Buki: Ok Steve. Show me any data, sorry any RELIABLE data, that shows that homeopathic medicine cures, oh, herpes. Or diabetes. Or athlete's foot.
It's utter nonsense, and you'd know that if you even looked at a serious clinical evaluation.
Reply: I don't accept homeopathy as absoutely effective and in fact have debated homeopaths including M.D. homeopaths elsewhere on the merits of their claims. But you are coming into this debate here rather late buki. Go back and read, or at least scan, the previous posts for references, abstracts and articles, some of which purport to demonstrate effectiveness and some which do not, and others which say the results are identical to placebo. And the arguments that there are undisclosed design flaws. We don't know exactly what they are but they must be there. Hmm, where have I heard this before?
So I have looked at serious clinical evals, have you? If you read every post here you'd note that I suggest if you enter homeopahy in Pub-Med/Medline, for example, you'd get back 104 references, many of which are "serious clinical evaluations."
And if you even read two or three pages back buki then you would know:
the debate has just evolved into an argument that M.D.s or in the U.K., M.B.s, do not espouse homepathy. TaiChi said that some do.
He is correct. Then of course, we get back the qualifiers that these are whacko M.D.s, yes there are such things, or that the Queen of England's advisors don't take her homeopathic physician (a medical doctor) seriusly. All well n' good. But suddenly
M.D. homepaths do exist. Whatta ya know 'bout that?
This is dishonesty and it hurts the skeptic's case. They make sweeping statements "No MDs espouse homeopatrhy, show me just one" and when that is done, the come back, is "oh well, they're whackos." So fine. But the basic dishonesty shone through before this. Whackos or not (and there is no basis for such characterizations save personal opinion) there are M.D. homeopaths or M.D.s who have integrated homeopathy into their practices. Like it or not, TaiChi was correct. They exist.
Heck, the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann had a whole medical school in Philadelphia named for him, one of the oldest in the country, which up until the late 1940s taught homeopathy as well as conventional medicine. And integrative or alternative medicine is being studied and taught today in conventional medical settings, particularly in post graduate teaching hospitals.
Dr. Deepak Chopra, he's an M.D., has been spear heading such efforts. Dr. Mehmet Oz, a specialist in artificial hearts and a cardiothoracic surgeon at NY's Columbia Presbyterian also espouses consideration of integrated medicine. He's an M.D. I am not saying all these folks are making wild claims that homeopathy is all you need (hence the word integrated) but they are smart enough to know that since it's free of harmful side effects based on the original compound, it would be stupid not to include it in some treatment plans.
It is an utter lack of truth or rather dishonesty that is being exposed here, not the merits or lack of effectiveness of homeopathy. Skeptics who argue by deception or ignorance come under suspicion and hurt the credibility of their case. We have seen that here. Let's reverse that. We are making headway.
