Reading the guardian’s hilarious response to the mirror’s ‘celebrities who swear by homeopathy’ article (an ironic like cures like using fictional celebrities to endorse real medicine rather than real celebrities to endorse fictional medicine), I went back to the mirror article and was once again surprised by how homeopathy was characterized as ‘natural’.
Now, I really shouldn’t be surprised by this point, this is a common tagline, even though it’s obviously hogwash of the highest caliber, but it seems when I spend extended periods of time not looking up articles written for stupid people by stupid people I forget just how stupid it’s possible to be. Okay, that was mean, replace stupid with wrong and we’re back in the fairness game, because there’s no doubt about it, homeopathy is anything but ‘natural.
Natural, meaning of nature, surely refers to things that exist in the universe, and can therefore be found within it, and that’s the broad bloody definition, if you use a narrower one it gets even thinner, and yet, even with this very simple requirement, homeopathy does not qualify as natural, because it can’t be perceived in our universe. It doesn’t exist, there’s no measurable effect, it’s based on a water memory and like cures like notion that has been clearly knocked down and demonstrated over and over again to not line up with the way our universe works.
So why, when presenting these ‘celebrities’, does the mirror repeatedly show them holding flowers and talking about natural alternatives? Does the writer of the article really think that taking homeopathy’s the equivalent of munching on a daffodil, because if so they should be fired. Being so ignorant should not go along with being a journalist, that’s a profession that supposedly works by investigation and research to make sure that articles are well-informed, rather than a shit-ton of buzz words and some pictures of an actress holding lavender. Homeopathy is not represented well by plants, because plants exist, in reality. This should be pretty clear but I’m going to say it anyway: plants are NATURAL, homeopathy, by definition is UNNATURAL. You don’t get to change the definition of a word to fit your meaning, you don’t get to decide that natural means ‘not made in a lab’, because that’s a load of old bollocks. I’d even go so far as to argue that a lab is natural because it’s real; natural’s a strange word, like spirituality because people throw it about as if it means good, when it actually has a definition.
And that’s not even to begin to argue that natural does not mean good, right, or effective. In essence this whole post has been me arguing about how these homeopaths can’t even rightly make a logical fallacy in support of their ideas. Put simple, they’re wrong, and if they weren’t wrong they’d be wrong… because they’re wrong.
Sorry, but that’s the way the universe works, you don’t get to make decisions for it. If science determines that something is not a function of the universe you’d do better to move on than use celebrity endorsements as evidence, because that’s another logical fallacy and a bloody obvious one, only proving how low these promotional tactics have been sinking in recent years.
My advice is to give up, study real medicine and become real doctors, then you can actually help people and you might learn a thing or two about how medicine really works.