Hi Georgia,Thank you very much for your response. Unfortunately it largely fails to address the points of concern in my email. While I applaud your commitment to animal welfare and all the measures you require regarding conditions the animals are kept and transported in and the prevention of habitual, unnecessary use of growth-hormones and antibiotics, homeopathy cannot be seen to be a valid part of such a practice. You speak of using alternative medicines "where these can be shown to be effective", but the standards of evidence you use to determine this must be set very low indeed in order for homeopathy to be included in any treatment regime. The opinion of any number of organic farmers or even veterinarians, based on their personal experience is not the same as data from genuine trials, it is just a collection of anecdotes, which proves nothing. The only way to genuinely prove the effectiveness of an intervention is through a properly controlled trial including subject and experimenter blinding, and a control group, the allocation to which is randomised. Such tests repeatedly demonstrate that Homeopathy is not effective for anything. If you (or Yeo Valley and their vets) have references to papers describing such studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of homeopathy for, using two examples from Yeo Valley blog, the control of flies or reducing stress in livestock, I would be very interested to read them.You say that the "philosophy" of homeopathy would encourage empathy or observance in stockmen; I have read fairly widely on this practice and have not come across anything that would indicate this to be the case. Perhaps you could direct me to some reference?The bottom line is that, as has been demonstrated by the available scientific literature, homeopathy is not an effective intervention for anything it has so far been tested for, and that enough work has been done to indicate that further testing would be a waste of time and money. If an intervention is required then an effective one should be given or this is neglect. If no intervention is required then one should not be given otherwise the price - a significant barrier to adoption by many consumers - of organic produce is needlessly driven up. The worst possible situation is where an intervention is required and an ineffective one is given, thus both neglecting the animal and driving up the price of produce. Vets who practice or encourage homeopathy may be well-meaning but have been fooled by the unscientific nonsense that surrounds the practice of so-called "complementary" and "alternative" medicines.I feel that adherence to the recommendation of this practice tarnishes the reputation of your organisation and would again recommend that you strongly reconsider it and raise the bar of evidence for medical interventions you recommend significantly.Please do not think I am against your organisation in principle, I just think that adherence to complementary medicines, and particularly obvious bunk like homeopathy, does you a disservice that hampers the adoption of organic produce by consumers; it will cause some who support your cause to abandon it as it both gives a poor impression of your ability to correctly judge scientific evidence, and constitutes unintentional neglect of the animals.Regards,T.McG.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Another attempt to make the Soil Association see sense.
So I received a wholly unsatisfactory response from the Soil Association to my enquiry about their recommendation of the use of homeopathy to treat farm animals. It's worth another go isn't it?
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
The Soil Association Replies
Here's what I've been sent in response to my email (and Ben's Tweets presumably)
Hats off to them for bothering to respond. Needless to say I still disagree and will be responding in the not too distant future.Dear Tim,Thank you for your letter regarding the use of homeopathy in organic standards.The trust and support you have given the Soil Association is much appreciated and I am sorry you feel this issue may make you re-consider buying organic produce given our ongoing commitment to, and highest level of engagement with, animal health and welfare.The welfare of animals is central to Soil Association organic principles - No system of farming has higher levels of animal welfare standards than organic farms working to Soil Association standards and Compassion in World Farming believes the “Soil Association's welfare standards are leaders in the field.” (Joyce d'Silva).Under organic rules, all aspects of animal health and welfare are tightly controlled, including rearing, shelter, feeding, transportation and slaughter. We do however believe that ensuring good health is better than relying on drugs to treat disease, which is why we put so much emphasis on practices that encourage healthy farm animals. Organic farmers do this in many practical ways, such as keeping numbers down to reduce stress, providing appropriate nutritious feed and ensuring easy access to the outdoors. Organic animals cannot be given growth promoting hormones, regular doses of antibiotics or genetically modified (GM) feed.Encouraging healthy farm animals also means using complementary therapies where appropriate. Under our standards, sick animals are treated using complementary remedies- of which homeopathy is one part of- where these can be shown to be effective, unless a vet says an animal needs antibiotics or other medicines; in which case they must be given. When this happens organic standards require a set period of time has to pass before the animal can produce products for sale as organic. These are generally three times as long as those required by law for non-organic food.For all complementary therapies our standards specify that they are used 'with professional veterinary guidance and provided that their healing effect works for the species and condition you are treating'. This affords farmers and their professional advisors the freedom to make choices for the animals under their responsibility, in full knowledge that they will lose organic status if we find that they have not met their overriding duty to ensure good animal welfare.The underlying philosophy of homeopathy will support the farmer to be more observant and empathetic stockman, which has to be a good thing. For more serious problems, conventional treatments, such as antibiotics, may also be needed to help return an animal to good health. The important