Following the debate that was held between Drs. André Saine and Steven Novella at the University of Connecticut Medical Center on March 22, 2013 on whether homeopathy is a great medicine or a dangerous psuedoscience. Drs. Saine and Novella have agree to pursue further this debate into an in depth, professional discussion through questions, answers and comments.
Questions & Answers to Dr. André Saine from Dr. Novella.
Q1. What do you consider to be the best clinical evidence…
ASKED. March 28, 2013
Answered. July 7, 2013 | PART II › Read Dr. Saine’s answer
Answered. April 9, 2014 | PART III › Read Dr. Saine’s answer
Answered. March 11, 2015 | PART IV › Read Dr. Saine’s answer
The following summary of Dr. Saine’s answer to Dr. Steven Novella first post debate question was written to address Dr. Novella’s concern that the four-part answer was too long to read. This summary should take no longer than 30 minutes to read. Even though, it was sent multiple times to Dr. Novella, he never acknowledged receiving it and never responded to Dr. Saine’s detailed and comprehensive answer to his question. How can we interpret Dr. Novella’s sudden arrest in communication other than the arguments and facts presented in Dr. Saine’s answer are too incongruent with Dr. Novella’s worldview? It is interesting to note that skeptic Joe Schwarcz had also quit abruptly the post-debate written exchange he had initiated with Dr. Saine.
Questions & Answers to Dr. Steven Novella from Dr. Saine.
Q1. It is quite common for homeopathy to be grossly misrepresented…
ASKED. March 28, 2013
This question has been harshly argued for more than 200 years. And for more than 200 years, the two positions in this conflicts have remained in a complete deadlock. It is astonishing to note that arguments on either have essentially not changed much over this long period of time. On one side, skeptics are claiming from a purely theoretical point of the view, “homeopathy is implausible. Therefore it can’t work,” and any evidence in its favor must logically be flawed. On the other hand, we have generations after generations of homeopaths claiming from a purely factual point of view and with loads of evidence, “And yet, it works!”
Questions to Dr. André Saine
Questions to Dr. Joe Schwarcz
Should it be Regulated as a Primary Care Service in Quebec and
Should Naturopathic Doctors Have a Full Scope of Practice?
On May 8, 2012, we witnessed a spectacular debate between André Saine, ND, President of the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine, and Joe Schwarcz, PhD, Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, and graciously and humorously moderated by Mark Ware, MD, Director of Clinical Research and Pain Management at McGill University. The debate seemingly came to the resolution by both debaters that yes, naturopathic medicine should be regulated in Quebec and there should be oversight of the profession. The crux of the debate related to: is there evidence for naturopathic medicine (Dr. Saine argued yes), what about conventional medicine (similarly, it has evidence for treatments and also largely insufficient evidence for…), does naturopathic medicine self-correct (an argument by Dr. Schwarcz), and the greatest argument of all, homeopathy is no more than a placebo effect (Dr. Schwarcz) – which will be discussed and debated for a second debate, entitled Homeopathy: Mere Placebo or Great Med.
In December 2000 an old debate in homeopathy was restarted. This debate centers on the value of genuine homeopathy (or fundamentalism?) versus pluralism (or speculative tendencies?).