Homeopaths, Herbalists and Matthias Rath
Posted by gimpy on September 24, 2009
There has been an exciting development in the world of herbalism. A split. A shattering of a previously indivisible atom of stupid and the release of a wave of witlessness, sweeping across the quackosphere, and leaving idiocy in its wake. Save our Herbs is its manifestation, and the reason they give for their existence is this:
The call for Statutory Regulation (SR) was started by a small group of herbalists, who have professed that Herbal Medicines are dangerous and the public need protection through statutory regulation, that such proposals would assure public safety.
The powers-that-be have no right to restrict the entitlement of the people of the UK to continue to use herbal medicines in the way that they currently do.
Yes, this is a group of herbalists who reject the suggestion that herbs can be dangerous and those who prescribe them need regulating. Paracelsus would disagree:
“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
As would Whatstheharm.net and the National Insitute of Medical Herbalists (NIMH). And, as David Colquhoun points out, herbalist degrees show an imaginative approach to facts and evidence that creates a danger to the public.
Joining the herbalists are everybody’s favourite homeopath splitters, the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), who too have rejected accusations of harm and the thought of statutory regulation. Also involved are the National Health Foundation (NHF), a mainly American lobby group, the obscure International Register of Consultant Herbalists and Homoeopaths (IRCHH), the unknown Mohsin Institute and the invisible Cropwatch.
This coalition of uncertain competenecy are pushing anti-EU arguments, of the conspiratorial sort, as part of their campaign and this has led them to the parlous abandonment of mainstream Euroscepticism and a rush into the arms of arch AIDS denialist and conspiracy theorist Matthias Rath. A fair assessment of Rath’s character as a charlatan and bully who bears some responsibility for the deaths of thousands can be drawn from this book chapter by Ben Goldacre. Rath’s EU-referendum.org, who have come under some criticism before on this blog, are now citing SaveOurHerbs as official supporters. Rath, in his EU-facts.org site, argues that the pharmaceutical and oil industries are using the Lisbon Treaty to create a European dictatorship. I suspect this belief may have drawn the herbalists and homeopaths to his side.
Alternative heath practitioners and their supporters often believe that the reason why their therapies are often rejected has little to do with their inherent implausibility, the weight of convincing evidence against them, and the allegations of harm but is due to a grand conspiracy of politicans, journalists and bloggers funded by the pharmaceutical industry. It is hardly surprising that many of them have a sufficiently strong belief in this to turn, without question, to the likes of Rath. I do not know how representative of herbalists Save our Herbs is, but the ARH represent about a third of UK homeopaths and have a sufficiently strong voice to make the Society of Homeopath’s (SoH) desired pathway to statutory regulation a rocky road indeed. I also suspect many SoH members may fall prey to the conspiracy adorned blandishments of Rath, the SoH after all are more than willing to endorse dangerous Rath-like AIDS nonsense even going as far to fund homeopathic trials in Africa. It would be foolish to assume that the ARH’s embrace of Rath strengthens the case for regulation, it just draws further attention to the idiocies of all homeopaths. I suspect the same may be true of these renegade Herbalists.
David Waldock said
How long will it be before the decision to regulate through registration is taken out of the hands of the quacktitioners and put into the hands of the HPC or another agency?
We need regulation of any industry claiming to be providing health care – including the quacks of different types. Regulation includes limiting practice to that supported by evidence or at the very least demonstrated not to have side-effects which exceed those associated with the disorder being treated.
warhelmet said
Have the ARH embraced Matthias Rath? I’ve not seen any direct evidence but my google-foo is not working very well today. If you are talking about Louise Unclean, she is no longer a member of the ARH – she is now a member of the Medical Homeopathy Association. Which has some interesting implications…
gimpy said
well through saveourherbs they have…
warhelmet said
Hmm. I wonder if the ARH are even aware of Save Our Herbs’ support for Rath? Or if they are, whether they are aware of how sinister Rath is, etc…
CultBuster said
The Action Eliant Campaign may be worth looking into:
http://www.eliant.eu/new/lang/en/?p=37
Wendy Pearman said
Hi Gimpy
This is a wee bit off topic. I have just read the Bad Science article about Rath. Well done that man for standing up to him!
Now for my mea culpa.
I trained in homeopathy and no longer practise. Now I just use it for family and friends.
The issues raised about some thinking among some homeopaths on various sites are so true, but when I trained I did not realise how dangerous this thinking can be. To me it looked extreme and even a fad. I did not see the implications and I said nothing. Thank you for raising these issues and showing me their importance.
In our traing, at one college, people were encouraged to instruct clients not to vaccinate at all. Some of those I trained with were very forceful in that view. This was taught forcefully at college.
I may have differences with you about MMR (essentially I prefer the ‘at risk’ model that used to prevail) but I’m sensible enough to be glad that I have never known a child, schoolmate or friend die of TB or smallpox and I have only had one adult friend who had survived Polio.
The criticism of chemotherapy and advocating lifestyle change instead was also encouraged. The teaching on this was again very forceful and did amount to statements that chemotherapy kills.
HRT was described as ‘Health Removal Therapy’. I don’t use this myself, but my aunt does, and I respect her reasoning on this. This is just an example of the idea that any allopathic treatment is anti-health.
The idea that doctors and pharmaceuticals form a conglomerate whole that consciously wishes to attack our health was a given and was preached routinely. The concept that they do not wish to find cures, as that keeps the money rolling in, was expounded regularly.
There was no recognition of the reality of competition among pharmaceuticals and that someone who really produces a cure can increase their market, and profits, for a long time.
The health food supplements were sold in the college and teachers ran the company, AquaSource, founded by Robert Davidson and David Howell. These are the teachers involved in this propaganda.
Fear stories of the evil that the massed forces of Big Pharma and allopathy wish to visit on us can be found on the web in a not-too-recent interview with Robert Davidson. The deliberate scare story of enforced swine flu vaccination can be found on another of his websites.
The reality, that the NHS could not afford this, even if there were enough vaccines, is irrelevant. It is more likely that more people will ask for the vaccine than can have it.
They can only keep cult-like thinking going with a good scare story. There have to be some extreme positions too, to differentiate you from the fellow-travellers. This is what these people are doing right now and you can see it on the web.
If you want to know how many of us got the way we are, have a look-see. I include myself.
I feel that you and your colleagues should not tar everyone with the same brush. On the other hand, most of us, whichever college we went to, will have acquired some of these views to some level. It is the risk of being among a like-minded minority. Particularly when fear stories are being raised.
The article on Rath really brought these issues home to me. What I saw as just a bit faddish has done harm to the South African people in terms of AIDS denialism as a mechanism for Rath to make his profits.
(For your information, the college I refer to was the College of Practical Homeopathy (London) in Hackney Road in 1996.
The relevent lecturers now teach at The Homeopathy College in Birmingham.
The current College of Practical Homeopathy is a totally different setup and I have no idea what their positions are on these matters, or their teaching methods. )
gentleeye said
What a fantastic post by Wendy Pearman. I salute you, Wendy.
warhelmet said
Wendy – that’s a brave post. I, also, salute you.
Derrik said
Again – interesting post Wendy.
It would be good to be able to engage with more homoeopaths as articulate and thoughtful as yourself.
draust said
Wendy
If you haven’t come across it, you might find Anthony Campbell’s book Homeopathy in Perspective interesting. Campbell is/was a conventional doctor and a medical homeopath – a former consultant at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, no less – who describes a personal “journey” similar in some ways to yours, though without a particular Road to Damascus moment. His conclusion is that homeopathy (if stripped of the all-too-common militant Alt.Reality craziness of the type you eloquently describe) is basically a form of psychotherapy – personally I prefer to call it a kind of “stealth psychotherapy”.
Campbell has an interesting article on his website about his own reasons for abandoning homeopathy, and his increasingly sceptical views on CAM therapies. I don’t agree with all of what he says – I am more sceptical than he is – but I think his writing is quite illuminating on many aspects of why people can be initially attracted by CAM therapies, and also on the reasons why CAM therapies are unsatisfactory both intellectually and practically.
Wendy Pearman said
Thank you for those. I will follow them both up.
James Hamilton said
I’d just like to second everyone who’s saluting Wendy Pearman. Inspiring courage, intelligence and compassion. Reading that made my day.
BSM said
Draust
“Campbell has an interesting article on his website about his own reasons ”
The hyperlink buried in that text doesn’t work for me. I’ve looked at his site and I am not sure which article you are referring to. Please could you provide the URL explicitly.
Thanks
Claire said
Is it this one ? “Come back science: all is forgiven”
Dr Aust said
Thanks Claire, that was the one I meant. Not sure what went wrong with the hyperlink, though I might have just forgotten to put it in. The other one is dead too. Ah well. Advancing age.. frailty… memory loss… you know the kind of thing.
Teek said
Wendy – a very brave post, it’s good to see someone with your background being honest enough to see the wood for the trees.
Reflection of this nature amongst more of your (erstwhile) colleagues would be very welcome indeed – thank you…!
Wendy Pearman said
Thank you for hearing.
I have some observations about the history of the cult-like nature of the major part of British lay homeopathy.
Please be tolerant of someone who would still take Arnica if they fell and bruised. I value your view that evidence of homeopathic efficy is needed and agree that it is a bad situation that we have little or none after 200 years.
To parody the SoH the following is speculative and anecdotal. These are my own observations.
I hope Peter Fisher reads this and will consider it.
I hope the SoH can consider this and its effects.
I hope any homeopaths, students or prospective students can accept these are my attempt to make sense of what I have seen or know and I hope they feel able to consider them.
—————-
As I mentioned previously Robert Davidson and David Howell founded AquaSource which sells blue-green algae. I recently came across a paper calling AquaSource a quasi-religious corporation and listing how it operates. http://www.cesnur.org/2008/london_marinov.htm
Amway is cited as the prime example of quasi-religious organisations. When considering what has happened for much of lay homeopathic education in Britain over the last 30 years, just think Amway.
Firstly, it is a pyramid scheme.
A tutor once told me that the only way to make money in homeopathy was to lecture. Most senior lecturers are male. The majority of students will be unlikely to make a living. They may make pin money for a while. They will probably spend most of that money on their education and products.
Secondly you have to sell dreams to get people into the pyramid scheme. Amway will sell you cleaning products and tell you that you can achieve personal success through believing in their products.
The lay homeopathic education at the college I described will sell you a variety of dreams.
* We alone care about health – everyone else (Big Pharma, allopaths, EU, WHO, in conscious conspiracy, only wish to destroy health.
* You can be a part of saving the world’s health – but you have to be brave enough to tackle any case (don’t worry that, at that college, you will have had skietchy human sciences training, no pathology, and absolutely NO ethics training).
Thirdly, it is really handy if you can psychologically influence people to pull them in and pay you more money. The next bit deals with this.
