HAPPY BIRTHDAY SAM!
Today is Hahnemann’s birthday! And today is the beginning of HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK! To celebrate these events, I thought it would be nice to publish a very short post with a list 10 recent posts which, in my opinion, are most relevant or remarkable.
Surprise, surprise! Lesbianism is not ‘cured’ by homeopathy (warning: includes very rude language)
The future of homeopathy (in the words of Prof Walach)
Six hilariously funny ‘facts’ about homeopathy
Russian Academy of Sciences speaks out against homeopathy
And again: no good evidence that homeopathy works in animals
DIY-Homeopathy: how to kill your entire family
Let’s be blunt: homeopathy is bogus – but homeoprophylaxis is worse, much worse!
Homeopathy cost another life … and homeopaths remain once again silent
Breaking news: the critics of homeopathy are either ignorant or corrupt !!!
But this is merely the start of a series of posts on homeopathy to run this week – after all, HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK is important! The public needs to know the truth about homeopathy.
49 Responses to 10 April 1755: the birth of Samuel Hahnemann – here are 10 previous posts in his honour
Leave a Reply to Logos-Bios Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Homeopathy, the “Air-guitar” of medicine 🙂
After a lifetime of investigating homeopathy, Edzard should be able to provide a concise ‘head of argument’ for the case against homeopathy. Perhaps he could also try to do this in a dispassionate scientific manner to support his prosecutorial rhetoric: homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals, ‘kill your entire family’ (see your listed article above).
What if his case is wrong? Perhaps he would not feel any sense of shame for insulting so many people?
“provide a concise ‘head of argument’ for the case against homeopathy”
FOR ONCE YOU ARE RIGHT!
my scientific papers on this subject have long been published and are available for anyone who can read; for instance:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22568455
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21378294
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21076130
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20632155
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20099019
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19963285
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19854319
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17875194
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17710204
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17285788
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16376071
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16165225
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725251
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12559777
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603
if that is not enough for you, I recommend two books where things are explained real simple so that you might understand it
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Homeopathy-Undiluted-Including-Comprehensive-Z/dp/3319435906
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Trick-Treatment-Alternative-Medicine-Trial-Simon-Singh/0552157627/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BFJ621M49N7RV4E940D9
I DO HOPE THAT YOU FIND THESE SOURCES HELPFUL
He has, not one but many. You can read all about it in the posts listed (and more on this blog) and in his books, which, as you have been told repeatedly are available for purchase for a very reasonable price. If you are in financial difficulties, I recommend at least the book “Homeopathy – the undiluted facts” you can download it for a few dollars and the software to read it is free.
‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
Dr Rawlins, I would not have thought of you as the type of person to jump into this with your statement:
‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
What if the model and method of ‘investigating’ homeopathy is wrong? I have stated several times on this site that I consider the method (RCT) and model allopathic/clinical homeopathy used in most of the investigations into homeopathy are likely to fail P=F.
If someone devises a way to test homeopathy properly and evidence of efficacy is found, what will you say then?
“I have stated several times on this site that I consider the method (RCT) and model allopathic/clinical homeopathy used in most of the investigations into homeopathy are likely to fail”
repeating a falsehood does not make it a truth!
why do you think the considerations of a research-naïve homeopath matter?
Greg, seemingly you do not understand at all what an RCT does. It has nothing whatsoever to do with allopathy, it is plainly and simply a generic design to control for confounding factors.
An RCT does NOT test a specific drug – though it can be designed to do so. It tests a *treatment method*, i.e. the drug itself, how and when the drug is applicated etc. The nature of the treatment is completely irrelevant. It could be a seance session, an indian raindance or – PERSONALIZED CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY.
Or, to be crystal clear: The claim that homeopathy makes people feel better faster than doing nothing can be tested statistically. So far homeopaths have failed to do so, since 1855 when J.W.Begbie debunked belladonna as treatment for scarlet in a very impressive way: He showed that mortality does not go down.
Thomas, I know that you know what you are talking about; thank goodness.
I am not sure how much you know about the science of homeopathy, it takes some time to learn and some people prefer to adapt it to a new form because the classical form is too difficult and time consuming for them to practice.
It all comes down to individuality and process. What is the state of the individual and has the process identified what the individual needs. Practising regular medicine is a better choice: do the tests and prescribe the medicine according to the Guidelines. Homeopathy is very difficult to get it right and even if the practitioner ‘gets it right’ the individual responses to it are not predictable.
The investigation into homeopathy must continue in order to get to the bottom of it.
@Greg
You’re constantly repeating the courtier’s reply: “How dare people state that [homeopathy] is wearing no clothes when they haven’t read the many books on the beauty of [invisible silks] and the sublety of [invisible suits]?!” Your treasured homeopathy texts contain nothing but illusion and delusion, subjective (invented) concepts and wishful thinking. There is only one “scientific method”: you can’t choose different approaches to suit your delusional beliefs. Science is the least worst tool we have to distinguish the real world from fantasy, and it has proven itself successfully over many centuries.
When you say “the classical form [of homeopathy] is too difficult and time consuming for them to practice.” you’re deeply mired in courtier’s reply speak. It seems there’s little chance of pulling you out of the quicksand of self-delusion.
“Where can I study and qualify as a homeopath so that I can help my patients?”
As it stands, it is for those who make implausible claims to prove their case.
I’m pretty sure there are no teapots in orbit round the Sun.
As Bertrand Russell said, were he to make such a claim, it would be for him to prove it.
Greg-If someone were to devise a way of detecting unicorns, I am sure that the rest of us would have the decency to admit we were wrong, and the believers were right after all.
There are people who believe in a secret island where all the dead pop stars go when fame gets too much. However, the ardency of their belief does not magic such a place into existence, and the globe has now been extensively studied from the air, so I think that any large land mass-certainly one large enough to support a population of miffed pop stars and their lifestyle needs- is not likely to be proven by advances in aeronautics any more than it currently has been.
Does ‘I’m a millionaire, it just hasn’t been proven yet’ sound plausible to you?
The incredible, amazing Dr Rawlins said ‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.
What evidence is there that they are not?’
In the UK people are innocent till proven guilty and there is a Human Rights Act- at least for now. This seems fair enough for most people. Maybe Dr Rawlins would like the homeopathic community to be excluded from having these rights.
The general public should start asking where the evidence is that sceptics are not ‘ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’ No one would be daft enough to get specific though and start naming individuals with no evidence.
However, Dr Rawlins why dont you get a bit more specific and make some accusations against well known homeopaths with evidence of course? Why dont you chose a homeopath, or maybe name 1000 and name them all as ‘corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals’.
You will of course not do this because you do not have any evidence and would lose in court.
In which case your comment is just hyperbole. All very entertaining but with no substance. You must be a good stage performer.
YOU MEAN SPECIFIC LIKE THIS ONE?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340607
Yes: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.
@WhynotwriteafakelettertotheGuardian
Possibly some homeopaths are waiting for him to do that: lawyers are ready. Does he want to ‘make their day’?
Please read these postings more carefully.
I made no allegations.
I was quoting another post.
That is why my comment was in quotation marks.
I have no idea whether any homeopath is ignorant, corrupt, a quack, charlatan, fraud or criminal.
Do you?
How do we tell?
We are dealing here with probabilities and likelihoods, That’s why a proper scientific approach is necessary.
Which is more likely, that homeopaths are ignorant, quacks or frauds – or that they have discovered a quite remarkable phenomenon which requires all current knowledge of natural sciences to be set aside?
Which do you think more likely?
Please avoid the old tu quoque gambit.
I have many criticisms of medical practitioners and of medicine, but here we are considering homeopaths.
I am pleased to report that most of my audiences do indeed regard me as a a good stage performer.
Particularly when I demonstrate ‘The Magic of Alternative Medicine’!
May the wu be with you.
In the case of the Australian chiropractor just found guilty of claiming to be able to cure or prevent cancer, how was he ‘innocent until proven guilty’? It’s arguable that Donald Trump might make such an argument when accused of groping women- most of us weren’t there at the time-but surely not in cases where he has told lies in public, recorded on film? Perhaps the Australian chap’s advertising was hacked so that he was made to appear to say ‘bad things’, which is the type of thing that Trump supporters think we’re stupid enough to fall for.
As to the concept of ‘ innocent until proved guilty’, I think it’s stretching it a bit to believe that this means that homeopaths should be allowed to make whatever daft claims they like, and everybody else tto waste time, money and effort in disproving them? I’m tempted to believe that followers of the homeopathy cult are merely gullible, and that the pushers of this religion are indeed liars and crooks and whatever else, but for the fact that some of the most heated arguments I’ve ever had have been with the deluded followers.
Whatever- the main thing is that it is incumbent on the person making the claim to provide evidence, not other people to prove a negative. Expecting us to wait patiently for a magic machine to be invented by silly old scientists that is delicate enough to figure out ‘how homeopathy works’ is, similarly, putting the onus on the wrong people. I don’t doubt that hundreds of years ago, alchemists were urging people ‘It’ll work. Just give it time’. Or even, perhaps ‘Look, it has worked, it’s just that you people are too blind to see it. Now take this piece of lead- I mean ‘gold’- andbuy me some mead’.
Barrie seems to be obsessed with Trump, as the president’s name appears in many of his posts. Trump is at least smart enough to realize that the Obamacare scheme was nothing more than a wealth-redistribution program favored primarily by collectivists. Unlike Barrie, who I suspect wants Trump to fail at everything, I supported the community organizer until it became apparent that he was an economics patzer and a foreign-policy dolt whose only claim to historical fame was destined to be the recognition of homosexual marriages. I sincerely hope that our pols can significantly improve access to quality healthcare for America’s citizens; but so far this year I’m not very encouraged.
“… so far this year I’m not very encouraged.” why ever not? don’t you like the prospect of war with North Korea?
No I don’t want war with N. Korea. Do you?
I’d prefer a fisticuffs match-up between Serena Williams and the weak, cowardly fool (Kim Jong-un) who has continued to oppress N. Korean citizens. Such would make for better TV than even Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs.
Homeopathy is not all that bad. They actually hold the key to save the Rhino – but only in a parallel universe
https://frankvanderkooy.com/2016/08/05/west-meets-east-homeopathy-to-save-the-rhino/?frame-nonce=9c0e48cb2e
Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined to be the act of “unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another. (Wikipedia)
Does this law apply in the UK?
No – nor in SA either.
Folks in the categories we are considering here have no dignity which can be impaired.
And I rather think some of us twigged why Greg asked that question. A lot of homeopathic cultists take the view that an attack on a person’s beliefs is the same as an attack on the person. They have no shame.
Richard Rawlins
You do a fine job of impairing your dignity. No assistance is required to further impair it.
Dr Rawlins, you may have missed this as I wrote it in the Comment and not as a Reply:
Dr Rawlins, please go through these comments and explain:
10 April
Greg: After a lifetime of investigating homeopathy, Edzard should be able to provide a concise ‘head of argument’ for the case against homeopathy. Perhaps he could also try to do this in a dispassionate scientific manner to support his prosecutorial rhetoric: homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals, ‘kill your entire family’ (see your listed article above).
What if his case is wrong? Perhaps he would not feel any sense of shame for insulting so many people?
Dr Rawlins: ‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
Greg: Dr Rawlins, I would not have thought of you as the type of person to jump into this with your statement:
‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
What if the model and method of ‘investigating’ homeopathy is wrong? I have stated several times on this site that I consider the method (RCT) and model allopathic/clinical homeopathy used in most of the investigations into homeopathy are likely to fail P=F.
If someone devises a way to test homeopathy properly and evidence of efficacy is found, what will you say then?
Greg: Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined to be the act of “unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another. (Wikipedia)
Does this law apply in the UK?
11 April
Dr Rawlins:
I made no allegations.
I was quoting another post.
That is why my comment was in quotation marks.
I have no idea whether any homeopath is ignorant, corrupt, a quack, charlatan, fraud or criminal.
Do you?
How do we tell?
We are dealing here with probabilities and likelihoods, That’s why a proper scientific approach is necessary.
Which is more likely, that homeopaths are ignorant, quacks or frauds – or that they have discovered a quite remarkable phenomenon which requires all current knowledge of natural sciences to be set aside?
Which do you think more likely?
Dr Rawlins: No – nor in SA either.
Folks in the categories we are considering here have no dignity which can be impaired.
End of quotes
The conflicting statements in the text are:
I have no idea whether any homeopath is ignorant, corrupt, a quack, charlatan, fraud or criminal.
Folks in the categories we are considering here have no dignity which can be impaired.
What evidence is there that they are not?
These statements appear inconsistent, please would you clarify, thank you.
Ok Edzard.
Quote the paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340607
Then name any number of homeopaths and call them
‘corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
Then post it on here.
Or please explain why you dont want to do this.
I am just working on a post about this new paper.
“Then name any number of homeopaths and call them
‘corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’”
WHY SHOULD I DO THIS?
because some twit listed these words out of context?
why don’t you first look up in what context they were used?
Blunderbuss?
There are only approximately six weeks before “modern medicine” may celebrate the birth of one of its great pioneers, Dr. William McBride. His use and popularization of thalidomide for morning sickness was adopted by many within scientific medicine…and thousands of babies died or suffered severe birth defects. Even today, Dr. McBride’s infatuation with off-label(usually with no RCT provenance) prescribing is incorporated within the prescribing proclivities of MD’s throughout the world.
Thank goodness science learnt its lesson – and moved on.
Many thanks for reminding us of the importance of scientific trials.
Thalidomide is actually a good drug for managing nausea/sickness.
It just has unacceptable teratogenic side effects.
“Thank goodness science learnt its lesson,” exclaimed Richard regarding the importance of scientific trials in medicine. I wonder how much of the lesson “modern medine” has learnt(sic)? Allen Frances, M.D. appears to contradict Richard’s assertion:
Doctors prescribe way too many medicines for patients who don’t really need them. A lot of the pressure comes from intense drug company marketing. Some comes from patients who aren’t happy leaving the office without a pill. And doctors have too little time with each patient to explain non-pill solutions to problems. Wild prescribing is not new. For thousands of years, doctors have given patients useless (and often quite harmful) drugs and patients have taken them.
Modern medicine was meant to be different — it would be based on scientific evidence that could tease out real effect from placebo effect. Unfortunately, evidence-based medicine is only as good as the evidence it is based on. And in many instances our evidence is not very good because it comes from biased drug company studies.
This is particularly true for the “off-label” prescription of medicines — use based not on the systematic study required for an FDA indication. Off-label prescribing is the wild west of medicine — any doctor can prescribe any drug for any problem.
Kim Witczak became involved as an ardent drug safety advocate after the death of her husband, Tim “Woody” Witczak, in 2003 as a result of a drug side effect that had not been disclosed to him. She has taken her personal experience and launched a national drug safety campaign.
“Doctors routinely give powerful drugs off-label to their patients, without strong scientific evidence proving the drugs will be safe or effective, and sometimes despite warnings that such prescribing could cause serious harm.
Lesson learnt? Doubtful!
Logos, you know nothing about medicine or health care, based on your ridiculous comments and out of context charges. How would you treat Pneumonia, meningitis, diabetic ketoacidosis, congestive heart failure or even acute bacterial sinusitis? I certainly have never considered using thalidomide nor have the majority of physicians.
Cox, You know nothing about me or what I know. You appear to be cognitively slow today as I never suggested that today’s physicians routinely use thalidomide; but it was countenanced by medicine in the past even though there were no studies which verified its safety. We know the result of the medical-initiated debacle: deformed and dead babies as the result of treatment of benign morning sickness. Such off-label prescribing still is occurring today, with most having little hard evidence to support its use, especially when the patient is concurrently using other medications.
How would I treat(er, manage) the conditions you mentioned? Well, first I would take a history and examine the patient. As I hope you know, acute severe meningitis or pneumonia patients very rarely present to a chiropractic(or orthopedic, or ob-gyn, or dermatology) office. Patients with a persistent cough with wheezing or rales would necessitate a chest film and likely referral. Meningitis would be referred to the ER.
Bacterial sinusitis is seen in my office periodically and I refer the patient to his/her PCP. FYI, CHF is not a condition managed by chiropractic, neurolgic, pain management, or physiatric physicians.
Good point.
How does a chiropractor deal with pneumonia, meningitis, ketoacidoasis, heart failure or bacterial sinusitis? All of those are capable of being managed by general practitioners.
