My opinion on Homeopathy’s Surprising Allies

Phil at AVPS has just blogged on the suprising allies of the homeopathy cause. They include three left-wing MPs John McDonnell, Alan Simpson and Jeremy Corbyn – but Phil has gone straight in there to ask why

have [they] joined forces with the Conservative member for moonbatshire to get the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee to take another look at the “evidence” for homeopathy. What is wrong with these people? What possible motive could these otherwise well-respected socialists have for backing this quackery?

The EDM is as follows:

EDM 908 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, 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; 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; 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; 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; 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.

Source: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40517

My thoughts on this, which I have voiced over at the AVPS website, is that since I can’t imagine John McDonnell et al support that shit, probably wouldn’t want taxpayers to pay for placebos, and I’d guess (out of congruence with their other pricniples) that they’d like to see libel reform, that there must be more to it.

It is possible, simply, that those three that stuck out for Phil wanted to hear more from PCT experts, just to have their backing and credability to back things up. With things like this, often the motion for and against does not sum up one person’s entire judgement, but they have to vote on whatever one is closest. For example, I am not for or against fox hunting, strictly speaking, I am for it being regulated on account of need, but against it being the bloodsport it has been turned into. If it was a case of for or against I wouldn’t have a clear platform, and would have to go with the closest of the two (I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but thank goodness for the Lib Dems who do have a third way on this, see Lembit Opik and the Middle Way Group, then Dave Semple’s article here – though I will add he has never been third way, and good on him).

This, I should imagine is what has happened here, or at least I hope so.

I saw Ben Goldacre give an incredible 15-minutes at a pub in victoria the other night, along with the excellent Dr Evan Harris (I’m not now being paid by the Lib Dems, I should add), and many more, where he was unscripted, huffing and puffing from being late, then dashing off like the vanishing mediator. I think David Tredinnick  has a loose tongue, he shouldn’t be so sure Goldacre is not an expert. Though, back to the point, it maybe has to do with PCT voices…just my guess/hope.