Reply With Quoteulp my gaffe... I got my data from http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsand...ords/party.cfm but it wouldn't paste as a table for some reason so I had to messa bout with it a bit and it looks like I messed up.Originally Posted by chaggle
Damn! Now it's 45 signatures and my devil worshiping theory is all shot to bits.
ulp my gaffe... I got my data from http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsand...ords/party.cfm but it wouldn't paste as a table for some reason so I had to messa bout with it a bit and it looks like I messed up.
Lets see why.That this House expresses concern at the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy;
Badly phrased. The committee invited written submissions in an open consultation. This was widely publicised and anybody should have been able to submit their evidence in writing. Oral submission would have been by invitation only. There were two oral panels.notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses,
One panel focused on NHS funding and provision of homeopathy
Witnessess were
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, Boots,
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science,
Dr Ben Goldacre, Doctor and Journalist
Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School
Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association,
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent
the other panel on MHRA licensing spoke with
Professor David Harper CBE, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health,
Mr Mike O'Brien QC, MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health,
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Again badly phrased. It would be easy to infer that only critics were invited. Yet that is clealry false with Robert Wilson, Paul Bennett, Dr Peter Fisher and Dr Robert Mathie invited to present the pro-homeopathy side of the argument. The committee did what we would from any even handed investigation and listened to testimony from both sides of the argument. It would be a concern if they didn'tincluding 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;
Tracy Brown and Ben Goldacre do have expertise on both the wider subject of homeopathy and the subject they were asked to speak on, which was NHS funding and provision of homeopathy. Dr Goldacre especially is a published author and academic with a lenghthy CV relatign to this very subject. To suggest otherwise is an unwarranted insult and rather unparliamentarily
Primary care trusts? They heard from Dr James Thallon for the West Ken PCT. That's the PCT which used to fund the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital but withdrew funding after a review of the evidence showed that homeopathy was no more effective than a placebo. They heard from Dr Peter Fisher, the Queens own Homeopath and they heard from Dr Robert Mathie of the British Homeopathic Association which last I checked was indeed another "relevant organisation" even if not the "Society of Homeopaths" themselves who it should be noted submitted written evidence twice.believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance;
The implications of the suggestion that balanced opinions were not sough is disingenuous in the extreme.
Again, I can only be charitable in assuming that The Right Honourable member for Bosworth is merely mistaken in his observations when it is clear from the report that written evidence was considered from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav" That the conclusions do not concur with this testimony doesn’t mean that the submission were not considered.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;
I can find no mention of this dubious statistic in the report. However I do find it in the Society of Homeopath's Press Release in response to the report. Both the Society of Homeopaths and David Tredinnick took the opportunity to submit written evidence. If neither of them at the time chose to expose such an unconvincing claim to the scrutiny of the committee then they cannot later complain that the committee did not examine it. I shall bravely fill that gap: cherry picking low quality, non-blinded trials is disingenuous rhetoric suited to targets without experience in analysing clinical claims. These results are not inconsistent with what would be expected from non-blinded trials filtered by publication bias. That's why we have higher quality meta analysis. Such analysis confirms there's nothing to homeopathy beyond placebo.regrets that the Committee ignored the 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective,
The current research is more than sufficient to answer the question. Homeopathy is a placebo. That government funding would be better directed at other areas in no way stops the homeopaths from continuing their pursuits with their own money.and that the Committee recommends no further research;
And why wouldn't they. I don't believe it has been suggested otherwise. However such policy makers would be foolish to ignore the sterling efforts of the science and technology committee.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.
Well that's Matt back to his usual standard then
Note that 206 signatories in 2007 are now 43 - a step in the right direction maybe?
Note also that there is a recent history of policy makers ignoring their scientific advisors, Professor Nutt comes to mind.
It's a strange list of MPs. Some of the most fundy right-wing and many of the Labour left-wing. They all believe in magic water? Aren't the likes of Widdecombe against magic? Don't Simpson and McDonnell sing "Away with all your superstitions" at their Campaign Group meetings?
Now in easy to use Letter to Your MP format
Dear ______________
I note that you have leant your support to Early Day Motion 908 tabled by the Right Honourable David Tredinnick MP.
I can certainly see why you might want to lend your support to such a motion. Maybe you simply have faith in homeopathy and wish to support any and every pro homeopathy statement. If that is the case I'm sorry to have bothered you. However it is perhaps more reasonable that you might be concerned with the apparent prejudice that the member for Boswoth implies was present in the proceedings.
