Society of Homeopaths fan the flames of untruth

Look what they have done now, just when you think standards cannot get any worse for the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) they do. In recent weeks they have failed in their attempts to bully a blogger into silence, had their ethical failings exposed and organised conferences with dangerous quacks who believe they can cure autism and AIDS. As well as this they have been exposed as having a lackadaisical attitude to notions of truth, accuracy and accountability. Right now they have repeated their untruths in a fresh press release despite being told that their claims were misleading and inaccurate both in private and in public. So let’s look at their latest affront to honesty….

In response to Nick Cohen’s opinion piece “the cranks who swear by citronella oil” (Observer, October 28), The Society of Homeopaths, Europe’s largest body of professional homeopaths, would like to point out that its symposium on HIV/AIDS is just that – a discussion forum for the exploration and critical appraisal of the use of homeopathy.

Putting aside the offensive overtones of Mr Cohen’s piece, it should be noted that the symposium will be looking at complementary methods and approaches used by experienced homeopaths in helping with the symptoms of HIV/AIDS.

That would be this symposium, as covered by Ben Goldacre and, as mentioned, Nick Cohen. So lets have a look at the speakers who will provide the critical appraisal:
Jonathan Stallick who is described as having a approach to prescribing that “was unconventional and drew criticism and praise in equal measure from homeopathic colleagues”. Perhaps other homeopaths didn’t approve of his using homeopathic treatments for diseases such as AIDS? No, despite calling his a book “a hypocritical and unprincipled work which, although it raises important questions, is a futile exercise that proves nothing and achieves nothing“, the objections were apparently over his unorthodox prescribing where he would suggest a different remedy for each day of the week! Treating AIDS with homeopathy is uncontroversial in the sick world of Homeopathy.
Harry van der Zee who claims that “using the PC1 remedy, the AIDS epidemic can be called to a halt, and that homeopaths are the ones that can do it“.
Hilary Fairclough who works in a clinic in Botswana where “homeopaths treat 50-60 clients a week using a system of prescribing called the “triad method” which addresses the chronic, acute and miasmatic pathology of the cases“.
It seems that the SoH do not find the practice of using homeopathy to treat or even cure AIDS remotely controversial. The controversy comes from the treatments used, not the claims made for the treatments. This is sickening.

It should also be pointed out that the 2006 BBC Newsnight programme on malaria referred to by Mr Cohen was taken very seriously by The Society of Homeopaths. As we have stated previously, 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. Nevertheless, as a further precaution, The Society reissued its guidelines on advice for the prevention of malaria and sent a copy to every member within a day of the programme being aired.

I linked to Le Canard Noir’s post on this the other day in which he states:

I have an email from Paula Ross, Chief Executive of the Society of Homeopaths, addressed to the programme investigators (dated 22 August 2006), that starts,

“I am in receipt of your summary transcripts.”

The transcripts contain two conversations between an undercover investigator and a named homeopath who just so happens to be a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths. I will not name him, but I am happy to do so if the Society dispute this.

and

I have written to the Society and Ms Ross twice now over the past week to help me clarify the issues and they have seen fit not to reply.

Clearly somebody is not telling the truth here. Paula Ross’ claim is incompatible with Le Canard Noir’s. The only way to resolve this issue would be for Le Canard Noir to release the email or for Paula Ross to correct a statement that she has now made twice that is apparently incompatible with the evidence. As Le Canard Noir’s attempts to resolve the matter in private have failed this situation is likely to leave an indelible stain on the public character of the individual in the wrong.

A Mintel report earlier this year stated that 49 per cent of British women and 28 per cent of men have used complementary medication and would use it again. A further 27 per cent of adults would consider using it in the future. The report also stated that the sale of homeopathic remedies had increased by 24 per cent since 2002. For Mr Cohen to dismiss all of these people as feeble-minded fools seems somewhat patronising to say the least.

Mr Cohen is much too clever to dismiss these people merely as feeble-minded fools, he sees it as a problem in society that stems from the top. What he actually said was:

Yet dismissing homeopathy as quackery given by and for the feeble-minded is surprisingly hard. Anti-elitism dominates our society and many feel uncomfortable saying that the six million people who take alternative medicines are foolish - to put the case against them at its kindest. They sincerely believe in phoney remedies and sincerity trumps sense in modern culture.

He goes on to argue that our good health makes us complacent about the benefits of modern medicine while castigating the establishment, both medical and political, for tolerating a lie.

To endorse homeopathy on the NHS is to endorse state deception.

He then presents a coruscating analysis of how establishment support for homeopathy on the NHS endorses private practitioners who hold delusional and egregious views on AIDS and malaria. Merely describing his argument as patronising does a grave disservice to Nick Cohen and does not answer any of his criticisms or concerns.

The deception practised by homeopaths and their supporters in the establishment is shameful and instead of allowing the SoH to be impressed by this we should be mortified. The credulous nature of our rich and successful society has been harnessed in support of homeopathy, this has the real and terrible knock-on effect of endorsing impossible treatments for terminal diseases in the developing world. Shame on us for allowing this. Oh and anyone who believes that homeopathy is a small struggling business should look at what the Mintel report cited above reports on the growth of the industry:

Estimated Homeopathy market 2007 £38M and projected to reach £46M in 2012 (21% rate of growth)

We must do something about this. What we cannot do is allow the SoH to continue to believe in their delusion that:

While it is entirely correct to say that the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines has yet to be proven scientifically, the evidence remains that they work. There are many things that science cannot yet explain. But let’s not dismiss the experience of the millions of people who benefit from homeopathy.

No matter what ‘millions’ may believe, comprehensive reviews of the evidence show that homeopathy works no better than a placebo. It has often been argued in the past that we should allow the use of homeopathy for self-limiting conditions where the placebo effect may be of some benefit to the millions who use it in these circumstances. This is all well and good but unfortunately the internal logic required by homeopathic practitioners to sustain their belief results in them incorporating deluded and dangerous practices such as advocating homeopathic malaria and AIDS treatments as well as issuing untruthful and misleading press releases.

Thanks to Andy Lewis