Homeopathy for Radiation Sickness Slammed by Experts

March 23, 2011 at 6:16 pm (Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, Media) (, , , )

This is how homeopathy should be reported on by the media. The article opens with criticism of an alternative medicines business for “spruiking homeopathic ‘remedies’ for radiation sickness in an apparent attempt to capitalise on the nuclear disaster in Japan“: Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 7 Comments

You Couldn’t Make It Up: Paper Remedies

February 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm (Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy) (, , , , )

Let’s face it, homeopathy is ludicrous… Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 28 Comments

Homeopathic Confusion

January 22, 2010 at 4:26 pm (Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, Media) (, , , , , , , , , , , )

There are likely to be many reasons why consumers choose to buy homeopathic remedies. The marketing of homeopathy as “natural and gentle” probably helps. I suspect that ignorance and confusion also play a part. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 7 Comments

An Idea Relating To Dr John Briffa’s Current Favourite Homeopathy Study (Arnica “Effective”)

September 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science, Briffa, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, Nutritionism, Remedies, Supplements, Woo) (, , , , , , , , , , , )

I recently wrote about Dr John Briffa, making reference to his approving comments about a study into arnica as a post-operative aid. I had an idea that homeopathic treatments like arnica relied on the placebo effect and was surprised to see that Briffa’s post described arnica as “effective”. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 1 Comment

How Smart Are Politicians?

July 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science, government, Nutritionism, Supplements, Woo) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )

Not very smart at all if David Tredinnick is anything go go by. I wrote about him speaking on homeopathy back in February and today I noticed a link on the Improbable Science miniblog to an old speech he gave [see first link for full debate]. His opening remarks included this gem: “Regrettably, the availability of complementary therapies on the health service has declined since primary care groups and primary care trusts came into being.” Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 2 Comments

Homeopathic Polls

March 3, 2008 at 1:32 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science, Homeopathy) (, , , , , , , , )

This page on homeopathy shows the results of a poll into homeopathic “education”. The poll gave a list of options as follows:

As a homeopath your education is: self taught; distance learning; 1 year regular; 2 year regular; 3 year regular; 4 year regular; 5+ year regular; not a homeopath. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 12 Comments

Chief Woo MP Tredinnick

February 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm (Alternative Medicine, government, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, Woo) (, , , , , , , , )

MP David Tredinnick last night spoke in Parliament about homeopathy. The last time I can recall this happening, Mr Tredinnick was answered by Roger Marris. Mr Marris pointed to the lack of evidence for homeopathy and was then quoted in the Guardian as follows:

Sometimes their dilutions are so weak that the medicine contains not a single molecule of the active ingredient, though it’s alleged that the water “holds its memory”. Mr Marris asked scornfully, “we use a lot of recycled water – why does it not have a memory of the faeces that have been in it, and make us all sick?”

Dawn Primarolo claimed that the Government was looking at the cost effectiveness of many treatments, including alternative medicines, but Evan Harris wasn’t going to let that go:

So Dr Evan Harris, a Lib Dem, was just as contemptuous. “If the effectiveness is zero,” he pointed out, his lip curling, “there can be no cost-effectiveness.” Ms Primarolo repeated her earlier answer. She is a great believer in repeat prescriptions.

Dr Harris must not have been in the House of Commons last night – if he were, then he surely would not have let this go unchallenged: homeopathy does not fit normal methods of assessment*. Tredinnick actually said that “the scale of prescribing is in reverse so that the weaker the dose, the more powerful or effective it is. That subject has always been hotly disputed by many doctors, but homeopathic treatments have been operating on the reverse scale of prescribing for 200 years. Some of the most powerful-the constitutional remedies-are so diluted that they can hardly be detected. There are similar problems with acupuncture and its acceptance, as some doctors and commissioners do not necessarily believe in meridians. The same issue occurs with herbs that are unknown in this country.” Firstly, Tredinnick is comparing alternative remedies (homeopathy with acupuncture and herbalism) that have nothing in common. Secondly, he has introduced another canard – that meridians have something to do with the effects of acupuncture. See here for why meridians don’t matter: http://dcscience.net/?p=166. Thirdly, if dilution increased potency then tramps would drink Skol.

Tredinnick also stated that “the Royal London Homeopathic hospital has conducted more than 130 randomised and controlled trials of homeopathic treatments that show very effective results”. Ben Goldacre’s article in the Guardian “A Kind of Magic?” points out that:

there are some individual trials where homeopathy does better, first because there are a lot of trials that are simply not “fair tests”. For example – and I’m giving you the most basic examples here – there are many trials in alternative therapy journals where the patients were not “blinded”: that is, the patients knew whether they were getting the real treatment or the placebo. These are much more likely to be positive in favour of your therapy, for obvious reasons. There is no point in doing a trial if it is not a fair test: it ceases to be a trial, and simply becomes a marketing ritual.

I have used another quote from Dr Goldacre’s article below, but – to be honest – you really should read the article for yourself.

when doctors say that a trial is weak, and poor quality, it’s not because they want to maintain the hegemony, or because they work for “the man”: it’s because a poor trial is simply not a fair test of a treatment. And it’s not cheaper to do a trial badly, it’s just stupid, or, of course, conniving, since unfair tests will give false positives in favour of homeopathy.

Disgustingly, it gets worse: Tredinnick decides to bring up homeopathic remedies for AIDS and malaria. Website whatstheharm.net refers to a “report [that] found 5 women who used a homeopathic preventative instead of conventional medicine prior to a trip to Africa. On return, all five had malaria.” Click here for more on homeopathy and harm. Tredinnick takes seriously a letter from a homeopath (a homeopath who claims to have introduced Homeopathy to Swaziland!), which states that homeopathic treatments have achieved success rates of close to 100 per cent. This is worrying indeed – a Member of Parliament genuinely believes that homeopathy can achieve a 100% success rate? We really should fear for the state of our country if Tredinnick is representative of MPs. Worse – Tredinnick seems to be advocating homeopathy for AIDS and Malaria. This is quackery at its worst and vulnerable people are being taken in by pseudo-medical bullshit spouted by not just homeopaths but also politicians. This isn’t just about whether people with self-limiting conditions feel better after taking some kind of placebo – it’s about people dying because they thought a ‘remedy’ containing no trace of active ingredient could prevent malaria or cure AIDS. Anyone who contributes to that situation should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Hat tip: Thanks to Andy Lewis of Quackometer fame for bringing this to my attention.

Other posts dealing with this speech: Gimpy gives us David Tredinnick misleads parliament and offers staggeringly dimwitted endorsements (Note: Gimpy has now updated his post to include google cache links to the Quackometer posts on AIDS / Malaria quackery) and Ben G has written about Tredinnick’s Magnificent Torrent of Canards.

*This is simply untrue and is an example of the truly muddled thinking of homeopathy supporters. Tredinnick seems to be saying that homeopathy cannot be tested by orthodox methods (e.g., double-blind trials). Ben Goldacre’s article (‘A Kind of Magic?‘) actually details the kind of trial that could be run and points out that:

this trial has been done, time and time again, with homeopathy, and when you do a trial like this, you find, overall, that the people getting the placebo sugar pills do just as well as those getting the real, posh, expensive, technical, magical homeopathy pills.

 So the Bosworth MP David Tredinnick is simply repeating canards that were debunked in a Guardian article last November. Idiot.

Permalink 4 Comments

Homeopaths, Debate and Truth

January 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bloggers, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy) (, , , , , , , )

They want the truth? Unfortunately, it seems they can’t handle the truth. Oh well. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 5 Comments

Dr Georgiou on Homeopathy

January 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm (Bad Science, Bloggers, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, Media) (, , , , , , , , , , , )

Dr George J Georgiou, Ph.D, N.D., DSc (AM), Natural Medicine Practitioner is, apparently, a media star in Cyprus.  Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 15 Comments

Homeopathic Mosquito Repellant

January 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm (Alternative Medicine, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy) (, , , )


Look very carefully. What do you see?

Permalink 3 Comments

Next page »