In defence of the principle of "cure"

Learned readers may kindly read a rant by a Nobel laureate about Homoeopathy here.

We don't know what right a chemist has in commenting about issues which are way beyond his arrogant grasp. We wish to bring the following to the notice of the scientist.
1. Many times in medicine, it is not enough for a thing to be "scientifically" sound. This is because the large majority of people in the world don't care about "science". Even if the scientists look down upon the placebo effect, it is a very important factor in curing a vast majority. We are our minds. We are not machines. Please read Gemma Burford defending the right of people to the placebo effect here.
2. For all the arrogance of science, the scientists don't have "cures" for common illnesses which have been developed from first principles. When an allopath gives one paracetamol for cold, he isn't doing so thinking that the front side of the paracetamol molecule will hit the face of the cold virus and break its nose. To this extent, even the allopaths are engineers in their approach and not "scientists".
3. The question as to whether homoeopathy is scientific is ill posed. The question should not be whether a medicine system is "scientific". The question should be whether a medicine system is of use. If you ask this question, homoeopathy is of use because many do derive benefit.
4. About conclusion 3, both sides, scientists and homoeopaths will have problems.
Scientists will pounce upon 3 by saying: "so do we allow all sorts of 'quackery' in the name of medicine?
For this the answer will be: as long as the treatment giver and treatment receiver aren't harming anyone, nobody has a right to question the transaction.
Homoeopaths will pounce on the above by saying "O! You are implying that we are not scientific". For them we can say:
As long as you are beneficial to someone, you needn't prove to anyone that your approach is scientific.
5. Many homeopaths are extremely good psychiatrists. May be that this is the reason the patients are benefited. Do we deny the patient this benefit just because it doesn't pass muster of a medical journal?
6. Over and above all this, the arrogant scientist doesn't point out the choke hold of big pharma on the allopathic medicine, he doesn't care about healthcare being made unaffordable to large number of people. But he will attack the humble homeopaths because if he attacks big pharma, his funding will dry up.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

वन्दे वन्दारुमन्दारमिन्दुभूषणनन्दनम् ।

The Hindu view of food and drink - a critique