10276
Living Room / Re: Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective
« Last post by tomos on November 27, 2007, 11:24 AM »thanks Darwin for taking the trouble
It's easy for me to say what I've said - if someone aggravates me, I react too.. or if I frustrated or whatever
Suppose I just expect more in scientific debate/commentary .. but then why should I...
Think of it this way -
say if you supported an Anthropological theory that had no scientific backing but for some reason you had belief in it,
then you read an article about it by a member of the establishment* where in the first line they're talking about "quackery" or the anthropological equivalent (hoaxery maybe) - I reckon that would get your back up.
Well,
that's how Ben Goldacre starts his article.
Thats why I say what I've been saying - it's harder to see I think when you either agree or are disinterested/neutral
* the establishment which is very conservative, tends to react very strongly to new ideas from inside or out, or old ideas (even though they, or the drug companies I should say are now making drugs from herbs for example that were scoffed at as remedies at for years) etc.etc.
-
In fact the more I write in this thread the more I realise my problem is really that I am [unfortunately] a very disillusioned patient of modern medicine.
I think this is the reason people are turning in droves to alternative treatments, very many of which are much scarier than you who have posted above find homeopathy...[this, naturally, is not a defence of homeopathy!]
I think I've made my point about 20 ways at this stage so will retire to my life
PS nontroppo: I agree with you it is appalling behaviour on the part of the SoH threatening to sue bloggers speaking against them.
Doesnt do them any favours does it!
It's easy for me to say what I've said - if someone aggravates me, I react too.. or if I frustrated or whatever
Suppose I just expect more in scientific debate/commentary .. but then why should I...
Think of it this way -
say if you supported an Anthropological theory that had no scientific backing but for some reason you had belief in it,
then you read an article about it by a member of the establishment* where in the first line they're talking about "quackery" or the anthropological equivalent (hoaxery maybe) - I reckon that would get your back up.
Well,
that's how Ben Goldacre starts his article.
Thats why I say what I've been saying - it's harder to see I think when you either agree or are disinterested/neutral
* the establishment which is very conservative, tends to react very strongly to new ideas from inside or out, or old ideas (even though they, or the drug companies I should say are now making drugs from herbs for example that were scoffed at as remedies at for years) etc.etc.
-
In fact the more I write in this thread the more I realise my problem is really that I am [unfortunately] a very disillusioned patient of modern medicine.
I think this is the reason people are turning in droves to alternative treatments, very many of which are much scarier than you who have posted above find homeopathy...[this, naturally, is not a defence of homeopathy!]
I think I've made my point about 20 ways at this stage so will retire to my life
PS nontroppo: I agree with you it is appalling behaviour on the part of the SoH threatening to sue bloggers speaking against them.
Doesnt do them any favours does it!