The Guardian at least waited till Monday to report: “Stop funding homeopathy, MPs urge”.

And so it went on.  Anyone reading the news might have imagined that there had been an in depth investigation of the matter in parliament.

But who are these MPs doing the urging, and how does the Science and Technology Committee work?

The Science and Technology Committee is a parliamentary Select Committee charged with looking into what informs government policy in a number of areas – it’s a relatively recent enterprise and homeopathy is only their second investigation in this form.  One might ask why – of all the government policy the committee could have chosen to investigate, it chose homeopathy – which uses just 0.004% of the NHS budget and has been part of the NHS since 1948. We can only surmise.

Phil Willis, Chair of the committee was at pains to put on record that it was NOT to be an investigation into whether homeopathy worked or not – and then he chaired a committee which did exactly that, but restricted the investigation to the narrow remit of RCTs (Random Controlled Trials).   Surely not?

Let’s look at this committee in more detail:
At the first meeting on 25th November 5 MPs were present plus the Chair: Phil Willis: a history teacher and associate of the Pharma lobby group Sense About Science; Tim Boswell, a farmer; Brian Iddon, Professor of Chemistry; Graham Stringer, Analytical Chemist; Evan Harris, medical doctor and associate of Sense About Science and Ian Stewart, chemical plant operator and open mind.
It can be said categorically that NONE of the MPS present at the hearings have any expertise or even understanding of the homeopathic method.  It could be said that those steeped in chemistry might find it particularly challenging.
The committee spent a total of 4 and half hours questioning 12 witnesses – 7 of whom also have NO expertise or understanding of the homeopathic method – 5 of the 9 non-governmental witnesses had previously publicly declared they were vehemently opposed to homeopathy.  Only 1 witness is in clinical practice.  Biased?  Surely not?

The procedure called for written submissions – closing date was Nov 6th 2009.  Based on these submissions witnesses would be selected to give oral submissions at the committee’s meetings.

Almost 50 written submissions were received by the closing date and invitations for witnesses were apparently sent out 48 hours later. It would be interesting to know which devoted MPs stayed up all night reading the submissions and selecting witnesses.  Unless of course they had already been pre-selected.  Surely not?

Anyone who has watched the archived meetings on the parliamentary website (see posts on this blog) will know that at least two members of the committee had a clear agenda they were determined to push through.  Evan Harris and Chair of the committee Phil Willis,  Sense About Science associates made no attempt to hide their disdain for the witnesses speaking on behalf of homeopathy.  Denialist bloggers and newspapers like the Guardian had a field day with sound bites and helped set the scene for the foregone conclusions of the report itself.

All claims of bias were ignored by the committee and the draft report was written.

This is where it gets even more interesting….

At the meeting of Feb 8th 2010 the S and T committee met to ratify the report.
Present was:  Phil Willis in the Chair,  Evan Harris, Tim Boswell, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith and Ian Stewart.

Ian Stewart put forward an amendment not to ratify the report as it stood but to call upon government to “fund a rigorous research programme into homeopathy”
Voting was:  Ayes: Ian Stewart   Noes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith.   Presumably Tim Boswell abstained though his vote was not recorded.

A second vote was taken on the specific paragraph relating to research – to retain as written and not insert Stewart’s amendment: paragraph 77. “There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.”

Voting was: Ayes: Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith    Noes: Ian Stewart   Paragraph was agreed to as was.  Tim Boswell abstained?  Vote not recorded.

The vote to accept the report and its recommendations to stop funding NHS homeopathy on the basis that the evidence did not support government policy was:  Ayes:  Evan Harris, Ian Cawsey, Doug Naysmith   Noes: Ian Stewart.   Tim Boswell abstained again?  We’ll never know.

SO this report was ratified by just THREE MPs:

Evan Harris, associate of Sense About Science and it’s fair to say rabid anti-homeopathy campaigner, 1023 participant and ‘senior counsel for the prosecution’.

Ian Cawsey – IT expert, who joined the S and T committee in October 2009, just a month before the meetings and yet chose not to attend the committee’s investigation – in fact was nowhere to be seen until the ratification meeting.

Doug Naysmith – an immunologist – did not join the S and T committee until January 2010 – so was not even on the committee until after all the hearings – yet was present for the ratification of the report.  And he is standing down at the next election.

A committee would invite a new member to join knowing that in a matter of a few months he would be leaving again?  Surely not?

So let’s get this straight – the report and its recommendations that led to the media snow this week, and the dramatic assertion that the public have been duped since 1948 by NHS placebos masquerading as medicine, is the result of a report ratified by THREE MPs: TWO of whom were NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS  – and ONE of the two was NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE when the hearings were held, and is due to stand down at the election in May this year.

This Science and Technology Committee investigation into homeopathy was a set up and a sham from its inception to the final meeting and delivery of the report to the UK press.  And there’s no “surely not” about it.

