Jeanette Winterson defends homeopathy

Thing

...now with added haecceity!
Thing
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
510
Jeanette Winterson, so-so author who never met a woo idea she didn't like (she used Tarot to choose which house to buy, I seem to remember) is paid by the Gaurdian to write a long, rambling, self important article defending homeopathy and gives the fee to the Maun homeopathy project, a clinic in Botswana.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2209998,00.html

Typical quote:
Objections to homeopathy begin with what are viewed as the impossible dilutions of the remedies, so that only nano amounts of the original active substance remain, and in some cases are only an imprint, or memory. Yet our recent discoveries in the world of the very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nano-quantities. Thundering around in our Gulliver world, we were first shocked to find that splitting the atom allowed inconceivable amounts of energy to be released. Now, we are discovering that the properties of materials change as their size reaches the nano-scale. Bulk material should have constant physical properties, regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is not the case. In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change.
Click to expand...
She also boasts that she reads 'New Scientist' every week.
 
Last edited:
Thing said:
Jeanette Winterson, so-so author who never met a woo idea she didn't like (she used Tarot to choose which house to buy, I seem to remember) is paid by the Gaurdian to write a long, rambling, self important article defending homeopathy and gives the fee to the Maun homeopathy project, a clinic in Botswana.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2209998,00.html
Click to expand...

Hey, Oranges are Not the Only Fruit was a great book! As to the rest, this is why I don't take medical advice from authors.


Thing said:
She also boasts that she reads 'New Scientist' every week.
Click to expand...

She boasts that she 'takes' New Scientist every week. From what she's written, I'm not so sure about reading it ;).
 
Last edited:
She also sees herself as trying to prevent a new "Dark Ages". Here's an excerpt from an interview published in the Bookseller 17th August 2007, p.19:
I think of myself as a little scribe in the great abbeys of Cluny or Fontainbleu during the Dark Ages, desperately trying to hold onto something to pass on to another generation – I do! Because I think there is a bit of a Dark Ages in some ways, and I do think things need protecting and valuing.
Click to expand...


I'm not convinced that she's part of the solution.

Here's another newspaper article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/complementary_medicine/article1160470.ece
 
Last edited:
Thing said:
Jeanette Winterson, so-so author who never met a woo idea she didn't like (she used Tarot to choose which house to buy, I seem to remember) is paid by the Gaurdian to write a long, rambling, self important article defending homeopathy and gives the fee to the Maun homeopathy project, a clinic in Botswana.

-snip-

She also boasts that she reads 'New Scientist' every week.
Click to expand...


According to Dana Ullman (MPH) she’s one of the literary greats...
http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/pages/table_of_contents.jsp

He puts her right up there with Yeats, Tennyson, Dickens, and Barbara Cartland.
 
Last edited:
This seems to be partly why tests used for conventional medicines fail when used to test homeopathy. Sceptics will say it is the medicines that fail, and not the trials, but if the medicines really are ineffective, why is it that so many people who have tried homeopathy have found that it makes a difference to their wellbeing?
Click to expand...

Yes that's right, it's the tests that are broken, and the more people that believe something the truer it gets, absolutely spot on there. :rolleyes:
 
After taking one homeopathy tablet before going to bed,I fell into a particularly deep sleep and awoke to find my weeks long illness gone. Coincidence? placebo? Maybe - I didn't care, I was just glad to be well again.

My family were impressed and when my mum became ill she visited the same Homeopath and had a positive experience as well.

The Doctors had failed both myself and my mum - not his fault, he just didn't have anything that worked for us.

Would I use Homeopathy again? Sure, if the Doctor can't help.

But it doesn't work?

Well, I'll give it a go, anyway. It's my time and money.

It makes no sense?

I agree.
 
woowoowoo said:
It makes no sense?
I agree.
Click to expand...

I assume by "sick" you don't mean appendicitis or something that average, healthy adults won't simply get over in the normal course of things. Please make sure you seperate those categories and only take homeopathic meds for things like a cold or sore throat. You'll save your loved ones a traumatic trip to the ER. Also I beg you not to have or treat any children for illnesses.
 
Mashuna said:
Hey, Oranges are Not the Only Fruit was a great book!
Click to expand...
I found the TV adaptation to be very entertaining, it told an interesting story well, but the book I feel contains a lot of extraneous fluff which they were wise to cut out.

Anyway, couldn't she do more for the world by funding that elusive successful test of homeopathy that finally causes it to be accepted by the mainstream?
 
Cuddles said:
Nano? Wow, she really has no clue what she is talking about.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly. Every day I measure concentrations in biological fluids down to the nmol/l range. Some analytes even go down as far as pmol/l. (One thousandth of a nanomole.) Nothing unusual about it, and plenty biologically active. Whether taking a dose of a fraction of an ml of a solution in the nmol/l bracket would do anything is another story of course, but I doubt if she's thought so far.

Scientifically illiterate.

Pity she didn't mention Rao and Roy, really.

Rolfe.
 
Mashuna said:
She boasts that she 'takes' New Scientist every week. From what she's written, I'm not so sure about reading it.
Click to expand...

Obviously, she took a page from one issue, succussed it with water to make a mother tincture, then diluted it down to C30, and she takes some of -that- every week.
 
woowoowoo said:
After taking one homeopathy tablet before going to bed,I fell into a particularly deep sleep and awoke to find my weeks long illness gone. Coincidence? placebo? Maybe - I didn't care, I was just glad to be well again.

My family were impressed and when my mum became ill she visited the same Homeopath and had a positive experience as well.

The Doctors had failed both myself and my mum - not his fault, he just didn't have anything that worked for us.

Would I use Homeopathy again? Sure, if the Doctor can't help.

But it doesn't work?

Well, I'll give it a go, anyway. It's my time and money.

It makes no sense?

I agree.
Click to expand...

Your post is actually quite refreshing. You admit there's no evidence, that you don't know or care about efficacy - you've read criticisms but would rather ignore them because you just want to feel better. If all the woos just admitted that, we'd leave them alone! But no, they have to find pseudo-scientific justifications for their BS that draw more people in who might otherwise realise it's all a load of bollocks. Ignoring the criticisms and then making stuff up and flogging (or advocating) it to people, especially in lieu of proper treatments, is what we object to.
 
Part of her typical quote.

"In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change."

That's actually a brilliant pile of rubbish. I'm surprised that the makers of that bunk like "Head-On" and others don't actually try that whole line of Marketing.

"It works because the active ingredients are so small they can actually pass through cell walls and cause biochemical change."

The idiots would think, "that makes sense."
 
Last edited:
Big Les said:
Your post is actually quite refreshing. You admit there's no evidence, that you don't know or care about efficacy - you've read criticisms but would rather ignore them because you just want to feel better. If all the woos just admitted that, we'd leave them alone! But no, they have to find pseudo-scientific justifications for their BS that draw more people in who might otherwise realise it's all a load of bollocks. Ignoring the criticisms and then making stuff up and flogging (or advocating) it to people, especially in lieu of proper treatments, is what we object to.
Click to expand...

I was once prescribed homeopathic treatmment by my doctor, who is a wise and brilliant man. (for shingles, which is something you never want to get). It worked completely - 2 days later and it was gone.

What does this mean?
 
Liszt said:
I was once prescribed homeopathic treatmment by my doctor, who is a wise and brilliant man. (for shingles, which is something you never want to get). It worked completely - 2 days later and it was gone.

What does this mean?
Click to expand...

What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. I too have suffered from shingles, I sympathise, it's not nice. The last time I had shingles, I took nothing, within a week it was gone.

It is self limiting (i.e. the visible symptoms go away), had it perhaps just run its course?

(I know that shingles never actually goes away, but the symptoms do.)

Just because something appears to work, doesn't mean that it does.
 
Nero said:
What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. I too have suffered from shingles, I sympathise, it's not nice. The last time I had shingles, I took nothing, within a week it was gone.

It is self limiting (i.e. the visible symptoms go away), had it perhaps just run its course?

(I know that shingles never actually goes away, but the symptoms do.)

Just because something appears to work, doesn't mean that it does.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. But I was wondering what was going on in my doctors mind. Did he just prescribe a placebo? I have seen him about 6 times, and he only used homeopathic treatment once.

(yes, I had the symptoms for a week - took the med after 5 days, gone 2 days later)
 
Calcas said:
Part of her typical quote.

"In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change."

That's actually a brilliant pile of rubbish. I'm surprised that the makers of that bunk like "Head-On" and others don't actually try that whole line of Marketing.

"It works because the active ingredients are so small they can actually pass through cell walls and cause biochemical change."

The idiots would think, "that makes sense."
Click to expand...

Well yes. The statment is completely true as long as you consider say an amino acid to be a nano particle.
 
Nero said:
You'll have to ask your Doctor that one, else we'll just be supposing.

