Well, the Flying Monkeys have come and gone. And, funnily enough, they have decided that they like being called Flying Monkeys. I think that’s because it stirs up happy memoirs of the Wizard of Oz. All well and good. Might as well be called Flying Monkeys as trolls. Long may you fly, guys, have fun.
Here’s what I learned as a result of their “visit.” First, that they tend to arrive en masse and see if they can intimidate and, if they fail to do so, they move right on to the next target. (I read one Tweet that said that arguing with me was like arguing with an evangelist and advised his readers to “move on.”) Oh, well.
Second, I learned that, in spite of the fact that they make a remarkable amount of noise, they have very little to say.
I did have some brief discussions with a few of them–those who weren’t just posting complaints or pejoratives without even bothering to read my actual blog–before they left. I want to post here my comments to two of them, as they reflect my reasons for feeling disappointed in my experience in meeting them. It doesn’t have to do with whether or not they are dedicated. They are remarkably dedicated. It doesn’t have to do with whether or not they are bright. From my brief experience of them, the majority seem very bright. Rather, it has to do with their actual life experience or lack of same. From what I read in their comments, they seem remarkably naive.
In an answer to a comment from Sam, perhaps the most intelligent and thoughtful of the bunch, I wrote:
In all honesty, one of the things I have against debate (and, let me say this as an ex-debater is school, and a rather good one, especially when I was allowed to close the deal) is that it really only reflects manipulation of book learning. Of research. If there is one thing that I have learned in studying healing and health for three decades is that there is a huge gulf between what we learn philosophically, learn from books, and what we learn from life. Clinical experience trumps anything. Ask any doctor. What interested me were your actual ideas, were the things that you learned in your life, not the things that you have been trained to think by medical studies or by internet sites. That is why the Flying Monkeys bore me. They have nothing to say that comes from their own unique intellect and their own experience of life. It’s all, “you’re just taking water!” and never anything that requires direct experience or real thought and conclusions. I know that you consider all this anecdotal, and yet, I tell you, Sam, there is great importance in learning from actual experience and not from some study that will be overturned by another study in six weeks or six years. The things you learn yourself shape your reality. The things you learn from books and cling to become your “reality.” That’s the difference and that is largely why I don’t want this site to turn into a place of debate. Not because I hate free speech, but because, like that dreaded teacher who gave essay tests, I want to know what people really think–I don’t want them just to spit back what they have learned as if it were fact.
This links directly with something that I wrote to another commenter, one named Adam, who has written me several posts, all of which do two things. First, they tell me what I am doing wrong. Second, they ask for evidence of everything I say. To him I wrote:
Here’s my wishful thinking, Adam. That you would do some research yourself. That you, as a thinking, reasoning person, would stop asking other people to do the work that you need to do. You want to know if homeopathy works as I say it does, do some real research, beyond just looking at a couple of web sites that have pre-digested the material for you. There are hundreds of books out there on both sides of the issue. Read them. I have. Go to interview a few homeopaths of different sorts with different levels of training. i have. Discuss the matter not with the Skeptics but with different allopaths. I have. You may be shocked to find that many of them are actually quite open to homeopathy and understand that the principles by which they, allopaths, treat conditions like chronic allergies are pure homeopathy. Talk to patients on all sides of the issue, listen to what they have to say.
You keep asking me to do the work that you need to do. If you are REALLY interested in medicine, in what works and why and for who and when it works and why it fails to work, then it is not enough for you to simply stand tapping your foot and asking me for evidence. You and SkepticCanary are guilty of the same thing and that is that you ask questions but you aren’t really interested in the answers. You won’t be until you become true skeptics. True Skeptics are people who doubt and are looking for reasons why they should or should not move from a place of doubt and believe or disbelieve. True skeptics don’t ask others to do their thinking or experiencing for them, they do it for themselves. Why is it that you have near infinite time and energy to come and ask me and ask many, many others the same tired questions, but you don’t have the time to do the research for yourselves? Adam, why don’t you take it upon yourself to spend the next year, or five years, or thirty years, as I have done, looking into the matter. Then why don’t you come back and tell us all that you found out. THEN I would be truly fascinated in hearing what you have learned.
To date, you have shared nothing of yourself with me, told me nothing of why you believe as you do. Instead, you repeat what has been repeated in exactly the same way again and again. How refreshing it would be if you were to actually show your humanity, reveal the Truth about health and healing as you believe it do be and allow yourself to enter into a discussion instead appearing, stamping your foot and then running away again. But I guess that that’s REALLY just wishful thinking.
Guys, my point is this: if this really matters to you, if you are really concerned about medicine and about keeping medicine as safe and effective as possible–and by this I mean all medicine, not just allopathic or homeopathic–then you have not yet begun to do any of your homework. Along with the Lancet study, which I am quite sure you can quote and recite to yourself a bedtime like a prayer, you need to read other studies. Studies that have differing conclusions. As I suggested to one of you who wanted me to explain to him how homeopathic remedies are made in factories by homeopathic firms, you need to contact Boiron and other pharma firms and ask questions, dig for answers. Then you need to have actual experience of all sides of the issue, by researching as I suggest above.
No teacher would let you use Wikipedia as a source material for a test. In the same way, the internet, entertaining as it is, is not a good platform for education. Too much bad information. To much slanted information. So I don’t expect you to listen to anything that I write here. Hell, from my experience of you, you don’t even bother to read anything I’ve written here. You just comment and condemn, but don’t actually read or think. So don’t, by all means, take my word for any of this. Do the work yourselves. Make yourselves truly responsible for finding out the facts. Discover for yourselves the difference between homeopathy and allopathy and what is good and bad about each. Neither is perfect, both have something to offer. In the same way, try to figure out the difference between healing and curing. And about the fundamental meaning of the word “medicine.” You will have to go way, way back to do that. You will have to study the history of medicine.
If I can recommend a book on the subject–you all tend to get hostile when I recommend books, but this one is really good–I suggest you get your hands on Doctors, A History of Medicine by a brilliant man named Sherwin Nuland. He is a professor of clinical surgery at Yale University here in Connecticut. So he’s no slouch in the education department. And while he is an allopath, he is an amazingly insightful and intelligent writer. I think that this book would be not only of great interest to you, but of great value as well. Nuland has written several good books, including The Wisdom of the Body. I strongly suggest that you read them all.
