Evidence Check – honourable members do the honourable thing

I’ve read many more of the submissions now (see previous post) and here’s the thing….

The Neutrals identify the need for more research – the YESes welcome more research.

The NOs state that more research is a waste of time and money because “homeopathy doesn’t work” Q.E.D.

I’m reminded of a quote by Einstein: “Concepts, which have proved useful for ordering things, easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as ‘conceptual necessities,’ etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.”   That block in the road is where we are right now.

We should be very grateful that researchers in history didn’t give up when their important advances in science were met with derision and ridicule and worse. 

Advertisements

Evidence check – Well done you homeopaths!

Let’s hope the Science and Technology Committee read the written submissions sent in for the Evidence Check on Homeopathy.  I am busy ploughing through them and interesting reading they make.

Is homeopathy effective?  Does the Evidence support that?

Score: YES – 28            NO – 11            Neutral – 7

To be fair, 3 of the YES group are satisfied patients making a plea for keeping homeopathy within the NHS, and – as we are reminded daily by the NOs – anecdotal evidence, however much there is, whether new born babies, herds of cattle, comatose patients or people with intractable conditions not helped by 30 years of conventional medicine (no placebo effect there then)  – does not count.

The remaining 25 in the YES group are well constructed, many of them one might say are academic, papers, fully referenced and carefully laying out the reasons for their conclusions.

What’s the difference between Sara and Sarah? Evidence Check fallout

I am stunned by the two interviews I just watched on the BBC. One with the polite Dr Sara Eames from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and the very confused journalist, Celia Walden.   And the other with Professor Lewith and the bulldozer Dr Sarah Jarvis, a GP.

Here we have homeopathy taking another major beating in the media following Boots’ gift of a sound bite from the parliamentary Evidence Check – which I feel compelled to mention again, IS NOT YET OVER.

A mild mannered and polite Dr. Sara Eames waited for her questions and answered them, albeit repetitively.  But WHY oh WHY did she not set the seriously confused Celia Walden straight? 

Evidence Check on Homeopathy – hey media hang on a minute!

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE CHECK IS NOT FINISHED, NOR THE PARLIAMENTARY REPORT WRITTEN predictably the media is all over the oral submissions – having waited hungrily for the sound bites and gobbled them up, they’re now spitting them out all over the place…

Boots is on the carpet for selling medicines they ‘don’t believe work’ – pulling that carpet from under their retail sales, by informing the public that Boots is selling them nothing but ‘sugar pills’ at 5 quid a bottle.

So I have a question myself:  WHY, Mr. Bennett?

Evidence Check on Homeopathy. Can it get any better?

I had a dream not so long ago….and so did they…..

Once upon a time there was a group of materialists who worked hard day and night to bring their myopic vision of life, the universe and everything to the rest of humanity.  Especially the UK.  Many meetings in pubs, and conversions of journalists and politicians and young scientists and bloggers took place, and gradually they gained confidence and power and influence.  One summer’s night they sat around feeling particularly smug, wondering about their next maneuver.

UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee Evidence Check

Today I’m full of admiration for the British Government – all their Select Committee meetings are accessible from anywhere in the world via the internet.  I just finished watching two hours of the committee charged with looking into the evidence for homeopathy, or the lack thereof.