———————
The myth of Robert Davidson goes back 30 years and permeates British lay homeopathic education. ‘He’ is alleged to have started the first lay homeopathic college in Britain, College of Homeopathy at Regents College, London.
Robert is a living drama – think Dirty Den or one the Mitchell Brothers. While I was in that College, the place was abuzz with his doings.
Drama was constant and took various forms
a) provocative statements (a woman was treating an Afro-Caribbean man wiith vitiligo – ‘It’s a black man who wants to be white’; reports of successfully ‘treating’ a lesbian; ‘treat em mean to keep em kean’ for starters
b) shouting at students ((student)’I feel it is Pulsatilla’ (Robert, roaring)’I don’t want to know what you feel, I want to know what you think’)
c) humiliation of students (a student is instructed to give a remedy he is unhappy with. He gives his own remedy. Somehow gets caught. He is told off. Somehow this is leaked and is gossiped around the whole class.)
d) personal life – while I was there he took a student as a girlfriend – she was somewhat bossy. There was some drama around this. In the following 2 years he married her, she had a baby, he hit her, she left him (taking the furniture with her) there a court case for assault – or so I was told.
e) planting a shill. None of the male lecturers did heavy sell on AquaSource – but the girlfriend was loud and selling. None of the lecturers advocated homeopathic prophylaxis. She did. She held every extreme view promoted, and loudly. Even to the extent of allegedly drinking her own urine.
The effect of living such a drama is to increase your susceptibility to influence. Even if you could see this was a drama you will still be influenced.
Think of the child seeing Dad hit Mum, and we know that they are affected.
Fear, anger and other strong emotions are known to make us more susceptible to influence.
I did not see that it was Eastenders at the time, and I know that I am not alone.
I cite one year. There will be homeopaths going back 30 years who can cite similar stuff. The ‘Robert’ teaching method was used from the start. If you did not have direct experience then your teachers will have or your teachers teachers will have experienced it.
What is most interesting is that Robert, at that time, had various heights. He could be 5′7-8″, 5′10-11″ and even 6′ or more. So the Robert mythology is an act, a drama, pretend. This is the biggest con of British lay homeopathy. A lot of people believe in him.
There may even be a real Robert, I just know that there’s a lot of them. My suspicion is that there are as many molecules of real Robert in those colleges as there are in my Arnica 30C (diluted well above Avogadro’s number).
Why the elaborate hoax? I can’t say for sure – but I can see the effect, and it is Amway.
You make people more influencable using drama; you sell them the dream; you sell them the products; you sell them the extreme positions. You make them allegiant to you by showing the big threat (Big Pharma etc), the small threats (mandatory swine flu vaccination) and you have a cult of converts who will go and spread the word and bring in more people to your colleges.
You have your pyramid sheme and your bills will be paid.
The beauty, from their point of view, is that, since it is Robert that propagates the extreme views, no-one can be blamed. Some lecturers have good names, and good money, and have done nothing wrong. It was Robert who was to blame for everything.
So, Robert is essentially a marketing tool that has been used very well by successive generations of male homeopaths. Instead of cleaning products they sold the idea that you could heal the world – what better dream could anyone have than that. It’s been a good seller for them. He’s certainly been good for getting money into the pockets of the boys – and it is predominantly boys who have benefitted.
—————————-
I am left feeling that homeopathy does have something to offer but that, as you say, we need to provide evidence of efficacy. Some of the examples that you have shown of where the ‘dream’ and some of the ‘belief systems’ have taken us has been very educational for me.
I will now present a sequence of events without comment. I leave you to speculate or anecdote as you will, in good SoH fashion.
————–
* 1994 – Barabara Harwood runs College of Homeopathy London. She wants to build a more professional training. There is good Human Sciences and Pathology (Dr Richard James); good materia medica (Mike Bridgre, Tony Hurley); Ethics (Carol Boyce); clinical training encourages knowledge of waarning signs, advising clients to use other agencies(GPs etc) and getting the advice signed on your notes (just to reinforce) (Linda Razzell was notable for this).
CoH course is four years and exam based. Quite academic in content.
* 1994 Gordon Sambidge and Ian Watson are working at the College of Practical Homeopathy (London). They have been very good friends for a long time. Robert Davidson is Principal, Gordon is Vice-Principal, David Howell and Robert Duddell are also lecturers there.
* 1995 Ian Watson leaves CPH and sets up Lakeland College in Ambleside with Anne Waters.
* 1997 Ian Watson extends to set up a Lakeland College Branch at Regents College in London. He is offering a 3 year training, no exams, and lots of pretties (flower essences, intuition, karmic path etc.)
* 1997 The 3rd year at CPH (of which Gordon Sambidge is Vice Principal) are so fed up of the drama that only 8 continue to do post-graduate year. Most of the rest go to Ian’s new college, so he has a top class from the start of his venture. Lucky!
* At some point in the late nineties, early noughties Barbara’s College ‘collapses’ in words used in one of the accounts of contempory homeopathy. This is at a time when homeopathy was still expanding. (SoH peak membership was 2004 – this is pre-2004).
* At some point subsequently Gordon Sambidge starts his own course at Regents’ College and gets agreement with Middlesex Univ to run a degree course which is 4 years and has exams.
* At some point here Ian Watson stops the London branch of Lakeland. Lakeland continues in Ambleside run by Anne Waters.
Jenny said
Wendy, I find your comment/quote that homeopathy is a pyramid scheme very interesting.
I trained as an osteopath, practiced for three years and gave up two years ago for a combination of personal, financial, ethical and moral issues too complex for me to try to articulate here. Very soon after I graduated I came to the conclusion that osteopathic training was a pyramid scheme too, especially the “post grad” cranial osteopathy courses which I never did or wanted to do but still felt peer pressure to do so.