I close by suggesting that, while you have much to say, in all truth, at the present moment, you, my Flying Monkeys, have little to offer. You need life experience in order for your arguments to carry weight. At present you only amuse and annoy, depending upon the level of the melodrama. To truly make a difference, you will have to each INDIVIDUALLY climb a mountain in life, explore all sides of the issue, not just the one that you hope is right. Once you have done this, once you actually and individually have something to say on any of these inter-related subjects, then I hope you will fly back for a visit. I’ll be here, blogging and waiting…
Psora Psora Psora 
Oct 29, 2010 @ 11:48:43
Amen!
I now repeat what You ones did not publish for one reason or the other, namely that research means looking for the PRO’s & Con’s of the subject at hand.
The best teacher in life is life itself, not the PC!The evidence online that your monkeys left behind shows no interest in finding the pro’s only the con’s and hence neither one of them has done his research properly. All I saw is a lot of opinions and copies of opinions of others who still have to research the pro’s…
Hopefully they grow up soon…
Oct 29, 2010 @ 12:51:24
I can imagine what was said between all of you, and thank you for highlighting a great point, Vinton. It’s not just in homeopathy, but in all facets of life, we must do the research ourselves, experience it for ourselves, rather than have information just handed to us. Nice take on an otherwise perpetual bombardment from the ‘skeptics’ of homeopathy.
Oct 29, 2010 @ 12:53:02
Thanks, Noel, I appreciate your comments. Please invite your friends to visit my blog.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Nov 05, 2010 @ 09:18:30
Skeptics ask questions, and aren’t satisfied until they get a decent answer. I’m always asking “how does homeopathy work?” and the closest I get to an answer is a lot of handwaving and mentioning of terms like “quantum” and “energy” or perhaps “memory of water”. None of which is backed up by any reliable evidence.
In reality, homeopathy is perceived to work for several reasons. You will notice that homeopathic treatments are given a very long time to work, usually enough for “regression to the mean” (a fancy way of saying “you would have gotten better anyway”) to take place.
It is also very important to consider the placebo effect, seeing as homeopathy IS a placebo. In addition to this, the consultation is designed to relax and reassure the patient, which further adds to the placebo effect.
I think there are lessons for real medicine here. I don’t doctors should just throw pills at patients, they should sit down with them and listen to them.
As for evidence, are you aware of why clinical trials trump anecdotal evidence?
Nov 05, 2010 @ 11:29:13
Once again, in receiving this comment, I can’t help but feel that none of the issues that I presented in my post have been considered or even read. In having a discussion with a “skeptic” I feel as if I am having a conversation with an insurance salesman who, if I ask if he wants some cookies with his tea asks me if I have enough life insurance.
That is how I feel at this point. I took the time to post a very thoughtful open letter and, in response, get a definition of the word skeptic.
I have answered the question “how does homeopathy work” dozens of times, many times in print, without using either quantum or energy. I know that every time I suggest that those who want to read the answer actually buy one of my books I get told that I am being condescending, but the reality is that the question has been answered again and again by many different people (George Vithoulkas in the Science of Homeopathy comes to mind) but that the skeptics of the world are not much for reading.
Your comment on regression to the mean shows that you have ignorance of what homeopathy is, and that, indeed, you do not know how it works. I suggest that you actually try a homeopathic remedy that has been well-selected for you and then get back to me on whether or not it took a long time to work. Acute homeopathic remedies act in minutes, often in moments. But no matter. I understand that, as I said in my post, we are just spitting back what has been read on websites and in the Lancet here and not exchanging any personal or individual ideas.
Your next statement is the most important because of that single phrase: homeopathy IS placebo. In using that, especially in using the melodramatic IS, you show that you are no real skeptic, SkepticCanary. You have formed your opinion, and, as far as I can tell, you are fairly unshakable in that opinion. Homeopathy, for you, equals Placebo. It is just that easy. That being the case, why do you continue to present yourself under the false plumage of being a skeptic? You aren’t. You are an advocate. You advocate the use of allopathic medicine and, along with that, you advocate the definition of homeopathy as placebo. Why not just be honest about that? Why not change your name to AdvocateCanary? That would, at least, be honest.
Finally there is the issue of the clinical trials. And of what you call anecdotal evidence and what I tend to think of instead of as clinical experience. I personally find that there is great value to be had in each. Clinical trials have there place, but without clinical experience they are not complete. Take the recent diabetes drugs that have had to be removed from the market. The reason for their removal was not the clinical trials. No, they passed their trials and were considered safe for use. It was the clinical experience–the anecdotal evidence in your terminology–that showed them to be unsafe. Doctors, those actually in the field working, began to notice that the patients given these drugs were having a greater than expected number of heart attacks. Evidence mounted and the drugs ultimately had to be removed. They were not safe. Really, really not safe. That is, to me, an example of how clinical experience trumps clinical trials.
Surely as someone who is well read on the subject of clinical trials, you have seen in recent times many such examples of trials whose results were ultimately discovered to be false. This is the weakness of relying completely on clinical trials. The trial that “proves” one thing today often proves the opposite tomorrow.
Nov 05, 2010 @ 12:01:29
You seem to lack an understanding of how medicines are tested. Say I have a cold. I take some homeopathy, and after 7 days my cold goes away. Does this mean the homeopathy cured my cold?
A 30C homeopathic pill is prepared by taking a solution that has been diluted way beyond the Avogadro limit (so it is just solvent), then placing on sugar pills and leaving to dry. Therefore, all you have left is the sugar pills. Do you contest that?
Nov 05, 2010 @ 12:25:34
As usual, Canary, you ignore so much of what I said–especially that which is directed at you–and return to your basic (and only argument): that homeopathy does not work.
If, as you say, it was an established fact that all cold treatments using homeopathic remedies take seven days to work, then I might be persuaded by your argument. But this is not the case. In many instances, the patient’s cold ends with a single dose of a remedy like Aconite. In other cases it may take more than one dose or even two or three remedies. Homeopathic treatments are individualized, the remedies, potencies and doses are selected for the individual patient and based upon the needs of that patient. Recovery time varies, just as it does with allopathic treatments.
As to the rest, as I have said many times before, yes, it is quite true that a 30C homeopathic remedy is diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit and contains no molecules of the original substance. In the same way it is quite true that a 6X potency of the same remedy is well below the limit and contains many molecules of the original substance. If you have an issue with using the remedies that are beyond the point of substance, then is is a simple enough thing to stay below that limit. Indeed, as I have said before, there is the system of Cell Salts, twelve homeopathic remedies that are based upon substances that naturally occur in the human system, all of which are used in very low potencies. These would, materially, be diluted substances and yet they are homeopathic as well. Those uncomfortable with the higher dilutions such as yourself could make good use of these.
