homeopathy

[Julian.West@mac.dartmouth.edu]

nbc takes me to task for denouncing homeopathy. I reply:

Well, my 25-word summary was not meant to be the last
word. Frankly, I wrote what I did because the _only thing_
I could remember about homeopathy was this matter of 
diluting things repeatedly in alcohol, which you have to admit
flies in the face of reason. I also remember assertions
that it had to be "shaken, not stirred". 

I had no doubt that there would be more informed accounts
of homeopathy, and there were. I have to agree that the
idea of treating the disease, rather than the symptoms,
makes a lot of sense. I myself shun most traditional
medicine for exactly this reason. For instance, I don't
take aspirin or other pain killers (say for a headache),
because I don't feel that the _pain_ is what is wrong with me.

If homeopaths would distance themselves from the 
'received wisdom' end of the practice, in particular the
idea of strengthening through dilution in a certain
rigidly prescribed manner, and concentrate more on a
scientific demonstration of the efficacy of their 
techniques, they would receive a better hearing. Doubtless
many do just this. I imagine, also, that attempts to 
create a controlled, laboratory inquisition into the
techniques of alternative medicine, with human subjects,
would be made impossible by the authorities.

I agree that the institutionalization of conventional 
medicine, especially the domination of the pharmaceuticals
market by large profit-oriented corporations, is a
catastrophe of the first magnitude.

I am, personally, unconvinced by any _specific_ claims
of homeopathic medicine. But I don't believe prima facie
that such more convincing claims will not be made in
the future.

Julian