9 December 2007

Skeptics critical of homeopathy/alt med are not interested in your health…

they are only interested if something is scientific or not.

 You can tell by the tags they use in their blogs, the tag ‘health’ never appears.  So their criticisms of homeopathy or other alternative medicine, and of the ‘deluded’ people who use them do not appear to those of us who are interested in their own health and the health of others and use the tag ‘health’.  They feed off each other and egg each other on in their own scientific beliefs.


Ben Goldacre: http://badscience.net/


 David Colquhoun: http://dcscience.net/

Have a look see how much they know about science and how much they know about health.  Your health.

Update 2nd Jan 2008: my suspicions about Goldacre confirmed: Goldacre’s conflicts of interest exposed



  1. i checked the link s. but what i am finding , i am still not able to get that , can you post some more links ?

    Comment by CanadaDrugsPills — 9 December 2007 @ 5:20 am

  2. Well it’s an honour and privilege to be compared to DC and Ben Goldacre. Sadly it’s a mistaken one. DC is a Professor of Pharmacology and Goldacre a medical doctor. I am most certainly neither. This of course is irrelevant to your statement which doesn’t provide any evidence that we don’t care about health.

    Comment by gimpy — 9 December 2007 @ 7:24 am

  3. You’ve made an excellent point about the word health. It has gotten lost in all this discussion of the double blind and “medicine”. I don’t think they have stoppoed to even consider what health really means or is. Is it the absence of the symptom a drug treats? Or is it more?

    I’ve just added a post about the medicalized society which of course fits right into a society dominated by pharmaceutical thinking as we see in the anti-homeopathy blogs.


    Comment by freetochoosehealth — 10 December 2007 @ 2:20 pm

  4. Thank you for your support freetochoosehealth, they are so busy ranting that they forget that at the end of the day people benefit from homeopathy, some a little, some a lot, and their health improves.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 10 December 2007 @ 8:20 pm

  5. I agree- the word health never appears anywhere in anti-homeopathy stuff. They would be totally at a loss to describe what it is because they sit in room on their computer 20 hours per day.

    Comment by yeshomeopathy! — 11 December 2007 @ 4:02 am

  6. hmmm, ‘health’ is a very large and undefined topic. I think it is wrong to denigrate something or someone over such a loose term. If I make up a ‘health-treatment’ should i expect fundiong simply because i have used the word health?

    Comment by hairnet — 12 December 2007 @ 4:08 pm

  7. And another thing, you dont appear to use the tag ‘evidence’ on this site, what does that tell us?

    Comment by hairnet — 12 December 2007 @ 4:09 pm

  8. hairnet: you shouldn’t make up a health treatment, no. And then it would be fraud to ask for funding for it if you had made it up. But it would be good to ask for funding for a health treatment which actually improved someone’s health in the long term as homeopathy does, not just in the short term as the RCT measures. I notice your implication that homeopathy is ‘made up’ but I don’t accept it because it isn’t.

    Health: it’s worth thinking about what it is. Do you mean that science hasn’t defined it?

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 12 December 2007 @ 5:33 pm

  9. ‘Health: it’s worth thinking about what it is. Do you mean that science hasn’t defined it?’

    Not as such, its more a case that society defines it and science has been very good at allowing people to be ‘healthy’

    Comment by hairnet — 12 December 2007 @ 9:07 pm

  10. Re evidence. It tells you that this blog is not about evidence. For discussion of evidence please see laughingmysocksoff blog: http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/put-a-sock-in-it/

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 12 December 2007 @ 11:35 pm

  11. ‘science has been very good at allowing people to be ‘healthy’:’apart from the thousands of deaths from iatrogenic disease (caused by medication) and side effects: http://offthegridgirls.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/death-by-medicine-do-we-have-a-choice/

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 12 December 2007 @ 11:37 pm

  12. well again your making very broad and general statements which are hard to refute in detail, to try and narrow the subject are you saying ‘medicine has caused harm, therefore all medicine is bad’?