As for your first statement, “You seem to lack an understanding of how medicines are tested.” The fact that that leads into a working example of returning to mean (a holdover from you last post) makes me question both why you state it and why you place it where and how you do. I am not sure what you mean. That I am unaware of how clinical trials are done or that, in general, I am just ignorant about how medicines are tested on people with colds? Your statement seems to go nowhere in terms of what follows and leaves me confused. Or was it meant just as a general salutation?
Nov 08, 2010 @ 04:10:36
I’ve written up my take on homeopathy on my blog:
http://www.skepticcanary.com/2010/11/07/my-take-on-homeopathy/
Nov 08, 2010 @ 12:20:17
Would that this were your take, Canary. This is not. This is the same thing that you will read on the 1023 site. In presenting this “take” on homeopathy, you reveal two things: first, that you haven’t a clue of what homeopathy is or how it works and, second, that you are in no real way a “skeptic” at all. Instead, you simply are marching in lockstep with a group of cronies who share the misuse of the term with you. I wish you were truly a Skeptic, Canary, we might then be able to have an actual discussion instead of this tired retread.
One last note: I allowed this comment although, as usual, it had absolutely nothing to do with the post to which it was added. When I posted about your British fajita recipe, I stayed on your topic, as I was commenting on your post. Could you not show me the same courtesy? Could you not actually read a given post and respond to it instead of just continuing the generic argument that you are presently offering?
Nov 08, 2010 @ 13:40:27
OK, this can be boiled down to one simple question: how can something with no active ingredient (eg a 30C preparation) have any biological effect?
Nov 08, 2010 @ 16:22:11
As usual, you ignore what I have to say and continue on your train of thought. Your single, repetitive train of thought.
Answer the many questions I have asked of you, Canary and I will answer this one. Go back down to the first post in this thread, dated the 5th of this month (we will, for the sake of time and sanity ignore all that has come before) and actually think about my myriad points and answer them. Give me reasoned, individualized arguments and then re-ask your own. If you still think that that is the only thing that all my many points and trains of thought boil down to–and, frankly, I don’t see how you get to this point in which you think that this is our boiled down issue–I have two or three hundred that I would like to see you come to terms with, but you seem to get to ignore all of them so that you can continue to move toward your single point, then we can deal with your question.
But unless or until, Canary, don’t bother. Any more comments will be ignored, unless you want to discuss fajitas. I am weary of the same old 1023 crap and the same old Goldacre crap. You’ve yet to say anything new, anything personalized or anything that means anything, other than you no like homeopathy. But we knew that, Canary, we knew that…
Nov 08, 2010 @ 16:37:30
You know, Canary, I am really pissed at you. I am pissed at you because you are yourself an allopathic doctor and yet you don’t seem to care that, in recent weeks, we have all discovered that there are allopathic drugs that are not safe to the point that they are, in some cases, deadly. I am pissed that you seem not to care that a company like Glaxo agrees to pay a huge fine because they have been caught literally with their hands in the allopathic cookie jar–that they knowingly sold medicines that did not work or were tainted. I am pissed that you seem not to care that this new Atlantic article that I have posted a link to exposes the fact that allopathic medical trials have been faulty and/or rigged, once again leaving lives in jeopardy. Don’t you have any sense of responsibility in this situation, especially since you make your own living in the practice of this form of medicine and may have given your patients some of the medicines that have been proven unsafe? Don’t you think that you should be more alarmed about the state of allopathic medicine, the utter graft and the malpractice that is virtually global at this point? Where are you on all this? What are you doing about it? Where are your fellow skeptics? It seems to me that if you were truly as passionate about medicine and compassionate about the commonweal as you present yourself to be, you would be up in arms. You would be speaking out. You would be doing something. And yet, instead, you seem to still see homeopathy as the more important target. Believe me when I tell you that if I found that homeopathy were dangerous or that homeopathic pharmacies were selling tainted goods, I would be in the front line of the revolt. And I am only a consumer, I am not ever a practitioner. The fact that you can be an actual allopath and stand by and do nothing, other than try and disprove homeopathy, at a time in which your own field of medicine has been shown to be causing so much harm to so many strikes me as either the height of folly or an act of amazing ignorance on your part. Clean up your own house!
Nov 08, 2010 @ 18:25:57
Someone selling water as medicine is in no position to accuse anyone off ripping people off.
I read this whole thread and here is what I see:
1) A simple question.
2) Lots of meta-critical spam.
3) A re-asking of the question.
4) More meta-spam and accusations of ignoring the meta-spam. Lots of accusations of not understanding homeopathy.
5) A re-asking of the questions.
6) More of 3 and then the ludicrous assertion that asking a question requires a reasoned argument. Then some rant about conspiracy theories.
And people are still being sold water.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 18:47:38
If that’s what you see, Marc, you need glasses.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 18:54:14
Deary me, not that old canard. Of course skeptics are aware of the fact that big pharma is not always trustworthy. We are aware of the fact that trials funded by pharmaceutical companies are more likely to find positive outcomes than those funded independently. We are aware that companies sometimes to push their new more expensive drugs when they have in reality little more effect than those they replace. We are aware of all these things and we try to fight this bullshit too. We’re not just picking on you!
What does this have to do with whether homeopathy works? absolutely nothing! You can philosophise as much as you want about personal experience, but in reality our own experience can be one of the WORST indicators. We suffer from problems such as confirmation bias and can subconsciously alter our memories so that they fit a narrative that makes sense to us. Humans are fundamentally fallible. This is why experimental data is so important, and why it’s necessary to conduct properly controlled trials that remove human bias. Cold hard facts may seem impersonal and inhuman to you, but they are the only thing we can really trust.
One more thing… If someone calls themself Doctor it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are an MD. This is especially true when they refer to themself by another term like, say… biologist.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 20:16:19
That’s me, the Old Canard.
Good to know that Canary has such good friends to rush to his defense.
Better to know that you guys are concerned about the issues that I have mentioned. They are of vital importance. Please let me know what you are doing about them and I might consider joining you in your efforts.
As to the rest, it’s all been dealt with here before. Check past posts and answers for the full conversation and the many ways in which you have, as you say, picked on me already. As you read you will see again and again that you are my guests here. That here at Psora Psora Psora I set the tone and decide upon the topics, not you. I ask the questions, not you. If you don’t like it, as they say, change the channel.
