NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/23145

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 1.8 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med
Path: sparky!uunet!island!green
From: [e-mail] (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: evidence for homeopathy - who pays?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Usenet mail target)
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:37:13 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>>This is a distorted explanation of what happened. In fact, the AMA was
>>launched for the purpose of driving the homeopaths out of business. They
>>succeeded in this endeavor by conning the government into accepting
>>the Johns Hopkins medical school as *the* model, by which all other
>>schools had to measure up, or lose funding. One by one, the homeopathic
>>schools closed down, until there were none left.
>
>This is a really distorted view of what happened.  First, the government
>didn't fund medical schools until after world war II, long after
>homeopathy had died out almost.  The Johns Hopkins model was for
>medical schools, not homeopathy schools.  It had nothing to do with
>funding but with accreditation.

You are correct in your assertion that the Johns Hopkins model had to do
with accreditation. I probably should have been clearer in my post.
However, loss of accreditation ultimately meant loss of funding. I also
maintain that homeopathy schools were held to the Johns Hopkins standard.
--
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
[e-mail]   that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
                            of latent idiocy - M. Corelli