gimpyblog,

On Dec 30, 2007, at 11:48 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

> you wrote: I do think the virtues
> of anonymity outweigh the drawbacks. While I am anonymous it means
> that
> my ideas must be attacked rather than my profession or actions. I am a
> big believer in the concept that it is ideas that are important, not
> the
> individuals behind them. This is why I prefer to take cover behind a
> pseudonym.

That's reasonable. But then make sure you are giving fair treatment to
the ideas--not only to the ones whose "pedigree" you approve of. Such
as--

you wrote:
> Well I think the arrogance of homeopaths is typified by the complete
> failure of them to accept the possibility that homeopathy does not
> work.

That's silly.
Why would anyone spend years learning and practicing something that
isn't working? Why would parents such as myself take our kids and
spouses and selves in for treatment that isn't working? You aren't
giving us credit for being rational...

What about the arrogance of people such as yourself, who are failing to
accept the possibility that homeopathy *does* work? *Have* you given
any serious consideration to that possibility?

Again, I am waiting for you to look at the three cases I sent, and
comment.

> It is very easy to design experiments with a possible outcome showing a
> failure of homeopathy to work but homeopaths won't carry out these
> experiments or won't acknowledge negative results when they are carried
> out.

?? (amused) Well yes, it is easy enough to design a test to show that
something does not work. *Everything* has conditions under which it
will not work: Homeopathy will not work if the chosen remedy is wrong;
or if it is given wrongly; or if it has been incorrectly handled and is
inactive; or if the potency is inappropriate. Etc. If one's goal is
to "prove" that it doesn't work, and if one is offering said "proof" to
people who lack the training to evaluate the trial properly, it can
seem compelling...

Allopathy won't work under similar circumstances. (And note that the
definitions of "work" are significantly different.

So is that the goal, to show that it "doesn't work"? A mouth doesn't
work if it is taped shut. But is that really what we're after, to find
a "failure of homeopathy to work"? Wouldn't it be better to find out
whether, and when, and how, and to what degree, it DOES work? Like,
rather than unplugging the toaster, announcing, "There, I told you
those things don't work!" and throwing it out, wouldn't it be better to
just plug it in? (Unless one's goal is simply to get rid of the
toaster.)

The way you can "plug in" homeopathy, is by setting aside your desire
to see it "not work", and examine the evidence. Talk to people who use
it, and ask them *why*. As them for examples.

> It seems that nothing can convince a homeopath that homeopathy
> does not work any better than a placebo.

Uh, yeah. That's because theory does not carry as much weight as
experience.

> This is arrogance.

? (amused again!) So any time someone refuses to agree with you,
they are arrogant? :-)

And are *you* equally arrogant for failing to believe *us*, when we
tell you that it *does* work? Great, let's all be Arrogant together!
It's so much easier than just laying out experiences and examining
them! (Hopefully you'll comment on the cases I sent at some point. If
you want more cases, many more can be sent to you, and we can direct
you at numerous books and websites. "Impossible Cure" is a nice one
about a child's "impossible" recovery via homeopathy from autism,
written by his mother...)

> This leads to the belief of some, possibly most, homeopaths that it
> can substitute
> for conventional medicine in the case of serious disease

Oh, I would definitely say "most". I'm tempted to say "all", but I try
to avoid speaking in absolutes.

That's because it can. Again, why not ask for some *cases* where
homeopathy was "subustitute[d] for conventional medicine in the case of
serious disease"? And why not go all-out, and ask for cases where such
was done and the results FAR SURPASSED what would have been expected
from conventional treatment? The literature and practice of homeopathy
is absolutely crammed with examples.

GB, I'm curious, have you read *any* of the writings of homeopaths that
describe these things? There are many, both historical and current.
Would you like references?

> and that homeoprophylaxis is effective.

I think I will not pursue arguing that particular point; but I suggest
again that you look up Isaac Golden's work on the subject.

[...]

> [... S]cience and healthcare should not be based on belief or on
> prejudice but
> on evidence. Objective evidence.

Yeah, we have a lot of that, but you haven't read it, and don't like
what it's saying...
You're being *quite* selective in which "evidence" you consider
worthy...

> Not the subjective interpretation of anecdote

We have plenty that's very objective too; plenty that's documented with
lab results, photos and videos and etc. Would that help?

One you might enjoy looking at is on www.drmitra.net, the website of
an Indian homeopath. He has a couple of (very brief) video cases of a
homeopathic cure of psoriasis, shown very clearly on a little video.
It's under his heading "links".

> that homeopathy seems to solely rely upon.

You don't know *what* homeopathy relies on, since you have not taken
the time to investigate it. We learn how to use remedies, by seeing
how they *work*.

> The human mind is capable of wonderful acts of self deception and
> these have to be avoided when investigating matters of science.

Yes indeed! So take up the challenge, and truly investigate, not just
repeating other people's dogma. Until you do that--and do it
honestly--you are just shooting hot air.

> This isn't a philosophical
> debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it.
> This
> is a debate about whether or not homeopathy works once you strip
> subjectivity from investigations and the weight of evidence so far says
> that it does not work.

No, the "weight of evidence" says that it *does* work.
As far as studies, different ones say different things. There are many
that do indeed say that "homeopathy works"; have you truly not *seen*
any of these, or are you just choosing to assume that those are the
ones that are biased? Do you *want* to read studies that show
homeopathy in a positive light, or do you want to just keep repeating
what your fellow naysayers are spouting? Do you want to *know* whether
it works, or do you want to just keep clinging to the uninformed limb
you're hanging off of? (pardon my mixed metaphor)

> For homeopathy to work its proponents have to
> create mystical, if not mythical, properties of water,

Oh my, no. It *worked* long before any of that came up.
Some people do think we should quit trying to *explain* it for now, tho!

> and flatly reject current biochemical explanations of disease.

?? What are you referring to?

> Have you not heard the
> phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? If
> homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful.

Yep, it is wonderful. If only you knew...

> Disease could be prevented and treated for minimal costs,

Yep.
And yet, it would probably never "take over" and become "the
mainstream", for a variety of reasons. Not enough homeopaths, for one
thing. But also, not everybody wants to work that way, either from the
healer's end (it certainly doesn't pay as well) or from the patient's.
For instance, my husband's family is crammed with people who just want
to take their prescribed drugs, eat their junk food and party on,
sigh... My father's family is crammed with surgeries and joint
replacements, and they all *looooove* their doctors! Homeopathy
requires a different approach, and appeals to different people.

So hey, what trouble are *we* causing the likes for *you*, anyway? Who
died and made you head of the playground, hm?

> scientists would have tremendous fun redefining theories

Oh, that will never end, with or without homeopathy. It's what
scientists *do*, look for things they don't understand! :-)

> and homeopaths could bask in the satisfaction of knowing that they had
> provided a great gift to humanity.

LOL! Whatever.
I've long been basking in the satisfaction of knowing I've provided a
happier, healthier childhood to my kids, and the satisfaction of
knowing that I'm happier and healthier than I would have been...

> Sadly wanting something to be so does not make it so

Right again.
So if you want to *know* whether homeopathy works, you have some
reading ahead of you. Let us know if you want referrals to books.

> and healthcare is constrained by rising costs, the slow progression of
> knowledge and the deadly Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Uh, yeah! They could use our help, frankly--and sadly, we at times
need theirs too. None of us--no person, no method, no "camp"--is or
will be prepared to handle everything that will be coming down the
pipeline. (Tho some of us come closer than others.) Which is another
reason that it seems really insane do be doing a "first train out of
Dodge" number of poor li'l ol' homeopaths, doing nobody any harm, and
frankly doing a whole lot of good here and there.

Shannon