BTW, got a good laugh from your email address. Funnyunc is one of the best I’ve seen so far…
Nov 19, 2010 @ 20:50:36
If the Homeopathic remedies have no effect, than why the British Royal Family using Homeopathy for many generations?
Nov 20, 2010 @ 00:23:01
I assume that the question was not meant for me, since, like the Royal family, I use homeopathic remedies. I approved the comment in order to give others the chance to respond.
Thanks for your comment, Moses.
Nov 20, 2010 @ 18:40:26
The British royal family are just fallible human beings like the rest of us, and they confuse regression to the mean and the placebo effect with efficacy, just like all other supporters of homeopathy.
Nov 20, 2010 @ 20:01:31
Do you know for a fact that the royal family is so fallible, or is that your knee-jerk response for anyone who does not agree with you? Your answer seems rather arrogant to me. As an American, I have no real knowledge of or interest in your royal family, but from what I do know of your Prince Charles, he seems a very thoughtful and intelligent man whose strong interest in architecture and ecology has been to the betterment of your nation. That you simply dismiss what seems to be a rather passionate interest on his part (from what I glean, he was very much a part of the recent failure in your nation to have homeopathy removed from the NHC) for homeopathic medicine seems highly distasteful, disrespectful and, quite honestly, rude.
And not to belabor a point, Canary, but when last you flew in the window here, i asked YOU some rather pointed questions. I have yet to get any answers to any of my questions. Why is that?
Your Pal,
Psoric
Nov 20, 2010 @ 20:44:13
Psoric, Prince Charles founded the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, to promote homeopathy, acupuncture, and various other non-evidence based medicines. You might be interested in what happened to it:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/04/princes-foundation-for-integrated-health-closes.html
Nov 20, 2010 @ 23:11:59
Terrible if fraud took place. Other than that, not much left to say, as I know nothing about the charity, its purpose or its crimes.
Again, I am an American, and, as such, don’t know much at all about England. But didn’t Charles have something to do with the saving of homeopathy recently when your cabal attempted to remove it from the National Health Service? My point about that was that he obviously feels strongly about it if he was willing to put himself on the line like that.
The fact that you somehow morph that into a quackbuster indictment of a charity with which he was to some degree involved has no meaning to me. No purpose at all. Other than to make me point out that all you seem good at is saying what’s wrong with everything that you don’t personally like. Other than that, what have you to offer?
I followed your link, Canary, have you followed mine? Have you read the articles in the New York Times? Did you read the article in The Atlantic? These are among the USA’s best and most respected publications, Canary, not some website created by God knows who. These articles are highly germane to the points I raised and the questions that I have asked you that you continue to ignore.
Still don’t know why you avoid my questions, Canary.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 07:57:28
I generally don’t read newspaper articles, they are usually the most unreliable source of information. Scientific discourse is done in scientific journals, where papers are subject to peer review.
How about this: ask me a direct question here, and I’ll answer it. If the question doesn’t make sense, I’ll tell you why.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 09:37:50
I have asked you direct questions. If you would bother to read what I write instead of just carrying on the monologue (emphasis on “mono”) that is in your head you would know that. Go dig for them again, it is not my function to do your work for you.
As to your ridiculous statement about not reading newspaper articles, if you refuse to read articles from the New York Times, then you are as ignorant of the facts of the world as our old president George Bush was. And that’s saying something. As noted before, it is the newspaper of record for the whole of our country. There is no single better source of information. If you reject it in favor of scientific journals then you are living in a far stranger world than I had imagined. One in which news does not seem to permeate; one that consists solely of double-blind studies. Well, the articles in question all have to do with the failure of those studies. They have to do with articles from scientific journals that were incorrect or, in one case, with a drug whose use was questioned in studies for fifty years, while nothing whatsoever was done. Time to open your eyes and your mind to the larger world. Time to see that it is your narrow viewpoint that is central to your problem.
You know, you really are our little Canary in the coal mine, Skeptic. This is part and parcel with the questions that I have asked you in the past. About your responsibility in all this. These articles are all about allopathic medicines that were allowed to be used by our American FDA and then later shown to be either ineffective or dangerous. There is an article as well about Glaxo and its agreeing to pay the fine when it was caught knowingly selling ineffective and tainted medicines. These articles–the tip of the iceberg–are all about how your scientific studies can be flawed or tainted and the price we all pay for it. They suggest that your ivory tower of reading scientific studies for information is in reality far less an education as you imagine. It all relates to why you totally piss me off, Canary. You and your ilk, sniffing and passing judgement with your little jaws set and with so little going on in your minds. Look below in this thread, Canary, find the comment that says, for the first time, that you piss me off and you will find several direct, logical and pointed questions there. Those are the ones I still want answers to. You are a medical professional, Canary, you don’t get to judge those with whom you disagree and then disappear when the judgement is returned.
What actual answers to you have to offer, Canary, what to you have to offer the world besides your thin-lipped judgement?
Oh, and before I publish any more of your comments, I require that you actually read the post, the Open Letter, that you keep attaching your comments to, but that I am quite sure you have not actually read or thought about. Do both and include thoughtful responses in your next comment, or I promise you that your last comment was just that–your last.
–Psoric
Nov 21, 2010 @ 09:53:24
I have done plenty of research. I have read a great many papers in the peer reviewed literature on homoeopathy.
Sorry if the conclusion I draw after reading those papers isn’t the one you think I should draw, but it’s the one that the data leads me to.
If you were to read the papers with an open mind, rather than starting from your preconceived notion that homoeopathy must be effective, then you would probably draw the same conclusion that I do. But if you read it with a closed mind, there’s nothing much I can do about that.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 12:26:25
How do you know what research I have or have not done? How do you know what I have or have not read? I have studied the history of medicine and the healing process for over thirty years now, Adam. Have you?
We all come to new information from a place of bias, based upon both what we have read and studied before and what our life experience has been. I do not think I am close minded. Indeed, were you to actually read what I have written instead of just pigeonholing me in with others, you might find that, in some ways, I am closer to your own thinking than you might suspect. It is you who seems to have made up your mind, not only about homeopathy, but about me.
There are many papers to read that will come to many different conclusions. Wait five years (or five minutes these days) and there will be new papers that supersede the old ones and come to different conclusions. You act as if information were a fixed commodity. It is not. It is ever-changing, as we should be as human beings. My thinking has changed and evolved dramatically over the years. Not only on the subject of medicine, but on politics, religion, any number of things. I can’t help it if I won’t fit into the little box you have all labelled and ready for me. But I won’t cooperate with you either, in trying to put me into that box.
You say one very important thing. Something we need to get straight right now. You wrote: “Sorry if the conclusion I draw after reading those papers isn’t the one you think I should draw.” Understand this, I don’t know or care what conclusions you have drawn. They are not only none of my business, but they are not important to me. Draw what conclusions you like from what papers you read and what life experience you have had. (I do hope that you are actually exploring the issue by more than just reading peer reviewed literature. I hope you are actually having some real life experience to go with it.) I am not out trying to convert anyone to anything. That, it seems, is your job. I am merely expressing an opinion. I have no interest in wrestling with you over it. As I have said before, if you don’t like what’s one TV, change the channel. Or better still, go outside and play and get some of that “real life experience.”
Nov 21, 2010 @ 13:18:34
“How do you know what research I have or have not done? How do you know what I have or have not read?”
I don’t. But what I do know is that the peer-reviewed literature on homoeopathy is very clear in showing homoeopathy to be no better than placebo. You, on the other hand, appear to believe (correct me if I’m wrong here) that homoeopathy is something more than that.
Therefore, either you have not read the peer-reviewed literature on homoeopathy, you haven’t understood it, or you have deliberately ignored it because it doesn’t fit with your prejudices.
It’s true that new research can change our mind about things. But that is very unlikely to happen for homoeopathy, as there has already been huge amounts of research done on the subject. It is not as if we are still learning about it. We have learned about it, and it doesn’t work.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 13:52:06
I believe that “there is something more than that” concerning homeopathy because of the myriad experiences I have had with it. That is why I keep stressing to you and to others that reading is only part of life. Actual life experience is important as well. I have read your almighty peer-reviewed materials and have been interested in what they say. On the other hand, I have read materials on all sides of the issue, apparently unlike you.
Much of what you presume as established scientific fact is not, in fact, fact. Evolution, while widely regarded as scientific fact, is still technically a theory. And the neo-plate tectonic theory likewise remains a theory, as it has yet to truly be proved.
Indeed, scientific fact is a tricky thing. Once it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Please do not attempt to establish as factual those things that cannot truly be proven or disproven. And please do not presume that your handful of studies has discovered all that there is to know about healing and medical treatments. Such allusions are not only wrong, but wrong-headed.
Let’s just all assume that I am as stupid as you keep suggesting that I must be. Certainly, it must be true that I simply did not understand it. Had I your genius, Adam, I most assuredly would agree with you on all subjects. But I do not. I am plain stupid and I believe plain stupid things. Does that make you happy, Adam; does that satisfy? I am weary to the little loop that apparently goes round and round in your head. We are getting nowhere by continually repeating and repeating. I still think that the weakness of your argument is that is it solely based upon what you have read. The challenge is to explore things for yourself. Not just homeopathy, but all things. Ask questions, attempt things, try them out for yourself and seed whether or not they work. Indeed, history is filled with scientific innovators like Galileo and Isaac Newton whose refusal to accept the scientific facts at hand lead to new discoveries and shifts in thinking. The fact that your comments are based solely upon your non-specitifc “peer reviewed” literature is airless and, sadly, meaningless. And I am weary of it. Read, Adam, read the comments here and in past postings from your admittedly determined group of Brits. It’s the same weary loop again and again, no matter who the author is. Indeed, it is as if one person were writing them all, using a series of assumed names. For one little island, you people make a tremendous amount of noise…
Nov 21, 2010 @ 19:04:44
Psoric, this comment of yours is very telling. It shows that you have a lot to learn about science is done.
“I believe that “there is something more than that” concerning homeopathy because of the myriad experiences I have had with it.”
What you call ‘clinical evidence’ or ‘life experience’ is called ‘anecdotal evidence’ by the scientific community. It is a reason to start a scientific investigation, but it certainly does not trump it. Like I’ve said before, what you see is “Person X is ill. Person X takes some homeopathy, and person X gets better”. Scientific investigations will tell you if person X has got better because of the treatment or not. Life experience (or whatever you want to call it) will not.
“On the other hand, I have read materials on all sides of the issue, apparently unlike you.”
What have you read? Tabloid journalism is no substitute for peer-reviewed research. Do you understand the peer review process?
“Much of what you presume as established scientific fact is not, in fact, fact. Evolution, while widely regarded as scientific fact, is still technically a theory. And the neo-plate tectonic theory likewise remains a theory, as it has yet to truly be proved.”
This is the most telling paragraph, it shows that you have no grasp on science whatsoever. In science, a theory is not a hunch or guess, it is an explanation. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, plate tectonic explains why the continents are where they are and why earthquakes happen. Theories are never ‘proven’.
“Once it was scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.”
No it wasn’t. This was believed for religious reasons, once evidence was gathered to the contrary, the opposite was accepted (not that there was much of a scientific community back then).
“And please do not presume that your handful of studies has discovered all that there is to know about healing and medical treatments. Such allusions are not only wrong, but wrong-headed.”
The larger and better controlled the study is, the more likely it is to find that homeopathy is a placebo. The oft-cited paper by Shang et al comes to this conclusion:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589
“Indeed, history is filled with scientific innovators like Galileo and Isaac Newton whose refusal to accept the scientific facts at hand lead to new discoveries and shifts in thinking.”
BS, they discovered evidence, fought against religious prejudice, and used the evidence to formulate new theories. Homeopathy has been around for 200 years, and there is not a shred of evidence that it works better than placebo. In this age of scientific enlightenment, evidence in favour of homeopathy would have been discovered by now. The only way we would accept homeopathy would be to accept anecdotal evidence over clinical studies, which would take us back to the dark ages.
“The fact that your comments are based solely upon your non-specitifc “peer reviewed” literature is airless and, sadly, meaningless.”
How so? Have you ever looked at the peer-reviewed literature? Do you even know what it is? To find a wealth of peer-reviewed papers on homeopathy, simply put “homeopathy” into PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
“Indeed, it is as if one person were writing them all, using a series of assumed names.”
No, it’s lots of people who know how science works. Science has got us to the Moon and wiped out diseases, you would be wise to follow it.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 19:43:40
I approved this because I was happy to see that finally you have put some effort into a reasoned response. It has taken a long time, but you finally put some backbone into your statement of beliefs. Congratulations.