I must declare that I find the claims of homeopaths to cure disease with nothing but a suggestion of any active ingredient to be beyond dubious. My review of best available clinical evidence indicates that the apparent effects are indeed nothing more than the result of suggestion; otherwise known as the placebo effect. James Randi's offer of $1m for anyone who can distinguish between two homeopathic preparations remains unclaimed as no clinical effect has ever been measured from these medicines. Even so I would take issue with an investigation which only took evidence from critics and offered no opportunity for others to provide balancing arguments. Yet my review of the report available online shows that things are not as you might have been lead to believe from an uncritical reading of this motion.
As well as an open submission policy for written evidence, the committee invited testimony from two panels
One panel focused on NHS funding and provision of homeopathy
Witnessess were
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, Boots,
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science,
Dr Ben Goldacre, Doctor and Journalist
Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School
Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association,
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent
the other panel on MHRA licensing spoke with
Professor David Harper CBE, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health,
Mr Mike O'Brien QC, MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health,
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
As you can see testimony was not limited to sceptics but included representatives for homeopathic researchers, manufacturers, practitioners, vendors and professional advocates. I'm therefore bemused by your right honourable colleague's objection that "the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy". It would not be very even handed to exclude the sceptical voice and listen only to these advocates. (and any finite number can be described as "limited") I've long been familiar with Dr Goldacre's award winning work in this area and am frankly puzzled at Mr Tredinnick's suggestion that this respected medical author and academic did not have sufficient expertise regarding the subject upon which he was asked to speak (NHS funding and provision of homeopathy) It strikes me as an unwarranted and almost unparliamentarily insult.
From reading this motion's comment that "[this house] believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance" You might be surprised to learn more about the oral testimony was received from Dr James Thallon, Medical Director NHS West Kent. This is the primary care trust which until recently funded the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital. You might equally be surprised to learn one of the witnesses, Dr Peter Fisher, does indeed seem to be a doctor who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting. Dr Fisher is homeopath to none other than her Majesty the Queen. Similarly whilst the British Homeopathic Association differs in many ways to the Society of Homeopaths, it is still a relevant organisation advocating homeopathy so the fact that their representative Dr Robert Mathie was invited to give testimony might seem a little at odds with the wording of the motion.
Then there is the observation that "the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, … or from India" Again this is somewhat at odds with the clear written submissions included in the published report from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav" Can the member for Boswoth be confusing considering their submissions with concurring?
Mr Tredinnick then castigates the committee for ignoring his claim that of 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective. It might come as some surprise that I can find no mention of the claim anywhere in any of the written submissions published in the report. Not even the one from Mr Tredinnick himself, or the two submissions from the Society of Homeopaths who did however see fit to mention it in a press release issued in response to the report's publication. I won't speculate upon why both the SOH and Mr Tredinnick wish to quote such a statistic when playing to the court of public opinion but chose not to subject it to the scrutiny of a committee of trained scientists. I will merely comment that we cannot fault the committee for not considering a claim which was not brought to their attention.
Finally I comment on the motion's call "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" My brief scan of the report doesn’t reveal that there is any suggestion contained within it that this policy should change. Given the character of the rest of the motion I'm inclined to stop looking and presume that this is yet another baseless insinuation.
I hope that my analysis of the motion has been enlightening for you and ask you to consider withdrawing your name from this misleading motion.
Yours sincerely
_____________
Anyone care to do a fact check on the bolded sections before I blog it and encourage constituents to send to their MPs
Great letter Matt.
Unfortunately, or is it fortunately, my MP is not on the list.
skb
Mine neither. For all his faults he does have a good evidence based grasp of most health issues.Great letter Matt
Unfortunately, or is it fortunately, my MP is not on the list.
skb
Any idea if the Queen's official homeopath equates to the Queen's actual homeopath?
My MP is Dr. Liam Fox (or it would be if I still lived in England). I'm pleased to say he isn't on the list.
Caveat: Drunkeness
Google seems to think its a Dr Fisher (clinical director of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital), differentiating between actual and official capacities is somewhat beyond my current drunken googlefoo.
I'll post this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/s...08/2361569.htm
and this
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...is-401197.html.
and this
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...r/profile.html
This one http://www.naturalmatters.net/articl...le=3032&cat=85
seems quite interesting.