I remain very cynical about the whole process and feel a little bitter for having wasted so much time, money and effort before realising how useless the whole thing had been.
Reggie Dixon said
Extremely interesting and insightful comments especially the Pyramid analysis. You still give the impression that homeopathy has something to offer, would I be right in thinking that this is in the area of placebo ? If so (and I hope this is what you think), how does one go forward with it whilst being utterly honest about this ?
MeToo said
Could more people who have such experiences comment / post on the social dimensions of homeopathy training? I have a family member who has accepted the feedback that she is very gifted in this, and who has years of training, and what-passes-for-credentials, but she continues to be guided to yet more education activities. Meanwhile, she supposedly has the ability to see pts. but does not. By my defintiion, this is a hobby – and as some hobbies do have, homeopathy as a faux career/hobby/path to enlightenment has risk of disability or death for self or others when practiced. This is not in UK, but in USA.
So, the anecdotes here ring true. If I hear more ppl comment on the lifestyle of the homeopathy trainee, I will be better able to piece together a view of how this, as well as Amway, engages and manipulates ppl.
Dr Aust said
Two things spring to mind reading Wendy’s postings. One is that there is little meaningful regulation of Alt.Reality fringe practitioners, so one has the suspicion that abuses of the “therapist” / “patient” relationship are likely more common than in the mainstream professions. Most of the Alt.Practitioner associations do have some kind of Conduct Code with strictures against abuses, but I have no sense (other than gut unease) about how common abuses are, or how severely they are punished when they do occur.
Of course, in mainstream psychotherapy and counselling, the likely dependence of the patient on/emotional attachment to the therapist at some stage is well recognised, and people training to be therapists are taught to spot this and deal with it appropriately. Again, whether Alt.Reality practitioners (who of course would probably deny that what they do is psychotherapy, see my previous comments) have any comparable insight or training is something I would be doubtful about. I am not saying they are all like the Barefoot Doctor, but again one has to question whether they really know what they are doing.
A second point is that it is a familiar feature of cults that powerful and charismatic leaders and their close acolytes manipulate other followers, particularly new ones, with things like expressing/withholding approval – see e.g. here
Finally, recruits and adherents endlessly paying for more “training” is a not unfamiliar theme in fringe belief systems. Perhaps the most famous organisation you hear this about is the, er, well-known self-styled Church favoured by some Hollywood stars.
ez said
Well, guess what, the followers of the College of Practical Homeopathy do outrageous things here in Japan, but I do not really see how this can be discrediting for the properly practiced homeopathy as a system, except that this creates a bad image? But sensible people are usually able to see through that, so I do not worry as much about this as I used to when I found out about the existence of such abuse of the name “homeopathy”. This is just fraud, but frauds do exist in every field of human activity, don’t they?
I do warn people who tend to listen to the kind of practitioners that Wendy has described that homeopathy is not what they are being made to beleive, but I have also discovered that there are some students from this very College who have been studying seriously enough as to escape the “pyramid scheme” and discover what it’s all really about, and these are the people who do not give up, as once one has been able to see the real healing potential of homeopathy one simply cannot give up. Too bad that such people are a minority inside a minority and are available to very few patients as of now, and I can understand why everybody is so angry at all the marketing/scheming that is out there, but I still would consistently suggest that you all stop speculate about something you have not researched in practice but only in theory, recall that scientific method starts with observation of natural phenomena (reaction of actual sick people to homeopathic remedies, and provings in this particular case – and not the poorly designed double blind tests), continues into thorough experimentation “around” the natural events, then start looking for a theory to explain this, draw up a theory and check if its predictions support all the hypotheses – just as Hahnemann did for over 40+ years of his research.
I also have to add that the school where I study is not anything even close to what Wendy has experienced, and I must say that if I found myself in such a place I would just leave immediately as it is clear that such abusive extremism and scheming should have nothing to do with treating people, no wonder the students learn very little and are not able to pursue a practice, although it is not the only reason why homeopathy is simply not profitable – it’s definitely not about money…
But you’re so deeply entrenched, well, I guess it’s your choice.
apgaylard said
Ez, I’d agree with you to a point: human failings don’t discredit homeopathy as a system. However, it’s important to be informed about bad practise seen in unregulated ‘health’ provision. The discouragement of vaccination is certainly very troubling.
I do wonder what you mean by, “reaction of actual sick people to homeopathic remedies, and provings in this particular case – and not the poorly designed double blind tests”. Do you have some specific double blind tests in mind, or are you suggesting the provings are a superiour method? If so, would you mind explaining why?
Talking about the scientific method, it is true that observation is at its core. However, it also includes methods that help prevent self-deception: randomisation, blinding, use of controls, careful exposure of the potential flaws of your own work, openness, the attempt to break your own hypotheses (falsification), replication; to name a few. How do homeopaths make use of these in their provings, research or clinical practise?
What is the scientific evidence that supports the homeopathic doctrines of similars or infintessimals? What about vitalism? Where is the scientific evidence that supports the clinical efficacy of homeopathy?
As you are appealing to science, I’d really like to see the scientific justifation. Also, as we are talking science, no references to alt.med pseudo-journals or unmeasurable mysteries. Thanks.
gimpy said
Hi ez, can you provide examples of problems such as Wendy describes being dealt with by the homeopathic profession to prevent further abuse or exploitation?
ez said
To apgaylard – I can see your desire to have all of the things that you mention researched, but I have to disappoint you as I personally am not a scientist (although I trained as one) right now but a house wife with two small children. You will have to wait some 10 years before I will be able to seriously delve in all the fields of expertise that you mention and prepare a rigorous answer that you seem to ask for – so that I could save you the trouble of going through “layman’s” intuitive babble.