    Comment by hairnet — 13 December 2007 @ 1:14 pm

  13. You made the broader statement: ‘’science has been very good at allowing people to be ‘healthy’’ and I narrowed it down a bit ’apart from the thousands of deaths from iatrogenic disease (caused by medication) and side effects’. There are blogs detailing these effects: http://offthegridgirls.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/death-by-medicine-do-we-have-a-choice/

    Generally: Conventional medicine is ‘bad’ because it works against the body’s natural system. The medicine will mask the symptoms but the system still has the disease and also has to deal with the toxicity of the medicine too. The system becomes weaker as a result and new symptoms arise which is treated with another medicine and the vicious circle continues, sometimes to death. https://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/patterns-of-health-progress-of-symptoms-medicine-causes-chronic-disease/

    But medicine is also a life-saver in accidents and severe pathological states: https://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/what-is-good-about-conventional-medicine/

    It’s the journey into chronic disease which conventional medicine appears to hasten which concerns me.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 13 December 2007 @ 3:50 pm

  14. This should not a debate between allopathic medicine and homeopathy. It’s a question of whether people should have a choice and freedom to make their own decisions about their own health. Personally, I have experienced three botched surgeries and then kidney failure from too high a dose of antibiotics. I still think allopathic medicine has its place. On the other hand, I’ve experienced the effectiveness of homeopathy firsthand. After the renal failure I was told by the MDs I would have to be on antibiootics for six more months. Without it, they said, I’d be back in the hospital in two weeks. I was fighting a very bad staph infection. Instead, I stopped all antibiotics and I turned to my homeopathic pracitioner. It’s four years later, and no staph. I If I am delusional, so be it–allopaths can tell themselves my improved health is from the placebo effect, I don’t care. But I want to have the choice. It’s my body and my health.

    Comment by Tried It — 14 December 2007 @ 12:37 pm

  15. I totally agree that people should have the choice and freedom to use homeopathy if they wish. They should also have the freedom to know about the real nature of homeopathy and make their choice on that basis. They should be free to know that homeopathy does not have sufficient evidence to support its use for any clinical condition. Their freedom to understand will also show them that homeopathy is based on principles closer to symathetic magic than science and that practitioners offer their magic to serious ill people with AIDS or malaria without any sanction from the people that pretend to regulate them. This knowledge would give people real freedom of choice about their health.

    Comment by Andy Lewis — 21 December 2007 @ 1:39 pm

  16. ‘Symathetic’? Is this a misspelling?

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 21 December 2007 @ 10:24 pm

  17. Oh dear, this whole discussion has the air of clutching at straws. If the only argument that you can find for homeopathy is that the opposition doesn’t mention the word ‘health’ enough, I fear you have already lost (actually it comes up about 20 times when I search http://dcscience.net/ )

    Perhaps you should remember that Goldacre is a full-time doctor in the NHS before you accuse him of not caring about health. That sort of abuse really does nothing at all for your cause. Just the opposite in fact.

    Comment by David Colquhoun — 29 December 2007 @ 6:50 pm

  18. Is that an ‘appeal to [Goldacre’s] authority’ David?

    Goldacre has dumped heaps of abuse on homeopaths I’m sure he’s big enough to take the criticism.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 29 December 2007 @ 7:10 pm

  19. ’20 times’ is pretty poor in a blog the size of yours.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 31 December 2007 @ 2:54 pm

  20. homeopathy4health said “Is that an ‘appeal to [Goldacre’s] authority’ David?”

    No, it is a statement of fact.

    And, as for caring for people’s health. Where can we find homeopaths that actually do worry about whether they do or do not really make a difference to peoples health? Where are all the careful studies to find out what really works and what parts of homeopathy are ineffective? Where is the record keeping and monitoring to see which homeopaths are doing well and which require extensive retraining or even disbarment? Where are the studies to help resolve disputes between homeopaths when they disagree on prescribing practices? Where is the careful appraisal and self-analysis when serious charges of harm are made? Where are the credible regulatory bodies that take seriously their responsibilities to protect the public?

