Why homeopaths will always be mad about malaria
Posted by gimpy on September 23, 2008
Dr *T and the Quackometer are reporting some superficial good news today – both Helios and Ainsworths, homeopathic remedy shops, appear to have stopped selling malaria nosodes – remedies claimed to prevent malaria. These remedies, needless to say, are indistinguishable from blank water or sugar pill or indeed from any other homeopathic remedy except by the label. You might think that this would represent the beginning of the end for the dangerous tendency of homeopaths to insist that their remedies can treat, cure or prevent malaria through homeoprophylaxis. Sadly this is wishful thinking.
The Quackometer points out that companies such as Neal’s Yard sell books advocating this practice and the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are very equivocal on the practice. SoH members such as Ralf Jeutter also advocate homeoprophylaxis and Fellows of the SoH such as Jeremy Sherr even carry out unregulated trials in Africa. Rather than condemn such actions the SoH has appointed Jeutter to its board of directors and Sherr is officially above sanction. This is because the SoH know that most of their members firmly believe that malaria is treatable with homeopathy and disagree with Peter Fisher, an SoH critic, who said
there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria
Not only that even if the SoH did insist that its members cease the practice and advocacy of homeoprophylaxis there are ample alternatives for its members. They could join the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), whose Registrar, Steve Scrutton, believes that
and their website carries articles detailing the practice of homeopathic malaria cures. Or they could set themselves up as an independent homeopath like anti-vaccination lunatic Sherri Naken. It is a sad fact that homeopaths, like most CAM therapists, are free to believe what they like, and most do. There is no current form of regulation that can forbid a homeopath from practicing, if they don’t like the rules of one organisation they can just join another. Perhaps because of this these organisations have proven themselves incapable of collaborating on an effective code of conduct, and even if they could then a homeopath could just go freelance.
There is no pressure within the profession for proper regulation and sensible advice so there is nothing to stop the malaria issue from coming up time and time again.
Perhaps it is time for sensible homeopaths to rein in the excesses of their profession and fully endorse Peter Fisher’s views. The comments box is now open for homeopaths to state this. I will be running a concurrent sweepstake on how many homeopaths will make this statements. My guess is none.
[BPSDB]
stavros said
“Perhaps it is time for sensible homeopaths to rein in the excesses of their profession and fully endorse Peter Fisher’s views.”
Yeah, good luck with that…
Fisher might be a critic to SoH (from time to time) but he is also the highest profile homeopth citing the infamous review that “only 15% of conventional medicine are proven to be effective” as evidence for homeopathy’s efficacy…
OpenSociety said
If it is essentially water than why should a malaria remedy present any danger.
It is so interesting that for a group of individuals who espouse evidence based medicine and reject alternatives on the basis of “facts”- how loose you are with the figures in these blog entries, particularly the previous one implying that alternatives caused over 300,000 deaths. As well, you attempt to pass off opinions, implications as “facts” particularly in the case of the sale of homeopathic remedies.
What I see is a lot of conjecture and connotations in your posts but little evidence. You present deaths that have not happened as if they are evidence of some danger but yet they have not yet happened! No evidence whatsoever.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that conventional drugs have caused deaths. Yet, you even imply that conventional drugs are 100 per cent effective and essentially non-lethal when we all know they are not. Or that lethality is downplayed as a simple trade. Yet, because you feel that it is implausible that homeopathy works you state that your imaginary deaths from it are intolerable.
So the word smear, implication and intolerable are words that really what best describes your toxic brew of fudged facts and figures and bleating of opinions. You are doing the Drug Companies proud!
gimpy said
OpenSociety,
You know fine well that my argument is that by promoting malaria cures that are just water homeopaths discourage people from taking real effective medication. Malaria nosodes and homeoprophylaxis are offered up as alternatives to conventional medicine, not as complements.
And that fact about 300,000 deaths was referenced. So don’t try and insinuate that I don’t back up my claims, because I make a point of always trying to do so. If you feel I have not then point out exactly where and I will correct the post as appropriate.
