Homeopathy Under Fire in the US, UK, Italy, Israel and Australia

Skeptic North, a well-written Canadian team blog advocating for science, skepticism and rationalism, has been a great source of information on the ongoing scientific, intellectual and moral train-wreck that is homeopathy. I have a bit of a warm spot for this blog, as it was formed in part by concurrent and later-coming members of Canadian skeptic organizations that I have been a member of in the past, and continue to endorse to this day (e.g., the University of Toronto Secular Alliance; Centre for Inquiry Canada). And though I’ve never met her, Skeptic North-er Kim Hebert and I have a fair bit in common – we’re both Canadian Occupational Therapists whom have been independently concerned about the “feel good” post-modernist “science-isn’t-the-only-truth” type thinking that often pervades the public healthcare and healthcare education systems. Each of us have experienced strong pressure within our Master’s of Science in Occupational Therapy professional graduate programs to “respect” homeopathy. Quite frankly, if I was respecting homeopathy while knowing what it was, I’d hardly be a Master of Science.

Anyhow, the most recent posting in Skeptic North’s ongoing coverage of homeopathy’s trials and tribulations (e.g., the tribulations resulting from one failed clinical trial after another) is a listing of embarrassing and potentially expensive legal suits that various homeopathic education and product outfits are currently ensnared in in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Israel and Australia.

When they lose their cases, maybe they can try to pay off the settlements with bags and suitcases that previously contained money…

RELATED POSTS:

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

3 thoughts on “Homeopathy Under Fire in the US, UK, Italy, Israel and Australia

  1. Hi Ron,

    I hope you will forgive me for sounding a tad harsh here, but a trade school certificate from a tenth rate university does not qualify you to speak about scientific research, pro or con. An OT MA is science only in pretension, not in fact. Ditto for an undergrad BA in psych, albeit at a much better university. Get a good Ph.D. in a hard science, then get a few decades under your belt as a real researcher, publish in major peer reviewed journals, and perhaps you will have earned sufficient knowledge (and humility) to be able to comment intelligently. Otherwise I regret to say, it just may be possible that some of your blogging may be more about the hubris inherent in being young (29 years old) than about carefully weighed, thoughtful analysis.

  2. Pingback: New Rule: Only People with PhDs may Give Opinions. « Death By Trolley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s