I received an email from the Complemtary Medicine Association recently about the fact that the Controllers of the Health Section of the BBC's website have received so much pressure from David Colquhoun and his ilk that they have removed all reference to complementary therapies from their site. The Quackbusters, as they are known, have sent a deluge of letters and emails claiming that complementary therapies are unscientific. Homoeopathy seems to be particualrly hated for some reason and any claim that millions have been helped is dismissed as 'anecdotal'.
I would ask you to consider the humble bumble bee for a moment. Science cannot prove why bees can fly. Their weight is too great for their wing span and so they should not be able to fly. According to the logic of The Quackbusters, the evidence of our own eyes must be dismissed as anecdotal. Presumably, The Quackbusters believe that the bee is incapable of flight.
When something cannot be proved scientificaly, all it means is that science can't prove it, not that it is untrue.
The Wellbeing Centre
About Me
- Liz Graham
- Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom
- I am the Director of The Wellbeing Centre. My aim is to provide cost effective space for hire to other complementary therapists and also for small groups for meetings, meditations and training. I have worked in several other clinics and have used those experiences to provide a welcoming, yet professional atmosphere along with all the elements I would personally like to find in a clinic. Please check out our website at www.newburywellbeing.co.uk or pop in to 6 Pound Street for a cuppa. The Centre is rapidly approaching its third successful year and you will see on the website that there is a variety of exciting workshops and groups happening in addition to all the therapies we can now offer. All the therapies we offer are complementary and therefore work hand in hand with orthodox medicine and medication. All our therapists hold professional qualifications and insurance. The Centre is completely client-focused, so that if we feel that another therapy would suit you better, even if that means a referral to another clinic, that is what we will recommend.
5 comments:
Aha I think you got hold of the wrong end of the stick with the bee analogy. What matters above all is empirical evidence, and anyone can see that bees fly. For example, nobody is sure how general anaesthetics work at the molecular level, but they undoubtedly do work. Furhermore I doubt that many homeopaths opt to have their appendix remeoved without an anaesthetic, even if it is wicked "allopathy".
Thank you for your comments and for proving my point.
To paraphrase you, just as in the case of anaesthesia, nobody is sure how homeopathy works at the molecular level, but it undoubtedly does.
It still holds true that not being able to prove something merely means that it can't be proved, not that it is untrue.
Personally, I don't know any therapist who thinks that conventional approaches are 'wicked'. All complementary therapies work alongside 'allopathic' medicine.
It isn't quite that simple, I think. Homeopaths often say that conventional trials can't capture their elusive success, thereby admitting that empirical evidence is very weak, You surely can't pretend that the empirical evidence that homeopathy works is in the slightest way comparable with the empirical evidence that general anaesthetics work.
As you must also know, there are many (not all) homeopaths who recommend against conventional treatments (one of them was recently suspended by the GMC for withholding proven treatments). As with many irrational areas of human activity, there are almost as many different views as there alternative practitioners.
Arguably none of this is too important while you are treating colds and bruises, but I would be very interested to hear your views about the ethics of treating malaria and AIDS with homeopathy alone. It is now common knowledge that many homeopaths do this. It is not only me who gets angry about claims like that. So does Peter Fisher, the clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (what's left of it).
In my view, claiming to be able to cure malaria with homeopathic pills amounts to culpable manslaughter. What is your view?
I think there is a danger here of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I think that there will always be a few unscrupulous individuals in any profession. Rather than stamping out the whole profession, they should be reported to their Professional Association whose responsibility it is to enforce its Code of Ethics, as is done by the BMA.
They were reported to their "professional organisation" and guess what? Nothing whatsoever happened. It has been documented repeatedly that members of the Society of Homeopaths breach their societies code of ethics repeatedly and nothing ever happens. There can be no better example of the failure of "self-regulation".
Well perhaps it is not quite right to say that nothing happened. The Society of Homeeopaths took legal action against a web site that pointed out the wickedness of pretending that homeopathy can prevent malaria. I suppose that lacking the slightest rational reasons to believe they are right, paying lawyers to harass their critics was all that was left to them.
Post a Comment