Following the open meeting of March 10th to discuss proposals to cut homeopathy from the budget, the PEC collected their thoughts and formally presented them to the Wirral NHS Board. This meeting took place on the 22 March 2011, and unsurprisingly attracted the attention of the North West ‘Friends’ of Homeopathy, whose very vocal envoy John Cook persuaded the board to allow him to present his objections to their proposal. Readers of the previous blog or listeners to Skeptics with a K will know John well, and his forthright advocacy style.

Fortunately, a local councillor is a supporter and friend of the MSS, and he was able to equally persuade the board to allow an external voice of support into the meeting to counter the objections of the homeopathic lobby – which is why I found myself called upon to give a 5-minute speech in favour of disposing with the sugar pills once and for all.

The exact text of the speech is presented below, and my opportunity to present it came immediately after 5 minutes from the homeopaths, in which the main thrust of their argument was:

• The consultation process had not been as robust as one would hope (essentially attempting to get off on a technicality)
• Homeopathy does indeed work and there is science to prove it
• Homeopathy is used by 10% of the population (a somewhat spurious figure brilliantly put into context by the board, who pointed out that the 60 affected patients in the Wirral each year are in fact just 0.02% of the population)
• Those who seek to end funding for homeopathy are in fact attempting to ban it, with similar zeal to the calls to rid the world from smallpox.

I’ve no doubt that John will be able to offer a fuller clarification of these points below, and I welcome him doing so if he so wishes. Following this argument, I took to the rather official-looking table with it’s little microphone, the eyes of the board upon me, and began:

I was made aware of this meeting today by Councillor Darren Dodd, councillor for Liscard, because I represent a voluntary group with interests in promoting evidence-based, rational healthcare practices, who are very much in favour of the proposals to relieve NHS Wirral of the burden of funding homeopathy.

It was said in evidence submitted to the Science and Technology Report Evidence Check on homeopathy – the report which, I dare say, was very much the precursor to the proposals put forward to cease funding for homeopathy from the NHS Wirral budget – that efficacy is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to treatment modalities such as homeopathy. Here, I believe, we agree, given that patient choice and cost-effectiveness are also clear and important factors in deciding whether or not to fund any particular modality. However, cost-effectiveness and patient choice in isolation can’t provide a solid base for the provision of a certain treatment – fundamentally, and as a baseline, it’s vital that any proposed treatment works. Without proof a treatment works, cost-effectiveness becomes a moot point – how cost-effective can a clinically-ineffective treatment be?

Similarly, without reliable evidence that a treatment can work, the notion of patient choice is nonsensical. It is absurd to offer patients the choice of an intervention which is not known to effectively treat their condition. In fact, that the very offer of homeopathy is available is likely to be taken as an implicit endorsement of that intervention. Patients do not expect to be offered ineffective treatments by the NHS; the understandable assumption will be that if the NHS funds it, it must work. At best, this is misleading.

Despite claims from retailers of homeopathy, friends of homeopathy, and spokespersons for multinational homeopathic pharmaceutical companies (of which members of least one of those groups and possible all three we’ve heard from tonight), despite their claims that homeopathy is based on good science, the evidence from clinical studies is clear: homeopathy does not work above the placebo effect. This meeting, of course, is not the forum to debate the intricacies of individual studies into the efficacy or otherwise of homeopathic remedies, and I believe this has already taken place – not only in the aforementioned Science and Technology Report, but in a myriad of other clinical trials and assessments. However, a quick summary can be useful: looking at the literature, a pattern is clear – where studies are objectively and independently assessed as being the fairest tests with the best methodologies, the effect of homeopathy diminishes to zero. Were a pharmaceutical drug to have the history of shoddy research and weak evidence which homeopathic remedies thus far have shown, it wouldn’t be considered even for a moment to be funded on the NHS. Quite why homeopathy has enjoyed special privilege is very much an artefact not of its efficacy, but it’s antiquity – the founding body of the NHS happening to have included at the time a homeopath. The favouritism towards this particular modality over the myriad of other disproven techniques and systems is now reaching something of an end – with PCTs across the country shedding homeopathic contracts from their books. It’s encouraging in the extreme to see calls from NHS Wirral to follow suit.

This isn’t to say we seek to ban homeopathy entirely – in fact, if proponents of homeopathy were able to reliably demonstrate that their remedies have genuine effects, then they may be worth considering in the future. As yet, such proof hasn’t been forthcoming, nor does it look likely to appear any time in the future – particularly given that the giants of the multi-million pound homeopathy industry still spend around twenty times as much money advertising their products as they put into researching whether they actually work – a figure which makes even the horrendous excesses of the Pharmaceutical industry seem comparatively professional. We should absolutely keep an open mind, but we should be sure to temper it with a critical eye. The time for NHS Wirral to offer homeopathy is after it can be shown to have genuine, reliable and objectively measurable effects – not before.

It’s worth noting that we’re quite famously in an age of austerity, with budgetary pressures doubtless being felt throughout the NHS. Given that we know there are treatments which are proven to work, but lie unfortunately outside of the financial constraints of the health service at this time, now is the perfect time to remove funding for the treatments – such as homeopathy – which are at best unproven, and at worst comprehensively disproven.

I’ve since heard that the doctors in attendance were nodding in agreement throughout, which is great to hear.

Given all of the above, and more evidence from the doctors, it’s with great delight that  I can let you know that the PEC voted to scrap homeopathy from the NHS in the Wirral, with the dwindling numbers of existing patients able to see out the course of their treatment, but no new patients to be taken on. This, we have to consider, is a great victory for our campaign, and for common sense.

The paper concludes that the lack of evidence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic therapies means that it should not be a high priority for the PCT at this time. It is recommended that NHS Wirral does not commission homeopathictherapies.

The key risk is that NHS Wirral fails to maintain its reputation as an evidence-based commissioning PCT.

Excellent stuff. Still, it seems we weren’t the only ones made aware of the open meeting – also invited were patients currently or formerly using homeopathy, and the ‘North West Friends of Homeopathy‘. This latter group are most interesting, and I’ll come back to them a little later in more detail, but first it’s worth pointing out that I appeared on local radio with a member of the group on Monday morning, in an exchange that might amuse, and will certainly give a far better impression of who John Cook is than I could ever do justice with words. UK-based readers can listen here, it starts around the 2hour 13minute mark and lasts about 10 minutes. I’ll wait.

For those not able, willing or interested in listening, what we have from John is a charming ability to hog a conversation, and the maniacal insistence that the date of the meeting was aired. Clearly, John wanted his supporters to arrive mob-handed. Fair enough, he probably feels he has a strong case. As it was, when I arrived with a couple of other MSS members there were maybe 40 or so people present, a number which I presume to be in excess of the general norm for these meetings.

John, having lobbied for inclusion, was amongst the speakers, joined by Dr. Hugh Neilsen BA MA BM BCh MRCP FFHom (it’s worth pointing out that his name is actually Hugh Nielsen, and the NWFoH’s own website, while painstaking in it’s detail of Hugh’s many qualifications, mispells the name of their own president), and the panel was completed by two local GPs who were involved in making the recommendation, and who spent the evening ranging between bemused, compassionate and at times startled. Startled, not least, by the quite spectacular opening by John, the homeopath’s friend (which I imagine is rather like a Fisherman’s Friend, but lacking in clout), in which he directed a quite flattering string of insults at me directly, and at the Merseyside Skeptics Society. A typo on our website (proclaiming the meeting to be on the 6th not the 9th) drew from John the hilarious gag:

Perhaps you’re the Merseyside Dyslexics Society, although you’ve somehow managed to make it here on the right night so perhaps you can get by. (*from memory, not verbatim*)

Clearly the friends of homeopathy are no friends of dyslexics, I suppose. Either that or he had a range of tinctures in his impressively boxy briefcase, and was merely touting for business. Who knows. Still, it was a harmless enough jape (unless you are actually dyslexic, in which case I’m sure it was infuriatingly insulting), but I assume not the standard practice for such meetings as the Chair looked quite surprised. John’s epic 10-minute rant (he moved to stand behind the Chair so everybody could see him in full), whilst including a few more rib-ticklers at my expense (I was merely an audience member at this point, bear in mind), also included a number of utterly wonderful assertions, which he’d taken the time to print for us (with such adherence to spelling and grammar as to paint his dyslexic wisecrack in immensely ironic light) and which I can reproduce here verbatim from the copy I took away with me.

North West Friends – Small Registered Charity supporting Patients.

This is interesting to me, given that the Charities Comission has NWFoH listed as being for:

THE RELIEF OF SICKNESS BY HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE. THE EDUCATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THE BRANCH OF MEDICINE KNOWN AS HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE AND TO ASSIST IN RESEARCH OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE, THE RESULTS OF SUCH RESEARCH BEING DISSEMINATED TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

Am I splitting hairs there? I think not – the NWFoH are very much designed to support homeopathy as a system, to further its usage and to promote homeopathy wherever possible. Clearly this is not the same thing as supporting patients – it’s supporting homeopathy. They’re not the North West Friends of Patients, after all, and were the interests of homeopathy to be in conflict with those of patients (like, say, when over 200 trials show homeopathy to be ineffective for patient use and a local PCT recommend, for increased patient care, the cessation of homeopathy funding), it’s easy to see where John and the rest of the NWFoH’s chips would fall.

10% each year of the UK population use homeopathy

This struck me as grossly exaggerated, but as one of John’s ill-judged and smug barbs pointed out ‘this includes the many skeptics who were seen debauchedly gulping entire bottles of homeopathy outside of Boots’. On this point, I agreed with him (we did), although the 10% still looks over-inflated to me. Small point, though, there’s better to come.

John also went on to claim that the Government rejected the Science and Technology Comittee’s recommendation to cease funding for homeopathy (implying that for a PCT to do so, citing the Evidence Check, would be out of line). This, as I pointed out to John when given the chance to retort from my seat in the audience, was highly disingenuous and misleading – the Government actually said that any decision should be made not by them but by local PCTs after local consulation. And we were sat in that local consultation at that very minute. Bewildering.

