Confronted Homeopaths, Did Not Go Well

Meanwhile, in another country...

I had a minor homeopathic confrontation earlier this week. I needed to take my kid to the doctor and afterwards stopped off at the nearest pharmacy to pick up the prescription. While waiting in line I was asked if I'd like to sign a petition in favour of "saving" homeopathy - it seems that the Swiss health insurers have decided not to reimburse sugar tablets any longer and so patients are having to bear the cost themselves*.

I politely declined and the young lady asked me why, so I explained that in my opinion, and that of a lot of senior physicians and researchers, sugar tablets were not of any use whatsoever. The reply was that "lots of people believe that it works", so it was clear then that the discussion was going down a fruitless path. I merely commented that if they believed the treatment was effective, they should be prepared to pay for it, and left it at that. With family members I've had some quite detailed debates about the subject, but figured that this was neither the time nor the place.





* I know that Flo of this forum works in the Swiss health system and can correct me if I'm wrong or add more details.
 
malbui said:
I had a minor homeopathic confrontation earlier this week. I needed to take my kid to the doctor and afterwards stopped off at the nearest pharmacy to pick up the prescription. While waiting in line I was asked if I'd like to sign a petition in favour of "saving" homeopathy - it seems that the Swiss health insurers have decided not to reimburse sugar tablets any longer and so patients are having to bear the cost themselves.
Click to expand...
Something to do with this, perhaps: Homeopathy gives rational voters a headache.
Last year the interior ministry judged that five alternative therapies, covered provisionally by basic health insurance, failed to meet the criteria on efficacy, suitability and cost-effectiveness laid down in Switzerland's health-insurance law.

This was challenged by supporters of homeopathy, one of the five rejected therapies, who soon collected enough signatures to force a referendum that should take place before 2009.
Click to expand...
 
Loss Leader said:
So, I was in my health food store today. I really do love that place - near my office and plenty of grass-fed beef, whole grain products, local produce, etc. - but I ventured over to the very large health supplement section. It was mostly vitamins and "natural" remedies that may or may not work to some untested degree or another. But they had an entire area dedicated to homeopathic medications.

This angered me.

They had a little health/supplement kiosk with a lady standing by to answer your questions. I picked up a bottle of homeopathic insomnia remedy and asked her if there would be any ill effects if I took the entire bottle at once.

And things deteriorated rapidly from there.

She informed me that I had asked a stupid question so I should only expect a stupid answer. She told me homeopathy works, that asprin is homeopathic (!) and that removing the items from the shelves was never going to happen. If I wasn't interested in purchasing the product, she said, I should go away.

A friendly store worker guy told me that I shouldn't take the whole bottle because I would get sick. I replied that, if he would give me the $9.00 bottle free, I would gladly take the entire thing right then and wait with him so he could see the effect.

And that's when I was told to leave the store.

So here's my series of questions: What's your story about confronting woos? What should I have done differently? What advice do you have about how (and even whether) to broach these subjects?
Click to expand...

Until alt meds are subject to the same stringent testing and regulation as real meds, nothing will change. The issue is a multidimensional one, encompassing religion, economics, and politics.

Confronting people in stores may give you a momentary rush, but ultimately achieves nothing.

M.
 
A few comments:
1. It's difficult to argue with these folks. Rational arguements have no effect, and (as you can attest) will just anger them. You want evidence, facts, data, etc. They only need anecdotes and testimonials. Coupled with magical thinking, confirmation bias and flawed logic, they are firmly entrenched in their position.
2. It's difficult to even discuss with them. Just by asking questions, you're coming off as negative, an un-believer, etc. They assume you are "closed-minded".
3. I wouldn't have offered to take the whole bottle. That was a bit too much.
4. I would have asked less confrontational questions first; What does 'homeopathic' mean? How does it work? What studies have shown it's effective? Then try the 'overdose' question.

But still, a great story. I enjoy reading about encounters with woo.
 
shell said:
One of the best ways to get someone to listen to what you say and give you coherent feedback, is to start with common ground. As in the case of the insomnia 'medicine', you could have have said something about insomnia sucking. You would get an agreement. (don't know of anyone woo or otherwise who gets a kick out of not being able to sleep) Then maybe relay a little bit about your experience with insomnia and ask if the person ever had one of those nights. (Chances are good they have and in the situation even if they haven't they'll play it up to sell the stuff)
Click to expand...

Just don't escalate too quickly:

SKEPTIC: Nice weather we're having.
WOO: Yes, it is.
SKEPTIC: I had trouble sleeping last night. Insomnia sucks, doesn't it?
WOO: Yes, it does.
SKEPTIC: WHERE DO YOU GET OFF PUSHING THIS HOMEOPATHY CRAP?!?
WOO: (Confused) What?

I'm just sayin'... ;)
 
Sir Robin Goodfellow said:
Yep. Chugging a bottle of water straight up is pretty much a death sentence.
Click to expand...
Just to be safe, you should always follow H2O with an equal dose of H2SO4. The atom of S and the two extra atoms of O will bond with the toxins in your body and offer you quick, complete, and permanent relief from headaches and any other pain or discomfort.

You go first.
 
BPSCG said:
Just to be safe, you should always follow H2O with an equal dose of H2SO4. The atom of S and the two extra atoms of O will bond with the toxins in your body and offer you quick, complete, and permanent relief from headaches and any other pain or discomfort.

You go first.
Click to expand...

Whenever drinking H2SO4, I always make sure to mix it with two parts NaOH. That way, I get my full dose of sulphuric acid without melting my throat.
 
