Thanks to Dr Stephen Law of CFI UK for the footage

CFI also have an event on Saturday 6th March titled “Monsters vs Aliens“, featuring three experts on UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch.

• 

At 10:23am on Saturday 30th January, over 300 individuals from branches of Skeptics in the Pub will simultaneously consume an overdose of commercially available homeopathic medicines. The nationwide protest, organised by the 10:23 campaign from Merseyside Skeptics, will either unfold as one of the largest mass suicides since Jonestown, or will yet again confirm that science, evidence and rational thought actually do work.

The confirmed locations of the overdoses are as follows:

UK

Birmingham: High Street

Edinburgh: Secret Location

Glasgow: Tie Rack in Central Station

London: Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn

Leeds: Leeds Mainline Rail Station, main entrance at 9.30-10 am

Immediately after the protest, Dr Simon Singh, Prof. John Garrow and Andy Lewis will take to the stage of London’s Conway Hall for Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial, the first event in 2010 from CFI UK.

The protest, comes after a Boots representative, Paul Bennett, attracted ridicule from the national press after admitting to a parliamentary select committee last month that Boots knowingly sells homeopathic remedies to the public for which it has no evidence of effectiveness. The Science and Technology Select Committee are due to release their report on homeopathy around the time of the protest, at the end of January.

While dispensing sugar pills may seem harmless, in reality the endorsement of homeopathic potions by leading health providers can have grave consequences. As well as potentially undermining trust in medicine and medical advice, customers may be misled into believing that they are treating their illness – for example a Panorama investigation famously revealed that homeopaths were advising customers to take ineffective pills in place of Malaria prophylactics on holiday. In extreme cases, such as the ‘healing therapist’ Russell Jenkins, deaths may occur.

The 10:23 Campaign, so named in recognition of Avogadro’s Constant (the limit of dilution which is exceeded by homeopathic preparations) aims to raise awareness of homeopathy and its basis within long-discredited 18th century pseudoscience, selling remedies to the public which have no scientific basis and no credible evidence for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect.

As ever, this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate JREF’s Law (namely ”there is no topic of parapsychological discussion upon which James Randi has failed to comment”) by directing attention to Randi’s lecture at Princeton in 2001, which contained the following segment on homeopathy. Randi’s commentary in 2002 for the BBC is worth reading also.

• 

It has been reported that a number of players including players from Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City, and a host of other clubs have been visiting a Serbian healer by the name of Mariana Kovacevic.  Apparently her unique technique is to perform massage using a cream that has been infused with horse placenta, and a number of players are convinced that this is the secret to recovering quickly from injury.  Footballers aren’t known as the clevereople in the world, but you’d think that having spent the majority of their careers around professional medical staff, and considering injury is part and parcel of playing the sport they play, they would have some understanding of treatment on sports related injuries.  You wouldn’t think they could be taken in by a woman claiming special healing abilities, particularly when their doctors have told them it’s a load of rubbish.  Most reports have said that the actual methods used are a closely guarded secret, but all seem to agree that there is a placenta involved.  Most have said it’s a horse placenta, although The Sun went one further and claimed that a human placenta was being used.  Liverpool football club in particular have been very impressed with the treatment, having sent 4 players to Serbia recently who all mysteriously got better after having the placenta treatment in addition to their usual treatment with club physios.  Of course the only logical conclusion is that the horse placenta was the answer, nothing to do with the excellent medical care provided by club doctors.  Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez is very complimentary towards this alternative treatment saying “Many top players have been going for seven years, it has been successful and I believe it is safe”.  I suspect that the success he is describing is largely anecdotal, and the fact it is safe is frankly a relief as I’d be somewhat worried if someone administering a massage with some harmless fluid was unsafe.

Most reports haven’t tried to speculate as to how a treatment which involves rubbing placenta fluid on the skin can have a healing effect although the majority of newspapers have kindly pointed out facts about the placenta in the middle of their reports such as in the BBC “The placenta connects the foetus to the uterine wall in mammals. And fresh samples of the organ are rich in stem cells, which can develop into different types of tissue like muscle and bone.”  That’s good to know but it doesn’t explain how rubbing it into the skin could help.  Giles Smith of the Times writes “But what’s everybody’s problem with placenta anyway? It’s widely accepted that the placenta is a valuable source of stem cells and iron.”  Absolutely, and babies in the womb benefit greatly from this, but that still doesn’t explain how applying it to the skin helps footballers with damaged ankle ligaments.   The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that this placenta method speeds up recovery time.  It is amazing that people who have the best medicine available on offer are still prepared to put their faith in something that has not been proven.   Hopefully this lack of evidence won’t mean politicians start advocating its use within the NHS anytime soon.

• 

Through the miracle of the Internet, I spent part of this afternoon sitting at my desk watching live video from the House of Commons Science and Technology Sub-Committee as they debated the question above. The detail of the witnesses: Rt Hon Mike O’Brien QC MP, Minister of State, and Professor David Harper CBE, Chief Scientist, Department of Health, and Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

The main justification for including homeopathy appears to be its popularity: 10 percent of the population use these remedies. (By this logic, smoking should be included on the NHS!)

One of the committee members asked about the disparity in the rules, in that homeopaths don’t have to prove the efficacy of their remedies, but the manufacturers of vitamin supplements do.

Some other interesting questions were raised. Is it acceptable for a doctor who knows that a homeopathic remedy has no effect other than the placebo effect to dispense these remedies to patients on the basis that they might work. Should he be required to disclose to the patient his knowledge that they are no better than placebos? Most patients would probably resent this kind of “paternalistic deception”.

Besides, the minister said later, it’s “illiberal” to refuse people treatments they believe are working. He drew a distinction between efficacy (evidentially proven) and effectiveness (helps patients). Some numbers: 88 PCTs do not provide homeopathy, 26 do in exceptional cases; 31 do. (I think those hastily scribbled numbers are right.) NICE does not consider the evidence base sufficient to assess these remedies.

There seems to have been some (now sadly typical) trouble over the consultation on the subject of introducing rules for homeopathy, in that although it was opposed by several eminent medical bodies the recommendation that eventually reached the minister was that there was widespread support. Professor Campbell replied that the debate is about homeopathy, but there were few objections to the scheme itself. The committee asked him to make the consultation testimony public. “This is a homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition” is the wording on the label; what does this mean to the “average man in the street”? Doesn’t it imply the stuff, you know, works? (I’m paraphrasing; the questioner managed the most polite version of “Isn’t this a lie to the public?” that I’ve ever heard.)

I can’t answer that personally, but I can recount the argument I had recently with an American friend. It went like this:

“The Royal Family uses homeopathy and look how long they live!”

“The Royal Family is one of the richest families in the world, and besides homeopathy they use all the best medical care their money can buy.”

“They do?”

Homeopathy isn’t harmful in and of itself. Its wider effects – a lack of care for evidence and the truth, diverting people from medicine that works (it has been recommended as an anti-malarial drug), and the promotion of general ignorance – are harmful.

(Ben Goldacre also featured in a previous session, of which a webcast can be seen here.)

• 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Boots brand is synonymous with health care in the United Kingdom. Your website speaks proudly about your role as a health care provider and your commitment to deliver exceptional patient care. For many people, you are their first resource for medical advice; and their chosen dispensary for prescription and non-prescription medicines. The British public trusts Boots.

However, in evidence given recently to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, you admitted that you do not believe homeopathy to be efficacious. Despite this, homeopathic products are offered for sale in Boots pharmacies – many of them bearing the trusted Boots brand.

Not only is this two-hundred-year-old pseudo-therapy implausible, it is scientifically absurd. The purported mechanisms of action fly in the face of our understanding of chemistry, physics, pharmacology and physiology. As you are aware, the best and most rigorous scientific research concludes that homeopathy offers no therapeutic effect beyond placebo, but you continue to sell these products regardless because “customers believe they work”. Is this the standard you set for yourselves?

The majority of people do not have the time or inclination to check whether the scientific literature supports the claims of efficacy made by products such as homeopathy. We trust brands such as Boots to check the facts for us, to provide sound medical advice that is in our interest and supply only those products with a demonstrable medical benefit.

We don’t expect to find products on the shelf at our local pharmacy which do not work.

Not only are these products ineffective, they can also be dangerous. Patients may delay seeking proper medical assistance because they believe homeopathy can treat their condition. Until recently, the Boots website even went so far as to tell patients that “after taking a homeopathic medicine your symptoms may become slightly worse,” and that this is “a sign that the body’s natural energies have started to counteract the illness”. Advice such as this directly encourages patients to wait before seeking real medical attention, even when their condition deteriorates.

We call upon Boots to withdraw all homeopathic products from your shelves. You should not be involved in the sale of ineffective products, because your customers trust you to do what is right for their health. Surely you agree that your commitment to excellent patient care is better served by supplying only those products whose claims can be substantiated by rigorous scientific research? Or do you really believe that Boots should be in the business of selling placebos to the sick and the injured?

The support lent by Boots to this quack therapy contributes directly to its acceptance as a valid medical treatment by the British public, acceptance it does not warrant and support it does not deserve. Please do the right thing, and remove this bogus therapy from your shelves.

Yours sincerely,
Merseyside Skeptics Society

•