roger
25th February 2005, 12:08 PM
The Washington Post published a book review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51858-2005Feb24.html) of COPELAND'S CURE : Homeopathy and the War Between Conventional and Alternative Medicine today.
There's lots of yada yada yada in the review about the AMA, how the reviewer used to write for one of their publications, all seemingly there for the purpose of casting the AMA in a bad light (it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the book). She then casts the fight of the AMA against homeopaths as a battle of wills, rather than a battle of evidence.
For example, she notes medicines stunning advances in the 20th century, but immediately undercuts it with For decades, they prescribed an awful lot of estrogen to an awful lot of women. Then came Vioxx -- oh, well! -- and earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story reporting that the president of the vaccine division of Merck & Co. had been warned in 1991 that his company's vaccinations were giving infants a dangerously "elevated dose of mercury" -- that old standby poison
Then she ends with a personal anecdote of her going to a homeopath and getting cured. Of course she never mentions what her treatment was - it's entirely conceivable that what she received had an active ingredient.
In short, she entirely misses the point that medicine proceeds via the scientific method, and is thus correctable. There was, is, and will continue to be mistakes made, bad treatments given, etc., in medicine. However, as we know, this process allows for correction. Heck, she cites it herself: the LA times story. Compare this to the homeopaths, who have not advanced the state of their craft since it was invented, and ignore all data proving ineffectiveness of their treatments.
It's really depressing. I wonder how many people she prompted to give up their conventional treatment for shaken water or sugar pills. It's just outrageous.
There's lots of yada yada yada in the review about the AMA, how the reviewer used to write for one of their publications, all seemingly there for the purpose of casting the AMA in a bad light (it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the book). She then casts the fight of the AMA against homeopaths as a battle of wills, rather than a battle of evidence.
For example, she notes medicines stunning advances in the 20th century, but immediately undercuts it with For decades, they prescribed an awful lot of estrogen to an awful lot of women. Then came Vioxx -- oh, well! -- and earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story reporting that the president of the vaccine division of Merck & Co. had been warned in 1991 that his company's vaccinations were giving infants a dangerously "elevated dose of mercury" -- that old standby poison
Then she ends with a personal anecdote of her going to a homeopath and getting cured. Of course she never mentions what her treatment was - it's entirely conceivable that what she received had an active ingredient.
In short, she entirely misses the point that medicine proceeds via the scientific method, and is thus correctable. There was, is, and will continue to be mistakes made, bad treatments given, etc., in medicine. However, as we know, this process allows for correction. Heck, she cites it herself: the LA times story. Compare this to the homeopaths, who have not advanced the state of their craft since it was invented, and ignore all data proving ineffectiveness of their treatments.
It's really depressing. I wonder how many people she prompted to give up their conventional treatment for shaken water or sugar pills. It's just outrageous.