South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 14, 2018, 16:07:35 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Dr. Prinsloo responds to sceptics from this forum

 (Read 6272 times)
Description: Dr. Prinsloo will not debate the IGNORANTS (his emphasis).
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« on: August 31, 2009, 11:15:38 AM »

Dr. Prinsloo runs a website called "Biocura" where he quotes certain members of this forum and comments on Captain Klingon's Homeopathy suicide attempt.  He also mentions The Skeptic Detective's comments on a Parent24 article about homoeopathy.

However, he refuses to debate people he calls "the IGNORANTS" (his capitalisation).  From his website we learn that "the IGNORANTS" are:

  • Is not a qualified Homeopath;
  • Has not studied Homeopathy to the extent that a Homeopath does;
  • Has not conducted extensive research on Homeopathy in accordance with the scientific principles of Homeopathy under the supervision of a qualified Homeopath;
  • Does not possess sufficient experience in the practical application of Homeopathy in a clinical setting;
  • Who is not registered as a Homeopathic Practitioner in South Africa and / or does not meet the requirements for such registration;
  • Who is not an expert on applied Homeopathy.


This means that even Professor Edzrd Ernst, professor of Complimentary Medicine in the United Kingdom and co-author of Trick or Treatment, does not qualify because he "is not registered as a Homeopathic Practitioner in South Africa".

Basically Dr. Prinsloo wants to sully the name and misrepresent the positions of all critics and never enter into a debate.  The logical fallacies he uses in defense continue to pile-up.

James
(tip o' the "USS Dauntless" cap to Captain Klingon)
Logged
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2009, 11:21:46 AM »

I also noticed that the Biocura website features its own "Detox" calculator, which would mean that any normal human being would have "toxicity" somewhere on his scale (even if you score zero - which is impossible - you still have "toxicity" which must be treated).

DETOXIFICATION POINTS SCALE

Total Points:  Less Than 100
Patient with mild to moderate toxicity

Total Points: Greater than 100
Patient with moderate to severe toxicity.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2009, 12:38:03 PM »

That response by Dr Prinsloo is one of the funniest things I’ve read in some time.  The only mildly distressing part is that it is – apparently – not a parody.

The good doctor’s definition of “evidence” clearly bears little relation to that used by most scientists.  He also appears to differ with his homoeopathic peers on the question of dilution of medicinals.  Does he hold with one of homoeopathy’s founding principles that potency increases with dilution?  If so, he should have little trouble providing his critics with an unequivocal demonstration of homoeopathy’s efficacy above placebo instead of a loose collection of self-serving testimonials and anecdotes.

How about it, Dr Prinsloo?  Oh wait, he’s not going to speak to us because we’re IGNORANTS.  The question is, how does he know that?  Or is everyone who disagrees or even differs with him on homoeopathy an IGNORANT?  Certainly, his definition thereof makes this outcome likely because any detractor can simply be dismissed due to meeting one or more of his criteria for being an IGNORANT.

'Luthon64
Logged
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2009, 13:03:17 PM »

Quote
This means that even Professor Edzrd Ernst, professor of Complimentary Medicine in the United Kingdom and co-author of Trick or Treatment, does not qualify because he "is not registered as a Homeopathic Practitioner in South Africa".

Only in Souf Af-frieka Grin

Quote
Oh wait, he’s not going to speak to us because we’re IGNORANTS.

IGNORANTS or.....REALISTS Doc??? Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 17:36:25 PM by Jane of the Jungle » Logged
Owen Swart
Officer in Charge, SciOps
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


Fleet Captain Owen Swart of the Starship Dauntless


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2009, 15:38:04 PM »

I posted a response to his article on my blog, more for entertainment value than anything else. Good times.

http://01universe.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-dr-prinsloo.html
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2009, 20:14:27 PM »

I wonder if this pushy kook Prinsloo is a chemistry IGNORANT. Seems likely, what with both of homeopathy's principles raping violating chemistry.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2009, 06:29:34 AM »

A bit like the true believers of any religion. Can not understand how anybody can't see that it the one true faith.
Logged
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 11:21:04 AM »

[H]e should have little trouble providing his critics with an unequivocal demonstration of homoeopathy’s efficacy above placebo instead of a loose collection of self-serving testimonials and anecdotes.

I won't be holding my breath.  I think his understanding of placebo treatments is also flawed and he also appears to have a knee-jerk distrust of scientific proof.

If it was true that Homeopathy is nothing but placebo (all in the mind) I would have to conclude that.....

I WOULD RATHER BE HEALED WITH THE HELP OF A PLACEBO, THAN DIE FROM THE SIDE-EFFECTS OF A SO-CALLED SCIENTIFICALLY RESEARCHED DRUG THAT WAS "PROVEN" SAFE AND EFFECTIVE
(Emphasis from the source material)

It reminds me somewhat of the Parapsychologists who try to redefine scientific proof because their effects disappear under scrutiny.  They try to justify it as "the effect must be real, therefore the testing is wrong".