National newspapers are already running headlines reporting that the committee calls for removal of homeopathy from the NHS.  Which is strange since there is a press embargo for at least another 2 hours…..  But then the Science and Technology committee are in charge of the press release and the press conference is being held at the Science Media Centre and restricted to national media only.

But that’s only more evidence that this whole exercise is a set up, a sham, just  more of the orchestrated anti-homeopathy campaign that’s been running in the UK for years.

Sense about Science, the Big Pharma sponsored lobby group presenting themselves as a registered charity is up to their necks in it - “senior counsel” for the prosecution Evan Harris MP  “has worked with SAS to expose the false claims about homeopathy”.  Phil Willis chair of the S and T committee chaired the SAS annual lecture and endorses their campaigns.  Tracey Brown managing director of SAS was called as a witness despite having no training or, as was apparent from her statements, no understanding of the homeopathic method.  Likewise SAS supporter Ben Goldacre, vitriolic anti-homeopathy Guardian journalist was used to good effect to force the discussion into the narrow world of meta-analyses – most of the ones quoted having been carried out by self-confessed anti-homeopathy researchers. You can read about the fiasco on other posts on this blog.

What happens next is a media snow all week – the BBC will have some ‘discussions’ where quietly spoken well-meaning homeopaths will be pitted against fast talking media trained SAS representatives.  Mostly they’ll be young conventionally attractive young women – GPs are favourite – and they’ll trot out the well worn mantras and with the help of the presenter will force the last word.

No one will be interested in the latest research out of The University of Texas about ultra-dilute remedies having an effect on breast cancer cell lines in a petri dish.

“Can’t work so doesn’t work”  “Implausible”,  “Impossible”,  “No evidence”, “No evidence”, “No evidence”.  “All of chemistry and physics would have to change”.

No actually it wouldn’t – it already has since Newton.  And at pain of repeating it is NOT about COMPOSITION it is about STRUCTURE.  Read some of the latest material science research and learn.

LeCanardNoir, a busy denialist is looking forward to today and predicts that historians of quack medicine will remember this date 22/02/2010 as the worst day for homeopaths in 200 years.

I predict when the immediate fall out is over, this could well be the date they remember but for entirely different reasons.

In direct contravention of the GMC Guidelines for Practice, Sections 1.46 and 1.47 Respect for colleagues, Dr Harris gave a speech recounting his attempt at ridiculing his colleague Dr Peter Fisher, director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, for the crowd’s amusement.  To say his line of questioning was puerile and a distraction from the issue at hand might be an understatement.  What the video does show is a public display of a bias so strong that it should surely disqualify him from being part of the Evidence Check into homeopathy.

Watch it and decide for yourself. If it doesn’t play here double click the box and watch it on youtube.

It was a publicity stunt that only served yet again to show how ill-informed this group is about homeopathy, and how it works.  (Yes it works no matter how many bloggers are out there denying it.)

The videos posted online showed small groups around the country doing their ‘bit for science’.  Some were self-consciously earnest, some pathetic, and still others plain embarrassing.  As a mancunian myself I found the effort by the Manchester Skeptics in the Pub particularly cringe making.

But the bigger issue raised is – where do these people get their information?  Who up the chain of command feeds them their lines: “When they make a remedy they dilute it and dilute it until there is nothing left except water and then they put a drop of water on each sugar pill and that’s the remedy”.

What?????  Call yourselves scientists?  Never mind the fundamental confusion about the dilution issue – just think of the manufacturing nightmare of putting a drop of water on each sugar pill –not to mention that sugar dissolves in water….

But they wore the T-Shirts, helped bolster Boot’s sales by buying their medicine of choice.  Arsenicum was the favourite, but local Boots had sold out in Manchester so they had to make do with Sulphur.  And then gathered earnestly outside Boots to make their point.  There was some last minute panic when they realised that the Click bottles only dispensed one pill at a time – so  improvisations included a lot of advance clicking ready for the big moment.  Amazingly they chewed the pills down and lived to tell the tale.  Thereby proving yet again that they don’t understand the first thing about homeopathy.  Sigh.

Here’s a kicker though – 1023 wasn’t even original – the Belgian skeptics already did it years ago urged on by Dr Betz !!

That’s Dr Betz of The Lancet’s infamous  “End of homeopathy edition”.
He criticized the WHO pro-homeopathy report of 2005 and in an expression of outrage he declared that “WHO has been infiltrated by missionaries for alternative medicine”.  He, along with Renckens, (Chair of Dutch Union Against Quackery), and Edzard Ernst, now one of homeopathy’s most vocal critics, forced withdrawal of the report.  Despite having been rewritten the WHO report of 2005 has STILL not been published.
Michael McCarthy.  Critics slam draft WHO report on homoeopathy.
The Lancet 2005;366:705–706
Boyce C  Magnus Pharma and the Golden Goose  Similia June 2007 posted on the Articles Page.

Watching the video of the London event it was interesting to see that Simon Singh and Dave Gorman – main spokespeople for the London event – didn’t seem to actually take more than a small capful of pills.  Dave Gorman definitely took the first capful, but did not dispense anymore for the following media retakes. Likewise Simon Singh took the first handful he clicked out into his glove but after that he was faking it.  What’s up with that guys?  If you are going to ‘overdose’ then let’s see you actually do it.

Reviewing the Evidence Check tapes, a few things struck me.  The Chair Phil Willis was at pains to explain that the Evidence Check was NOT about whether homeopathy works or not: “….there seems to be a little confusion about the nature of the work that we are doing, this is not an inquiry into whether homeopathy works or not. This is an inquiry which follows a series of evidence checks across a number of government departments to see whether in fact there was any evidence to support the Government’s policy towards homeopathy. I want to make that absolutely clear.”

And then Mr Willis proceeded to ask the Minister for Health: “I wonder if we can therefore start with you, Minister. Does the Government have any credible evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect?”

Well as long as that’s clear then……

Given Mr Willis’s definition of the Evidence Check’s remit, the evidence that should inform government policy about the effectiveness of homeopathy are the reports on patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness submitted by the UK’s four remaining homeopathic hospitals, and the 2008 the Northern Ireland CAM project.

Inexplicably Mike O’Brien, the Minister for Health, did not mention the reports, and said that the Northern Ireland project didn’t include homeopathy!  Of course it did Mike!  And very effective and cost effective it was found to be.  That’s homeopathy in the real world with real patients getting satisfaction often when conventional medicine has failed to help them.  WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DOES THE GOVERNMENT NEED TO INFORM POLICY?

You can watch the BBC programme of the Get Well UK project here.

Once again – RCTs cannot adequately test homeopathy – it’s not a get out it’s just a fact – denialists are bright enough, why can’t they get that?   Rhetorical question – they don’t want to get it.

So where does all this leave us – bloggers everywhere making a meal out of 1023 – in the Guardian, in New Scientist, in The Independent, without exception full of mis-information. Gimpy and others doing their best to drive a wedge between medical homeopaths and professional homeopaths.  Media calls for withdrawal of funding for NHS homeopathy, calls for the manufacturing regulatory body to clean up its act, calls for Boots the high street chemist to stop selling homeopathic medicines……
Meanwhile homeopaths report new patients, sales of homeopathic medicines increase, Boots reserve the right to give consumers what they want, and homeopathy remains the fastest growing therapeutic system on planet earth.

Someone, somewhere, knows something the denialists refuse to believe.  Homeopathy works!  People know it, animals know it, cells lines in petri dishes know it.  Whatever happens in the UK at the hands of this motley crew of the ill-informed, the malicious, the vested interest groups, the career denialists, homeopathy is not going away.

And it’s a sad day.

Sad that all the effort of 10:23 is focused on a fatally flawed understanding of homeopathy.  What follows is offered to any of the real Skeptics that might have been swept up into the Denialist camp.

Comments:

Zyaama:

“Wow, amazing. Is there any logical fallacy missing from this post?

Science has evaluated homeopathy. The results are clear: Homeopathy does not work. Nothing close-minded about that. Unless you can prove that the research is wrong (an homeopaths have a 200 year history of ailing to deliver any proof), there is nothing to discuss. You want to teach the public about homeopathy? Go ahead. But stop lying to yourself and others. Tell people the facts, and they can decide for themselves. That is what this campaign is about.”

Hmmmm Standard response that begins with the first logical fallacy.  SCIENCE  has NOT yet evaluated homeopathy.
You might say Science is still trying to catch up with homeopathy (see Articles ).
A number of attempts have been made to assess efficacy but as explained in a previous post the methodology is fatally flawed. It’s not possible to evaluate a system of medicine using a method that is incapable of accurately assessing that system of medicine.  Amazing then that there are actually some positive results at all and a real scientist would find that fact alone intriguing.

It may be that you don’t understand the homeopathic method sufficiently well to fully appreciate this and it’s a common challenge for Skeptics (Zyaama not suggesting you are a Skeptic – it’s for any Skeptics that might be reading) -  homeopathic philosophy and principles are not a simple undertaking, especially for those who have been living within an allopathic framework – it’s easy to get caught up and distracted by an obsession with Avogadro’s number, missing the point entirely since homeopathic medicines are NOT simply high serial dilutions. IF they were, there would be nothing in them

Sadly all the jokes about a drop in the Pacific Ocean, olympic sized swimming pools and etc therefore don’t work.
If you have any interest in learning about the fact that material scientists can now measure the difference between water and homeopathic preparations there are many published research papers out there for you to enjoy with a cuppa.

