Comments on: Homeopathic Thought in the 21st Century http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:52:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Antares http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-11066 Antares Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:15:48 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-11066 a) Studying something really really hard doesn't make it true. I can for example study Tolkien's languages from the Lord of the Rings universe, or the physics and technology in Star Trek. Very fascinating stuff - but at the end of the day it's all just made up. Like homeopathy. b) If these people you are talking about are so passionate about medicine and helping people, why then do they not study medicine (or related subjects)? c) You fail to understand that the most important thing in medical science is not the precise knowledge of HOW something works but the unbiased certainty THAT something works. This is a key difference and should be kept in mind whenever the argument about how "science doesn't have all the answers" is made. Science is pursuing the answers. But for the time being, some good trials that show the efficacy of some drug or treatment will do. Clear? Daniel a) Studying something really really hard doesn’t make it true. I can for example study Tolkien’s languages from the Lord of the Rings universe, or the physics and technology in Star Trek. Very fascinating stuff – but at the end of the day it’s all just made up. Like homeopathy.

b) If these people you are talking about are so passionate about medicine and helping people, why then do they not study medicine (or related subjects)?

c) You fail to understand that the most important thing in medical science is not the precise knowledge of HOW something works but the unbiased certainty THAT something works. This is a key difference and should be kept in mind whenever the argument about how “science doesn’t have all the answers” is made. Science is pursuing the answers. But for the time being, some good trials that show the efficacy of some drug or treatment will do.

Clear?
Daniel

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-7741 Le Canard Noir Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:20:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-7741 It is about time homeopaths started listening to some criticism. In two hundred years you have been unable to demonstarte that your sugar pills do anything. And yet you plough on regardless and support lunatic attempts to cure really sick people. Utterly irresponsible. It is about time homeopaths started listening to some criticism. In two hundred years you have been unable to demonstarte that your sugar pills do anything. And yet you plough on regardless and support lunatic attempts to cure really sick people. Utterly irresponsible.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-7739 Anonymous Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:35:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-7739 as much as i am used to all this it disheartens me to read that a bunch of jealous so called allopaths think they are fit enough to comment on homeopathy without doin any background check.as for u all i only say that even when homeopathy was introduced there was criticism n till now it is but wat we are taught is that we should not waste our time in criticising others and insteda use the time to help patients. as much as i am used to all this it disheartens me to read that a bunch of jealous so called allopaths think they are fit enough to comment on homeopathy without doin any background check.as for u all i only say that even when homeopathy was introduced there was criticism n till now it is but wat we are taught is that we should not waste our time in criticising others and insteda use the time to help patients.

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-7382 Le Canard Noir Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:50:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-7382 Hello kmv.<br/><br/>This is no witch hunt. Just a critique of the batshit nature of much thought in alternative medicne.<br/><br/>Let me address your points:<br/><br/>You say homeopaths train because they have good intentions and because they believe in their study. Neither of these points make homeopathy true. If they studied because of their fascination with the amazing science behind homeopathy and because of the overwhelming positive evidence for its effectiveness, you might have point. But most people have been impressed with a few anecdotes and maybe a headache or two has got better after a magic sugar pill. Their study just reinforced delusion rather than challenges it.<br/><br/>And yes, I have read the cuba study - so far unpublished and basic facts and being reported that are wrong - such as "5 million".<br/><br/>You can read my detialed thoughts here...<br/><br/><a HREF="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/01/hasta-el-absurdo-siempre.html" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Hasta el Absurdo Siempre!</a> Hello kmv.

This is no witch hunt. Just a critique of the batshit nature of much thought in alternative medicne.

Let me address your points:

You say homeopaths train because they have good intentions and because they believe in their study. Neither of these points make homeopathy true. If they studied because of their fascination with the amazing science behind homeopathy and because of the overwhelming positive evidence for its effectiveness, you might have point. But most people have been impressed with a few anecdotes and maybe a headache or two has got better after a magic sugar pill. Their study just reinforced delusion rather than challenges it.

And yes, I have read the cuba study – so far unpublished and basic facts and being reported that are wrong – such as “5 million”.

You can read my detialed thoughts here…

Hasta el Absurdo Siempre!

]]> By: kmv http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-7381 kmv Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:11:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-7381 Your website, whilst I'm sure it was originally set up with good intentions, feels more like "witch-hunting" rather than rational, objective thought.<br/><br/>Homeopaths spend many years and thousands of pounds to train for two reasons: 1) they, like the medical profession, are driven by the desire to make others well and 2) because they beleive in their study. <br/><br/>Speaking of study's have you read this? http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/<br/><br/>Now, Cuba is where many Doctors train as they have outstanding facilities, and many doctors there are also homeopaths. <br/><br/>Don't forget that it was only in 1971 (!) that Doctors discovered how Aspirin works. Did they call it a placebo until then? <br/><br/>I can only hope that those who read your site choose to make an educated decision for themselves and that we leave "Witch-hunting" to the pages of history. <br/><br/>With best wishes,<br/>K Vernon Your website, whilst I’m sure it was originally set up with good intentions, feels more like “witch-hunting” rather than rational, objective thought.