thing is that we actively encourage each and every organic farm to create a model for optimum health and vitality, that sees disease as a reflection of something deeper in the system that needs correcting, and that uses conventional drugs when genuinely needed, rather than as substitute for poor husbandry.We have much collective experience that for many routine problems homoeopathic and herbal treatments will be do the job very well, without any compromise to animal welfare, and put simply, many farmers and vets find that the homoeopathic approach works - which is why they continue to use it. The choice of treatment is ultimately down to the livestock keeper. This blog from Yeo Valley talks about use of homeopathy on their farms if you're interested in reading more -http://blog.yeovalleyorganic.co.uk/alternative-treatments- for-our-cows/ We do not shy away from the debate that surrounds this therapy with both sides of the argument receiving regular airings in our own membership publications. I would encourage you look at some more sources of information on this large and in-depth field – I have included these below.I hope this explains our position sufficiently and that you feel able to continue to support our work.Best wishes,Georgia CattTo see our standard on complementary veterinary medicines, including homeopathic treatments see section 10.9 of our organic standards onlinehttp://www.soilassociation.org/Certification/Standards/ tabid/353/Default.aspx A wide range of treatments and debate about their use can be found in the proceedings of the SAFO workshopshttp://www.safonetwork.org/index.html These present a balanced perspective from across Europe and show that veterinary professionals are on both side of the debate.
Georgia CattPress & e-Communications Officer
Friday, 7 January 2011
Atheist school visits?
So an interesting question was posed on Facebook by a theistic neo-pagan pal; interesting enough, I thought, to be worthy of a relatively comprehensive response, so here it is.
The feint went thus:
I think in order to adequately talk about this topic it's important to get a bit of groundwork done; there are a number of points that need making clear up front.
a. The Faith Bias.
I shan't dwell too long on the tolerance of Faith schools, which have been shown to be divisive within society by perpetuating mistrust and intolerance, which would otherwise dissipate (and don't actually improve results by and large but achieve better results by the tighter selection criteria). I also shan't talk for too long about the idiotic new idea of academies, which allow religious organisations free reign with most of the syllabus. But it is worth talking about the mandatory requirement in state-funded schools (apart from the new academies), for a daily act of "collective worship...wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". Now you may argue that parents may withdraw their children from such a practice, which is clearly an anachronism in a country where the majority now say they are not religious. However this would single out such children as different and expose them to ridicule, and additionally there is no mechanism for a child that is so inclined to opt out for themselves.
There is no mandated syllabus for religious education, so faith schools are free to teach only their brand of supernatural nonsense with no requirement even to tell pupils of any age that there are other religious viewpoints, let alone that it is perfectly normal to believe in no gods.
Religion gets a shoe-in at all state funded schools, faith schools and academies, an atheist speaker would go some tiny way to providing a little much needed balance. Is it hypocrisy to ask for a small redress of a significant imbalance? or to take the chance if it's offered?
b. Atheism is not a religion or faith-based position.
Atheist simply means "not a theist". A "theist" is a person who believes in the existence of god or gods, an "atheist" is simply someone who is not one of those people; a person who has no belief in a god or gods. This encompasses a pretty broad spectrum of positions including
c. Are atheists really against religious people talking to schools?
Now I couldn't possibly accuse such an honest and genuine chap as our questioner of such tactics, but this statement seems akin to a theme/strategy often used by the religious where they say "atheists think this, and that's just stupid/hypocritical" when actually atheists don't really think that at all, and the accuser has either just assumed something without asking any atheists, have only asked one or two possibly unrepresentative or stupid ones, or is deliberately and deceitfully constructing a straw-man to poke sticks at. Let's be clear that it's very hard to say what all atheists believe, since they explicitly share nothing in common except the absence of belief in a deity; I can only tell you what I, and many eminent atheists such as Dawkins and particularly atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett believe. In his work "Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" Dennett proposes that the key to eliminating, not all religion, but those forms of religion that are most toxic, is to ensure that a proper religious education is given to all children. By "toxic" he means those forms of fundamentalism that cause people to perform horrific acts like beating up homosexuals, practising genital mutilation, shooting abortion doctors, blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings; and by "proper" he means religious education that teaches about all religions, the history of that religion, and what people of that religion believe. Of course, despite atheism not being a religion, the syllabus must also make it clear to the students that there are people who follow no faith. Crucially, no child should be allowed to be excluded from such learning; surely any religion worth its salt can stand up to its practitioners learning about others? He even goes as far as to say that it doesn't matter how it is taught: the teacher could say "this is what those idiot Muslims/Hindus/Jains/Neo-Pagans/atheists think, and we know they're wrong" as long as they also make it clear that they will be tested on their knowledge of the beliefs and practices, not on their opinions of them. I won't go into the reasons why Dr Dan thinks this will work, but suffice to say that this idea is endorsed by many athiests including Dawkins and representatives of the National Secular Society and British Humanist Association.
