• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homeopaths Can't Even Commit Suicide

LostAngeles

Penultimate Amazing
L
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
10,109
Homeopathy Can't Even Help You Commit Suicide

:randi: wrote in this this week's commentary
MASS SUICIDE FAILURE IN BELGIUM

According to a recent report in Skeptical Inquirer, major health insurance companies in Belgium have decided to begin covering the costs of homeopathy, in response to popular public demand. This resulted in an "ultimate protest" by a group of skeptics there. Depressed by the willingness of the insurance companies to encourage quackery, 23 Belgian skeptics announced that they would commit mass suicide by drinking a homeopathic cocktail of lethal poisons including arsenic, snake venom, and belladonna. Knowing that the more diluted a homeopathic remedy is, the more powerful it becomes, they even increased the potency by preparing a "30c" solution of the cocktail.

Lest you fear that these brave volunteers were taking chances, that "30c" meant, one part of the poisons mixed with 1060 parts of water, which equates to the same concentration as a solution of one grain of salt in ten thousand billion spheres of water the size of the solar system. All newspapers and TV stations were invited to watch the death agonies of the 23 deranged suicides, who included a number of prominent citizens and professors of medicine, "and a few normal people armed only with common sense."

The media coverage was excellent, but the suicide attempt was a dismal failure, aside from a couple of encouraging burps. Drat!
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that was a great big smack to homeopathy over there and people came to their senses. Still, HEE!
 
I totally encourage homeopaths to stick up for themselves and get a bunch of snakes together, one for homeopath, and get bit. Then use the 30c remedies to cure themselves. I'll go anywhere to cheer this demonstration on!!
 
This was actually reported in the Commentary already, a few months ago, and quite a long discussion thread followed. Anybody feel like dredging it up?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
This was actually reported in the Commentary already, a few months ago, and quite a long discussion thread followed. Anybody feel like dredging it up?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, I made the same point made by DavidHorman, namely that one of the central claims of homeopathy is that things have the opposite effect when diluted. So, homeopaths would claim that the mixture would be a treatment for diseases with symptons similar to the effects of a snakebite.

An additional point to consider. On some past occasions people have approached Randi claiming their paranormal power is they can drink snake venom and stay alive. Randi has refused the test, pointing out that snake venom is usually safe to drink. It might be dangerous if you have a cut lip, but most people could drink it with no ill-effects.

Obviously, Randi is perfectly aware of this, but chooses not to mention it in his commentry. I'm all for discrediting homeopathy through honest means, but this type of dishonesty can only have a negative effect.
 
Drinking snake venom and have no ill effect is not a paranormal claim when anybody can do it right?
 
I'd rather see Eos's test run. In fact, I think it can be improved on in favour of the homeopaths.

1. Homeopath to select which specific venomous snake they like from a bunch of them.

2. Have that snake milked, and the venom made into an antidote homeopathically. This to be done to that homeopath's specific requirements by people s/he trusts to do it right.

3. Have the same snake bite the homeopath.

4. Homeopath to administer antidote to self as s/he sees fit; observe results.


Reason for this variation: Homeopaths often warble on about "finding the right remedy" so that "like cures like" will work. Well, if the homeopathic antidote made from from the very snake that bit you is not "like" the snake's venom then nothing else is. It should give you exactly the same symptoms (if that is what's necessary) to effect a homeopathic cure.

I suggest JREF get in a stock of taipans now.
 
Zep said:
Well, if the homeopathic antidote made from from the very snake that bit you is not "like" the snake's venom then nothing else is. It should give you exactly the same symptoms (if that is what's necessary) to effect a homeopathic cure.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's not homoeopathy, it's isopathy. Same isn't supposed to cure same. Unless you actually believe in isopathy too of course.

The fun bit is, when an isopathic remedy "works" (like a nosode instead of a vaccine) then that's great proof of homoeopathy's effectiveness, but when it doesn't, it's disowned. See this letter as an example.