    Homeopaths have serious critics because it looks to critics that they really do not take the professional care to fully appraise their own effectiveness, practices and competencies, and in doing so really risk their unfortunate customers’ health. What we see is homeopaths caring more about protecting their cherished beliefs rather than finding the truth.

    Comment by Andy Lewis — 31 December 2007 @ 3:25 pm

  21. What I see is SCEPTICS caring more about protecting their cherished beliefs rather than finding the truth.

    Well, if you actually got to know some homeopaths Andy and they trusted you enough to listen in to their conversations you would know that at the forefront of their mind is their patients health and improvement. It’s not a job that is studied and undertaken lightly. As many of us are outside the NHS our main indicator of ineffectiveness is that some patients walk away and don’t recommend our services. The registering bodies have codes of ethics and complaints procedures, homeopaths have been struck off from time to time. There have been no cases referred to trading standards, no fraud squad investigations,no murder trials, no compensation claims, I think the press would quickly report it if there were and I’m sure people like you would hear about it and promote it to the world. I can understand the need to protect people from pharmaceuticals, inappropriate examination etc however.

    ‘It looks to critics that they really do not take the professional care to fully appraise their own effectiveness, practices and competencies, and in doing so really risk their unfortunate customers’ health.’ I’ll take that as confirmation that you take homeopathy seriously as a therapy and therefore these measures should be in place.

    I can’t and shouldn’t speak for all homeopaths as I expect you can’t (and shouldn’t)speak for all doctors.

    Now you raise the matter, I am interested to find out where I can find such information about doctors.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 1 January 2008 @ 9:18 am

  22. You say – “at the forefront of their mind is their patients health and improvement”. I agree. I see homeopaths as being well meaning but incompetent. You have none of the professional structures and attitudes in place that should protect the public.

    You claim your registration organisations have codes of ethics. That they do. But I cannot find an example of them ever enforcing them. Can you show me just one example? When complaints are made – as a far as I can see – a process of disembling is set up. (See http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/society-of-homeopaths-truth-matters.html for an example).

    The GMC, by contrast, fully publishes all hearings, complaints and actions forthcoming. (See http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/). Even osteopaths have such transparency (and I am no fan of them at all). Where is the similar transparency in the homeopathic community? It simply does not exist. All is done behind closed doors – if it happens at all. Many in the medical profession claim the GMC is too hard on doctors in their willingness to strike them off. Which way round would you prefer it? Too willing or too shy to tackle patients concerns? The homeopaths’ code is not enforced in any meaningful way.

    Leaving ethics codes aside, there are more absolute standards, like the need to practice within boundaries of competence, knowledge and evidence. The fact that medically untrained homeopaths so readily condemn vaccination, attempt to wean patients off their medications and attempt to treat serious conditions, such as AIDS and malaria, makes them look not just incompetent, but utterly irresponsible. No public records are kept of complaints, no private records of outcomes with patients and no desire to research objective effectiveness means that we just cannot see what the true picture is with homeopaths’ effectiveness and benefits. Does that sound like a professional caring group of people to you?

    I have shown you where you can see full public disclosure of the disciplinary procedings going on against doctors – as you requested. Can you show me the same thing about homeopaths? I have made complaints about homeopaths. Where can we scrutinise the outcomes and publicly see that all were handled fairly? Do homeopaths really care about health or just protecting their own skin and delusions?

    Comment by Andy Lewis — 3 January 2008 @ 1:15 am

  23. Thank you for your somewhat factually inaccurate opinions which I refuse to debate point by point. I am sure you have communicated them to the relevant organisations. If not you should.

    This post is now closed. All further comments will be deleted.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 3 January 2008 @ 7:58 pm

  24. I welcome the announcement today of a National Healthcare Council to regulate complementary and alternative healthcare practitioners:


    Comment by homeopathy4health — 5 January 2008 @ 12:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: