There’s a discussion thread on the ‘Stop Bill C-51′ Facebook group under the title ‘Civil Debate Area – For vs. Against’ and it hasn’t (yet) devolved to accusations of membership in the Nazi Party or being part of the New World Order. In an effort to save some of my favourite posts for possible later use, here’s the latest installment of “Arguing With True Believers on Facebook”!

This isn’t a single conversation thread; where other people are quoted, it’s mostly to provide context for what I was replying to. Some of the posts below are condensed or reformatted for layout, but in no way is meant to affect the meaning (or spelling) in the posts. Some of the posts are HUGE and well beyond what I chose to address, but I am not editing for content. I am, however, obscuring the names of other posters; they can be found at the original Facebook thread, but I want to allow the guilty some amount of privacy.

Fred D______ (Ottawa, ON) wrote on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I think it’s time to clear up some confusion here.

1) Homeopathy is not meant to directly heal a person from a particular ailment. It’s meant to influence the body’s own defense system to let it heal itself! It’s quite effective when used right, has been in use for well over a century in Europe and even played a part in defeating the dreaded black plague! There has been plenty of study into homeopathy, it’s not hard to find them! If you look at the EU health care system, homeopathy and holistic treatments are used extensively!

You replied to Fred’s post on May 9, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Homeopathy is pretty much completely unproven as a therapy for any diseases or problems that aren’t self limiting. Your sore throat got better in two days on homeopathic lozenges? Well, how long would it take without any treatment? Two days?

There are some basic problems with the chemistry and math of homeopathy, and its acceptance by some other country is little but an argument from authority. You may as well claim that Oprah uses it and therefore it must be good.

Kerry B_______ replied to Salman’s poston May 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM
[...] The fundamental remains the same.

AS A RESPONSIBLE AND EDUCATED CONSUMER I CHOOSE WHAT I EAT

if you take away my choice, who is to regulate the drugs they put in our water, the biologically engineered chemicals that are as far away from nature as man can concieve.

Mother earth did quite a fine job creating nature. To take it away is a crime.

You replied to Kerry’s post on May 9, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Mother nature created the beautiful tulip, but I wouldn’t suggest that you eat a tulip bulb even though it is natural. Nightshade is natural, lead is natural, spider venom is natural… Natural does not always mean beneficial.

I wouldn’t want these sold as health elixirs to a population that might not know better, and I wouldn’t want St. John’s Wort to be sold as a miracle cure in unregulated doses to a public that doesn’t understand how it interacts with other medicines; herbal or otherwise.

Karen L_____ replied to Sara’s post on May 9, 2008 at 6:06 AM
Sara, it appears to me that you do not fully understand Homeopathy and the way that it works (which is not by ‘placebo effect’ as you state). [...] Though it saddens me to see this kind of devaluing misinformation and bias against Homeopathy being spread in this thread, I do not wish to debate this topic with you but rather agree to disagree based on my professional education and personal experience.

[...]Why should we have our right and freedom of choice taken away for “protection” just because not everyone knows better than to make uninformed choices? Do people even realize how much strain this could put on the medical system now if the government decides that we no longer should have access to supplements without prescription? What happens to those of us who don’t have OHIP coverage, or don’t even have a doctor (or a good doctor for that matter)? If people don’t have access to self-care, I foresee more sick days, and even longer waits in medical offices – along with the number of other unfavorable consequences beyond that as discussed in the group.

You replied to Karen’s post on May 9, 2008 at 6:34 AM
The bill seeks to protect people, not criminalize herbs or homeopathy. It seeks, if anything, to protect the consumer who walks into a health store to purchase a supplement or a tonic or whatever. It seeks to ensure accuracy of labeling, accuracy of claims, and uniformity of product. The stories of granny being thrown to the floor and arrested for giving her charges garlic pills are a bit of a fabrication.

Buying a product to help with some symptom or disease, I’d like to know that if it says it has 5 grams of active ingredient that it does actually have that 5 grams, and not 1 or 20 grams that could lead to different reactions. With homeopathic preparations, what is to keep a manufacturer from selling distilled water and claiming it is a 200C dilution of something? The consumer can only trust the packaging and anecdotal experience, so wouldn’t it be nice to know that the product was prepared properly?

Being able to reproduce, predictably, expected effect would be desirable, and I haven’t been able to read anything dangerous into this bill.

Matt B____ (Toronto, ON) wrote on May 7, 2008 at 7:36 AM
The CFIA and Health Canda do not protect consumers whatsoever with regards to food and medications as it is. Hydrogenated and trans fats, artificial sweeteners, flavours, colours, and other harmful food additives are being allowed into foods without proper testing, labelling or guidance to the consumer. Medications, surgeries and other ‘conventional’ treatments also come with risks and side effects, some of which are still unknown to us. [...]

You replied to Matt’s post on May 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Canada was the first country in the world to introduce mandatory labeling of trans fat.

How is that not an attempt to protect the consumer through education and labeling mandates? The Diet Coke bottle I have here says in big letters “WITH ASPARTAME AND ACESULFAME-POTASSIUM”; a legal labeling requirement.

How is mandatory labeling of homeopathic elixirs going to hurt? “CONTAINS 100% H2O”… Oh, I think I see your point.

John G____ (Kingston, ON) replied to your post on May 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Ohhh, hyperbole! That’s a great way to support your point of view.

You replied to John’s post on May 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That’s not hyperbole… water diluted homeopathic potions ARE 100% water.

John G____ (Kingston, ON) replied to Sara’s post on May 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM
You’re focused on one particular aspect of this discussion, and ironically I agree with you when it comes to certain products. I am really aggravated by many of the questionable “magic” cures out there that have nothing but a whiff of having been in the same room with something that might be beneficial.

However, classifying ALL of these products the same way is a mistake. It is not always possible to have a full analysis of a herbal product without having tremendous resources at hand, such as a laboratory.

When you insist mandatory labelling will show products are 100% water, your implication is that all of the products contain nothing but 100% water if they are not labelled, and that is simply not true.

You replied to John’s post on May 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Nothing being implied on anything outside of homeopathy; which is empty of active ingredient. It is not hyperbole to state that 100% of homeopathy and 100% of homeopathic remedies are empty of proof, empty of ingredient, and empty of scientific efficacy; not when that is actually the case.

I said nothing of herbal remedies.

Perhaps this is part of the disconnect between those that claim to have read the full text of the bill but see two totally different meanings to the same words. I’m saying exactly what I mean, and anything that you’re seeing as being implied is happening on your end where you’re seeing meaning between my words.

Mandatory labeling of herbal products would be a net positive for the industry. Stating that there is 20 mg of active product per capsule would allow for the herbal consumer to make an informed decision based in reality. No such comparison is possible in homeopathy where a 100C and a 200C have statistically zero active ingredient in any capsule.

John G____ (Kingston, ON) replied to Sara’s post on May 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM
You’re generalizing. There is little point in even debating this with you – as there are numerous products on the market that use the EXACT method you describe to “cure” problems: Oscillococcinum, for example, is nothing but an expensive placebo. That is NOT the case with all herbal products. As I am sure you well know, many pharmaceuticals have been derived from herbal products.

[...]There have been some small, properly-conducted studies (using controls) that show that some homeopathic treatments are effective beyond the placebo effect. The problem is that no one has the cash to conduct the huge studies needed to prove (or disprove) the efficacy of those treatments, since Big Pharma has all the cash and the last thing they want to prove is that you could grow something on your windowsill that would be as effective as their $2 pill, 3-times-a-day treatments.[...]

You replied to John’s post on May 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Big Pharma love herbal remedies; they’re cheap to produce, they don’t require years of testing, and they don’t require massive advertising campaigns or huge legalese disclaimers tucked into every packet. They don’t need to license anything, or build and staff huge labs filled with expensive scientists and support staff. It’s cheap and easy to fill capsules with calcium or vitamins, especially compared to the money they pour into the over-priced prescription meds.

Sure, they can’t patent Vitamin C, but that’s offset by the size of the market, the sizable markup at the retail end, and the lower product development and marketing costs. Just make it taste better than the competition and maybe have a shinier label, and that’s it; word of mouth puts the product in demand.

May as well refer to them as Big Herba