Friday, March 26, 2010

Today, Two Criticisms of Homeopathy [UK, Canada]:

001. The Telegraph's Chiver's, T. (? ?) states in "Why Does Boots Sell Homeopathy Like It's Real Medicine?"(2010-03-26):

"my girlfriend went into Boots [...] and bought some arnica. Except she didn’t. She bought some sugar [...] the word 'arnica' did not immediately flag up for her the associated words 'homeopathy' and 'quackery', as it did for me (see the splendid 10:23 campaign for more information) [...] a homeopathic arnica solution [...] homeopathy [...] is based on [...] like cures like and [...] dilution increases potency [...] to increase the potency of their solution, homeopaths dilute it enormously [...] at 30C, that means there is one part active ingredient in a million billion billion billion billion billion billion parts water. That equals, roughly, one molecule of the active ingredient in a ball of water with the same diameter as the Earth’s orbit around the Sun [...] it is placebo [...] why [does] Boots, a respected high street chemist [...] sell my unsuspecting better half something labelled 'arnica' when it might be more accurately labelled 'no arnica' [...] it does nothing, because it contains nothing [...] if Boots are going to sell it, could they not put it under a sign saying 'make-believe medicine'? Or 'gullibility pills'?"


002. Rabble.ca's Mang, E. (? ?) states in "Homeopathy Preys on the Desperate"(2010-03-26): 

"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 [...] I see this as taking advantage of vulnerable people with a concoction that fails every on every scientific front [...] but just because something gives one hope doesn't mean it works [...] there's the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') thinking [...] 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' [...] so it goes with homeopathy. In short, homeopathy is water [...] we have made significant scientific advances in the past 200 years. Homeopathy defies the basic premises of physics and chemistry [...] you shouldn't be surprised that not one person has overdosed on a homeopathic remedy [...] 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 [...] the only way to ensure that homeopathy actually works is to subject it to a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial [...] homeopaths are reticent to do this [...] 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 [...] 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."

Note: meanwhile, NDs call homeopathy "clinical science."
Post a Comment