Minutus

I agree Tanya. What is needed is training in public speaking and a more
forceful attitude from the homeopathic community, but having said that,
the media actually wants someone who doesn't come across well. I have
been trying to rack my brains for the name of a doctor who speaks out
against the medical profession, I think it was Vernon Coleman, a doctor
that they stopped using on TV/Radio because he always won the battle and
shot down the adversary.

At the end of the day though, there has to be a homeopathic community
that actually provides homeopathy, so that people get what they pay for
and will continue to come back and recommend the system to others.
From the numerous people that I have spoken to that just isn't happening
in the human profession, or the veterinary one.

Kerry

that is my point exactly!
tanya

I am sure it is Vernon Coleman they won't have on. Here are some of his
words to give you an idea why:

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/quotesfrom.htm

It is many, many years since I heard him on radio but I recall him as
being great to listen to.

Kerry

Yes...it's sad, and orchestrated. HOw did this homeopath become a major representative? He has an apologetic demeanor for our science and caved into her tidle wave several times.
She seems quite keen on quantum physics - 'the doctor thinking about the remedy'....that's an additional twist on what to use against homeopaths...and since when doesn't an allopathic patient AND doctor not *know exactly what that patient will be taking*? Come on.
Liz

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry" wrote:

I'm not sure "... think they have to be nice ... " etc. is the point at all!
Some people are simply *inclined* differently than others, and some groups tend to attract more of one inclination than another. However, education and "having a plan" might be useful. I very much agree that being "nice" will not save us; being savvy might be a better start.

Shannon

Yes - didn't he!
Liz

Dr. George Lewith is a long-time supporter of CAM - he writes lots of srticles in medical journals, has a thriving homeopathic practice in harley Street but is also well-known on TV - did a popular series for the BBC on different forms of CAM about 4 years ago.
Liz

Public perception is an interesting thing... A big part of being an
effective public communicator in debates is to know the hearts and minds of
your audience. This was a television segment for general viewing, wasn't it,
not a science forum. To me, G. Lewith gave a credible presentation and his
words were measured and positive and open-minded. Remember, it is this same
open-minded, enquiring attitude which many prospective homoeopathy patients
bring to their first homoeopathy consultation. They don't come along to get
a science lesson in the efficacy of double blind trials, dilution levels, or
the memory of water. The public has simply heard enough anecdotal evidence
already to seek out homoeopathic treatment for their own complaints. They
know from experience that conventional medicine has limited options in the
treatment and cure of chronic disease. The female speaker could NOT counter
that latter argument at all, because it's a fact! And I think Lewith used
this fact in a very credible way to promote the need for further
homoeopathic research and services. He spoke to the hearts and minds of the
general public watching the programme.

Obtaining grants for research and clinical trials is a desperate and
cut-throat business within allopathic ranks, so the idea that precious
funding dollars is being "wasted" on "bogus" alternative therapies is a
complete anathema to their way of thinking. To me, the female speaker
appeared at times aggressive, condescending, closed off, and was intent on
ramming home her very fixed ideas. She was clearly not up to speed with the
current body of information and trials which show the positive effect of
homoeopathy. This lack of knowledge made her look ill-prepared, and her own
arguments deficient. Sure she scored some points, and somebody else may have
countered her statements in a more lively way, but come on, he's not the
only public figure speaking on our behalf and I think he did a credible job
under those circumstances. It's important also not to come across as
personally offended or hyper-defensive under attack (- even if at home we're
throwing shoes at the tv screen ). I especially liked his final statement
on the truly dubious science around Prozac prescriptions. Take heart, he won
the day!

Chris.

would be nice if you were right. however, the public is lead by the emotional nose
and responds to the superficial. it is the pull of the energy that draws people in and
lewith could put anyone to sleep in a heartbeat.
perhaps if he was a lone presenter his ideas would stand out clearly, but he was
beaten up in this interview. i guess a public survey would be needed to assess his effect
in this interview.
tanya

I agree Tanya, and those were good points Chris, but he was overtaken. As wonderful a homeopath, person, and speaker in another situation he may be, she beat him up in the public view here. With her statements on placebo - which I was amazed at, it was a perfect opportunity to douse it some with facts like, allopathic doctors & patients both 'know what is being given', in homeopathy the wrong remedy will not work & the correct one work, and unconscious patients, babies & animals all respond...have her respond to something for a change and explain that.
She went on about being more dilute = being more *effective*, not correct. She said it works *because* water has memory, well yes, but an opportunity to build on that over simplification for the public ear. He agrees with her about being implausible quite well, not sure that helped without something sparkling to follow. Then the whole direction of 'only as last resort' was really stamped in there.
So it's not disrespectful to look at all this and be realistic as to what this looked like to the public.
Thanks,
Liz

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette" wrote: