Tuesday, February 4, 2014

CNN's Promotion of False Homeopathic Ophthalmology Efficacy!

here, I cite from a recent uncritical CNN piece written by an MD-homeopath-ophthalmologist lauding homeopathy's efficacy for eye strain, while homeopathy is known to be QUITE A PLACEBO:

001. Kondrot, E.C. (MD HMC 1977) writes in "How to Avoid Digital Eyestrain" (2014-02-04) [vsc 2014-02-04; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"homeopathy [...] one of the most common homeopathic remedies to treat eyestrain is Ruta graveolens, a common ornamental plant found in gardens that is used to treat strains of tendons. This remedy can greatly reduce the symptoms of eyestrain during prolonged computer use";

promises, promises!

Note: Edzard Ernst writes at The Guardian in "Why I Changed My Mind about Homeopathy"(2012):

"my personal journey in and out of homeopathy might be convoluted. I always knew that the homeopathic principles fly in the face of science. Yet I did see positive results and thought maybe there was some fundamental phenomenon to discover. What I did discover was perhaps not fundamental but nevertheless important: patients can experience significant improvement from non-specific effects. This is why they get better after seeing a homeopath – but this has nothing to do with the homeopathic sugar pills."

and we're told:

"Dr. Edward Kondrot, founder of the Healing The Eye & Wellness Center, is the world's only board-certified ophthalmologist and board-certified homeopathic physician. He has recently been named clinic director of the Integrative Medicine Clinic at The American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix and is president of the Arizona Homeopathic and Integrative Medical Association."

good to know.

002. at AHIMA, we're told in "Homeopathic Medicine":

"it is holistic, scientifically based, safe, effective and less expensive than allopathic medicine."

I completely disagree.

Overall note: isn't it always the case, homeopathy picking an illness or bother that waxes and wains, that is hugely subjective in its quantification, and therein homeopathy prescreens its subjects and therein hugely biases its outcomes.  It's amazing how the so-called 'whole (/ whol- or hol- istic)' view is so, ironically, narrow-minded in terms of EVIDENCE and scientific preponderance.
Post a Comment