I try to avoid such exchanges but every now and then on the internet I run into a conflict of opinion on the merits of homœopathy - usually with a self-styled sceptic, or skeptic. These contacts have led me to be described as a liar, my intelligence questioned, and Homœopathica likened to the scribbling of a 6-year-old.
One protagonist claims on his website that I declined to appear in a face-to-face debate with him; which is not correct, I simply rejected his suggestion that the Society’s website should have pointers to sites “exposing” homœopathy. I am not dogmatically opposed to giving space to homœopathy’s knockers; if there was a site offering well-informed criticism devoid of name-calling, I would identify it - I have not yet found such a thing.
As to a debate between a homœopath and a sceptic, I venture to suggest it would go something like this . . .
Sceptic: There is no medicinal power in your so-called medicines beyond that of placebo effect, they are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number.
Homœopath: Are you saying that all the millions of cures attributed to homœopathic potentised medicines are examples of lies, placebo effect, spontaneous resolution, misdiagnosis, and self-limiting conditions coming right with the passage of time?
S: Yes.
H: Not ever one genuine cure effected by a potentised medicine?
S: No, not one.
H: Have you ever studied the performance of a homœopathic hospital in India? One that treats cholera, typhoid, malaria, dengue, amoebic dysentery, etc?
S: No, I did not know there were such things. I dare say they aren’t up to much by Western standards.
H: Well they do exist, and they have results comparable with conventional hospitals. What percentage of a conventional doctor’s clients have bogus cures misattributed to conventional medicines?
S: I am not sure, but I would say about 10%.
H: And you maintain a homœopath’s so-called cures are 100% bogus; how do you explain this big difference?
S: The homœopath, if not lying, has a different class of client, in personality and in the nature of their illnesses.
H: How do you know this? Have you ever read a bona fide study which analyses the make-up of a homœopathic practice anywhere in the world
S: Well no, but it’s the only explanation that fits.
H: Is this the kind of view a bona fide scientist, or in fact any honest person, would hold, or an opinion based on a belief rather than a fact, devoid of concrete evidence?
At this point the sceptic’s supporters in the audience start flinging insults, and raising the issues of the memory of water theory, the Great Randi’s million dollar challenge, New Zealand GPs claiming to be homœopaths who failed to care for their patients properly, and so on - and the real issues are not addressed further.
The others in the room (the ones who had been cured of cataracts, macular degeneration, gall stones, kidney stones, uterine fibroids, rheumatoid and osteo arthritis, psoriasis, and many other conditions generally regarded as far removed from the realm of hypochondria) just shake their heads sadly.
Bruce Barwell