What alternative health

practitioners might not tell you

 

ebm-first.com

 

 

 

Ask for evidence

 

sas-i-dont-know-what-to-believe

 

Keep Libel out of Science

 

free speech is not for sale 165

 

1023

 

Note that some links will break as pages are moved, websites are abandoned, etc.

If this happens, please try searching for the page in the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.

Read the original article

"Homeopaths are dangerous quacks. They promote treatments which not only cannot possibly work based upon the laws of physics and chemistry, the clinical data shows that they in fact do not work. But in order to promote their snake oil they are telling the public that the H1N1 flu is not that bad (which is false) and they are fearmongering about the upcoming vaccine, which is safe and effective. The degree to which the public actually listens to the absurd claims of homeopaths is directly proportional to a resulting increase in suffering and death from treatable diseases." Steven Novella MD, Neurologica Blog (1st October 2009)

Read the original article

"A nine month old baby died unnecessarily in the most horrific way because of her parent's belief in the superiority and power of homeopathic sugar pills. Gloria suffered from severe eczema where the sores became severely infected. She constantly cried in pain and her skin became broken and oozing with fluid. She became malnourished and died. This case has very important implications for those who are seeking better ways to regulate the so-called 'complementary and alternative medicine' (CAM) sector here in the UK." The Quackometer (28th September 2009)

Read the original article

"What is quite remarkable about this is that the Society of Homeopaths has received lots of complaints over the past year or so about homeopaths blatantly breaching their code of ethics, giving dangerous advice about their magic versions of vaccination and selling sugar pills as a malaria prophylactic and all these have been met with stonewalling, obfuscation and a refusal to recognise the problem." The Quackometer (13th August 2009)

Read the original article

"If by some fluke you do manage to achieve full regulation, expect your cosy world to come crashing down very fast. Your quest for regulatory recognition will be hubris. It took over fifteen years for the chiropractors to realise they had been practising on borrowed time. Your regulatory nemesis will come much quicker." The Quackometer (29th July 2009)

Read the original article

"Science is what has resulted in lymphoma going from being a death sentence to one of the most treatable and survivable of cancers, particularly Hodgkin's lymphoma. Homeopathy is quackery, pure and simple, and hiring a quack apologist to run what should be a science-based organization sends a horrible message." Orac blogspot (15th July 2009)

Read the original article

Report of a homeopath and his wife who were found guilty of the manslaughter of their baby daughter who suffered from severe eczema and died of septicemia in 2002. After a four-week trial a Supreme Court jury took less than two days to reach its decision. The Crown argued the couple did not seek conventional medical treatment for their child, instead treating her with homeopathic drops. DC Science (5th June 2009)

Read the original article

"Does homeopathy increase survival in sepsis? Only if you think that a sip of water today will decrease your chance of dying in 6 months." Article by Mark Crislip, Science Based Medicine (22nd May 2009)

Read the original article

"What is unfortunate is that it might well be quite legitimate to discuss the benefits and risks of offering inert treatments, like homeopathy, to cancer patients if the patient feels they get benefit through some sort of placebo effect. But this is not a debate about clinical evidence, it is a debate about clinical ethics — is it acceptable to tell a patient a pill may work for them when we know it is just a placebo?" The Quackometer (14th April 2009)

Read the original article

"Ainsworths Pharmacy in Westminster is under investigation by the RPSGB after a referral by the MHRA. The drugs watchdog passed the case to the Society's Fitness to Practise team. The MHRA said "there did not seem to be a breach of medicines legislation" but added it had asked the RPSGB to consider "any ethical practice issues in relation to the advice that was provided during the consultation". The case was referred to the MHRA by The Sunday Telegraph." Chemist+Druggist (2009)