I’m rapidly becoming a fan of your journalistic effort, but I have one nit-picking point to make.

Here, and in some other articles I’ve noticed (but not made detailed record of), you are guilty of exactly the kind of thing you strive to expose: not comparing like with like.

You tell us about the prevalence of negative results in the most popular articles in the BMJ, then compare that with the 1% occurrence of negative results in alternative medicine journals.

Why leave room for doubt? Why not print the corresponding figure for mainstream medical journals? (The negative results may have been popular due to their incredible rarity!) Why compare one particular mainstream journal, with (I am tacitly asked to assume) a representative survey of the ‘alternative’ literature?

Defenders of pseudoscience presented with your data may very well accuse you of being deliberately obscure, and their arguments may well work, because it may be that some of the people such arguments are aimed at are just the kind of people inclined to believe anything without checking the statistics for themselves.

Apologies for being verbose on a miniscule point, and for failing to be “combative, intelligent, and rude.” Keep up the good writing.

Someone I know is doing the Hoe Degree thru the University of Lancaster. The course is 30 days a year for 5 years which equates to 150 days of tution. Based on 8 hour days this is 1200 hours.
You don’t require a qualification in any science related subject to do the course.
Ethics is an optional module.

NVQ 1 Hairdressing takes 1600 hours of teaching time. NVQ 2 in Hairdressing is the same.

As these degrees have only recently become available, it is most likely that your Hoe hasn’t even done this amount of training. Ask them in detail about their training. How are they regulated?

The idea that homeopathy is a threat to the funding of the NHS is a construction of media hacks. I have close family who work in the NHS and they can see that other therapies are needed to address health issues. We cannot keep patching people up with pharmaceutical drugs that produce side effects.

The services that the NHS has set up are clearly not serving everyone. I choose to visit and pay for my own treatment with my homeopath twice or three times a year. I choose this over visiting my GP who is being paid to care for me although I don’t attend while they may earn up to £250,000.

What are you trying to do on your bad science site?
It would be a very narrow minded person who says that just because they haven’t used homeopathy that they will go to extensive lengths to stop other people having access to it.

I wrote to you as I wanted you to know that I and other homeopaths are listening to all this negativity about homeopathy. A liitle bemused at your interest and the ferocity of the media attacks
Frankly I would like to know why you feel that we are such a threat? We our clients would not return for treatment if it didn’t work!

I suppose some science hacks must attack people as a way to earn a living. Now that is bad science.

I’ve covered it my blog at
http://jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/

Alternatively, call yourself a SoH homeopath but practise exclusively evidence-based medicine and prescribe real drugs. Criticise those other homeopaths who don’t do that. It’ll drive them crazy.

“We contacted the programme makers directly to ask for their evidence that any Society members had given dangerous or misleading advice to members of the public. They were unable to provide a single example. The Society’s professional conduct procedures cannot be invoked without a specific complaint, an alleged offender or any evidence.”

I must ask why that has not been done. Sauce for the goose…

I would love to observe the spectacle of them attempting to deal with, or giving the impression of dealing with, a disciplinary case against one of their own.

Having been on the receiving end of a disciplinary complaint laid by one of this fraternity I have particularly enjoyed the negative coverage that their attempt at bullying has received and congratulations to Andy Lewis on standing up to them.

October 22, 2007 at 9:18 am

“The website otherhealth has opened started an angry discussion over this article, asking for rebuttals (with references). So far the silence is deafening http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=9119”

Someone grab that thread before it disappears.

http://www.traditional-health.co.uk/item–Caisse-Formula-Essiac-One-gallon-Kit–caisse.html

Quote from the site:
“Thousands of people suffering from terminal cancer have allegedly been successfully treated and reportedly, many cured with a safe herbal remedy called Essiac.”

hm, not quite as unethical. e.g. a non-remedy like homoeopathy as the only treatment for cardiovascular disease certainly can be fatal. However, some non-remedies (e.g. chelation therapy, removal of mercury fillings, etc.) can be worse than doing nothing – they can actually increase the chance of death, injury and suffering.

Not that I’m defending any of these practices, of course…

October 21, 2007 at 12:40 am

Gimpy, I’m interested to know in what way the SoH could become less ethical.

Depressingly easily. E.g. they could start advocating treatments which are painful and/or actively harmful, as opposed to just ineffective.”

I think we’ve established that a non-remedy like homeopathy can, in the right (wrong) circumstances be deadly. In that sense claiming homeopathic remedies for malaria, AIDS and so on is an actively harmful activity. Ignoring the evidence, which even a non-scientist like me can understand, is… well, words fail me on that. It seems to me equally as unethical as advocating an actively harmful treatment.
You aren’t allowed to sell home-made cakes a village fète these days in case someone gets food poisoning, but any old deluded crank can legally persuade people not to seek proper medical advice or care by offering fraudulent/pretend medicine. And you can even get said pretend medicine, along with its associated and equally pretend advice, on the NHS. What kind of idiot law makers cobbled that lot together?