It is of course true that many atheists would get angry at the thought of certain religious dogmas being taught to children: that homosexuality or the use of condoms is a sin, that women are inferior to men, that women should be stoned to death for showing their hair among examples of religious twattery; but you would hope that atheists wouldn't be the only people to become annoyed at such idiocy. And, of course we reserve the right to ridicule even the most harmless religious nonsense, but object to them telling children that's what they believe? Probably not.
To summarise, I don't think it is true that atheists (at least not all atheists, or even the so called "new" atheist celebrities) would object to a religious person explaining to a school what it is they believe, as long they weren't preaching hate, and even if it were true, it's not comparing like for like to compare atheists with the faithful, and even if that were true, it would still not be hypocrisy for an atheist to agree to present their beliefs to a school, in fact it would be a much needed step toward redressing the balance.
1 Anyone know the original source of this quote? I'd love to know.
The feint went thus:
To all my good atheist/Dawkins following/SitP friends out there, please indulge me, I am curious, if you were invited to go to a local school and do a talk on the subject would you accept?and then after a number of responses from atheist/skeptics in the affirmative, the actual thrust of the argument:
"very interesting. I didn't really set a context but the question came up in a conversation the other day. Most people who share Dawkins view would be up in arms going bonkers if a priest came to give a talk at there local school, explaining and encouraging his religion.. yet most dedicated Athiests etc don't see any reason why they should not do so themselves. Is this not a touch... hypocritical?"With the follow up, which I'm assuming was at least half in jest :
P.s. What do Athiests call a Devil's advocate?In the interests of any easy win, I'll hit the postscript first; most of us call it a "Devil's advocate". By and large we're not so prissy as to reject accepted metaphorical language constructs, even when they originate from a now defunct role within the Catholic church. I don't hate the term, but I do hate how it's often used these days. I may elaborate on why in a later post, but for now let's get back to the meat.
I think in order to adequately talk about this topic it's important to get a bit of groundwork done; there are a number of points that need making clear up front.
- There is a bias toward faith, and particularly the Christian faith, both implicit and explicit in the state schooling of the UK.
- Atheism is not a faith-based position, nor is it a type of religion, nor is it a belief system. Flippantly "Atheism is a religion only in the same sense that baldness can be said to be a hair-colour"1
- It's by no means clear that all, or even most, atheists would be "up in arms" if a religious leader were to talk to a class, depending on the religious leader, in the right context. This appears to be a straw man.
a. The Faith Bias.
I shan't dwell too long on the tolerance of Faith schools, which have been shown to be divisive within society by perpetuating mistrust and intolerance, which would otherwise dissipate (and don't actually improve results by and large but achieve better results by the tighter selection criteria). I also shan't talk for too long about the idiotic new idea of academies, which allow religious organisations free reign with most of the syllabus. But it is worth talking about the mandatory requirement in state-funded schools (apart from the new academies), for a daily act of "collective worship...wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". Now you may argue that parents may withdraw their children from such a practice, which is clearly an anachronism in a country where the majority now say they are not religious. However this would single out such children as different and expose them to ridicule, and additionally there is no mechanism for a child that is so inclined to opt out for themselves.
There is no mandated syllabus for religious education, so faith schools are free to teach only their brand of supernatural nonsense with no requirement even to tell pupils of any age that there are other religious viewpoints, let alone that it is perfectly normal to believe in no gods.
Religion gets a shoe-in at all state funded schools, faith schools and academies, an atheist speaker would go some tiny way to providing a little much needed balance. Is it hypocrisy to ask for a small redress of a significant imbalance? or to take the chance if it's offered?
b. Atheism is not a religion or faith-based position.
