MP David Tredinnick is Wrong about the Homeopathy Report
Write to your MP and let them know that this report deserves a proper appraisal and is not flawed as the MP suggests.
David ‘cash for questions’ Tredinnick is the MP who liked to buy astrology software and training on expenses. He is a keen supporter of pseudoscience and appears to be heading the charge for homeopaths to discredit the recent House of Commons Evidence Check into homeopathy.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Evidence Check report into homeopathy will be a reference document for years to come. I have it here in my lap. At 216 pages, it is an invaluable snapshot into, not just the evidence, but the state of thought of UK homeopaths, doctors, critics and business interests associated with the world of this strange alternative medicine.
The conclusions of the report are damning. After appraising the dozens of submissions, the MPs concluded that the theoretical basis of homeopathy was ‘scientifically implausible’, that the evidence was settled on it being a placebo, that further research would be unethical, the NHS should cease funding it, that doctors risked damaging trust by prescribing it and the MHRA licensing of homeopathy should cease.
None of this is surprising.
And the response of homeopaths to the report is not surprising either. Various lobbies are desperate to rubbish the report by misrepresenting its conclusions and slurring various participants and evidence providers.
And the homeopaths have found a friend in the absurd MP, David Tredinnick, the man who believes the government should be funding medical astrology and remote energetic healing. They have persuaded the MP to propose an Early Day Motion: a device for backbenchers to influence Commons debates.
Everything in the EDM is just plain wrong. Let’s go through it and see how:
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHY
23.02.2010
Tredinnick, David
That this House expresses concern at the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee’s Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses,
Yes, there were only a limited number of witnesses. There was limited time for the hearings and the MPs appear to have selected witnesses who could give evidence most pertinent to the enquiry. We shall see how other witnesses that homeopaths might have liked were most unsuitable.
…including known critics of homeopathy Tracy Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science, and journalist Dr Ben Goldacre, who have no expertise in the subject;
It is quite right that on a controversial subject that the MPs should take evidence from those who can set out the accepted scientific view in a disinterested way. Sense About Science are a charity that have been exposing some of the worst excesses of homeopaths, such as their dangerous advice to travellers in malarial areas, and have written a factsheet explaining what homeopathy is. Tracy Brown was clearly very knowledgeable about the legislation surrounding homeopathic product licensing and provided a valuable counterpoint to the MHRA. Ben Goldacre has written a best selling book which discusses the nature of evidence surrounding homeopathy and he regularly lectures in the methods that drug companies and quacks use to misrepresent evidence to promote their products. To describe these people as having ‘no expertise’ is perverse.
…believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting,
Evidence was indeed heard from a Primary Care Trust that had been commissioning homeopathic treatment. It was the only PCT that had conducted a full review for the rationale of continuing such provision and, as such, decided to cease funding. The report looks at this evidence closely and recommends that the West Kent report is provided to other PCTs that continue to make provision but have not yet had a revue. Conclusion 17 recommends that other PCTs undertake revues as a matter of urgency. That no other PCT submitted evidence is reason enough to understand why no other PCT gave oral evidence.
and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance;
The Society of Homeopaths were not asked to give oral evidence almost undoubtedly because they failed to submit any evidence in their written submission. Their submitted document contains no evidence about homeopathy. Instead it is an appeal to treat homeopathy differently and ignore standard methods of evidence. It is special pleading and utterly worthless when considering if homeopathy is effective or not. It makes them look like fools and it is no wonder they were not called as they are not a credible organisation. The Society also submitted a supplementary document that contradicts established facts about what happened when the BBC exposed them for not upholding their code of ethics.
observes that the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, where provision of homeopathy is far more widespread than in the UK, or from India, where it is part of the health service;
The terms of the enquiry were quite clearly to look at the scientific evidence base that formulates government policy towards homeopathy. The policies of other countries obviously play no part. That India spends so much on this quackery and neglects its poor is not evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy but of the negligence of that government.