I, of course, don’t agree with much that you’ve said. Your statement that theories are never proven is patently false. Your viewpoint on Galileo & Newton is wrong and your refusal to see the point is frustrating.
I could go on and on arguing point for point. But let me instead make one simple point before moving on: I never stated that my personal experience was anything more than anecdotal. I totally accept that. I never claimed it as scientific evidence. What I said was that, after reading the Lancet article and other studies, I personally felt that my own experience trumped their data. That was for me to decide. I have not yielded my right to decide such things to you or to anyone else. My choices are my own and my standards are my own. That I do not base my decisions on things on the same data that you do does not implicitly make my decisions wrong and yours right as you want to insist. You are wrong on this, just as you are actually idiotic in referring to the New York Times as tabloid journalism.
Oh, and homeopathy has been around since Hippocrates. Had you actually read anything that I have written on the subject you would know this and not be placing the full burden on Hahnemann. The term homeopathy is two hundred years old, the concept is much older.
Now that you have had your full say, I want to ask one final thing and then, as far as I am concerned, we are done. My question is this: what do you hope to accomplish by continuing to make the same points over and over again? Do you seek to shut down my blog? You won’t. Do you think you will change my mind? I promise you you won’t unless your mode of communication and your points get much much better. Like most people on Earth, I use what works for me. I eat the food that nourishes me. It may not be the same food that nourishes you, but it works for me. I am in the relationship that works for me. Were you to visit you might think that I have chosen the wrong mate, but, again, I am happy in my relationship. I do the work that is right for me. I live in an area that I like very much. And I use the form of medicine that works for me. You may call it placebo or voodoo or anything else you like, but the simple reality is that for thirty years now I have experienced the simple fact that it works for me. It may not for you, I don’t know. But it works for me. Explain it how you like, stamp your foot all you like, but the simple truth is that you can’t rob me of my own experiences. Nor will you rob me of my beliefs. You are a stranger to me, one of a little band of Brits who make it their business to try to intimidate those who disagree with you. I don’t, in any of this, see you reaching out to me out of compassion for me or for anyone, out of caring or trying to make my life or anyone’s life better or richer. Instead, I see you as part of a group of smug and pompous people who mistakenly think that they/you have all the answers. You don’t.
Having said this, I do not, for the life of me, see anything to be gained by continuing to debate. I said repeatedly that I did not want to debate with you. You are young enough to think that this debate is new, and yet I have been hearing the same tired placebo talk for thirty years. Someday, when you are as old as I, you will reach the point that I have of just being weary of arguing. I refuse to debate because I have found again and again that it always reaches this same point. You are not yielding and neither am I. We could continue to goad and to challenge, but neither of us will in any way change. So what’s the point? We keep, for instance, offering each other links. But neither of us is in any way swayed by what we read. And what was once a somewhat friendly exchange has degenerated into a rude discourse. That may be fine with you, but that is not how I like to exchange ideas.
I am, frankly, sick and tired of your tone, in which you assume that I must just be stupid because I do not agree with you. We have a deep and fundamental disagreement, Canary, one that goes far far deeper than homeopathy v. allopathy. We have a fundamental difference in viewpoint when it comes to life and the why and how of it. You have made your choice to place science first. Go to it, by all means. You work in science and live by science. I don’t. I see science as one way of gathering information, but most certainly not the only way. We have left brains and right, we have many modes of learning and understanding that, while far from scientific, are still valid. Not that I turn my back on science. No. But I do think that science is a limited thing and only, as I have said, one tool to learning and understanding. Life is limited, in my opinion, by those who see only through the lens of science.
I am not interested in changing. Nor am in interested in giving any more information on my viewpoint for you to criticize or ridicule. I have spent a lifetime developing my viewpoint and, while I am always open to change in terms of that viewpoint, nothing that you have written here in any way interests me or makes me question my viewpoint. You have made your choices. I have made mine. We have nothing to gain from continuing this, as this is not a discussion or an exchange of ideas. This is a situation in which you intruded upon my free expression in order to tell me that I am stupid and wrong. I get that. Now that you have told me that very very clearly, you can either tell me what there is to be gained by continued contact or go on your way and know that, in the end, nothing was gained by either of us.
Nov 22, 2010 @ 06:05:53
Psoric, not only have I read much of the peer-reviewed literature on homeopathy, but I have also read much of the peer-reviewed literature on cognitive biases. Are you aware of the phenomena that psychologists call “illusory correlation” and “confirmation bias”? The way you describe your “life experiences” as trumping scientific investigation appear to be classic examples of those biases.
And BTW, I don’t assume that that makes you stupid. Cognitive biases are extremely widespread, and even the smartest people fall victim to them all the time. It just means that you are in a position where, if you were to look at it with an open mind, you could learn something.
Nov 22, 2010 @ 14:37:19
Two way street, Adam. You call your thought process scientific and logical. I call it cognitive bias. (You did not, by the way, invent the term. I am growing weary of being “introduced” to concepts that those of us older than you were working with decades ago. As a vision therapist who has had to use many different tools in working with patients with conditions as divers as stroke recovery to ADD, I am very familiar with this toolset. Were you to take the time to become familiar with my work, you would have come across a book I co-authored called Greater Vision and you would have likely expected me to have a knowledge of therapy.) I also know the difference between illusion and reality. You assume that I have passively had a string of “ah ha” moments based upon random experiences. I assure you that this is not the case. I have, instead, worked for three decades to explore both the process by which we heal and the tools that can support that healing process. I have become convinced that the principle of Similars is the means by which one can best trigger a healing response. (Note that I do not use the word cure, I use the word heal very pointedly.) I find that most of you who contact me here object to the use of what you consider to be placebo remedies. I have tried again and again to speak the the more important underlying issue, that of symptoms, what they are and how they should be approached medically. The ideas surrounding that issue date back at least to Hippocrates–probably further, but he was the first that we know of to codify them on the Isle of Cos. This idea of similarity is the core of homeopathy, not potentization. I have tried to suggest this again and again, and yet my words have fallen onto blind eyes (as opposed to deaf ears, as you cannot hear me).
You can practice homeopathy without moving to full potentization. That is not homeopathy, that was the means that Hahnemann used in making dangerous drugs less toxic. But every time a allopathic allergist, for instance, gives a small amount of a particular allergen to help his patient’s immune system to not go berserk in reacting to it, he is practicing pure homeopathy. The amount is dilute, but still very much material (meaning there are still many molecules of the allergen remaining), and the treatment is given in homeopathically, which is to say, within the bounds of Similars. This is just one example of how homeopathic principles are used within the practice of allopathic medicine every day.
