People living with HIV turn to homeopathy in Botswana

(1/4) > >>

bluegray (May 09, 2008, 11:42:45 AM):
Perhaps the saddest part of this article:
Quote
Alex Sarefo and Wasanapi Kapii, two young men working with the project as volunteers, translate for the homeopaths but eventually hope to conduct their own consultations. With a view to future sustainability, the project is funding them to complete a three-year UK-based long-distance course to qualify as homeopaths.

"At first I was so sceptical, until I saw the changes happening in patients, and then I started reading up on it and understanding the science behind it," said Sarefo, who started helping at the project after taking a break from his medical studies in Zimbabwe

The science behind it? As detailed in this thread and many others - the science behind homeopathy is dubious at best. Not to be confused with herbal or natural remedies, it is based on flawed assumptions that have been disproven by proper science for quite some time now. For an excellent introduction read An Introduction to Homeopathy
Wandapec (May 09, 2008, 13:34:54 PM):
I agree - this article is shocking and sad. What I also think is terrible is the fact that Fairclough probably thinks that by giving an alternative to throwing the bones, she is helping!

A medical degree in Zim used to be rated quite highly; if their medical students are coming up with statements like "I started reading up on it and understanding the science behind it" - what chance to the general population have?
Dr. Nancy Malik (July 13, 2008, 13:10:18 PM):
Perhaps the saddest part of this article:
Quote
Alex Sarefo and Wasanapi Kapii, two young men working with the project as volunteers, translate for the homeopaths but eventually hope to conduct their own consultations. With a view to future sustainability, the project is funding them to complete a three-year UK-based long-distance course to qualify as homeopaths.

"At first I was so sceptical, until I saw the changes happening in patients, and then I started reading up on it and understanding the science behind it," said Sarefo, who started helping at the project after taking a break from his medical studies in Zimbabwe

The science behind it? As detailed in this thread and many others - the science behind homeopathy is dubious at best. Not to be confused with herbal or natural remedies, it is based on flawed assumptions that have been disproven by proper science for quite some time now. For an excellent introduction read An Introduction to Homeopathy


There is an another book on Introduction to homeopathy: [nofollow]http://www.drdooley.net/Book.pdf[/nofollow]
Mefiante (July 13, 2008, 18:44:51 PM):
There is an another book on Introduction to homeopathy: [nofollow]http://www.drdooley.net/Book.pdf[/nofollow]
Let’s examine this testimonial a little more closely. Dr Dooley, the author, bases his case for homoeopathy on several things, among them the very bad, the very unlikely and the as yet unverified conjectures of Samuel Hahnemann, a bogus historical tradition, the alleged harmfulness of some conventional medicines, the supposed “vital force” for which no evidence exists, the harmlessness of homoeopathy, and also homoeopathy’s pretensions to holism – i.e. “treating the whole patient.” He considers his own direct experiences as prima facie evidence in favour of homoeopathy and cites one of his cases in Chapter 4 in support of his views. His case study shows only that some homoeopaths are just as much in the dark about human physiology as conventional practitioners (given the subject’s enormous complexity), something homoeopaths are very good at pretending doesn’t apply in their case. He doesn’t realise that the failures of competing modalities do not support the one he practises, and that his own experience is irrelevant compared to carefully conducted clinical trials.

Here are his views in a nutshell:
The final word

There are many interesting and useful therapies in this world, some natural, some not. But I have yet to find anything which takes the place of homeopathy.

At best, homeopathy represents a new branch of science that, when better understood, will open new vistas throughout the biological sciences as it does in healthcare.

At worst, homeopathy is a harmless placebo demonstrating that much of conventional medicine is unnecessary and harmful.

My direct experience with homeopathy is such that I say with confidence, of the above two possibilities, the first, the best scenario, is the correct one.


Dr Dooley hasn’t been paying adequate attention to epidemiology and other medical journals. No repeatable studies have yet shown homoeopathy to have any effect beyond placebo. Meta-studies have yielded results that are no different. His book was copyrighted in 1995 and in the ten-plus years since then, the debate has raged on unabated with no new science and/or evidence to convince the sceptics of homoeopathy’s effectiveness. In the meantime, proponents carry on as though they know some deep secret of the universe that the sceptics aren’t privy to. Nor does Dooley consider HIV/AIDS, and Southern Africa has enough trouble with various traditional “healers,” witchdoctors and shamans pretending much as homoeopaths do – that they effect what conventional medicine recognises as a hard problem.

None which actually does a single thing for Botswana’s HIV sufferers.

'Luthon64
Dr. Nancy Malik (July 14, 2008, 05:40:17 AM):
There is an another book on Introduction to homeopathy: [nofollow]http://www.drdooley.net/Book.pdf[/nofollow]
Let’s examine this testimonial a little more closely. Dr Dooley, the author, bases his case for homoeopathy on several things, among them the very bad, the very unlikely and the as yet unverified conjectures of Samuel Hahnemann, a bogus historical tradition, the alleged harmfulness of some conventional medicines, the supposed “vital force” for which no evidence exists, the harmlessness of homoeopathy, and also homoeopathy’s pretensions to holism – i.e. “treating the whole patient.” He considers his own direct experiences as prima facie evidence in favour of homoeopathy and cites one of his cases in Chapter 4 in support of his views. His case study shows only that some homoeopaths are just as much in the dark about human physiology as conventional practitioners (given the subject’s enormous complexity), something homoeopaths are very good at pretending doesn’t apply in their case. He doesn’t realise that the failures of competing modalities do not support the one he practises, and that his own experience is irrelevant compared to carefully conducted clinical trials.

Here are his views in a nutshell:
The final word

There are many interesting and useful therapies in this world, some natural, some not. But I have yet to find anything which takes the place of homeopathy.

At best, homeopathy represents a new branch of science that, when better understood, will open new vistas throughout the biological sciences as it does in healthcare.

At worst, homeopathy is a harmless placebo demonstrating that much of conventional medicine is unnecessary and harmful.

My direct experience with homeopathy is such that I say with confidence, of the above two possibilities, the first, the best scenario, is the correct one.


Dr Dooley hasn’t been paying adequate attention to epidemiology and other medical journals. No repeatable studies have yet shown homoeopathy to have any effect beyond placebo. Meta-studies have yielded results that are no different. His book was copyrighted in 1995 and in the ten-plus years since then, the debate has raged on unabated with no new science and/or evidence to convince the sceptics of homoeopathy’s effectiveness. In the meantime, proponents carry on as though they know some deep secret of the universe that the sceptics aren’t privy to. Nor does Dooley consider HIV/AIDS, and Southern Africa has enough trouble with various traditional “healers,” witchdoctors and shamans pretending much as homoeopaths do – that they effect what conventional medicine recognises as a hard problem.

None which actually does a single thing for Botswana’s HIV sufferers.

'Luthon64

Vital force is nothing but what you call as energy, ki in japanese oriental medicine, chi in chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda.

This book is in its first edition. You can have its second edition at http://www.beyondflatearth.com/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page