James
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2009, 11:00:23 AM »

I won't be holding my breath.
I wholeheartedly agree.  After all, homoeopathic quantities of air do not promote continued good health in the individual…  Grin

Still, my point was more about homoeopathy’s basic “laws” – similia similibus curentur, dynamisation + dilution and treament by a single medicine – and which of them Dr Prinsloo accepts or rejects, and on what grounds.  As a homoeopath, rejecting any of them would be as incongruous as a GP who advocates the use of antibiotics but who rejects the germ theory of disease.

However, the controversy over dilution levels still rages unabated between homoeopaths and their critics, and, perhaps a little surprisingly, among homoeopaths themselves.  Says Wikipedia on the topic:
Quote from: Dilution Debate
Not all homeopaths advocate extremely high dilutions. Many of the early homeopaths were originally doctors and generally used lower dilutions such as “3X” or “6X”, rarely going beyond “12X”. The split between lower and higher dilutions followed ideological lines. Those favoring low dilutions stressed pathology and a strong link to conventional medicine, while those favoring high dilutions emphasised vital force, miasms and a spiritual interpretation of disease. Some products with such relatively lower dilutions continue to be sold, but like their counterparts, they have not been conclusively demonstrated to have any effect beyond the placebo effect.
(My emphasis.)




It reminds me somewhat of the Parapsychologists who try to redefine scientific proof because their effects disappear under scrutiny.  They try to justify it as "the effect must be real, therefore the testing is wrong".
Yes, that’s a good comparison:  If you can’t score, shift the goalposts.  If that also doesn’t work, change the rules of the game and call the referee and linesmen names.  With regards to homoeopathy as a curative modality, Wikipedia puts it quite clearly (and it will be noted that the passage is not marked as being contentious):
Quote from: Homeopathy
Claims of homeopathy’s efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence, and several high-quality studies show no evidence of any effect.  Higher quality trials tend to report less positive results, and the few positive studies have not been replicated, and are generally small, insufficiently blinded or randomized, or show other methodological laws that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence.

Makes the point, no?

'Luthon64
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2009, 17:07:36 PM »

Will a 12X dilution of cowpat cure Prinsloo of his BS? Only if homeopathy works.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2009, 08:50:32 AM »

Quote from: How Quackery Sells
The “Freireich Experimental Plan” assures that when proper research methods are not used, any remedy with no obviously harmful side effects can be “proven” effective for virtually all patients with serious disease.

(Read more)


'Luthon64
Logged
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2009, 10:25:30 AM »

Thanks for the link Mefiante, it is an excellent read.

In the latest news (from Angela, the Skeptic Detective) Dr. Prinsloo has noticed all of the renewed attention and has started to edit his website.  Some of the ad hominems have been removed (notably "the IGNORANTS" and "the filth" that he claims was spread by his critics).

An entire page (the page detailing the "proof" of homoeopathy) has been removed.
PLEASE NOTE : 02 September 2009 - THIS PAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED TEMPORARILY AS IT WAS POINTED OUT BY A SKEPTIC THAT I MAY HAVE CONTRADICTED MYSELF IN THE ARTICLE. WHILE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL I FEEL IT IMPORTANT THAT THE CONTENT BE RECIRCULATED TO COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR FURTHER REVIEW AND COMMENT BEFORE REPUBLISHING IT HERE. THE PAGE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AGAIN WITHIN A WEEK OR SO.


I suppose that the peer review will only include peers of homoeopathy.  If so I expect it will be back in pretty much its original form once the heat has died down.

James
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2009, 13:09:16 PM »

The various responses to Dr Prinsloo’s impostures posted at various places in the SA sceptical blogosphere make for some entertaining and really interesting reading.  Thanks and well done, all around!

More than once the relevance is questioned of Dr Prinsloo’s observation that sceptics of homoeopathy are often also sceptics of religion – and it is only right that said relevance be questioned.  To be sure, the good doctor’s intent with this sleight of conflatory non sequitur well-poisoning should be plain enough:  Atheism is the severest form of heresy and there’s the common myth held on no good grounds among the religious that such heretical sceptics must be inherently bad people, however well they may hide it.  Such bad people cannot be trusted to question anything because they are, well, bad for questioning or disbelieving even the most sacred of cows.  Therefore, a critique of homoeopathy by a religious unbeliever is instantly dismissible as highly suspect because such a critic doesn’t believe what many others, perhaps most others just know to be true.

And that, among a few others, is one reason why I labelled the venerable homoeopath’s broadside against sceptics “one of the funniest things I’ve read in some time.”  (An incidental irony in this religio-homoeopathic to-and-fro is, of course, that the best cure for blind belief is to take blind belief only in extremely highly diluted concentrations.  This appears to be one of a very small number of pathologies that are evidently treatable by resort to homoeopathic principles.)

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.804 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page August 08, 2018, 23:54:39 PM
Privacy Policy