Comments on: How Can You Criticise Homeopathy When You Have Never Studied It?

By: DBH

DBH — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:17:00 +0000

I recently took the fight against crack-pot medicine to the Far East, and the most worrying aspect of this is that homeopathy is taking the form of extremism over there, i.e., homeopathy should replace conventional evidence-based medicine. Having recently locked horns with one such homeopath, I guess I should not be surprised that I got the “handbag” treatment. A full blown hissy. Fantastic. I have blogged about this wee experience.

By: Philippe Leick

Philippe Leick — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:09:00 +0000

Andy, great post!

What you have cited from Bridger's article is really a very concise description of the state of dialogue in (some parts of?) the alternative medicine community.

The whole argument that you can't criticise a discipline like Homeopathy is delightfully circular and self contradictory. At least if you cling to some remainders of "reality" or "truth".
To see this, of course, you have to be part of the elite rabble indoctrinated by the dogma of university science courses.
Since dilution and shaking are an integral part of the homeopathic process, obviously, chemistry and physics are needed for a complete understanding of what's going on. Now, physics and chemistry will, without much debate, deny any specific effect. Thus, an escape hatch is needed by the homeopaths: usually, in the form of the bold claim that some yet undiscovered "New (Quantum) Physics" will save the day.
By the standards that have just been described, any speculation of that kind is not only absurd, but completely out of bounds: Only physicist are allowed the luxury of these speculations! - Unfortunately, practically none of them (with a few rather sad exceptions) see any need for these speculations.

By: daijiyobu

daijiyobu — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:15:00 +0000

AL said:

“as several Universities in the UK are teaching homeopathy as a BSc [like Australia's 'Bachelors of Health Science - Naturopathy'].”

Yes, and here in North America, the ‘unethical sectarian pseudoscience’ known as naturopathy has created — at the federally-accredited university level[US] — a “clinical sciences” board exam which includes…
.
.
.
.
.[wait for it]
.
.
.
.
.
homeopathy (see http://ccne.ca/ )!!!!!

The reason I left a CT ND program was, primarily, due to its homeopathy — its claims that the profoundly nonscientific sectarian must be presented to the public as scientific — which I find ethically repugnant.

-r.c.
http://naturocrit.blogspot.com

By: mugsandmoney

mugsandmoney — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:30:00 +0000

It will be interesting to see if Bridger survives long in the mainstream, having criticised in this way.

By: gimpy

gimpy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:00:00 +0000

Oh come on Andy, you know perfectly well that homeopaths cannot speak with one voice. Look at the divide between those who use remedy machines and those who prefer classical Hahnemanian methods. The classicists insist their method works and remedy machines do not, whereas the machinists insist their version works as well as the classic option. Because this is a discipline founded on the principles of selective bias, subjective measurement and wishful thinking objectivity cannot be applied. Self-analysis will never yield a meaningful outcome because the basic premise is so flawed. Mike Bridger is a stopped clock, but one with digits going to thirteen. This apparent fleeting moment of clarity is just an illusion in a profession that can never accurately measure outcomes.

By: censored

censored — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:51:00 +0000

If you really wanted to wind up a homeopath, simply restate their question:

“How can you criticise evidence-based medicine, drugs and vaccination if you haven’t got a degree in pharmacology?”