mistakes of proper doctors, does not mean that homoeopathy works! Do you understand that?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


February 3rd, 2009, 7:37 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10234
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Nancy
You don't beleive in homeopathy. it's perfectly ok. But why are you forcing others not to beleive inm homeopathy. Let them decide for themselves. Or you think they are not grown up?

Let's turn that round.
You Nancy believe homeopathy works, I (and others) don't, you'll never change my mind regardless of how many spurious links you post.
So in your own words "Let them decide for themselves. Or you think they are not grown up?"
We on this forum are grown up, so just what is it you're doing here?

Edit,
I think you're a bit like an evangelical, you need as many people as possible to believe your nonsense, so as to affirm or strengthen your own shaky belief in it.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


February 3rd, 2009, 8:04 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10234
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Nancy
Ask anyone which of the two had resulted in deaths. Here some example for you

Nobody is ever going to die as a direct result of taking a homeopathic cough remedy, you can't kill yourself with an underdose :smile:
There is a homeopathic preparation to aid sleep ((they say) it says on the bottle do not exeed maximum dose, 2 tablets. I would willingly swallow 50 in one go (if I was given them) I certainly wouldn't buy them.
Where homeopathy does kill, is when it's taken as a substitute for real medicine.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


February 3rd, 2009, 8:25 pm
Profile

Joined: November 26th, 2007, 6:05 pm
Posts: 297
"Nancy Malik" opined:

Quote:
Dan uses bullshit 5 times in a single post. Dan you are showing symptoms of frustration


It's more powerful when not diluted ha ha ha.

Quote:
Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation


Leaving aside the hilarious amateur etymological "argument", this is still bullshit, because the "observations" that homeopathy is supposed to be based on are ludicrous, and the "experimentation" simply doesn't exist. Homeopathy isn't based on empirical observation or scientific experiment, it's based on made up dogma and all homeopathic advocates are purveyors of dogmatism and delusion.

No observations whatsoever support the homeopathic dogmas of 'vitalism' and 'miasms'. Such notions are straighforwardly false. Not all disease is caused by "germs", but germs certainly exist, despite the crazed denials of homeopaths.

Quote:
You don't consider homeopathy as science. You have every right to think so. But many countries and their governments has homeopathy on their national health schemes.


Is that supposed to be an argument of some kind? Or just a list of completely unrelated thoughts? Did you forget about the logic bit?

Quote:
You don't beleive in Homeopathy. It's your choice. Have I forced you to believe in it. Like wise each one of us is free to accept or reject it, dan you are unnncessarily getting emotional. Be rational grow up.


That's a bit of an antiquated view of reason, that it is somehow opposed to emotion.

The issue is not whether or not I "believe in" homeopathy. My beliefs are irrelevant, as are yours. What matters is that homeopathy is made-up nonsense and no amount of "belief" can change that fact.

"Disbelief", in any case, doesn't cover it. I am *opposed* to homeopathy. Organised homeopathy must be destroyed. I can't force people to agree with me, but I can do everything in my power to make homeopathy as bankrupt organisationally as it is scientifically. People can believe whatever weird dogmas they like, but that doesn't mean they should have public money for hospitals, or University courses.

If people think they can fight disease your way, they're welcome to try. They might be lucky for a while, but one day something nasty will come along and that will be curtains for them. We have people recommending homeopathy for AIDS, for crying out loud. Let them infect themselves with AIDS and see how they get on, "belief" or not. I'm serious. Scientists sometimes infect themselves and then cure themselves. Why don't homeopaths do the same?

Quote:
You don't beleive in homeopathy. it's perfectly ok. But why are you forcing others not to beleive inm homeopathy. Let them decide for themselves.


I'm not "forcing" anyone to do anything, not having the power to do so. What I'm doing is what's known as having an argument. I realise you prefer the fallacious appeal to "authority", without actually evaluating the "authority", but that's quite a common strategy among people who only have dogma to lean on.

Force and fraud go together as bad ways of securing agreement. Homeopaths are engaged in fraud. They claim that their potions are effective treatments, but they know that there is no scientific evidence that this is true. They know this because they actively oppose subjecting their claims to robust scientific evaluation, in favour of touting what are effectively customer satisfaction survey results.