In perhaps John’s coup de grace, he stated defiantly:

Despite the Department of Health’s rejection of the conclusion of the Evidence Check Report, Wirral PEC’s recommendation says ‘there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect; which is another way of saying there is no evidence of efficacy (RTCs) – which is wrong, because there is.

Brilliant. Let’s take this point by point:

• The Department of Health did not reject the conclusion of the Evidence Check Report, as covered above. Furthermore they agreed that the evidence was in fact lacking, they merely disagreed that there should be top-down cessation of funding.
• I’ve no idea what an RTC is – a typo is a petty thing to pick up on, admittedly, but given John’s smug gloating over the supposed date error on our own website, I couldn’t resist. An RCT is a Random Controlled Trial – that John can’t get those words in the right order speaks volumes about the NWFoH’s understanding of evidence standards.
• Finally, the best bit – ‘which is wrong, because there is’. Now, you doubtlessly expect the next paragraph to explain this bold assertion. Who am I kidding, no you don’t – you rightly suspect John threw it out there nakedly and expected us to buy it without anything at all to actually back it up, as if merely saying something is enough to make it sound so. Which is right, because he did.

That summed up the thrust of John’s ‘arguments’, aside from another couple of swipes at the very fact that skeptics exist and personal digs at me and the MSS in general, and it was at this point that the Chair, out of keeping with the planned structure of the evening but slightly perplexed by John’s use of his time in attacking a hitherto-silent audience member, allowed me a moment to rebut. Fortunately, I had my rebuttal somewhat planned, and it ran along the lines of these very simple, demonstrable facts:

1. The Merseyside Skeptics Society is a volunteer organisation with no commercial vested interests clouding our objectivity.
2. The North West Friends of Homeopathy are headed up by John Cook (who appears to have been at one point the Chairman of the British Homeopathic Association, although I’m lacking citation for that and may be mistaken by an identically-named homeopath) and President Hugh Nielsen, who is also Clinical Lead of Old Swan Homeopathic Clinic, Liverpool
3. The North West Friends of Homeopathy state on their website that their homeopathy supplier is Weleda Ltd
4. Weleda Ltd is a large multi-national corporation operating in 53 countries with an annual turnover of around $300m
5. Weleda Ltd produce homeopathic products, and also the non-homeopathic Iscador (made from mistletoe, and often lumped in with homeopathy for reasons too complicated to go into here).
6. Welada Ltd currently supply Iscador and homeopathic products to… Old Swan Homeopathic Clinic, where Hugh Nielsen – President of NWFoH is Clinical Lead.

These facts, which I’ve seen nothing to suggest are incorrect, do not of course show any solid financial incentive behind the supposedly-grassroots, ‘supporting the patients’ activities of the NWFoH, however they do make it hard not to wonder that objectivity may be compromised – homeopaths spontaneously campaigning to have preserved a contract that their supplier benefits from financially.

The rest of the evening was genuinely fascinating – clearly many of the people who had turned up (those not part of John’s own group, of which there seemed to be several)  had done so out of genuine belief that homeopathy was an effective treatment. Each shared their own tale – terminal cancers held back by homeopathic products, ADHD abated without the need for drugs, breast cancer completely cured by homeopathy. Interestingly, there was an overwhelming preponderance of cancer patients present, and I think this reflects the intentional muddying of the lines between homeopathy, Iscador, and homeopathic Iscador. As the Chair was quick to point out, any case relating to Iscador was fundamentally not one the session was set up to consult on, and still the entirely-sincere and doubtlessly-genuine cancer cases came in. This made me wonder, especially as Monday’s radio phone in seemed curiously skewed towards Iscador stories too, whether there wasn’t an intentional drive to get such patients to come along, with their deeply-emotive – though irrelevant to the subject at hand – cases. If I were an astroturf organisation shilling for an Iscador manufacturer, I’d imagine that’s the kind of situation I’d try and promote.

Still, I felt nothing but empathy for the majority of the cases in the room (by which I mean the ones who weren’t nakedly hostile to the very notion of a skeptic, which formed a minority I imagine). Most of the people there were genuine in their concerns, and really wanted clarity and answers – they were just missing the objectivity that comes with not being in the centre of the storm. It is incredibly hard to accept such counter-intuitive notions as regression to the mean, confirmation bias and spontaneous recovery when you’re the one involved – as human beings we’re built to fit our lives into some kind of understandable narrative and see pattern and structure where there is, sometimes, chaos and randomness, and we’re all susceptible to this. It really did reinforce to me the need to be compassionate and considerate when dealing with people who have been convinced by a particular pseudoscience – even the most vociferous of proponents can themselves be victims, and frequently this is the case.

Amongst the stories told, the recurring theme which became apparent to me was of people who, when desperate, had been convinced to try homeopathy – perhaps by reputation, perhaps by recommendation from a well-meaning or otherwise practitioner. Also recurring, too, were stories of dismissal of the treatments by medical practitioners, and it did make me wonder just how many people would put their faith in homeopathy if explained clearly and gently why those little pills have no clinical effect, and how the placebo effect really works, rather than simply dismissed out of hand (admittedly by doubtlessly busy doctors who have real and pressing issues to deal with – a situation which will only increase now GPs are left holding the purse strings). I wonder if a moment’s pause and patience at the point of first experience might keep many more patients from falling for the weasel-wording of Dr Nielsen (who visibly squirmed when fellow skeptic Tom Williamson pressed him on Nielsen’s own explanation of how homeopathic substances get more effective once the initial substance has been diluted out of them) and the sneering and bullish hyperbole of John Cook.

Ultimately, however, I don’t really believe the discussions this evening will have affected the decision to be made over homeopathic funding, partly because I don’t think it really was – or was even pretending to be – a discussion. ‘Have your say’ invited the website – and plenty of people did. However, there is a significant difference between having your say, and having a vote, and I strongly think in this instance the evidence will outweigh the few passionate-but-sincerely-misguided opinions of the homeopathy users, and the smug point-scoring of the North West Friends of Homeopathy (Manufacturers). I, for one, eagerly await the outcome on March 22nd.

10:23, London, 2010 (photo by Kelly Haddow

This post was originally a guest post I wrote for The Times Eureka science blog, which can be found behind the paywall.

On Sunday, February 6th, at precisely 10:23am, I will be hoping over a thousand people around the world will have spent the last 24 hours joining me in a so-called mass “overdose”.

Don’t worry, I’m not following in the footsteps of Jim Jones, nor will there be any Kool-Aid anywhere to be seen. Instead, there will be 28 countries, 69 cities and over one 1023 consumer rights activists, each passionate about spreading genuine healthcare information. And there will be a hell of a lot of little homeopathic pills.

Let me explain. In September 2009, myself and a couple of other members of the Merseyside Skeptics Society (a non-profit, voluntary organisation set up to promote critical thinking) settled on a project to help spread genuine information about what homeopathic remedies are, and how they are produced. Opinion polls suggested members of the public thought homeopathic products were synonymous with ‘herbal’, ‘natural’ and ‘chemical-free’ – when in reality they couldn’t be further from all of those things.

Faced with this low level of public understanding, the £4million+ per year spent by the NHS on homeopathy was hard to swallow, and out of the frustration at this disconnection the 10:23 Campaign was born. The aim was simple, to raise awareness among the public that homeopathy is not a valid or useful medical alternative, due to thestupendously dilute nature of each remedy. Put simply: ‘There’s Nothing In It’.

After much careful planning, by the 30th January 2010 we’d raised such interest in the campaign that we’d gathered over 350 protestors in more than a dozen UK cities. Each supporter came armed with an off-the-shelf remedy from their local Boots pharmacy (the high street giant drawing particular ire for their admission that they sell homeopathic products not because they work, but because they sell), and a simple mandate – at the stroke of 10:23am, they were to swallow the entire contents of the homeoapthic vial. The event is pictured above (photo by Kelly Haddow).

In reality, somewhat disappointingly, this amounted to a rather meagre capfull of little sugary balls – while homeopathy is nonsense, it’s also a very expensive nonsense (gram for gram, homeopathic pills sell for twice the price of sterling silver). Still, the event must have proven to be something of a spectacle, as it garnered a quite staggering level of media attention, spreading our message that there really is nothing in homeopathic remedies.

This year, we’re aiming to spread that message even further, organising our campaign to run in cities across the globe – and I believe with good reason. While homeopathic products might, at the thin end of the wedge, represent a waste of a reasonably small amount of UK tax payer’s money (albeit at a time when NHS budgets are being pushed to breaking point), there are some desperately worrying signs that undeniable harm is being done – even if unwittingly – by proponents of this disproven treatment.

A recent BBC investigation found homeopaths in Scotland selling homeopathic (read: ineffective) alternatives to anti-malarial pills and childhood vaccinations. A recent documentary on CBC in Canadaunearthed homeopathic cancer cures. Homeopaths practicing in Africa push sugar pills as substitutes for anti-retroviral drugs. This is how people get hurt.

Fortunately, we’re not alone in helping the public understand what homeopathic remedies are, and – crucially – what they fundamentally aren’t. And this is where the so-called mass “overdose” of this weekend comes in: while I and the 10:23 Campaign supporters in the UK will be collectively quaffing homeopathic potions at the QED science festival in Manchester, equally-passionate consumer rights advocates across the world will be joining in with their own protests. In Spain, over a hundred protesters will take part in the campaign. Outside of the Place du Luxembourg in Brussels, home of the EU parliament, homeopathy skeptics from across Europe will protest against the convoluted EU directives that uniquely allow homeopathic products to be sold as medicines without evidence that they’re anything more than sugar pills.

Hundreds of campaigners in America and Canada will appeal to Wal-Mart to cease stocking ineffective homeopathic products on their shelves, while across Australia and New Zealand protesters in nine cities will be joining the campaign.

Alongside the large-scale events, the smaller stories promise to be equally interesting. In Puerta Galera, Philippines, a lone SCUBA diver will demonstrate the fallacy of homeopathy by creating a homeopathic remedy for Nitrogen Narcosis, using entirely-genuine homeopathic preparation techniques. Fortunately, and much like real homeopaths, he won’t be putting his concoction through any rigourous tests of efficacy. Even more amazingly, a lone scientist in Antarctica will take time out from his research to take his own ‘overdose’ – the icy continent providing a pertinent backdrop to his protest: the chances of finding a homeopathic arsenic pill buried randomly in the snow somewhere across that vast landmass being dramatically higher than the chances of finding a single arsenic molecule in that same pill.