I was, by the way, being sarcastic when I suggested that you think me stupid. Truthfully, your opinion of me one way or another could not be of less concern. In the same way, I know it is pointless to try and get you to even pause for a moment and consider that I quite understand everything you are trying to convince me. I have, in my thirty years of study, already heard all this and have explored it. I have come to the conclusions that I have come to. What I wish is that you could accord me the same respect that I show you. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Nor am I suggesting that, by following the dictates of your mind and conscience, that you are doing anything other than what you have every right to do. I want that same freedom. I want the same access to the medicine of my choice as you have. And I want to go on my way without having to explain myself at every turn. Is that unfair of me? Is that too much to ask?
From here, I wish you would read my latest comment to Canary, because it applies to you as well. I find that debate is pointless. I have not need to justify my thinking or my decisions to you and find it rude and invasion that you think it appropriate to come to my little blog in order to make demands and to “educate” me. It is rather like those Brits who sailed to the new world or went to Africa and immediately began demanding that everything be done their way when THEY were the invaders. Here you are the invader. You show me no respect, you speak to me as if I were a particularly slow child. You come to explain things to me that I have heard and wrestled with likely before you were born. You never seem to stop and think for a moment that I might have my reasons to believe as I do. You never enter into a real dialogue with me in which we can actually exchange ideas; instead you seek to find a way to trip me up so that you and your fellows can crow at the new scalp on your belts. (I follow enough of your group’s Tweets to be all too familiar with this.) And for what? What has been gained? What do you hope to accomplish here? You won’t stop me from thinking as I do; nor will you stop me from blogging or writing books. All you will ultimately accomplish is for me to trash your new comments without posting them.
It is, in my opinion, you who needs to open his mind and empty it of bias. You are so very much locked and loaded, so defensive of your position that you force me into a polarized position. It seems to me that if you really wanted to convince me of something you would approach it with a more open and friendly attitude–more like a Mormon at the door and not a Nazi who is threatening to kick it in.
So please read what I have written to Canary and apply it to yourself. If you wish to continue with an actual dialogue with both of us speaking as peers and both of us attempting to keep and open enough mind to make communication both possible and worthwhile, then respond. If your purpose is to denigrate, ridicule or continue with your “educational” program, then is seems completely pointless to me.
Nov 22, 2010 @ 15:08:50
You seem to think I approach homeopathy without an open mind.
You are wrong. I have a perfectly open mind. If I could see convincing evidence that homeopathy was effective, then I would believe in it. Until then, however, I shall believe it to be no more effective than placebo.
Now, you claim that you have an open mind. What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
Nov 22, 2010 @ 15:51:15
Starting out with the phrase “you are wrong” is not a very smart way to start a conversation. Starting out by saying “You are wrong, I have an open mind” is even worse. One flies in the face of the other. I can’t be the source of your “convincing evidence” and do not want to be put in that position. I did not approach you to convince you, you approached me. As this is my site, I have the right to set the rules. The rules are no debates, only discussions.
So, if we were to discuss, I’d start out by asking you what experience, other than reading research, you have personally had with homeopathy. Have you ever been to a homeopath? Have you ever taken a homeopathic remedy for the purposes other than disproving something? Have you read any books on homeopathy written from the pro (opposing) viewpoint? If you are as open minded as you present yourself, I would expect the answer to any or all of these to be “yes.” If the answer is “no” then I would continue to find you close minded. If you think that homeopathy is placebo then there is no danger in giving it a try. At worst, it will do nothing. If it does something, then you might have to rethink a bit.
In order to convince me that I am wrong, I would have to find that the remedies no longer work. Very simple.
Honestly, while the tone of this is better, I must point out that I sent you a long, detailed response. It was worthy of the same back from you.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 08:05:39
First, I find a concise response is much more respectful than a long and rambling one. It would be nice to get the same back from you.
Second, you say you will be convinced you are wrong if you find the remedies no longer work. Splendid. So next question is how would you know?
Nov 23, 2010 @ 09:25:51
In the United States we have a term for someone who would write, “I find a concise response is much more respectful than a long and rambling one. It would be nice to get the same back from you.” That term is asshole. Your need to control seemingly has no boundaries. Write back with an apology for that particular little barb or don’t bother to write back at all. I shall go on as long as I need with my postings and my comments. It is not for you to judge or control. If you want to decide what is rambling and what is not, get your own damned blog. There you can cover things in doilies all you like. Here you watch what you say and how you say it, Bub.
As to the rest, You took a simple, clear answer to the question you asked me and you just could not avoid twisting it into another of your bitch-slap comments. So much for discussion. This is precisely what I mean when I say that you are not interested in anything other than ridicule. This only stands as proof of my newly formed opinion that you are indeed an asshole.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 09:30:29
Typical homoeopath. When asked a tough question, you respond by resorting to name-calling.
As you say, “so much for discussion”.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 09:40:06
What tough questions? I didn’t see any question other than the rhetorical one. No, I saw you taking the chance that was given you to have an actual discourse and instead behaving in the same controlling and arrogant manner that you have shown since the first comment.
I will not say that you are typical of your ilk because, unlike you, I don’t lump people together into groups. But I will maintain my judgement of you as an individual: you are an arrogant asshole.
What is amazing to me is that you so lack the ability to see yourself in the way you present yourself and communicate with others (at least with me, as that is my only experience of you) that you cannot see that you alienate when you claim to intend to persuade. In getting bitchy you took at door that was slightly open to you and slammed it in your own face. And they you attempt to respond that I am behaving like a “typical homeopath.” No, I am behaving like a typical adult when they have been treated rudely and spoken to as if they were an unruly child. I’ve told you to f*&^ off.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 10:34:03
Psoric, you are behaving like a typical homeopath. You’ve been shown up as having little understanding of science (certainly with your “evolution is still a theory” remark) and you’ve got upset and resorted to throwing your toys out of the pram.
You’ve not come up with a reason to trust anecdotes over clinical data, and you certainly haven’t explained how something that contains no active ingredient (a 30C homeopathic preparation) could have any pharmacological effects.
Come to think of it, what is the physical difference between, say, 30C Nux vomica and 30C Belladona? Both of them have all traces of active ingredient washed away.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 10:58:46
First, Canary, I am not behaving like a typical anything. I am behaving like myself.
