...and so homeopathy is a cure-all

<< < (9/11) > >>

The Vulcan (January 21, 2014, 10:20:29 AM):
It's not they're NOT being sued, the thing is though, it is a multi-billion rand/dollar et al global industry and I don't think that these scumbag-kingpins really buy into the quack-side at all, it's pure business, old-fashioned bottom-line exploitation of the consumer, they have the same knack for getting people to believe that churches do, that's why they rely so heavily on testimonies and their own "journals" as opposed to say... peer reviewed scientific studies/trials etc...

They don't need to win all court cases, they can just keep on postponing the shit out of it, plus with their almost non-existent input cost the court cases can be basically written off as school-fees.

Want elke sport moet mos maar sy besering hê.
Mefiante (January 21, 2014, 10:30:15 AM):
The trouble here is fivefold. First, homoeopaths are recognised in law as medical professionals equal to any specialist, which is a travesty to be sure. Therefore, in addition to the umbrella protections afforded them by the AHPCSA, they enjoy legal protections for their profession as well.

Second, they are very good at putting on airs of caring and good intentions. They have to be adept at it because their livelihood depends on projecting such an image, be it genuine or contrived.

Third, the patient’s family and/or primary caregivers must also carry a small measure of blame for such unnecessary suffering due to their failure to discuss the issues such as withholding conventional treatments with the oncologist first before pinning their hopes on magic snake oil.

Fourth, in the case of a terminal patient, there is the question of who, besides the patient, incurred substantial suffering. Except in the case of a minor or legal guardianship, it is unlikely that a case will succeed when filed by a family contending undue suffering of a deceased member. There is the option of professional misconduct or even malpractice but for these to stick, a homoeopath has to violate established homoeopathic practice (regardless of how much of a sham that might be).

Finally, perhaps medical specialists can also be held partly accountable. They could be more conscientious and proactively raise the topic of CAM with patients and their family, alerting them to the potential ill effects of buying into nonsense and/or forsaking proven treatment regimes.

BoogieMonster (January 21, 2014, 13:57:27 PM):
So, this MLM thing, is only practised by registered homeopaths?
Mefiante (January 21, 2014, 14:18:04 PM):
I think our resident Dr Spock ( ;) ) will need to elaborate on that. I don’t know much about Mannatech, but from what little I have read, it seems that they play with the whole gamut of sCAMmers.

I was more concerned about outlining the difficulties of suing meddling CAM quacks, particularly homoeopaths.

Lurkie (January 21, 2014, 18:28:41 PM):
After a small Internet search using 'Mannatech' and 'class action', it seems that they have been sued a few times. Rather like the SCIO twits (who keep rebranding the quackery and then move the marketing to a new continent).

Mannatech is like Amway. Multilevel marketing, aka pyramid scheme (the Amway guys freaked out at being branded a pyramid scheme and had a bunch of unconvincing reasons why they were different).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page