Gimpy,

As someone who. like the clever Dr. Goldacre, makes a living by
putting concepts on the printed page, words are very important to
me. So that word "arrogance" that you bandy about just plain sticks
in my craw.

Let me see if I understand things correctly: because you, a stranger
who will not reveal even his or her real name but prefers to remain
anonymous for whatever reason or motive, tells me that my belief
system concerning health and healing is wrong, no matter what my own
experience over a period of some thirty years has taught me, I am
arrogant because I don't immediately say, "How could I have been such
a fool? I repent, Gimpy, and will do as you tell me." I mean, isn't
is just possible, Gimpy, that the arrogant behavior is your own?

You take great umbrage apparently over my suggestion that your
methods reveal a bigotry on your part. And yet, when you write that
I am arrogant because I, as a homeopath, hold onto my beliefs, you
are acting in a manner that is the very essence of bigotry--which is
to say that you are making an assumption that every member of a given
group, a church, a political party or a race, marches in lock-step
simply by virtue of a shared belief or gene. This is not the case.
I have been a member of this particular forum for some years now and
have learned quite often how complex a group we are, how we differ in
terms of lifestyle and medical philosophy and any number of other
things. So you can resent all you like that which you term my
accusation that your behavior is akin to bigotry, but until you
actually manage a post that debates the ideas and actions without
making the assumptions and generalities that you tend to make, your
resentment means very little. Remember, I am writing to you as an
individual, not as a representative for all things homeopathic, and I
expect to be responded to as such--as an individual. Should you
desire to communicate on that level, to exchange ideas and compare
beliefs, then we might be able to have a valuable conversation.
Should you insist on putting words in my mouth--I do not, for
instance, remember discussing the properties of water, mythical or
otherwise and would appreciate your not jumping to what I consider to
be your rather bigoted conclusions as to what I might happen to
believe in--then I can only conclude that what you seek is not
debate, but merely attention.

That brings up another important word: debate. You tend, in your
posts, to use the word like a cudgel. You write: "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." I write, in response: No, it's not.
You write: " This isn't a philosophical
debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it."
I write, in response: Yes, it is. You see, Gimpy, I do not, in my
communication, have to let you define the terms of the debate. (Nor
do I have to justify my beliefs to you or for you or, for that
matter, spell out exactly what those beliefs are. I am free to think
and act as I like, and free to communicate with you or not, as I
like.) As I said in my previous post, to me this debate is much more
basic and it is one that has been ongoing for hundreds of years. It
is the debate between Vitalism and Materialism. Between homeopathy
and allopathy. If we can't even agree on the subject of our debate,
then it seems to me that we cannot have a true debate at all. All we
can do is act like dogs chasing their own tails, round and round and
round.

And, yes, it is simply a case of your disagreeing with my beliefs. Of
your belief system colliding with mine. Your interpretation of
science and nature disagreeing with my own. Science is a tool in
this, a method of inquiry that can yield important information,
nothing more. And science has not yielded its final conclusions when
it comes to health and healing. Please don't insult me by
approaching the discussion as if you have all the understanding and
insight on your side and that I am groping in the dark on mine. No
one of us has all the answers when it comes to health and healing. In
acting as if you do, you give new meaning to the term "double
blind." We are each us of, patients and practitioners alike, seeking
the means of treatment that is, as Hahnemann puts it, "rapid, gentle
and permanent." We differ on the methods that might get us to this
goal, but not, I should think, on the goal itself.

Over these last thirty years I have learned some important things.
One of the most important is that the person who presents himself (or
herself) as knowing the most often is the person who knows the least.

Which makes me wonder just where are the medical practitioners who
are the products of "good" science? Are these the allopaths? If so,
then what am I to think of my own allopathic doctor, who I visit from
time to time when it is appropriate as part of our American health
care system. When I visit with him, I must each time endure fifteen
minutes of his discussing the latest episode of "House" with me (an
American TV program with Brit actor Hugh Laurie as a madman/genius
doctor) and whether or not he--my doctor--solved the case that given
week. This doctor has never struck me as being particularly
intelligent, much less nobly scientific. Nor have many of the other
allopaths that I have known over my long lifetime, including the
cardiologist who graduated with honors from Yale Medical School. If
we are only to be treated by those who are making proper use of
proper science, where shall we go for our medicine? Who in this
world can possibly live up to the standards of care you require? I
pity your poor doctor, how you must sit, with your arms folded, chin
thrust forward, quizzing him or her on the latest double-blind
studies and the most recent issue of the Lancet.

In closing, back to arrogance again, as it is still stuck in my
craw. Irritatingly, you write: "Well I think the arrogance of
homeopaths is typified by the complete failure of them to accept the
possibility that homeopathy does not work." Again, you define my
thinking for me. In point of fact, it has and does enter my mind
that there is a possibility that homeopathy does not work. In recent
years, I have begun at times to wonder if any sort of medicine works,
or if we are all just fooling ourselves when we use that word
"cure." But here is the part that will be hard for you to swallow:
it also enters my mind that homeopathy DOES work. This is, to me,
where we differ in our debate. While I conceive the possibility that
I may be wrong, you insist that are right, that you MUST be right,
although, from your words, I cannot help but wonder if you truly
understand the concepts you are putting forth, or if you are simply
parroting the words of others.

Again I ask what it is you seek from me: discussion, debate or
attention?

I wish you well, and Happy New Year.

--Vinton McCabe