
Killed by Homeopathy - ColinWright
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/killed-by-homeopathy/
======
bitcartel
This is _serious_ stuff for Brits.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/10/new-
br...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/10/new-british-
minister-of-health-believes-in-magic-potions/)

"Well, this is one way to save money on health care. The new British Minister
of Health, Jeremy Hunt, is a firm believer in homeopathy, which treats disease
using magic water solutions that contain – well, only water."

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-
hunt...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-hunt-the-new-
minister-for-magic.html)

"Hail Jeremy Hunt, the new minister for magic."

"The fortunes of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) are about to be
transformed with the help of the magical waters of homeopathic medicine... the
UK's new health minister, Jeremy Hunt – who replaced Andrew Lansley yesterday
in a government reshuffle – thinks that homeopathy works, and should be
provided at public expense by the NHS."

"John Krebs, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford, said: "There is
overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is not effective. It would be
a real blow for those who want medicine to be science-based if the secretary
of state were to promote homeopathy because of his personal beliefs."

~~~
pi18n
How is it possible for these nutbars to get influential positions overseeing
the very field they are nutty in? There are a bunch of US examples as well, so
I'm assuming it's a global phenomenon. It doesn't make any sense, and honestly
there should be a process to prevent people who believe in magic from
informing policy.

~~~
riffraff
you are assuming people get put into a position overseeing X because they are
competent in X, which is, most likely, a factor with minimal influence in the
complex equation that determines who does what.

I mean, by definition someone who's specialization is "being a politician"
can't have it as "being an expert of medicine & healthcare".

~~~
Skepticat_UK
I agree with your first sentence but I don't think your second sentence holds
up; people who become politicians are often experts in fields, medicine and
healthcare among them.

Hunt's own background, of course, is about as far away from medicine as it
could be. If he has expertise in anything, it's in business management. In the
eyes of a Tory government intent on dismantling our National Health Service
and replacing it with a business model of healthcare provision, he would seem
to have the perfect background.

~~~
riffraff
I am not excluding that there may be people who have knowledge of X in
politics. Even the Dear Leader Berlusconi has a law degree.

But it seems self evident to me that people skills, leadership, charisma,
street smarts, good looks etc are more determining factors in a politician's
career, than any knowledge of a field like education, healthcare etc.

So, a good politician with zero knowledge >> a bad politician with great
expertise.

For a trivial example, just check the careers of the latest "Secretary of
State for Health" of the UK, I quote wikipedia:

Jeremy Hunt: After university Hunt worked for a short period of time as a
management consultant, and then decided to pursue life as an English language
teacher in Japan.

Andre Lansley: Before entering politics, Lansley had "a promising career in
the civil service". Lansley worked for Norman Tebbit for three years as his
private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.

Andrew Murray Burnham: He joined the Labour Party aged 14 in 1984, during the
miners' strike, and was a researcher to Tessa Jowell from 1994 until the 1997
election. He joined the Transport and General Workers' Union in 1995. After
the 1997 election, he was briefly a Parliamentary Officer for the NHS
Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an
administrator with the Football Task Force for a year.

Alan Johnson: [he] stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18.
He was interested in music and joined two pop music bands. Johnson joined the
Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the
Labour Party in 1971[..]A full-time union official from 1987, he became
General Secretary of the union in 1992.

I don't want go on, but trust me, I did not stop because the next in line knew
something of healthcare.

------
stephencanon
"Mainstream" medicine has almost certainly killed vastly more people than will
ever be killed by homeopathy.

The difference, of course, is that it has also kept countless people alive (to
say nothing of improving quality of life for others). Homeopathy has never
kept anyone alive.

~~~
kamaal
>>Homeopathy has never kept anyone alive.

Sorry but I call this 'Allophic Arrogance', Which basically results out of
overzealous overconfidence in something. Hating something just because its
old.

Ancient systems of medicines work all the time. Despite your dislike.

Around three years, back I had a serious mal absorption problem. In 8 months,
I lost a straight 30 kgs. I was around 48 kgs and life was going no where.
Allopathy doctors almost killed me, the only thing the ever did was trial and
error. And if that didn't work send me through rounds and rounds of tests. Net
result was burning a lot of money for no sight of cure.

Then Ayurveda came to my rescue. Life has been a blessing since. My problem
vanished like a whisper. In fact everything the Ayurvedic doctor has told me
has come true to today's date.

I know modern medicine has advanced stuff like vaccination and surgery. Which
saves many lives. And we must be appreciative of that. But that doesn't mean,
we need to belittle something else.

Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who are
we to say otherwise?

~~~
lutusp
> Different things works for different people. And if it works for them, who
> are we to say otherwise?

The classic defense of astrology. Welcome to the world of science, of
objective, dispassionate research. Welcome to modern times, where people
compare their ideas to reality.

You do remember reality, yes?

~~~
kamaal
Frankly speaking if an astrologer were to tell me to buy a lottery ticket with
a number he tells me. And I get to become a millionaire, I wouldn't give a
damn how, why should or why shouldn't astrology work(And I'm sure neither
would you, nor anybody for that matter).

I have those millions and that counts.

~~~
lutusp
> Frankly speaking if an astrologer were to tell me to buy a lottery ticket
> with a number he tells me. And I get to become a millionaire, I wouldn't
> give a damn how, why should or why shouldn't astrology work ...

You need to learn how science works, and recognize the value of healthy
skepticism in particular. There are criminal scams that work just the way you
describe, and people are sometimes dumb enough not to see through them. Here's
an example of a well-known scam that works again and again among the ignorant
-- it's the "Miracle Man" scam:

<http://arachnoid.com/randomness/index.html#Miracle_Man>

> I have those millions and that counts.

You need to learn how to think -- hopefully before you get an e-mail from
Nigeria.

~~~
kamaal
I know all that you say. I come from a country(India) where scams like you
mention are as common as a sneeze. I know more about them from practical
encounters that happen around than you can know about by reading.

But as I said for a guy suffering from chronic illness, who is told _Hey
nothing is wrong with you, and its all in your head_ , who would probably die
otherwise- will rather take his chances with homeopathy or Ayurveda than sit
at home and think about hundred reasons why science says otherwise. And wait
for the disease to slowly kill him, while allopathy offers him no cure and
only costly tests and hospital stay in return.

Heck, these system of medicines are one thing. I've even met exorcists around
here. I know people who go to these people and come out sane. You can sit down
and write a hundred reasons why that shouldn't work. But a person from village
side in India or any other poor guy, with hardly enough money to feed his
family is not likely to visit a hospital like NIMHANS in Bangalore and spend
months with tests and hospital with no cure in sight. He will go to what gives
him the quickest and cheapest cure.

Its difficult to explain to you because you have never been in a situation
where anything and everything you will or can do can't get you out of it.
Watching yourself in such misery and realizing the helplessness of your
actions. That is when you start looking for miracles. Until you actually face
that, anything that I say will attract a justification from you.

I sincerely hope you never get caught in such a situation, because let me tell
you its a humbling experience when you learn such things the hard way.

~~~
Bakkot
The thing to ask yourself in these situations:

Which is more likely - coincidence, or that all of science is wrong? Because
make no mistake, nothing less is required for exorcism or homeopathy or
astrology to work.

Hint: It's the first one.

Or, to quote Minchin: 'You know what they call alternative medicine that's
been proved to work? Medicine.'

------
naner
I was pretty floored when I saw homeopathy cold remedies on the same shelf as
actual cold medicine at a US Walgreens. I'm sure people who aren't very
careful end up purchasing the homeopathic item by accident.

This bizarre experience made me wonder about the companies that formulate and
produce this stuff. Do they actually go through the trouble of diluting things
to ridiculous level or do they just skip the tedious part and sell inert
capsules? You have to believe most people that work for these companies are
con men and not actually true believers.

~~~
lukeschlather
From a scientific perspective there may be a decent case for putting placebo
cold medication next to the real stuff. If the real stuff has 50% efficacy but
has side effects x, y, and z, there's something to be said for selling someone
a 30% effective placebo with no real side effects. It makes us queasy, since
you're effectively selling nothing, but at the same time nothing is not always
nothing.

~~~
polyfractal
And, at the end of the day, the patient is just suffering from a cold.
Medicine or no, they will get better in a week. Placebo can help alleviate
discomfort and pain to some degree, because that is something the mind has
some sway over. So in cases of simple illness...placebo is a somewhat valid
medicine.

Now, when people start taking homeopathy for cancer or whatever, that's a
different story.

EDIT: To be clear, I think it's kinda ridiculous they are allowed to sell it
too. But I suppose it isn't too different from "nutritional supplements" that
have ambiguous value.

~~~
lutusp
> So in cases of simple illness...placebo is a somewhat valid medicine.

Not if there is an implied but nonexistent cause-effect relationship. And
especially if money changes hands. And most especially if a real treatment is
passed up in favor of the placebo.

> Placebo can help alleviate discomfort and pain to some degree, because that
> is something the mind has some sway over.

The above sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. It starts out claiming
that placebos work, then it undercuts its own premise.

The above claims about placebos only apply to real, genuine placebos, not
cheap imitation placebos. :)

~~~
polyfractal
Yeah, I see your point, especially about money exchanging hands. But if the
product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with the Flu", does
it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately feels a reduction of
those symptoms?

I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright lying
to someone about a product.

~~~
lutusp
> But if the product promises to "reduce pain and discomfort associated with
> the Flu", does it matter what the mechanism is if the patient ultimately
> feels a reduction of those symptoms?

Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent
is the cause leading to the effect. Placebos aren't a cause, they are an
illusion. I guess it would be all right if the customers could pay using
imaginary money.

If I claim to have a cure for the common cold, and if I shake a dried gourd
over the cold sufferer for a week, do I have the right to claim victory and
collect money?

> I suppose there is a very fine grey line between that and just outright
> lying to someone about a product.

The line is much clearer than that. If the treatment isn't validated in
objective double-blind clinical trials, it's not a medical treatment and no
claims can be made for it.

I can't tell you how many advertisements I've seen that said "Clinically
tested!" but without also mentioning, "The tests failed!" :)

~~~
polyfractal
> Yes, because making such a promise constitutes fraud unless the active agent
> is the cause leading to the effect.

Ok ok, you win. I can't argue against that =)

 _(My background is in biology and my girlfriend is in the medical profession,
so I'm 100% on board with homeopathy being silly. I just thought it was an
interesting line of conversation about the efficacy of a placebo, and
ramification of selling it.)_

~~~
lutusp
And we haven't even gotten around to discussing the difference between real
placebos and the phony, cut-rate kind. :)

------
kmavm
I enjoy a good homeopathy-bash as much as the next guy, but Boole died of an
infectious disease. The rain storm he walked through, and the wet blankets he
was wrapped in, had nothing to do with the bacterium that killed him. The
"cold sensations cause pneumonia" folklore this article relies on is as much
magical thinking as the homeopathy it invites us to smugly chortle at.

~~~
dmix
If he used homeopathy instead of an available recognized medical treatment for
the disease then the articles position still holds.

~~~
kmavm
It was 1864. There were not even a germ theory that had any power to explain
his illness, let alone antibiotics with which to treat him.

------
jere
>The next time somebody tells you that homeopathy is harmless you can tell
them that it killed one of the greatest mathematical minds of the nineteenth
century on whose algebraic logic both the soft- and the hardware of your
computer function.

Interesting, but as practiced homeopathy today _is_ harmless (ignoring
opportunity cost). It's basically the equivalent of drinking tap water.

~~~
ColinWright
Yes, but there are now more accounts being unearthed of people foregoing or
declining conventional treatments because they have become convinced that
homeopathy will cure them. Promoting homeopathy, if successful, can result in
more deaths.

~~~
yason
That's stepping on the jurisdiction of those people over themselves. Everyone
is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that. They might
die but it's their death, not other people's.

~~~
Joeri
That reasoning would lead you to conclude seatbelts should be optional.
Fundamentally, the reasoning goes like this: (a) you have an obligation to
protect friends and family from their own bad decisions, and (b) there's no
fundamental difference between a friend and a stranger, hence (c) some things
should be enforced by law for the good of everyone.

~~~
yason
Now that I think about it, basically they _should be_ optional.

One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might
fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But
I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are
allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the
first place.

However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of
seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped
with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use
seatbelts—which is most people.

Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit
suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they
are _not optional_. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable
slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you
feel obliged to protect everyone.

Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of
obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly
ok to _inform_ the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make
their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the
end _everyone is_ sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.

------
halviti
Terrible article.

My dad is a medical doctor. Because I spent a large amount of my life living
in the same house as him does not make me a medical doctor.

If I tried to treat someone who was suffering from pneumonia, and they died
because of something stupid that I did, would modern medicine be responsible?

You can hate on homeopathy all you want, but the conclusions being drawn here
are utterly ridiculous, and anyone that finds themselves agreeing with this
FUD suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Are you saying that homeopathy is effective when administered by someone who
does know what they're doing?

Because the alternative conclusion is that homeopathy is never effective, and
the conclusion being drawn is true.

~~~
halviti
No, please read. There are no conclusions to be drawn here.

Just because someone does something stupid does not mean anything.

There is no evidence that this woman ever studied homeopathy, or that this
whole wet towel thing is even a treatment used by homeopaths.

~~~
danso
So when _does_ someone doing something stupid mean something?

~~~
halviti
It's very simple. You produce evidence or proof that two things are related.

Living in the same house as a medical doctor does not make me a medical
doctor, nor does it make modern medicine responsible for my actions.

~~~
glesica
The argument isn't that she was a homeopathic "doctor". The argument is that
she was influenced by the ideas behind homeopathy, and because of that
influence the "treatment" she administered made sense to her. Her logical
reasoning had been clouded by her belief (essentially a religious belief) in
homeopathy. This is akin to religious groups who refuse to allow medical
treatment for their children, who subsequently die.

------
debreuil
Except pneumonia is from bacteria - you don't get it, or get worse from it
based on temperature or wetness. It is important to be sure you are actually
on the side of science before laughing at those who aren't.

~~~
sesqu
Well, body temperature has been linked to immune system performance. So wet
towels can arguably worsen a pneumonia.

------
newobj
Homeopathy killed someone once. Allopathy killed someone once. I guess we're
just screwed.

------
VMG
Can't be true.

Homeopathy says that the potency increases with dilution - since the blankets
were very wet, they couldn't have had any effect.

~~~
dlytle
Homeopathy is a gigantic scam that depends solely upon the placebo effect. But
this specific case is a really stupid one to use as an indictment. It's like
railing against the liquor industry because someone was beaten/stabbed to
death with a liquor bottle.

I think it's more appropriate to say that the improper application of
homeopathy killed him - so, not unlike the improper application of any number
of legitimate medical techniques. The difference here is that the proper
application of medical techniques might have helped, whereas the proper
application of homeopathic techniques would have done nothing.

~~~
VMG
Still, the fundamental idea of "Like cures like" is what stuck with his wife
and was eventually fatal.

I'd chalk this death under "unscientific thought induced by homeopathic
philosophy".

~~~
Mz
I am not a fan of homeopathy, but there is probably some underlying truth to
that concept. I think it is more complicated than that, but the immune system
works by identifying threats and going after them. It is a little bit like
what happened in WWII in the U.S. when lots of Japanese Americans were rounded
up and sent to camps because they were deemed a potential threat. I have found
that strengthening the body first and then re-exposing myself is a way to get
healthier. That was not a plan and most re-exposures for me were
unintentional. But, having worked on strengthening my body, I have found that
re-exposure triggers mop up of old problems along with new.

I have not used homeopathy nor read up on it. I don't really know exactly what
they do. But my impression is they are skipping that first part, that their
mental model is missing something and thus results are rather hit or miss.

~~~
polyfractal
No, homeopathy is 100% a scam. The principle is that a compound (say,
penicillin) has some amount of vibrational energy that is imparted into the
surrounding molecules. As you continually dilute out the original "active"
molecule, the "energy" of the molecule is imprinted onto the remaining solute.

Even better, the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes. You literally
get to a point where there is no active molecule left...just H2O.

What you are saying (exposing your immune system to a small threat so it can
safely build a response) is a valid argument. In fact, that's how vaccines
work. Give your body a little bit of non-infectious virus so it can build
appropriate antigens before you encounter it in real life.

I have no idea what you are saying about Japanese Americans though.

~~~
Mz
What I mean about Japanese Americans is that they were rounded up wholesale.
There was no sorting. The immune system works like that. After years of being
sick, as I grew stronger, exposures resulted in wholesale roundup of both the
new germs and old ones which had been quietly flying below the radar for
years.

I am not a big fan of vaccines, but that's a bear I usually try to not
wrestle. Still, I appreciate the acknowledgement that the principle is valid.

~~~
VMG
Don't forget that a particularly "strong" immune system causes allergies and
auto-immune diseases.

~~~
Mz
I really dislike that mental model. I dislike the entire concept of "we don't
really know what is going on, so we will claim your body is merely attacking
itself for no real reason". I cannot prove it wrong, but I believe it to be
wrong. For my edification, can you list some of the specific conditions which
are viewed as "auto-immune disorders" caused by a "strong" immune system?

~~~
VMG
There is a list at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease>

Why is difficult to accept that a system that evolved to attack certain cells
can misidentify targets, especially if the real targets have selective
pressures to mimic friendly cells?

It happens all the time in other systems (friendly fire, false positives in
anti-virus-software)

~~~
Mz
They say that about my condition. It doesn't explain what is going on. If it
were accurate, it should be actionable.

They say people with CF "overproduce" mucus and are "drowning in their own
mucus". It isn't true. They are drowning in phlegm because they underproduce
healthy mucus and become highly infected. Unlike skin, mucus membranes do not
keep out infection when dry. One study found people with CF produce too little
mucus, yet this crazy idea persists, even though it isn't logical and doesn't
fit the facts.

~~~
VMG
Well maybe your specific condition _is_ more complex, but I have a pollen
allergy and antihistamine alleviates the symptoms. You didn't address the
general mechanism at all.

~~~
Mz
Antihistamines alleviate the symptoms. They do not resolve the underlying
problem. Allergies indicate some overload on the system. Removing other
(chemical/biological) stressors on the system can help. So can nutritional
support for the adrenals and thyroid. And if you need nutritional support,
that is a weakness in the system, not evidence of an overly strong immune
system. An allergy is a reaction to an outside source. I do not see how it
makes sense to call reaction to an outside source an auto-immune disease. I
think that is a bad mental model for the problem and actively interferes with
finding real solutions which do more than merely alleviate the symptoms.

I am sorry that I don't know how to make my case in the format you feel it
needs to be made in. That is a problem space I am working on resolving. But I
did not get well in order to impress anyone or prove anything. I did it to get
my life back. Being good at doing something does not automatically make one
good at explaining it.

~~~
VMG
Nothing you state is in contradiction to the hypothesis that my symptoms are
caused by the immune system misidentifying targets. Stressors or nutrition
might have something to do with it, they might not. Maybe it's excessive
hygiene and lack of exposure to certain infectious agents
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis>)

The proper treatment of the root cause is allergen immunotherapy, which
completely consistent with the false-target hypothesis. I'm just too lazy to
do it and I'm fine with treating the symptoms or suffering through them for a
few weeks a year.

~~~
Mz
Then I am sorry to have wasted your time. I cannot really afford to merely
suffer through what my condition causes and alleviating symptoms without
treating underlying problems is known to kill people like me. That no doubt
biases my assumption that an individual would prefer to solve the underlying
problem, especially if it isn't a significant burden to do so.

------
drchristo
HOMEOPATHY WORKS AND IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING

Bignamini M, Saruggia M, Sansonetti G. Homeopathic Treatment of Anal Fissures
using Nitricum acidum Berlin Journal on Research in Homoeopathy, 1, 4/5,
286-287, December 1991. Patients using Nitricum acidum 9C once daily in a
double blind placebo controlled trial found subjective relief with the
medicine over the placebo

.Kleijnen et al 'Clinical trials of homeopathy' Br Med J. 1991; 302: 316-23
Kleijnen reviewed by meta-analysis controlled trials in humans for evidence of
efficacy. Of 105 trials with interpretable results there was a positive trend
regardless of trial quality or the variety of Homeopathy used; 81 indicated
positive results, 24 showed no positive effects. Publication bias and low
methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions yet the evidence is
positive. Over 50% of these reports were not published in English.

~~~
illuminate
"Publication bias and low methodological quality inhibit definite conclusions
yet the evidence is positive."

The selection bias inherent to meta-analyses also leads to difficulty using
any of them to "prove" the existence of homeopathy.

The principles are not science. If you cherry pick studies, you might
eventually find some with a positive response.

------
delinka
"...he was in all probability killed by homeopathy."

And that's where I stopped.

People do stupid things. Sometimes, someone dies. Happens with cars every day,
and we blame the idiot (criminal charges, lawsuits, media coverage...) Happens
with guns and the law blames the idiot while the media blames the guns. This
blog author's in the group with the media blaming whatever fits the current
agenda.

~~~
danso
Well yes, idiocy is the cause of such deaths, but to live life just as "well,
idiocy strikes again" is to live life a little more fatalistic than most of us
prefer. At the very least, if we can legitimately show that homeopathy is the
result of idiocy, than it becomes easier to identify the idiots who may
someday harm us if we leave our healthcare in their hands.

------
prakster
Not afraid to say it: I have directly benefited from homeopathy. Specifically:
Treated my heartburn with "Carbo Veg 30" and now it's gone. Don't care what
anybody says or might think about the placebo effect - or any other argument,
for that matter.

~~~
illuminate
Do you actually understand what homeopathy is?

Pills with active dry ingredients are not homeopathic, no matter what the
label says.

[http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.h...](http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/if_it_has_any_i.html)

~~~
prakster
No I don't, but that was not my point.

~~~
illuminate
It detracts significantly from your point. If the item contains active
ingredients that take care of a particular condition, it's not homeopathic (no
matter what the label states.)

------
robbrown451
Putting a wet blanket on someone who had gotten sick from a downpour is not
homeopathy. Unless the wet blanket is, statistically speaking, less than a
molecule in size.

------
GiraffeNecktie
Except that wrapping someone in wet bedsheets has nothing whatsoever to do
with homeopathy. Homeopathy might be a crock but this article is ridiculous.

------
eof
I don't support tax-funded homeopathy by any stretch (and think it is almost
certainly bollocks in and of itself); however, the story about the bed sheets
is _not_ homeopathy.

Perhaps you could still claim homeopathy did the killing because the wife in
the story 'misapplied' the "like cure like" conjecture; as wet bedsheets are
not a diluted-herb-magic-water-solution.

I have spent more than zero energy talking with people about spending energy
being anti-homeopathy. I think homeopathy is fine, and _not harmful_.

Every single person I know personally that believes in homeopathy also uses
traditional western medicine (with far more vigour and enthusiam than myself);
though I suppose if people are _rejecting_ antibiotics and instead sprinkling
magic water on themselves then it's a problem, but I would still have a hard
time seeing Homeopathy itself as harmful. It's just a game.

My personal relationship to true homeopathy (diluted magic water substances)
is something like this:

\- Seems really unlikely to me anything is happening.

\- I could sooo easily be wrong about this, I recognize revolutions in our
understanding of the universe happen frequently, and the future winners are
_always_ dismissed/laughed at while the old guard remain in power positions

\- The people who believe in homeopathy are also generally much, much more
emotive / socially intelligent / free with love / full of what appears to be
healthy energy.

This leaves me extremely skeptical; but in the end open minded enough that I
don't see any benefit to spending energy demonizing the ultimately non-harmful
act of diluting flowers in water and thinking its magic.

Anything anti-science is ultimately harmful if it is taught as science; and no
one should have to subsidize other's childish fancies; but so long as we
aren't teaching homeopathy in medical schools, or using tax money to subsidize
its use; I really don't see anything wrong with its existing.

And I do see this article to essentially be propaganda; whose only primary
purpose is to demonize homeopathy, and I think this betrays some sort of chip
on the shoulder of the author. Maybe I am projecting because I have seen this
chip so often elsewhere; I just don't understand it.

I mean, who the f really cares--and, if you really aren't humble enough to
recognize that your understanding of the world is not so perfect as to
absolutely eliminate the possibility of some unrecognized mechanism of
'imprinting information onto matter' through this likely quackery--then you
should take a quick read of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

~~~
tlrobinson
_"I think homeopathy is fine, and not harmful."_

Extremely diluted water isn't harmful. Replacing real medicine with
homeopathic treatments is.