I bit like Homeopaths I guess.
Click to expand...

"10 years ago, you prescribed..." etc. He wouldn't go for it! He'd probably call security or something.

oh well. let's hope i get another attck, so I can not take aything and see what happens.:)
 
Sigh. We hear this time and time again. If the half of it was really as it was told, we wouldn't need controlled trials to convince reasonable people that there was an effect there, it would be self-evident, right up there with logs float and bricks fall downwards.

The fact is that very few people run around telling everybody about how they tried homoeopathy, and nothing happened. Like me. I was taken to a homoeopath for acne when I was about 14. Nothing happened. Does that prove homoeopathy doesn't work? Of course not. But the success stories, even cherry-picked and collected together as the homoeopaths like to do, prove nothing either.

What homoeopathy simply has to prove is that on average, homoeopathy is better than doing nothing. (Controlled of course for the effect of the therapeutic consultation, also known as the Hawthorne effect, where people tend to report feeling better just because they have had attention paid to them, not because of anything that was done.)

Every time anyone makes a reasonable fist of demonstrating that, this self-evident effect, this positive miracle cure, shyly retreats to the borders of statistical significance.

I do wonder why.

Rolfe.
 
Calcas said:
Part of her typical quote.

"In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change."

That's actually a brilliant pile of rubbish.
Click to expand...


Well she does say (from the Bookseller interview quoted above):
People are afraid of talking gibberish, afraid of writing things down which frighten them by their meaninglessness. Sometimes you have to do that.
Click to expand...




I guess the "cell walls" bit would explain why homoeopathy works on vegetables.
 
Having read the article on Tuesday I immediately wrote an e-mail and fired it off to the letters page of the guardian and to Jeanette Winterson's agent asking them to forward it on. This was the e-mail.

"Having just read your article on Homeopathy in today's guardian, I would like to propose something. Could we arrange a meeting where you would attend having first procured a bottle of Homeopathic sleeping pills. I will then proceed to take the entire bottle and spend the next 5 hours, fully awake and explaining why your article and your understanding of Homeopathy and the scientific method is so inherently flawed.

Can I also presume you support other "alternative" therapies such as Reiki, Crystal healing and psychic surgery? After all, they all have testimonies of millions of people who claim the remedies work for them. They also share a very important characteristics with Homeopathy. Whenever they have undergone double blind clinical trial, they have all failed miserably. It's no good scratching your head trying to work out HOW homeopathy works, when all tests show that it doesn't work at all. It's a bit like spending your time trying to work out if Santa Claus could fit down chimney's without actually finding any evidence to suggest he IS going down them. Do the tests again and again, and if ever they produce a positive result, then come back and the scientific community will take notice and look into why the particular reaction is occurring. It is called "alternative medicine" for a reason; it doesn't work. If it did work, it would just be called "medicine."

So, I'll state my suggestion again. I will take an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping tablets and somehow manage to stave off the sleep inducing effects of a pure water induced by the magic "homeopathic remedy." And I would also suggest that you start promoting every other form of healing to which people testify it worked."

I shall keep checking my inbox for a response, but I won't hold my breath.

Regards

CB
 
Last edited:
Now that's actually rather good (if you overlook the greengrocer's apostrophe!).

Shouting about the sleeping pill demonstration to actual homoeopaths usually accomplishes nothing, because they will reply
A. That the pills do not make one drowsy, they cure insomnia. If one is suffering from insomnia, they will help, but they will do nothing to someone who isn't. (I don't remember being told why they won't cause proving symptoms....)
B. That a dose is a dose is a dose. The whole bottle or one pill, it's all the same. So it's not like scarfing 28 Temazepam in a sitting, not at all.

However, posed to a muddle-head like that woman, who is probably not versed in the subtle art of homoeopathic excuse-generating, it might actually cause a small pause for reflection.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Shouting about the sleeping pill demonstration to actual homoeopaths usually accomplishes nothing, because they will reply
A. That the pills do not make one drowsy, they cure insomnia. If one is suffering from insomnia, they will help, but they will do nothing to someone who isn't. (I don't remember being told why they won't cause proving symptoms....)
B. That a dose is a dose is a dose. The whole bottle or one pill, it's all the same. So it's not like scarfing 28 Temazepam in a sitting, not at all.

