{"id":6024,"date":"2019-11-10T22:10:43","date_gmt":"2019-11-10T21:10:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/netzwerk-homoeopathie.info\/?p=6024"},"modified":"2022-03-25T15:01:44","modified_gmt":"2022-03-25T14:01:44","slug":"wie-stuenden-sie-zu-homeopathie-waeren-sie-informiert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/netzwerk-homoeopathie.info\/en\/wie-stuenden-sie-zu-homeopathie-waeren-sie-informiert\/","title":{"rendered":"“How would you feel about homeopathy – if you were really be informed?” – The “argument of popularity”"},"content":{"rendered":"Lesedauer \/ Reading Time:<\/span> 12<\/span> min<\/span><\/span>
\"Bavarian
Popular, indeed…<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

An essential “link” between the representatives of homeopathy and politics is the evocation of an alleged “popularity” of the sugar-ball therapy. The Information Network Homeopathy has often enough explained that and why this is not an argument in a medical-scientific discourse. Popularity of “free beer” is obvious. But by no means it is in homeopathy. We refer the difference.<\/p>\n

It is clear that gentle, side-effect free, safe and effective therapies are desired by everyone. But it is also obvious that all these attributes are completely useless if the underlying therapy is ineffective. The “popularity argument” puts the first claims in the foreground and suppresses the second. This is an “argumentation” that has been cleverly directed at the “target group” of politics. In current debates and political statements on homeopathy, “popularity” is a basic melody that is always more or less clearly audible.<\/p>\n

So far, so free of sense. But let’s take the “popularity argument” literally. Is popularity of homeopathy really as great as its representatives would have us believe? From our many years of educational work, we doubt that this is the case. The reactions to public incidents this year (2019), as certain cease-and-desist disasters and certain satirical TV reports, make the doubts about the pure factual content of the popularity argument even greater.<\/p>\n

Not only once have we pointed out that the survey results, which the homeopathy fraction has been putting forward for a long time, do not allow a derivation of “popularity”. As they stand, they can at best prove great unawareness among the population and correspondingly great success in the marketing and promotion of homeopathy. There is no doubt that many people have heard of homeopathy (Allensbach 2014: 94 %). Not surprisingly, many of them have already used homeopathic remedies (60 % of the total respondents) and almost 9 out of 10 users have had “good experiences” with homeopathy (46 % “has helped”, 39 % “has not always helped”). We have often explained what this is all about and how it must rated.<\/p>\n

Less well known is that Allensbach Institute also conducted a survey to find out whether those who were familiar with homeopathy could name at least one active principle. Which is actually the key question, because how can one rate something lacking any knowledge about?<\/p>\n

\"A
This bar chart shows the result of the survey that only 17 percent of those who have heard of homeopathy can name one of the basic principles of the method. 43 percent suggested that homeopathy is “natural healing”, 31 percent thought that it is based on plants or herbs only.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
<\/div>\n

Seventeen percent – from 94 percent. In view of this, jazzing up the “popularity” of homeopathy as a decision-relevant factor for politics is – well, let’s say – very daring.<\/p>\n

Even more interesting would be a survey that would shed light on whether people would still stick to their views after an explanation of the real basic principles of homeopathy. And that is exactly what the American sceptics from the Center for Inquiry (CFI) did in September 2019.<\/p>\n

As is well known, the CFI is conducting fraud lawsuits against the largest American pharmacy chain CVS and the Walmart department store chain. The issue is – to be precise – the fact that CVS and Walmart, in their large self-service drugstores, place homeopathic remedies right in the middle of regular pharmaceuticals without any special instructions. The CFI has asked both CVS and Walmart several times to change this – without anybody responding. And now the fraud suits against both are based on this fact.<\/p>\n

Wasn’t there something with labelling homeopathic remedies, demanded by the consumer protection agency FTC (Federal Trade Commission) in 2017? Yes, indeed, but not all manufacturers comply with it (unlike orders from the Food and Drug Administration -FDA-, the FTC rules have no legal force). And without a doubt, you don’t necessarily see the label when the package is standing there peacefully and innocent on the shelf. Be that as it may – the lawsuits currently are in the run-up with applications, counter-applications, and also to determinations of the legal interest in protection, as is usual under American law. And in order to prove the latter point, the consumer protection interest and thus the right to sue, the CFI has commissioned a survey of buyers of homeopathic cough, cold and flu remedies at CSV and Walmart “on site”. With more than interesting, though not unexpected results.<\/p>\n

Overall, the CFI states that a large percentage of respondents feel “deceived and betrayed” by CVS and Walmart after being informed about homeopathy and feel that their trust in these dealers has been “abused”. This overall conclusion is of course due to the tactics of the process. But what does it actually look like?<\/p>\n

\"CFI's<\/a>
Info graphic from the Center for Inquiry’s original article on the CSV and Walmart survey. Click for larger image<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Almost half (46%) of those surveyed said that they follow the indication marking of the aisles and shelves, i.e. they rely on what the retailers tell them to do. 3 percent asked an employee (who is not a pharmacist there, however).<\/p>\n

After the respondents were given the essential facts about the pseudo-scientific foundations of homeopathy<\/p>\n