[ref: 'Setting the Scarecrow on Fire' from, yes, the Macho Response
O.K., so what do we have here?
Well, for starters, they're discussing the regulation of water - H2O - which already puts this item in the realm of the ridiculous. Instead of regulating water, Australia should be busting these homeopathalogical fakes for fraud, because that's their crime.
Second, they're calling this "medicine," which is really stupid because - though they mention "permitted and banned ingredients" and "A person wishing to have a new ingredient included on the list" - anyone with a familiarity of Homeopathy knows there are no ingredients in their "preparations" what-so-ever, because of the massive amount of dilution (delusion?) they put them through.
I've ignored TMR's rants about homeopathic medicines before and I only take up the cudgel because that's my Health Minister he's talking about (despite insisting in the past that he's only concerned with US affairs)
The first thing I'd say is that it is not Nicola Roxon's role to decide which medicines are most efficacious. She is there to give the people what they want. There is only so long that natural medications can be kept off the shelf.
Secondly, it depends on what your definition is of homeopathy. I imagine if the authorities are concerned about dosages and the effects different substances have, then they would have something more in their brief than lolly water.
To be honest, I've not taken a special interest in alternative medicine beyond using what works. I'm not even sure if homeopathic remedies are the same as naturopathy and 'alternative' therapies of every kind. I have my own very involved explanation for the standpoint I have on curing what ails you but for now I'll stick to tackling the macho response.
Since there have been numerous postings there about how alternatives of any kind are to be starved of funds and run out of town, it helps to know the kind of intolerance we're staring down.
Anyone who has received relief from acupuncture, become supple and fit from yoga class, organised sustainable crops, put in a rainwater tank or solar panels, recycled their bully beef tins, wandered out to the worm farm, should abandon their enterprise at once. Slouch on the couch, burger and beer at hand, shaking your fists along with Rush Limbaugh. You'll be doing more for the world if you do.
For those with amortised spirituality this is probably true. If your view of society is dog-eat-dog then of what value is the ineffable. This speaks more of environment than any greater insight into the human condition though.
So what of the contention that there is no such thing as 'complementary medicines'? Medicine is either accepted as such by the strictest tests or it cannot be called medicine. As an argument from one who is antagonistic to the claims of these practices this may sound fair, but it neglects the simple most important part of any panacea: "does it work?"
It is immaterial to me whether the health board tested something and found it not to have any active ingredients in. The most powerful natural protection from illness that I've found (though admittedly not watered down) works brilliantly. Yet I read a Dr Karl where he claimed it had no ingredients that could make the body healthier or stronger. Sorry but that hasn't been my experience. And I'm not going to deny myself a magic potion because some disaffected oik doesn't like it either.