How much detail do you want? I know Richard Edwards personally, and I have spoken to him (perhaps "listened to him" would be a better description!) on the phone about the incident. *
First of all, any detail you give is irrelevant to me. I don't know you and certainly don't trust you anymore than you would trust me. Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that I am not a fan of Wim's - and have no knowledge of those vet homeopaths he reveres.
* What makes you so sure any of the rest of them are any better?
Again, I know nothing of this person at all - so claiming he is one of my greatest heros is simply silly and I can't fathom why you would even say that - have you EVER Seen me even mention the fella? Now, you would like me to draw a conclusion that because one guy - who I know nothing about - is a fraud that all homeopaths are? COme on, what kind of logic is that? I know a lot of MD's that are frauds, what makes you think any are any better? Silly argument, no?
The point about this story is that it supports exactly all the points we have been making about showcasing the coincidental recoveries while quietly forgetting about the less positive cases, and the brainwashing of people into thinking that homoeopathy has made a difference when in reality there has been no change in the patient's condition. Oh, and the point about the obscene profit margins on the magic sugar pills was one I have also pointed out now and again.
Really, no comment at all?
Barb, I seriously don't understand your attitude. Richard said he came from a sceptical point of view. But he was open-minded enough to listen to the case presented by the homoeopaths, and apparently he believed them. This is what you are always urging us to do.
ACtually, I have NEVER urged any of you to have an open mind about homeopathy, not once.
But when Richard does it, he's a fool to be taken in?
Remember, Richard wasn't intending to become a practising homoeopath himself. The deal was that his practice bought the homoeopathic practice, and took on the three homoeopaths working there as employees so that they would go on working as before. No different from, say, buying a small avian practice and keeping on the bird expert as an employee.
Actually it is VERY different from buying a small avian practice to have someone else run. Unless of cours ethe vet is skeptical of birds. YOur analogy is faulty. It wasn't that Richard bought soemthing he wasn't knowledgable in, but rather he bought something he admits he didn't believed worked - admits he believed might have been a scam. Seems a little odd to me.
Richard now realises that he was lied to and made a fool of. He bitterly regrets the whole incident. But who is the villain there? The innocent who believed the plausible lies, or the liars? You ask us to be open-minded, but when someone behaves in just the way you want, you then sneer at him for being a gullible fool?
Maybe you missed it in my other post but I did say that if these people did lie to him then they are without a doubt the villians.
Rolfe.