Individual activism against homeopathy?

Peacock - What's the point to fight Homeopathy that is something not actively harmful? I'd rather concentrate fighting junk food, food supplements, cigarettes, alcohol and many useless drugs as well as those homeopaths (and other quacks) that claim to cure Cancer, Aids, Malaria, Multiple sclerosis, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Paralysis etc.
 
From "Futurama":

Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Take some zinc.
Bender: I'm 40% zinc!
Amy: Then take some Echinacea or a St. John's wort.
Farnsworth: Or a big fat placebo! It's all the same crap!
 
Phytotherapist said:
Peacock - What's the point to fight Homeopathy that is something not actively harmful? I'd rather concentrate fighting junk food, food supplements, cigarettes, alcohol and many useless drugs as well as those homeopaths (and other quacks) that claim to cure Cancer, Aids, Malaria, Multiple sclerosis, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Paralysis etc.
Click to expand...


On what basis can you object to homoeopaths claiming to be able to treat the list of conditions you refer to above if you're not going to object to their treating other (perhaps more trivial) conditions for which homoeopathy also lacks evidence of efficacy?
 
Mojo - Homeopathy, although ineffective, can be very useful if used by an MD in the context of conventional Medicine as I explained in another thread. If your Laws allow non MDs to practise and make false and misleading claims, then you should fight to change this situation.
 
Phytotherapist said:
Peacock - What's the point to fight Homeopathy that is something not actively harmful? I'd rather concentrate fighting junk food, food supplements, cigarettes, alcohol and many useless drugs as well as those homeopaths (and other quacks) that claim to cure Cancer, Aids, Malaria, Multiple sclerosis, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Paralysis etc.
Click to expand...
You have answered your own question. Of course homeopathy can be actively harmful, for the reasons you state. But there is a vastly bigger picture. Should we encourage people to believe the unbelievable? I don't think so. Irrational beliefs cause a great deal of evil, and give people the excuses to to do things that reason would stop them doing. Irrationality has a corrosive effect on society. Turning specifically to health care, it will be impossible to further the cause of evidence based medicine of we allow certain practices to exist outside of scientific scrutiny. How are we going to get rid of the useless drugs you mention unless we apply strict tests of efficacy and safety to everything, across the board? The path you describe leads to folly.
 
Phytotherapist said:
Mojo - Homeopathy, although ineffective, can be very useful if used by an MD in the context of conventional Medicine as I explained in another thread. If your Laws allow non MDs to practise and make false and misleading claims, then you should fight to change this situation.
Click to expand...
I am totally baffled as to how an MD is ever going to use homeopathy without making false claims. "Now I am going to prescribe for you an ineffective medicine".:)
 
I should really give Peacock a bit more guidance, as requested in the OP. I'm not sure where you live, but in the UK we have a degree of regulation of retail business. For example I frequently report misleading ads to the Advertising Standards Authority. I have stopped a local acupuncturist from making false claims (indeed he has stopped advertising at all), and have stopped the advertising of a book that makes outrageous claims about the health benefits of vinegar. I am now working on a big natural health chain which disseminates huge volumes of literature making false claims. If every town and city had just one person who did this, we could stem the tide. Here is an article that might inspire you.
 
Asolepius - I undestand your points. Doctors that prescribe homeopathic remedies for minor ailments are not making false claims because they may be effective, e.g homeopathic remedies on the 1DH contain active substances. Unfortunately you know little or nothing about Medicine and Homeopathy and that's your problem.
 
Phytotherapist said:
Asolepius - I undestand your points. Doctors that prescribe homeopathic remedies for minor ailments are not making false claims because they may be effective, e.g homeopathic remedies on the 1DH contain active substances. Unfortunately you know little or nothing about Medicine and Homeopathy and that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Doctors prescribing homeopathic remedies for minor ailments are making false claims. Even if some homeopathic remedies contain active ingredients, reliable and valid information about effectiveness is missing (the only available information is of the kind we already know is highly unreliable and unlikely to be valid). It contravenes the international code of medical ethics to lie to your patients (by telling them something may be effective when good science tells us that is unlikely) or to fail to provide them informed consent (failing to inform them that they are receiving a placebo). Asolepius' understanding of medicine and homeopathy seems just fine.

Linda
 
fls said:
Doctors prescribing homeopathic remedies for minor ailments are making false claims. Even if some homeopathic remedies contain active ingredients, reliable and valid information about effectiveness is missing (the only available information is of the kind we already know is highly unreliable and unlikely to be valid). It contravenes the international code of medical ethics to lie to your patients (by telling them something may be effective when good science tells us that is unlikely) or to fail to provide them informed consent (failing to inform them that they are receiving a placebo). Asolepius' understanding of medicine and homeopathy seems just fine.

Linda
Click to expand...

It's more of a guideline, really.
 
Last edited:
Phytotherapist said:
Mojo - Homeopathy, although ineffective, can be very useful if used by an MD in the context of conventional Medicine as I explained in another thread. If your Laws allow non MDs to practise and make false and misleading claims, then you should fight to change this situation.
Click to expand...

Could you link to the other thread, please. I find it incredible that anybody can support this claim without stretching the definition of homeopathic beyond recognition.
 
Acleron said:
Sorry:blush:
Click to expand...


Don't worry: according to this, you're not the only one.
A letter from the Chief Executive [of the Society of Homeopaths] Paula Ross

The letter on page 5 starts “It’s been a tough few weeks for homeopathy” and it continues the grumbling about the number of complaints the SoH has been getting. More remarkably, Paula Ross boasts about the legal action that SoH took against the quackometer site (which she mistakenly confuses with the US site, Quackwatch). When one realises the major disaster for SoH that this legal action caused, it’s a bit surprising that the Chief Executive hasn’t been fired.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom