Which is the Parody?

Poe's Law states that a good parody of religious fundamentalism is hard to tell from the real thing.  I’m starting to think there is a similar law that applies to alternative medicine.  For example, read the two pieces I’ve quoted below and see if you can guess (no cheating!) which one you think is of the real claimed to be real healing modality, and which is the parody.  They are both similar in that they propose healing techniques that are applied to a doll, rather than to the actual person under treatment.  It’s a bit like voodoo – you treat the doll not the person.  Except I think voodoo spells are supposed to make the person ill, while this is supposed to make the person better.

Here they are.  I have changed the names of the two therapies to example 1 and example 2.  Here’s the first:

In a typical therapy session, the [example 1] practitioner uses a small human anatomical model as an energetic representation of the patient, tapping on targeted points on the model with a lightweight magnetic hammer. The practitioner directs chi to blockage points corresponding to the patient's condition, breaking down resistance at these points. As blood flow, neural transmission, and hormone reception are restored, the body is then able to heal.

[…]

And the distance between the patient and the therapist makes no difference. The patient and therapist connect when they are on the phone together, in the same room together, on the same planet together, or on different planets together. The togetherness is the constant, because we are all “connected” by an invisible energy field in our universe. We are all swimming in this energy field together. Quantum physics simply calls distance healing a “non-local event.”

And the second:

The principle of [example 2] healing is simple.  As 'like affects like', an appropriately manufactured and treated wax doll or cloth puppet may substitute for the patient, and manipulations performed on the doll substitute for those performed on the patient.  Techniques of visualisation and channelling of healing are easy to learn, and it is possible to combine [example 2] with 'conventional' or allopathic medicine simply by administering the medicine to the doll rather than to the patient.

[…]

The image may be identified with its subject by the embedding of ousia - items connected with the subject such as a hair or nail clipping, or even a blood sample.  This greatly enhances the therapeutic effects of [example 2] procedures, and in particular allows the practice of [example 2] at considerable distances from the patient, even over the telephone or the Internet.

Well?  Personally I find it hard to believe they aren’t both parodies.  In fact, example 2 is from the The British Veterinary Voodoo Society – a spoof site started by some veterinarians in the UK who were incensed that the British Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) sanctions treatment of sick animals with homeopathy.  The joke is that if you think homeopathy works, you might as well try voodoo.  I wrote about The British Veterinary Voodoo Society before.

However, example1 is a therapy that its proponents seriously claim to be real – Tong Ren.  Click that link if you must but be warned – the stupid on that site will kill your brain cells.

I don’t need to write any more on this because fortunately Orac already delved into this in much more detail that I would have had the patience for, and this morning posted Tong Ren: An unholy union of acupuncture and voodoo.  I have to say, after reading the first part of Orac’s post, I got the feeling the Tong Ren site was a parody, and I clicked over there convinced that Orac had been fooled into debunking a spoof site.  After a while though, I decided it was genuine, incredible though that is.  I guess we do need a Poe’s Law for SCAM.

Comments

[Infophile]

Well, you got me. I figured that example 2 was the "real" one, primarily because 1 just seemed a bit more ridiculous, throwing in more stupid wooish beliefs. It felt to me like a skeptic picking the most insane bits of various modalities and combining them.

So yeah, you're right. We need a Poe's Law equivalent for this. I feel obligated to nominate "Skeptico's Law," though it isn't quite as catchy.

[Tom Foss]

Emoto's Law?

[blakyoshi7]

After reading both, I thought 1 was the parody. Mainly because of the second paragraph. It looked like someone went "Hey, let's throw in something about it being possible at any distance due to a magical 'quantum' field. That'll REALLY make it sound ridiculous!"

[derek hudson]

Just a few days ago I followed a link from the BAD SCIENCE blog to a site offering qualifications in TUNING FORK therapy, and was convinced that the entire site was an elaborate and sophisticated spoof. When I read about 'ANGEL' forks and 'CHOPRA' forks, and how the whole universe is vibrating (string theory) so tuning forks, at varying frequencies, can align themselves with your personal vibration rates I fell about laughing. The laughter turned to tears of frustration when Ben Goldacre assured me that the whole thing was genuine. Or am I still being toyed with?

[Dunc]

I thought no. 2 was the "real" one, because it bears the closest resemblance to traditional European witchcraft. Speaking of which:

It’s a bit like voodoo – you treat the doll not the person. Except I think voodoo spells are supposed to make the person ill, while this is supposed to make the person better.

Only in the movies. The practice of attempting to afflict someone by sticking pins into a doll (known in the craft as a "poppet", typically made from wax, and incorporating one or more items linked to the target, such as a lock of hair, or nail clippings) originates in European witchcraft, and was ascribed to voodoo practitioners by Christian missionaries. It was never part of voodoo (originally, anyway - it possibly is now, as a result of endless portrayals in the media). However, I believe there was a voodoo practice which attempted to heal people by placing wooden pegs into holes in a wooden figure.

The British Veterinary Voodoo society clearly know their witchcraft. The invocation of quantum mechanics should have tipped me to the first example being the "real" modern woo.

[GDad]

I guessed #1, but mostly because of the quantum physics reference.

You know, I'd like a big bucket of chi. It would probably be useful for all kinds of things. I wonder if it tastes good with ectoplasm.

[King of Ferrets]

Heh, I'd already read the 1st example thanks to Orac.

[The Perky Skeptic]

I guessed 2 was the parody, mainly because it was BETTER-EXPLAINED! Amazing how even woo-parodies are better than the actual woo!!!

My brain hurts now. As if millions of brain cells had cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

[Ramel]

I thought it was a trick question, both seemed equally ridiculous

[yakaru]

Quantum physics simply calls distance healing a “non-local event.”

No satirist could come up with anything as offensively stupid as that.

[Bourgeois_Rage]

Both seemed ridiculous, but I guess #1 was the parody because of the 'whole together on different planets' nonsense.

I should have known better.

[Saint Gasoline]

One of my friends was telling me about this product called Homeopet, homeopathy for dogs I guess, and at first I didn't think she was serious. What a bunch of nonsense. But she later blogged that she emailed the FDA and got the homeopet site to take down its silly FDA approval claims when it was not in fact approved by the FDA: http://www.ziztur.com/2008/12/homepet-not-fda-approved.html

It's a shame we don't have enough time to do this to all of them.

[Retromancy]

I thought number one was the parody (probably in part because i was tired and read it as a quantum physics "local non-event" - I wish they had said that.)
And from what I remember voodoo wasn't really into making dolls and witches poppets from European cultures were usually used to harm people - this is obviously nice new-age voodoo.

[Nes]

Wow, I failed too. I was certain #1 was the parody, mostly from the second paragraph, and especially when it talked about being on other planets.

[Micky]

Haha,

I guessed #2 because it was more subtle and cleverly said than the first :)