Rachael Dunlop talks homeopathy

Dr. Rachael Dunlop, Vice President of Australian Skeptics, chats on 4MK about homeopathy in Australia [approx 11min].

Rachael touches on the harm caused by homeopathy – the denial of evidence based medicine. Specifically, baby Gloria Thomas and Penelope Dingle – wife of the unimaginably unethical Dr. Peter Dingle.

Dingle, a professional “toxin” fear monger made a pact with a homeopath to write a book about the hoped for “cure”, gambling with his wife’s life. Feel free to read the inquest below. Page 40 begins the evidence and demolition of the lies of homeopath Francine Scrayen. The bald faced lying of Dingle himself begins on page 61. The brutality of the pairs callousness defies description. The State Coroner of Western Australia dismisses the veracity of both their testimonies.

It’s true that Penelope believed homeopathy would work. Yet, the decision to save her and follow medical advice was refuted by Peter Dingle and Scrayen time and again. Soon to be on ABC’s Australian Story – watch promo. Below that is a confronting video on baby Gloria, who died of eczema after her parents dismissed medical advice or failed to follow through. They were jailed for manslaughter.

What’s The harm: Gloria Thomas Sam


11 thoughts on “Rachael Dunlop talks homeopathy

  1. Penelope Dingle’s letters to Francine Scrayen. Words fail me. If that homeopath had been claiming to bitumise driveways or paint roofs, with equal effect, the media and law enforcement would have been all over her.

    I’ll believe Peter Dingle feels responsible for his wife’s death when I hear or see him advise cancer patients to listen to their oncologists and seriously consider life-saving chemo. Until then, I really don’t know what to make of him.

    • I agree Andy. Don’t know what to make of him.

      This was a very well done documentary. It was very respectful and understated. I liked the way that Penelope Brown’s words were used, and her articulate sisters’ narratives were very direct. Peter Dingle in contrast seemed to be acting, and the persecution script he is following is very distasteful to many, judging from viewers’ comments. I think it wasn’t favourable to him, but not because of any editorial bias. The story speaks for itself.

      I was interested in the words he used when describing deciding to have children (from the transcript):
      “And then I got to a stage where I was thinking, hold on, my career’s on path now. I know where I’m going. I’m an academic at Murdoch University. I’m getting a little bit of public recognition now. I’m doing a little bit of speaking and things are going well. Let’s have our children.”

      Andy are you Andy of Thinking is Real? Is your blog offline now?

      • ’tis me. I reached a point where the frustration of banging my head against the wall wasn’t worth the grief that blogging on these issues attracts so the blog’s gone and is unlikely to return – at least, not in the same form (though the antics over at AVN test my will sometimes).

        The Dingle case was the beginning of the end of my skeptical blogging. Watching the saga unfold daily in the news then seeing absolutely nothing come of the inquest just blew me away. The “other side” are quick to shout “big-pharma conspiracy” but I think the alt-med industry is too big, economically, for governments to tackle in any meaningful way. The alt-bitumen industry needs to get itself a starry-eyed lobby group if it wants similar rights to shaft the gullible.

  2. Oh. Fair enough. Twas a very good blog but I understand what you’re saying.

    not sure if you’ve seen it, but Peter Dingle now has a new line: chemotherapy caused her death (comments at the end of threads).

    The thing that bemuses me is he still has followers. But at least no mainstream media will touch him with a bargepole now.

  3. Hmm, he still didn’t answer the homeopathy question. I wonder why?

    I finally watched the whole Oz Story right through.

    What sort of scientist accepts that a cancer treatment can only work if you completely, utterly, entirely erase any possible doubt that it will work? Surely, even if this were likely, the mere thought of even the possibility that you might experience just one moment of doubt would, in itself, render the treatment useless. The homeopath can’t lose with this requirement. It will always be the patient’s fault.

    He’s right about one thing, I don’t understand it at all. I can accept that he might have felt compelled to bow to his wife’s will but I can’t understand how he still, after this, apparently has no idea what homeopathy is but feels qualified to keep offering advice on all manner of health issues (even after he told the coroner that he didn’t know about things you can’t throw in the air and inhale). I just don’t get it.

    • After Penelope’s death he married… a homeopath. I wouldn’t expect anything resembling honesty.
      He could have used his stronger personality to urge Penelope into treatment but instead controlled who she had contact with, so the little game wouldn’t be challenged.
      Effectively he denied her the company of loved ones and friends in the last months of her life – until he couldn’t deal with it. Then he just lurked in the background.

  4. From part II

    I’m proud that I have a PhD. A PhD is a higher qualification, and it’s research-based. The doctor’s[sic] report on what research is done by people like me. [Dr Peter Dingle]

    Ouch! Take that GPs!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s