Skip to main content

Simon Singh and Andy Lewis on homeopathy

Simon Singh and Andy Lewis (Quackometer) discuss homeopathy, filmed by myself at the CFI UK Trick or Treatment event (preceded by 10:23)

Postscript - now showing new version kindly edited for CFI UK by Mark Williams.

Comments

Unknown said…
There isn't any credible evidence to show that homeopathy works. Any impartial person who looks at the evidence knows this. I think it is an interesting psychological question of why so many people seem to believe they are effective. Obviously the personal anecdotes of people who have been "healed" by these types of "medicines" are important. Also, the credibility given to them when they are placed alongside actual medicines in shops like Boots. With regards to the mass overdose, Paula Ross (The Society of Homeopaths chief executive)said: "This is an ill-advised publicity stunt in very poor taste, which does nothing to advance the scientific debate about how homeopathy actually works."
If someone had suffered severe side effects from the overdose I'm sure The Society of Homeopaths would have jumped on this case of evidence that they're "treatments" actually work. The really worrying aspect of this story though is that "from 2005 to 2008 the NHS spent almost £12m on homeopathic treatments"
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8489019.stm
Although £12 million is not that much in consideration of the whole NHS budget over three years, it is still a considerable amount. It also gives the impression of credibility to homeopathic treatments which they simply don't deserve. If the NHS had spent £12 million on a type of reverse voodoo in which little dolls of patients are treated there would be outrage. Why? Because it is clearly quack medicine. Why? Because there is no credible research at all which supports it. Hopefully the mass overdose and other events like it will help to persuade people that homeopathy is bogus, but it'll be a hard task.
Regards,
Marc Zeller
January 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Chicago liposuction said…
Actually, Dieticians are trained by propaganda from outfits like General Foods, ADM, etc. Nutritionists are Biology BS with graduate degrees in specialized nutritional science from places like Harvard, UCB, UCLA, etc.
O'Brian is misinformed as to the source of nutritional truth. True nutritionists are scientists, dieticians are meal planners from hell.
February 9, 2010 at 6:46 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist...
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more