Judging by what he's saying, he is reacting against, well, lots.
But unfortunately reacting is a key word.
I don't see this as a reactionary piece at all. Most of the article constructively talks about evidence-based medicine and the basic mechanics of the scientific method. The first couple of paragraphs and the last probably contain what you feel is offensive.
And there is the rub. Because Winterson tries to tell us - like every other homeopathy fan - that for some mystical reason, which is never made entirely clear, the healing powers of homeopathic pills are special, and so their benefits cannot be tested like every other pill
This may seem offensive, but it is merely accurate. Homeopathy is based on mysticism. If one is offended by that I'd imagine it is because one feels mysticism is negatively construed. Ben makes it very clear that that mysticism
is valuable, and makes the placebo effect stronger. But when one takes the mysticism and pushes it into the realm of life-threatening ailments, adds misleading use of the scientific method, and makes un-validated claims as if they were as factual as anything else, there is valid cause for concern.
His first paragraph, aimed squarely at Jeanette Winterson, *was* pretty caustic. But rightly so, she is craftily evasive as only a Politician could be on HIV (dismissive of HIV virus revisionists then wooly over what she believes the clinic she sent her fee for the article actually does), and her silly use of pseudo-science jargon words was rightly critiqued, it was deliberate word abuse to sound convincing.
The "dialog" between his fictional homeopathy fan and critic is pretty sympathetic to the fan:
So let's imagine that we are talking to a fan of homeopathy, one who is both intelligent and reflective. "Look," they begin, "all I know is that I feel better when I take a homeopathic pill." OK, you reply. We absolutely accept that. Nobody can take that away from the homeopathy fan.
It is not however sympathetic to the evasive defense of homeopathy, because the scientific method cannot
be sympathetic. He is not emotionally blasting homeopathy, but giving a clear trail of empirical data for the majority of the article as to why we cannot deal with homeopathy using a method which has given us so much.
But when they're suing people instead of arguing with them, telling people not to take their medical treatments, killing patients, running conferences on HIV fantasies, undermining the public's understanding of evidence and, crucially, showing absolutely no sign of ever being able to engage in a sensible conversation about the perfectly simple ethical and cultural problems that their practice faces, I think: these people are just morons. I can't help that: I'm human.
Note where the "moron" is being directed to. It is *not* aimed at all homeopaths, but those who have been obstructive, deceptive and antagonistic. There have been recorded cases where the malarial advice they gave has resulted in deaths, and their regulatory body has failed an investigation -- this is important stuff! He also gives the clear suffix that naming those obstructive homeopaths morons is his emotional response to such behavior.
To reiterate: IMO the vast majority of the article is constructive, and not some emotional tirade aimed at hurting people. His first paragraph is specifically dismissive of Wintertons article (not all homeopaths), and his last paragraph is clearly framed as an emotional response to those homeopaths who have exhibited despicable behaviour.
edit: typo correction
Recent Posts