And aren’t chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc, wanting to be recognised as the equivalent of GPs?
@Stuartg
Chiropractic doctors cannot by licensure or education medically treat these discussed conditions; but they are required to diagnose them in most states. Therefore, DC’s, unless they medically train and complete a proper residency, cannot treat pharmaceutically such complex conditions.
The pith of the suggestion regarding DC’s as GP’s rests with diagnosis. Some believe that chiropractic “GP’s” would aid in screening self-limiting conditions from those requiring expensive referrals. This would alleviate some of the stress to the US medical system which has too few primary care doctors. PA’s and nurse practitioners are currently trying to fill the void. Some states (KS, OK, AR) have passed laws which would allow MD graduates who were not selected for residencies to nonetheless treat patients in underserved areas, although I don’t think the program has officially started yet.
Logos-Bios said:
I can’t say about the US, but in the UK there is no scope of practice defined by law or the GCC for chiros. But if you think chiros don’t think they can treat, eg, pneumonia, a short time with Google will soon disabuse you of that.
Bit off piste, I admit, but why the lower type of person on here would be so sneeringly dismissive of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and consider any criticism of cult beliefs or of Trump as being inspired by thev’leftist media’ defeats me. The same type of person was probably against black/white marriage not so long back.
I didn’t diss homosexual marriage or its legalization in my post.
I don’t think Trump is “inspired by the leftist media.” If anything, he is inspired to rail against their disingenuousness. Please clarify your odd statement regarding same since it makes little sense.
I’d be interested if Barrie would submit proof that homeopathy is a religion.
I suspect Barrie gets many things WRONG when he presumes facts not in evidence about other posters (me). His suspicion that I might have been against interinterracial marriages “not so long back” is a great example of ignorance trumping reality. However, we could discuss the history of such marriages, at least in the US, but would have to define what is meant by “not so long back.” 50 years ago, most US citizens frowned on them; such was not the case even 30 years ago.
There is ample evidence that this Logos- Bios chap can read, but can he actually comprehend what he reads? Does he even read his own posts?The extent to which he misunderstands other people’ s comments, whether out of wilfulness or cluelessness, is frankly odd, and greatly to do with why I stopped dealing with him some months ago. Same with Iqbal, Greg, Colin and others. I’ve seen articles on the Internet about how to conduct an argument with an opponent in a civilised manner, but really- there has to be a basic level of comprehension in relation to the most basic things that one says, or any discussion from that point is about as likely to produce results as having sex while standing up in a hammock( thank you Kenneth Horne et al for that line).
Hilarious! Barrie blatantly misunderstands my clearly written comments and attempts to obfuscate his error by suggesting that it is I who misunderstands other people’s posts. The real reason Barrie retreated from discussions with me is that I exposed the flaws in his “reasoning” and he simply doesn’t appreciate conversations with people who don’t conform to his CAMEDIC collective; he is not a very skilled debater. When challenged to justify his pablum, Barrie simply picks up his blocks and goes home!
His admiration for one of the most repulsive,misogynistic,bigoted evil egomaniacal narcissists of our time says a lot about his judgement and morality. Con artists and pathological liars admire one another.
I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, Cox, although I must admit that Hillary and Bill seem to admire each other. You might be onto something…….
Be well.
S Cox- which of course brings up once again the subject of ‘ad hominem’ attacks. The basic principle is clear enough, but the way in which most people react tends to be- let’s say- somewhat more nuanced. And so rightly or wrongly I, as you, tend to be wary of the judgement and morality of any person who is proud to support a touchy,racist, draft-dodging, woman- molesting, lying crook and scam artist who says ‘the facts are what I say they are.Just a thing I have. No wonder altmed scammers like him.
A few months ago I criticised on Amazon the malicious right wing ‘feminist’.Gail Dines and her latest silly book. One respondent said ‘for god’s sake, haven’t you heard of ‘ad hominem’ arguments? I replied that Dines had personalised the argument with the statement ‘no arguments or studies or evidence will ever convince me and feminists like me that pornography is not linked to violence against women’.
Dr Rawlins, please go through these comments and explain:
10 April
Greg: After a lifetime of investigating homeopathy, Edzard should be able to provide a concise ‘head of argument’ for the case against homeopathy. Perhaps he could also try to do this in a dispassionate scientific manner to support his prosecutorial rhetoric: homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals, ‘kill your entire family’ (see your listed article above).
What if his case is wrong? Perhaps he would not feel any sense of shame for insulting so many people?
Dr Rawlins: ‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
Greg: Dr Rawlins, I would not have thought of you as the type of person to jump into this with your statement:
‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.’
What evidence is there that they are not?
What if the model and method of ‘investigating’ homeopathy is wrong? I have stated several times on this site that I consider the method (RCT) and model allopathic/clinical homeopathy used in most of the investigations into homeopathy are likely to fail P=F.
If someone devises a way to test homeopathy properly and evidence of efficacy is found, what will you say then?
Greg: Crimen injuria is a crime under South African common law, defined to be the act of “unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another. (Wikipedia)
Does this law apply in the UK?
11 April
Dr Rawlins:
I made no allegations.
I was quoting another post.
That is why my comment was in quotation marks.
I have no idea whether any homeopath is ignorant, corrupt, a quack, charlatan, fraud or criminal.
Do you?
How do we tell?
We are dealing here with probabilities and likelihoods, That’s why a proper scientific approach is necessary.
Which is more likely, that homeopaths are ignorant, quacks or frauds – or that they have discovered a quite remarkable phenomenon which requires all current knowledge of natural sciences to be set aside?
Which do you think more likely?
Dr Rawlins: No – nor in SA either.
Folks in the categories we are considering here have no dignity which can be impaired.
End of quotes
The conflicting statements in the text are:
I have no idea whether any homeopath is ignorant, corrupt, a quack, charlatan, fraud or criminal.
Folks in the categories we are considering here have no dignity which can be impaired.
What evidence is there that they are not?
These statements appear inconsistent, please would you clarify, thank you.
I just saw this lovely humorous take on HAW (http://www.homeopathyawarenessweek.co.uk/):
“In the UK, 15% of our population already use homeopathy, and a further 80% have heard about it. However, many people are not quite sure what makes homeopathy different from other systems of medicine. The events which are organised during Homeopathy Awareness Week are there to help you to learn more about homeopathy, and the many health benefits which it can bring to everyone.”
particularly funny is the ‘already’, I thought – after 200 years of existence!
but 80% having heard about it is also good – how many people have heard of WMDs? does that mean they are commendable?
great is also the 15% figure – considering that the true number is 1.3%!!!
as they say: Homeopathy Awareness Week is there to help you to learn more about homeopathy – more lies, that is obviously!
Indeed. Not even in France is homeopathy used by 15% of the population!
A far more accurate website is Homeopathy Awareness Week, https://www.homeopathyawarenessweek.org/
Happy Birthday to the wonderful day in the Spring of 1961, in the USA, on which “modern medicine” swallowed its collective unscientific bias against osteopathic physicians and allowed them to trade their DO degrees for MD degrees. The cost? $65. You can’t make up this stuff!
Look at medicine and osteopathy in the early part of the last millenium and into the 1960’s, for example. MD’s in the late 50’s and in 1960 referred to DO’s as quacks, quacksters, rabid dogs, uneducated zealots, and killers; of course they claimed that such descriptors were based on science. Interestingly, the true political nature of organized medicine’s “turf protection” was exposed when the medical profession acquired the COP&S to benefit itself financially and, as a quid pro quo, offered DO’s the opportunity to simply exchange their DO degrees for MD degrees. Of course this blatantly expedient action exposed medicine as hypocritical, political, and self-serving. Think of it: medicine stated that osteopaths were quacks in 1960 but then conferred to osteopaths MD degrees in 1961 simply to advantage itself. Surely “modern medicine” must always be viewed as altruistic, no? Medical and osteopathic docs were ostensibly part of the same profession but political motivations and individual prejudices by so-called objective medical physicians prevented practitioners of the professions from co-practicing, or even associating with one another. What MD’s claimed as scientific objections to DO’s simply disappeared with a $65 payment. Surely there should be a celebratory vibe within “modern medicine” as the birthday of this merger approaches.