Homeopath invites forum debate on efficacy.

[Matty1973]

In the comments section following an article on the Guardian website "Homeopathic remedies: a real cure or a waste of NHS money?" (Homeopathic remedies: a real cure or a waste of NHS money?) a homeopath makes this claim:

There are several studies proving that homeopathy works. See here: http://www.bookonhealing.com/appendix.html
I would be happy to debate them in an open public forum. So far I don't have any reasonable takers for this offer. I had a couple, but once they saw the seriousness of the data, they ran with their tail between their legs, and won't respond to emails anymore. Pitiful!


On his blog (http://www.bookonhealing.com/education/quack-busters.html) he details a couple of exchanges he has had with people from QuackWatch and Skepdic. Again he complains that no one wants to debate (http://www.bookonhealing.com/component/content/article/46/137.html):

The atheists have a certain haughty attitude about them. Undoubtedly, most of them thought I was an idiot for believing what I profess to be true, or a con-artist preying on unsuspecting public. In either case, they probably thought it would be easy to prove me wrong. However, in all cases their knowledge of research on the subject is extremely poor, and as soon as we get into debating particular studies, they realize their weakness and run with their tail between their legs.


Does anyone here fancy engaging in a debate with Jacob Mirman? His contact (jmirman@lifemedical.us) details are on the blog page. I fear I would be out of my depth.

[Mojo]

He seems to be citing the usual suspects. Just looking at his meta-analyses, for example, he has Kleijnen, which concluded that the evidence wasn't good enough to come to a conclusion (but is nevertheless cited by homoeopaths as a positive study since it's about as good as it gets for them), and the 1997 Linde review. Of course, he doesn't cite the 1999 reanalysis of the same data which concluded that the earlier paper "at least overestimated" the effects of homoeopathy. They never do.

[TheDaver]

Why do I have the feeling it’s not so much “running away with their tail between their legs” as it is “throwing their hands up in disgust”? His writing screams True Scotsman. At risk of stating the obvious, I don’t think he’s looking for any kind of real debate.

[Safe-Keeper]

If you debate them, they'll heap on rhetoric and then go on to brag about how "scientists are debating the efficacy of homoeopathy", and if you don't debate them, they'll accuse you of cowardice. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[TheDaver]

Well, if you don’t pay them any personal attention, they won’t even have somebody to call a coward. Which is why I think the best thing to do is just ignore this sort of goading entirely.

[Adam Ferguson]

Why debate? Only evidence matters.

[MRC_Hans]

If he wants a debate on homeopathy, he's welcome here.

Hans

[rjh01]

Well I have left him a comment to invite him here. However it appears he is not accepting comments. I suspect the article is old.

Edit. I changed one of the tags. It was not quite right.

[AndyD]

I can't read a scientific paper but I think I understand Carroll's point that a single result does not make a solid conclusion. "Correlation does not prove causation". That Mirman doesn't understand what he's on about speaks volumes about his approach to evidence.

Mirman's misapplication of Occam's "rasor" [sic] to allow for the overturning of chemistry and physics as the "simplest" explanation for something equally speaks volumes about his understanding of research and conclusions.

But full credit to him for linking to the sceptics and publishing the discussion. Maybe there's hope after all.

[Gwen]

Well, I read some of his blog and it seems he's not the usual conspiracy theorist (you know, the "You're all in the pay of 'Big Pharama'!" kind)*, but this

I wrote to [the owner of quackwatch.com] Dr. Barrett [...] I did not get any answer for about two years. Then I got a few emails from some people from Quackwatch's bulletin board participants. At first there were some questions about Homeopathy, particularly how it can be proven. I explained to them that nobody knows how it works but there are studies to prove that it does. [...] Finally I said that if they want to discuss science I would be more than happy to do so and that we should discuss a particular article from a proper medical journal that seems to prove that homeopathy works. I offered to fax the article to one of the people who seemed to have some logic left in him and then discuss it on line. He agreed and I promptly faxed the article on the use of Homeopathy in influenza.

Following this, all communication from the quackwatch list seized. I tried to contact the people I was corresponding with, but none of them responded to my messages. This was rather interesting. I can't believe all of them suddenly decided to not talk to me. I think they are all a single person trying to make it look like there is a discussion going on.
(my bold)

is hardly better.
Not only do sceptics "run with their tail between their legs" when confronted with "serious data", they also "are all a single person" (at least those quackwatch sceptics), lol.


ETA:*I should have read the whole page before I said that. Very near to the end I found this:

What is driving them to such lengths to discredit something they don't understand? Obviously, we can't get into somebody's head. But I have some ideas.

Some of them are on payroll of pharmaceutical companies.

[rjh01]

Some of them are on payroll of pharmaceutical companies.
I love a quote like this. There are a few thousand of us. Some of us would be doctors, vets, chemists, or have something to do with handing out medicine. All would be dependent either directly or indirectly on the pharmaceutical companies. Rolfe, for example is a vet. I can just imagine this would happen at his workplace

Rolfe - Your pet is sick, here is a medicine that will cure him. Here is the bill. It is $# for the medicine, $# for the consultation.
Pet Owner - Here is your money. Thank you for everything.

Rolfe has made money because of the pharmaceutical companies.


So the original quote is 100% accurate.

[TheDaver]

I wonder how “some of them” can be on the payroll of Big Pharma if they’re all the same person.…

[Rolfe]

Rolfe is a clinical pathologist / clinnical biochemist. Rolfe gets money for finding out what's wrong with the animal. Rolfe does not sell or prescribe any treatment - and only infrequently recommends a particular treatment.

Rolfe.

[Ivor the Engineer]

There is something wrong with a regulatory system that allows a medical doctor to have MD after his name when he believes in and promotes the efficacy of a system of medicine which to be valid, requires the founding principles of what he was taught in medical school to be completely and utterly wrong.

[GrandMasterFox]

Yes. It's true that it works. And it's 100% effective.
And the only reason that people disregard it is because they are on the payroll.

Including dozens if not thousands or more doctors that are already retired or even newly educated students who have all the ideals but non of the payroll or even all those doctors who work for practically free in 3rd world countries who have nothing but the good of humanities in mind.


Seriously... I never understood how people buy into the whole "big payroll" conspiracy. I mean obviously big companies are after big money, but wouldn't making a better product for cheap be in the full intrest of the big companies as well?!?

[Worm]

If Homeopathy worked, wouldn't it be in Big Pharma's interest to promote it and, oh I dunno, sell the medicine?

[Mojo]

Seriously... I never understood how people buy into the whole "big payroll" conspiracy.


This week we've had claims that "Big Pharma" is behind protests against, er, Boots. ;)

[bugbear]

You know how the homeopaths make a big thing of how complicated the chemistry/physics of water is (which is true, of course).

And that succussion exploits this?

OK, even if you accept that it's all about the water...

Surely when they make the sugar pill, the water evaporates!

Are they claiming that sugar also has a complex memory?

BugBear

[Cuddles]

The atheists

I have to admit I'm a little confused here. What exactly does atheism have to do with homeopathy? Is he admitting that homeopathy is nothing more than a religion?

If Homeopathy worked, wouldn't it be in Big Pharma's interest to promote it and, oh I dunno, sell the medicine?

Well, technically Big Pharma already does. Homeopathy is a billion dollar industry. That's what makes it so funny when homeopaths claim they're being suppressed by big pharma.

[technoextreme]

There is something wrong with a regulatory system that allows a medical doctor to have MD after his name when he believes in and promotes the efficacy of a system of medicine which to be valid, requires the founding principles of what he was taught in medical school to be completely and utterly wrong.
Rustum Roy is one of us Ivor and he believes in crap that actually contradicts what we learned in college.
You know how the homeopaths make a big thing of how complicated the chemistry/physics of water is (which is true, of course).
Its not really all that complicated. It certainly is special in the grand scheme of things but not really all that complicated.

[AvalonXQ]

I would love for him to come here and explain the evidence to us.

[Mojo]

For some reason nearly all his posts on the Guardian website have been "removed by a moderator": http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/jmirman/comments

I have no idea why, there didn't appear to be anything particularly offensive there, as far as I remember.