Loss Leader said:
Whenever drinking H2SO4, I always make sure to mix it with two parts NaOH. That way, I get my full dose of sulphuric acid without melting my throat.
Click to expand...
Good advice. Someone should pass it on to $ylvia Browne; that way she could get in closer touch with her spirit guide and would no longer have to worry about giving inaccurate information to her clients.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Just a note on overdose: Don't voluntarily overdose a homeopathic remedy unless you have made sure it is a pure homeopathic preparation. There is a lot of mixopathic stuff out there. Due to the legal leniency on homeopathy (which is because they are assumed to be harmless), a lot of things are marketed as "homeopathic" but actually contains lots of strange stuff besides a homeopathic preparation.
Click to expand...

Pay special attention to the "inactive ingredient" list on any "homeopathic" medication. Many of them cheat by having only homeopathic substances listed in the "active ingredient" list, but have a number of very active substances listed as "inactive".

One recent, and non-toxic, example was a "homeopathic" anti-hangover remedy that was specifically to tame stomach nausea. Under the "active ingredients" were the typical 10x and 20x nonsense ingredients; but under "inactive ingredients" it listed "activated carbon", which is definitely an active ingredient very useful for taming the sort of nausea caused by hangovers.
 
shell said:
One of the best ways to get someone to listen to what you say and give you coherent feedback, is to start with common ground. As in the case of the insomnia 'medicine', you could have have said something about insomnia sucking. You would get an agreement. (don't know of anyone woo or otherwise who gets a kick out of not being able to sleep) Then maybe relay a little bit about your experience with insomnia and ask if the person ever had one of those nights. (Chances are good they have and in the situation even if they haven't they'll play it up to sell the stuff)

Then ease into how you've heard such and such about the product, they'll rebut, you rebut....conceding a point made when appropriate-even if it's something like the product having a great name will open the door for the other person to concede some points to you.

This is how you go about an argument to convince. The more yeses you can get to your points the more likely you are to get the person to seriously consider what you've presented. Just keep in mind to break the person's argument down and not the person.
Click to expand...

I must assume you are in sales - since "getting to yes" is prime in pretty much any sales training you receive and the techniques for forcing agreements are pretty much standard. The only problem with the technique that I have found occurs when you go up against someone who knows it - and a shill for a homeopathic product/company almost certainly will.:)
 
fuelair said:
I must assume you are in sales - since "getting to yes" is prime in pretty much any sales training you receive and the techniques for forcing agreements are pretty much standard. The only problem with the technique that I have found occurs when you go up against someone who knows it - and a shill for a homeopathic product/company almost certainly will.:)
Click to expand...

I read "Getting to Yes" and agreed with much of it. I just can't implement it. I get too anxious, grab the other person by the throat and shout, "Agree with me, agree with me, agree with me!"
 
IMHO, it's better to be very diplomatic and gentle with the criticism (generally speaking). The more you sound harsh and critical, the more likely they'll be to dismiss you as cynical and closed minded. I know a lot of folks here don't like watering down their message, or putting the gloves on, but I think it only hurts the cause to appeal to these people in a way that only reinforce their negative views of skeptics.

I have many friends who are into what I would call woo, and I've found I can make more of an impression (still not all that much, admittedly) if I listen carefully to what they believe, and show respect for their beliefs (I may not have respect for what they believe in, but I do usually respect the person and don't blame them for believing it). Sometimes asking questions is better than making statements. The idea is to get them to start thinking for themselves skeptically, since they are not likely to believe homeopathy (for example) is bunk just because I tell them so.

That's been my experience anyway. And I don't think we should give up; I don't think it's hopeless (but the outlook is not so rosy, it's true).
 
Loss Leader said:
I read "Getting to Yes" and agreed with much of it. I just can't implement it. I get too anxious, grab the other person by the throat and shout, "Agree with me, agree with me, agree with me!"
Click to expand...
Can I assume your legal specialty is not the practice of trial law?
 
Lift your leg. Let a good one rip and leave the store. Why bother with crooks that don't want to hear their product is as useless as they are.
 
Solus said:
What did you expect was going to happen? That they were going to agree with you and say, "yes, homeopathic medicine is a bunch of BS and I'm just using it to make money"? :p

Your only choice is make these people look like fools do follow Randi's example on this one. How to make them look like fools?

First, don't say a word and buy the garbage from the woman then shallow the whole bottle of pills at once in front of group a believers.
Click to expand...

I recommend against it. Some 'homeopathic' aka 'naturopathic' 'natural' medications are actually just drugs in a bottle with a picture of a grassy field on it. There's a risk of conventional overdose.

I really recommend taking the education to the legislators rather than the purveyors - they already know it's junk, and you're on their private property. And you're taking this legal and health risk to demonstrate in front of - what - five other customers?

If you're going to do it, make it "press-worthy".

A few years ago, the Belgian Skeptics staged a "mass suicide" which got a lot of media attention.
 
jimtron said:
I know a lot of folks here don't like watering down their message, or putting the gloves on, but I think it only hurts the cause to appeal to these people in a way that only reinforce their negative views of skeptics.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this debate will go on forever. My feeling is that I've had a lot of success with those who start out neutral. My outreach projects into the truth-seeking community could be summed up like this:

"They come for the debate, but stay for the common-sense."
 
As for the "swallow the bottle" bit, Randi did it in front of congress, though I can't find in an online search any congressional reference. He talks about it here.


I would think taking 60+ times the reccomended dosage would leave an impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom