-
My wife is Assistant Director at a charity called Sense About Science
Fantastic organisation. They do really great work.
The Lancet Oncology used to do a series called Quackery. The one on crystals was quite a fun read (this is probably paywalled, but in case you have access via academic institute).
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70098-1/fulltext
Interestingly, the review was quite benign on the topic, given that crystals don't actually do active harm, like some other alternative therapies (although if it stops a person receiving proper treatment, that's not great).
However, despite the absence of evidence and the frequently grandiose claims of efficacy, the use of crystals is unlikely to cause the harm seen with other alternative therapies, such as mistletoe and aristolochia. Indeed, similar to many alternative therapies, the benefit is often derived not from the therapy itself, but from the holistic environment in which it is delivered.
Doctor_Cake-
I'll pass on the love, thanks!
Interestingly, the review was quite benign on the topic, given that crystals don't actually do active harm, like some other alternative therapies (although if it stops a person receiving proper treatment, that's not great).
I think your latter point is the most important, with other fake remedies, people will beg, steal, and borrow to afford them, even though they are a waste of time, but with crystals the relative low cost of trying them almost makes them have no harm. However, I think the risk with that is the longer they are in a sphere of influence, the more likely people are to believe in their (non-existent) power, and the risk of someone trying crystals instead of seeking help from a real doctor grows. That is unacceptable, and there are plenty of flat earth style believers in this quackery who are trying to stop people taking real medicine and trust their lives in fucking crystals.
-
Interestingly, the review was quite benign on the topic, given that crystals don't actually do active harm
A couple of years ago, somebody who's on here posted on social media "My cat has a bad back. A friend left some 'healing' crystals here so I'm going to pass them over it's back. What's the worst it could do?"
To which my response was: "It could kill it."
My point being that anything which can genuinely have an effect could potentially have a negative effect. When people say "What's the worst it could do?" about so many 'alternative therapies', the best you can say is that they're implicitly accepting that the technique in question is hokum. But some of those therapies can poison and kill, which the alternative therapies people will never acknowldge.
NurseHolliday
itsbruce
My wife is Assistant Director at a charity called Sense About Science so I learn about all the mad shit that people claim online and a lot of it makes it into the mainstream press, how untrue most of it is, and also sadly about how many cunts there are out there trying to make money off desperate families.
They've been trying to get eBay and Amazon to step up, at the moment if you see anyone selling anything like that on either of those platforms you can report it and they HAVE to take down the ad because it's been brought to their attention. A lot of people would prefer if eBay and Amazon pro-actively tried to stop people selling shit like that.