But homeopaths also produce pretend medicines for children. Not only does this contribute to the completely and dangerously unnecessary medicalisation of conditions which don't require it (thus putting them in the same anti-social camp as big-pharma, actually), but it could also risk the health of the children.

It's just a good job that very few people really believe in homeopathy and use proper medicine when it really matters. If people could choose homeopathy or medicine and once they made their choice they could only use that type of remedy, I think we'd rapidly see a fall in support for homeopathy!

You're dangerous, Nancy Malik, you have to be stopped.

Dan


February 3rd, 2009, 10:13 pm
Profile

Joined: November 26th, 2007, 6:05 pm
Posts: 297
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
But this certainly said about non-efficacy of Conventional Medicine because antibiotics for viral infection is useless.


Show me where in the medical literature it says that antibiotics are effective against viruses.

Do homeopaths believe in viruses now?

Dan


February 3rd, 2009, 10:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: February 27th, 2008, 1:17 pm
Posts: 2976
Location: Greater London
Diane wrote:
Being as insulting as possible doesn't actually achieve anything except make some people uncomfortable or upset and more sympathetic to the target of the insults.

It's possible for people to be neither idiots nor to mean harm but to simply be deluded and I think that's what most homeopathists are, together with people who believe in gods and religions, in spite of being highly intelligent and well-educated. Homeopathists do believe there is scientific evidence to support homeopathy and are forever quoting one scientific study or other in support of it. Even qualified doctors like Peter Fisher (Director of the London Homepathic Hospital) do that. People like him could easily find a job as a medical practitioner but he seems to truly and sincerely believes that homeopathy works.
I can understand why Dan gets so frustrated and angry that he wants to insult people who promote homeopathy. I feel like that sometimes. Diane is right: it doesn't achieve anything. But what does, I wonder?

Nancy Malik talks about Dan choosing not to believe that homeopathy works. I think that's an interesting way of putting it. It reminds me of things that Christians say, about atheists choosing not to believe in God. I don't think of it as a matter of choice. I am, at the moment, incapable of believing in God, or in the effectiveness of homeopathy. My absence of belief is out of my control. Or at least, that's how it feels. I certainly don't want homeopathy to be ineffective. In fact, if homeopathy worked, as well as or better than conventional medicine, and we were all finally presented with convincing evidence to support that, I would be delighted. What a wonderful thing that would be. Think of all the saved resources. All the suffering that could be alleviated. I'd be too pleased to feel embarrassed at having been wrong.

If, however, I were a homeopath, someone who had studied and practised homeopathy for many years, and it was finally demonstrated to me that homeopathy really was no more effective than placebo, I would feel a tremendous sense of loss and betrayal — grief, maybe. To have invested so much in something and then discovered that it was worthless — or worse than worthless: misleading, fraudulent, potentially damaging — that would be extremely traumatic. I have enormous sympathy for anyone in that position.

If the evidence didn't come in a single, mind-changing chunk, but was delivered in a slow annoying drip-drip of double-blind placebo-controlled trials and occasional metanalyses, and all the while I was confronted with the gratitude of my satisfied patients, the unsatisfied ones just politely disappearing without making a fuss (confirmation bias), and the overwhelming confidence of my colleagues and everyone in the homeopathy industry as well as supportive GPs and universities and journalists and broadcasters and celebrities (communal reinforcement), then I can well believe that I would continue to have faith in the efficacy of homeopathy. The alternative would be unthinkable.

So I have a certain sympathy with Nancy Malik, even though I get exasperated at the things she says — like her accusation that Dan is forcing others not to believe in homeopathy. Of course that's not what he's doing, or trying to do. We all know it's impossible. We all know that people have to decide for themselves. But our decisions are shaped by our psychological make-up, our temperament, our ways of reasoning, our knowledge, our understanding, our experience, our emotions. We are influenced by other people: people we trust and people we distrust. Our choices are shaped by our own perceptions and misperceptions, our flawed memories and biases and illusions.

So, to come back (at long last) to the question of what might achieve something, perhaps what we all need to focus on is learning to recognise those limitations in ourselves, and admit to them and talk openly about them and encourage others to do the same.

Emma


February 3rd, 2009, 10:49 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.