Did I get angry with Adam. Yes. Did I strew my toys about, as you so colorfully put it? Yes. I got angry. I was foolish/stupid enough to think that Adam and I could evolve beyond the knee jerk debate and have an actual conversation. He asked what I thought was a thoughtful question and I gave an honest answer. When he responded with what I took to be a very snippy and dismissive response, I reached my point of no return and ended the conversation.
Am I angry with you? No. But I stand by my last posts to you and my last question: what is it you hope to accomplish here? We have gone round this same bush several times now. The discourse has to evolve into an actual conversation or it has to end. Your choice. You insist on putting me into a position of having to prove something to you, to your liking. I have told you time and again that that is not my function. You need to go and look for your own proof, your own reasons to believe. And yet, you keep asking the same questions, making the same points and ignoring what I write. I think that you think that you are asking the unanswerable and that, if you keep asking it, I will sudden scream, “By God Canary is right!” But you know this isn’t going to happen. We are getting nowhere. Will it end, as it ended with Adam, in anger? Or are you willing and able to lay down your arms and have an actual conversation? Your choice. Go back again to what I wrote in response to your last throw down and see if there is anything else you want to say. If there is nothing new for you to add, then goodbye and good luck.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 11:56:09
OK, if I answer a few of the questions in that post you will see how silly they are:
“Don’t you have any sense of responsibility in this situation, especially since you make your own living in the practice of this form of medicine and may have given your patients some of the medicines that have been proven unsafe?”
You are jumping to conclusions in assuming that I am a medical doctor. I’m not. I’m a PhD in biomolecular sciences. And anyway, the same scientific investigations that show that certain drugs are unsafe are the same ones that show that homeopathy is a placebo.
“Where are you on all this? What are you doing about it? Where are your fellow skeptics?”
Campaigning against it. We are all for vigilance when it comes to regulating pharmaceuticals, we just don’t share your prejudices about big pharma.
That’s it. Two questions. The gist I got from that was “homeopathy should not be regulated because big pharma is corrupt and evil”. The two are not connected. It would be like saying “the Generals should still be in charge of Burma because Kim Jong Il is still in charge in North Korea”. It’s a non sequitur.
As for big pharma, I do agree that sometimes they go too far and regulation needs to be better. However, the good they do far outweighs the bad.
I suppose we in the UK have more reason to angry about homeopathy than you guys, because homeopathy is available on the NHS, costing the UK taxpayer between £4 and £30 million pounds per year. In February, the House of Commons Science and Technology select committee investigated homeopathy, and concluded that it works no better than placebo, should not be prescribed on the NHS, and no state funded research should go towards investigating homeopathy. You can read it here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm
In July, the UK government responsed with some extraordinary doublethink. They agreed with the report, but agreed to keep funding homeopathy anyway. I can’t say for certain, but there’s a good chance Prince Charles was involved.
Click to access dh_117811.pdf
If he does become king, Prince Charles could deal a major blow o the UK monarchy because he interferes.
Nov 21, 2010 @ 12:17:48
Oh, so my questions are silly? My worry over the fact that the several allopathic medicines referred to in these recent articles have been shown to be dangerous and/or ineffective and asking you, as a medial professional of the allopathic stripe, what you thought of that and what you are doing about it is silly? What seems silly to me are your short, facile answers.
Your gist is silly. I never compared homeopathy and allopathy. I linked to several important articles about allopathic medicine. The leaps and connections you make are your own. You refuse to stay on topic because it is an established fact at this point that “big pharma” as YOU call it, is corrupt, at least as far as Glaxo is concerned. They were caught red-handed in selling drugs that they knew were either ineffective or tainted. That is why they agreed to pay the fine. That, to me, is the definition of corrupt, or don’t you read the dictionary either?
The other articles establish that at least some allopathic drugs are dangerous, even deadly. This is not a theory. The FDA removed the drugs from use because they were proven to be dangerous.
I ask you how you feel about that and what your sense of responsibility is and you tell me that you are not a doctor. You are, in fact, a medical professional, and, as such, I should think that you would find the situation intolerable. That you would be as vocal or more vocal about it than you are about homeopathy. And yet, when I ask you what you are doing about it, you respond, “We are campaigning against it.” That’s all. How are you campaigning? Where? When?
Your putting words in my mouth and having me conclude that “homeopathy should not be regulated because big pharma is corrupt and evil” is worst of all. First, I never made such a ridiculous statement. Nor have I drawn such a conclusion. The only conclusion I have made is that homeopathic remedies are not toxic and at least some allopathic drugs are. This has nothing to do with “big pharma.” I have made not statements about “big pharma” other than (a) it needs to be better regulated in the USA by the FDA than it presently is, and (b) you, as a screaming mimi of the internet and a medical professional should be on my side about this, if not about anything else. I should think that, instead of arguing the point with me, you would be acknowledging the fact that drug companies need to be strongly overseen and controlled and that our government has a responsibility to see that our medicines and our food supply are both safe.
You have very little reason in the UK to be angry about homeopathy. The amount of money that you quote, if correct, is miniscule. I drop in the bucket in terms of healthcare. Measured out over the whole of the population it comes to what, a penny a person? It’s like when the Republicans here cry about the money that goes to NPR. They want to use it as an example of cutbacks. And yet, that money is such a small amount that it would not be noticed by anyone in the budget office if it were removed. But it would be noticed by the millions of people who listen to NPR. In the same way, the minority who want access to homeopathy are taxpayers as well and have as much right to expect access to it through the health service as you have the right to expect to use allopathic medicine. If homeopathy were removed, then those who use it should be able to withhold the amount of taxes that will offset their cost when it comes to healthcare. This is a matter of human right to choose, frankly, and not a matter of whether or not you like the use of the tax money. Taxes are used for many reasons. We all just have to agree that, while not all of them are what we would personally choose, we will pay our fair share. I did not like that my tax money went to the war in Iraq, and yet I continued to pay my taxes. This is an old argument, and not a very good one. So if you are angry, get over it.
I love that you think Prince Charles interferes. Looked at differently, one might say that he thinks, speaks and acts. He rather reminds me of Al Gore. I think he is the only member of the royal family that you should be really proud of. He got off to a bad start, but he has grown into an intelligent man who would represent your country quite well on the world stage.
–Psoric
P.S. I do find it very interesting that I keep linking to recognized news sources, like the NY Times and you keep linking to websites. Is this where you are getting your news?
P.P.S. What did you think of the open letter? You failed to mention it.