Face it, Zep, they have all the angles covered.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Sorry, that's not homoeopathy, it's isopathy. Same isn't supposed to cure same. Unless you actually believe in isopathy too of course.

The fun bit is, when an isopathic remedy "works" (like a nosode instead of a vaccine) then that's great proof of homoeopathy's effectiveness, but when it doesn't, it's disowned. See this letter as an example.

Face it, Zep, they have all the angles covered.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Hi Rolfe,

Beg to differ, but not seriously. :)

Isopathy appears to be the homeopathic equivalent of vaccination. In my test case, it would mean drinking the diluted snake venom beforehand in order to effect some sort of protection against the real snakebite.

The test I propose would have the homeopath be suffering from the effects of the snakebite, and they would need to cure themselves using their own remedy. "Like cures like" method seems to be the complete underpinning of their theories, and they always seem to whine about matching remedies to personal symptoms. So, unless I have completely mistaken them as fools :D, I would expect that for one specific person, one specific substance would produce EXACTLY the same symptoms. Therefore the homeopathic version of that substance must certainly be the very best, if not only, "remedy" for any illnesses caused by that substance.

You know, a trial with taipans would be over very quickly, one way or another, so there would be no mucking around waiting for any adverse effects and the like. And if it didn't work, well...there's one less homeopath in the world, isn't there! :D
 
It's true they do use nosodes for prevention, but isopathy actually describes the concept of "same cures same" whether it's used therapeutically or prophyactically, and is held by purists not to be homoeopathic. Hahnemann certainly spoke against the concept.

Rolfe.
 
Actually, I think you've got them Zep!

You just have to think of the snake bite as being a proving...
 
Felice said:
Actually, I think you've got them Zep!

You just have to think of the snake bite as being a proving...
Click to expand...
I like your double-entendre! :D
 
Rolfe said:
It's true they do use nosodes for prevention, but isopathy actually describes the concept of "same cures same" whether it's used therapeutically or prophyactically, and is held by purists not to be homoeopathic. Hahnemann certainly spoke against the concept.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Since most of them are nor purists, I'd still consider putting it up to them in public as a valid test of their theories. Certainly I would write to the veterinary letters column suggesting it as a validation of the homeopathic theories, and call for volunteers. Those calling it "isopathy" would then effectively rule out of order any fellow homeopaths who subsequently trotted out the "like cures like" routine as "proof" of homeopathy. You could simply refer them to the "isopathy is not homeopathy" letter by a fellow homeopath!

Of course, make it scientific: Use ten homeopath volunteers, make a batch of ten remedies of which only 5 are "true homeopathic" remedies, and let each homeopath choose their remedy at random...after they are bitten by the taipan. Good control, double blinding, RESULT!
 
Believe it or not, a colleague did something similar, a challenge to try to get them to show they could tell a remedy from a sham by proving it. They just won't play ball. Whatever you propose, it's "unhomoeopathic". I think in practice any trial in which the participants don't know who took what is unhomoeopathic.

Rolfe.
 
Oh, it's been VERY clear that they are dodging and weaving and contradicting themselves. The point I would be trying to make is to SHOW them dodging and weaving and contradicting in clear public view.

The issue I see, from an outsider's point of view, is that their evasion tactics are just NOT clearly demonstrated. They really are not. I certainly KNOW that they are evading, but what is required is a clear public demonstration of this happening.

To that end, the "Taipan Test" could be promoted as a very public way of seeing if they put up or push off. But it needs to be done in the right way.

First the homeopaths need to say out loud and in public what their "method" is. So far, it has been great heaps of "like cures like" and "personally suited remedies".

If this can be confirmed as their modus operandi then the second stage is to introduce their agreement that a specific substance homeopathically prepared MUST be the best antidote for an overdose or the ill effects of that substance, in one particular person.

Third stage is to offer them the "Taipan Test". If they back out of that then they need to justify the logic of the second and even the first stages that they previously agreed to.

If they decide that the second stage is NOT right - that the identical substance homeopathically prepared is NOT a cure for the same substance in the same person - then they can be asked what WOULD be a cure for, say, snake-bite of a taipan. The symptoms can be be described quite accurately if required, of course. If they come up with any remedy then go to stage three again with their new remedy.

But if they decide to recant right back past stage one, that "like cures like" and all that, then they can be simply bombarded with all the innumerable letters to the editors that contend otherwise.

Or you could start with Hanneman's Organon, select "snake bite", and go forward from there.

But the main things is to have it done out in the open and turning the requirement of proof back on the homeopaths, by challenging them to provide the answers to everyone, not you trying to prove them wrong. Unfortunately that is by far the majority of what I have seen in the letters-to-the-editor stuff: "Homeopathy is wrong because...". That's the wrong way round to do it, if you ask me. They should be telling you why it is right. So call them out on it!
 
This is quite similar to what Niall tried - especially the public part.

One homoeopath, John Hoare, wrote in a published letter that all anyone had to do to prove a homoeopathic remedy was to take a pill twice a day for a few days and observe the dramatic effects which would result. He suggested Belladonna 30C, and challenged the sceptics to do that. (I actually did it and nothing happened, which of course proved nothing, but never mind.)

Niall turned it around on him and wrote a letter which was published in several journals, asking homoeopaths to choose their own remedy, something they believed they could "prove", and Niall would see to it that they were sent either their chosen remedy or a chemically identical sham. All the homoeopath had to do was to say which he'd been given. John Hoare immediately denounced this protocol as "completely unreasonable from a homoeopathic point of view", and simply didn't reply to a letter asking him in what way did this differ from his own suggested protocol. Niall also wrote individually to about 100 homoeopaths whose addresses he found in various directories.

I think he had three enquiries and one taker. He also told me he was aware of a lot of correspondence flying about the Internet with the name of his practice in it, and (he gathered) warnings not to get involved in his scheme.

The trouble is, most people aren't that interested. They're not waiting with bated breath to see how many homoeopaths respond, and when the whole thing fizzles out it doesn't make much impact. All the homoeopaths have to do is spin some weak story about why they scorn this allopathic nonsense challenge, and life just goes on.

Rolfe.
 
The test needs to be along the lines that if they DON'T take it then their status as doctors or veterinarians is in jeopardy. That's a bit harder to arrange and quite political too.

Which is why I suggested a three-stage test: you get them onto the hook before they realise they are barbed. A one-stage test as Niall proposed allowed them to ignore and avoid it without loss of face or any publicity, because they had not been made to put their theories on the line beforehand. The process needs to be designed such that they must either pass the test OR lose credibility.

You see, this is how politicians think, how they try to skewer their opponents by making them damned if the do, damned if they don't. Homeopathy actually has nothing to do with science or scientific credibility (well, duh!), it's pure politics really. So fighting them with classic scientific tools gives them so many outs and boltholes it isn't funny. Think about your own comments on this subject here, Rolfe: "They always have an out", "They change the facts to suit themselves", etc. Sound like a politician to you? Sure does to me...

So if you can conceive that they ARE not only non-scientific but also weasel-minded politicians then you can conceive of better tactics to fight them with.

Can I suggest that what does seem to work is good publicity. And letters to the editor in the vets magazines and stuff is about as far from publicity as you can get. What would be far better would be some expose on how poorly and dangerously homeopathic vets perform compared to standard medicine. And don't let it build up - have a fully prepared case all done beforehand, get your channels of publicity right, and only release the first part. And as the homeopaths respond down their well-trodden paths, release the next bits that crush that. And so on. You HAVE seen political party scandals worked like this by the opposition spin-doctors, haven't you???

Anyway, that's my 2p worth on it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom