Jeremy Sherr does not act alone, but with the support of the homeopathic establishment

I, and others, have been doing some digging and complaining about the activities of Mr Sherr, the homeopath carrying out his healing fantasies by human experimentation in Tanzania.   There is an excellent summary of the situation by Martin over at Layscience who also has another post examining Mr Sherr’s recent attempts to edit and censor his blog as well as an examination of the dishonest defence of his actions.  Our investigations have revealed that not only is Jeremy Sherr making false claims of academic support but that he could not have achieved his goals of taking homeopathy to Tanzania without the support of sections of the homeopathic establishment.

Jeremy Sherr – a Rath in the making?

Via Ben Goldacre’s miniblog I have come across this blog from the homeopath Jeremy Sherr.  Mr Sherr is a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), found and principal of the Dynamis homeopathic school and a subject of one my earliest blog posts.  That post was critical of Mr Sherr’s stated aims of carrying out trials investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating AIDS and malaria.  This prompted me to email both Mr Sherr and the SoH  expressing concerns.  Mr Sherr did not reply although the SoH did stating that as he was a Fellow rather than a Member he was not bound by their code of conduct.  At that time Mr Sherr was only planning his trials, he is now carrying them out in Tanzania.

The plural of anecdote is not data – except for homeopaths

‘The plural of anecdote is not data’ is an aphorism often heard in sceptical circles.  This phrase is typically used to point out that subjective personal experiences do not become objective impartial evidence when collated.  The flaws and biases inherent in any subjective measurement do not cancel each other out when overlaid.  This is why anecdotes, or case reports, are of relatively little value compared to blinded randomised controlled trials when determining the effectiveness of a course of treatment for the purposes of evidence based medicine.  While an observant doctor may notice that a particular patient improved greatly on a novel combination of drugs and submit a report on this to a journal we cannot properly assess if this patient got better because of this novel combination until a proper clinical trial has been performed.  The patient may have been lucky, the doctor’s analysis flawed or some other factor unknown to the doctor induced the effect.  By carrying out a properly controlled trial we can eliminate or reduce subjective measurements and assess whether or not a population of patients on the novel drug treatment perform better than a control population.

Homeopaths in Ghana

In recent weeks we’ve seen the beginning of the end for AIDS quackery in South Africa with Matthias Rath dropping his libel claims against The Guardian and Ben Goldacre and more recently the replacement of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, known as Dr Beetroot for her belief that healthy eating rather than ARVs is the best treatment for AIDS, with Barbara Hogan in the recent political upheaval.  Unfortunately this does not represent the end of the promotion of quackery within Africa.

Why homeopaths will always be mad about malaria

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 Society of Homeopaths issue a challenge over Ralf Jeutter

[BPSDB]

On Saturday September the 6th Professor Edzard Ernst wrote an article for The Guardian’s Comment is Free site criticising homeopaths attitude to immunisation and the complicity of some pharmacists in selling homeopathic vaccines, homeoprophylaxis.  Ernst focussed in particular on Ralf Jeutter, vice chair of the board of directors of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and a strong advocate of homeoprophylaxis.  Ernst alleges that Jeutter is in breach of both the advice offered by the SoH on homeoprophylaxis and their code of ethics.

This may sound familiar to readers of this blog.  In November last year I wr

Scientific Research in Homeopathy – Alex Tournier misleads

The Complementary Medicine Association (CMA), brainspawn of Jayney Goddard – professor of a burned down Nepalese university, recently held a ‘Scientific Research in Homeopathy’ conference.  Mainstream media coverage of this event has been limited with apparently only the Times Higher Education (THE) covering it.  From the THE it seems the conference was used as a springboard to launch a scurrilous and unpleasant attack on Professor Ernst and Dr Singh who have recently written a book ‘Trick or Treatment?‘.  The crime Ernst and Singh have apparently committed is to take an unbiased and clear headed, and in my opinion generous, look at the evidence behind complementary treatments.  Unfortunately for the homeopaths, even given the authors proclivity for charitable interpretations of evidence, homeopathy is left powerless, bereft of any credible supporting evidence, exposed, flaccid and shrunken in the cold gaze of science.  This is perhaps why the homeopaths, impotent with rage, have resorted to unpleasent ad hominem abuse.  As well as this the Scientific Research in Homeopathy conference was perhaps intended as an attempt to rebut the claims of Ernst and Singh by looking under the bed of pseudoscience, on which some homeopaths now rest, for stimulation.  It seems the presentations from the conference have failed to rise to the occasion.

The Quackometer and apgaylard have already examined Lionel Milgrom’s evidence and found it artificially engorged with pufftalk and piffle so this post will take a look at the presentation from Dr Alex Tournier, a (former?) Cancer Research UK funded biophysicist, and an interesting example of how some scientists can apparently believe in things that openly conflict with their research.  This is a relatively common phenomenon in science, for example there are many biologists (although few geneticists) who believe in an interventionist god when the genetic evidence belies any ‘inteligent’ intervention, and Dr Tournier deserves no special opprobrium for his beliefs.  However, as his presentation shows, he indulges in the familiar deceit, misinterpretations and hypocrisy of homeopaths when it comes to evaluating scientific approaches to homeopathy.

Dr Tournier states the aims of his presentation as follows:

• To show that science and homeopathy are indeed compatible

• To present evidence coming from different fields of science

• To present Homeopathy Research Institute

The deceit begins on the fourth slide where Dr Tournier presents scientific research as follows:

Dr Tournier omits the defining characteristic of the scientific method, the hypothesis.  A testable explanation of an observed phenomena.  Science is based on the assumption that a hypothesis must be able to be tested by experimentation.  Theories are collections of hypotheses, forming a coherent whole, that have survived testing by experimentation.  So Dr Tournier’s slide should present a figure somewhat like this:

Only the hypotheses which survive repeated experimentation are incorporated into theories that give us understanding.

After having put his flawed reasoning forward Dr Tournier then presents this statement that further misleads his audience:

“Homeopathy does not work …… because it cannot work”
[This statement] is not scientific, as it is not grounded in observation

The detail that Dr Tournier conveniently misses out in those ellipsis is the very laws, theories underpinned by many successfully tested hypotheses, that govern the behaviour of energy and matter in this universe, not least the theory behind Avogardo’s number that shows that a typical homeopathic dilution will not contain a single molecule of the original ingredient.  Those ellipsis contain the sum total knowledge of human endeavour in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology, all of which does not provide a plausible, testable hypotheses supporting homeopathy, and they are not considered worthy of examination by Dr Tournier.  Instead, dismissed with a glib aside.

On his next slide, titled ‘Science of Homeopathy’ Dr Tournier builds on the deceit practised in his explanation of scientific method:

Hahnemann built homeopathy following a rigorous scientific approach:

• Experimentation

Provings
Clinical experience

• Theories and concepts

Law of similars
Principle of dilution
Concept of the vital force

This is a lie.  Hahnemann existed before the scientific method was properly established as a means of enquiry and his approach was to use personal experience and provings, a notably subjective experience.  His theories are not based on a coherent collection of tested and testable hypotheses but on unsubstantiated conjecture, anecdote and, in the case of vital force, an ancient myth.  This is not science, this is not the scientific method.  Shame on Dr Tournier for equating the rigourous and applied methodology of scientists to the mystic musings of an 18th century German.   As for the theories and concepts, well homeowatch has some excellent criticisms of the Law of similars and dilutions while nobody has been able to demonstrate the existence of the vital force.

Dr Tournier follows this deceit with a misrepresentation of other researches work.  He presents a figure adapted from a paper by Fønnebø et al exploring “the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities.”.

As you can see it seems Fønnebø et al see safety as the last concern of the pharmaceutical model of research.  However when you look at the figure from the original paper it looks very different from Dr Tournier’s interpretation.

CAM research

The original paper makes clear that safety considerations are a factor of Phase I, II and III trials rather than an afterthought after the drug is released.  Perhaps Dr Tournier offered his interpretation because it is clear, both from his slide and the original figure, that in CAM safety considerations come AFTER clinical practice.  Very unlike conventional medicine where safety is a concern from the first trial onwards.

He then goes on to claim that there are 5 high quality papers supporting homeopathy based on NMR experiments.  In support of this claim he cites Witt et al (2003), however, a glance at the abstract suggest Dr Tourner is again offering an interpretation of what he would like the paper to say, rather than what it actually says.  According to Dr Tournier high quality is defined as a Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy (SAPEH) of >6.  According to Witt et al it is defined as >7.  Also the researchers state in their results,

Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH < 6), only 6 were of high quality (SAPEH > 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.

before concluding,

Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion.

It seems Dr Tournier is developing quite the habit of misinterpreting data.

His next slide again makes claims about the number of high quality trials using molecular and cellular systems reported by Witt et al (2007) however again a reading of this paper somewhat belies his claims.  Bizarrely the abstract concludes,

Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies. No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments.

It is frankly unbelievable that somebody can claim that results that are not replicable are high quality. If results from a scientific paper are not replicable then that paper can no longer stand as a contribution to the field.  It is bad enough that this is a poor paper but it is even worse that Dr Tournier seeks to exaggerate its findings before his captive audience of largely scientifically illiterate CAM practitioners.

Dr Tournier then goes on to cover animal systems but does not provide references so I cannot check his claims before moving onto the now notorious metaanalyses of human trials.  After the usual inaccurate rubbishing of the most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis by Shang et al., (the one that showed no effect above placebo for homeoapthy), ably dissected by apgaylard with reference to the CMA presentation by Milgrom, he goes on to make the claim that Shang is not classified as a review by UK DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects).  Now DARE makes no claim to be the definitive repository of reviews, merely describing the reviews as having to study

interventions that are clearly health related; interventions that have the potential to affect health; adverse effects; diagnostic and prognostic studies; individual patient data (IPD).

However, since Dr Tournier thinks that reviews in the DARE database are given extra credibility it is worth highlighting what it says about three reviews that Tournier cites favourably, Linde et al (1997), Linde & Melchart (1998) and Cucherat et al (2000).

Linde et al (1997)

Overall this was a rigorously conducted and well-presented systematic review. The research questions, selection criteria for primary studies, quality assessment, and methods of pooling data were explained clearly. The search strategy was thorough, and an estimation of the impact of publication bias was included. Details of the primary studies were tabulated. However, the results should be treated with some caution due to the fact that the trials included in the meta-analysis differed markedly in terms of the participants, interventions and outcomes. In addition, the results of the statistical test for heterogeneity were not reported, although the authors state that this was carried out. The authors’ conclusions are appropriate given the evidence arising from this review.

But remember this is a paper that concluded,

However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.

Linde & Melchart (1998)

However, the review was not based on a well-defined question. Neither participants nor outcomes were specified and a broad class of therapies (individualised homeopathy) rather than particular interventions were reviewed. The inclusion criteria were clearly specified but the assumption that a double blind trial involves an unbiased method of allocation is questionable because blinding usually refers to assessment of outcomes rather than allocation concealment. Three different validity assessments were performed; the primary one was mainly based on the study’s inclusion in a journal listed in MEDLINE. This seems an unusual requirement for studies of complimentary medicine, although the authors do mention that 6 journals dealing with complimentary therapies have been included since 1998. The authors recognise the shortcomings of having only one reviewer assess the papers. Less than half the studies are included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Although the trials were grouped by methodological quality, this is likely to be a heterogeneous set of studies: neither the main outcome, participants nor treatment were constant across studies.

Consequently the results of the meta-analysis should be treated with extreme caution. This is acknowledged by the authors.

Cucherat et al (2000)

The authors stated the research question and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The research question was extremely broad. It is possible it was too broad to be addressed in a meta-analysis. The literature search was reasonably thorough and the authors tested for possible publication bias.

The method used to assess the quality of the included studies was not stated, but issues of study and methodological quality were addressed and further analysed in sensitivity analyses. Trials were excluded if the quality was unacceptable. The authors detail the data extraction process, but there is no report on how the articles were selected, or who performed the selection and quality assessment.

The data extraction is reported in tables and discussed in the text of the review. Due to the disparate nature of the included studies, the studies were combined using p values which only state whether the findings of an individual study are statistically or not statistically significant. Clinical evidence of treatment effectiveness cannot be determined from the results of these studies. Further sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of differences in study quality and methodology.

The authors’ conclusions appear to follow from the results, but should be viewed with great caution because of limitations in the quality of the review process.

Ouch.  Looks like Dr Tournier again hasn’t given the full details to his audience.

It seems Dr Tournier seems to have a fatal weakness when it comes to homeopathy, he misinterprets data and makes unsupportable claims.  Precisely the kind of behaviour that will make you persona non grata in scientific circles.  Dr Tournier has published his non homeopathic CRUK funded research in respectable journals, his papers don’t make any unsupportable claims and, although I am not particularly knowledgable about his field of biophysics, seem perfectly decent to me.  Is it the critical peer review process that maintains the credibility of his biophysics papers? Does he approach homeoapthy in a different way than he does biophysics?  I have no idea.  But he does display the fatal weakness of apparently all homeopaths when it comes to scientific support for homeopathy.  I wonder if this is a case of faith meeting reason and prejudice winning out.  In any case this has resulted in a scientist with a respectable record of publication flogging dishonesty to gullible fools and is a sad sight indeed.

Prominent member of Alliance of Registered Homeopaths says “Conventional drugs are something to avoid – at all costs.”

The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) are one of the bodies purporting to regulate homeopaths and protect the public. Their Registrar, Steve Scrutton, has one of the most insane, dangerous and idiotic websites I have ever seen a homeopath unleash upon the internet.
On the failure of conventional medicine he has this to say:

Conventional medicine is dangerous. Its drugs are killing more and more people every year. Conventional drugs are something to avoid – at all costs.

Conventional medicine is expensive. The NHS spends over £80 billion per year. Some drug treatments can cost over £30,000 – per individual – per year! Good for the Pharmaceutical Companies, bad for the taxpayer.

Conventional medicine is ineffective. Despite spending increasing amounts on health care over the last 60 years, we are facing epidemic levels of disease such as Autism, Alzheimer’s Disease, ADHD, Suicide, Cancer, Allergy, Asthma, COPD, Cornary Heart Disease, Diabetes, Arthritis, IBS, osteoporosis – etc., etc.

Homeopaths in sacka with Big Quacka – lacka ethics and evidence

I have just noticed that Nelsons, a major supplier and manufacturer of homeopathic pseudomedicine and assorted quackery, have developed a PR toolkit for homeopaths with an organisation called 4homeopathy. Now I’ve never heard of 4homeopathy and google reveals little apart from a defunct website, however they are described as ‘media specialists’. Perhaps they are some dubious front group, the homeopathic equivalent of Trotyskyist groupuscules, either way I’m not interested. What is of interest to me is the motivations, means and methods of this toolkit and the now public sally of Big Quacka into the fray before Homeopathy Awareness Week (HAW) 14th-21st June.

Homeopath says it’s patients fault they are ill

Homeopaths like to present themselves as a caring profession with their talk of holistic medicine and treating the person not the disease. One might also be inclined to think that they themselves are of sensitive disposition as their innocent bleatings grow ever louder as their ideas come under attack. Indeed I have often said that I believe homeopaths are fundamentally decent people. However, a recent lecture announcement questions the assumption that homeopaths are well meaning if querulous quacks. This lecture is billed as “REVEALING THE INNER CONFLICT” and the lecturer, Liz Lalor, will:

present[s] a body of work which is new and interesting. Liz will teach homeopaths and students alike how to listen for the mental and emotional dialogue within the patient and how then to use the Mind and Delusions sections of their repertory to best advantage.

Far from being the well meaning pseudo-psychoanalysis (if there is such a thing as a pseudo-pseudo-science) one might expect it seems this lecture exposes the dark heart of homeopathy. The belief that the patient brings their pain, suffering and disease on themselves. It’s not their environment, their genes or bad luck that causes disease, it is the patients state of mind.

Hilary Fairclough and AIDS idiocy (again)

I’ve just come across this astounding press release from the College of Practical Homeopathy which is recognised by the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) amongst others.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO TREATING COMPLEX DISEASE

By Hilary Fairclough

Sunday April 27^th 2008, 10am -5pm

College of Practical Homeopathy

Homeopaths are required to treat increasingly complex disease. This requires an understanding of a full range of homeopathic prescribing styles and methodologies.

The ability to deal with disease processes, suppression of natural diseases and intense emotional states related to pathology is needed. Also important is the ability to deal with illness in the context of societal factors that have important implications for disease progression and homeopathic treatment.

Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath and a former nurse, set up The Maun Homeopathy project in Botswana in 2002. Since then about 1500 people have been treated for Aids and HIV.

Hilary Fairclough is going to share her immense experience and knowledge gained from running the Maun project. The day will cover:

· Various homeopathic analysis techniques used in the project

· The Triad Method

· Using the Triad Method alongside conventional medicine

· Using this method for children and adults, similarities and differences and implications for case-taking and management

· What to look for in follow-ups

· Importance of miasmatic prescribing

· Understanding posology

· Homeopathic principles related to the triad method

· Palliation of incurable conditions

At the end of the day you will have an increased knowledge of treating difficult cases including HIV and Aids with confidence.

BOOKING AND PAYMENT:

Seminar: Treating Complex Disease

Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2008

Time: 10am – 5.00pm

Venue: College of Practical Homeopathy, 760 High Rd, North Finchley

Cost: CPH students: £40.00

CPH Graduates: £45.00

Non-CPH students and graduates: £50.00

Cheques payable to: Nimisha Parekh

Please return the booking form with your payment to: Nimisha Parekh, 1491 High Rd , Whetstone, London N20 9PJ

CPD certificates will be provided. Refreshments will be served. There is a wide choice of restaurants in the area for a great lunch. Parking is free on Sundays.

Hilary Fairclough is the homeopath who runs the Maun Homeopathy Clinic in Botswana and gave a SoH organised talk last year resulting in numerous critical articles from Ben Goldacre, Nick Cohen, David Colquhoun, Orac and many others.

You would have hoped that the homeopath profession would have taken on this criticism and responded appropriately. However, from this press release it seems business as usual in the world of conducting unethical homeopathic treatments in third world countries without fear of professional misconduct charges. Still what can you expect from a profession that is utterly incapable of forming a coherent regulatory body. The most depressing thing about this press release is the small print in italics at the bottom.

CPD certificates will be provided.

Certificates of Professional Development (CPD) mean that this course is recognised as part of the ongoing professional development of homeopaths, a requirement of the SoH and ARH.  This, together with other examples, is yet further proof that homeopaths are dangerously deluded and need to be independently regulated to avoid the spread of such counterknowledge.  Or that the profession should be abolished except for those medically qualified homeopaths who are regulated by their strict professional bodies and would b e statutorily prohibited from such idiocy.

Homeopathic supporting MP David Tredinnick misleads Parliament and offers staggeringly dimwitted endorsements.

What is it about supporters of homeopathy and their inability to honestly appraise evidence (and indeed be honest)? In the early hours of Tuesday 19th Feb MP David Tredinnick (Bosworth, Con) spoke out in support of homeopathy. Like many public statements of support for homeopathy his speech is riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths, lies and appallingly dangerous endorsements.

NHS support for homeopathy evaporates

According to a study by Pulse, homeopathy is the highest profile victim of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) cost effective approach to NHS resources. According to Pulse only 37% of NHS PCTs still have contracts for homeopathic services while a quarter have stopped or reduced funding over the past two years. Pulse suggest that this is a result of the open letter written in 2006 calling for the abandonment of homeopathy, and other alternative therapies, on the grounds of no evidence of efficacy.

Blogging the Organon

There is a new blog on the scene, Blogging the Organon.

Homeopaths frequently accuse their critics of failing to read and understand the work that underpins their beliefs. This blog will reproduce Hahnemann’s Organon, from here, over the next few months in an attempt to rectify this concern. The aim of this blog is to allow readers to critically evaluate it in the context of modern homeopathic practice and modern science. I hope that both homeopaths and sceptics will contribute to the discussion.

Biochemistry – it’s awesomely complicated yet explicable

Thanks to the good folks at Expasy and Roche may I present this diagram of metabolic pathways. Should a single step, catalysed by enzymes, in anyone of these interconnected pathways go awry then metabolic disease will result. This metabolic disease will most likely be caused by the failure to convert one molecule to another due to a defective enzyme. There is no need to explain disease in terms of energies or miasms, conventional science explains it perfectly. Concepts of energies or miasms are utterly meaningless in this scientific context. There is no room for homeopathy in biochemistry.
Click here for interactive version.

Adventures in paediatric homeopathy

Let me take you on a journey through the homeopathic education system. I recently came across this site, Adventures in Medicine, that offers a postgraduate course in paediatric homeopathy. The rationale for the course is described as follows:

There is a large gap in the training of homoeopaths when it comes to treating children. Most homoeopaths have to struggle for years to gain the knowledge and experience required to create a successful practice in paediatrics.

This course is designed to bridge that gap by providing training in paediatric care by experienced teachers who are experts in their field.

It is also designed to empower and support students to enable them to practice with knowledge and confidence in what is often a very little understood area of homoeopathy.

Publication bias in CAM? Nope, it’s orthodox research that is flawed. Err maybe not.

Publication bias “is the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings”. In other words human nature compels people to pay more attention to results that are positive compared to those that are negative or inconclusive. Critics have complained that homeopathy research is riddled with publication bias where positive results are published and negative results lost under the sofa. This admittedly is a problem with all science in general, there is little kudos in not being able to prove that something works, however mainstream science does take steps to correct this and, in the case of clinical trials it is extremely unprofessional not to register them in advance. For a considerably deep analysis of the problems and implications of bias in medical literature this Ioannidis essay is worth checking out.

However it seems that defenders of homeopathy have come up with a novel method of coping with criticisms of the extreme publication bias in the literature. They redefine the word so it makes them look good and the literature on conventional medicine bad. This ability has been noted by the Quackometer who quotes the wonderful words of the Lewis Carroll character, Humpty Dumpty.

Big quacka spend 18.5 times more on marketing than research, big pharma only twice as much

JDC has an interesting post up comparing the marketing costs with R&D for big pharma. Almost twice as much it seems which is ample reason to criticise big pharma. However JDC also asks

I wonder what the ratio of R&D:Marketing would be for, say, homeopathy?

a question he doesn’t answer. Well lucky for him and all you homeopaths out there I can tell you how much Boiron, a huge French homeopathy company, spend.
Taken from the 2007 half year report the answer is staggering.

Marketing costs amounted to €47,124,000 in the first 6 months of 2007

Research costs amounted to €2,548,000 in the first 6 months of 2007

So Boiron spend ~18.5 times as much on advertising as they do on research. Fuck me. And we criticise big pharma for spending nearly twice as much on marketing.

The Do No Harm Initiative promote ignorant harmful advice

You may remember that Sense about Science and Newsnight exposed some homeopaths as being willing to prescribe homeopathic vaccines, homeoprophylaxis, for malaria and specifically stated that it was better than conventional vaccines. The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) was quick to condemn such claims and indulged in some untruths to avoid taking responsibility while prominent Faculty of Homeopaths (FoH) member, Peter Fisher, declared:

“I’m very angry about it because people are going to get malaria – 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, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.”

Of course several members of the SoH have been exposed as continuing to advocate homeoprophylaxis since then which exposes the inadequacies of self-regulation for the homeopathic industry. However, while the actions of homeopaths in the UK have been sneaky and underhand homeopaths in other countries are more blatant and forthcoming about their belief in homeoprophylaxis.

Vaccine saves lives – homeopath recommends magic water

This via the BBC, apparently over 300 lives have been saved children have avoided serious illness in England alone by the introduction of the pneumococcal vaccine a year ago. This vaccine, given to infants, helps protect them against pneumonia and meningitis both dangerous and often fatal diseases. This is a great example of medical science at its most effective.

So what does homeopath Liz Bevan-Jones, SRN DipNCH RSHom have to say about vaccines for meningitis.

If you are in contact with Meningitis, take one dose of Belladonna 30c 3 times a week for 2 weeks or Meningococcus once a week for the duration of the epidemic.

To be fair she does advise going to a hospital immediately if you think you have it but she is advocating homeopathic prophylaxis rather than vaccination for prevention. Liz really does not like vaccines and clearly recommends against them in favour of homeopathy. In fact she has actively campaigned against vaccination in the past.

So on one hand we have medical science that has apparently avoided over 300 cases of serious illness through vaccines and on the other we have somebody who claims that taking a dose of a solution diluted beyond the point where any molecules of the original substance remain is an effective prophylactic against meningitis.

Who would you trust with your health?

PS and yes there really is a homeopathic version of the pneumococccal vaccine.