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

OK Mr McCabe, you think that homeopathy does work. Well prove it to the standards required of conventional medicine. That really is the root of all this arguing over homeopathy. There are plenty of people out there who have argued that homeopathy may have a harmless, if not entirely valid, role to play in healthcare as a form of sympathetic placebo. The problem they have with homeopathy is that it makes grand claims without sufficient supporting evidence. Where are the proper controlled trials on homeopathy? Where are the ethical debates over its appropriate usage? Where are the organisations demonstrably ensuring that professional standards are upheld and dangerous actions and advice punished? If these concerns are addressed you may find that criticisms are reduced to a background grumble from sceptics like me rather than a stream of negative reports in the press.

Perhaps the debate has become overly emotional and occasionally strays into the realm of the personal but if only the homeopathic profession was to apply the rigour of the scientific method to its studies then we might not be arguing like this.

Gimpyblog,
There are lots of studies showing that hoemopathy *does* work. Have
you read any of them, and are you willing to? If you are willing to
read "positive" studies (and please, of course, critique carefully), we
can give you numerous sources. If I were a "study-reader" myself I'd
toss out a few references; since I am not, I offer instead to locate
references for you, *if* you express willingness to read them.

As far as the "placebo" question, again, please examine specific cases,
and the practices of homeopaths, to evaluate whether that idea stands
up. In fact, it doesn't.

Below:

On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:55 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

>
> OK Mr McCabe, you think that homeopathy does work. Well prove it to
> the
> standards required of conventional medicine. That really is the root
> of
> all this arguing over homeopathy. There are plenty of people out there
> who have argued that homeopathy may have a harmless, if not entirely
> valid, role to play in healthcare as a form of sympathetic placebo.
> The
> problem they have with homeopathy is that it makes grand claims without
> sufficient supporting evidence. Where are the proper controlled trials
> on homeopathy?

Is this a request for references? And more importantly, if *provided*
those references, will you *read* the studies?
Shannon

And further, you ask:

> Where are the ethical debates over its appropriate usage?

In classrooms; in journals; in private and professional discussions;
and occasionally in places such as this.
Not a lot, since there aren't many situations where any ethical issue
would arise--after all, we *do* believe that "homeopathy works", and we
do our best to *make* it work--but there are a few. E.g.,
- if the patient does not want to be helped (or in any case hasn't
asked for it) but is causing harm to self or others; e.g.
- if you have been unable to help thus far, and are wondering if
you're wasting the patient's money (been there from the patient's end;
I was and am happy with the way it was handled);
- if you recognize or suspect that the patient's needs go beyond what
you are able to meet, either medically, or as a homeopath, or in any
other way (numerous possibilities);
- When there is disagreement among the family as to whether or not
homeopathy should be used

These are a few of the ethical discussions I have been involved with,
in various quarters, at various times.

What sorts did you have in mind?

> Where are the organisations demonstrably ensuring that
> professional standards are upheld and dangerous actions and advice
> punished?

You mean other than threat of legal punishment if we say things we are
not legally "allowed" to say? (At least in the US that is an issue.)
Well, there are a number of professional organizations, different ones
in different countries. In the US, the unregulated status of
homeopathy (no protection for our name and no legal standing) has been
a double-edged sword; nice that we don't have to deal with too much
outside influence (other than the aforementioned need to be careful
about legal boundaries, as well as practical ones), but difficult in
that, e.g. if someone calls himself a "homeopath" but is not
*practicing* homeopathy, and perhaps giving inappropriate treatments,
*and has no connection* to any homeopathic community or professional
body, then the homeopathic community is unlikely to even know about it,
and in any case there is nothing we could do. In that way our good
name is pretty much at the mercy of public perception, and the overall
public's low level of understanding of homeopathy, and now this
"campaign of misinformation".

> If these concerns are addressed you may find that criticisms
> are reduced to a background grumble from sceptics like me rather than a
> stream of negative reports in the press.

Ah. Well, did any of that address them? What else would you like to
know, or what *proof* of the above would you like? Would you like to
see syllabus sheets from a school or few, demonstrating that "ethics"
*is* in the curriculum? Would you like photocopies of books in which
"ethical issues" are discussed? Would you like contact names for
professional organizations? (Frankly I'm hesitant on that one, but
actually it's information you could find easily enough anyway, if you
were interested.)

Why would you start slinging mud *before* finding out whether or not
(what you might consider) appropriate measures are being taken? That's
an odd way to go about defending anything, or learning anything...
>
> Perhaps the debate has become overly emotional and occasionally strays
> into the realm of the personal

;-)

> but if only the homeopathic profession was to apply the rigour of the
> scientific method to its studies then we might not be arguing like
> this.

Hmmm....
So you'll read some of those "positive" studies and then get back to us?
I don't want to waste my time digging out references *unless* you will
read them. But if you say you will read, then references to many
"positive" studies will be produced. Tho I still find it weird that
"studies" should bear more weight than 200 years of clinical
experience, not to mention specific current ones. (Sigh,
"anecdote"...)

However... Homeopathy is actually *based* on "the rigor of the
scientific method"--read about how our remedies are developed; how we
decide / discover what situations a remedy may be useful for; how
homeopathy was discovered; who its founder Hahnemann was, and what he
did before that point (MD and medical translator would be only a brief
beginning). Homeopathy is, believe it or not, pretty well *steeped* in
"the rigor of the scientific method"--just not the *applications* of
that method that you are accustomed to taking seriously.

You're as if wading into a Japanese teahouse and ranting about their
lack of "culture" because the guys aren't wearing ties. :-)
Cheers,
Shannon
>
>
> --
> gimpyblog
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
> View this thread: Again, Gimpy
>
>

--- homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:


> OK Mr McCabe, you think that homeopathy does work. Well prove it to the
> standards required of conventional medicine.

>>>>

Screw that. All I have to "prove" is that it "works" for ME, Tweedlenuts.