According to Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, in a National Post article “Pride reverses ban on phrase ‘Israeli apartheid’”

When you have the vast majority of Jews in Toronto who are in support of the Jewish state, then you are de facto targeting Jews

when you talk of “Israeli apartheid”. While Islamist-sympathizers criticism of Isreal are shockingly hypocritical, Israel being really the only state remotely close to a democracy in the Middle East, yet I’m tired of hearing that any criticism of Isreal is tantamount to anti-semitism.  Political debate, religious critism, and racism are three distinct concepts.

I think it’s absolutely astounding that bullying and intimidation seems to be a message that works. In other words, if you want to get something, just bully and intimidate and you’ll get your way,” said Farber.

And he would know! Farber is better than anyone at using intimidation to get his way and halt critism or debate.

The National Post finally published in its Holy Post religion blog my response to critics of “The Armageddon Factor” book by Marci McDonald, which explores purportedly deep links between Christian nationalists and evangelicals and the federal government of Canada. My piece is entitled: “Church and State Must Remain Apart.” I was asked to reduce the word length so I’ll publish the piece in its original entirety below.  The piece was in large part a response to:

Religious faith is the civic oxygen of our social ecology:
The paradigm presented by The Armageddon Factor is not just false, it is unsustainable.  The secularizing experiment of the past 40 years has been a failure

Please post comments onto the ongoing discussion at the National Post Blog. We really don’t want this latest comment to go unanswered:

What a load.  Separation of church and state (historically an American, not a Canadian value) was never meant to cleanse religion from the public sphere. It simply means that the state should not dictate religious beliefs to the populace. If the state dictates which beliefs (i.e. not religious ones) are valid in public, they are dictating beliefs to the public, and (ironically) breaking the separation of church and state.  On another point, charitable status is given to religious groups because they are enormously charitable. In fact, they (and the religious people who support them) are far more charitable than the rest of the population. It is for the benefit of all of society (not just the religions themselves) that these efficient charity-generating machines are allowed to operate without being bled-dry by higher taxes.

The original piece:

A number of editorials have recently appeared in response to the controversy around The Armageddon Factor by Marci McDonald, which seeks to show deep connections between the Conservative government and the religious right.  One of the most egregious has been a contribution to the Globe and Mail from Ray Pennings, Senior Fellow of the Cardus Institute entitled “Religious faith is the civic oxygen of our social ecology” Pennings - like many other recently published pundits - seeks to argue that in fact secularization has been a failed experiment.

It was perhaps interesting that his title stated that religious “faith”, rather than religious faiths, are the “civic oxygen of our society”.  While it is true that the European version of Canada was primarily founded by Christians—the dominant European faith during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—21st century secularism is more concerned with how Canada or any other supposedly pluralistic democracy properly adapts itself to reflect the multicultural and multidenominational character of our increasingly diverse modern societies.

Penning does a disservice to historical fact in claiming that religion served to unite the various Christian groups present in Canadian society in the years leading up to and following confederation, as anyone familiar with the torching of Canada’s first parliament building in 1851 can readily attest to.

The Protestant Tory mob responsible for that act would have gone on that evening to burn down a Catholic convent in Montreal, just because they were Catholics, had a group of Irish Catholic Montrealers not got wind of their intentions and repelled them from doing so. This is hardly glowing evidence of religion uniting diverse cultures or peoples during the founding of our nation.

One can similarly cite a very long list of historical events, Canadian or otherwise, that point to the power of religious belief to divide and engender violent conflict between diverse peoples, far more than it has served to unite them over the centuries.

It is shocking, for example, that Pennings points to the highly conservative Quebec government of Union Nationale leader Maurice Duplessis as an example of a force for unity.  Duplessis’ reign, or the Great Darkness as it was famously called by its critics, was noted for its lack of social service investment.  It was also noted for its strong support from the Catholic Church.  That heavy handed mixing of church and government, which ended up being loathed by Quebecers, included attempts to censor religious dissent, such as stopping the distribution of literature by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  His reign instigated the anti-Catholic church backlash of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution, followed by the separatist movement.  If that is Pennings best example of religiously inspired unity, we can rest our case.

Modern secularism seeks in part to limit abuse by religiously inspired tyrants. Secularists today include the less evangelical members of Canada’s religious communities, personally spiritual but non-faith-oriented individuals, and lastly atheists. They strongly support the right of all Canadians to freedom of religion and association, so long as these freedoms are not abused in order to breach the line Canada has strived to establish between church and state.

The significant growth of secularism in Canada is clearly reflected in the fact that there were fewer than 930 non-religious Canadians according to Statscan back in 1971, while in 2001 it counted 4.8 million or 16.5% of the Canadian population. A 2008 Harris-Decima poll supported this trend, finding 23% of all Canadians and 36% of Canadians under 25 not adhering to any faith.

Penning notes in his submission that Canada’s “social ecology” would be dangerously depleted were religious individuals refused entry to the public square. He cites some statistics on charitable donations by religious groups, but those numbers are meaningless, since they count as charitable donations funds to missionary organizations that do nothing but evangelize the giver’s own beliefs.  That hardly qualifies as altruism.

While secularists wouldn’t begin to tell anyone what they may or may not support with private donations, we are concerned with how public tax dollars may be allocated based on exclusive faiths. We take particular exception to some deity-derived throwbacks that persist in Canadian public policy, notably tax breaks and other public subsidies for exclusive religious organizations, public financing for faith-based schools, and exemptions for some religious groups from various Canadian laws. While we’re at it, we’d also like to see the mention of a God disbelieved in by a quarter of the population removed from the Charter’s preamble.

The sole objective with all these efforts is to ensure that our public symbols and legal frameworks respect the democratic rights and cultural identities of all Canadians as equally as possible.

Secularism then, is not about asking religious people to “shut up”, as Penning states. It is simply about establishing a level playing field whereby religious individuals are no longer favoured under our tax and legal systems, as they are now, and about asking them to back up any policy suggestions they have with practical, objective evidence. Arbitrary claims of what is sacred are not acceptable in this regard.

Penning’s final, unsubstantiated generalization that modern secularism is a failed experiment is simply not supported by current demographic trends. It is, however, easy to contextualize as yet another reactionary defence from an historic religious majority experiencing the demise of its ascendant position in Canada’s increasingly knowledgeable and multidenominational society.

Wow, has it really gotten this bad?
BA compensates man ‘humiliated’ over child seat policy:  A has compensated a passenger who was “humiliated’ over its policy of not allowing single male flyers to sit next to solo child travellers on its planes.

Mr Fischer, 33, accused staff of harassing him and said the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act.  BA apologised to the businessman but denied the policy was discriminatory.

That’s absolutely despicable, casting every member of the male gender as a potential child molester. What kind of message is this sending to society and our children? Because of this belief that every man is a molester in waiting, even I feel hesitant to comment on how much I enjoy working with children or to be too affectionate around youngsters. It makes caring men - and there are so many - feel like there’s something wrong with them.

Skeptics Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse of CFI Canada’s Skepticism Committee on the Michael Coren TV Show on Alt Med

While I don’t usually get the warmest welcome defending atheism on the religious program the Michael Coren Show, yesterday my nemesis Coren was possibly even harder on a couple of naturopaths that he had on as part of a show on Alternative Medicine that we had in fact recommended to him and his producers. These were Dr. Philip Rouchotas, Associate Professor, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, and naturopathic doctor George Tardik.  On the skeptic side, CFI put up their own Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse, spokepeople with our Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism.

The show should be available from the CTS TV website in the next week

The panel tackled everything from homeopathy to chiropractics to the limits of fish oil treatment.  Observing the recording from my comfortable seat off set, some highlights included moderator Michael Coren putting the altmed practitioners on the hot seat, laughing at a treatment regime he had been given involving wearing different types of shoes, and finally insisting “I’ve seen a lot of chiropractor frauds…I wouldn’t trust them with a cat, and I don’t even have a cat.”  Plus, a cornered Dr. Rouchotas, who would oddly refer to everyone as “sir”, admits “I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are“.

Here follows reports from Behzad and Michael.

Behzad Elahi:

It  was a great experience for both of us. although the naturopaths attending the show (Mr Philip Rouchotas and Mr George Tardik) tried to validate their position by confessing that they disagree with Homeopathy, Reiki, Energy Therapy, and crytal ball healing practices which is by itself a great success, and stuck to their best shot which was herbal medication the end result was not what they expected. They tried to personalize the debate by providing anecdotal evidence, and emotional responses which have been answered properly and effectively by us and it didn’t go very well for them.