Of course, these worldwide demonstrations won’t prove that homeopathy doesn’t work – but nor are they designed to. Two centuries of clinical data, endlessly repeated controlled trials and a basic understanding of chemistry all tell us conclusively that homeopathy doesn’t work. The testing has been done to death, and the results have come back time and time again – homeopathic remedies, on balance, perform no better than placebos (and anyone planning to bring up the common canard that ‘placebo effects don’t work on animals or babies’ at this point, please do so only after having been corrected by a vet or paediatrician). What the 10:23 Campaign will prove, however, is that there is a growing body of people not only unwilling to allow the continued harms done by these ineffective ‘treatments’, but also willing to stand up for genuine science. That, I hope, will be the legacy of our homeopathic “overdoses”.

Dear Sir ,

This is Dr A— G—- trying to communicate to you from Nasik, Maharashtra State, India. I am MD(Homoeopathy). Practicing Classical Homoeopathy for last 20 years at Nasik. I am also working as a Professor and Head Of The Department of Homoeopathic Materia Medica in Maharashtra university of Medical Sciences Nasik.

I am really surprised and shocked the way you “Intelligent” people propagate utter nonsense about this great science without really understanding a word about it, never ever bothering even to find out whether it really works or not, Even good people like James Randi who have done great work in exposing some wrong doings of people, and who really earned my personal admiration and respect after exposing the “Astrologers”,” Numerologists”, Psychics, faith healers and many more other “Magic people” He also would, unfortunately, put Homoeopathy in the same basket.

His entire argument is based upon the potentisation of Homoeopathic remedies and the dilutions created thereof. Despite all these propaganda, and in my personal independent observation I have found that Homoeopathy really works and truly cures many so called “incurable” diseases that even todays “Modern Medicine” cannot dream with such a huge stock of Gadgets,and resources available to their disposal.

All those who talk nonsense about this science , I have discovered for myself, are totally unaware of the principles that guides it and do not want to understand it either.

I believe we are not bad people , neither we fall in the category of Quacks, in fact we are doing our bit to help the suffering mankind in our own way at an unbelievably low cost of treatment. I have in my own way compiled and video graphed many such “Incurable” cases that amply demonstrate the effectiveness of Homoeopathy. Many of my Homeopathic practitioner friends have demonstrated through video graphed cases about the kind of cures that this system can achieve.

I, myself, am prepared to share my experience with anyone who seriously wants to know as to how it works. I,therefore, want to request any one who want to criticize this great science to see for his/her own self its effectiveness before one indulges in a vicious propaganda on a half hear ted knowledge of this science.

I hope you shall respond to me positively and understand Homoeopathy before you pass on any judgment on it.

Very Sincerely
Dr A—- G——
Nasik, Maharashtra India.

And my response:

Dear A—

Thanks for getting in touch, I’m really happy to hear from you. You sound like a very sensible, intelligent person – it’s surprisingly rare that I get contacted by a homeopath who is against things like psychics, astrology, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like. It’s alarming how many so readily accept anything which goes against the ‘scientism’ they see as their enemy, as if the enemy of their enemy is their friend. So I commend you on this.

In the case of homeopathy, having examined the issue in great deal and having spoken with many people who have dedicated their lives to the study of it (from both a practitioner and a scientist point of view), the conclusion is regrettably robust that homeopathic products have no benefits above that which could be explained through other elements of the intervention than the pills/tinctures themselves. The modern understanding of the complexity of treatment shows that spending time with a sympathetic practitioner who is willing to take time to listen, who goes into such depths and really seems to care – these are all effective elements of a placebo effect. It’s these areas that I firmly believe doctors can pick up tips from alternative medicine practitioners (at least, the honest ones). However, the homeopathic pills themselves do not add to this – when studies have been done with the remedies switched for sugar pills at the very last minute, after the rest of the consultation, the improvements are still present. When a patient is told they’re taking homeopathy, when in fact they’re not, they improve just as if they did take homeopathy. This shows the homeopathic pills are not the intervention with the effect.

To clarify my point and to agree with you in some degree – I absolutely do not think all homeopaths are quacks, or bad people. Many just want to be able to help, to heal, and to offer support – these are all wonderful sentiments. But that desire to help would be better served with interventions that do work, I feel. I would love for so many private homeopaths to go into nursing, medicine, care and other areas where their will to benefit people can be coupled with the tools to help them do so – at the moment their own practices are undermined by the blunt knife that homeopathy effectively is.

I hope this has clarified our position somewhat, and I genuinely thank you for getting in touch with what has been the kindest response I’ve received, in a sea of very aggressive emails.

All the best
Marsh

u will get nowhere…good collection of assholes

And my response:

Thanks for your interest in our campaign! I also appreciate the tone of your debating technique – rather than explain to me why you believe I’m wrong, or offering evidence in favour of homeopathy, you’ve decided instead for the minimalist approach. Less is more, after all – it’s a homeopathic debating style, and a dedication to your art which I must admire. Also, I’m not sure why you choose to complement my ability to collect anuses – as yet I’ve not tried, but should I ever take up ass-collecting as a hobby I’ll do so with your ringing endorsement in my ears. All the best! Marsh

Good start! Next up, from John Orr:

Isn’t a campaign against homeopathy kind of like a campaign against pharmaceutical medications that have not been tested long enough, or selling hormones in milk when its known to cause cancer? I’d like to see how your campaign turns out cause if it does well…my friends across the globe and i will use your campaign method to enlighten the world about the siily and dangerous things that you want people to use instead of energy medicine which you would have no clue about being that you are thicker than granite.

And my response:

Thanks for your interest in our campaign! I think you’re almost correct – a campaign against homeopathy isn’t so much similar to a campaign against pharmaceutical medications that haven’t been tested enough, but it’s instead it’s much more like a campaign against pharmaceutical medications that HAVE been tested long enough, but have been proven not to work. With that small caveat, you’re right there, and in fact I’d like to go 100% on record as saying I’m against all medicines (or pseudomedicines) which have been proven not to work. Which includes homeopathy.

As for milk causing cancer, I think I may have missed that particular issue of the Daily Mail but it’s fair to say that as part of a healthy, balanced diet milk is perfectly safe, so I’m happy to put your mind at rest on that notion too.

I’m glad you’re hoping the campaign does turn out well, though – you don’t have to worry, there are lots of very passionate volunteers all around the world who are doing great work at exposing the nonsense of homeopathy, and already we’re seeing news outlets the world over investigating and reporting on the sham medicine, so I’m sure things will indeed go well. Once this is over, if you’d like any tips on how to expose the disproven pharmaceuticals, let me know – I’d be interested in helping out, when a medicine has been proven not to work it needs to be abandoned, and while the world is very good at doing this, there are certain elements which slip through the net. After all, this is why homeopathy is still being touted, despite having been disproven for centuries!

I’d suggest that in your quest to rid the world of useless medicines you evaluate what makes a good medicine, how we know whether it works or not, and how we can test things. If you could begin to look at what ‘energy’ medicine even means, too, this would be a great place to start. But then what do I know, after all I’m thicker than granite…

Thanks again for your interest,  good luck in your quest!
Marsh

And finally, another good one, from simply ‘gisela’:

What garbage you write about Homeopathy – I read your entire website and found that you definitely do not know about Homeopathy. Thank god there are professional Homeopath that show and have the evidence that Homeopathy works. Even your Queen believes so – so you guys are not doing the world a favor. Get a life.
A US Homeopath

And my response:

Thanks for your interest in our campaign! First of all, may I just say thanks for taking the time to read through our entire website – we put a lot of time and energy into every word we write, so it’s encouraging to know that some people are reading it in such depth, thanks very much! Plus, it all helps the Google ranking (not that we need the help, of course). I’m interested to hear which elements of homeopathy we have wrong – is it the description of succussion? The dates of Hahnemann’s discoveries? All were researched, but I’m happy to correct if you can provide reliable updates. Similarly, if you can put me in touch with any one of those professional homeopaths who have evidence (of which, I assume from your tone, you likely consider yourself one) we’d be more than happy to look over it, and change our minds. As yet, no evidence has been remotely convincing, but I remain open-minded – I’d certainly say I’ve read more homeopathy papers than the Queen, which I suspect explains her ongoing support for this quackery. Still, fortunately for her she has the wealth of a nation to take care of her where homeopathy fails – this isn’t true of the many people around the world who are conned into believing in this useless system. Those people are our motivation.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Yours favourably and full of life,
Marsh

From Larry Ericksson:

Why are we even concerned with homeopathy, let them do what they want—why is there a campaign against it??

My response:

Hi Larry

Thanks for your email, and your interest. It’s actually a question we’ve covered here (http://www.1023.org.uk/why-you-cant-trust-homeopathy.php) but in short:
- Homeopathy doesn’t work
- People spend a LOT of money on homeopathy, and a lot of homeopaths make a lot of money out of it, despite it being ineffective
- People take it instead of something that would really help them, with often tragic consequences
- When you let homeopaths do what they want, they claim to treat AIDS, Malaria, Cancer and all manner of serious diseases

Hope that helps, thanks again for your support.
Michael

OK, so that one was a bit lame. But how about this one, from Sagar Uubale:

dear sir ,while reading ur issues against homoeopathy i love it .i also one hom doctor. but sir ur immunisation also an homoeopathy. its stimulating system in medicine. and our problem only for reseach in hompathy not compaingn against it. reply please

Lacking capitals? Random punctuation? Poor grammar? Check check check. And my response:

Dear Sagar,

Thanks for your interest. I’m glad you love homeopathy, but unfortunately homeopathy is not a valid medicine. You may find it very stimulating, but your immune system would prefer something it can get it’s metaphorical teeth into. This is where immunisation (not just ‘my’ immunisation, but in fact all immunisation) is utterly different from homeopathy – there is something in immunisation. Vaccines contain deadened forms of a pathogen which the body creates antibodies to fight, and those antibodies are then on hand to fight the live form of the pathogen, if it comes into contact with them. This, I’m sure you can see, is very different to giving somebody water containing the invented vibrations of onion juice.

I’m more than happy, of course, for you to spend your money and time researching homeopathy. I’d even happily have your findings reviewed for plausibility. I take it you don’t sell your homeopathic treatments, then, until you’ve finished your research into whether they work or not? I’m sure as a ‘hom doctor’ your ethics would rightly prevent you from doing so.

All the best in sympathy and stimulation,
Marsh

Next up, this from the identity-confused Marissa Amarilha/Marie Savignac:

Hello,

I’ve long been skeptical at about homeopathy, believing like many other that the effect was only placebo. I then witnessed the healing of animals treated only with homeopathy, and on several occasions. And there is no placebo effect in animals!

Additionally after researching the subject, I discovered a precursor to Hahnemann: Hippocrates, who called this principle “the law of similars. ” The effectiveness of homeopathy in fact had been proven many times at “proving” in hospital. If the theory of water memory remains unexplained to this day, it does not prove that it is false. What if homeopathy treats people every day, either by placebo effect or not, it does not take away anything of value, unlike allopathy called “law of opposites” by Hippocrates, which claimed thousands of victims through disease called “iatrogenic”.

Sincerely,
Marie Savignac

Ah, it works on animals! Ace…

Dear Marie and/or Marissa

Thanks for your interest in our campaign. I’m glad you once saw that homeopathy was in fact just placebo – that will make it much easier when it comes to correcting your current confusion. Your main point is that animals don’t benefit from the placebo effect, and therefore homeopathy must work. You’ll be pleased to know, then, that animals DO benefit from the placebo effect – just ask a vet. Because our furry friends can’t tell us where it hurts and how much, their feelings are subjectively appraised by their owners, people. People, as we know, are very susceptible to various cognitive traps which convince us things work when they don’t – part of the joy of being human is an awareness of such foibles. So, the placebo effect does work in animals – I take it you withdraw your support for homeopathy and happily join our campaign?

Hippocrates was barely a precursor to Hahnemann, of course – he just happens to have been around first. He’s got nothing at all to do with homeopathy. He also existed at a time when medicine was pretty rudimentary, and not very effective – it’s a good thing we don’t still have to rely on leeches, blood letting and magic pills! As for homeopathic provings, here’s an idea – take 50 people. Give them all the same homeopathic remedy. See what symptoms they develop. If all 50 get the same symptoms, clearly, and with little or no statistical deviance, it works. If all 50 get different groups of symptoms, many of them subjective, then it doesn’t work. Deal?

Thanks
Michael Marshall/Michael Marshall

And, saving the best to last, here’s this effort from Jeff Cooper:

What a nasty bunch of pseudo-fascists you seem.

There is no way you are putting in all this effort for the good of others. It seems to me that you just have a massive ego-fed desire to exercise control.

Shame on you all.

Jeff

Oooooh! My response:

Hi Jeff

Thanks very much for your interest in our campaign.

I’m glad you agree that we’re not fascists, but I’m a bit confused – are you saying we’re pretending to be fascists, when in fact we’re not? Seems an odd extrapolation from our actions, but in any case I’m happy to put your mind at rest and confirm that, as you say, we’re not fascists. Unless you are only pseudo-saying that, it’s hard to tell. In any case, I’m sorry to hear you find us nasty – was there something in particular that struck you as nasty? I’d be happy to discuss with you, either over email or over the phone.

Still, happy to put another of your misapprehensions to bed – we are indeed doing this for the good of others. Already we’ve seen lots of people are becoming aware of what homeopathy is, and why it’s sheer nonsense, so that’s enough reward for us. As for control, what do you fear we’re controlling? People’s access to information on homeopathy? Technically we’re putting an end to the control of information, allowing people to make a genuine informed choice. As for the massive ego, I’m sure it’s hard to distinguish between ego and charitable desire from atop your pedestal.

Yours in shame
Marsh, and the 10:23 team

Tickets for QED are available from: http://qedcon.org/xawC
More information about the 10:23 Challenge: http://www.1023.org.uk/

The 10:23 Campaign

Consumer rights activists worldwide are being challenged to participate in a global ‘overdose’ on homeopathic pills, in order to raise public awareness that the remedies are in fact worthless.

The ’10:23 Challenge’, scheduled to culminate worldwide in February 2011, is a follow-up to the protest staged by the 10:23 Campaign in the UK, which saw almost 400 demonstrators take to the streets across UK to voice their concern at the sales of the pills in leading pharmacy ‘Boots’, and the support for such ‘remedies’ on the NHS.

Michael Marshall of the 10:23 Campaign explained the plans for 2011: “This year has been a great year in the UK for raising awareness of homeopathy – with doctors, pharmacists, politicians and – above all – members of the public speaking out against this discredit ‘treatment’.

“However, the case against homeopathy extends far beyond the UK – all around the world, people are being told that homeopathy is a valid form of treatment, and often with tragic consequences. It’s a global problem, and it requires global action.

“This is why we’re announcing the 10:23 Challenge for 2011 – we want to show global unity by gathering protesters from more than 10 countries, and more than 23 cities. Our aim is to have more than 1023 people publicly gathering over the weekend of 5th-6th February, to make a statement: Homeopathy – There’s Nothing In It.

“Of course, safety is our number one concern – not all homeopathy is prepared as honestly and cleanly as the manufacturers state, and can include real ingredients which could be potentially dangerous. With this in mind we urge anyone wishing to get involved to prepare their own homeopathic remedies, or contact the 10:23 Campaign for more information”.

Get your QED ticket now!

While International participation is yet to be announced, the challenge will culminate in a demonstration in Manchester on February 6th, at the ‘QED: Question. Explore. Discover.’ event, with over 300 protesters participating the largest ever single demonstration against homeopathy.

The 10:23 Campaign is an international movement headed by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, which aims to raise awareness of homeopathy, a multi-million pound industry based on a long-discredited 18th century ritual, selling remedies to the public which have no scientific basis and no credible evidence for their efficacy beyond the placebo effect.

While dispensing sugar pills may seem harmless, in reality the endorsement of homeopathic potions by leading health providers can have grave consequences. In September 2010, a BBC investigation discovered registered homeopaths administering ineffective ‘alternatives’ to the MMR vaccine, and in 2002 9-month old infant Gloria Sam died from serious infections after her eczema – a condition commonly treated by homeopaths – was treated with homeopathic remedies.

Mr Marshall concluded: “Homeopathy has had more than two centuries to prove itself a useful remedy, but the results consistently come back negative. In the meantime, people are being fooled into believing these pills work, often causing genuine harm. This is unacceptable, and on February 5th, we’re going to demonstrate how strongly people feel about this issue.”

For more information about the 10:23 Challenge, visit www.1023.org.uk or contact contact@1023.org.uk.

Unfortunately, given the willingness of homeopaths involved in the documentary to admit to practices which were dangerous and unethical, the piece was dropped. However, all was not lost, and the footage was retrieved and edited – and ahead of an announcement this week of the 10:23 Campaign’s plans for 2011 it’s been released for your viewing pleasure.

The name of the vodka is, of course, taken from the ‘QED conference‘ – the 2 day science extravaganza which will feature as a centrepiece the 10:23 Campaign’s next major protest, details of which will be formally announced on Wednesday. Tickets are still available, and it’s not to be missed.

From:  Lunarain
To:  contact@1023.org.uk
Date:  20 November 2010 21:05
Subject:  You did it all wrong

You should have consulted a homeopath when conducting your overdose. Any lay homeopath could have told you that the best way to produce symptoms using homeopathy is to REPEAT THE DOSE. That is how homepathic remedies are proven, duh!

Try this…

Arsenicum Album 30C or up higher, try a 200C

Repeat dose 3 times daily until symptoms appear. Stop them if you don’t want the damage to be permanant but continue if you really want to be a believer in the power of homeopathy.

You should begin to feel a burning from your mouth to your anus, incredibly painful. Go on, try it….

That is why homeopaths know that the minutest dose can cure,

It’s unfortunate that you haven’t seen the positive effects of homeopathy, because it is cheap to produce, and can make a big difference in the poor populations of the world, as well as the rich, that’s probably why India funds homeopathic hospitals, saves the gov’t lots of money, and EFFECTIVELY CURES!

And my response:

From:  Michael Marshall <michael.marshall@merseysideskeptics.org.uk>
To:  lunarain
Date:  21 November 2010 15:07
Subject:  Re: You did it all wrong

Hi ‘Lunarain’

Nice to hear from you, and thanks for your feedback.

As it happens, we know a little more about homeopathy than you gave us credit for. We actually know that homeopaths believe that we need to REPEAT THE DOSE DUH as you put it. We’d done the research. Hence, why Mike did this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Z2_K9yup0

I think you’ll find it alarmingly similar to the very test you describe. A week of taking Nux Vom 3 times a day, as advised by a homeopath no less. Mike (cc’d) was not damaged, and therefore not permanently so either. He wasn’t taking Arsen Album, so he didn’t get the burning mouth and anus you seem to wish he got, nor any of the pain you appear to hope he experienced. Sorry to disappoint you with that one.

This, along with a myriad of other reasons, is why people who learn about homeopathy know it’s not able to cure anything.

I’m intrigued by the idea that homeopathy is cheap to produce, though – when I took my own homeopathic overdose, I paid £5 for 84 pills. How cheaply would those pills have been produced? It’d be interesting to know how much profit you believe the homeopath made from me on that single vial of products. If it is indeed so cheap to produce, it must be immensely profitable – no wonder you and other homeopaths are so keen on it!

I wish the homeopathic hospitals of India were effective – as it happens the life expectancy in India is significantly lower than that of countries with real healthcare, with a variance of 20 years or so. It’d be a great world where people weren’t dying because they were advised that ineffective medicines could cure their fatal diseases. I hope I live long enough to see it.

All the best, and thanks again for wishing us burning anuses/mouths etc!
Marsh
10:23