Homeopaths spend many years and thousands of pounds to train for two reasons: 1) they, like the medical profession, are driven by the desire to make others well and 2) because they beleive in their study.

Speaking of study’s have you read this? http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/

Now, Cuba is where many Doctors train as they have outstanding facilities, and many doctors there are also homeopaths.

Don’t forget that it was only in 1971 (!) that Doctors discovered how Aspirin works. Did they call it a placebo until then?

I can only hope that those who read your site choose to make an educated decision for themselves and that we leave “Witch-hunting” to the pages of history.

With best wishes,
K Vernon

]]> By: Elennaro http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-5487 Elennaro Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:10:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-5487 Well, that's exactly what it is, isn't it? It is empirical, that's true, but it is also anecdotal.<br/><br/>You state that the homeopath had given satisfaction while the GP had not. Yet you acknowledge this could have been due to coincidence. Don't you find that confusing? Well, that’s exactly what it is, isn’t it? It is empirical, that’s true, but it is also anecdotal.

You state that the homeopath had given satisfaction while the GP had not. Yet you acknowledge this could have been due to coincidence. Don’t you find that confusing?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-5248 Anonymous Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:37:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-5248 Yes, I know that about a molloscum. The girl's GP hadn't helped (or that was the perception), whereas the homoeopath gave satisfaction.<br/><br/>Nice word, "anecdotal". Makes it sound like it's a fairy-story. Another, neutral, word for such evidence is "empirical". It's used all the time in general practice. The GP knows that a drug does certain things for which it isn't licensed, but prescribes it anyway because empirically (i.e. in clinical practice) there are anecdotes to show it works for a particular complaint although it was tested and licensed for another. Yes, I know that about a molloscum. The girl’s GP hadn’t helped (or that was the perception), whereas the homoeopath gave satisfaction.

Nice word, “anecdotal”. Makes it sound like it’s a fairy-story. Another, neutral, word for such evidence is “empirical”. It’s used all the time in general practice. The GP knows that a drug does certain things for which it isn’t licensed, but prescribes it anyway because empirically (i.e. in clinical practice) there are anecdotes to show it works for a particular complaint although it was tested and licensed for another.

]]> By: Rob http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-5246 Rob Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:49:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-5246 Anonymous: while we're swapping anecdotal evidence, I went to a homeopath once. Very nice lady, listened very carefully to everything I had to say, then gave me some pills which did sod all. I can't remember how much it cost (this was about 12 years ago).<br/><br/>About that molloscum which the pill healed: I'm not ruling it out but do remember that "individual molluscum lesions <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molluscum_contagiosum#Treatments" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">may go away on their own</a> and are reported as lasting generally from 6 to 8 weeks, to 2 or 3 months." Anonymous: while we’re swapping anecdotal evidence, I went to a homeopath once. Very nice lady, listened very carefully to everything I had to say, then gave me some pills which did sod all. I can’t remember how much it cost (this was about 12 years ago).

About that molloscum which the pill healed: I’m not ruling it out but do remember that “individual molluscum lesions may go away on their own and are reported as lasting generally from 6 to 8 weeks, to 2 or 3 months.”

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-5243 Anonymous Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:25:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-5243 £60 isn't bad at all if you've had an hour and half of the homoeopath's time, and it includes the remedies. My wife had half an hour's private consultation with a specialist (who took two phone calls from other patients during this time - I'd have deducted a sixth from his fee). He couldn't give her any treatment or help in any way whatsoever and charged her £300!!!!!!!! A friend took her daughter to a homoeopath: the girl had a molloscum. The fee was £30 (an hour's consultation) and after one pill the girl was healed. £60 isn’t bad at all if you’ve had an hour and half of the homoeopath’s time, and it includes the remedies. My wife had half an hour’s private consultation with a specialist (who took two phone calls from other patients during this time – I’d have deducted a sixth from his fee). He couldn’t give her any treatment or help in any way whatsoever and charged her £300!!!!!!!! A friend took her daughter to a homoeopath: the girl had a molloscum. The fee was £30 (an hour’s consultation) and after one pill the girl was healed.

]]> By: Citizen Deux http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-21st-century.html#comment-5213 Citizen Deux Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:34:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2007/10/homeopathic-thought-in-the-21st-century.html#comment-5213 Very funny - I thought the site for Milton Keynes was delightful! The fees for the homeopathic services were stunning. 60 pounds! Very funny – I thought the site for Milton Keynes was delightful! The fees for the homeopathic services were stunning. 60 pounds!

]]>