No, we’re
not giving a separate entry to QAnon champion and generally deranged madman David DePape, partly because we suspect his
brand of lunacy is not the kind we like to cover here but more importantly
because he is, in fact, Canadian. And though more obviously a threat to his
immediate surroundings, even DePape’s got nothing on Gail Derin and Vickie
Menear in terms of dangerous delusions.
"Dr." Derin
Derin and Menear are homeopaths. Now, that homeopathy is laughable quackery hardly needs saying, but homeopathic products are also usually mostly harmless, at least to the extent that most frauds are “harmless” and at least as long as you don’t delude yourself into thinking they can actually do anything whatsoever to remedy disease or, even worse, be a legitimate substitute for real treatment. But despite the fact that the proposed mechanisms by which homeopathic products are supposed to treat disease sound too silly to work as a parody of cartoon versions of witches’ brews (or ORMUS), some homeopaths actually think their products can do something. Derin and Menear, in particular, think homeopathic products can be used to treat Ebola.
Of course they can’t, but it is nevertheless worth giving the explanation from homeopathic groups for how Derin’s and Menear’s products are supposed to accomplish what they claim: “Dr. Gail Derin studied the symptoms of Ebola Zaire, the most deadly of the three that can infect human beings. Dr. Vickie Menear, M.D. and homeopath, found that the remedy that most closely fit the symptoms of the 1914 “flu” virus, Crolatus horridus, also fits the Ebola virus nearly 95% symptom-wise! Thanks go to these doctors for coming up with the following remedies: 1. Crolatus horridus (rattlesnake venom) 2. Bothrops (yellow viper) 3. Lachesis (bushmaster snake) 4. Phosphorus 5. Merc. cor.” (Note the quotation marks around ‘flu’ and the inaccuracy concerning the year). Yes, the reasoning is that snake venom “closely fits” the symptoms of the Spanish flu (whatever that means) and that the Spanish flu and Ebola are somewhat alike, and therefore snake venom cures Ebola … well, that’s not quite all of it: water that has been exposed to rattlesnake venom but have subsequently been diluted not to contain any trace of it, cures Ebola – as long as you have performed the correct psychic rituals during the dilution process. To assert how responsible they are, the homeopaths also warn you “[d]o not try to take care of yourself without the further education and experience that a homeopath can give you” if you think you suffer from Ebola. And remember fellow homeopath Joetta Calabrese’s point: “In the case of Ebola, no conventional treatment or vaccine is available. Fortunately for us, homeopathy has great renown for its healing ability in epidemics.” No, DePape’s deranged detachment from reality got nothing on these people. Even Mike Adams found the ideas too quacky for serious consideration, and that’s a first.
Diagnosis: It’s somewhat tricky to determine how bizarre one’s delusions have to be in order to qualify for a genuine medical diagnosis, but this got to be at least borderline. Their danger to their immediate surroundings is probably limited (one hopes) but it’s not worth it to let them get anywhere near you, your loved ones, your pets or anything else you care about.
Homeopaths like to brag about water having "memory." Does that mean water from the sewer has it?
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't but homeopaths and sewer are full of it......ooops I forgot the sh.....
ReplyDeleteAre you a scientist? How are you so confident in your assessment?
ReplyDeleteWhich assessment? Of homeopathy in general? Or of Derin's and Menear's delusions in particular?
DeleteAnyways, in order to contextualize your question, you should probably explain why you think the answer would matter. Are you for instance seeing anything in the post that you worry might be in tension with well-established scientific results?
Referring to your homeopathy is quackery. Astonishingly confident. So...are you a scientist?
ReplyDelete"Astonishingly confident"? The author is backed up by universal consensus among medical scientists ... are you under the delusion that there is any *controversy* about homeopathy being quackery in medical science? You may, in that case, benefit from following the links in the post.
DeleteAnd you still haven't answered the question about relevance. Insofar as one's claims are in line with consensus among established experts, it's sufficient to refer to the work of those experts. The sources used for the post (follow the link) are written by experts, so it wouldn't matter if the author of the post is an expert: If you're not an expert yourself, refer to the work of experts, and as long as you are reporting them accurately, whatever authority their claims have carry over to yours.
Where one's own status as an expert or not matters, however, is when one's claims are in *disagreement* with the majority of experts. Then one should justifiably wonder what authority your claims would have.
Since the assessment of homeopathy in post are in line with positions that are uncontroversial among scientists, however, whether the author of the post is an expert or not doesn't matter.