Homeopaths Are Shaken (Not Stirred) By 10:23 Overdose

"water stop dripping on tap" by Vanessa Pike-Russell/CC-by-nc-nd via Flickr

I am not a scientist. I am what used to be known colloquially as a “hack.”

I am, however, interested in science and pseudoscience, and I am utterly delighted when a purveyor of the latter affords me the chance to apply my jaundiced eye to a bit of public relations fluff.

Recently, a group of homeopathy skeptics participated in a mass “homeopathic overdose” as a publicity stunt designed to call attention to the fact that homeopathy doesn’t work. The stunt was part of a new campaign, known as 10:23, to educate the public about the claims of homeopathy.

But that’s not the fluff I’m talking about.

More interesting to me were the pre-emptive strikes launched by homeopathy groups, replete with explanations of why an overdose of homeopathic remedy couldn’t possibly harm anyone, and why it doesn’t mean homeopathy is ineffective.

One of the most interesting was the press release issued by the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), who used lots of obfuscation to imply that they are the sober voice of reason in the debate over the safety and efficacy of magic water.

Their opening salvo:

“To suggest in public that taking an overdose of a medicine is a good way of testing its effectiveness gives an extremely dangerous message to the public.”

Well, that’s rather the point, isn’t it? Homeopathy isn’t medicine. It’s water. Expensive water. And, sometimes, sugar pills. I doubt anyone who supports the 10:23 campaign would suggest anyone take an overdose of actual medicine to test its effectiveness or for any other reason.

“There are well over 100 double blind trials in homeopathy and more are positive than negative.”

Possibly (although there may be a few tiny problems with that assertion.) But “positive” for what? Could it be… the placebo effect? As in, “they worked as well as less expensive (non-magic) water?”

[Note to the NHS: You could save an estimated  £4 million per year by replacing those homeopathic nostrums with tap water. It works for my daughter; it could work for you.]

But here’s the best part:

“The Faculty of Homeopathy and BHA do not support the sole use of homeopathy for any serious disease when effective conventional  treatment is available to, and tolerated by, the individual patient.

Now that’s clever.

Let’s rephrase that so it’s a bit clearer, shall we?

You should only use homeopathy: a) if there’s no real medicine for your condition; b) if you can’t take the real medicine for your condition; or c) with real medicine.

Or, as astute commenter “Felix” on the excellent Gimpy’s Blog summed up:

“Homeopathy: It’s better than nothing.”

Moreover, the BHA is saying, “Don’t blame us for the fact that lots and lots of homeopaths advertise their wares as a replacement for real medicine like vaccinations or anti-malarials. We said it wasn’t a good idea to use our stuff to actually treat anything that won’t go away by itself, given enough time.”

But when someone is suffering from a mild, self-limited ailment, they heartily recommend homeopathy so that when the sufferer, predictably, recovers—score one for the magic water!

As a bonus, they add:

“Homeopathy is, however, often used with great patient satisfaction for support during conventional treatments.”

Patients may get some kind of satisfaction from using homeopathy, but it’s the homeopaths who get the $upport.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Homeopathic society ‘misled’ MPs in inquiry (guardian.co.uk)
• Homeopathy: Overdosing on nothing (newscientist.com)
• Mass drug overdose – none dead (newscientist.com)