And if it is you who says “I’d really like to see the scientific justifation”, probably meaning a list of well-established researchers under (or rather above) the publication in a journal that is not known to be related to alt-med, then I’m sorry to tell you, but obviously you will have to try to produce the evidence that would suit you yourself.
It’s very sad that you all have lost confidence in your own power as researchers, as you are so well versed in all the methods, – why don’t you just do it if all this homeoapthy etc. upsets you so much? If you have time and means for this, that is, of which I cannot judge. Why do you always want somebody else to do things for you?
apgaylard said
Ez, thanks for the reply. You are right that I am asking for some scientific justification. I hoped that someone studying homeopathy would have it to hand. Particularly as the homeopathic doctrines of similars, infintessimals and vitalism are at the core of the practise.
Generally, I think that the burden of proof rests with the proposer of a hypothesis, particularly when its as radical as homeopathy. But I am a curious sort, so I have spent some time looking into the claims of homeopaths. I must say that I have found that the evidence for meaningful clinical effects is just not there.
I had a really good look at the evidence contained in UK NHS’ National Library for Health “Complementary and Alternative Medicine Specialist Library“. This is compiled by some of the UK’s top medical and academic homeopaths. There is nothing in it to suggest worthwhile clinical effects.
Stimulated by this year’s Homeopathy Awareness Week I looked at all the evidence I could find that homeopathy can help with hayfever. Again, nothing to justify actually using it to treat patients – though there are some remedies that actually contain active ingredients, and there might just be something in some of these.
So, I have looked and I am not impressed. I’ll still look at whatever evidence comes my way. I was just hoping that a student of homeopathy could point me at some evidence that I had missed.
ez said
Sorry, I forgot to post a small question here – I thought that clinical evidence is best sought in clinics, have you ever visited an actual clinic of an actual homeopath and examined first-hand their records – otherwise you are just referring to another sort of anecdotes – in my understanding, that is reliance on the third party who have prepared the study and published it.
ez said
To gimpy – I’m sorry but the political aspects of things interest me least of all and I don’t think one can really talk about “homeopathic profession” on the whole at present.
I’m also sorry to say this, but I really do not see how the sort of abuse of the sort described can be prevented at all, in any other field included, – as long as the people who serve as victims in such instances dont’t just stand up for themselves and refuse to be abused any more by simply walking out on their abusers in large numbers. My deep belief (based on observations and further reflection on the subject, in the measure that I could do this in the course of my life) is that institutional regulation is simply impotent against such cases. You cannot make things sufficiently fool-proof, the abuser will always find a way to go around this as long as he stumbles upon people who are willing (at least in the beginning) to go along with them. The only thing you can do for the start is educate individual people – which is what you do to a certain extent, I’d only wish that you’d be more objective in your attitude.
gimpy said
Ahh so there is not sufficient reflection within homeopathy to recognise or deal with situations such as Wendy describes, you need to rely on outsiders?
Wendy Pearman said
I feel that Ez’s point about the ‘homeopathic profession’ not really existing, as such, is true. Mike Bridger’s article http://ja-jp.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=34091155679 (that Andy Lewis blogged about) http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/10/how-can-you-criticise-homeopathy-when.html
says that ‘It is like trying to catch the mist’ to define what people mean by homeopathy. Homeopaths are individuals and the ‘homeopathic profession’ is a collection of individuals where individualism is promoted.
It is to be noted that so many of those ‘individuals’ hold collections of views that are extreme in terms of the general population and that have (as Ez points out)nothing to do with the practise of homeopathy. This reinforces Mike’s point of the ‘dicatatorial and controlling nature’ of that illusion of individualism.
Ez, one of the views you imply in your first comment, that is very common to homeopaths, but unusual in our societies, is the idea that victims were responsible for the victimhood. In common parlance, in homeopathic circles, ‘They attracted it to them’.
To me this is one of the more dangerous idealogies in homeopathic circles. It is probably not visible to skeptics. That is why I raise it. It is extremely common. I feel that it can lead to acceptance of neglectful and bad practice.
This argument is always put in terms of personal responsibility. Essentially, that victims attract victimhood to them; this is a pattern that they have learned and it is what their subconscious attracts. This ideology puts responsibility on the victim to stop victimising themselves.
Ez, if I hit you – I am responsible, not you. If I say nasty things and hurt you – I am responsible, not you. If I provoke you to anger, fear, or humiliation so that I can influence you more easily – I am responsible, not you.
The clearest answer on this, to me, is that 6 million Jews did not attract the gas ovens to them. People built them and used them and we hold those people responsible. Because we place responsibility where it belongs we have International Courts and Human Rights Treaties to try to avoid letting this happen again.
You say that you would leave such a situation immediately, but since you will have paid a year’s fees, that are non-returnable, I wonder if you just might try to stick out the year before you leave.
Ez, the political implications do bother me – even if they do not bother you.
The Society of Homeopaths has been approached on some of the issues. If they choose to consider themselves a society growing professionalism and wanting to promote appropriate education then they need to ensure that students are treated appropriately.
In 1997 CPH was awaiting SoH approval. I stated in my text that in 1997 there was unhappiness in the 3rd year at CPH. A complaint was raised. From the complaint it was clear that students were not being treated in a straighforward and honest manner. Graz Baran dealt with this for SoH. The CPH management were not criticized.
To add insult to injury CPH became an SoH approved college that very summer, summer 1997, despite SoH awareness of irregularity.
ez said
To Wendy Pearman,
First of all, please excuse me that I’m not be able to appear regularly, but I’m very glad that you have answered, thank you!
I’ll go by quotes from your post, though I must say that some of your points – about the situation in Britain and the relevance of the historical context to the ideas that disturb you most is, unfortunately, something that I’m not able to appreciate, living in Japan and having grown in Russia, but this is extremely interesting – I did not say that the political consequences do not bother me, not quite that. I meant that I’m not quite interested in actually plunging myself in such political games.
“Ez, one of the views you imply in your first comment, that is very common to homeopaths, but unusual in our societies, is the idea that victims were responsible for the victimhood. In common parlance, in homeopathic circles, ‘They attracted it to them’. ”
Actually, this idea is extremely deep-seated in an Eastern mind, I guess some ancient Chinese Philosopher has touched on it, but it’s certainly prevalent here.
However, I was really shocked when I first realised that followers of the Practical College here in Japan do actually take this idea absolutely literally, they do victimize people, and unfortunately – as I said, – Japanese are very vulnerable to this particular issue, I’m sure you learned about susceptibility, well, here this sort of susceptibility is particularly strong, and indeed I think it’s a completely upside down from what the real approach should be.
“To me this is one of the more dangerous idealogies in homeopathic circles. It is probably not visible to skeptics. That is why I raise it. It is extremely common. I feel that it can lead to acceptance of neglectful and bad practice.”
Absolutely, that’s what they are trying to do (maybe unconsciously, by the way) – to run away from any responsibility.
“This argument is always put in terms of personal responsibility. Essentially, that victims attract victimhood to them; this is a pattern that they have learned and it is what their subconscious attracts. This ideology puts responsibility on the victim to stop victimising themselves.”
Here is the point, the way I see it, if people could actually do this they would have already done it – changed their mindset, it’s when they cannot do this themselves for a variety of reasons when they need help, and I suspect that homeopathy is the only thing that can help…
“Ez, if I hit you – I am responsible, not you. If I say nasty things and hurt you – I am responsible, not you. If I provoke you to anger, fear, or humiliation so that I can influence you more easily – I am responsible, not you. ”
Indeed, you are technically right, but you just don’t go about hitting everyone at random, some people somehow escape your attack… This is the same with so-called contagious diseases, even in the worst epidemic of flu some people don’t get it all the same. Or, from a different aspect, it’s the question of the hen and the egg – which came first, which caused what – and the truth is no one can know the answer, and the way people would do better to adequately react to such situations is rather practical – to just start from where you can keep track of things and see what to do next… And that’s the position of a serious homeopath – not to keep the person attached to their past “karma” or whatever – whatever it was that has led you to hit me, or me to get into your way when you were about to hit someone for your own personal reasons – nothing happens without a reason, I hope you agree to that, but sometimes even in law courts people get acquitted for having done something bad because they simply did not really mean it, or were forced by some Force Majeur circumstance to do this. The role of a homeopath is not to judge anyone, but to offer help to the person who is asking for it. So all this victimising is completely misguided interpretation of what someone said. Kent used to be very religious, so indeed, organised Church tends to “victimise” people and “hang” the reponsibility for their “ills and sins” on them entirely, but I feel it’s very wrong… I guess it’s atheistic Soviet upbringing, although I feel very upset about the current upsurge in Orthodox religion in Russia, I find it ridiculous, although I understand that all those political unpheavals that people have experienced during the last decades made them seek something “basic and lasting”, which the official church appears to pretend to be. Well, I guess some people are pushed so far that they end up catching at straws.
“The clearest answer on this, to me, is that 6 million Jews did not attract the gas ovens to them. People built them and used them and we hold those people responsible. Because we place responsibility where it belongs we have International Courts and Human Rights Treaties to try to avoid letting this happen again. ”
Well, one thing that humanity will still have to learn and I feel it is going to take a long time, is to forgive – all in trying to avoid letting this happen again, but for this we do not need to instill fear in the perpetrators, but try to divulge the true mechanisms of why all this could have happened. Obviously, no one has the right to victimise the Jews, it’s simply mean.
“You say that you would leave such a situation immediately, but since you will have paid a year’s fees, that are non-returnable, I wonder if you just might try to stick out the year before you leave. ”
I know, but I would still leave, I have done something similar in the past. The loss will still be less than what you will eventually incur if you stay… Which seems to have happened.
“Ez, the political implications do bother me – even if they do not bother you.
The Society of Homeopaths has been approached on some of the issues. If they choose to consider themselves a society growing professionalism and wanting to promote appropriate education then they need to ensure that students are treated appropriately.
In 1997 CPH was awaiting SoH approval. I stated in my text that in 1997 there was unhappiness in the 3rd year at CPH. A complaint was raised. From the complaint it was clear that students were not being treated in a straighforward and honest manner. Graz Baran dealt with this for SoH. The CPH management were not criticized.
To add insult to injury CPH became an SoH approved college that very summer, summer 1997, despite SoH awareness of irregularity.”
It’s a shame, but I am not in the position to judge what could have been done, personally I here am completely by myself, no live homeopath anywhere closer than some half a thousand km, I study through a correspondence course and do not belong (and at present do not wish to belong) to any particular Society as I feel they are almost all of the type that is capable of quickly evolving into a cult – so I am really not aware of the legal etc. framework that could be put to work to stop that. And believe me, a lot of experience in the Soviet Union (inherited in part by modern Russia) suggests that this is highly improbable that any such framework can ever be sufficiently effective. It’s just so deeply miasmatic, if you see what I mean… (At the risk of being labeled a woo mystic). So I feel that the real practical answer – I would emphasize “practical” here, – is for the victims to get together and stand up to protect themselves. The saying goes “God helps those who help themselves” – it’s just an observation that has been confirmed by many generations – that’s why it has evolved into a proverb, we in Russia have a similar proverb too, and I know there is an Arab proverb stating the same, so it must be something universal.
But – a little note to apgaylard – I have seen people regaining ability to think straight after a good homeopathic remedy, and this is something that will hardly ever be accounted for in a double blind trial, simply because there are no objective measures of this except just plain direct observation by someone objective enough. You know an person with a clear mind when you speak to them – don’t you? But how will you ever be able to quantify this? Basically this is what persuaded me in effectiveness of homeopathy, but I am sure some more tangible ways of showing the difference can be devised, only it requires a lot of dedicated work. That’s something that I’d undoubtedly wish to work on in the future, but I cannot look so far ahead.
And as for Doc Quack – I guess you are slightly taken aback by his manner and apparently deviant comments from time to time, but when it comes to ideas he is extremely lucid and consistent, but that’s my opinion of course, although it took me some time to learn to read through his “discourses”, although I cannot judge the technical details, as I have said before.
Wendy Pearman said
Ez
Thank you for that answer. I feel is much that we share.
I liked this bit that you wrote –
I feel that the real practical answer – I would emphasize “practical” here, – is for the victims to get together and stand up to protect themselves. The saying goes “God helps those who help themselves” – it’s just an observation that has been confirmed by many generations – that’s why it has evolved into a proverb, we in Russia have a similar proverb too, and I know there is an Arab proverb stating the same, so it must be something universal.
This is the reason I’ve written this. If anyone reads this who feels that this applies to them, then please e-mail gimpy, and he’ll pass you on, in confidence, as I’d like to see what can be done.
Thank you, Ez.
ez said
Oh,
Dear Wendy Pearman,
I think it’s me who should thank you for reading all of my long posts!
Very best wishes to you!
Wendy Pearman said
Ez, you’re welcome. And thank you for the good wishes.
ez said
To apgaylard again,
I forgot to mention the subject of the double-blind tests – I am not against them, provided the homeopathic remedies are still prescribed according to the similarity of symptoms – otherwise obviously they just don’t work, as the trials where everyone was given some “specific” remedy for some “medical condition” have vastly shown, but I really do not see how someone who is not working full-time and on full pay on the subject can really be thorough enough to draw any reliable conclusions on the subject, and I’m almost sure that such people do not exist in what is called “mainstream science”, everyone is pressed to produce some results to support the funding that they get, unless they win a prize or something in some other area first…
Otherwise, I think DocQuack from the hpathy forums is quite interested in the matter and has recently come up with some “hard” experiments of measuring remedies’ spectra, but again I’m not an expert in this so I think I should not comment on things that I do not understand well enough.
gimpy said
DocQuack is a deeply troubled individual, see jdc for details.
apgaylard said
Ez, thanks for the clarification. Some homeopaths reject the DBRCT methodology and I just wondered where you stood on this. I am glad to see that you don’t follow this unscientific approach. Also, I agree that the trial should test the intervention as a whole. You might be interested to know though that Shang and co-workers showed that individualised homeopathy fared no better in trials than the ‘clinical’ variety. Their comprehensive comparative review found no evidence of an effect beyond that of a placebo. This is consistant with the recent large meta-analyses. (I have a quick review of these here and here).
There is a large literature and, you are right, that it’s difficult to process it. That’s where large well-conducted meta-analyses are helpful, particularly those of the well-respected Cochrane Foundadtion.
On your mention of the spectra of different remedies, this sounds to me like a comment on the recent work of Rey or Rao. I’ve had a close look at this recently.
Thanks again for replying.
notspock said
I was at some point going to list other aspects of homeopathy that irritate me – in order to demonstrate that I have more than one brush for tarring. But here’s two that are close to home: a) Over the counter stuff, advertised on TV and even on pharmacy paper bags (Boiron). b) People telling us what to take (batty aunts, mother in laws, otherwise normal individuals, etc.) [I wonder, what do you take for bad dreams about dinosaurs?]
If its invalid to do a double blind test-because you need a “real homeopath” to decide what to give for the precise case- then aren’t both of the above invalid too?
BSM said
Yes, what apgaylard and gimpy said. Please, don’t be another of those tiresome advocates of CAM who runs away at the first sight of a tricky question.
Derrik said
Ez has been appearing on boards and blogs from time to time for over a year now I think. Usually you get quite a stimulating and civil conversation out of it. Personally I think its a shame such talent is wasted on CAM.
warhelmet said
The point about “victimhood” – The Kentian idea of the homeopathic healer as moral redeemer makes me extremely uncomfortable. As does the idea of “dis-ease” as a result of moral failure. Some of the above suggests that the influence of Kent is still felt today.
Wendy Pearman said
Hi Warhelmet
The way I see it is that Kent and Hahnemann wrote as Christians in societies where Christianity was more than dominant – it was overwhelming. Kent’s moral stance, to me, seems to reflect the mores of his society at that time. His placing of rubrics that we would regard as personal choices, as symptoms, in the Repertory reflects that, I think. It was a different time and social situation.
