P.S. I am not a crank.

To the Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

Ms. Mueller-Code’s letter in defense of homeopathy (Arnprior Chronicle Guide EMC Nov 15) covers so much territory yet manages to say so very little of substance. Still, since she’s gone to so much trouble, it would be churlish of me not to respond. Let’s start with the numbered points, so useful in giving the illusion of a reasoned and organised argument, and meander from there, shall we?

1. The function of the media.

Ms. Mueller-Code maintains that the function of the media is to inform and not to judge. This redefinition stands in absurdly stark contrast to every pundit, columnist, and radio call-in host that ever drew breath. The media is not an encyclopaedia of just-the-facts. The reality is far more complex, and has been since before William Randal Hearst. And even though a discussion of objectivity in the media could prove quite interesting, (I personally feel that a bit more fact-based reporting would be a good thing), I am at a complete loss as to what any of this has to do with homeopathy.

2. Our constitutional rights.

I’m afraid Ms. Mueller-Code is on another tangent here, and one that is equally wrongheaded. There is really no call for confusing the constitution of Canada with an Ayn Rand novel. “Choice” is not the central tenet of our constitution, and my Canadian sensibilities (peace, order, and good government, eh?) are offended by such a blatantly American-style appeal.

Furthermore, to claim that “nobody has any jurisdiction over anyone else” is dangerously wrong. Last I checked, we were a civil society governed by laws. Not only do courts and police have jurisdiction over those who would harm others or themselves, but there are countless codes and regulations that make sure our food and water won’t poison us, our businesses won’t cheat us, our institutions will serve us fairly, etc.

I suppose a dialogue about choice and free will (without trying to shoehorn the constitution into the picture) might be fun, but again, I’m a tad mystified as to what it has to do with the main point of contention, which would be…

3. The effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.

Ms. Mueller-Code seems reluctant to offer any concrete proof, scientific studies, or factual arguments in favour of homeopathy. Perhaps the recent class action lawsuit against homeopathic manufacturer Boiron’s false advertising and the resultant $12 million settlement has given her cause to avoid any statistical claims. Instead, she tells us that since homeopathy has been around for about 200 years, it must therefore be safe and effective. Just like international communism, that jar of mayonnaise that I’m afraid to touch in the back of my fridge, and anything else that happens to be around 200 years old.

We are also informed that homeopathy works because the royal family has been using it for generations. This would be the same royal family with members that take pictures of their naked drunken Las Vegas parties and dress as Nazis for Halloween, so you just KNOW their judgement is sound.

Another reason homeopathy works, according to Ms. Mueller-Code, is because there used to be a place called the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. Mind you, they changed their name to the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine over 2 years ago, probably in an effort to stop tying themselves exclusively to an increasingly discredited practice. But still, they’ve had the words “royal” AND “hospital” in their name for the longest time, therefore homeopathy works. Wow!

Ms. Mueller-Code closes by encouraging “everyone to become more open-minded in order to make their own educated choices.” I couldn’t agree with her more. The more that people educate themselves, the closer homeopathy gets to the dustbin of history. By all means, learn all about alternatives and keep an open mind. Just, please, don’t be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Andrew Fogarasi

To the Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

If I were being interviewed for an article and told the reporter that I was the King of Norway, I would expect the statement to be presented not as fact, but as a claim –  a rather dubious one at that. And yet this is precisely the sort of thing I found myself reading in the October 25 Arnprior Chronicle Guide under the heading “Free homeopathic oral flu prevention”. Stating that a homeopathic “remedy” is effective does not make it so, nor does attempting to lend it credibility by citing fictitious statistics regarding its effectiveness. (99% of marketers agree, numbers make things appear compelling!)

For the record, there has never been a single legitimate study that conclusively proves homeopathic “medicine” to be any more effective than voodoo, wishful thinking, or – my personal favourite – doing nothing. There have, however, been countless peer-reviewed scientific studies that have revealed it to be exactly as effective as a sugar pill placebo.

Homeopathy is based on the utterly discredited theory that a purported active ingredient becomes more effective the more diluted it is. Thus, homeopathic ingredients are measurable in parts-per-million or even parts-per-billion: present to a far lesser degree than the concentration of heavy metals or poop in safe drinking water. In fact, the most “powerful” homeopathic remedies are likely to contain not a single molecule of the supposed medicinal ingredient.

As a father of two, I encourage everyone to think very carefully before making their children ingest some magical mystery powder under the impression that it will help prevent the flu. It will not. Your children’s health will be just as well served by staying home. In fact, by staying home and doing nothing, not only will your family enjoy flu prevention that is proven 100% as effective as a homeopathic “remedy”, you will also greatly reduce the chances of anyone being injured in an accident on their way to getting the treatment.

Conversely, if you genuinely want to increase the chances that you and your loved ones will avoid the flu this year, you could go to the flu shot clinic at the Nick Smith Centre on November 6th. See you there.

Sincerely,
His Royal Highness,
Andrew Fogarasi

To the Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

Imagine my utter delight upon reading last week’s Arnprior Chronicle Guide and finding a letter from local MP Cheryl Gallant in which she takes the third party defence critic to task for his unprovoked attack on our military. John McKay (of the third party) may have thought he was being clever when he said the government knowingly lowballed the price tag of the F-35 fighter jets to the tune of $10 billion, but what’s $10 billion when it comes to protecting our freedom? (answer: $10 billion) In reality, Mr. McKay of the also-ran party was actually showing a shocking disregard for our men and women in uniform. And our stalwart Ms. Gallant was having none of it.

You see, she is above such petty politicking. She’s even above actually addressing any of the points Mr. McKay raised in his letter. And she is most certainly above offering an explanation as to why the Conservatives deceived the Canadian public about the price of these jets.

In fact our Ms. Gallant is so, well, gallant that she won’t even stoop to fear mongering. She is perhaps too reserved when she states that it was the liberals who had originally decided to make the purchase, and falls short of expressing the sheer horror any decent Canadian would feel at the thought of whatever voodoo mind control the third party exerted on Mr. Harper when they forced him to announce the purchase in 2010.

There is one thing that the intrepid Ms. Gallant is not above, however: pointing out that any criticism of our government’s handling of military procurement is no more than a shallow attempt to “score cheap political points”. Oh, and implying that to question the government is to somehow invalidate and disrespect all the sacrifices our Canadian soldiers make on our behalf.

Did I happen to mention that Mr. McKay is from the third party? Because he is. And for some reason that is as yet unclear to me, it is crucial to repeatedly drive this point home when one is above taking political cheap shots.

At any rate, shame on you, Mr McKay of the third party. Why do you hate freedom?

Andrew Fogarasi

To the Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

It is with great interest that I noticed a letter in your May 3rd issue under the heading “Right to privacy should be respected”. I am, after all, a long-time advocate for privacy rights. (I hear your scepticism. Answer me this: have you ever heard of me until now? I rest my case.) Imagine my chagrin when I discovered upon reading said letter that it had absolutely nothing to do with privacy and was instead some sort of polemic against the diversity festival.

Now, I am not about to engage in a critique of the letter-writer’s point of view, (suffice it to say: really? You are anti-diversity festival? May as well speak out against puppies and rainbows!) I’ll leave that Herculean exercise in absurdity for another time… and person, God willing.

However, your misleading headline heaps injury on insult. It is not merely unrelated to the letter it announces, it is about as unrelated as you can possibly get. Should you choose to print this correspondence of mine under the heading “Andrew Fogarasi speaks out against puppies and rainbows” you would be no farther from the gist of things than you were then. My time is precious, and had the headline indicated the actual nature of the letter, I could have spent that precious time on something more fruitful, say advocating for privacy, working on my Middle East peace plan, or having a lovely nap.

(No puppies or rainbows were harmed in the writing of this letter.)

Andrew Fogarasi