« | Home | »

Not Good for Much

Tags:

Good to hear that the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health has stopped its operations with immediate effect. Disappointing, though, that the reason is not because its founder has taken on board Oliver Wendell Holmes’s views on homeopathy – ‘a mingled mass of perverse ingenuity, of tinsel erudition, of imbecile credulity, and of artful misrepresentation, too often mingled in practice, if we may trust the authority of its founder, with heartless and shameful imposition’ – but because of a more mundane alleged deceit: two people have been arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering.

When Holmes wrote his essay in 1842 he believed that homeopathy would soon go the way of touching for the scrofula – another Royal Cure – and Bishop Berkeley’s Tar Water (‘good for so many things’). But in a new edition nearly 60 years later he had to admit that charlatanry and pseudo-therapeutics had not been defeated. ‘Homeopathy has proved lucrative, and so long as it continues to be so will surely exist – as surely as astrology, palmistry, and other methods of getting a living out of the weakness and credulity of mankind and womankind.’

Comments on “Not Good for Much”

  1. outofdate says:

    This is becoming too much of an ideological issue. Homeopathy is perhaps not the best example, but osteopathy is more of a grey area, and Chinese medicine, though underpinned by what to us sounds like flagrant gobbledegook, demonstrably works. But if you suggest there may be something to it we don’t yet understand by the parameters we just made up, you’re now somehow not just anti-science but anti-progress altogether, and the Richard Dawkins fraternity, and with it all decent, right-thinking people, come down on you like a ton of bricks. The New Yorker only a couple of months ago furiously denounced anyone who wouldn’t get a jab for swine flu, saying they are THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE who question Obama’s birth certificate, i.e. loony Christian rightwingers, and so the lines are drawn…

    The truth, I’m trying to say, is that ‘imbecile credulity’ is a broad church, and while every profession is crawling with opportunists, charlatans and plain morons, science seems to me to have more than its fair share.

  2. loxhore says:

    Placebos work! Especially if people believe they will!

  3. tjhb says:

    Holmes’ “of mankind and womankind” is a bit interesting. Didactically it looks like a mistake, since how could men and women be of a different kind in this strict sense?

    But more interesting is that, in 1901(?), he should be driven to supplement the first category with the second. Or is it just a wink, that women are naturally more susceptible to spurious claims than are men?

  4. Lancaster says:

    It is simple to knock Homoeopathy just join the pharmaceutical industry critics and shout loudly. Bias is often predjudice but when you look into something properly and ignore some of the dust arond placebos (it works for animals and they dont know about placebos) and reject the drug industrys shilling you will find a repertory by Kent and a materia Medica by Boericke and literally hundreds of books on the subject by Doctors and serious scientists – then it is not what you were told. Thousands of people benefit every year and yet journalistic yap still tries to discredit it.Think about it, a bent accountant does not discredit it – thats a superficial view.

    • Thomas Jones says:

      Hugh Pennington isn’t a journalist: he’s a serious scientist (emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen). Homeopathy isn’t serious science.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement