Over the next 6 weeks I shall give my summary of what I consider to be ‘The Sceptics Agenda’.
Each week I shall focus on one aspect of the dogma that ‘skeptics’, ‘sceptics’ or even ‘Skeptics’ use as the foundations for their war against homeopathy and homeopaths with an ultimate goal of banning homeopathy.
‘Homeopathy is unscientific’ so, ban homeopathy
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x/abstract
http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/homeopathy-is-nonsense-and-so-can-you/
This is based on the tenet that something has to be ‘scientific’ to be incorporated into a healthcare system.
What do you understand ‘science’ to be? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
When a substance it tested before becoming a homeopathic medicine, it's tested amongst a sizable group of volunteers who know they are going to be taking part in a homeopathic clinical trial, however, they do not know what they will be taking and it's taken in its homeopathic form. It’s prepared by a pharmacist with homeopathic knowledge and the organiser of the test does not know whom within the group has taken the substance or a placebo. A case history of the testers is taken before, during and after the testing of the substance, and the information gleaned is documented.
This forms the basis of a homeopathic hypothesis:
Someone presenting with similar symptoms to those that have been precipitated by the substance, later, the homeopathic medicine, can be encouraged to heal themselves by taking this homeopathic medicine.
It is also based on a physiological phenomena that our body produces symptoms. For instance, did you know that a fever is our body’s way of fighting off infection? The infection didn’t give you the fever, you body created the fever as part of its fight back. So, surely, it stands to reason to encourage that ‘fight’ rather than work against it. Isn’t that science? Furthermore, you would agree that a surgeon works within medicine, yes? But are they scientists? There is a difference between medicine, medicines, and science; they are not one and the same. Not all medicine is science, or even particularly scientific. For something to be considered appropriate to be incorporated into a healthcare system, I feel it needs to be seen to produce benefit for its clients, patients or users, in a consistent, reproducible manner and ideally be cost-effective too. I feel homeopathy fulfils these criteria.
As far as a 'Skeptic' is concerned, homeopathy is unscientific, so, ban homeopathy.
Each week I shall focus on one aspect of the dogma that ‘skeptics’, ‘sceptics’ or even ‘Skeptics’ use as the foundations for their war against homeopathy and homeopaths with an ultimate goal of banning homeopathy.
‘Homeopathy is unscientific’ so, ban homeopathy
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x/abstract
http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/homeopathy-is-nonsense-and-so-can-you/
This is based on the tenet that something has to be ‘scientific’ to be incorporated into a healthcare system.
What do you understand ‘science’ to be? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
When a substance it tested before becoming a homeopathic medicine, it's tested amongst a sizable group of volunteers who know they are going to be taking part in a homeopathic clinical trial, however, they do not know what they will be taking and it's taken in its homeopathic form. It’s prepared by a pharmacist with homeopathic knowledge and the organiser of the test does not know whom within the group has taken the substance or a placebo. A case history of the testers is taken before, during and after the testing of the substance, and the information gleaned is documented.
This forms the basis of a homeopathic hypothesis:
Someone presenting with similar symptoms to those that have been precipitated by the substance, later, the homeopathic medicine, can be encouraged to heal themselves by taking this homeopathic medicine.
It is also based on a physiological phenomena that our body produces symptoms. For instance, did you know that a fever is our body’s way of fighting off infection? The infection didn’t give you the fever, you body created the fever as part of its fight back. So, surely, it stands to reason to encourage that ‘fight’ rather than work against it. Isn’t that science? Furthermore, you would agree that a surgeon works within medicine, yes? But are they scientists? There is a difference between medicine, medicines, and science; they are not one and the same. Not all medicine is science, or even particularly scientific. For something to be considered appropriate to be incorporated into a healthcare system, I feel it needs to be seen to produce benefit for its clients, patients or users, in a consistent, reproducible manner and ideally be cost-effective too. I feel homeopathy fulfils these criteria.
As far as a 'Skeptic' is concerned, homeopathy is unscientific, so, ban homeopathy.
RSS Feed
