What do you know about Mark Twain? That he was a famous humorist? That he wrote Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn? Maybe you know he questioned many conventions like organized religion. What you may not know is that he was an enthusiastic proponent of “alternative medicine” long before the term was coined.
Mark Twain, the pen name of Samuel Clemens, was born in 1835, long before germ theory, antibiotics, randomized clinical trials, or modern vaccines. The medicine of his day was pre-scientific and unregulated, splintered into sects with allopaths, homeopaths, hydrotherapists, osteopaths, and others battling each other for primacy. Anyone could practice medicine without a license. Twain had no rational basis for choosing one sect over another.
Twain always feared death, with good reason. In his day, life was very uncertain, with 25 percent of children dying before their first birthday, and 50 percent by age 21. Twain was a premature, sickly child. As an adult, he asked his mother if she had been afraid he wouldn’t live; he claims she said no, she was afraid he would! He saw four of his siblings die. Frequent epidemics of smallpox, cholera, and scarlet fever tore through the population; mortality was high due to poor nutrition and poor public sanitation.
As a child, Twain was so afraid of measles that he decided to put an end to the fear by catching measles; he deliberately exposed himself to a patient. He found that having measles was nowhere near as bad as the fear had been. He learned there was something worse than death: worrying about it.
Twain was raised with alternative medicine. His mother, Jane Clemens, dabbled in everything from homeopathy to spiritualism to patent medicines. As a boy, Twain saw a faith healer cure his mother’s toothache with suggestion. His mother frequently dosed him with Perry Davis’ “Pain Killer” — a mixture of alcohol, camphor, and cayenne pepper. All treatments apparently worked: he survived.
As an adult, Twain experimented with everything, sampling every system of medical treatment. He thought there was no reliable way to find out why people got sick or the best way to make them well. Back then, there wasn’t; but today we do have a reliable way: science. Twain thought that if enough treatments were sampled, there might be a remote chance of finding one that actually worked.
Twain always distrusted conventional medicine, and not without reason. The medicine of his day was pre-scientific: ideas about disease were fuzzy, and conventional medical treatments were harsh, ineffective, and often toxic, leaving a fertile field for other options. Twain called doctors “killers,” saying they were deadlier than the most efficient army. He may have been the first to use the “death by medicine” meme that is so popular in alternative medicine today. It no longer reflects reality, but it did then. Before 1900, doctors were just as likely to harm as to help their patients. Always a contrarian and a skeptic, Twain questioned the consensus of experts because “experts” squelched new ideas and refused to recognize lone geniuses like Semmelweiss, who struggled to get his fellow physicians to wash their hands.
Neurasthenia and Twain’s Wife Olivia
Neurasthenia was the disease du jour, “the American disease.” America was thriving, but many individuals were not. They complained of vague symptoms of weakness, fatigue, malaise, dyspepsia, depression, insomnia, and “nervous exhaustion.” Neurasthenia was thought to affect the best and brightest, and everyone believed it was a physical disorder, not an emotional problem. Excessive stimulation was said to “dephosphoralize” the nervous system. It could be caused by accidents or environmental stresses, or the body itself could produce toxic agents.
Twain’s wife Olivia (Livy) was diagnosed with neurasthenia and was bedridden for two years in her late teens. Today she might be diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, somatization, hormone imbalance, impaired immunity, hypoglycemia, chronic systemic candida, Lyme disease, or one of many other questionable diagnoses. Neurasthenia was a wonderful diagnosis with many symptoms and no organic pathology, and it was an excuse for failure or for not living up to expected roles. A quack told Livy she would get up and walk, and she did. For what was essentially faith healing he charged the family $15,000.
Electrotherapy was recommended for neurasthenia to replenish nerve force and as a way of providing exercise at rest. When Livy developed heart failure, at first electrotherapy seemed to restore her lost vitality, but the effect didn’t last.
In a misguided attempt to protect Livy from stress, Twain lied and concealed things from her. Autonomy is basic to medical ethics, but it requires truth. One can’t be autonomous if misinformed or deprived of all hope.
He Wanted to Try Everything
Mark Twain married into his wife’s family’s belief in hydrotherapy, and he taught his daughters to believe in this discredited treatment, as well as that they could improve their vision by “mind over matter.” He and they fooled themselves into believing they had succeeded, but they soon resumed wearing their discarded eyeglasses.
Later in life Twain suffered from gout and was often bedridden with disabling attacks. When he tried electrotherapy, he was enthusiastic because it relieved his symptoms in a day. But it failed to prevent recurrent lifelong attacks. He wanted to try everything because “they can’t all fail.” He needed to sustain hope.