This ideology is much more new-age. I had never encountered new age ideas prior to homeopathic education so I am no expert.
Among the dreams that are sold is the dream of your personal power as an individual and your personal freedom as an individual. This matched Thatcherism perfectly and this is the social context in which these ideas and British homeopathic education grew. Remember that Thatcher famously denied society.
What I remember of it is –
* You have personal power
* If I empower you – who has the power
* Rights are given to you by governments
I have always been a political or community campaigner and I know that we don’t get given rights. My rights are steeped in the blood of previous generations. Rights are collectively won, in general, and collective in application.
Individuals have power. Homeopathy is about individuals.
As far as I’m concerned you can use your power as long as you respect my rights.
Personal responsibilty, in this context, is about your own power. You can choose not be upset if I say bad things to you – some would relate this to emotional intelligence. I would rather live in a world where you could ask me to stop saying nasty things. Rather than the obligation being on you to change; I ought to stop.
The whole emphasis in this thinking is that the victim is responsible for their own victimhood – it is a tyrants charter as far as I’m concerned.
I would sooner spend my time trying to get Tony to the War Crimes tribunal in the Hague than waste endless energy wondering how to stop attracting nasty people. I’d sooner put my mind to getting the leglation to stop them doing bad things or supporting the victims; whether it’s opposing apartheid in South Africa or Women’s Aid Refuges or singing to raise funds for a refugee centre.
The dream they sell is that you can generate your individual power and freedom. What they don’t say is that you can only do that in the luxury of a society where generations have collectively fought for rights that you hold collectively with everyone else. Those rights allow you some quality of basic life.
Ask the slumdog in Mumbai what constitutes his individual power and freedom.
ez said
Quote:
“Personal responsibilty, in this context, is about your own power. You can choose not be upset if I say bad things to you – some would relate this to emotional intelligence. I would rather live in a world where you could ask me to stop saying nasty things. Rather than the obligation being on you to change; I ought to stop.”
Here is a major point, I think. You cannot choose to be this or that, the question is what is your honest natural reaction – not something that you intelligently choose, as this is most often the way that you are trying to deceive yourself and/or others. Either you are upset (and what is the reason for that would differ for different people) or you are not.
Another aspect is that why should I consider to have the right to stop you – if you know you ought to stop, then you would stop without anybody telling you to do so. ANd if you do not stop even though you know you ought to – then there is some strong reason that prevents you from doing what you want – and this is limiting you in million ways, most of which you remain unaware of. This is where homeopathy might step in to help you. Otherwise the chances are that even though I tell you to stop, you will still be unable to do that…
RUbric in Kent’s repertory are not just plain English, for the rubric to be taken in consideration it has to be something that is limiting the person’s ability to adequately deal with situations, and not just choices/preferences as used in everyday speech, I think there exists a major misunderstanding here. Like in those widespread ideas of a warm sympathetic person wishing to help other to be a “phosphorus” type. FOr such person to be a phosphorus he should at the same time become completely indifferent, maybe even hostile to his own family of which it is more natural for people to care first, leave all his usual affairs and plunge into some charitable affair + comfirmation of the rest of the totality – otherwise it’s like this case that you cited “a black man desiring to be white”, i.e. almost certainly nonsense.
Homeopathy is not about dreams – it is very hard work both on the part of a patient and practitioner alike… But some people have their own agenda and use easy tricks (such as relieving night-sweat – gimpy, have you noticed?) to make people believe that more and more is to follow just like this, without any effort if only they follow homeopathy – well, this is certainly the road towards religion in the worst sense of this word. But that, of course, is illusion. But as i said before some people are so desperate that they catch at straws, and I think we cannot blame them for that.
Victim is not responsible for their victimhood, it’s just something that they ended up inheriting, the susceptibility again, like having blue eyes or brown eyes – could anybody be blamed or held responsible for that? This is ridiculous, and this is certainly not what homeopathy should be dealing with… Blaming or deciding who is reponsible and telling them about it, that is. This has nothing to do with homeopathy as such, again, it’s just a way to perplex people and try to lure them by possible solutions – a marketing strategy, alas, out world is ruled by money, at least for now, or rather too many people seem to believe this.
Wendy Pearman said
Ez, once more, I think we have more agreement than difference, in what we are saying – and thank you for your comment.
Wendy Pearman said
As for ‘moral redeemer’.
Overall homeopathy in Britain is widely sold as mind-body-spirit medicine. It is widely presented as evolutionary for mankind. That form of evolution is seen as spiritual evolution.
There are those who talk about and promote ideas of helping people on their life paths; to learn their life lessons; their spiritual path.
Though this may be talked about, for most people I knew this was a long way away. Helping with someone’s night sweats was enough. You will find Martin Miles talking about moving people through two or more incarnations in a lifetime in an interview before he died.
In the mid to late 90’s these concepts were growing as a trend. These are part of the problems that Mike Bridger discusses in his article.
But in a sense you are right; there is an overall teaching that homeopathy will take humanity forward spiritually. Objectively that means they do claim to help save people’s souls – and humanity at the same time.
warhelmet said
Kent was a Swedenborgian, about as Christian as a Mormon. Interesting, but…
Kentian dis-ease as moral failure, New Age dis-ease as a result of assumed victimhood, the result is the same. Hubris.
GlobalFlora flowers and gifts » Blog Archive » The Ultimate Collection Of Career/Hobby EBooks – 24 Sites To Promote! said
[...] Homeopaths, Herbalists and Matthias Rath « gimpy's blog [...]