And the ‘Drug Company’ conspiracy is tiresome. Leave it out.
OpenSociety said
Insinuations? This web site is one big insinuation based on the OPINION that homeopathy is “ineffective and doesn’t work”.
And it is simply an opinion that MANY, including myself, would disagree with on .
You also have the opinion that “real effective medication” is the only way to go.
OK- presenting both of these as opinion is fine, but then presenting them as fact is just plain dishonest.
You also have a bloated opinion of the integrity of your information- you imply that everything on the internet and in yellow newspapers is fact.
And from what I can see from your blog, your opinions are based on a familiarity with the drug industry that goes far beyond a neutrality.
So quit trying to present yourself as a preserver of some sort of factual integrity. Your last posts have a demagogic tone to them.
openSociety said
Next is to ban ALL prayer since some people use that instead of taking your precious drugs.
Totalitarianism is alive and well on this and other blogs of the same ilk.
gimpy said
OpenSociety, I allow your idiotic ramblings to be posted here. That is a long way from totalitarianism. Now provide some specific evidence showing that my opinions are not based on evidence and that your opinions are, or go away.
Nash said
OpenSociety
Freedom doesn’t mean you are absolved from your responsibilities. I am free, but that doesn’t mean I can harm others by giving reckless advice.
And before you come up with a figure as to how many people are harmed by proper medical care, think about where these figures come from.
Because they afre professional they monitor patient outcomes. To a CAM artist they merely assume that if a patient doesn’t come back they have cured them. They don’t know if that patient has dropped dead or gone on to see someone else. CAM doesn’t collect data on what it is doing and therefore it has no evidence base to make any claims as to efficacy.
If you set yourself up as a health care professional then you have an obligation to your patients and others in your profession. If they set up regulately bodies then they must be effective
All this blog is doing is pointing the failings of CAM practitioners.
pv said
Sensible and homeopathic? Surely a contradiction in terms.
I’m on the side of those who say ban it, or at least ban the practice of making false medical claims whether directly or by implication irrespective of the niceness or naivety of any particular homeopath. I know, some people think it’s rather extreme but I think that to tolerate it is to conspire in the practice of legalised deception and thieving.
pv said
OpenSociety, if you were struck speeding truck and paralysed from the neck down would you regard the diagnosis that you were paralysed as an opinion?
Similarly you should not regard as an opinion the fact that, after more than 200 years of making claims, there has never been one documented case of homeopathy incontrovertibly curing a non-self-limiting disease or ailment. Not a single one. Lots of claims yes, and lots of words and protests, and books promoting health fraud – more than you could throw a stick at, but not a single verifiable, documented, incontrovertible case.
If you disagree then present one – name, symptoms, diagnosis and who diagnosed, treatment, outcomes, verifiable documentation, everything, just as one would expect in real medicine. With 200 plus years of carefully documented case records to fall back on that shouldn’t be too difficult, should it? Must be hundreds of thousands of them, if not a million or more. Just one will be enough to be going on with.
Jane Singleton said
What a load of nonsense is written about orthodox medicine and alternatives. Orthodox did nothing to help my asthma. Over 10+ years, attacks became more severe and frequent. I had many courses of antibiotics each year. 15 years ago homeopathy dealt with my health problems. I have not been to a doctor since, nor would I go to one. I also take natural and dynamic nutritionals and I am fit and vital and certainly do not want a flu jab. I’ve got a pretty good immune system. If I have a health problem, I see a homeopath, acupuncturist, osteopath or chiropractor. I am over 60 and life is excellent.
gimpy said
Jane, I’m not sure what your point is. While I’m glad that you enjoy good health I would caution against placing trust in the medical capabilities of alternative health practitioners. There are large numbers of unresolved questions regarding evidence bases, efficacy, regulations and accountability in the field of alternative medicine.
I would also add that it is not unheard of for an individuals health to fluctuate over time with or without intervention.