10 ms·

>The next time somebody tells you that homeopathy is harmless you can tell them that it killed one of the greatest mathematical minds of the nineteenth century

by jere 14y ago

>The next time somebody tells you that homeopathy is harmless you can tell them that it killed one of the greatest mathematical minds of the nineteenth century on whose algebraic logic both the soft- and the hardware of your computer function. Interesting, but as practiced homeopathy today is harmless (ignoring opportunity cost). It's basically the equivalent of drinking tap water.

ColinWright 14y ago
Yes, but there are now more accounts being unearthed of people foregoing or declining conventional treatments because they have become convinced that homeopathy will cure them. Promoting homeopathy, if successful, can result in more deaths.
- yason 14y ago
  That's stepping on the jurisdiction of those people over themselves. Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that. They might die but it's their death, not other people's.
  - pathy 14y ago
    Except if parents refuse to allow proper treatment for their children because of religious or other beliefs, such as being in favour of "natural remedies" rather than lifesaving medicines.
  - danso 14y ago
    Excerpt that if such people live in a modern society, society bears the cost of such malpractice. And so it behooves other members of that society to at least argue against ineffective practices.
  - Joeri 14y ago
    That reasoning would lead you to conclude seatbelts should be optional. Fundamentally, the reasoning goes like this: (a) you have an obligation to protect friends and family from their own bad decisions, and (b) there's no fundamental difference between a friend and a stranger, hence (c) some things should be enforced by law for the good of everyone.
    - yason 14y ago
      Now that I think about it, basically they should be optional. One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the first place. However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use seatbelts—which is most people. Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they are not optional. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you feel obliged to protect everyone. Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly ok to inform the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the end everyone is sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that." No one should be entitled to sell snake oil and quackery.
- Mz 14y ago
  Prescription drugs kill lots of people too. No one ever cites that as reason to skip seeing a doctor. Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc. But when an alternative treatment is used and death occurs, it is used to smear all alternative treatments. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of such things.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > "Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when an automotive mechanic fails to fix a car, the failure gets blamed on a malfunction or on the owner not driving their car correctly, etc, But when an automotive witch-doctor blesses your car and a failure occurs, it is used to smear all automotive-blessings. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of automotive witchdoctors." There is no evidence that blessing your car will prevent it from breaking down. Therefore when you car does break down after a blessing, that can be nothing but evidence that blessing a car does nothing. On the other hand there is an abundance of evidence stating that automotive mechanics can diagnose and treat faulty cars, so when an automotive mechanic fails to do that it of course means any number of things could have gone wrong. We only see your "bias" in situations where there was no evidence to support the treatment in the first place. It's not a bias, it is just common sense.
    - Mz 14y ago
      Funny you should say that. It reminds me that I want to write a piece titled "Your body is not a car". Unlike a car, a body can repair itself. If you get a minor cut, it closes on its own, without repair by a doctor. Not so with a car. Scratch the paint, the scratch is permanent -- unless you repair it. There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
      - niyazpk 14y ago
        Any place where interested readers can learn more about your proposed alternatives? Your arguments here makes it feel like there is a prerequisite of knowing your (comment?) history to understand what you really mean.
monochromatic 14y ago
Eschewing real medicine because of your belief that tap water will cure your illness is harmful. I guess that's what you meant by "opportunity cost" though.
- jere 14y ago
  Yes, it is.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
It can be a hell of an opportunity cost. For example this case: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman... http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1443763-Homeopath-being-sued-over-death-of-Australian-cancer-victim http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1443763-Homeopath-b... And this case: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-to-stop-cancer-treatment-found-safe-8389606.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-t... and this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074
- VMG 14y ago
  Full reference at http://whatstheharm.net/index.html http://whatstheharm.net/index.html
rotskoff 14y ago
Steve Jobs?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 14y ago
> (ignoring opportunity cost) Opportunity cost when having cancer could mean dying from cancer while drinking sugar water. Yes placibo effect and all, but that's rather high cost if you ask me.
mikeash 14y ago
Saying that homeopathy is harmless if you ignore the opportunity cost is like saying that guns are harmless if you ignore all the damage the bullet does when it hits your body. Both are true statements that are also completely useless.

by jere 14y ago

ColinWright 14y ago

Yes, but there are now more accounts being unearthed of people foregoing or declining conventional treatments because they have become convinced that homeopathy will cure them. Promoting homeopathy, if successful, can result in more deaths.

yason 14y ago
That's stepping on the jurisdiction of those people over themselves. Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that. They might die but it's their death, not other people's.
- pathy 14y ago
  Except if parents refuse to allow proper treatment for their children because of religious or other beliefs, such as being in favour of "natural remedies" rather than lifesaving medicines.
- danso 14y ago
  Excerpt that if such people live in a modern society, society bears the cost of such malpractice. And so it behooves other members of that society to at least argue against ineffective practices.
- Joeri 14y ago
  That reasoning would lead you to conclude seatbelts should be optional. Fundamentally, the reasoning goes like this: (a) you have an obligation to protect friends and family from their own bad decisions, and (b) there's no fundamental difference between a friend and a stranger, hence (c) some things should be enforced by law for the good of everyone.
  - yason 14y ago
    Now that I think about it, basically they should be optional. One reason their use could be mandatory is that in a crash the occupants might fly out of the car and kill other people if they're not using seatbelts. But I'm not sure how relevant point that would be given that the people are allowed to drive a two-tonne killing machine with very little training in the first place. However, if we do not consider bystanders, I don't see a problem making use of seatbelts optional. It doesn't hurt to mandate that all cars must be equipped with seatbelts for the benefit of availability for everyone who wants to use seatbelts—which is most people. Seatbelts do save lives but, again, it's not a criminal offense to commit suicide and fail. So, to think, actually, I find it quite disturbing that they are not optional. I hadn't thought about it before. It's an inevitable slippery slope in that you can't really draw the line anywhere as long as you feel obliged to protect everyone. Could citizens be forced to eat a certain diet to make them not die of obesity, diabetes and cardiac/circulation problems too early? It's certainly ok to inform the citizens of healthier diets, so that everyone can make their own choices with the best information available. But I argue that in the end everyone is sovereign when it comes to their own life and body.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to and live by that." No one should be entitled to sell snake oil and quackery.
Mz 14y ago
Prescription drugs kill lots of people too. No one ever cites that as reason to skip seeing a doctor. Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when doctor's kill someone, the death gets blamed on a disease or on the patient not taking the medication correctly, etc. But when an alternative treatment is used and death occurs, it is used to smear all alternative treatments. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of such things.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > "Not to dismiss your valid concern, the problem is that when an automotive mechanic fails to fix a car, the failure gets blamed on a malfunction or on the owner not driving their car correctly, etc, But when an automotive witch-doctor blesses your car and a failure occurs, it is used to smear all automotive-blessings. The climate is already biased against meaningful discussion of automotive witchdoctors." There is no evidence that blessing your car will prevent it from breaking down. Therefore when you car does break down after a blessing, that can be nothing but evidence that blessing a car does nothing. On the other hand there is an abundance of evidence stating that automotive mechanics can diagnose and treat faulty cars, so when an automotive mechanic fails to do that it of course means any number of things could have gone wrong. We only see your "bias" in situations where there was no evidence to support the treatment in the first place. It's not a bias, it is just common sense.
  - Mz 14y ago
    Funny you should say that. It reminds me that I want to write a piece titled "Your body is not a car". Unlike a car, a body can repair itself. If you get a minor cut, it closes on its own, without repair by a doctor. Not so with a car. Scratch the paint, the scratch is permanent -- unless you repair it. There are better means to support the body's own repair system than nuking it with toxic chemicals. Attempts to discuss that tend to get dismissed as quackery. I posit you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    - niyazpk 14y ago
      Any place where interested readers can learn more about your proposed alternatives? Your arguments here makes it feel like there is a prerequisite of knowing your (comment?) history to understand what you really mean.

monochromatic 14y ago

Eschewing real medicine because of your belief that tap water will cure your illness is harmful. I guess that's what you meant by "opportunity cost" though.

jere 14y ago
Yes, it is.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

It can be a hell of an opportunity cost. For example this case: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman... http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1443763-Homeopath-being-sued-over-death-of-Australian-cancer-victim http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1443763-Homeopath-b... And this case: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-to-stop-cancer-treatment-found-safe-8389606.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/son-taken-away-by-mother-t... and this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12153074

VMG 14y ago
Full reference at http://whatstheharm.net/index.html http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

rotskoff 14y ago

Steve Jobs?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 14y ago

> (ignoring opportunity cost) Opportunity cost when having cancer could mean dying from cancer while drinking sugar water. Yes placibo effect and all, but that's rather high cost if you ask me.

mikeash 14y ago

Saying that homeopathy is harmless if you ignore the opportunity cost is like saying that guns are harmless if you ignore all the damage the bullet does when it hits your body. Both are true statements that are also completely useless.