The analogy given by Alan Schmukler in his article on this blog might be helpful.  If you asked a chemist to analyse a CD they would tell you it was plastic.  If you put it into a data reader you would discover it contained the Encyclopedia Britannic – or the works of Shakespeare – or hours of mind numbing Heavy Metal – even though to the eye all the plastic disks looked to all intents and purposes identical.  And there’s the problem.  You can’t use a chemist to measure homeopathic medicine…….

Sometimes it’s difficult being 200 years ahead of the game but thankfully science is starting to catch up – which might make some people wonder whether the current urgency of 10:23 to “educate the public” so they can make “an informed choice” is a race against time.

200 years of clinical evidence and millions of successful cases cannot be dismissed as anecdotal – any scientist with even a crack of an opening in their mind should be intrigued.

————————–

Andy from merseysideskeptics.org.uk

“  ’10:23 Homeopathy – there’s nothing in it” is just the latest and best organised in a series of orchestrated campaigns that have been run in the UK over the last several years by a group of people who call themselves Skeptics.’

That’s very kind of you.”

And then Andy again:

“Apologies, I got my own email addy wrong. See above”

If this was a standard Denialist blog it would first make a meal of the fact that Andy can’t even get his own email right so what right has he got to comment on anything else – but no descent into personal attacks on this blog – so thanks Andy for reposting your correct address.

Yes latest and best organised – and how sad that all that energy, effort and presumably money, is channelled into such misguided activity.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Denialists simply requote – reblog – and nowadays retweet fundamental misinformation about homeopathy.  Apart from meta-analyses which by definition cannot adequately evaluate the homeopathic system (see above to Zyaama) and the latest published by a man (Ernst) who in the same breath calls for a closed mind – what information do you really have to say “there’s nothing in it” ?  Have you studied homeopathic philosophy and principles for yourself?  Have you read any of the research? Do you ask what other agendas might be being served by this campaign – or do you already know?

————————

Becky

“As asked on many other blogs: Do you think that homeopathy can be used to cure non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of homeopathy curing a non-self-limiting condition?”

Ahhh Becky it seems like such a simple question – but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the homeopathic system.  So I have a question for you.

Do you think that conventional medicine can be used to CURE non-self limiting conditions, if so could you provide an example of one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, with references, of conventional medicine CURING a non-self limiting condition?

Definition of cure being removal of symptoms, improvement in overall level of health, not followed by iatrogenic disease or by a more serious chronic complaint assessed according to the hierarchy of symptomatology?   Oh wait in the world of conventional medicine that would be seen as a totally separate, new and unrelated diagnosis and nothing to do with the previous complaint, even though they both occur in the same patient with the same immune system.  See how different the two worlds are, and why it’s so difficult to communicate in such simplistic terms?

Homeopathy is not like conventional medicine where first there must be a diagnosis and a disease name attached to the patient – so that the currently agreed treatment for that disease name can be prescribed.
Homeopathy is fundamentally different – it treats the patient with the disease – if you think about this for a few minutes you will be able to discern this key and crucial difference.

But back to your question – there is no question that homeopathy is effective for non-self limiting conditions – any number of disease names could go on the list.  The problem of course – and this is as much of a frustration for homeopaths as it is for any skeptic (not Denialists because they’re just not interested) – getting cases published in “reputable” journals has thus far proved impossible. You are probably well aware that what is published in journals is subject to all kinds of shenanigans that have nothing to do with the ‘truth’ – a fact that has been so well exposed by Dr Goldacre.

————————

Mark W

“Science doesn’t regard homeopathy as ineffective because it’s “impossible”, it regards it as ineffective because there is /no/ evidence that it works any better than placebo. None whatsoever.

True, current scientific ideas of physics, chemistry and pretty much everything else DO say that homeopathy IS impossible. However, if it was shown to actually work, those ideas would have to change.

So, try putting the horse before the cart. Prove it works better than placebo. Prove that and scientists will positively relish trying to figure out how.”

Music to a homeopath’s ears Mark W !  It’s true – scientists would relish the challenge of figuring out how, and they should begin immediately.

But the work should carry a SERIOUS HEALTH WARNING: Before undertaking research into anything homeopathic or anything that can be seen to be related to homeopathy, you should know that:   you will be ridiculed for suggesting it as a research project – your funding for other projects may be withdrawn – you will be ostracized by your colleagues – your previously accepted qualifications will be called into question – and possibly also your sanity – you may even lose your job – and at the end of the day should your results look remotely positive – you will not find a single reputable journal willing to risk publication – so after all that effort and sacrifice you will publish in a small journal – or an alternative  journal – or you may have to start your own journal to get your work out into the world – and you will be castigated for that too.

No doubt this will be seen as another homeopathic excuse for the current situation, but it’s just a sad fact of life that a homeopath lives with every day.  Mark if you are a scientist willing to make the personal and professional sacrifices such research would entail, then let’s talk, you’ll relish what you find.

——————————

James Herron

“I agree. Let’s have “Rational argument, debates, evidence, clinical cases.” Please start this by providing all the large scale, clinically rigorous, double-blinded studies that show evidence of homeopathic efficacy beyond the placebo effect.”

James please see previous answers to other comments.  Show us the money, give us the freedom to design an appropriate research methodology and a journal willing to publish the results.  In the meantime try reading what research there is – not just meta-analyses which are by definition flawed (see above).
As for large scale clinically rigorous studies – try the Cuban research into prevention of Leptospirosis – is 2.5 million subjects enough?  Carried out by a prestigious vaccine research institute?  Oh no that example won’t do, the research team are still looking for a journal willing to risk publishing the results.  Sigh.

————————–

So there you have it  – 10:23 – a massive outpouring of a disparate group – some confused, some outraged, some in it to make lame jokes at homeopathy’s expense (believe it homeopaths have heard them all already), some enjoying a little kudos with their mates for their ridiculing abilities – some certainly with a political agenda that’s a lot bigger than this latest campaign – and perhaps a few genuine truth seekers swept up in the excitement of 10:23.  To a man and woman all fundamentally mis-informed.

Read “Homeopathy = Placebo?  Politics, politics, politics” and see how crazy “there’s nothing in it” starts to sound.  Is there not one scientific mind among you?

btw this blog is for thinking people only – see the About page. In the interests of space and time comments which simply repeat the same issues discussed above will be deleted.

“10:23  Homeopathy – there’s nothing in it” is just the latest and best organised in a series of orchestrated campaigns that have been run in the UK over the last several years by a group of people who call themselves Skeptics.

In fact the definition of skeptic as I pointed out in a previous post is : “A person inclined to doubt or question accepted opinions”.  The skeptics use this term to suggest that they are critical thinkers and that it’s a virtue not to be taken in by the “pseudo-science” of alternative medicine and in particular homeopathy.  As if they have really investigated the evidence with an open mind.

They describe homeopathy as “implausible”, “impossible” and therefore it cannot work.  A bit like the impossibility of getting the first airplane off the ground and all number of other advances in science and technology mentioned in the post : Evidence Check, honourable members do the honourable thing.

They use the fact that homeopathy has not “changed in 200 years” as evidence that we are morons stuck in an ancient time warp – ignoring the fact that when the therapeutic model is based on natural laws, there is no need to change the underlying principles because they work for all time.  I won’t bother to mention the constant mad scramble of Big Pharma to make new, better – or indeed ANYTHING which actually CURES a named disease. (Well OK I will, but only in passing ) 

They choose to label 200 years of clinical evidence – millions upon millions of cases across the globe as coincidence / placebo effect – cases which include herds of cows, fields of crops – see the post: Homeopathy = Placebo? Politics, politics, politics for more on this.

They label anyone who describes being helped by homeopathy, often after years of failed conventional treatments as gullible, a coincidence, the result of the placebo effect – and in the cases where it’s hard to make this stick, the case is dismissed as simply anecdotal evidence – which of course doesn’t count for these “seekers of the scientific method”.

Given the actual definition of science there isn’t a real scientist amongst them.  Prof Ernst called for “a closed mind on homeopathy” in his latest article in JAMA – he’s the UK’s only Prof of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and vocal critic of a wider number of CAMs including acupuncture and chiropractic – he did  a meta-analysis of homeopathic research and found no evidence to say it was better than placebo.  Surprise!

Come on!!!!!

The conclusion must be that these people are NOT SKEPTICS at all they are DENIALISTS and it’s important to call them thus.  It focuses the mind on what we are dealing with.  Rational argument, debates, evidence, clinical cases, none of it will make any difference because their mind is fully made up – it is as they proudly state – “closed on homeopathy”.  It cannot work so therefore it does not work QED.

The central group pushing the 10:23 campaign forward are amassing sycophants of all persuasions – many of whom are just looking for some easy fun baiting and ridiculing homeopaths.

Let’s not be baited – let’s focus on sending a clear message to the public about what this campaign is really all about.  Every homeopath, student, patient and supporter has to do everything they can to educate the public about homeopathy and its immense potential.

EVERYTHING.

More later.

I wonder though, can someone not put the record straight – how much DOES the NHS spend on homeopathic medicines?  The Telegraph went for “£4 million a year on dispensing homeopathy to patients.”  But is that the cost of the medicines, or the cost of dispensing them, or both?  Because The Guardian reported that the NHS spent “£12 million on homeopathic remedies between 2005 and 2008″.  £4 million a year again, but suggests it’s only for the medicines.  Sounds like a small point I know, but it wouldn’t be if you were footing the bill.  The Minister of State, Mike O’Brien, told us that the NHS bill for homeopathic medicines was around £150,000 a year, a bit of a difference, although he went on to add that the cost of providing homeopathy, including running 4 homeopathic hospitals, paying for GP homeopathic services and referrals etc was around £12 million a year – a figure he said he got from The Guardian !  Mike O’B did remind everyone that the drug budget of the NHS (that’s not the NHS budget, just the part for drugs) is around £11billion a year, and that since homeopathy is already funded by the NHS and there is a group of clinicians who believe it works, they should continue to have the right to prescribe it.

So just to be clear, that’s £11billion for drugs compared to £150,000 for homeopathic remedies.
All right then.  Sorted.

I understand that in the current circumstances, the homeopathic community is grateful for any glimmer of light at the end of this long, dark tunnel, but the email that went round declaring it: “A great day for Homeopathy!” was perhaps a little premature.  Mike O’Brien is a politician and likely to be out of office at the next election, and in any case no matter what he says government policy is, individual Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) hold the purse strings with the power to make homeopathy available, or not, for patients within their jurisdiction.  We know already that the PCTs have been petitioned by the anti-homeopathy campaign.  The original ’13 doctor’ letter that went out back in May 2007, signed by (13) eminent doctors and retired professors, implored colleagues not to provide an ‘impossible, implausible’ medicine on the NHS.  That letter was written on NHS headed note paper – even though the letter had not come from the NHS and a question was asked about in parliament just the week before the Evidence Check……

UK Parliament 14.10.09 Gillian Merron, Minister of State, Dept of Health:

“ …..the honourable gentleman raised concerns about a document recommending disinvestment from homeopathy, which was circulated using the NHS logo.  I can confirm that our enquiries found no record of the Department having authorized the use of the NHS logo and that those who originated the document were asked not to circulate it any further.  They were advised about the use of the logo in future and chief executives of (primary care) trusts were also informed that the document does not represent Government policy.”

Meanwhile, in the interests of efficiency, Dr Thallon, medical director of Kent PCT has offered to provide the results of his investigation into homeopathy on the NHS to other PCTs for use in their decision making process – the same investigation that led to the closing of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital last year.

That’s the kind of shenanigans we’re up against.

For fun I just googled ‘Evidence Check’ and ‘homeopathy’ and what do you know – Voice of (not so) Young Homeopathy was right there on the first page – not surprisingly below layscience, ukskeptics, and the James Randi forum – but most encouragingly was just below the World Homeopathy Community – and ABOVE Sense  About Science – and that’s without using all manner of meta tag shenanigans to crawl up the google ranks.

Word for the day: Shenanigans – secret or dishonest activity or maneuvering.

Having heard my parents use the term all my life, it came with some irony that all these years later I find myself described as a Quack and it’s meant to be an insult.   I’ve been called a wide range of other descriptives as well of course, from a number of less imaginative four letter words, all the way to the whimsical “woo artist”.
The only emotion any of these words elicit in me is one of sadness. If we look to the homeopathic material medica, all the characters are in there. If only they had some good constitutional treatment they would open their minds and debate rather than debunk. Discuss rather than go for the jugular. Exchange ideas rather than employ character assassination. One in particular sticks in my mind – a young woman who poured vitriolic anger on to her own web page every time I posted about something homeopathic on another completely unrelated site. At the end of last year I got her Quack of the Month award accompanied by a string of expletives about how she had every right to be who she was.  The intensity of her pain and misdirected fury was hard to watch.  Homeopathy makes us all more tolerant.

In the first years of my training I wanted to stand outside the tube station – and like the young man who was there every night selling the Socialist Worker’s paper, I wanted to evangelise and tell the world about this amazing thing called homeopathy.  Over the years my homeopathy matured and now I understand that it doesn’t work like that.  People have to be ready, or desperate enough, to find it.  All we can do is let the world know it exists, we can’t make them want it.  It’s where homeopathy is at this point in its history – fighting for the right of people to have the option to choose homeopathy if they want it.  That’s all.  To have this choice legislated against would be a tragic loss of an incredible opportunity to build a healthcare system that really serves the people who need it.

In the meantime, perhaps like other minority groups it’s time to reclaim the word, neutralize it’s intended insult and wear the badge with pride.

After all if I call the sceptics and anti-homeopathy campaigners/bloggers, by the group name Quackbusters, then by definition, that makes me a Quack.

If Quack means believing in an ‘implausible ‘ medicine, if it means prescribing a ‘dangerous placebo’, if it means being ‘deluded’ that homeopathy works, then count me in.

Quack, that’s me – Out and Proud.

PS.   Sceptic : someone who questions or doubts accepted opinions. Since to get to homeopathy most of us questioned accepted opinion about current medical thought, WE ARE the sceptics in this scenario! 

Dissembler: this is a word I didn’t know.  It was listed along with Mountebank,  Charlatan, and Imposter and defined as: allthough all these deceivers are out to fool others, it is the dissembler who is primarily interested in disguising or concealing their true motives or evil purpose. In light of the current Evidence Check, all I can say is hmmmmmmmm.

The placebo effect is a hot topic in science.  Right now it allows a paternalistic Dr Goldacre to pronounce homeopaths well meaning but delusional – which is somehow nicer than homeopaths deliberately peddling sugar pills and ripping off the public.  It’s the hour long consultation with a caring attentive homeopath that’s responsible for the good effect – the people who see homeopaths are not really ill, and would have got better anyway.  Either way, the result is the same – however nicely it’s couched, it’s a misrepresentation of homeopathy.

The thing is, Dr G may be able to wax lyrical about the placebo effect – which given the cultural power vested in a man, (and occasionally) a woman, in a white coat with a stethoscope hanging round their neck, should be much more powerful in conventional medicine – but at the end of the day it’s all a distraction.

A typical Q and A session about homeopathy = the placebo effect goes something like this:

Q1. Some homeopaths are caring people who spend hours with their patients, listening to their stories and empathizing with them – but their patients don’t do well.

Answer: That’s because the patients enjoy seeing the homeopath so much there’s no incentive to get better because then they won’t get that feel good aspect anymore / homeopathy doesn’t work. (But I thought you said it was the placebo effect?)

Q2. Some homeopaths are very businesslike and hold 10 minute consultations, but their patients do very well.

Answer: That’s because they exude an air of confidence that transmits to the patient and that increases the placebo effect. (A bit like a medical doctor you mean?)

Q3. Some patients do not respond to the remedy, even though the practitioner is absolutely convinced that the remedy is the correct one.

Answer: The practitioner probably had a bad day and this transmitted to the patient and undermined the patient’s confidence in that particular remedy / homeopathy doesn’t work.

Q4. When the same patient comes back and the practitioner realizes they made a mistake and prescribes a different remedy, the patient makes a miraculous recovery.

Answer: The practitioner had a good day and this increased the patient’s confidence in the new remedy/ the patient was getting better anyway. (You mean another coincidental resolution perfectly timed with administration of a remedy?)

Q5. Patients who have consulted with numerous conventional medical specialists for 30 years with no results, get better within a few weeks or months of seeing a homeopath.

Answer: See Q4. The last conventional treatment finally started to work, it’s just that the patient and their doctor could not see the signs. (Another coincidence?)

Q6. Homeopathy works on newborn babies.

Answer: That’s because the mother is more attentive and caring and transmits that to the two day old baby, they are subject to the placebo effect as well you know. (Wow that’s pretty powerful stuff, shouldn’t we be utilizing it instead of giving newborns conventional drugs?)

Q7. It works on comatose patients.

Answer: Oh that’s because at some subliminal level the patient is aware of what’s going on around him/her and knows that the ‘sugar pills’ are going to help /  they were getting better anyway. (Another coincidence?)

Q8. It works on herds of cows with mastitis when poured into their communal drinking trough.

Answer: Oh come on, not that animal argument again, they’re subject to the placebo effect as well! (A herd of cows in a field drinking from a communal water trough? In a blinded trial?)

Q9. It works on plants – individual plants and fields of crops.

Answer: Yeah right, what next, cells in test tubes?

Q10. It works on basophils in test tubes, a phenomenon repeated by respected scientists in 11 independent studies in labs across Europe.

Answer: What? Oh that! Yeah I saw the BBC Horizon TV program with the magician Randi and the Royal Society blokes – they blew that one right out of the water!

Q11. It works on cell lines in Petri dishes.

Answer: Listen I’m bored with this now – can we talk about something else?

Q12. It works in serious acute illnesses faster than antibiotics or anti-virals, despite the consultation being only a few minutes long. In places like India it is routinely used successfully to treat cholera and typhoid, dysentery, meningitis…..

Answer: Yeah but that’s NOT HERE is it? Who cares what those people over there do/ they’re not as sophisticated so they’re more susceptible to placebo. Anyway we’re talking about wasting NHS money on sugar pills!  (Whatever…)

Fact: The research evidence into high dilution/succussion effects is already in and has increased dramatically in just the last few years. Science is not about denying what doesn’t fit a limited view of the world – it’s about exploring frontiers of what doesn’t seem to fit the current view.

Health Warning: To any scientist thinking of getting involved in the investigation of high dilution effects on biological systems or material structures,  you need to know that you seriously risk having your credentials trashed and your Nobel Prize called into question. Homeopathic history is sadly littered with people who have been felled by the weapon of ridicule, for daring to question the scientific status quo.

Dr G said at the recent parliamentary committee meeting that “physics is not something that interests me”, well maybe it should – because before this is over you and your compadres might want to eat some of your words.

What’s the real reason for the obsession with Avogadro’s number and sugar pills? It’s not to protect the patient or save the NHS money. No ladies and gentleman it’s politics, politics, politics….

And by the way – just to clarify – high dilution/succussion is only the method of administering the homeopathic medicine – it’s not Homeopathy.  Homeopathy is the Law of Similars.  Ever wonder why Ritalin – a stimulant – is so effective for hyperactivity?

But that’s for another day.

Before opening the meeting, The Chair, felt the need to clarify what this committee’s remit actually is. I for one was glad to hear it, because in all the media furor since the last meeting, something had been lost in translation.
The Chair announced, “ I want to put it on record as there seems to be a little confusion about the nature of the work we’re doing.  This is not an enquiry into whether homeopathy works or not.  It’s an enquiry that follows a series of evidence checks across a number of government departments as to say whether in fact there was any evidence to support the government’s policy towards homeopathy.”

The Chair then opened the meeting and addressed his first question to Minister Mike O’Brien:
“ So does the government have any credible evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect?”
Subtle difference, no wonder we were all confused.

The meeting went back and forth – Evan Harris flexed his prosecuting muscles again – what he thought was a fellow traveller (the Chief Scientist) ended in disappointment.  Dr Harris was pushing hard that it was unethical to do any more Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) since the conclusion in the scientific community was ‘settled’ (homeopathy doesn’t work).  Professor Harper seemed to agree but when pressed he clarified his view.  “There is a lack of plausibility in the mechanism, but that isn’t to say there shouldn’t be research into like cures like, or molecular memory.”  Ouch Evan.

Prof Woods, Chief Executive of the MHRA was necessarily cautious about explaining that his remit is restricted to good manufacturing practice, and he held his own as Harris relentlessly searched for another sound bite to give the media.  As far as I could tell he didn’t get one, but we’ll see in the papers tomorrow.  Prof Woods concluded that all was well in the world of manufacturing and labeling.

Since this was about how government makes policy, the Minister got a grilling.  But the consummate politician stuck to his guns and stressed in many different ways that since funding for homeopathy was already in place, he could not recommend withdrawing it.  He took the view that there is a significant body of clinicians who say it works and they and their patients should be allowed access.   He mentioned the government has no plans for statutory regulations of non-medical homeopaths as they had put in place the Council for Natural Health Care CNHC) for voluntary regulation but added that the Society of Homeopaths (SOH) was not quite talking to the CNHC.  (SOH not ‘quite’ talking to them?  What’s up with that?)
Mr Stringer suggested that this lobby of clinicians was having a disproportionate effect on government policy.
A small group of dedicated homeopaths against the weight of conventional medicine?  Come on, Mr Stringer purleeez.
Dr Harris raised the anti-malarials issue again as suggestion of harm – and Prof Woods used the same  issue to support his regulatory body and its work – remedies can be withdrawn if necessary, and have been.
Asked how much was spent by the NHS on homeopathic “medicines”  (everyone was careful to put quotes around medicines used in this context) – the Minister replied; “£152K in a drug budget of  £11Billion, so around 0.001%.”
He confessed that overall funding for homeopathy was harder to calculate – but less than £12 Million (a little worrying that he said he took that figure from The Guardian!).  Nonetheless, that’s £12 Million from an NHS budget of around £100 Billion…….

Not that I’d support offering something just because it’s cheap, but as the Minister said:
“There is a significant lobby of clinicians who take the view that it works.  Should we stop funding it because the majority of other clinicians take the view it doesn’t work at all?  I have a problem with that  – with the illiberality of it – that personal choice in an area of medical controversy should be completely denied.”
Now that’s a conclusion I can live with.

Mr. Stringer and Dr Harris pressed for NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) to get involved and do some research. The Minister said NICE has other priorities and already has a queue of drugs waiting to be evaluated.
Dr Harris pressed: “If the chairman of NICE asked you?”  (Nicely?)
The Minister said “ I would object and ask is that the best thing you can do given the queue of drugs we’re asking you to evaluate. It’s a practical matter.”
A line that was supported by Prof Harper.
Dr Harris had the lion’s share of the questions again and desperately tried to squeak a last one in, but The Chair shut the meeting down and everyone went home.

Watch it courtesy of the British government: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5257

Things to look out for:
A possible change of heart by the NICE chairman on the need to move homeopathy to the top of the evaluation list.
A flurry of articles condemning the use of homeopathy in AIDS since it’s international AIDS day today.

Note of caution:
Dr Harris if you open your eyes any wider there’s a real risk your eyeballs will fall out.

Careful Dr Harris !