• 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.

The Guardian's "Bad Science" column

CurtC

Illuminator
CurtC
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
4,785
Location
Dallas, TX
Anyone who hangs out in this forum should regularly read Ben Goldacre's Bad Sciencecolumn at the Guardian site. From this week's column titled "The homeopaths strike back", comes this tidbit:
One last thing. I have received, from the director of the Society of Homeopaths, what is possibly the longest letter ever written to any newspaper on any subject. How any alternative therapist who has ever read a newspaper in Britain could possibly claim that they get a bad deal, considering that dark ages superstition has now become the contractually-enforced journalistic norm, baffles me, but in the spirit in which this epic letter was clearly intended I present it here diluted one part in one hundred thousand, in the vain hope that it has more impact on you than it does on me: "Placeb..."
Click to expand...
 
Oh, that's a follow-up to the previous week which was devoted to lambasting my casual acquaintance and some-time email correspondent Harald Walach.

Dr. Walach has written a fascinating paper (I really ought to take that to tinyurl.com!) which includes the most concise debunking of all the alleged "scientfic" studies favouring homoeopathy which I've ever seen, even from sceptics. He also agrees that there's no apparent rational mode of action. He then goes on, however, to agree that homoeopathy must work in clinical situations because otherwise, why would the marks keep coming back for more (not his exact words!)?

His thesis then is just what we might all agree with, that homoeopathy is magic. The difference is that he believes (in the pages of a so-called scientific journal, yes) that magic actually works. He then goes on to postulate that it might be some sort of macroscopic analogy of quantum entanglement.

He isn't the only homoeopath to be going down this road, and in fact serious "magical" explanations centering on the hypothesis that it is essentially a power residing in the mind of the practitioner seem to be the new cutting-edge in the discipline. However, his is probably the most up-front in declaring it to be actual magic.

The paper I linked to is in fact so close to a spoof that I was inspired to email Dr. Walach and ask him if that might indeed be the case. I'm afraid I added that if it was, he had my undying admiration. I received a reply declaring that it was all deadly serious cutting-edge research, and attaching copies of two other papers in the same vein, including the one the Guardian liked so much.

They seem to be able to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time, but these guys are seriously, completely, barking raving bonkers.

Rolfe.
 
If the Guardian guy is saying that his quote (of six letters) was a 1 in 100,000 dilution of the original (still nowhere near homoeopathic potencies, but never mind...), then was the whole letter 600,000 letters? That might be 100,000 words, or nearly?

Surely not! That's an entire novel length. No. No?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe: If the Guardian guy is saying that his quote (of six letters) was a 1 in 100,000 dilution of the original (still nowhere near homoeopathic potencies, but never mind...), then was the whole letter 600,000 letters? That might be 100,000 words, or nearly? Surely not! That's an entire novel length. No. No?
Click to expand...
Yep, that would be a fair size novel. See, this is what happens to people such as yourself who are unfortunate enough to lack a fear of numbers. :)
 
To allay all fears that the original letter was not brought to properly homeopathic levels, allow me to bring to you the 30c version of that very same letter:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom