Minutus

It’s not just homeopathy that’s being trashed by the skeptics (sceptics).
Despite being “legal” in the USA since 1996, and recognized (recognized) for thousands of years, they’re also taking aim at acupuncture.

Fake medicine? No, many of these alternative modalities are “REAL HEALING”
An acupuncturist was stunned at the tone of this Forbes opinion piece, on the prospect of the military conducting trials to see if acupuncture can help with pain. Sound familiar?

Medicare Aims To Study Treating Real Pain With Fake Medicine
Medicare Aims To Study Treating Real Pain With Fake Medicine
Steven Salzberg

The US Medicare system wants to sponsor a set of trials to test if acupuncture is effective for low back pain. E...
But also this mixed National Public Radio article, with a positive-toned title...

Military Pokes Holes In Acupuncture Skeptics' Theory

Military Pokes Holes In Acupuncture Skeptics' Theory
In an effort to shake up a "pill for every ill" approach, the Army is making alternative treatments more widely ...
Possibly some sway in the direction of going for what works, if the alternative is doing so much real harm to society?

It is not news that the medical industry, beginning in the late 1800's but specifically in the early 1900's,

controlled heavily by the Rockefellers, made a conscious plan to control all health/healing in the US. They

set out to create a trade organization called the AMA in order to brand the foundering industry. They knew

that homeopathy was much more effective than what they did so went after it with full force. The Flexner Report

(did I remember the name correctly) was designed with the goal of trashing Homeopathy and the colleges that

did the teaching. It is a practice of fake science that we are all too familiar with today as the junk tobacco science

or chemical science of killer drugs such as Vioxx or the thalidimide cancer causing scourge of the 1950's.
What frustrates me is how this kind of information does not form the basis of organizing efforts. It is never even
mentioned but people write nice, polite pieces that mildly critiques some small aspect of the problem in isolation

from the big picture. While this is typical throughout our culture, our concern here should be on how we shoot ourselves

in the foot by not educating people and calling out the essence of the problem. We let the industry create the narrative

and we dutifully follow along. Time for us to create the narrative that we want and need which needs to be calling out

the history of the problem, the structural nature of the problem, and false science that goes for information.

t
Medicare Aims To Study Treating Real Pain With Fake Medicine
Steven Salzberg

The US Medicare system wants to sponsor a set of trials to test if acupuncture is effective for low back pain. E...

Military Pokes Holes In Acupuncture Skeptics' Theory
In an effort to shake up a "pill for every ill" approach, the Army is making alternative treatments more widely ...

Tanya, A quick little correction in dates:

The American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH) was founded in 1844.

The American Medical Association was founded in 1845, and one of its statements was that any doctor found to practice or support homeopathy would be disbarred from membership in the AMA.

They also did not like / want any of the other “Eclectic” practices in vogue at mid-century …

It wasn’t until Bayer and other chemical companies were able to create man-made medicinal compounds, such as synthesized acetylsalicylic acid in 1899, marketed as Aspirin tablets in 1915, that “big pharma” took off in a big way.

Kristy

Interesting Kristy as your dates contradict my reading. The early efforts to create an AMA (under different names) mid-19 c were pretty much

failures but they did allow the md's to be practicing homeopaths as well. It wasn't until the early 20c when Rockefeller

money poured in but the old man stayed out of the group that new-wave marketing people took over and demanded

homeopaths and other eclectics be excluded.

I did not say anything about homeopathic organizatiions as they had their own history to be sure and did begin much earlier

that the allopathic group. If you remember medical training mid-19c was only a 1 yr course and pretty much was peopled

with ne.er do wells from the towns and farm communities. When Eliz Blackwell became the 1st woman allowed in medical

'schools' this was the state of education back then and that was in the late 19c.

t

I’m using “The Faces of Homoeopathy: an illustrated history of the first 200 years” by Julian Winston.
On pp. 49 and 50, he discusses the founding of the American Institute of Homoeopathy in 1844, “… in response to the lack of national medical standards…”

Then, “…Three years later, in 1847, the American Medical Association was formed by the “regulars”, partially in reaction to the spread of homoeopathy. Their charter contained a clause preventing any member from consulting with any practitioner “whose practice is based on an exclusive dogma…”

On p. 51, “By the mid-1850s all state medical societies except Massachusetts Medical Society had purged their homoeopathic members. In 1856, the American Medical Association resolved that homoeopathic works should henceforth no longer be discussed or reviewed o allopathic periodicals. After this time there was no formal communication whatever between the two branches of the profession; allopaths were forbidden to consult with homoeopathic physicians or to patronize their pharmacies.”
On pages 142 and 143, Winston discusses how women were ‘naturals’ to gravitate towards homoeopathy, and were gradually admitted to homoeopathic medical colleges starting in 1852.
On page 144 and onward, he discusses female MDs, starting with Clemence Sophia Lozier, MD (1813 – 1888).
Dana Ullman’s book, “The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy” is also good at describing all the champions!!
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:41 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Other modalities, too
Interesting Kristy as your dates contradict my reading. The early efforts to create an AMA (under different names) mid-19 c were pretty much

failures but they did allow the md's to be practicing homeopaths as well. It wasn't until the early 20c when Rockefeller

money poured in but the old man stayed out of the group that new-wave marketing people took over and demanded

homeopaths and other eclectics be excluded.

I did not say anything about homeopathic organizatiions as they had their own history to be sure and did begin much earlier

that the allopathic group. If you remember medical training mid-19c was only a 1 yr course and pretty much was peopled

with ne.er do wells from the towns and farm communities. When Eliz Blackwell became the 1st woman allowed in medical

'schools' this was the state of education back then and that was in the late 19c.

t


Virus-free. www.avg.com

The reading I had done for some research on the history of women in medicine led me to some very interesting sources.

All of them indicated that what you call the 'regulars' were a rag tag bunch of people who were unsuccessful in their attempts

to form a trade organization. So what you say may be true but the context is way too limited to reflect the truth of what was happening.

It wasn't until the early 1900's that a trade organization formed. Further there was no AMA in the years you mention. That name

did not come into being till much later.

There, no doubt, was competition between the holistic practitioners later referred to as the Eclectics from early on. And your notes

really need to reflect the low level of training and who was getting that training in the 19c. They really had no power or much
influence. Actually they were referred to as Quacks! They were the original ones.
t


Virus-free. www.avg.com