I think I can see your problem. Let me solve it for you.

HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT WORK

Anyone who thinks it does is a fool. Anyone who sells homeopathic remedies is either a fool or a crook. There is no third option.

The entire basis of your posts is that support of homeopathy is a reasonable position, arguable from logic and supported by facts. It is neither. Discussion of homeopathy does not require ‘balance’ from its supporters. As LCN has said, claimed expertise in homeopathy is itself a disqualification from being take seriously, or at least it should be if we were governed on rational principles.

Should government policy on burglary take into account the interests of the members of the house-breaking community and their paid representatives?

Those would be the trials mentioned in the evidence submitted by Robert Mathie on behalf of the BHA, which can be seen in the report (Ev 38 at paragraph 3.2.1).

Another thing that EDM really ought to have regretted is that the EDM itself seems to have ignored the 68 trials that the BHA’s evidence categorised as “not statistically conclusive”. Judging from material on the BHA website, and Mathie’s 2003 paper “The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature” Homeopathy (2003) 92, 84–91 (the BHA’s figures seem to be an updated version of figures from this paper) these 68 trials (to quote from the 2003 paper) are those “that fail to discern any inter-group differences” between the homoeopathy group and the control group.

Other than that, on this page, I saw a small box on the left sidebar that says: “The Quackometer has been developed by Andy Lewis.” FWIW, I tested the Quackometer on three names: David Tredinnick, Ben Goldacre, and Andy Lewis. All three names received the same 2 canards: “This person has significant Quackery associated with them on the web!” Very insightful.

So never mind the report, you haven’t even read this page.

Let’s stick to some facts.

1) I make it quite clear in my intro that quackery is not about dishonesty – it is about wrong ideas, supestition, delusion – only sometime charlatanism. You have failed to show that I call people dishonest, as you claim. Have you the courage to apologise?

2) You call me dishonest. Yet, you have failed to show any statement I have made was deliberately misleading. Nothing. As I said, I find it amazing that supporters of homeopathy cannot see that their critics are acting in good faith. You have to see us as nasty in order to protect your own worldview. Again, will you apologise, or state exactly where and why you think I am dishonest?

3) The enquiry was not a court of law. There was no-one to put to a ‘fair hearing’ and no-one was accused of anything. Your moan that justice was denied is a rather hollow complaint.

4) Yes. All facts need to be considered. The MPs pointed out that they were appalled at how submissions from homeopaths failed to do this – cherry picking only favourable points and ignoring the science that casts serious doubts on homeopathy. Can you describe the evidence that would overrule the conclusions of basic science and the evidence from metaanalyses?

5) You clearly associate Goldacre with lobbyists. Perhaps you are losing track of your own arguments here. Would you like to withdraw your smear given that you have no evidence for it?

6) As you state, you have not read the report. You are repeating second or third hand criticisms of a report you cannot even be bothered to understand. If you looked at the report, you will see that there were over 50 responses, and from those, oral evidence was taken from homeopathic doctors such as Peter Fisher and Robert Mathie and homeopathic producers, sellers and pharmacists Robert Wilson and Paul Bennett. It is absurd to suggest the report did not seek wide input. The report contains quotes and input both from writter and oral submissions. You are clutching at non-existent straws.

7) The Society of Homeopaths fail to understand what the enquiry was about: it was about the evidence for homeopathy and how it was being used in government policy. Yes – it was not a simple enquiry into whether homeopathy worked or not – but how that evidence was used in policy making. Part of that should be an understanding of the strength of evidence. The Society, in their whiny response, completely miss the point – as do you.

If you wish to continue, I would suggest first – you provide evidence for my dishonesty here, or retract. Evidence that I call any individual homeopath dishonest, without sound reason, or retract.

Are you a person of courage and integrity? Or are you going to hide behind your pseudonym and continue with your bluster?

Truth Seeker – First of all, I would challenge you to find anywhere on my blog where I call someone dishonest without sound reason. Anyone. Anywhere.

[TS]Canard, your blog is called “Quackometer”. Its very purpose is to label people “quacks”, that is, charlatans. After seeing your response to EDM 908, it is clear to me that you have scant regard for the facts. Your notion of “sound reason” is just anything that coincides with your prejudice.[/TS]

Dishonesty implies deliberate deception. Where have I been deliberately deceptive in this post? State where, or have the honesty to withdraw your remark.

[TS]Canard, even your responses to me are dishonest and apparently deliberately so.[/TS]

To respond to your points…

1) You are being daft. What was the proper amount of time do you think MPs should have devoted to this subject? No matter what time you suggest, someone could always argue they should have made more time for their special witness.

[TS]Canard, the principles of justice require a fair hearing for any accused, however long that may take.[/TS]

2) The other witnesses may well have had reputations to uphold. If they had been shown to be wrong or foolish they would have indeed lost out. Did they? I think though you would be hard pressed to suggest this is equivalent to someone’s livelihood being at stake.

[TS]Canard, that would depend on whether their livelihood relies on people having confidence in what they say.[/TS]

I do not ‘equate with absolute truth’. I base my opinions on verifiable facts. That is quite different.

[TS]Canard, the question is whether you examine all of the facts or just the facts that match your prejudice. Those who claimed that the earth is flat also based their opinion on verifiable facts. They just did not have enough facts.[/TS]

For example, what evidence do you have that Ben Goldacre is a ‘lobbyist’ for ‘allopathic medicine’? None, I would suggest. It is a deliberate unevidenced smear. Indeed, Goldacre regularly attacks Big Pharma in his column (far more than homeopaths), his book Bad Science covered the evils of drug companies, and I believe his new book will solely be about bad things that pharma gets up to.

[TS]Okay, Canard, here is a verifiable fact for you. Where did I ever refer to Ben Goldacre as a “lobbyist”? Above, I mentioned that even if your opinions are based on verifiable facts, you clearly do not take trouble to get enough facts. Here you show that you do not even take trouble to verify your “verifiable facts”.[/TS]

I am used to homeopaths seeing the world one-dimensionally though and so I can see how you must assume Goldacre is a shill – despite having no evidence and, indeed, lots of contradictory evidence, if you looked for it.

[TS]Canard, here you imply that I am a “homeopath”. Do you have any “verifiable facts” to support that opinion?[/TS]

3) Which doctors that submitted to the enquiry should have been called? Can you name one that submitted evidence?

[TS]Canard, once you call this an “enquiry”, the burden of gathering facts is clearly upon the inquirers and no one else. You shift that burden; and, in so doing, you do a grave injustice to science. Your approach is mere quackery. It is the equivalent of declaring a cure for AIDS and inviting the general public to submit contrary facts. When no one bothers to respond to your call for submissions – perhaps due to a lack of information about your alleged cure or the nature of your request – then you announce that you have proof of the efficacy of your remedy. Sheer nonsense – that is what you purvey.[/TS]

4) I have in front of me the MPs report into homeopathy. It is A4 and an inch thick. I have read it. Have you?

[TS]Canard, I have the PDF file on my computer. It is 1.6MB and 275 pages long. I have read enough of the document to know that I am not interested to read all of it. If you have read all of it, then perhaps you have too much spare time on your hands. [/TS]

In it, I can see the Society of Homeopaths submissions. They failed to discuss the evidence for homeopathy and its relation to public policy – the themes of the enquiry. No wonder they were not called. They simply did not show they understood what they were asked to provide. Other people managed to ‘get it’. Why not SoH?

[TS]Canard, I am not a spokesperson for the SoH. However, twice I posted here a link to the response of the SoH to that very question. For someone who claims to base his opinions on facts, you really do not show much interest in examining facts that run contrary to your prejudice. Again, if you want an answer to that question, then presumably the best person to get it from is the SoH themselves. And, fortunately, the SoH have provided an answer on their Website at: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/latest-news/press-releases.aspx As it is now abundantly clear that your interest in facts does not go so far as to actually click an HTML link, let me quote what the SoH says in their press statement.

…
The Society of Homeopaths, the UK’s largest regulator of homeopaths, roundly rejects the findings of the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee Evidence Check: Homeopathy and has grave concerns about the processes that led to its report issued today.

Central to these concerns was a clarification issued at the outset of the oral evidence check by the Chair of the Committee itself, Phil Willis MP, who stated :

“…because there seems to be a little confusion about the nature of the work that we are doing, this is not an inquiry into whether homeopathy works or not. This is an inquiry which follows a series of evidence checks across a number of government departments to see whether in fact there was any evidence to support the Government’s policy towards homeopathy. I want to make that absolutely clear.”

Nevertheless, what then followed was clearly an inquiry into whether homeopathy works or not…
…[/TS]

Instead of submitting evidence, they wrote about how the very concept of evidence should be specially changed to suit them. As such, they looked foolish. You are simply wrong about this. But no doubt will pretend otherwise, heh, ‘Truth Seeker’? (oh, and the SoH press release does not say what you claim.)

[TS]Canard, I have no idea what you think I am claiming. However, the press statement at the link that I have now three times posted here begins with the words that I quote above.[/TS]

5) What rubbish. The committee sought input from all interested parties. As I say, the final report is an inch thick with submissions from all sorts. Will you admit you are yet again wrong?

[TS]Canard, as a seeker of truth, it would be hard for me to admit that I am “yet again wrong” when you have not yet shown that I have made a mistake nor have I yet acknowledged any mistake (something I would do if it were shown or I discovered that it is so). But perhaps in your mind those fictional events – you overcoming any of my arguments and I accepting your kind correction – may have taken place. In that case, in your mind, feel free to also imagine me admitting that I am “yet again wrong”.[/TS]

6) Once again – have you read the report? If not, can you say that they did not consider all evidence? Remember, the oral submissions were just one, rather small, part of the overall evidence gathered.

[TS]Canard, common sense will tell you that it is not necessary to read the report to contradict your assertion that the Committee “considered all evidence”. For example, you yourself have admitted that the Committee did not seek or consider evidence from other countries. And you even stated in your blog piece as follows: “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.” Logically, that is a clear statement – admission – by you that the Committee did not “consider all evidence”. Canard, for you to now claim that the Committee did “consider all evidence” is simply… well… confusing. Oh, heck, let me say it. If you have indeed read the entire report as you seem to be claiming, then one of your two statements – either that the Committee considered “all evidence” or that the Committee “appear to have selected witnesses who could give evidence most pertinent to the enquiry” – must be false. I wonder: Is that sound enough evidence to describe you as dishonest?[/TS]

So, have you read it? All 260+ pages? Yes or no?

[TS]Canard, I don’t know why you think you have to ask me the same question twice when I was happy enough to answer this question the first time. I repeat: “I have the PDF file on my computer. It is 1.6MB and 275 pages long. I have read enough of the document to know that I am not interested to read all of it. If you have read all of it, then perhaps you have too much spare time on your hands. ”[/TS]

7) The EDM is interesting, not because it is politically important, but because of how people like you have responded to the report. They have not read and make knee jerk reactions. Anything to discredit it.

[TS]Canard, your original statement was: “To think an EDM is in any way significant shows that you do not understand their nature.” And yet now you tell us that this EDM is “interesting” and that it has significance “because of how people have responded to the report”. As the EDM is also a response to the report of the HoC Committee, your argument is somewhat circular. In any event, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either EDMs are significant or they are not. Make up your mind.[/TS]

How is that Truth Seeking?

[TS]Canard, at the very least, it is truth seeking in so far as I am obliged to wade through all of your self-contradictions and pretensions. “Le Canard Noir presents: A Cure for All Known Nonsense”. To that my response is: Sheer quackery – physician, heal thyself.[/TS]