Slashdot Mirror


University of Toronto: Anti-vaccine Homeopathy Course Is Fine

The University of Toronto recently undertook an investigation of one of its courses, a bachelor-level health class that taught both anti-vaccination materials and the "science" of homeopathy. The investigation was undertaken because of complaints from professors and other scientific and medical experts. Surprisingly, the university concluded that the class was just fine. "Students taking (the course) ... are in their final year of study and are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens. The instructor reports that she provides these readings as the students have already seen the other side in previous courses." The course's syllabus is available for reading. It contains quotes like this: "There are broad concepts that bind various 'alternative' medical modalities together. Among these is the assertion that the human organism, which developed as an integrated unit in its formation, also functions as an integrated unit; that mind, body, and spirit are inextricably linked. Disorder or disturbance in any one of these areas can cause disease in another area."
Update: 07/13 14:14 GMT by S : Reader Gallenod points out that the University has now decided that the course will not be taught during the 2015-2016 academic year, or over the summer.

11 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. From the "Course Goals" by XARG · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."

    "Understand the connection between body, mind, energy, and spirit and how the interplay between these impact health and disease."

    "Intelligently address the concerns of those afraid of alternative medicine or skeptical about its efficacy. "

    Wow, this sounds like a nice university...

  2. From the sublime to the ridiculous ... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most MDs I know would agree with the basic premise behind the statement that the human organism, which developed as an integrated unit in its formation, also functions as an integrated unit; that mind, body, and spirit are inextricably linked. Where they draw the line is on pseudoscientific nonsense. They freely admit that we do not know everything about why and how teh human body reacts to certain things, but we do know when certain things simply do not work and fall into the realm of quackery. I am all for understanding the arguments the other side makes so you can refute them, just don't make the mistake of giving them some legitimacy because they are "taught at University."

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  3. Re:Vaccines are great, but by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a reason those diseases are exceedingly rare. You anonymous idiot.

  4. Summary misses a crucial point by Buck+Feta · · Score: 5, Informative

    The instructor, Beth Landau-Halpern, is married to Rick Halpern, the dean of the campus where this course is taught.

    --
    I am Audience.
  5. Re:That's cool though by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oranges may be natural medicine, but they're not homeopathy.

    The theory of homeopathy is that you cure a disease with a drug that reproduces the symptoms of that disease (that's the prefix "homo" in homeopathy-- "same"). So, oranges would only be useful as a homeopathy remedy if eating oranges gives you the symptoms of scurvy. ...and then homeopathy takes that drug and dilutes it until not a single molecule originating in an orange is in the drug. The homeopathy cure for scurvy would be "take a drink of water from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that had one drop of orange juice in it.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  6. Course Discontinued by Gallenod · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fortunately, wiser heads have finally prevailed:

        http://www.provost.utoronto.ca...

    From the article:
    =====
    The UTSC Health Studies Program has indicated that the course in question will not be taught in the 2015-16 academic year, or over the summer term.

    As Provost of this academic institution, I must at all times respect the diversity of opinions and views of academic colleagues and sessional instructors. However, I do note with respect that the Deans of the University’s Faculty of Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health have released a statement commenting on the education of their students regarding vaccinations. It includes the following:

    “As deans of two of the health sciences faculties at the University of Toronto, we teach our students that vaccines are safe, effective and vital to children’s health. Vaccines are one of history’s most important and significant achievements in public health and medicine. The best evidence that science can provide proves that the health benefits of vaccines far outweigh their potential side effects, and we instruct our students accordingly.”
    =====

    --

    TLR

    A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
  7. Theology is not a science by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.

    No it is not. The neutrality of one's viewpoint is irrelevant to whether it is a science or not. It concerns studying concepts that are by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it cannot be science. Theology is basically the earnest study of a work of fiction as if it were real. You can have a scientific study of the psychology of theology. You can study anthropology, history, sociology, etc as it relates to religion. But theology itself is not and cannot be a science. It makes no predictions about the natural world that can be tested and reproduced.

  8. Re: magic is the same as science? by gsslay · · Score: 5, Informative

    The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.

    No. No it isn't. If this is the starting point for your argument then you are already wrong before you say another word.

  9. Re:From the horses mouth by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.

    That was exactly my hope. I could see the legitimacy of inoculating students to all the half truths and outright lies that alternative fruitcakes are trying to pitch the public. It's even important to have our medical students versed in some of it just so they can be prepared to counter the fear mongers.

    Regrettably, the course outline reveals otherwise. It goes as far to say the course will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease. So it's a course teaching the very worst of the lies. The instructor is listed as Beth Landau-Halpern. Here's an undercover video CBC caught her and others in where she tells the parent that vaccines are causing allergies and other stupidity that is entirely counter to scientific evidence. She even has a blog post here confirming it was her and pleading that her advice was devoid of context, as if there is some context in which suggesting vaccines like that for MMR is really far worse for a child than a homeopathic placebo she was willing to sell...

    This is as about as bad as it can get. We have the U of T willing to run a course taught by someone this loony, and then to review the course material and find it acceptable even! Of course, they are not going to be offering the course next year, and hopefully never again. But for it to get this far is a sign of some very, very deep rot in institutions that seriously needs to be cleaned up.

  10. Re:magic is the same as science? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Informative

    > It's called the placebo effect.

    Not quite so fast ...

    4 Belfast homeopathy results

    MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

    In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

    So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.

    You can understand why Ennis remains skeptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

  11. Re:That's cool though by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Yet, many social sciences teach that self-identification should be the only factor and to suggest anything else is discrimination.

    I don't think that is an accurate characterization when there has been some evidence found for a biological role in some aspects of gender identification. In fact, a specific region of the brain in transsexuals has been found to be typical of their identified gender rather than the one their chromosomes would predict. Additionally its even been found female to male transsexuals experience "phantom limb syndrome" for the penis they never had.

    So really, evidence points to, we are actually talking about people with what appears to be a congenital birth defect, in the one organ we are pretty shit at tampering with directly....the brain. So yah, I would say that expecting them to express the same gender identification as someone without their condition is about as discriminatory as asking a man in a wheelchair why his lazy ass can't walk up the stairs.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"