I like the "move around some chairs" Titanic reference.
I just... don't see a parent having this kind of reaction and then filming it? Something about this makes me think it's some kind of viral video.
Because Jezebel would sooner burn up in a raging inferno of spite and self-righteousness than admit it did anything wrong.
I disagree vehemently. I think that the anti-scientific snake-oil peddlers depend on wedge issues like these to get their foot in the door and gain an equal footing as proven medicine in the public consciousness and circumvent the checks and balances put in place by medical research. If the public learns to equate homeopathy with other kinds of medical treatment, then the public will accept other types of homeopathic treatments. And going easy on these small-potatoes issues plays right into the charlatans' hands.
This has gone on for way too long, but the responses to this piece were first motivated by a desire to explain that home remedies and natural remedies are not the same thing as homeopathy, and that homeopathy means a specific thing, and that thing is a dumb anti-scientific scam. Then hell broke loose. I promise you, I never meant for or wanted this to turn into the shitstorm that it did.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] That's an article mentioned in the Times blog about topical treatment.
So is this: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
There are some specific studies that contradict the efficacy of particular concentrations of homeopathic arnica, such as this one: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
The problem is there are any number of alt-medicine friendly journals that happily publish articles that claim to support the efficacy of homeopathic arnica. At some point, you have to decide who you trust, and sometimes that even comes down to deciding between different scientists. Me, I choose to believe the ones that reject the theory that diluting a compound so much that its active ingredients totally disappears and that this theory works by a complicated "memory of water molecules" subtheory that has no basis in known physics. Those folks seem credible to me. By all means, come to your own conclusions, but I urge you to learn what it is you're judging, what makes for quality evidence, and who makes for a credible spokesperson for science. I have a whole host of merits I could cite, but in the end I'm just some random person on the internet, but please, please critically evaluate the source of your information.
Hahahaha. Of course it is. Of course it fucking is.
There are exactly two comments where the same commenter, bombastinator, apparently confused the gender of Cassie. That's it. That's hardly "most of the detractors here."
What are you talking about? I didn't see a single instance of anyone mistaking the gender of the author. As far as I know, Cassie identifies as female, and every comment I've seen refers to her as such. Most just refer to either "Cassie" or "the author."
And subjectivity ensures that your opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's, regardless of available evidence. Thinking something makes it true and immune to criticism!
Bah, you edited after I typed. Keep using the topical stuff! No one is criticizing arnica montana as a potentially effective treatment, and no one is criticizing you for using it. No one is even necessarily criticizing your judgment of the evidence. When you get down to it, we're judging two things: 1.) The company that makes and profits off of the sham that is homeopathy by tricking people into thinking it's the same as efficacious medical treatment (i.e., your topical arnica gel); and 2.) The uninformed defense of this company and the practice of homeopathy, because it's a dangerous practice that ultimately hurts people and slows the progress of medical research.
Yeah, that's ignorance on the author's part. If you go to the pubmed articles, they're exclusively talking about topical application.
The article you reference talks about non-homeopathic treatments of arnica. No one here is saying arnica does nothing; we're saying homeopathic arnica does nothing. Because for all intents and purposes, it IS nothing.
Rackles, what she means is they don't actually want to hear you at all. It's too much work to be accurate, so fuck it. #weheardyouthefirsttime
Do whatever you want, but if you say dangerous bullshit in a public forum, expect that people will call out your dangerous bullshit in a public forum. And again, this isn't about arnica. There's more at stake.
But this isn't a subjective critique of an eyeliner or shampoo, this is medicine! This is the purview of science! Scientists can study active ingredients in things and do blinded validation studies and offer up tangible evidence for efficacy beyond "this worked for me." And that is awesome and wonderful and very very very very often life-saving in cases that are more pertinent than this pain reliever. But the point is, these relatively inconsequential things are the foot in the door for non-scientifically valid "medicines" to acquire the same status as actual medicine in the public's mind, and that is dangerous.
Real medicine has its share of issues, too. Lord knows the pharma industry is a mess and imperfect as hell, but the truth will eventually come out with more studies. Science corrects itself. This bullshit asks to be elevated to the threshold of medicine without doing any of the work to get there. Again, with this particular item in this particular article? Inconsequential. But the philosophy behind this product is dangerous and ought to be called out.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT ABOUT EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.
The point is that subjective validation and inductive reasoning are a piss-poor and dangerous standard for public health advocacy!!!
There's a reason skeptics so virulently decry this -- being nice about it simply doesn't work. The charlatans will continue to cheat people out of their money, and it's not all as benign as a pain cream. These very same quacks will promote cancer "cures" that do absolutely fuck-all except drain the poor family's bank account and prolong the time before they start actual, medically-proven treatments. Listen, if this were really just about a dumb cream that doesn't do anything, no one would care, but there's much, much more at stake if we let psuedoscience off with a pat on the rear and a smile.
I wish I could afford monthly donations. For now, I do what I can.
He's an interesting case. Fairly socially liberal, more moderate than anything. He's been known to be philanthropic for good causes and generally is one of the good ones, I think.
You wanna know the rest? Hey, buy the rights.
How Bazaar. (doot-doo-doo doot-doo-doo)