I'm not really sure where to draw the line between PCTs and referalls from PCTs to the RLHH but I think, if we can take the last link on face value (do I need to reiterate that I'm drunk and in no position to make sound judgements, yes I think I do) that Dr Fisher is indeed involved, too a demissioning extent, in the utilisation of homoeopathy in a PCT setting.
Does that make sense? I feel I should have used 'the implacation is' somewhere but hey I did start my post with a caveat.
skb
Last edited by skbuncks; 11th March 2010 at 03:32 AM. Reason: Take note woosters. Edited for only one spelling mistake.
...that's 'diminishing' extent. Curses to ITA and blurry eyesight.
skb
Nice one I can now be relatively confident that Dr Fisher does see patients in his capacity as a homeopath.
I'm considering a letter for those of us whose MP has not signed, proposing an ammendment to this EDM
OK there's a problem with the other bolded section.
Basically I didn't look very hard. What can I say? I wanted to rush off and see my wife and kids rather than contiue with fastidious fact checking.Finally I comment on the motion's call "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" My brief scan of the report doesn’t reveal that there is any suggestion contained within it that this policy should change. Given the character of the rest of the motion I'm inclined to stop looking and presume that this is yet another baseless insinuation.
and21. We recommend that if personal health budgets proceed beyond the pilot stage the Government should not allow patients to buy non-evidence-based treatments such as homeopathy with public money. (Paragraph 104)
So I guess I should strike that last paragraph from the letter.23. The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS. (Paragraph 110)
24. We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals—hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos—should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths. (Paragraph 111)
In the meantime I've come up with an ammendment to suggest.
That this House expresses support for the procedures behind the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the Committee took oral evidence from a broad range of witnesses, including both advocates and critics of homeopathy; upholds the expertise of medical doctor, author and academic, Dr Ben Goldacre to speak on this subject as well as Tracey Brown's experience in combating anti scientific rhetoric; observes that testimony was heard from the only primary care trust to respond to the invitation to submit evidence, which happens to be one of an increasing number to withdraw funding for homeopathy; additionally observes that testimony was heard from Doctor Peter Fisher, who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting, and another relevant organisation, namely the British Homeopathic Association; notes that the Committee did consider evidence from abroad, publishing the written submissions from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav"; is pleased that the committee considered the best available clinical analyses such as Shang et al and notes that if the member for Bosworth wanted his claim of 63 out of 74 significant RCT conclusions upholding the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments to be placed under expert scrutiny, then he should not have omitted it from his own written submission; and that the multi billion dollar worldwide homeopathic industry can fund its own research without a recommendation for further spending from the public purse.
Allright, new letters,
I know you're all predispossed to agree but I need criticism here so lets be good skeptics and rip them apart to make them better.
First of all to the signatories again. I've omitted that final charge that there's no threat been made to the PCT's "sovereignty" in funding homeopathy, I've struck out the charge that the insult to Ben and Tracy is almost unparliamentary. It may be true but is likely to scare off support.
Dear ______________
I note that you have leant your support to Early Day Motion 908 tabled by the Right Honourable David Tredinnick MP.
I can certainly see why you might want to lend your support to such a motion. Maybe you simply have faith in homeopathy and wish to support any and every pro homeopathy statement. If that is the case I'm sorry to have bothered you. However it is perhaps more reasonable that you might be concerned with the apparent prejudice that the member for Boswoth implies was present in the proceedings.
I must declare that I find the claims of homeopaths to cure disease with nothing but a suggestion of any active ingredient to be beyond dubious. My review of best available clinical evidence indicates that the apparent effects are indeed nothing more than the result of suggestion; otherwise known as the placebo effect. James Randi's offer of $1m for anyone who can distinguish between two homeopathic preparations remains unclaimed as no clinical effect has ever been measured from these medicines. Even so I would take issue with an investigation which only took evidence from critics and offered no opportunity for others to provide balancing arguments. Yet my review of the report available online shows that things are not as you might have been lead to believe from an uncritical reading of this motion.
As well as an open submission policy for written evidence, the committee invited testimony from two panels. From the report -
One panel focused on NHS funding and provision of homeopathy
Witnesses were
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, Boots,
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science,
Dr Ben Goldacre, Doctor and Journalist
Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School
Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association,
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent
the other panel on MHRA licensing spoke with
Professor David Harper CBE, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health,
Mr Mike O'Brien QC, MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health,
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
As you can see testimony was not limited to sceptics but included representatives from homeopathic researchers, manufacturers, practitioners, vendors and professional advocates. I'm therefore bemused by your right honourable colleague's objection that "the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy". It would not be very even handed to exclude the sceptical voice and listen only to these advocates. (and any finite number can be described as "limited") I've long been familiar with Dr Goldacre's award winning work in this area and am frankly puzzled at Mr Tredinnick's suggestion that this respected medical author and academic did not have sufficient expertise regarding the subject upon which he was asked to speak (NHS funding and provision of homeopathy) It strikes me as unwarranted.
From reading this motion's comment that "[this house] believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance" You might be surprised to learn more about the oral testimony was received from Dr James Thallon, Medical Director NHS West Kent. This is the primary care trust which until recently funded the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital. You might equally be surprised to learn one of the witnesses, Dr Peter Fisher, does indeed seem to be a doctor who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting. Dr Fisher is homeopath to none other than her Majesty the Queen. Similarly whilst the British Homeopathic Association differs in many ways to the Society of Homeopaths, it is still a relevant organisation advocating homeopathy so the fact that their representative Dr Robert Mathie was invited to give testimony might seem a little at odds with the wording of the motion.
Then there is the observation that "the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, … or from India" Again this is somewhat at odds with the clear written submissions included in the published report from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav" Can the member for Boswoth be confusing considering their submissions with concurring?
Finally Mr Tredinnick then castigates the committee for ignoring his claim that of 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective. It might come as some surprise that I can find no mention of the claim anywhere in any of the written submissions published in the report. Not even the one from Mr Tredinnick himself, or the two submissions from the Society of Homeopaths who did however see fit to mention it in a press release issued in response to the report's publication. I won't speculate upon why both the SOH and Mr Tredinnick wish to quote such a statistic when playing to the court of public opinion but chose not to subject it to the scrutiny of a committee of trained scientists. I will merely comment that we cannot fault the committee for not considering a claim which was not brought to their attention.
I hope that my analysis of the motion has been enlightening for you and ask you to consider withdrawing your name from this ambiguous motion or even supporting a clarifying amendment which I have drafted below and is included in a letter writing campaign to a number of your collegues..
That this House expresses support for the procedures behind the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the committee took oral evidence from a broad range of witnesses, including both advocates and critics of homeopathy; upholds the expertise of medical doctor, author and academic, Dr Ben Goldacre to speak on this subject as well as Tracey Brown's experience in combating anti scientific rhetoric; observes that testimony was heard from the only primary care trust to respond to the open invitation to submit evidence, which happens to be one of an increasing number to withdraw funding for homeopathy; additionally observes that testimony was heard from Doctor Peter Fisher, who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting, and another relevant organisation, namely the British Homeopathic Association; notes that the Committee did consider evidence from abroad, publishing the written submissions from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav"; is pleased that the committee considered the best available clinical analyses such as Shang et al and notes that if the member for Bosworth wanted his claim of 63 out of 74 significant RCT conclusions upholding the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments to be placed under expert scrutiny, then he should not have omitted it from his own written submission; and that the billion dollar worldwide homeopathic industry can fund its own research without a recommendation for further spending from the public purse.
I would also be grateful if you could forward my concerns to the Secretary of State for his comments.
Yours sincerely
_____________
And now the letter to non-signatories
Dear ______________
I was disturbed to read of support for an Early Day Motion 908 tabled by the Right Honourable David Tredinnick MP. I am glad to see that you have not leant your name to this anti-scientific diatribe.
I can certainly see why your colleagues might want to lend their support to such a motion. Maybe they simply have faith in homeopathy and wish to support any and every pro homeopathy statement. However it is perhaps more reasonable that they might be concerned with the apparent prejudice that the member for Boswoth implies was present in the proceedings.
I must declare that I find the claims of homeopaths to cure disease with nothing but a suggestion of any active ingredient to be beyond dubious. My review of best available clinical evidence indicates that the apparent effects are indeed nothing more than the result of suggestion; otherwise known as the placebo effect. James Randi's offer of $1m for anyone who can distinguish between two homeopathic preparations remains unclaimed as no clinical effect has ever been measured from these medicines. Even so I would take issue with an investigation which only took evidence from critics and offered no opportunity for others to provide balancing arguments. Yet my review of the report available online shows that things are not as they might have been lead to believe from an uncritical reading of this motion.
As well as an open submission policy for written evidence, the committee invited testimony from two panels. From the report -
One panel focused on NHS funding and provision of homeopathy
Witnesses were
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, Boots,
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science,
Dr Ben Goldacre, Doctor and Journalist
Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School
Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association,
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent
the other panel on MHRA licensing spoke with
Professor David Harper CBE, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health,
Mr Mike O'Brien QC, MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health,
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
As you can see contrary to the implications of EDM 908 testimony was not limited to sceptics but included representatives from homeopathic researchers, manufacturers, practitioners, vendors and professional advocates. I'm therefore bemused by your right honourable colleague's objection that "the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy". It would not be very even handed to exclude the sceptical voice and listen only to these advocates. (and any finite number can be described as "limited") I've long been familiar with Dr Goldacre's award winning work in this area and am frankly puzzled at Mr Tredinnick's suggestion that this respected medical author and academic did not have sufficient expertise regarding the subject upon which he was asked to speak (NHS funding and provision of homeopathy) It strikes me as unwarranted.
From reading this motion's comment that "[this house] believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance" You might be surprised to learn more about the oral testimony was received from Dr James Thallon, Medical Director NHS West Kent. This is the primary care trust which until recently funded the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital. You might equally be surprised to learn that one of the witnesses, Dr Peter Fisher, does indeed seem to be a doctor who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting. Dr Fisher is homeopath to none other than her Majesty the Queen. Similarly whilst the British Homeopathic Association differs in many ways to the Society of Homeopaths, it is still a relevant organisation advocating homeopathy so the fact that their representative Dr Robert Mathie was invited to give testimony might seem a little at odds with the wording of the motion.
Then there is the observation that "the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, … or from India" Again this is somewhat at odds with the clear written submissions included in the published report from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav" Can the member for Boswoth be confusing considering their submissions with concurring?
Finally Mr Tredinnick then castigates the committee for ignoring his claim that of 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective. It might come as some surprise that I can find no mention of the claim anywhere in any of the written submissions published in the report. Not even the one from Mr Tredinnick himself, or the two submissions from the Society of Homeopaths who did however see fit to mention it in a press release issued in response to the report's publication. I won't speculate upon why both the SOH and Mr Tredinnick wish to quote such a statistic when playing to the court of public opinion but chose not to subject it to the scrutiny of a committee of trained scientists. I will merely comment that we cannot fault the committee for not considering a claim which was not brought to their attention.
I hope that my analysis of the motion has been enlightening for you and ask you to consider supporting a clarifying amendment which I have drafted below and is included in a letter writing campaign to a number of your colleagues..
That this House expresses support for the procedures behind the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy; notes that the committee took oral evidence from a broad range of witnesses, including both advocates and critics of homeopathy; upholds the expertise of medical doctor, author and academic, Dr Ben Goldacre to speak on this subject as well as Tracey Brown's experience in combating anti scientific rhetoric; observes that testimony was heard from the only primary care trust to respond to the open invitation to submit evidence, which happens to be one of an increasing number to withdraw funding for homeopathy; additionally observes that testimony was heard from Doctor Peter Fisher, who uses homeopathy in a primary care setting, and another relevant organisation, namely the British Homeopathic Association; notes that the Committee did consider evidence from abroad, publishing the written submissions from "Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis," "European Central Council of Homeopaths" and "Dr Vijay Vaishnav"; is pleased that the committee considered the best available clinical analyses such as Shang et al and notes that if the member for Bosworth wanted his claim of 63 out of 74 significant RCT conclusions upholding the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments to be placed under expert scrutiny, then he should not have omitted it from his own written submission; and that the billion dollar worldwide homeopathic industry can fund its own research without a recommendation for further spending from the public purse.
I would also be grateful if you could forward my concerns to the Secretary of State for his comments.
Yours sincerely
_____________
Skeptics in Scotland please note that as health is a devolved matter you would also be well advised to locate and email your MSP.
(Particularly if your MSP happens to be the Woefully wooful Mary Scanlon)
MSP - email addresses can be found on the Scottish parliament website
and there is the ubiquitous facebook group here.
We hope to have an e-petition up on the parliamentary site soon - if not something will be sorted shortly.
We have a suggested standard email here.
Please do sign up if you are Scottish - may explore the idea of having an "anti-homeopathy and quackery demo" at some point if there is enough interest.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks