SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Ten23 and Me

by Mark Edward, Feb 12 2011

By all homeopathic standards, I should have been dead for five days now. But no, I’m alive and never felt better thanks. As a part of the worldwide Ten23 Homeopathy There’s Nothing in It campaign, Susan Gerbic and I set up an overdose scenario and did our best to do something about this blatant fraud. Homeopathy is an unscientific and absurd pseudoscience, which persists today as an accepted form of complementary medicine, despite there never having been any reliable scientific evidence that it works. Consumers should be able to trust their local drug store to sell products that will help them, and not deny them the facts about products that are known to be useless. If there is nothing in it, it can’t do any harm, right? Wrong! Journalist and science writer Simon Singh MBE explains why homeopathy harms.

View the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVy79Izu05U
With a backdrop of the Pacific ocean to underscore the incredibly insane dilution delusion that according to homeopaths increases the potency of their product each time it’s diluted, I took (by homeopathic “standards”) a massive overdose of phosphorus, while being the witch we all know she is; Susan swallowed a whole bottle of Belladonna hoping to fly as in the legendary ointment made of the same ingredient (See Witches Salve) .  Our friend Zack wolfed down a bottle of arsenic and Susan’s brave son Stirling consumed a whole bottle of potassium chloride, which by the way is the main ingredient used in lethal injections. Are we morbid or macabre in our intake? No, just DOING SOMETHING.

Here’s what these alleged off the shelf “Medicines” are listed for:

PHOSPHORUS: Dizziness, binge eating of food and cold drinks. I’m not kidding, the booklet that is handily laid out on the counter at Whole Foods actually listed binge eating as a symptom.

BELLADONNA: Also known as Deadly Nightshade. Flu symptoms.

ARSENIC: Amazingly, it’s suggested for food poisoning, also headaches and anxiety.

POTASSIUM CHLORIDE: Running nose or cold symptoms. This means if you are condemned to be executed by lethal injection, rest in peace knowing that you won’t die with a runny nose.

Groups all over the planet joined in this campaign. See the growing 10:23 Homeopathy Challenge Playlist at:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AAB5F68533048B67

An amazing testament to what can be done globally. Maybe one day we can get together the same sort of attention to fight phony mediums. I hope I live to see that day.

Stirling Gerbic-Forsyth and I Waiting to Die

To those who chose not to participate: Here was another opportunity where, with only a little effort, you could have DONE SOMETHING about the stupidity and outright rip-offs that are passing for science and medicine in our willfully ignorant society. The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzOidQKafA&p=AAB5F68533048B67 taken aboard a ship in the Antartic demonstrates that even a guy at sea in a freezing environment with only a video camera and his bottle of woo took the time to make a difference. It has been amazing to also see and hear about armchair skeptics who, despite all the positive and encouraging information available on-line and elsewhere, refused to participate out of fear someone might get hurt. What? Do your homework. Or should I say homeopathic work?  This isn’t rocket science.

It is heartening and has been a big boost to feel that I was a a part of something bigger and looking at the videos from Germany, Argentina and dozens of other places around the world showing all the intelligent people who took part and got involved feeds my GUERRILLA SKEPTIC mindset. What does it do for you?

Is there a chance THE EDGE or THE SKEPTOLOGISTS might ever be able to produce this kind of informative and inspiring content? Did the media pay one bit of attention to the thousands of people worldwide who stood up against the tide of bullshit we find ourselves up to our necks in?

Not to my knowledge.

If you know of a major news or media point of view that took an interest in sanity and science in this homeopathy scam, I’d like to hear about it. Randi is now offering a million to not only the companies who produce this snake oil, but also asking places like Walmart, CVS, RiteAid and other pharmacies that dispense this crap alongside real medications to put up or shut up. 

FYI: Perhaps Susan didn’t get to live her chosen superhero dream of flying because she left out the fat from disinterred children, hemlock, aconite, poplar leaves, soot or cowbane, sweet flag, cinquefoil or bat’s blood. I hear bat’s blood is getting harder and harder to find these days. Can we look forward to a homeopathic version of that soon? I wouldn’t be surprised.

37 Responses to “Ten23 and Me”

  1. Old Rockin' Dave says:

    Homeopathic bat’s blood? Easy, just throw a bat into Lake Erie when there’s a good windstorm to shake it up (you can throw a leather belt in along with it if you’re really an orthodox homeopath), then come back in a couple of weeks and draw up an eyedropper-full of the water. Voila! A lifetime supply of homeopathic bat’s blood.

  2. Can I suggest that people check out a reflective blog entry on 10:23 that features on this site:
    http://tribalscientist.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/minus-1023-%E2%80%93-the-little-campaign-that-could
    Part of the conclusion:
    “It would perhaps be a refreshing and positive angle for future campaigns to focus less on antagonistic tactics, and more on reinforcing positive attitudes towards the role of chemistry and physics in medicine. Connecting the public to the strength of science in decision making is a challenge worthy of a mass of passionate people. And just maybe it might mean homeopathy would one day join humour balance and phrenology as a historical curiosity in our medical past.”
    [BTW - 2011 is the International Year of Chemistry, perhaps a future venture could link in with that?]

  3. David Wood says:

    NPR had this on their health blog “Shots”:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/08/133569580/homeopathic-medicine-overdosers-survive-unscathed#commentBlock

    I have been responding on the comments board to the mad claims of a Dr. Muhammed Rafeeque from India. Maybe I’m being ornery, but I refuse to let him have the last word on this post.

  4. Mchl says:

    The 10^23 campaign made me read a bit from homeopathy books I go from my mother (she got them from Boiron, when they were pushing nonsense directly to doctors in the 90s here).

    In ‘Materia Medica’ it states that homeopathic medications can not be overdosed. The medication will only ‘use’ the dose needed and the remainder will no be active. More magick, but this makes them immune to ‘overdosing actions’ like the one we’ve had on Feb 6th.

    • Max says:

      Right. Also, I bet the skeptics swallowed homeopathic preparations that are supposed to be dissolved under the tongue.

      So this demonstration doesn’t prove that homeopathy is wrong, it just raises awareness that homeopathic preparations typically don’t have active ingredients. That’s no surprise to homeopaths, but it may be a surprise to the general public.

      • Mike McRae says:

        To be fair, there are a lot of people who associate all such remedies under the same category. Some forms of OTC medication do little to dissuade their market from thinking of them as simply herbal supplements that treat specific illnesses.

        The problem is that there are two different markets here. One is the casual/curious market – people who appreciate the value of science, who seek conventional medicine, but who venture into alternative medicines on advice from a close friend or out of a general curiosity. The ‘natural is good’ sentiment is appealing, and they know little about the treatments. Interestingly, less is known sociologically about this demographic than the other one, other than the fact they are incredibly diverse and they tend to treat homeopathy as complementary. That means there’s very little chance it will influence them to avoid conventional medicine when they get sick, however there is the possibility that members of this demographic (fraction unknown) would not buy homeopathy if they understood it was devoid of active ingredients.

        The other demographic is smaller, but accounts for the lions share of the market and overlaps greatly with the 4% of the alt-med using population who have admitted to not using evidence-based medicine in the previous year. In this group lies those who are at ‘risk’, either as individuals or as minors in their charge. They tend to be well educated, believe it or not, and aren’t ignorant of the nature of their treatments (even if their values aren’t scientific).

  5. Mike McRae says:

    “By all homeopathic standards, I should have been dead for five days now.”

    Ah, no. By ‘homeopathic standards’, you can’t overdose on homeopathy. In fact, no homeopath would disagree that there’s any single molecule of remaining substance in there. Whether this is something you know and are misrepresenting, or don’t know and are ignorant of, it doesn’t help people who might understand this (or later discover it) to take your protest seriously.

    “To those who chose not to participate: Here was another opportunity where, with only a little effort, you could have DONE SOMETHING about the stupidity and outright rip-offs that are passing for science and medicine in our willfully ignorant society.”

    ‘Done something’ is not the same as ‘done something that might make a difference’. It might make you feel better to have ridiculed something you see as ridiculous, but that doesn’t take a public campaign. Reducing the potentially harmful effects of people avoiding conventional medicine for an ineffective treatment is definitely an important task. Given one of the biggest reasons people maintain a use of alternative medicine over conventional medicine is a sense of disatisfaction with the culture surrounding evidence based treatments (and not, as it is presumed, ignorance on what it constitutes). I don’t see a campaign that revolves around mockery countering this.

    It might make a difference to the curious, casual user of OTC ‘homeopathic-esque’ treatments, at least as far as knowing the alleged mechanism is pseudoscientific, but the fact that 75% of the alt-med market is supported by less than 10% of alt-med users, it might be a hard sell that targeting market forces won’t change.

    “It has been amazing to also see and hear about armchair skeptics who, despite all the positive and encouraging information available on-line and elsewhere, refused to participate out of fear someone might get hurt.”

    The only concerns I heard of fearing harm from the overdose weren’t about the homeopathy itself, but rather the possibility of somebody taking something labeled ‘homeopathic’ which actually contained a dosage of something. A valid point, especially given the concern of poor regulation of the alt-med market.

    10:23 has shown huge potential on the back of a substantial social media presence. It motivated a significant number of people to ‘do something’. What is needed isn’t a back-slapping event of shared ridicule, but a campaign that has clear goals, one that has researched the opportunities that exist with its target demographic, and tries not to reinforce the stereotype of the arrogant scientist who knows little about what it is they’re mocking.

    • Max says:

      Well said.

      The risk of overdose would be from homeopathic preparations with low dilutions, like Cold Eeze, which is a 2X or 1:100 dilution. Homeopathic preparations don’t have to be extremely diluted.

      • Mark Edward says:

        Sorry, No backslapping here. No ridicule either. Just people doing what they could to stop blatant fraud. Simple.
        Your suggestion that those of us who have “mocked” homeopathy helps few, save for the “curious” you mentioned is ridiculous. What was done reaches out to millions of people who may not have a clue about any of the claims. The viral videos and protests (including Randi’s) make a tremendous difference to those people who might now think twice before throwing away their money on bogus claims. Your suggestion that nobody did “research and targeted demographics” flies in the face of the thousands who participated in this campaign, many of whom are scientists and were neither arrogant nor stereotypes. I suggest to you to supply the skeptical movement with “clear goals” rather than carping. What did you do?

      • Mike McRae says:

        “Your suggestion that those of us who have “mocked” homeopathy helps few, save for the “curious” you mentioned is ridiculous. What was done reaches out to millions of people who may not have a clue about any of the claims.”

        You’re making the assumption, however, that ‘reaching millions’ with a stunt and a message of what homeopathy contains has the consequence of changing their behaviour, as if the reason why people take homeopathy is that they don’t know what is – or isn’t – in it.

        For somebody whose fundamental philosophy is evidence based, you’re relying on an uninformed and ignorant assertion that isn’t reflected by the evidence at all.

        “The viral videos and protests (including Randi’s) make a tremendous difference to those people who might now think twice before throwing away their money on bogus claims.”

        See, you say this, but what evidence do you have that it’s true? I don’t doubt that there are people (I’ll even accept ‘millions’ for argument’s sake) who heard that the event took place, and I’ll even accept that the message ‘there’s nothing in it’ was heard and understood by a significant percentage of the audience. But your claim that ‘people will think twice’ – and importantly, people who use alternative medicine to the exclusion of conventional medicine – is based on hope, not evidence.

        “Your suggestion that nobody did “research and targeted demographics” flies in the face of the thousands who participated in this campaign, many of whom are scientists and were neither arrogant nor stereotypes.”

        A perfect example of skeptics not applying skeptical thinking to their pet belief. The logic in this statement is painful – an argument from popularity AND an argument from authority.

        I’m sure there were many scientists, many of whom were lovely people. The basic fact is that the stunt itself – while dramatic – was a mockery of homeopathy, which unlike your opening claim says nothing about being able to overdose on it. It’s a complete strawman. Fun, perhaps. But unconnected with the claim. In fact, there were 10:23 groups this year who abandoned the stunt on recognising that while it might have media appeal, it demonstrated an ignorance of the claims being protested.

        “I suggest to you to supply the skeptical movement with “clear goals” rather than carping. What did you do?”

        I supplied the skeptical movement with ‘clear goals’. Some listened, and it produced some interesting discussion (at least here in Australia). Hopefully it will progress to some changes here and future events will seek the advice of those who work in areas which have a good understanding of public relations, media, communications and sociology. I also continued my work in science communication, teaching others the basic science so they develop values in conventional medicine. I measured the effect of my work, as well, so I’ve got a pretty good idea of the impact of my efforts.

        So, yeah. I did something.

      • Max says:

        One of the things I do is keep skeptics honest so they don’t lose credibility. I think that’s important.

  6. Max says:

    “POTASSIUM CHLORIDE: Running nose or cold symptoms. This means if you are condemned to be executed by lethal injection, rest in peace knowing that you won’t die with a runny nose.”

    What’s your point? KCl can’t treat anything because it’s used in lethal injection? Well it treats hypokalemia, so if you are condemned to be executed by lethal injection, rest in peace knowing that you won’t die with hypokalemia.

    • Mark Edward says:

      Sorry if I attempted to use a bit of humor and didn’t get the exact medical terminology correct. The “point” I was trying to make was the deadliness of the core ingredient. Duh.

      Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

      • Max says:

        What’s wrong, Mark, is that you’re using the same tactic used by alt-med proponents who say vaccines are toxic because they contain mercury, water fluoridation is toxic because sodium fluoride is deadly, etc.

        Also, you said that by all homeopathic standards, you should have been dead, and then acknowledged that by homeopathic standards, the phosphorus you took treats dizziness and binge eating. Where does it say you should be dead?

        Publicity stunts are one thing, lying is another.

      • Mark Edward says:

        My bottle clearly tells the taker to take three pills twice a day. The assumption (and the directions I was given by the woo person at Whole Foods) was that taking any more than the “prescribed dose” would cause the symptoms to increase and would be dangerous.

        This was not a publicity stunt. It was a worldwide campaign to make people aware.

        Calling me a liar is really low.

      • Max says:

        “The assumption was that taking any more than the ‘prescribed dose’ would cause the symptoms to increase and would be dangerous.”

        That was your assumption. A homeopath may think that taking more pills would be simply wasteful. Did the label say anything about overdose, side effects, or adverse events, the way drug labels do?

        “This was not a publicity stunt. It was a worldwide campaign to make people aware.”

        It was a publicity stunt arranged by the 10:23 campaign.

  7. While there was no-one around here to organize an OD, I do try to bring some semblance of science into discussions whenever I can.

  8. Sgerbic says:

    I think the 10:23 campaign was a blast. It felt great to get there with other like-minded skeptics and OD, posting the video amongst all the others all over the world was also awesome. I feel so much more connected to these groups.

    I totally understand that we are not going to be able to reach out to the average woo, those people are not going to watch our video, nor any video that explains the chemical breakdown of the ingredients, or actually anything that sounds too scientifically. Come on now. As suggested earlier we don’t need more science to explain this.

    This was not meant to dissuade people from taking homeopathy (well maybe there is a hope). What this campaign (in my opinion) was to get us together and organize. Bond with a common goal. And educate ourselves. Alt Med isn’t on my list of favorite woo, not even close. I’m a “getting messages from your dead mother” kind of gal, that’s what heats up my engine when it comes to activism. But I need to be a better rounded skeptic, I need to understand this alt med stuff and doing the 10:23 OD really helped. I gained a lot from this.

    What else I discovered was how many people you can count on to actually stand by your side and do something. Not that many. We are divided up in people who say they want to do something, people who just want to complain about doing something, and people who will show up on camera.

    Really did it take that much effort to care? To show up and take the sugar? To be in front of the camera for a couple minutes?

    I’m reading your comments and over and over the subject is being discussed to death. You are over thinking this. Sure we need a better plan, something more organized and serious. Well why that is being discussed I think I’ll just keep doing what I can, making contacts with like minded doers. When the plan is decided on and they are looking around the room for who will actually take part in it, well they just got my screen test.

    • Mike McRae says:

      “This was not meant to dissuade people from taking homeopathy (well maybe there is a hope). What this campaign (in my opinion) was to get us together and organize.”

      This is a campaign with more goalposts than your average Quidditch match. :P

      I’m pleased that comradery and education are what you got out of it, but this clearly wasn’t an overall goal of the campaign. Skeptics in the Pub events serve that purpose so much better without the need to engage the public.

      “You are over thinking this. Sure we need a better plan, something more organized and serious. Well why that is being discussed I think I’ll just keep doing what I can, making contacts with like minded doers.”

      Asking for evidence of an event actually being effective is ‘overthinking’ now?

      Here’s the irony – part of the problem expressed about homeopathy is that it is an ineffective medication. People spend money on it while it there is no evidence that it does anything, and those who know something about it know it is incompatible with what we know about chemistry. To make it work, people often dismiss the chemistry in favour of their own intuition and presume forces for which there is no evidence. In response to using it for a sniffle or a cough, they’ll often say ‘it’s better than taking nothing’.

      Likewise, here we have an event where skeptics presume by publicising the chemical properties of homeopathy along with a strawman stunt will have some effect, in spite of having no evidence and it contradicting what is known about public use of alternative medicine. To make it work, skeptics will dismiss the sociological evidence in favour of their own intuition and presume behaviours for which there is no evidence. In response to engaging in this, spending time and money on the campaign, they’ll often say ‘it’s better than doing nothing’.

      Here’s something even better still – try to understand what it is that’s being addressed. Viewing this as ‘woo vs. rational’ is not reflected by the reality of medical culture. There’s plenty of research on medical anthropology regarding alternative medicine use, yet I know very few skeptics who’ve taken the time of day to really understand the population they wish to target, relying instead on personal (and, as we know, biased) experiences.

      If it’s a meet-and-greet with a study session you want, there are many opportunities that don’t involve an international campaign that serve the purpose a lot better.

  9. Chris Howard says:

    As much as I hate to say this, we need a PR agent/agency. My guess is that when events are organized, no one is contacting the media, promoting, press kits, advertising, etc. Mark definitely understands that showmanship is a big part of garnering attention. News worthy, means sensational. So what the media needs to hear is “costs consumers billions.” “harms customers” “fraud” etc., etc.
    Until that, sad, but true fact is realized no media outlet will pick up the story.

    • Kylie Sturgess says:

      I did create a small media kit suggestion overview for people in my country, and the 10:23 UK group (who were organising) did have suggestions too. However, both were naturally limited – media training is a particular skill and requires practice, exposure and an understanding of how the media works – there’s lots of elements including knowing exactly how to come across. It certainly can use more work. Giving the names of newspaper journalists, radio outlets and TV contacts (as I had) also requires us to come up with the goods on our end so they meet us half-way.

      Back at TAM3, James Randi ran a ‘media outreach’ workshop and showed like any skill, it requires actual application, development and refinement. It’s most likely something outside of the reach of skeptical groups being able to supply and should be sought via other outlets like Toastmasters or Science Communication courses or even just contacting a training opportunity via public relations agencies, as you say. Tapping into the broad range of skeptically minded people out there who have these skills and asking them to advise.

      NB – ‘news worthy means sensational’ can run the risk of doing what Mark has demonstrably done here and produce wrong information (‘Sorry if I attempted to use a bit of humor and didn’t get the exact medical terminology correct’) – that kind of thing can be picked up and backfire badly. ‘Skeptics lie, skeptics don’t know what they’re talking about, skeptics just want to be trouble-makers.’

      This was why urging people to know what they’re talking about before they go to the media is important during this campaign, because although there are indeed excellent cases of the detriments of CAM, it won’t be helped by panic-mongering.

      • Chris Howard says:

        Good points, save one. I’m not suggesting panic mongering. I am suggesting a hook. Grabbing attention, ie., the hook is not the same as misrepresenting the truth. CAM, by in large, is fraud, does threaten the consumers health, and possibly life, it does waste tax payors money, when financed by the government, and it is a waste of billions of dollars. I guess what I’m saying is, tell the truth, but make it interesting.

  10. Dalradian says:

    Hmm, this started out last year as a UK based campaign that worked wonderfully to put the question of funding homeopathy on the NHS on the agenda.
    The organisers of the 10:23 action -the Merseyside Skeptics – decided to expand the campaign to the rest of the world for 2011. http://www.1023.org.uk/ and http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-1023-Campaign/410614220413
    Exposures of homeopaths on Newsnight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgHRWB6-k-Q shows they are still prescribing it for the use maleria or AIDS, not just self correcting symptoms. ofr something they can’t call medicines for animals.
    I can witness that the effect of lots of skeptics taking a 31C dose of Belladonna is a sound of crunchcrunccrunch

    As to effect – last 10:23 overdose it produced lost of press and comments in the UK. Now,any auch article seems to be more anti-homeopathic, the comments are stuffed full of vocal, well informed skeptics, the main medical societies in the UK are questioning the position of it within the NHS, as as politicians and regualtary bodies.
    For 12 months work, i think this is a resounding success of grassroots SiTP groups in the UK.
    It isn’t over, but is a good first step to raise the issues – and the agressive response shows we have hit a nerve in the alt med industry.

    • Mark Edward says:

      Thanks for pointing out what happened in the UK. The evidence is clear that what has been tagged “panic mongering” is far from that in the case of 10:23. I’m glad that at least one person who has commented on this blog “got it” in the manner my participation in the 10:23 experience was intended.

      Fact is folks I’m a performer, not a scientist or a logic major or statistician or demographic specialist. I have never pretended to be anything else. I understand the one thing I was trained in: showmanship. If that’s deemed a fault or character defect in the minds of the skeptical community, I can’t apologize for what I know has worked for me to help get the word out about fraud and rip-offs in the past. That’s really the best I can do. I’ll leave the strategical and media fitting to others.

      The suggestion that I was a part of panic mongering is just an unbelievable insult to me and all the people I know who worked so hard to produce something that just might get some people to think for a change.

      Someone else can do the measuring and eventually deciding whether or not there was any sociological backfire when the information becomes available and they want to do that part of the work if they seriously think what we did was a meaningless waste of time. Yes, the 10:23 experiment may have had its flaws and logical disconnects, but the sun will rise tomorrow.

      “Give a skeptic an inch, and he will measure it.” How true.

      As I said in my post and what has been and remains my main focus as far as my skeptical interests are concerned, would be turning the kind of worldwide attention and public outcry that took place with 10:23 to the outing of phony psychics, mediums ghost hunters, police psychics and the thousands of other spook crooks that are out there right now doing their thing bilking people while we split hairs like this. 10:23 was a test operation for me as I’m sure it was for many.

      Yes, I’m sure there would be a very hard hill to climb in measuring the end results of breaking the back of the worldwide belief in psychics too. It would be a huge undertaking and I would expect little cooperation from those who want immediate results, but someone has to do it even if the majority may say “skeptics lie, skeptics don’t know what they are talking about and skeptics just want to be trouble makers.” And some will indeed say that, to be sure. What’s the alternative? That’s the game isn’t it?

      Sometimes I truly wonder why I bother to post here anymore.
      Now I’m called a liar?
      What?
      Nice.

      • Max says:

        Being a performer isn’t an excuse to get facts wrong or commit the same logical fallacies that your unskeptical opponents make.

        For example, instead of wrongly saying that by all homeopathic standards you should’ve been dead, you could’ve rightly said that had the pills contained a significant amount of the active ingredient, you would’ve been dead or sick.

        As was pointed out to Brian Dunning after his DDT fail, digging in and not making appropriate corrections will mean that people lose confidence in you.

      • Mike McRae says:

        “The suggestion that I was a part of panic mongering is just an unbelievable insult to me and all the people I know who worked so hard to produce something that just might get some people to think for a change.”

        You’re doing a lot of special pleading here, and little demonstration of thinking about the topic. Yes, you’re a performer. I don’t see how that excuses you from understanding what it is you’re protesting, especially as the public doesn’t see much difference between an expert and a showman when they’re both selling a belief.

        The fact that you feel insulted is irrelevant. I marvel at the irony of skeptics who feel upset when somebody criticises them for not getting their facts straight.

        The fact is that you’re misrepresenting the facts and dismissing that because you feel at least your heart’s in the right place. We wouldn’t accept that from anybody else, as skeptics – why should you get a free pass from being criticised? If anything, you should know better, given skeptics hold such value in critical thinking skills.

        “Someone else can do the measuring and eventually deciding whether or not there was any sociological backfire when the information becomes available and they want to do that part of the work if they seriously think what we did was a meaningless waste of time. Yes, the 10:23 experiment may have had its flaws and logical disconnects, but the sun will rise tomorrow.”

        I think this sums it up quite nicely. You’re not interested personally in whether it worked or not – so long as you got to vent your rage and DO something. Another fine example of the placebo protester.

        And yet you then say…

        “10:23 was a test operation for me as I’m sure it was for many.”

        How odd. It’s a test you’re not interested in testing.

        “Yes, I’m sure there would be a very hard hill to climb in measuring the end results of breaking the back of the worldwide belief in psychics too.”

        It is hard. And there are no immediate results. Homeopathy has been around for a couple centuries now, and people have been protesting it for most of those years. Psychics and also sorts of snake oil sellers also aren’t all that new, nor people arguing they’re fakes, frauds or deluded. And I guarantee the future will be little different.

        However what will make some difference is to learn from past efforts and studies on why people believe in these things, and use that information to identify methods that successfully mitigate the effects of poor thinking.

        You ask for cooperation, presuming that all it takes is doing something without considering or even caring what an effective action might be. Meanwhile, as a science educator I find it’s difficult getting a handful of skeptics or scientists out into the community to do one thing that has been shown to improve critical reasoning skills – promoting scientific values amongst kids. Yes, cooperation would be nice, but some things just aren’t as sexy as grabbing media limelight with a stunt.

        I think Max said it nicely – demonstrating willful ignorance is a fast way for people to lose confidence in you. Once that happens, it makes little difference as to what you have to say.

  11. Kevin says:

    I am still undecided as to how I feel about this campaign. On the one hand, I have no problem with using mockery to target what is arguably the most ridiculous of alt-med modalities around. I think by dramatically pointing out the absurdity of homeopathy, it is not unreasonable to think that a few curious users may be put-off from spending money on it in the future.
    However, one of the reasons why I would never recommend homeopathy to one of my patients, and the reason I would actively try to dissuade them from using these products, is the complete lack of regulation and oversight in their manufacture. There is no way to know what is contained within a homeopathic remedy thanks to incredibly lax standards in North America (and presumably elsewhere). Unfortunately, I think the end result of these protests for many observers will be affirmation that homeopathic remedies are safe and completely devoid of risk – in sharp contrast to science-based medicine.

    • Max says:

      Homeopathy is FDA regulated, so the the labels shouldn’t be allowed to lie about the ingredients. But some ingredients in low dilutions like 2X or 3X can be dangerous, like the case of Zicam causing permanent loss of a sense of smell.

  12. Robo Sapien says:

    I am currently planning my own activist event to educate the public on the quackery of male enhancement products. Myself and participants will pop a high dose of Viagra or Extenze and dry-hump women at random. When millions of viewers see how women are just as creeped out as if an “unenhanced” man dry humped them, they will think twice about popping these boner pills.

    It’s better than dry-humping nothing.

  13. DeLong says:

    My only concern with this demonstation is that you have to BUY the blasted products in order to have an “overdose.” I totally abhor spending any of my money on something as useless as a homeopathic item. I would get more out of my money, at least in terms of BTUs, if I were to burn it! I really think that everyone participating in this demonstration should also write their legislative representatives and ask that laws be passed that would prohibit a store from having both a license for a pharmacy (a real, prescription filling pharmacy) and selling homeopathic concoctions. My recently elected member of the California Assembly is a physician. I will write him such a letter today.

    • Sgerbic says:

      I totally understand, I hated to have to give them my money. But at least for me it really sent the lesson home because I had to go through the process that anyone wanting to take the stuff would.

      The very first drugstore I went into had them, and I didn’t even have to look around. Sadly as I went to the register to ask where they were located I noticed the whole display at the counter.

      I looked over the display and talked to a pharmacist who tired telling me first that they contained “wood bark” then he told me that he had no idea what would happen if I took the whole bottle. Sadly he said that there have been “no tests” on homeopathy so he has no idea what is in them.

      That was eye opening. Shelling out $11 for the bottle made me feel like I learned a lesson and now could complain as I owned it. The whole experience really was worth it.

      I know I’m not explaining well, but I think more skeptics should actually experience first hand what is going on in the world of woo, and not just read about it.

      • Robo Sapien says:

        Personally, I’m quite content just reading about it. Why would I need to spend a bunch of money on sugar pills just to experience what it’s like to get ripped off? I think most people are already quite familiar with this experience.

  14. Paulina says:

    This is an interesting exchange from the standpoint of a very healthy person who usually has no contact with hospitals or doctors. I previously only saw doctors when I was pregnant, but was recently diagnosed with a tumorous mass in an eye orbit and in a cranial bone.

    It has been a steep learning curve. I have been referred to neurologist after neurologist, and told I needed an extensive surgery and reconstruction, including titanium mesh and pins. None have written the surgical procedure down, and I have the sense that none of them are even talking about exactly the same surgery.

    The reason I am sharing this is that a recent comment by a neurologist sums up the medical community’s basic attitude towards questions. I asked if instead of surgery, radiofrequency ablation could be used to halt the bone tumor. He said, “Now you are just picking things out of the air. No one would use that.” I had simply gotten the information from Wikipedia (perhaps my mistake) and wanted to see if this would be an alternative I could persue. I got an ad hominim attack and escorted out the door soon after.

    People who seek alternatives to what medical doctors recommend, I think, should be encouraged in at least their sense of responsibility for their own health and well-being. What is really a serious problem is the implicit trust too many people place in med doctors. The side effects of the pharmaceuticals and surgeries are sometimes life altering and tragic. It is a little thing, a trifle, to try homeopathy. But to blindly accept medical treatments just because you haven’t been to medical school is the real juncture where more lives are damaged than is acknowledged. So I am making a plea here, not to insult the patient with questions.

    • Mike McRae says:

      That’s not an uncommon account, Paulina. I’m currently studying medical anthropology and have read a number of similar case studies, especially involving a move into CAM.

      While science is incredibly useful, especially in medicine, it is a distinct thing from the culture that surrounds it. Even in my experience as a science writer (and in the past, a science teacher), there is a sense of aggressive arrogance in how knowledge is often communicated. Being wrong is seen as something to be punished or ridiculed rather than being corrected or even first understood (with view of how to best negotiate discussion). As you indicated, people aren’t doing the wrong thing by looking at alternatives, given they’re seeking ways to engage with their health. Addressing the real reasons behind CAM use rather than assumptions of stupidity, ignorance or fraud will go much further to helping people rather than isolating them.

  15. ed says:

    very funny clip of Mitchell and Webb parody about homeopathic medicine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

  16. Paulina says:

    Mike McRae says: “That’s not an uncommon account, Paulina. I’m currently studying medical anthropology and have read a number of similar case studies, especially involving a move into CAM.”

    I would be intereseted in seeing a broader study of this. I only have some anecdotal evidence. In fact recently, I have become practically a magnet for stories relating to the sociology of the field of medical practice.

    There are a lot of wonderful MDs and some amazing scientific advances; however, as a newcomer to the world of medicine, I very quickly decided that my main objective, along with getting healed, is to avoid all side effects and unintended consequences from the treatments- which of course require more treatments to address! So in that sense I could use homeopathy if I chose and still “do no harm.”

    The desire to make people aware of a potential waste of money on something which arguably has no active ingredient, but may afford some placebo effect, is understandable. There are a lot of vitamins and supplementary potions that pass right through the body. Harmlessly. It is not much different.

    But I feel growing concern that the principle “Primum non nocere” is routinely broken by devastating “cures,” which are as bad or worse than the problem they were developed to treat.