Showing posts with label cultic medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultic medicine. Show all posts

Monday, December 13, 2010

The Quackometer on Homeopathy: "Cult-Like" [and Parallels to Naturopathy]

here, I cite from a recent post at The Quackometer regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I suggest some similarities homeopathy has to naturopathy [see 002., below]; and I provide a specific example [see 003., below]:

001. Andy Lewis writes in "Escaping the Cult of Homeopathy" (2010-12-13):

"I would not be the first to suggest that believers in alternative medicine often display the traits of members of cults [...and] of all alternative medicines homeopathy, to me, looks the most cult-like [...e.g.] it defines itself in opposition to what it calls 'allopathy' and in doing so creates a straw man of what medicine is today [...] homeopathy is so strictly defined by its opposition to modern mainstream medicine that it will always lie at the fringes in a pseudoscientific bubble [...] it must attack and denounce alternatives – such as scientific medicine – without any form of compromise [...] the cult model explains why virtually no homeopaths have condemned the murderous practice of using sugar pills to treat fatal diseases like HIV and malaria [...this] thinking of the cult [...this] cult-like dark side of homeopathy [...this] pseudo-medical and superstitious cult [...homeopathy apostate] Wendy describes life inside the cult of homeopathy [...] Wendy talks about how the training for homeopaths is vital for creating the cult-like mentality [...] questioning was highly discouraged [...] 'my critical abilities were silenced within the first year – not by others – but because it would be considered judgmental in that society [...] I now see homeopathy as the diseaseI think it is a form of madness' [...]  Wendy has found the current sceptical blogging about homeopathy on the internet a useful tool in 'de-programming' and re-engaging with a critical approach to examining the claims of homeopathy."

Note: there are many parallels between homeopathy and naturopathy.  And I have, under oath, labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness", I must admit.

002. parallels:

It is a fact that: 

a) ND web pages often have a "FAQs" section rhetorically posing the question 'what is the difference between homeopathy and naturopathy?'

b) naturopathy labels modern medicine 'allopathy';

c) both homeopathy and naturopathy are based on science-ejected archaic / medieval ideas such as vitalism.

003. for example,  Lee, T.S. (ND Bastyr 1986) states in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-12-13]:

"what is the difference between a naturopath and a homeopath? [...] homeopaths use only the homeopathic approach, whereas naturopaths train in several forms of diagnosis and treatment, one of which is homeopathy [...which] stimulates the patient's vital force to help resolve the disease [...paralleling] the philosophy of naturopathic medicine: living things have an innate ability to heal themselves [coded vitalism].  Our vital force promotes self-cleansing, self-repair, and therefore self-healing [...] naturopathic treatments [...and] techniques and methods have long been respected throughout the world.  While modern allopathic medicine is a youngster of less than 200 years old, natural medicine has been the primary medicine used by most of the human community even into the 21st Century."

Note: this result came about by using google.com and web-searching >"what is the difference" homeopathy naturopathy<.  It was the second result.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Here's to the Late Martin Gardner And His Criticism of the Cult of Naturopathy c1957

here, I go back to THE scientific skepticism wellhead -- my 1957 copy of Martin Gardner's “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” (ISBN 0486203948) which Wikipedia describes as “a classic in the literature of entertaining scientific skepticism [...and] perhaps the first modern book of scientific skepticism of pseudoscience" -- and partly quote from what it says about naturopathy:

“Chapter 16 – Medical Cults. In no other field have pseudoscientists flourished as prominently as in the field of medicine. It is not hard to understand why. In the first place, a medical quack – if he presents an impressive facade - can usually make a great deal of money. In the second place, if he is sincere, or partly sincere, the healing successes he is almost sure to achieve will greatly bolster his delusions. In some cases, of course, the doctor is an out-and-out charlatan [..] there are two great secrets of the quack’s success. One is the fact that many human ills, including some of the severest, will run their course and vanish without treatment of any sort [p.186...] the other [...is] due to the fact that many of life’s ills are wholly or in part psychosomatic […] in this chapter we shall glance at four outstanding medical cults, all of them founded by pseudoscientists, which have won many millions of disciples in the United States […] the first medical cult of any importance in America -- homeopathy -- had its origin in the mind of a German doctor, Samuel Christian Hahnemann. He published his great opus, The Organon, in 1810 [p.187...] Hahnemann believed that as the drug became less 'material' it gained 'spiritual' curative powers [p.188...] the homeopathic error was to take both these limited truths, exaggerate them to the point of absurdity, and apply them universally to all medicines […] 'allopathy' [is] a homeopathic term, now obsolete, for orthodox medicine […] the cult spread rapidly over Europe in the 1820’s, reached England and America in the 1840’s, and came to its pinnacle of success about 1880 in the United States [p.189...] naturopathy, like homeopathy, is a world-wide medical cult which had its origin in Europe. Unlike homeopathy, however, it has no single founder […] in essence, it is a complete reliance on 'nature' for healing […] hundreds of strange methods of therapy clustered about the movement, so it is not easy to say exactly what the tenets of naturopathy are [p.191...] hundreds of schools calling themselves naturopathic sprang up here and there in the early years of the century. They were as frowsy as could be imagined […] there was little unity of beliefs behind these schools [p.192...it includes] iridiagnosis is the diagnosis of ills from the appearance of the iris of the eye […] anyone who thinks no medical movement could be more insane than iridiagnosis, is much mistaken [p.193...] shrewder schools of naturopathy have abandoned indiagnosis [p.195]."

Note: one big thing that has change regarding naturopathy is that naturopathy codified their tenets and belief-set in the late 1980s.  That set of nonsense, insanity, and absurdity can be best found as sponsored by the State of Oregon.

002. for Gardner's Wikipedia page, click here.