Comments on: Meddling Princes, Medical Regulation and Licenses to Kill

By: How to Spot Bad Regulation of Alternative Medicine. | The Quackometer

How to Spot Bad Regulation of Alternative Medicine. | The Quackometer — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:31:15 +0000

[...] There is no justification to be made here that suggests the public will be protected by this move. Indeed, it is a state sanctioned license to mislead and profit from people’s health concerns. (see Meddling Princes, Medical Regulation and Licenses to Kill) [...]

By: davidriched

davidriched — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:10:30 +0000

The people are loosing their moral while becoming modern. The society needs to be attentive that moral value.Every dark night is followed by a bright sunny day. So, patience and attention is required and things will be fruitful in near future. ==================================== Apothecary Jobs

By: DavidP

DavidP — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:17:13 +0000

Good post, with interesting history.

Two typo's - the last being the most significant:
The middle of the third paragraph says "The three main establishment bodies, create" - should be [created]
The second last paragraph starts "The problems with statutory regulation are laid out very clearing" this should end "clearly"

Any news on John Wesley's TB treatment preference?

By: Mojo

Mojo — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:45:11 +0000

Rush and his like were criticised by orthodox doctors even in the 19th century. See for example what Oliver Wendell Holmes senior had to say about him in his essay "Currents and Counter-Currents", written around 1860.

By: Cavall de Quer

Cavall de Quer — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:17:19 +0000

That's really startling bad thinking, "anonymous" – although the idea of "alternatives" as an anti-elite, anti-intellectual etc rebellion might well be true – it's notable that alternative believers nowadays soon become vituperative about modern science, and I agree it's disconcerting to know that there are things about one's own body that one can never hope to understand, and that the idea of an available, easy-to-understand-and-apply remedy is attractive – but as Peter Ashby pointed out, that was then, this is now.

By: Peter Ashby

Peter Ashby — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:06:25 +0000

@Anonymous coward (as you get styled if you make an anonymous posting in The Register)

The use of the pejorative term 'allopath' when complaining about being called quacks means what yo posted is hypocritical in the extreme. It also ignores both evidence and that science and medicine have come a long way sing the 19thC.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:06:17 +0000

"What was wrong with the allopath called Benjamin Rush? Rush was an arrogant academic man and believer in science; but was not a practitioner of the scientific method, who had the nerve to call his competitors Quacks while thinking nothing of killing patients in his blind pursuit of science. His brand of medicine was down right lethal and the public was smart enough to figure it out, no matter how much Rush protested. The development of alternative medicine in America during the 19th century owes much to allopaths, like Rush, who were largely responsible for fostering a rebellion against the aristocracy, or the intellectual elite ruling class, in the medical profession. Alternative medicine in America was not a rebellion against science during this time period. It should be viewed historically as an empirical rebellion against the authoritarian, backward, rationalistic, and dehumanized academia that was in fact both killing and torturing their patients. Allopaths were calling their competitors Quacks long before any allopath ever used the scientific method, long before their science was anything but laughable, and long before allopathic treatment methods were anything but bizarre if not down right lethal torture."