Atheist simply means "not a theist". A "theist" is a person who believes in the existence of god or gods, an "atheist" is simply someone who is not one of those people; a person who has no belief in a god or gods. This encompasses a pretty broad spectrum of positions including
- most people who self-profess as agnostics: those who believe it is not possible to know for certain whether god exists, and IMHO those who either haven't yet thought about it hard enough, and those who are pretty sure there's no god, but are too chicken to state their opinion clearly.
- people who don't actively believe in god but aren't really sure (see above)
- those who think there's probably no god, but are open to further credible evidence (no, you can't reasonably call these people agnostics)
- those who are certain there is no god, of whom there are very few; N.B. not even Dawkins puts himself in this category.
and all points in between. Being an atheist does not require the belief of anything that cannot be proven.
The hypocrisy charge won't stand, because it is not comparing like for like to consider a school visit from an atheist to that of a religious leader.
c. Are atheists really against religious people talking to schools?
Now I couldn't possibly accuse such an honest and genuine chap as our questioner of such tactics, but this statement seems akin to a theme/strategy often used by the religious where they say "atheists think this, and that's just stupid/hypocritical" when actually atheists don't really think that at all, and the accuser has either just assumed something without asking any atheists, have only asked one or two possibly unrepresentative or stupid ones, or is deliberately and deceitfully constructing a straw-man to poke sticks at. Let's be clear that it's very hard to say what all atheists believe, since they explicitly share nothing in common except the absence of belief in a deity; I can only tell you what I, and many eminent atheists such as Dawkins and particularly atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett believe. In his work "Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" Dennett proposes that the key to eliminating, not all religion, but those forms of religion that are most toxic, is to ensure that a proper religious education is given to all children. By "toxic" he means those forms of fundamentalism that cause people to perform horrific acts like beating up homosexuals, practising genital mutilation, shooting abortion doctors, blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings; and by "proper" he means religious education that teaches about all religions, the history of that religion, and what people of that religion believe. Of course, despite atheism not being a religion, the syllabus must also make it clear to the students that there are people who follow no faith. Crucially, no child should be allowed to be excluded from such learning; surely any religion worth its salt can stand up to its practitioners learning about others? He even goes as far as to say that it doesn't matter how it is taught: the teacher could say "this is what those idiot Muslims/Hindus/Jains/Neo-Pagans/atheists think, and we know they're wrong" as long as they also make it clear that they will be tested on their knowledge of the beliefs and practices, not on their opinions of them. I won't go into the reasons why Dr Dan thinks this will work, but suffice to say that this idea is endorsed by many athiests including Dawkins and representatives of the National Secular Society and British Humanist Association.
It is of course true that many atheists would get angry at the thought of certain religious dogmas being taught to children: that homosexuality or the use of condoms is a sin, that women are inferior to men, that women should be stoned to death for showing their hair among examples of religious twattery; but you would hope that atheists wouldn't be the only people to become annoyed at such idiocy. And, of course we reserve the right to ridicule even the most harmless religious nonsense, but object to them telling children that's what they believe? Probably not.
1 Anyone know the original source of this quote? I'd love to know.
Monday, 27 December 2010
Toward bullshit-free organic farming.
Why is it that compassion for animals and pseudo-scientific hippy bullshit seem to go hand in hand so often? Well one possibility is that the Soil Association, who set and certify against the standards farms have to meet to put "Organic" on their produce, discourage "allopathy" and encourage homeopathic "remedies" as an alternative. Even DEFRA have seemingly bought into this idiocy and encourage homeopathy for organic farms.