Pseudoscience is growing, and we have to be vigilant to stop the
nonsense at its roots. According to a Health Canada survey 43% of
Canadians think that alternative medicine is comparable to real
medicine, a potentially dangerous idea which reminds us about our
responsibility to enlighten and inform society by scientifically sound
evidence.

Michael Kruse

The opportunity to debate an alternative medical practitioner is a bit of a daunting one; given that I am not a doctor nor experienced at debating.  On the Michael Coren Show, my expectations did not match the result and it is interesting the changes being attempted in the practice of naturopathic medicine.  Drs. Tardik and Rouchotas did a poor job of defining Naturopathic medicine at the start, but instead of going to bat for the host of alternative therapies that skeptics routinely attack, namely energy work and homeopathy, they chose instead to bring science to the table.

Both gentlemen threw homeopathy under the bus and, both on and off camera, disavowed ever being taken in by it or using it in their practice.  After the show, however, Rouchotas was hesitant to describe why it is still being taught at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, where he is an associate professor, in light of many ND’s apparent disbelief of the practice and its implausibility. He was not able to give us a good answer.

It is interesting what was not discussed, namely the roots of the philosophy behind naturopathy.  Not once did either ND use the words “vitalistic” or “holistic”.  They did not warn about toxins and vilify modern medicine.  In fact they both seemed eager to be considered a part of the modern model of science-based health care and rejected the more extreme claims of some of their colleagues.  In my opinion, they are attempting to seek legitimacy by hiding the ugly cousin of vitalism and magical thinking that is at the root of the current state of affairs.  To be fair, we were unable to get to this part of the debate and I am eager to find out their answer.

150 years ago modern medicine was in the same place as naturopathy today: beholden to a large compendium of treatments that may or may not have worked and based on a view of how the body works that was incomplete, at best, or seriously fantastical at worst. Medical treatments at that time were subjected repeatedly to an ever increasing array of experimental tools and statistical methods designed to uncover the veracity of the claims.  Naturopathy seems 150 years late to the table, but if they are willing to go through the same process, and willing to let go of those modalities that are completely implausible, like reiki or homeopathy, then I will give them the benefit of the doubt.  They have a long way to go.

Both Behzad and Michael did a great job, under the pressures of coming up with responses to random questions and sometimes demands for detailed examples in a given area you only became an expert in the night before, and sustaining this treatment for over 45 minutes!  Not an easy job, I assure you.

This entry cross-posted to my blog at the Centre for Inquiry Transnational Freethinking Blogs

This is in response to a number of Letters to the Editor defending public funding of Catholic schools under the misguided notion that Catholics and only Catholics can choose to fund it through their property taxes. Please get the word out, that that is NOT how it works. There is only one single pool of funds from which allotments are made.

Specifically, from our friends at Civil Rights in Public Education (CRIPE) - more information on tax laws on this issue are available here :

“Provincial Funding and Property Taxes: Before student-focused funding, school boards raised revenue through local property taxes. Each school board could decide whether or not to increase local property taxes and, if so, by how much. Municipalities collected the taxes on behalf of the school boards. School boards also received funding from the provincial government.In 1998, the government changed the way in which property tax revenue supports education. The government now sets a uniform rate, based on a current-value assessment system, for all residential properties. Residential property taxes for education were reduced by half province-wide. The government also sets property tax rates for business properties. Since 1998, the government has introduced further reductions in residential and business property taxes for education. Property taxes still support education and municipalities still collect these taxes for the school boards in their communities, but school boards no longer raise additional revenue from local property taxes. Student-focused funding determines each board’s overall funding allocation. Property tax revenues provide a part of the allocation. The province provides additional funding up to the level set by student- focused funding.”

This site - Inspired by Muhammed - designed to educate the public on how islam is supposedly for social justice, environmentalism, etc, unfortunately fails to address any of the current harms being committed by Islamists, nor suggest any remedies so that muslims in the modern world might do a better job of practicing what this group preaches. …In fact, it’s almost single-minded focus on interpreting the koran and early muslim history in such a way that it measures up to our progressive secular values without much reference to what muslim groups are actually doing in today’s society or why they aren’t following these values, is transparently superficial and so rather meaningless.

Clifford Beninger, spokesperon for the CFI Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism, on the topic of chiropractic treatment for infants and children on the Rob Breakenridge Show on Calgary Radio:

breakenridge_chiro_beninger_may2010

For more on this topic, read my blog entry at Keep Chiropractors Away From Children

U of Toronto MultiFaith Centre Pamphlet encourages dialogue with atheists and warns against aggressive religious recruiting

For example, the cover of the pamphlet declares:

“The University of Toronto welcomes and includes students from a diverse range of communities and backgrounds.  The University recognizes that many of its students, staff, and faculty are engaged in a broad spectrum of spiritual traditions including atheists to Zoroastrians.”

Yes, I realize atheism is not exactly a spirituality but I think they genuinely meant well in including us here.  Furthermore, inside the pamphlet it reads:

“The Centre works in partnership with many University departments as well as faith based student clubs, individuals who would describe themselves as spiritual, but not religious, or people of no faith”

and

“Before considering your own tradition, you have the option to look for groups that…”invite open and thoughtful investigation of beliefs”

And the back cover includes an entire section on “Aggressive religious recruiting”, stating

“The following questions may be helpful in determining whether a group is right for you”
“Is it unacceptable to have doubts about what the group teaches or does?  Is doubt seen as a sign of weakness?”
“Does the group encourage you to put their meetings before all other commitments, including studying?”
“Is it proper to deceive people for the sake of the group?”

And finally, note that the U of T campus chaplaincy, which is associated with the Multifaith Centre, recently adopted a secular humanist councillor among their ranks, thanks to our three-year campaign. A great series of precedents for use in working to ameliorate the structure of other campus faith centres and policies with respect to faith groups at universities!

In working on Naturopathy Awareness Month, we came across an excellent and comprehensive critique of naturopathy - Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal - by Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, who blogs regularly for Science Based Medicine.  This article can be accessed by creating a free account with Medscape.

In this piece, Atwood has a great quote from a Prometheus book by Barry Beyerstein, one of the fathers of the skeptics movement:

In our research for this chapter, we provided naturopaths and their professional associations ample opportunity to refute the conclusions of several major commissions of inquiry over the years that deemed their therapeutic rationale lacking in scientific credibility. None of our informants was able to convince us that the field had taken these earlier critiques to heart; in fact, precious few seemed to recognize that a problem still exists. [O]ur own bibliographic searches failed to discover any properly controlled clinical trials that supported claims of the profession, except in a few limited areas where naturopaths’ advice concurs with that of orthodox medical science. Where naturopathy and biomedicine disagree, the evidence is uniformly to the detriment of the former.

We therefore conclude that clients drawn to naturopaths are either unaware of the well-established scientific deficiencies of naturopathic practice or choose willfully to disregard them on ideological grounds.

The reference for this is:  Beyerstein BL, Downey S. Naturopathy. In: Sampson W, Vaughn L, eds. Science Meets Alternative Medicine: What the Evidence Says About Unconventional Treatments. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2000:141-163. Available in draft form at:
http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/beyerstein/research/articles/21Naturopathy.doc Accessed December 2003.

Atwood further attests that naturopaths tend to be strongly affiliated with the antivacciation movement and goes on to state that:

Naturopathic beliefs — including those of “naturopathic physicians” — are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths describe a “healing power of nature,” which is compromised by modern medicine.

The reference here is Atwood KC, Barrett S. Naturopathic opposition to immunization. Quackwatch. 2001. Available at: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/immu.html. Accessed December 2003.

Finally, and for those like myself who are most concerned with the wellbeing of children, I find this passage particularly reprehensible:

A 1999 survey of the small number of NDs in Massachusetts, performed by 2 investigators from Children’s Hospital in Boston, is consistent with these findings. They reported that only 20% of those surveyed would recommend that parents have their children vaccinated and that only 40% would refer a 2-week-old infant with a temperature of 101° F for definitive medical care.[30]

Reference:  Lee CCL, Kemper K. Homeopathy and naturopathy: practice characteristics and pediatric care. Arch Pediatr Adoles Med. 2000;154:75-80.

I don’t like the idea of censorship, but if every we’re going to limit free speech where it actually does harm, this should be where we start.

This just in from the Metaphysical Development Meetup:

“It’s with great excitement that your the first to find out I’ve received my Ordination with Esoteric Interfaith Theological Seminary. I’ve received my Doctor of Divinity diploma. My title is Esoteric Spiritual Minister. If any one would like to talk, please feel free to call me.”
- Rev. Dr. Alex Szwed.”

You heard him. Anyone need esoteric interfaith ministering?

A quick note.  This article is a pretty vile form of anti-male sexism. Take one example. The fact that women live longer than men is used as support that women are stronger, better and superior than men?  I guess the fact that Africans have lower life expectancy than Europeans is proof that Europeans are superior?  Or could it be that in both cases there are other factors. Perhaps if we had the same level of government funded healthcare programs and initiatives for men’s health as we do for women we’d see some differences.  No one can point to such an article and suggest there aren’t forms of radical feminism

CFI’s Michael Kruse of the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism on the Jim Smalley Show on 620 CKRM Reginal Radio to discuss Alternative Medicine including chiropractics, homeopathy and naturopathy in ligh of this week being Naturopathic Medicine Week in Canada.  Here are the audio files.  The quality improves as the show progresses.

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-1-of-3_001

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-1-of-3_002

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-1-of-3_003

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-2-of-3_001

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-2-of-3_002

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-2-of-3_003

interview-with-michael-kruse-part-3-of-3

The following is from a statement drafted by colleague Iain Martel at CFI’s Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism:

Scientists, skeptics, and free speech activists around the world are breathing a sigh of relief now that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has dropped its libel suit against renowned science journalist Simon Singh, who had criticized the Association for promoting “bogus” remedies. The BCA’s decision last week followed a scathing appeals court ruling two weeks earlier, which would have made it much easier for Singh to defeat the BCA’s suit. Although this case is now over, the two-year, £200,000 battle Singh had to fight has galvanised efforts to reform archaic English libel laws. Meanwhile, the message that got Singh into such trouble in the first place remains an important one: that many of the claims made by chiropractors have been thoroughly debunked by modern science and have no place in contemporary medicine.

At issue in the case is a 2008 opinion article in The Guardian, in which Singh criticised the BCA for claims that its members could cure children suffering from a variety of illnesses, from colic to asthma, solely through manipulation of the spine. Arguing that there was “not a jot of evidence” for them, Singh criticised the BCA for “happily promoting these bogus claims. The BCA sued Singh, arguing that his words amounted to a factual claim that the BCA was promoting treatments it knew to be fraudulent. In an early ruling in the case, a high court judge agreed that this was the meaning of Singh’s words, leaving him with an uphill battle to win his case. The appeal court ruling, which led the BCA to drop its case, reversed this, correctly treating all of Singh’s comments as statements of opinion, not fact; thus allowing a defence of “fair comment”.

The wider significance of Singh’s victory may perhaps be found in a passage in the appeals court ruling, endorsing a key principle first adopted in an American libel case by a Judge Easterbrook. Easterbrook wrote that “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science, rather than by the methods of litigation.” If this principle is applied in other cases, it will do much to remove the chilling effect English libel law is currently having on scientific research in the United Kingdom, where scientists are often afraid to publish the results of their research for fear of being sued. More generally, the appeals court recognised that there is a serious problem when a law intended to protect honest reputations has come to be used as a stifle on public debate.

Despite the discontinuation of the case by the BCA, and the positive effect the appeals court ruling may have, the case for a fundamental reform of English libel law remains very strong. Unlike in almost any aspect of law, English libel law (as in Canada) places much of the burden of proof on the accused. If a defamatory statement is deemed “fact” and not “opinion”, the defendant has to prove that it was true; in most of the rest of the world, it is the claimant who must prove the statement false. In addition, English law often allows authors anywhere in the world to be sued, even if a publication has little connection to Britain. For this reason, London has become known as the capital of “libel tourism.” It is good news, then, that all three major political parties have committed to libel reform in their manifestos for the upcoming general election.

A review of libel law in England would likely bring it in line with the greater protection of public discourse created when the Canadian Supreme Court, at the end of last year, recognised a new defence against libel suits of “responsible communication.” While libel laws were originally created to protect the reputations of individuals from the malicious smears of others, they have increasingly come to be used as a tool, by corporations as by individuals, for suppressing any kind of critical scrutiny. What the Canadian Supreme Court recognised, and what the British Parliament is slowly learning, is that a free society requires that open debates on matters of public interest must not be impeded by fears that an unwelcome criticism, however honestly made, will be met by a crushing lawsuit.

The British Chiropractic Association must surely be regretting that it ever took on this case. Not only is it probably on the hook for most of the costs of the case. Its reputation has also been thoroughly wrecked, not by Singh’s article, but by the mass of attention this ill-advised case has brought on the chiropractic profession. As a direct result of its lawsuit, over a quarter of all chiropractors in Britain are under investigation for making misleading claims in advertising – that is, for making the very claims that Singh described as bogus.

So what of these “bogus” claims? Setting aside the scientific absurdity of the core chiropractic “subluxation theory” that most illnesses are the result of spinal misalignments – a theory that many chiropractors still believe – is there any evidence that their treatments work? For ailments unrelated to the back, such as asthma, colic, ear infections, and many others, there is, not surprisingly, no plausible evidence that chiropractic treatments do any good. A thorough review of this (lack of) evidence is provided in Singh’s own book with co-author Edzard Ernst, Trick or Treatment. The British chiropractic regulator, the General Chiropractic Council, agrees and instructs chiropractors to make no claims regarding such ailments. And, to its credit, the BCA’s Canadian equivalent, the Canadian Chiropractic Association, is careful to restrict its claims to “neuro-musculoskeletal” ailments. Even here, however, the evidence is mixed. Only treatment for acute lower back pain has been shown with any reliability to be effective, and yet even in this best case scenario, chiropractic treatment has not been shown to be any better than cheaper and safer conventional alternatives, like physiotherapy. (Some will recall the case of Saskatoon woman Laurie Mathiason, who died as a direct result of chiropractic manipulations.)

In sum, chiropractic treatment is based on an implausible 19th century theory, it has repeatedly failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny, and it raises serious safety concerns.  Let us applaud Simon Singh, then, for his courageous fight, both to raise awareness of the bogus claims of chiropractors, and to change the libel laws that challenged his right to do so.

Samuel Hahnemann, the 18th Century founder of pseudoscientific nonsense

In case you weren’t aware of it, we’re just wrapping up Homeopathy Awareness Month here in Canada.  CFI Canada’s Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism had a front section nearly full page piece in Tuesday’s National Post.  Check that out and read this well researched piece by a colleague:

Homeopathy: Watering Down Mental Health Issues
By: Lauren O’Driscoll, for the CFI’s Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism

Toronto, Ont. (April 22, 2010) — World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW) 2010, celebrated worldwide from April 10th to April 16th, was aimed at promoting homeopathic awareness through free lectures, events, displays and various other promotions. The theme for this year’s campaign was “Mental Well Being: Mind and Body in Balance”. WHAW was being hosted nationally by The Canadian Society of Homeopaths (CSH), who suggest that homeopathy can treat mental health concerns by restoring mind-body harmony. The CSH claim that homeopathy may be used as an effective treatment for anxiety, behavioural problems, depression, compulsive disorders, eating disorders, phobias, grief, hyperactivity and insomnia.

How does this ‘miracle cure’ work? Homeopathic theory was first introduced in the late 18th century, before modern scientific theories of genetic heredity, molecular biology, germ theory, and the chemical underpinnings of human physiology were developed. Homeopathy is based upon the archaic Law of Similars, referred to as “like cures like”, which holds that a substance causing certain symptoms can also be used as a cure for similar symptoms in a sick patient. For example, Arsenicum alum, a diluted form of the poisonous metalloid arsenic, is a homeopathic remedy commonly prescribed for the treatment of mental health problems including anxiety, depression, and obsessive compulsive disorder. These homeopathic preparations are diluted to the extent that treatments usually contain less than one molecule of the original active substance per dose. In order to explain how a preparation can work without containing even a single molecule of active ingredient, homeopaths suggest that the diluted remedies are effective because they contain a magical “energetic life force” or a “memory” of the original substance. Perceived advantages of the use of homeopathy in the treatment of mental health problems include a lack of adverse effects and safety against overdose, presumably because the preparations are composed entirely of water.

