Homeopathy, the legal view.
The case against it picks up steam
Here we go again . .
After 200 years of phenomenal growth, clinical use for over 70,000 symptoms and superior results in epidemics and popularity among loyal users, there is still great opposition, it would seem, to homeopathy.
Here’s the latest. Apparently some jurist pedant in Australia has just discovered homeopathy, and a well known critic of homeopathy is trying to take it to the bank . . again.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/comment-blogs/-/blogs/13779346/homeopathy-the-legal-view
They just don’t get it . . it would seem.
There’s obviously some money in naysaying and pretending to be stupid. The fact of the matter is homeopathy is an obvious threat to the pharmaceutical industry. Not as a competitor . . as a destroyer. The homeopathic pharmacopoeia, which now includes over 3,000 remedies, can’t be patented, is easily manufactured, sold and used for an Avogadran fraction of what patent medicine can get capitalizing on the fear that nothing else but their patented crap can possibly stop your cancer or dire disease. So it’s quite understandable that what maddens the opponents of it is that homeopathy actually cures people of their ailments, something that their “medicine” can’t claim.
Now before we get down and dirty in hand to hand combat in this war of lancets, allow me to wax a while profane . .
Certainly not homeopathy . . they say. But I say there wouldn’t be a mass health crisis of such magnitude if people, practitioner and patient, turned to homeopathy for the cure of ills. No, if homeopathy wa the common medicine of choice the disaster would be a financial one for the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, a debacle the magnitude of which has not been seen since the Great Asteroid strike they say killed all the dinosaurs . .
(Actually I think it was something else, but the putative myth provides an understandable allegory most everyone can enjoy)
You get my meaning . . don’t you?
The major complaint fed and fostered and carefully cultivated about homeopathy is that it is implausible. This of course is a myth, for what may be implausible in theory becomes a reality in practice. Most of this impotent ejaculating seems to come from people who can’t ignore the implausibility factor and are too scared (for fear of being proved wrong) to put it to the test. So what they say is that because it shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work, and this is what drives them into using the Luddite’s tongue of shouldn’t be.
Read here what some unidentified Australian barrister and professor of law recently wrote:
“Until such time as homoeopathy can scientifically justify its fundamental
tenets, which seems inconceivable by measures such as objective peer review,
double blind testing and proper replication of processes and outcomes, it
cannot be said that its claims for therapeutic efficacy can be justifiable.
This leaves the profession not just exposed to criticisms, such as were
enunciated in the cases referred to above, but potentially open to consumer
protection actions directed toward whether its representations are false,
misleading and deceptive, to civil litigation when its promises have not
been fulfilled, and especially when persons have died, and to criminal
actions in respect of the financial advantage that is obtained by its
practitioners from their representations.”
Okay, that’s enough. I’d regurgitate the rest of it for you here, but there’s no way for me to wake you up when you’re done reading it. Insomniacs can click on the link above.
Suffice it to say this kangaroo jurist goes on saying much the same thing, you can read it for yourself if you have an alarm clock, that’s what I used. But for the rest of you I must say, for a continent populated by descendants of a criminal class . . British bread stealers, pickpockets and debt slaves . . you’d think they’d be able to come up with better anti-homeopathy lawyers than this . . but then again he’s only a professor, those who can’t do teach and doesn’t have to make his living actually putting his theory to the test.
Ring a bell?
NEXT: The case against the case against homeopathy.
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:
PS: I put the names of Ben Goldacre, PZ Myers, Neil degrasse Tyson here because I think they should read this too. And I include the names of James Randi and Edzard Ernst because I think they shouldn’t.
It would inflame them.
The John Benneth Journal 