I've decided I'd like to do something about it, and I think the first step is to try to find out where this requirement comes from. To that end, I've written an email to the press office* at the Soil Association.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to you as a consumer and meat-eater who is strongly concerned about the welfare of farmed animals. While I applaud much of the work of the Soil Association, and admire the ideals of the organic standard with respect to reduced pesticides, greater freedoms for animals etc, there is one area that troubles me strongly. Homeopathic treatments have no plausible scientific method of operation and have been demonstrated not to work time and time again. There is no properly controlled evidence from studies that cannot be biased by the opinions of the investigators that demonstrate its efficacy beyond the placebo (and yes animals are susceptible to placebo by proxy). The current state of the best scientific evidence available indicates that homeopathic remedies are worthless. I put it to you that using worthless "remedies" on animals is not compassion, it is neglect. Where an ineffective intervention is given in place of effective one animals suffer needlessly, whether it is given as treatment for an existing condition or as prophylaxis against a potential one. In addition to this, the cost of these ineffective medicines must of course contribute to higher price of organic produce, which is a significant barrier to adoption by some consumers. Of course you may say that they are cheaper than conventional medicines in some respects (although I suspect vets fees are similar), but since homeopathic preparations do nothing it would be cheaper and no less neglectful to give no treatment at all.I buy all organic produce where possible, but as a result of the discovery that you and the organic standards endorse the useless practice of homeopathy, I am having to strongly reconsider and may simply buy free-range where possible. I think that on-balance this may be more ethical, since at least there is a greater likelihood of these animals receiving adequate care.I would like to know where this policy originates, and urge you to reconsider it. I would begin by reviewing the results of the recent government panel on homeopathy, which adequately sums up the best evidence available, and concludes that it is nothing more than a placebo and that sufficient testing has been performed to confirm this such that no more research need be undertaken to confirm it. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/ cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf Please could you put me in touch with the best person with whom I should communicate on this matter, in the hope that I can convince them to have this policy changed, or at the very least understand why it is present.
We'll see if I get anything back.Regards,
T.McG.
*They don't seem to have an address on their site where consumers can express their concerns or ask questions. If anyone knows of one, I'd love to hear from you.
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Homeopathy: treats the disease, not just the symptoms like conventional medicine.
Short answer:
This is a most interesting claim and it's based on three main incorrect assumptions:
Homeopathy was invented in a time when it was not understood that many diseases are caused by microbes, and therefore it has absolutely nothing to say about this. It's entire foundation is based on the "like cures like" principle that essentially says "substances cause symptom X can cure all diseases that also have symptoms like X." For example one of the indications of Arsen Album (That's arsenic to you and me) is purported to be for mouth ulcers, because if drink arsenic your mouth understandably becomes rather ulcerated. There are a number of causes (bacterial, viral, fungal etc.) of mouth ulcers, and homeopathy is silent on all of these, because it claims that all that is needed to select the correct treatment is a description of the symptoms, and the cause is irrelevant (Or perhaps some mythical "miasm"). Some go on to claim that what is happening is that the remedy is somehow activating the bodies own defences against the cause, but I have dealt with that already in another post.
When it comes to conventional medicine (often referred to as "Allopathy" by quacks and their adherents) the example is often given that a decongestant merely masks the symptoms of a cold, and therefore all of genuine medicine deals only with symptoms and not looking for the cause of the symptoms. This example is a ridiculous strawman argument, and the whole idea is just plain wrong. Antibiotics treat the microbes that are the root causes of disease, as do antivirals and antiretrovirals; vaccines prevent the root causes of disease; radiotherapy and chemotherapy eliminate the cancers that are the cause of distress; other treatments correct chemical imbalances that cause a variety of disorders. The accusation that genuine medicine does not consider causes is quite simply false. Of course there are medicines that seek to alleviate symptoms while the disease is otherwise treated, or while it resolves itself, or where there is no known cure, but it is an outright lie to suggest that all medicines are such.
The charge that conventional medicine sees patients as simply a collection of symptoms while homeopathy sees the whole patient and their condition is one that is designed to appeal to the emotion of the sufferer and make them feel cared for; it is not only wrong but is also more accurately levelled at homeopaths themselves. Homeopaths make this claim but cannot in any way substantiate it, while their whole methodology is based around the study of symptoms without any concern for the actual cause.
- No it doesn't, it doesn't treat anything
- The whole endeavour of homeopathy is based around only looking at symptoms, and not in determining the real cause of the disease.
- this is based on a complete misunderstanding of the way genuine medicine actually works
This is a most interesting claim and it's based on three main incorrect assumptions:
- That homeopathy works at all.
- That homeopathy is concerned with anything other than symptoms
- That conventional medicine only treats symptoms.
Homeopathy was invented in a time when it was not understood that many diseases are caused by microbes, and therefore it has absolutely nothing to say about this. It's entire foundation is based on the "like cures like" principle that essentially says "substances cause symptom X can cure all diseases that also have symptoms like X." For example one of the indications of Arsen Album (That's arsenic to you and me) is purported to be for mouth ulcers, because if drink arsenic your mouth understandably becomes rather ulcerated. There are a number of causes (bacterial, viral, fungal etc.) of mouth ulcers, and homeopathy is silent on all of these, because it claims that all that is needed to select the correct treatment is a description of the symptoms, and the cause is irrelevant (Or perhaps some mythical "miasm"). Some go on to claim that what is happening is that the remedy is somehow activating the bodies own defences against the cause, but I have dealt with that already in another post.
When it comes to conventional medicine (often referred to as "Allopathy" by quacks and their adherents) the example is often given that a decongestant merely masks the symptoms of a cold, and therefore all of genuine medicine deals only with symptoms and not looking for the cause of the symptoms. This example is a ridiculous strawman argument, and the whole idea is just plain wrong. Antibiotics treat the microbes that are the root causes of disease, as do antivirals and antiretrovirals; vaccines prevent the root causes of disease; radiotherapy and chemotherapy eliminate the cancers that are the cause of distress; other treatments correct chemical imbalances that cause a variety of disorders. The accusation that genuine medicine does not consider causes is quite simply false. Of course there are medicines that seek to alleviate symptoms while the disease is otherwise treated, or while it resolves itself, or where there is no known cure, but it is an outright lie to suggest that all medicines are such.
The charge that conventional medicine sees patients as simply a collection of symptoms while homeopathy sees the whole patient and their condition is one that is designed to appeal to the emotion of the sufferer and make them feel cared for; it is not only wrong but is also more accurately levelled at homeopaths themselves. Homeopaths make this claim but cannot in any way substantiate it, while their whole methodology is based around the study of symptoms without any concern for the actual cause.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Government Policy on Homeopathy is...
...bullshit.
My summary of the report:
Please read the sci-tech evidence check report, if you haven't already.
My summary of the report:
- Yes we know homeopathy is worthless bullshit, but some people don't know or don't believe it's bullshit, so we'll let individual regions' trusts decide whether they want to spend public money on it.
- We promise to tell people it doesn't work though, but we'll still buy it for them with your money if they still want it after we've told them.
- It's too difficult to find out how much we're currently spending on it, so we won't bother.
- We'll continue to allow people to put indications on remedies, because it's better to have something rather than nothing on the label (even if that something is wrong), because at least then we can regulate how they are made.
Fucking moronic cowards.
- It's OK to lie to people about how these pills can cure minor self-limiting illnesses, and that probably won't lead to people thinking it works for Malaria or AIDS.
Please read the sci-tech evidence check report, if you haven't already.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Homeopathy: it's natural.
Short answer:
As with the claim that homeopathy is an ancient tradition, I suspect the reason some make this assertion is due to a confusion of homeopathy with herbalism. It's important to remember that homeopathy is not herbalism; herbalists can at least genuinely claim that their treatments are "natural", for what it's worth, and unlike homeopathy many of them even have active ingredients.
All kinds of ingredients are used at the start of the homeopathic process, many of which may be considered natural, but the process of dilution and succussion is anything but. For a full description of the manufacturing process and it's origins, see my earlier post. And in any case, the idea that because something meets some arbitrary definition of "natural" does not necessarily mean it will work, or that it's somehow more in tune with your body and hence safer than any lab produced chemical. Go eat a handful of nightshade berries or fly agaric if you don't believe me1. This fallacy this particular claim falls under is the Appeal to Nature.
The only other things that could be meant by this claim of naturalness is that the remedy somehow stirs the body's natural defences into action, and I have dealt with that claim here.
1 Do not do this under any circumstances.
- No it isn't - it's extremely artificial and contrived.
- Even if it were, something being "natural" is no guarantee of either effectiveness or harmlessness.
As with the claim that homeopathy is an ancient tradition, I suspect the reason some make this assertion is due to a confusion of homeopathy with herbalism. It's important to remember that homeopathy is not herbalism; herbalists can at least genuinely claim that their treatments are "natural", for what it's worth, and unlike homeopathy many of them even have active ingredients.
All kinds of ingredients are used at the start of the homeopathic process, many of which may be considered natural, but the process of dilution and succussion is anything but. For a full description of the manufacturing process and it's origins, see my earlier post. And in any case, the idea that because something meets some arbitrary definition of "natural" does not necessarily mean it will work, or that it's somehow more in tune with your body and hence safer than any lab produced chemical. Go eat a handful of nightshade berries or fly agaric if you don't believe me1. This fallacy this particular claim falls under is the Appeal to Nature.
The only other things that could be meant by this claim of naturalness is that the remedy somehow stirs the body's natural defences into action, and I have dealt with that claim here.
1 Do not do this under any circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)