Reply to NZ Homeopathic Council Mass Overdose Press Release

January 30th, 2010 saw the first concerted world wide attempt to open the eyes of the general public to the reality of what Homeopathy really is.

The effort started with the 10:23 movement in the UK but was quickly picked up by many other skeptical groups around the world. The event was scheduled to start at 10:23am so, living in the future, Christchurch New Zealand was the first to hit the start time. We managed to get 25-30 people show up for the event which was pretty good for 2-3 days preparation.

We had TV crews from 3News and One News show up and got articles on a number of their sites.

"Call to remove homeopathics from shops" was one of these. It was a short piece but what was said seemed significant.

"The local pharmacy guild has no plans to stop selling the remedies, saying there is a place for them so long as customers are told they only may help."

I'm wondering what that place is?

I'm also wondering how they determine that customers are actually being informed correctly. I went into Hanafins on High Street, Christchurch to pick up my homeopathic "remedy" to OD on and talked to one of the staff there about 10:23. She had no idea what homeopathy actually was. She claimed it was just another natural remedy and had no inkling that there was no active ingredient in it. So from that point of view how can the Pharmacy Guild assure us that customers are being sold products with informed consent?

The event did prompt a Press Release from Mary Glaisyer of The New Zealand Council of Homeopaths however.

"Press release – mass overdose" raises a number of points that I would like to see The New Zealand Council of Homeopaths address. There is a numbered list of points that I've replied to below, some of which request a response, not that I expect one.

1. The concept of “overdosing” is one that is peculiar to conventional medicine where material doses are used. In homeopathic remedies above the 12th potency no molecule of the material substance remains. Therefore overdosing cannot happen.

You freely admit there is nothing in the water?

2. Just because there is nothing material in the homeopathic remedy it does not mean that there is no “active ingredient.” Recent research has shown that it could be the electromagnetic property of the homeopathic remedy that is instrumental in its effectiveness.

You say; Just because there is nothing material in the homeopathic remedy it does not mean that there is no “active ingredient.” Actually, by definition, that's exactly what it means.

You also say recent research has shown that it could be the electromagnetic property of the homeopathic remedy that is instrumental in its effectiveness.

This study is well known and has already been discredited as a study supporting homeopathy. The study itself was not related to homeopathy at all and homeopaths are making a false analogy when they pull this out. There are a number of things about the study and the report that are worrisome in and of themselves but that is besides the point. The aim of the study was not connected to homeopathy in any way.

More details on this can be found here;
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081

4. Recently a small group tried to get the Minister of Health in the United Kingdom to remove homeopathy from the National Health Service. The Minister of Health has stated that it is up to clinicians what they prescribe.

Your implication is incorrect on this point. I'm assuming you were actually referring to the Science and Technology Committee being asked by the UK government to consider the evidence for homoeopathy?

The session is available here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5221

As of this posting the report is still in preparation.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm

The implication given in this point is that the "small group" had failed when this was not yet the case. The "small group" was actually a decent number of very well known, very qualified and respected scientists. The "Health Minister" was actually the Science and Technology Committee. You claimed they "tried" which implies it also failed as you're referring to it in the past tense, while the Committee is still preparing the response. You finish with "The Minister of Health has stated that it is up to clinicians what they prescribe" but I have not been able to find this in the transcript at all and I don't recall hearing when I watched it live. I freely admit that I may have missed it. Could you please provide the reference to this?

5. Studies show the effectiveness of homeopathy

Studies showing the effectiveness of homeopathy don't tend to stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.

6. The demonstration does nothing except demonstrate the ignorance of
the participants as to the philosophy and practice of homeopathy.

Ignoring the ad hominem attack, the demonstration does show that the participants have enough of an understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and common sense to know they can't be harmed by a placebo effect.