Note that some links will break as pages are moved, websites are abandoned, etc.
If this happens, please try searching for the page in the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.
“Essentially those who wish to make money by practicing medicine without proper training have managed to soften the laws so that they are able to practice medicine without proper training. The usual defenders of consumers against rapacious industry are so beguiled by the touchy-feely rhetoric of promoters, that they have been entirely asleep at the switch. The results are predictable. The latest case to come to media attention comes from down under – Penelope Dingle from Perth Australia, according to local news reports, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2003. Her doctors gave her a good chance of survival with standard therapy – surgery to remove the cancer, and chemotherapy to mop up any loose cells and reduce the risk of recurrence. It is not a pleasant prospect, but with modern care it’s not too bad, and it buys in many cases a greatly improved quality and duration of life. Penelope Dingle, however, chose to refuse all science-based treatment and opted instead for a regimen of diet and homeopathic treatment…The evidence is in the published literature – systematic reviews of systematic reviews show that homeopathy does not work for any indication. When anyone with the slightest objectivity and scientific knowledge examines homeopathy they can only conclude that not only does it not work – it cannot work. It is IBAR (a variation of FUBAR) – implausible beyond all reason. Therefore prescribing homeopathy is incompetent and/or unethical.” Steven Novella, Neurologica Blog (10th June 2010)