More libel chill
In part 451 of an ongoing series on free speech – a new outrage, this time in the UK. The Society of Homeopaths has launched action against the Guardian newspaper for printing the following:
There are some aspects of quackery that are harmless – childish even – and there are some that are very serious indeed. On Tuesday, to my great delight, the author Jeanette Winterson launched a scientific defence of homeopathy in these pages. She used words such as “nano” meaninglessly, she suggested that there is a role for homeopathy in the treatment of HIV in Africa, and she said that an article in the Lancet today will call on doctors to tell their patients that homeopathic “medicines” offer no benefit.
[T]here is nothing even slightly technical or complicated about the evidence on homeopathy, or indeed anything, when it is clearly explained.
And there is the rub. Because Winterson tries to tell us – like every other homeopathy fan – that for some mystical reason, which is never made entirely clear, the healing powers of homeopathic pills are special, and so their benefits cannot be tested like every other pill. This has become so deeply embedded in our culture, by an industry eager to obscure our very understanding of evidence, that even some doctors now believe it.
Enough is enough. Evidence-based medicine is beautiful, elegant, clever and, most of all, important. It is how we know what will kill or cure you. These are biblical themes, and it is ridiculous that what I am going to explain to you now is not taught in schools. So let’s imagine that we are talking to a fan of homeopathy, one who is both intelligent and reflective. “Look,” they begin, “all I know is that I feel better when I take a homeopathic pill.” OK, you reply. We absolutely accept that. Nobody can take that away from the homeopathy fan.
If you’ve done any research, you’ll have seen that homeopathy is transparent rubbish. It was disproved in the 19th century, yet still it hobbles on. It is now officially covered by the taxpayer funded public health systems in France, the UK, and Denmark.
The Society of Homeopaths is launching the first part of their action with the British Press Complaints Commission – though surely they will make their way to the courts. Here’s why that’s likely:
Using a trick that the alternative practitioners often accuse Big Pharma of, the British Society of Homeopaths is becoming what they hate. Under British law, the plaintiff is easily favoured in the case of libel. This is something of a surprise considering the sheer amount of tabloid journalism that you see coming from the Isles.
So, the Society of Homeopaths used the laws available to them and threatened Canard’s ISP. It’s not unlike every time I’ve debated a homeopath supporter; eventually they run away promising to return with Conclusive Proof or with Daddy, to shut down the argument. The SoH would appear to BE the thugs and criminals that they see in Conventional Medicine and Big Pharma. I guess it’s a case of having to be a criminal in order to recognize one.
If these quacks do take the Guardian to the courts, they’ll surely win. Their kind always wins. Where does it stop? If you can’t even call ’shenanigans’ on a quack, then what good is free speech?
It’s all enough to make you suicidal. I’m not the only skeptic who’s had these dark thoughts. A few years back in protest of homepathy some of Belgium’s leading skeptics attempted mass homeopathic suicide:
they resigned themselves to committing mass suicide by drinking a lethal dose of terribly toxic and dangerous drugs: snake poison, Belladonna or deadly nightshade, arsenic, dog’s milk, petrol, and cockroach. Dog’s milk does not sound that dangerous, but try milking a pit bull. To assure immediate death, these powerful drugs were immensely dynamized: the daring skeptics selected the over-the-counter 30C homeopathic solutions (reimbursed by the health insurance, if prescribed by a certified quack). A dynamization of 30C means the poison is diluted 10 to the 60th times. That is a one followed by sixty zeros. The whole earth (estimated at 10 to the 50th molecules) is way too small to hold a single molecule in that dilution. That is, in homeopathic terms, an awfully powerful dilution. The immensely “dynamized” spirits of arsenic and snake poison (not to mention the pit bull milk) will rise from the liquid, and kill the skeptic on the spot. All important newspapers and TV stations were recruited to witness the terrible extermination of these dangerous minds…
Finally the time had come. The skeptics on death row solemnly queued to personally select their own toxin: “In Flander’s fields the skeppies glow, to take their poison, row on row.” In front of the assembled national press they filled their chalices and drained their drinks, fully expecting to meet their Maker (if He existed). The skeptics didn’t succeed in their suicide attempt, however. All of them survived. Those who had come by car had to wait before returning home, a bit dizzy from the alcohol on their empty stomachs. Indeed, homeopathy in alcohol at the liberal dose of a bottle a day might decrease your cardiovascular risk (but a good Bordeaux is still a lot cheaper and infinitely better).
Gosh, it’s all just so damned stupid. These quacks, these whiners – what I don’t get is why so often it seems that they’re winning. Look closely at the Guardian article I talked about at the start of this post – look up near the top of the article and you’ll see a libel note. Why is that even required?