However, posed to a muddle-head like that woman, who is probably not versed in the subtle art of homoeopathic excuse-generating, it might actually cause a small pause for reflection.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, she's got a personal homeopath who'll whisk up a dose of no snake venom at the drop of a hat and must be on a decent retainer (she mentions on her slightly terrifying website that she believes in paying her staff well 'cos she's working class), I'm sure he/she keeps her well briefed.
 
An update.

Denis MacEoin…

He has been married to homoeopath and health writer Beth MacEoin since 1975. Beth is the author of around 20 books on natural health, including the NMS book, Natural Medicine: A practical guide to family Health, which was published by Bloomsbury at the end of 1999, and "Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century" (Kyle Cathie, 2006).

An advocate of alternative medicine since the 1960s, he has in more recent years taken a serious interest in the sociology and politics of medicine, and in the relations between CAM and conventional therapy. He regularly lectures to medical students on these topics. For many years, until its demise in 2003, he was chairman, then president of the Natural Medicines Society, a UK charity for the general public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_MacEoin
Click to expand...


…attacks Ben Goldacre, but defends Jeanette Winterson in today’s Comments section of the Guardian:

There have been many attacks on homeopathy recently, but Ben Goldacre's is the least scientific of the lot.

Last week, novelist Jeanette Winterson published an intelligent and lucid account of why she believes homeopathy works.

Read on…
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_maceoin/2007/11/your_ignorance_is_showing.html
Click to expand...
 
Silly sod. What a total misrepresentation of Goldacre's writing.

Goldacre's article was laden with his usual sarcasm. In it, he paraded his superior knowledge and accused homeopaths of "killing patients" and being "morons".
Click to expand...

Did he only read the last two paragraphs or what? What he actually said;

When I’m feeling generous, I think: homeopathy could have value as placebo, on the NHS even, although there are ethical considerations, and these serious cultural side-effects to be addressed.

But when they’re suing people instead of arguing with them, telling people not to take their medical treatments, killing patients, running conferences on HIV fantasies, undermining the public’s understanding of evidence and, crucially, showing absolutely no sign of ever being able to engage in a sensible conversation about the perfectly simple ethical and cultural problems that their practice faces, I think: these people are just morons.
Click to expand...


So to say he called homoeopaths morons is, ironically enough, to suggest that all homoeopaths engage in the activities he listed, which he himself didn't do. It takes wilful misreading to claim otherwise. And as for sarcasm, Ben is as inclusive and open to discussion as anyone on the side of reason in this non-debate. A lot more so than I would be.
 
Blue Wode said:
An update.

Denis MacEoin…

…attacks Ben Goldacre, but defends Jeanette Winterson in today’s Comments section of the Guardian:
Click to expand...

Oh dear, what a bad article. MacEoin regurgitates this old argument:

There has never been a proper trial of homeopathy. There have been countless trials based on the methodology applied to orthodox medicines, as if homeopathy is a form of orthodox medicine. Some have been positive, most negative. This proves nothing, because what they have tested was never homeopathy in the first place.

In orthodox trials, all patients in the "real" group are given the same drug for the same length of time. Homeopaths do not work like that. For one condition, they may select one of a dozen or more remedies, chosen after long and detailed interviews. They see patients repeatedly over the course of months or years, refining and changing prescriptions, and watching a steady development that follows a strong internal logic. It is a long process. But this is how homeopathy works: mangling it for the chance to jump on the clinical trial bandwagon is not science. No scientist of repute carries out tests of A by running trials of B. All the vaunted meta-analyses that proclaim the ineffectiveness of homeopathy are scientifically illiterate, as Ben Goldacre seems to be in this instance.
Click to expand...

So all those clinical trials, many of them organised wholly or partly by homeopaths themselves, are a load of rubbish? The homeopaths haven't been able to do the right sort of trials? Has somebody been stopping them? Why doesn't Boiron organise a "proper" trial, dammit? They've got enough money. And it's so easy to do double-blind trials of homeopathy, since the only way to distinguish between different homeopathic remedies or placebos is to look at the label.
 
Denis MacEoin said:
hey see patients repeatedly over the course of months or years, refining and changing prescriptions, and watching a steady development that follows a strong internal logic. It is a long process.
Click to expand...
A perfect description of how homoeopaths continue trying out sugar pills until the illness has cured itself!
 
Amusingly enough, the commenter "BabaYaga", tries to claim that homoeopathy critics must be wrong about homoeopathy because they think they've seen through that as a hoax, yet they haven't seen through the US government's "hoax" of 9/11. This kind of logic is just breathtaking.

Homoeopathy supporter AND 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Priceless. Though just one responder, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom