I watched CBC's Marketplace show on homeopathy entitled Pro or Con. It was a hatchet job.
I am no believer in homeopathy. Still, I do not show distain for those choosing it in health matters. Choice in health care is a fundamental human right which has been severely suppressed in Canada for the last 85'ish years. Fortunately, it is an emerging right here in Canada. The internet, computer publishing, and personal communications are all allowing health information to be disseminated beyond the control of our current monopoly health care system. No one can deny the strengthening groundswell of support for choices outside of Standard medicine's "approved" heath care behaviours.
I do not state one religion is superior to the exclusion of all others nor do I state one political party deserves monopoly positioning over all others. We are inundated by religious truths and by socio-economic facts yet a plethora of systems exist. This blog aggregator is an example of I'm-right-you're-wrong power mongering.
Truth in health care is determined by choice of people. The medico monopoly needs to be destroyed, to be replaced by parallel and competing health concepts. Only in this way can truth (as determined by CHOICE) be vetted by citizens within the populace.
I do not have much respect for those claiming superiority of religion, politics or of health care beliefs. It is discrimination, pure and simple.
.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Homeopathy and CBC's Marketplace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You claim to support choice but choice requires information yet somehow you see it as evil that the CBC informs people that the homeopathic "medicines" they are taking contain no measurable ingredients other than sugar and that no reputable scientist believe that water has a memory.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that this is such a huge money making industry only prove that there is way more than one sucker born every second.
Stating virgin birth is impossible does not negate Christianity as a religion. It is a secular argument "proving" the fallacy Christianity.
ReplyDeleteHomeopathy never claimed (and does not claim) chemical elements within its solutions are indicators of solution activity.
I doubt chemical analysis can be detected in prayers to God and yet s/he supposedly receives them anyway.
The program was a hatchet job because it judged one paradigm from the precepts of another. Homeopathy is widely practiced in the developed world. The Marketplace program, in ridiculing the rightful practice of others, bordered on dangerous hate-promoting journalism and blatant medico jingoism.
Just as in politics there are competing views. It is my opinion that legislating competing views out of existence (and history) serves no useful purpose.
I will grant you that homeopathic remedies are probably as effective as prayer and homeopathic practitioners as legitimate as faith healers.
ReplyDeleteActually, choice in healthcare isn't "a fundamental human right". That's not to say choice in healthcare isn't a good thing or a desirable one, but it should be an informed choice.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately,accurate information about so-called therapies like homeopathy isn't a fundamental human right either. That's why, even in the 21st century, we still have these snake oil peddlars taking advantage of people's ignorance and gullibility to line their own pockets.
Geez, I don't really want to defend homeopathy. It is not my cup of tea. But I do believe it to be a valid choice option.
ReplyDeleteThere is no shortage of accurate information. There is a lack of fair representation, of course, which is unavoidable in North America's monopoly medico system. This puts the onus on the individual to be confident in their own mind of their choice. And, if we acknowledge competing health paradigms (as I do) then we must accept the realities inherent in the exercise of health care options.
I believe choice in health care is a fundamental human right. It is emerging, as such, out from the umbrella of other existent rights.
As for the deprecating label "snake oil," that is for representative, over-seeing bodies to examine and adjudicate. Otherwise, it is simply a personal judgment and indictment of homeopathy itself.
"Informed choice in health care" is the linchpin phrase, as it is with most hot issues: immunization, abortion, natural therapies, total mastectomy, etc. It doesn't really have the caveat "as long as you agree with me" tacked on the end.
I, myself, have no shortage of criticism of homeopathy (or of political parties, for that matter). That is why I prefer nature-cure options. Again, a choice many would not agree with, and a choice made in the face of the medicos (and, I suppose, the homeopaths).
Yes, I suppose doing nothing (taking sugar pills) is a valid choice option, but the patient should know they are doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe sugar (glucose, fructose or whatever else 'ose they use) in homeopathic solutions acts as a preservative if the concentration is high enough. Without a preservative the solutions would grow bacteria and become a health hazard.
ReplyDeleteA pill, on the other hand, needs substance of some type to contain the homeopathic whatevers. Sugar is easily formed into pills.
Simply noting the presence of sugar is not really fair criticism.
It would be fair, though, to wonder of homeopathic gurus how energies can be saved within a solid pill. Seems counter homeopathic to me. And, I would wonder if homeopathic companies making a "pill" could be trusted to make a proper solution.
Although a myriad of animal studies have proven that belief in homeopathy is not a requirement for the magic to work, I do believe that a disbelief in homeopathy would negate its effects ... and I'm a disbeliever.
In a similar vein, I think much modern medicine is merely complex whirring buzzing and deliberately expensive witch-doctorism achieving largely the same effect as homeopathic extracts, only with re-enforcing poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, and scarification to more greatly empower the practitioner and the medico system itself.
If you're going to have a real choice, you need to know all of the facts of the matter. You need to be able to compare the choices with some sort of common criteria.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the show, and I think it is a valid one, is that homeopathy uses a completely different basis for its claims than medicine. Making an informed choice between the two "modalities" requires recognition of this difference. The disturbing component of the show was that homeopaths don't acknowledge or even dispute this difference and the consumers aren't aware of it.
I agree with you that the interviewers should have been in possession of a better knowledge base.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can agree with you that it is up to the interviewees to ensure fair journalism.
A run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic would be hard pressed to argue religious superiority with a Muslim academic ... this disparity does not negate Catholicism as a viable religion. Nor should the Catholic be disparaged for having poorly defended the faith.
The "informed" often assume an air of authority and yet they, themselves, are the greatest of fools. This is very often the case in politics, religion, and health.
The show was an obvious hatchet job. It catered to the masses, and contributed, I think, to greater intolerance and limitation of choice. A dangerous, purpose-driven style of journalism.
My point was that if consumers are going to have an informed choice, they need to understand the difference in how homeopathy gets to its claims over medicine.
ReplyDeleteI think that the show wasn't a hatchet job - it catered not to one modality over the other, but to one set of epistemic norms, which homeopathy fails to meet. I'd also argue that those epistemic norms are the ones commondly held (as demonstrated by the reaction of the mother), so the onus to explain what constitutes evidence for a claim falls on the homeopaths. They need to differentiate their claims from those of medicine. After all, it's that difference that allows them to escape standard regulatory requirements.
Nice of you to state what others need to do. My preference is to accept the homeopathic position but not support it for myself.
ReplyDeleteYou may be surprised to learn that organized Homeopathy as a medical system in North America predates the A.M.A.. The allopathic medical model represents just a percentage of medical thought and it in no way attempts to unify knowledge as do other sciences. Homeopathic medicine, Aboriginal medicines, Traditional Chinese Medicine, nature-cure practices, spiritual healing, ayurvedic medicine, herbal medicine, etc are deliberately excluded from the allopathic paradigm.
I wouldn't expect any cures for cancer from such bigoted and closed medical thought. I do not defend allopathy. I often call for destruction of the allopathic monopoly.
I don't think it is unreasonable ask that persons making claims on the basis of unusual means make those means clear. For example, if members of my household had always made statements about the weather on the basis of looking out the window, but one day one of them decided to make this claim on the basis of, say, how much toothpaste was left in the tube, the difference in how they came to that statement makes a big difference in how much trust I'd put into it. If I was planning a picnic, I'd want to know if they'd changed how they came to beliefs about the weather.
ReplyDeleteSo if the common expectation is that health claims are made on the basis of scientific evidence, those who make claims without that evidence should be clear about it.
As far as the allopathic monopoly goes, do you mean the body of knowledge taken to be medicine or do you mean the method by which that knowledge is obtained? They're totally different things.