“They can’t all fail.” And yet they did. They promised much but were only fool’s gold. They were better at creating feasible explanations for why they should work than at showing that they did work. Twain tried everything: water cures, rest cures, electrotherapy, osteopathy, homeopathy, faith healing, and many more. His gout appeared to improve with electrotherapy, his daughter’s epilepsy with osteopathy, Livy’s health with the water cure; but enthusiasm turned to disappointment and frustration when the improvements didn’t last.
Twain’s experiments fell into a consistent pattern. At first, he believed each new treatment he adopted was highly effective and he spoke out loudly and forcefully in support of it. Later he was reluctant to let it go, clinging to it beyond all reason even as he realized that the improvements had been illusory or only temporary. He didn’t understand factors like the natural course of disease, variations in disease pattern, regression to the mean, the imperfections of memory, and the misperceptions due to human psychology. Many diseases were self-limited; and when the body healed itself, any medical system the patient was currently using might falsely get the credit. Most of the things he tried were only elaborate ways of doing nothing. But doing nothing was not an acceptable option.
Mark Twain heard good things about cocaine and planned to go to the Amazon and establish a business. He only made it as far as New Orleans and became a river pilot instead. His experiences as a river pilot would later color his writing. At one point he believed in Plasmon, a dietary supplement, and invested in it. He even invented his own patent medicine to treat chilblains: it was just kerosene. Was this fraud or intelligent capitalism? He had faith in it and gave his own testimonial.
Twain did recognize that some treatments were scams. When he sent a servant to the Oppenheimer Institute for alcoholism, it cost $150 and the servant came back drunk. Oppenheimer blamed failures on patients for not following his advice, which was to stop drinking alcohol!
Twain always rejected Christian Science. He hated it intensely but acknowledged that faith did appear to heal some patients. His sister tried to treat his arthritis at long distance with Christian Science; it didn’t work.
Twain’s Children and Their Discontents
Twain’s son Langdon was born prematurely and was chronically ill. He was delivered by a homeopath and treated by one in his final illness until Twain lost confidence in the homeopath and replaced him with a hydrotherapist. Langdon died of diphtheria at the age of 18 months. Twain felt responsible for his death, not for having let quacks treat him, but for having brought on the illness by letting him get chilled.
Twain’s daughter Clara underwent a rest cure for significant emotional problems after her mother’s death. She was bedridden and distraught for seven months. She spent most of a year in a sanatorium and eventually became a Christian Scientist.
Twain’s daughter Jean had epilepsy. When the family took her to Sweden for treatment at an osteopathic sanatorium, the whole family seemed to benefit. Twain enthusiastically praised osteopathy and sought equivalent treatment in the U.S. Jean seemed to improve at first but then her seizures got worse. She was institutionalized in sanatoriums off and on for five years. The seizures came and went, interspersed with violent behavior (she tried to kill the housekeeper twice). She eventually died in her bathtub, apparently from a seizure.
Finally, Twain’s oldest daughter Susy died of meningitis; he was convinced osteopathy could have saved her.
Disease and Illness are Not the Same Thing
Diseases have biological origins. Unlike a disease, an illness is not a specific biomedical entity, but the way a patient experiences a sickness. The suffering is a personal experience but also a social experience influenced by cultural factors, education, belief systems, expectations, and the norms of society. Diseases can kill, but illnesses cause most of human suffering, often as a result of imaginings. Alternative medicine excels at illness, not disease. Giving hope is its forte; it is better than doctors at providing hope.
A doctor’s words have great impact, and sometimes conventional doctors’ words can seem impersonal, detached, mechanical, uncaring, and devoid of humanity. Perhaps the greatest sin of today’s science-based medicine is when it destroys hope. Doing nothing is rarely acceptable to patients even when it’s the safest course; and alternative medicines, while ineffective, serve as placebos so patients can believe they are doing something.
Placebo Power
Twain failed to find a miracle cure, but he succeeded in demonstrating the role of placebo. He found that treatments that can’t possibly benefit do seem to help some people’s ailments. When placebo controls are used in clinical research, they produce no objective improvements; but 35 percent of subjects report improvement in their subjective symptoms. The cancer doesn’t go away, but the pain is lessened. Placebo effects are an essential part of all medicine, including mainstream medicine: any positive interaction between healer and patient has a placebo effect. The simple act of following a treatment plan can create something of value. Placebo response relies on: (1) positive expectations of patients, (2) positive expectations of providers, and (3) a good patient-provider relationship. A good provider can modify patients’ perception of their illness in a way that makes them feel better. Placebos alone can’t heal. What heals is one person helping another.
Homeopathy is the quintessential placebo: any active ingredient has been diluted out of the remedies. When Mark Twain employed homeopaths in the 1870s, 10 percent of all U.S. practitioners were homeopaths. Homeopathy was safer than the harsh treatments of mainstream medicine, since it is basically water with no harmful ingredients. It allowed for natural recovery and was at least as effective as any other medical system of the time. When warts go away with homeopathy, patients will say “I saw it with my own eyes” and will become believers, not realizing that the homeopathic remedy had nothing to do with it.
“Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose”
The old adage is true: the more things change, the more they remain the same. Much remains the same in alternative medicine as in Mark Twain’s time. Conventional medicine is still vigorously attacked. Allopathic purging has morphed into “detox.” Patent medicines have morphed into dietary supplements, with the same exaggerated claims. Testimonials from celebrities are still common. Neurasthenia is gone, but it has been replaced by chronic fatigue syndrome and numerous questionable diagnoses.
Hydrotherapy has fallen out of fashion, but many of its ideas have been incorporated into mainstream medicine, making it more holistic and humanistic and more appreciative of hygiene, good diet, stress reduction, and the general well-being of the individual. Homeopathy is available in every drug store. Folk remedies and placebos rely on ritual. If they fail, the patient can be accused of not following the ritual properly. The treatment is never blamed.
The Future of Alternative Medicine
Alternative medicine will never go away. The treatment of disease has always been emotionally based as well as intellectually driven. Up to 80 percent of doctor visits are because of worry and anxiety not related to any disease.
Alternative medicine is really not alternative, but parallel. Orthodox medicine can’t win because it is not fighting the same battle. Alternative Medicine is not interested in why its treatments are illogical and shouldn’t work; it just wants to convince patients that they do work. People will continue to use them for the same reasons people turn to religions, cults, psychics, and faith healers: they want control over uncontrollable events.
In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Mark Twain wrote that any mummery will do if the patient’s faith is strong in it. Cures are rarely achieved, but healing is always possible. The role of doctors is “To cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always,” an adage that originated in the 1800s with Dr. Edward Trudeau, the founder of a tuberculosis sanatorium. Mark Twain came to understand the mysterious force that underlies every successful interaction between a patient and a healer: the positive and caring interaction of one human being with another.
Twain Was Not to Blame for His Errors
Mark Twain believed in starving a cold and fasting for health. He smoked and never exercised. He believed bad habits were good because they can be discarded to promote recovery from illness. He tried all kinds of ineffective treatments. But he shouldn’t be blamed: he had no way of knowing any better. Sciencebased medicine was only one among many competing medical systems.
This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 26.2
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Finally, in 1910, the Flexner Report recommended that medical education be regulated, standardized, and given a scientific basis. That was also the year Mark Twain died. He wasn’t gullible or misinformed; he was simply uninformed. He didn’t understand the need for controlled scientific studies, and he didn’t have the advantage of knowing what we have learned about human foibles and critical thinking in the last 11 decades.
For further reading: I highly recommend K. Patrick Ober’s book Mark Twain and Medicine: “Any Mummery Will Cure.” It is based on Twain’s life, his published writings, and his private letters; and it offers insights into why the things Twain experimented with seemed to help. 
About the Author
Dr. Harriet Hall, M.D., The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician and Air Force Colonel living in Puyallup, WA. She writes about alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quackery, and critical thinking. She is a contributing editor to both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, an advisor to the Quackwatch website, and an editor of sciencebasedmedicine.org, where she writes an article every Tuesday. She is author of Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon. Her website is SkepDoc.info.
This article was published on June 29, 2021.
In response to the accompanying promo for a trip (excuse me, “Exptition!” to Antartica:
I should probably look up the reference but a scientific paper published in Germany took up the issue of airplane contrails. They authors were thinking that contrails reduced the adverse effects of the carbon emissions from airplanes. Instead they found that, by interfering with the formation of low level clouds, they actually made the adverse effects of air travel much, much worse! I have not seen any subsequent material on this so it’s rather hypothetical at this point. Nevertheless, it is upsetting to see you promoting long distance travel or eco-tourism. I think of it as entertainment for those with too much money and too little concern for the environment.
It seems like it has been a long time since Doc Hall has published something here! I always enjoy reading you. I was delighted by this article because as I read I thought “What about X?” and sure enough, X was addressed.
I will check out the other websites…
An informative article as far as biographical details about M.T. are concerned. But it fails to make it’s intended case about alternative methods of treating illnesses.
It is meaningless to ask if the homeopathy “works”. This is a meaningless nonsensical question. The only real answer is, “That depends”.
Does an airplane fly? The answer is, “maybe”. Some airplanes can fly. Others cannot. Any airplane that can sometimes fly can only fly sometimes, under some conditions, and not at other times, or under other conditions.
An airplane can not fly unless it is a properly designed airplane, is in good operating condition, has fuel in the tanks, is taking off from an airport with a long enough runway for that type of plane, and the pilot sitting at the controls knows how to fly it. And even with all those conditions being met, no airplane can fly in a tornado. And even in suitable weather, no airplane can take off if it is too heavily loaded.
The question, “Does homeopathy work?” is the wrong question. If the questioner asked, “How well does homeopathy work?” or “Under what conditions does it work?” or “What is the evidence for homeopathy?” there would be a possible answer. But the question, “Does it work? is not asking anything that makes sense.
The theoretical basis of homeopathy is that the initial substance is treated with an impact that tranfers or imprints the energetic pattern of the substance onto the energy field of the neutral water and the water then holds that pattern, which has the same effect as the starting substance on the energy of the body, stimulating the same response, but without the pathological effects of a material substance.
But the body is very fine-tuned and discriminates well between different materials, too well, in fact. Unless the homeopathic substance is very well-chosen it will be useless. To get exactly the right substance, out of a virtually unlimited array of choices is almost impossible. To prescribe correctly requires not only a vast store of experience, but a big degree of psychic ability on the part of the practioner. This difficulty renders homeopáthy impractical in the majority of cases despite the sound theoretical basis for it and the occasional spectacular success.
By ignoring the theory of a biological energy in the water and the imprinting of a specific pattern on that energy field, Dr. Hall has again, as she has done many times in the past, set up a straw man to demolish. The mere dilution of any material in watyer does not make a homeopathic preparation out of it. The imprinting process, usually, but not always, by percussion administered between dilutions, is an integral part of creating homeopathic materials.
Many forms of “alternative” medicine are effective sometimes, in some people, under some conditions, and show no effect in some other people, at other times, under other conditions. And that is true for conventional medicine also. No treatment is best for all patients at all times under all conditions.
Here in Chiapas, Mexico, people living in the city if they get sick, go to a doctor. Then, if that fails, they go out to a village to a curandaro. People who live in the villages do it the other way around: they go to the local traditional healer first, then, if that fails, the go into town to a doctor. On average, both methods have about the same success rate.
Orthodox medicine, modern, “scientific” medicine, has about the same rate of success as many of the “alternative” methods. But no more. There is no objective reason to choose any one system over the other.
It is not meaningless to ask if homeopathy “works”. This is a perfectly sensible question.
The answer, however, is a resounding no.
It’s been studied over, and over, and over, and has shown to be bunk.
Also, orthodox / modern / scientific medicine, has a much higher rate of success than “alternative” methods.
Do you know what we call “alternative medicine” that works? Medicine.
You believe in magic, not science, and the data doesn’t support your belief.
The question is on the same order as “Do airplanes fly?” Some do and some don’t.
So if there are some people telling me homeopathy works and some others saying it does not, how am I supposed to know who is right? I have to look at the evidence presented by both sides and make my own judgement, not just blindly trust one side because they say they are the experts.
I have not yet made up my mind on homeopathy, but I do know for absolute certainty that the people you apparently trust frequently lie for obvious financial motives or make major errors due to ideological commitments, so I will listen to both sides of any argument and make up my own mind.
And if what you call “magic” seems best to me, that is what I will go with. I do not have your blind faith in the orthodox medical clergy.
Wow, what a load of crap. Let’s pick this apart…
“it fails to make it’s intended case about alternative methods of treating illnesses.”
It’s not intended to “prove” that alternative treatments are ineffective, it’s giving a historical account of MT’s life and involvement with snake oil, or woo, if you prefer. As for an intended case about alternative treatments the facts remain they didn’t work. Just doing something makes people feel better. When I decided to go to sick call in the military, I would already feel better after enduring weeks of suffering. It was a mental state which isn’t a cure. That’s all MT was experiencing. Feeling better, not cures.
“It is meaningless to ask if the homeopathy ‘works’. This is a meaningless nonsensical question. The only real answer is, ‘That depends’.”
No. No it doesn’t. It’s also not a “meaningless nonsensical question.” While you might try to make a case about airplanes, it’s nothing more than linguistic gymnastics. A toy gun is a toy gun. It is modelled after a real gun, but it is just a model. A plane that doesn’t fly is either a model (toy, life-size mock up, playground prop), broken, or incapable of flying. We would call a plane that once flew, but no longer can a plane. We would call a life-size mock up of a plane a plane, not a model, maybe a model plane, but we would also know that it doesn’t fly. To extend your poor example further, a plane that works is analogous to science-based medicine. A plane that doesn’t fly is alternative “medicine.” When you’re trying to cross an ocean as quickly as possible, only one will get you there. I’ll let you figure out which treatment doesn’t fly.
Your over-extended analogy is what is nonsensical.
“The question, ‘Does homeopathy work’” is the wrong question. If the questioner asked, ‘How well does homeopathy work?’ or ‘Under what conditions does it work?’ or ‘What is the evidence for homeopathy?’ there would be a possible answer. But the question, ‘Does it work?[‘] is not asking anything that makes sense.”
Wrong. It’s a basic, and very valid, starting point of enquiry. The other questions you pose are all valid follow-on questions. But does it work is a very important question. No amount of word salad tossing makes something work if it doesn’t. There is why it *should* work and *does* it work. The two are necessarily the same.
“The theoretical basis of homeopathy is that the initial substance is treated with an impact that tranfers [sic] or imprints the energetic pattern of the substance onto the energy field of the neutral water and the water then holds that pattern, which has the same effect as the starting substance on the energy of the body, stimulating the same response, but without the pathological effects of a material substance.”
Let’s look at this. How is the water “neutral?” What makes it “neutral?” If it can be made “neutral” then why can’t the water in the body be made neutral? What is this pattern? Where can it be observed? How does the water retain this pattern? In all other instances outside of homeopathy water dilutes what it’s mixed with. How does something that has been diluted even have a pathological effect?
Outside of hyperbole, there is no mechanism that can be demonstrated. This is something that science-based medicine doesn’t suffer from. Even if we don’t know all of the intricacies, we have some pretty good ideas that are based on nature and in reality rather then leaps of faith and major assumptions.
“But the body is very fine-tuned and discriminates well between different materials, too well, in fact.”
This is the use of reality to obfuscate the fact that homeopathy doesn’t work. But it is not entirely correct. If the chemical structure of a substance fits the body will accept it. Stronium is chemically similar to calcium and the body will readily use it in place of calcium, but if stronium-90, which is radioactive, is absorbed, it can cause health issues, i.e. destroy bone marrow and cause cancer. Turns out, the body isn’t too discriminating after all. It is highly adaptable and will use what it can.
“…Unless the homeopathic substance is very well-chosen it will be useless.”
By the time it’s diluted, there’s a strong chance that not one atom/molecule of the original substance is even present. All we are left with is the idea that there is a “pattern” “imprinted” on the water. (And what about all the other things that that water has been in contact with, what happened to those patterns?)
“… To get exactly the right substance, out of a virtually unlimited array of choices is almost impossible.”
That should tell you something right there.
“… To prescribe correctly requires not only a vast store of experience,”
What experience? In all trials of homeopathic treatment, there is no difference between homeopathy and chance or placebo. The best that homeopathy has for it people attribute success to it when in fact the body often overcomes things on its own, or it “feels” right.
“… but a big degree of psychic ability…”
So, you are now relying on another assumption to support your previous assumptions.
“… on the part of the practioner. This difficulty renders homeopáthy impractical in the majority of cases despite the sound theoretical basis for it and the occasional spectacular success.”
How do you not see the problem with what you are saying?
“By ignoring the theory of a biological energy in the water…”
An unproven assumption. Further if the water is neutral is has no biological energy. And what energy is it?
“.. and the imprinting …”
How?
“… of a specific pattern…”
What pattern?”
“… on that energy field,”
Again, what energy field? We have the four fundamental forces. What other undemonstrated energy are you talking about?
“… Dr. Hall has again, as she has done many times in the past, set up a straw man to demolish.”
Be careful when slinging logical fallacies. At this point in time, neither you nor any practitioner of homeopathy has demonstrated anything beyond imagination and linguistic acrobatics.
“The mere dilution of any material in watyer [sic] does not make a homeopathic preparation out of it.” In fact, she didn’t say that in this article at all.
” The imprinting process, usually, but not always,…”
Why not?
“… by percussion administered between dilutions, is an integral part of creating homeopathic materials.”
That process is dilution. It can be performed by anyone.
“Many forms of ‘alternative’ medicine…”
Treatment. It’s not medicine. If I eat a cookie to cure my cold, it’s not medicine. I’m only treating myself with a treat.
” are effective sometimes, in some people, under some conditions, and show no effect in some other people, at other times, under other conditions. And that is true for conventional medicine also. No treatment is best for all patients at all times under all conditions.”
Here, you borrow from medicine to achieve legitimacy. The one thing that homeopathy has ever done well is borrow from science to make itself sound legitimate. It has never had any wisdom that it was ever able to impart upon the world at large. Except the one believers ignore: homeopathy is garbage.
“Here in Chiapas, Mexico, people living in the city if they get sick, go to a doctor. Then, if that fails, they go out to a village to a curandaro.”
That starts off well, then gets worse.
” People who live in the villages do it the other way around: they go to the local traditional healer first, then, if that fails, the go into town to a doctor. On average, both methods have about the same success rate.”
Wrong. Completely, totally and demonstrably wrong.
“Orthodox medicine, modern, ‘scientific’ medicine, has about the same rate of success as many of the ‘alternative’ methods. But no more. There is no objective reason to choose any one system over the other.”
This is so bad that it’s not even wrong.
“The success rate of science-based medicine is far greater than any alternative system. While it’s not perfect, the body of knowledge it generates is growing. Not so for any other form or treatment.”
There is a reason to choose science-based medicine over homeopathy. Science-based medicine works. Unlike any other form of belief, you can check it.
Your other response:
“So if there are some people telling me homeopathy works and some others saying it does not, how am I supposed to know who is right?”
First, find reliable source. Second, understand how the human mind works and can fool itself.”
” I have to look at the evidence presented by both sides and make my own judgement, not just blindly trust one side because they say they are the experts.”
What is an expert? Sure, people go to learn about homeopathy, but what are they learning? To repeat the same words they were taught, repeat the same processes, borrow from medicine to explain things. Medicine requires rigorous training that takes a long time.
If you want a reliable source, seek out Britt Hermes. She was a naturopath until she realized what she was taught was bullshit.
Experts are experts for a reason. They aren’t infallible, but they know what they are talking about. Confidence is not knowledge. Linguistic acrobatics is not skill. Look for double-blind, controlled studies. They are the gold standard for testing. Which works, which works better than chance, and which fails. Medicine developed that doesn’t pass these standards never make it to the market. Do not trust anything that fails or wants to be tested. And don’t trust anyone that doesn’t want to be checked.
“I have not yet made up my mind on homeopathy, but I do know for absolute certainty that the people you apparently trust frequently lie…”
You say you haven’t made up your mind, but yet, you claim they are lying. Where is your proof? Understand this is a false accusation meant to shut down all opposition. It makes people who sling it feel good about their choices.
“… for obvious financial motives …”
Which financial gains are you talking about? The vast majority of Skeptics aren’t rolling in all the alleged money Big Pharma is paying them. I haven’t received my payments. Will you let Big Pharma know I haven’t been paid yet?
” … or make major errors due to ideological commitments,…”
Which is the very thing you are doing. You claim you haven’t made up your mind, your words say otherwise. You defend homeopathy with the same worn out tropes and arguments.
” … so I will listen to both sides of any argument and make up my own mind.”
That’s your right, but understand which way the data leans. The one supported by the evidence is the side of the argument that has the greatest weight.
“And if what you call ‘magic’ seems best to me, that is what I will go with. I do not have your blind faith in the orthodox medical clergy.”
Again, be careful of slinging accusations of logical fallacies. You just committed one here. It’s called ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the claim. You also claim they are relying on blind faith, when in fact it is you that relies on blind faith. In all things, there is certainly an amount of faith when I choose to trust scientists. I know they aren’t infallible, they are working with the best knowledge they have, and that knowledge can be updated with knew information. I can also check anything they say, look at the same data and reach my own conclusion.
Homeopathy is blind faith. It cannot be checked and cannot be demonstrated. Medical science doesn’t suffer from these shortcoming.
At no point in time did you actually refute anything you disbelieve. Except to offer up psychics and energy. Homeopathy offers an easy answer, and easy answers are appealing. Medicine is hard because reality is complex. It doesn’t have all the answers and homeopathy exploits these gaps in knowledge.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2011/09/16/evidence_be_damnedpatient_outcome_is_irrelevant_from_helke.htm