As a result of the magical thinking and the lack of scientific basis behind the principles of homeopathy, it has been unsuccessful in gaining legitimacy within scientific and medical communities. Although countless studies have been conducted on the effects of homeopathy in the treatment of mental health problems, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been completed to date. The vast majority of efficacy studies have been uncontrolled or observational, primarily focusing on single case reports. Contemporary systematic reviews of the research, conducted by Dr. Pilkington and colleagues in the UK, failed to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. Similarly, recent Cochrane Reviews conclude that there is no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or dementia. Essentially the only reliable finding regarding the effects of homeopathy in treating mental health problems has been subjective reports of high levels of patient satisfaction. As a result, homeopaths are sustained by inappropriate research methodology and anecdotes from their own clinical experience.

Homeopathy proponents may claim that patient satisfaction and symptom improvements related to the placebo effect, a phenomenon where people tend to feel better after using an inactive or bogus treatment, are enough to declare that the treatment is beneficial. It is important to note, however, that there is no guarantee that any individual will benefit from placebo in any particular case. Notably, a recent review by Nuhn and colleagues in Germany demonstrated that the placebo effect associated with homeopathic remedies is not larger than placebo effects associated with conventional medicine. In turn, the continued use of unvalidated homeopathic remedies in place of empirically verified treatments can result in wasted money and delayed improvement. As indicated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), individuals with mental health concerns who receive effective treatment early on are less likely to experience reoccurring episodes and have a better long-term prognosis. As a result, the vast majority of health care professionals and medical scientists oppose the practice of homeopathy, warning that there is not enough evidence to recommend homeopathy for the effective treatment of mental health concerns.

A recent survey of alternative medicine users by Davidson and colleagues conducted in the UK and the US, demonstrated that individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders are among the most frequent homeopathy consumers. Accordingly, the campaign for homeopathy as a treatment for mental health concerns by WHAW is problematic in that it targets vulnerable populations with pseudo-scientific and invalidated claims. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that endorsing homeopathy as a viable treatment for mental health concerns is irresponsible and unethical. Alternatively, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) recommends that individuals seeking treatment for mental health problems should see registered professionals, namely licensed psychologists and psychiatrists. This ensures that the practitioner has undergone specialized training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health problems, and provides a high standard of care rooted in scientific evidence.  The last thing patients with mental health concerns should worry about is the credibility of their health care professional.

For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release, contact Michael Kruse at (416) 737-4960.

About the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) and the Centre for Inquiry Canada (CFI):
CASS  is a national, fast response team which critically engages with scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse. We address factual inaccuracies and misinformation in public debates by promoting evidence-based science. CASS is a subset of CFI. CFI is the leading freethought organization in Canada promoting reason, science, secularism and freedom of inquiry.

Contact:

Michael Kruse, Co-Chair and Spokesperson
Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism
(416) 737-4960

Pendulum Effect Episode 18: The Shared Parenting Debate - Should Fathers Have a Default Right to their Child?

From Bias to Balance.  Gender and Equality from a new perspective.

We promise you edgy and controversial episodes that also raise critical points about gender.  Please pass on the links to our itunes account and to our homepage to friends and colleagues who may be interested!

On today’s show:

Men’s rights activists drive Harper’s policies

Toronto Star: Fathers Now Get Custody in Half Cases Because Feminists Fought For Their Rights

The Shared Parenting Bill - House of Commons of Canada

Host Justin Trottier: A leading figure in the freethought movement, Justin is an outspoken advocate of church-state separation, freedom of expression and inquiry, equality rights for non-believers and science education.  He’s had television appearances on CBC, TVO, CTS, OMNI, Global, the Space Channel, CH and CityTV, as well as dozens of radio appearances and coverage in campus, city and national newspapers.

News/Discussion Co-host Michael Payton News: A recent graduate of York University, Michael also worked as a research intern at Harvard and MIT. In 2008 he was ranked in the top ten debaters in Canada and the top 30 in North America.  Michael is also an active public spokesperson - having appeared on numerous TV and radio stations like CBC Radio, the John Moore Show and CTS Television for various political organizations such as the Canadian Secular Alliance.

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Listen Now or Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.