regrets that the Committee ignored the 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective, and that the Committee recommends no further research;
This is quite simply untrue. The committee looked at all evidence and indeed noted that there were many small trials with low statistical power that poor methodology that could easily mislead, especially if these small trials were ‘cherry picked’. The MPs stated they wished to avoid this analysis and so looked toward systematic reviews of all these trials so as to arrive at more reliable conclusions. These meta-analyses and reviews are now clear: there is no effect from homeopathy. Either David Tredinnick has not read the report or he wishes to misrepresent this most carefully argued part of the document.
further notes that 206 hon. Members signed Early Day Motion No. 1240 in support of NHS homeopathic hospitals in Session 2006-07; and calls on the Government to maintain its policy of allowing decision-making on individual clinical interventions, including homeopathy, to remain in the hands of local NHS service providers and practitioners who are best placed to know their community’s needs.
Indeed, many MPs have been persuaded to support NHS homeopathic provision by their constituents. However, this report is a very carefully argued and persuasive plea that such ideas actually let down patients by misleading them and diverts resources away from sick people who could better benefit. The report looks in detail at the question of patient choice and homeopathy and concludes that patient choice is actually restricted by such provision.
The Society of Homeopaths are undoubtedly behind this EDM. Their press release mirrors the arguments here and makes thoroughly disreputable suggestions about Ben Goldacre. They say he should not have been included because he was a ‘a journalist who was investigated by the Press Complaints Commission for his previous and unsubstantiated comments about homeopaths”. The fact is that the Society made a baseless and shameful complaint to the PCC when Goldacre wrote a critical article on the harms of homeopathy. This is an organisation that cannot deal with criticism.
What is striking is that the MPs condemn the homeopaths for submitting misleading appraisals of the evidence for their trade. Conclusion 13 stated that the promulgation of selective approaches to the treatment of evidence risks confusing the public and policy makers. It would look as if the Society of Homeopaths and other advocates have not taken note of this and choose to continue to attempt to mislead the members of parliament into condemning the report. The Society of Homeopaths are calling for the supporters to write to their MPs to sign this absurd EDM.
I would suggest that you write too. It will take five minutes. Weirdly, many MPs will sign an EDM if they get two letters on the same subject; such is their worry not to offend constituents. EDMs carry little real weight, but the important issue here is that people do not let the charlatans rubbish a thorough and important report before any meaningful debate can take place.
MPs may, of course, not agree with the reports conclusions. That is their job. But to blithely dismiss is as flawed and meaningless without proper appraisal would be a crime given the obvious thoroughness of its approach.
A few emails to each MP would give them pause for thought before blindly accepting the baseless accusations of the homeopaths. All you need to do is point out that David Tredinnick is wrong in what he says. He is misleading people and the report should be examined on its merits.
Please ask your MP not to sign EDM 908.
You can see if your MP has been foolish enough to sign here:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40517&SESSION=903
For a quick and easy way to contact your MP regarding EDM 908:
Related posts:
- Why I am Standing Against David Tredinnick Yesterday I bumped into a friend who declared himself disappointed in me for standing against David Tredinnick over homeopathy. “I thought you were the one rational, sane science writer who...
- MP David Tredinnick calls for more Government Funding of Medical Astrology and Remote Energetic Healing Yesterday, the House of Commons saw a debate on the funding of medical astrology. Yes. Medical Astrology. The Hansard Report of the debate has a seventeenth century feel to...
- The Bleakest Day for Homeopathy The much anticipated House of Commons report into the Evidence Check on Homeopathy has now been published and it may well be the report that changes the face of...
- The Earl of Bewdley’s Response to the House of Commons Evidence Check Look, I am cooking a moussaka at the moment. But I thought this needed discussing. This document is doing the rounds in quack circles and is a prominent response to...
- Dame Shirley Porter Funded Prince Charles’ Political Report on NHS Alternative Medicine After writing about how Prince Charles’ charity, the Foundation for Integrated Health, is now under police investigation for possible fraud, it has become clear how I have missed one...
Sent an email to my MP
here it is
Dear John Howell,
Recently we were very lucky that the Science & Technology Committee investigated the use of Homeopathy in the UK. It was a balanced and well deliberated investigation. The MP David Tredinnick is Wrong in his call to MPs to sign EDM 908 I do hope that you agree with me, if you so feel you may prefer to write your support to the Chair of the Science & Technology Committee, Phil Willis MP. If we allow opinion to rule the health service in this Country then we will be in trouble. It is science that is needed not non science. I want to point out that many bloggers and famous commentators are keeping an eye on what they call the Stupid list (EDM 908). If you have other Mps that your close to you may want to let them know about this.
Hope others will send a reply to their MP.
Well done to Richard Wilson for pointing out that one of the first signatures to this EDM is Andrew Dismore who claimed “£34,000 in second home expenses for a west London flat, which hosts his girlfriend’s homeopathy surgery”
Shameless bastard.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6928010.ece
I am delighted at the success of the referrals of chiropractors to the GCC.
I would like to see a similar ploy used against the Stupid List of MPs. David Tredinnick in particular.
To that end, if my local MP for Totnes (Anthony Steen. Con.)signs – I will stand in the general election against him. It only costs £500 for the (possibly)lost deposit.
Good value to get the issue before the public.
I do not know Treddinick’s majority or local situation, but is there any rational Quackwatcher out there who would be prepared to stand against him?
I would be prepared to subscribe to campaign costs.
Richard Rawlins
Dismore likewise.
Remember, as a candidate you do not have to get many votes to swing the result. It certainly would wind up this bunch of irrational Mindless Persons. (MPs).
Tredinnick and most of his fellow signers also happen to be expenses fraudsters. He and they are well dodgy in many respects.
Excellent blogpost.
so, “David ‘cash for questions’ Tredinnick is the MP who liked to buy astrology software and training on expenses.” and now he wishes to spend NHS funds on something for which he cannot get around to providing evidence – and for which the Society representing the qualified practioners (cough) has also decided insufficient evidence is available to provide written evidence (cough).
I did like the comedy reference the other day about solutions having memory of substances following incredible dilution being a bit like p*t n**dle having a memory of chicken.
Wonder if the MPs in question have a ‘memory’ (cough) of their school science lessons? Oh, and can any homeopaths please recommend a good and proven cough remedy?
Further thoughts on the issue of standing against Tredinnick in the general election:
A candidate does not actually have to submit their application (and cheque for £500)- they merely have to state that is their intention!
With good PR that should garner publicity in the local press, if not national, and help skewer the issue. Then, just before the closing date for nominations, the ‘candidate’ can withdraw “in favour of…” (Whoever it is most likely to unseat Tredinnick, who has a majority of only 2,900).
I would be prepared to stand. “The Charlatan Party Candidate, Dr Richard Rawlins, will be standing against David Tredinnick in order to draw attention to the support the sitting MP offers for the expenditure of scarce NHS resources on treatments for which there is no evidence of any significant benefit. “Unless and until the National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (NICE) recommends funding for these remedies, homeopathy should not be funded by our NHS” says the doctor”.
Or some such.
Any support?
I’ve also sent a letter to my MP, thanks to Colin above for giving me ideas as to what to put in it!
The letter I sent was:
Dear Hugh Bayley,
Recently the Science and Technology Committee investigated the use of Homoeopathy in the UK. I believe that it was a balanced and thorough investigation, and that the MP David Tredinnick is wrong to call for MPs to sign the EDM 908, which expresses concerns over the findings of the report. I hope you agree with me, if so you may decide to write in support to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis MP.
I feel that it is important not to let popular opinion rule over the health service and that the NHS should not be funding treatments that have been shown to have no significant effect over placebo. I hope you agree and decide not to sign EDM 908, or will at least give the report a fair appraisal.
I am not quite sure if we should be warning off MPs from signing the ’stupid list’ (EDM) or letting them do so and then pouncing on them?
Here’s my embellishment:
Dear Andrew Murrison,
Recently the Science and Technology Committee investigated the use of Homoeopathy in the UK.
I support fully the findings of the report which was very firm in it’s support of the scientific method and the rights of patients to be fully informed about treatments they are prescribed.
I believe that it was a balanced and thorough investigation,
and hope that in writing to you I would be able to counter letters that you may have received condemning the report.
I feel that it is important not to let uninformed public opinion rule over the health service and that the NHS should not be funding treatments that have been shown to have no significant effect over placebo.
You will be aware of the EDM being promoted by David Tredinnick (who is a figure of ridicule in the sceptical blogosphere), you may not be aware that the EDM is being regarded as a ’stupid list’ for MPs deserving of close attention in the coming months. Whilst I am aware of your firm scientific credentials, you may wish to make some of your colleagues aware of this!
Good luck in your new constituency.
Yours sincerely,
also have written to my prospective Conservative candidate (boundaries are changing):
Dear Mr Emmanuel-Jones,
for the past few years I have been happy to have Dr Murrison as my representative, since I know that his views in important areas are similar to my own.
This evening I have written to Dr Murrison in support of the recent Science and Technology Committee report on Homeopathy (my letter is copied below).
I would be very pleased if you were able to confirm to me your full endorsement of the report and its recommendations.
Yours sincerely,
p.s. remember to alert the (prospective) MP to the fact that you are a constituent of theirs.
When writing (even by email) to MPs, please try to spell and punctuate correctly. The two examples posted above (Colin and Felix) dilute their sensible messages by being poorly proofread.
The EDM “notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses” is false. They took written submissions too. Either David Tredinnick is lying or he can’t communicate in English.
Many thanks for this, have just emailed my MP (and quoted you extensively)
I have written before to my MP, Mark Harper, but am aware that he has supported homoeopathy in the past. This is what I wrote:
Dear Mark Harper,
I sincerely hope that you will not be signing David Tredinnick’s EDM 908 which seeks to undermine the Science and Technology Select
Committee report on Homeopathy.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Kurucz
likewise:
I was pleased to hear of the recent examination of NHS funding and provision of homeopathy by the science and technology committee. On looking for information on its findings, I was concerned find MP David Tredinnick’s early day motion, EDM 908.
I hope that you will not be signing this motion that seeks to undermine and discredit the report and instead allow it’s evidence based findings to stand on their own merit.
Its………it’s……..oh dear……never mind, the MP’s probably don’t know the difference, either.
Good blog Canard. Good plan putting the writetothem link in as well. It couldn’t be easier to petition your MP via this site.
Re some of the above comments:
1. The system automatically puts your name and address in the letter. If your MP does not recognise you as a constituent from your address I suggest you get rid of him/her
2. It has a spell checker (although admittedly not a grammar checker)
My tuppenyworth was:
Dear Humfrey Malins,
I would urge you not to lend support to EDM 908.
This is an attempt to subvert a remarkably well researched piece of evidence.
The fact that it was raised by an advocate of astrology should raise sufficient doubts about the motives behind a blatant attempt to undermine a parliamentary investigation into mumbo-jumbo and quackery.
Yours sincerely,
John
(Off back to writetothem now to give my councillors and MEPs a hard time)
Here is my tupence worth!
Dear Barbara Follett,
Recently the Science and Technology Committee investigated the use of Homoeopathy in the UK. My intention in writing to you is to counter the letters that you may have received condemning the report.
I support fully the findings of the report, which was firm in its support of the role of the scientific method in Healthcare and also in asserting the rights of patients to be fully informed about the efficacy of the treatments they are prescribed.
I am confident that you will agree with me that the committee conducted a thorough and balanced investigation of the use of Homoeopathy in the NHS. If you have not already done so I urge you to review the report as I feel that it is important not to let uninformed public opinion rule over the health service and that the NHS should not be wasting funding on treatments that have been shown to have no significant effect over placebo.
I would also ask you to resist the attempts to support Andrew Dismore’s EDM, which misrepresents the work and findings of the Science and Technology Committee in this matter, and that you will encourage your colleagues to do likewise.
Yours sincerely
Ian Paisley has signed the EDM, amazing!
Wrote to my MP, David Davies, Con, Monmouth and got this reply
“Conservatives believe that the NHS should not rule out providing alternative therapies. Homeopathy and alternative treatments are are valuable source for Doctors to be able to draw upon…..” And “All therapies should be considered equally”
In the next constituency, Blaenau Gwent, Dai Davies (Ind labour) has signed the motion.
Weep!
“All therapies should be considered equally”?
I thought the homoeopaths wanted theirs considered more equally than others.
My MP is on the list of signers…Now what? I knew he was a lack wit, but still.
Name and shame..Leigh, Edward.
Rita: I appear to have a rogue apostrophe (oops) and of course a spell checker would have missed it. I was writing that at 2:30 AM
However, rather than grizzling about such trivia, I wonder if you actually did anything about the issue at hand and wrote to -=your=- MP?
Yes, it was a bit carping, wasn’t it? I don’t have an MP, as I live in Spain and have done for 25 years. Homeopathy’s creeping in here now – a friend was told to go to a homeopathist BY HER SPECIALIST DOCTOR not long ago. Sorry your beleaguered Health Service has to stump up for this nensense.
..or nonsense, as the case may be
I wrote to my MP, Sir George Young, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, as follows:
Dear George Young,
I am writing to you concerning EDM 908, proposed by David Tredinnick, and expressing concern about the SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHY. I hope you will oppose this EDM.
I believe that this report deserves a proper appraisal and is not
flawed as David Tredinnick suggests.
I would urge you to read the report and form your own view on its
findings.
I would further suggest that the evidence from West Kent PCT is
particularly significant. This is the only PCT that has conducted a
full review for the rationale of provision of homeopathic treatment
and, as such, decided to cease funding of such provision. Indeed, the Committee’s report looks at this evidence closely and recommends that the West Kent report is provided to other PCTs that continue to make provision but have not yet had a review.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Browne
I was hugely disappointed by his reply as follows:
Dear Ms Browne,
Thank you for your email dated March 3rd regarding homeopathic treatments in the NHS.
I am aware that there are differing views on the provision of homeopathic remedies, with some arguing that there is not enough evidence to support their availability via the NHS, while others argue that greater access to complementary therapies in the NHS might lead to widespread benefits.
Conservatives believe that the NHS should not rule out providing alternative therapies. Homeopathy and alternative treatments are a valuable resource for doctors to be able to draw upon when offering treatments. Where a doctor and a patient believe that a homeopathic treatment may be of benefit to the patient, I believe doctors should be free to prescribe that medicine. All therapies should be considered equally, and decisions on whether or not to provide them on the NHS should be evidence-based, as is the case with all other conventional medicines and treatments.
Best wishes,
George Young
So I replied:
Dear Sir George,
I am disappointed by your reply. It is not the case that there are ’some arguing that there is not enough evidence to support their availability via the NHS’. Rather these ’some’ are arguing that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than placebos. This was the finding of the committee – and why I would urge you to read their report.
Given that properly conducted studies show that homeopathy is no more effective than placebos, I would suggest that there are better things for the NHS to be spending its money on than ’sugar pills’.
It is precisely because I believe that medical treatment should be evidence-based that I urge you to study the committee’s report and to oppose the EDM. There is not a single reputable study that demonstrates the effectiveness of homeopathy. As you say – all therapies should be considered equally. That means not resorting to treatments whose efficacy has been shown to be equal, at best, to a placebo.
And George Young responded:
Many thanks for the further email.
At least he has not signed the EDM!
That is the exact same reply I got from David Davies, word for word. Is this official Con party stance
It is fair to say that “considering things equally” and “considering things to be equal” are not the same things at all. If your MPs don’t know this then you are all doomed.
Of course homeopathy and all other quackery should be considered with exactly the same rigour as all real medicine. And when it is it is always found to be… well, quackery – fraudulent medicine.
But this is not what homeopaths and your MP supporters of homeopathy mean, is it! I think their motivations are more interesting, and more worthwhile pursuing, than their actual support of obvious quackery.
It’s interesting to note that the following lines appear to be a stock phrase among Conservative MP’s:
“Conservatives believe that the NHS should not rule out providing alternative therapies. Homeopathy and alternative treatments are a valuable resource for doctors to be able to draw upon when offering treatments.”
And when I say interesting, I actually mean worrying.
Was beginning to notice that too. Headline: Conservatives Promote Fake Medicine.
“Homeopathy and alternative treatments are a valuable resource for doctors to be able to draw upon when offering treatments”
No different from saying fake investments and fake profits are valuable resources for financial advisers and stockbrokers to draw upon when offering savings and investment services.
I mean, why is Bernie Madoff in prison when he was only offering a service for which there was a demand? And most of his clients were perfectly happy most of the time. No-one can deny the positive therapeutic effect of believing one has made big profits…
I am a little amused to see the surprise of some of the posters. They don’t know their British political history. The Conservatives have always been against self-appointed elites/ ‘intellectuals’ colluding with a view to restrict patient choice in the NHS. It is perceived by them as arrogant and leftist.
Whether or not water really has a memory is irrelevant. There is a very long waiting list for the homeopathic hospitals. Not only that there are a number of GPs who quietly refer ‘heartsink’ patients onto homeopaths outside the hospitals. This has been going on for years. The fact remains that there is a considerable demand for homeopaths.
That should then, however, not be called “conservative” but “populist” or “opportunist”.
Would you like to extend the NHS coverage to Chanel No. 5 if enough voters demand it?
/Daniel
If a significant majority in a proper democracy vote for something then of course they should have it by rights. It could be free Noddy books. Anything. Who are you to decide what other people have or don’t have? Who voted Antares into power? Nobody. Not one single vote.
Words such as ‘populism’ are an absolute giveaway. They are always used by people who imagine that they are superior to others and can organise others lives properly/ ‘correctly’.
“The majority is always right.”
As tempting as it is, it is simply not true. The majority can do a lot of stupid things, like voting GW into office and helping Creationism into schools (the US), invest in tulips (Holland, 17th century) or exterminating Jews (Germany).
The majority also once firmly believed that the Earth was flat and that the stars were moving on crystal spheres.
Mind you, I am not saying “Antares is always right” – I am merely trying to point out that there is MASSIVE objective evidence that homeopathy is a sham and that it -like most other alternative therapies- is simply a mass delusion.
It doesn’t cure you. It merely entertains you while your body does the work. And once you feel better, you give all the credit to the ritual instead of your magnificent immune system.
Why should the quack practitioners then receive government money for work THAT THEY DO NOT DO?
/Daniel
It seems Antares is getting desperate here. Where did I say “The majority is always right”. Why the quotation marks? Of course the majority can get it wrong, especially when manipulated and unschooled.
The reason it is essential for self-appointed (scientific) ‘elites’ not to take control is that they will be loath to ever let go and inevitably they will put themselves and their friends first. This is why in modern day Britain most people accept that a pluralist democracy is the best alternative – Even if we end up paying for things we personally don’t see the need for eg rap music on Radio One and in your case homeopathy.
Pluralism will normally keep the REALLY MAD people away from absolute power. The fundamentalists and extremists of various persuasions. Religious fundamentalists and even quite possibly scientific fundamentalists. It is the best way to avoid bloodbaths and gross economic inefficiency.
Regarding homeopathy, I accept that homeopaths really ought to demonstrate that they can recognise one remedy from another without reading the bottle…Even if they have to spend months ‘reproving’ them in large groups over months. That so many fail to understand this obvious problem is lamentable. I would also like well-known successful homeopaths of goodwill to come forward and have their practices audited. In both cases there would be all manner of obstacles. Who would want to be the focus of mud-slinging and slander?
Both exercises would take time, money, organisation, mutual goodwill and trust.
With RCTs and scientific research, it’s generally not the “scientific elite” who have power.
It’s the results of the research.
Please read your post again: “If a significant majority in a proper democracy vote for something then of course they should have it by rights.”
Alright, you did not say “always right”, I apologize, but the point remains – if there is no good evidence for its efficacy, then -my opinion- it should not be funded with public money, no matter how many fans it has. And just to be very, very clear: I would also apply the same rules to conventional drugs and treatments.
Why you are trying so hard to make me an “elitist” or a “scientific fundamentalist” is, however, beyond me. I thought my argument was reasonable. Scientific scrutiny is more or less the opposite of fundamentalism, and the relativism you are trying to establish here is rather depressing: Just because religious (and other supernatural) fundamentalists are deeply convinced of their ideas does not reversely mean that any deep conviction is fundamentalism. Please read about the scientific method and the great cares that are taken NOT to delude oneself before you equate religion with research. (May I suggest this: http://apexnaturalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/science_vs_religion.gif )
OK, it’s late:
Fact: Homeopathy is nothing but a very convincing placebo. (Good evidence for that, until, very unlikely, proven otherwise)
Conclusion for serious conditions: Drop the sugar pills and go to a real doctor. Practitioners who claim cure here should face severe consequences.
Conclusion for minor, self-limiting conditions: Unclear. Does the beneficial placebo response outweigh the serious ethical issues with lying to your patients about efficacy (and science and conventional medicine…)? My personal opinion, at least don’t do it with public money.
But that’s just me.
The “proper democracy” will decide, but please allow me to throw in my share of argument.
Good night
and best regards,
Daniel
Got a letter (yes, an actual letter!) from Jim Cousins MP (Labour for Newcastle-upon-Tyne) saying:
“I can confirm I have not signed this EDM”.
Came in a house of commons envelope. I feel special
I got a letter from my MP. I didn’t realise government ministers cannot sign EDMs, but he said he would forward the message to the minister involved.
Let’s see what happens.
[...] the homeopaths gave to the recent Science and Technology Select Committee Hearing on homeopathy, is misleading. In any discussion weighting scientific and medical evidence, the simple NUMBER of published [...]
[...] of presenting evidence to the recent House of Commons Select Committee on homeopathy. They were denied the opportunity to appear before the MPs: a situation that would have been unthinkable ten years [...]
Just wanted to say I have had a letter in response to my email to Hugh Bayley (which I pasted as a comment somewhere above).
Rather embarrasingly he appears to have misread my letter and thinks I wanted him to sign EDM908! Luckily he appears to have decided to fob off this alternate universe version of me by leaving his reply until it’s too late for him to sign the EDM. He also states that he’s been lobbied on both sides of the issue and that it is his view that therapy decisions should be made on the basis of scientific evidence- so that sounds good.
Next time I write to an MP I’ll have to be clearer in what I want them to do!
[...] his stance on such issues as the funding of homeopathy, scientific research with animals, womens abortion rights and the legalisation of assisted dying [...]
[...] Posted by gimpy on June 2, 2010 David Tredinnick, Conservative MP for Bosworth, fulfils a traditional role, required of those who are outliers to the left of the ability curve, in the Westminster Village. The idiot. This has enabled him to have a long undistinguished career, previously he was best known for his role in the ‘cash for questions‘ affair, taking a cheque for £1,000 to ask a question in parliament, now his concerns are quacks and their questions. [...]
I wrote to my MP, Gareth Johnson (Conservative) and his reply says:
It could be that it’s because he’s a new MP and doesn’t have the normal Conservative party official lines! But it is good to hear that he won’t sign.