I’ve been busy earning a wage the past few days so apologies for this rant coming a little late. On Tuesday the British Medical Association came out and said that Homeopathy “should be banned from use in the NHS” and that “pharmacists should remove homeopathic remedies from their shelves because this indicated they were medicines”, it suggested that these remedies should be placed on a shelf marked ‘placebos’.

Great news you would think but I couldn’t help but get annoyed with the way it was reported on the BBC news website. I am starting to get a little bit tired of the whole impartiality/tell both sides of the argument stance the BBC seems to take on practically everything. I can understand why in politics a publicly funded media should remain impartial but when it comes to matters of science it isn’t simply a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

The way the BBC reported on this matter is illustrated perfectly in these couple of paragraphs in the ‘What is homeopathy?’ section;

Supporters believe homeopathy helps relieve a range of minor ailments from bruising to insomnia

But critics say it is no better than sugar pills and people only get better because they believe the treatment will work – the so-called placebo effect

There we have it, both sides of the argument; one person says this and the other says this. In the article we have the BMA saying homeopathy is a load of old bollocks and The Society of Homeopaths saying there was “evidence the remedies worked” only there isn’t and here lies the problem.

It really pisses me off that the Society of Homeopaths can just say there is evidence when there isn’t any. Especially when the British Medical Association come to their conclusions after looking at the evidence and both views are expressed as equal.

There is no bias in the article to one side; no mention of the fact that systematic reviews show it works no better than placebo and that if it did work “much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect.” Nope, just a couple of quotes from one side and a couple of quotes from the other.

This sitting on the fence is almost as bad as advocating the quackery; it gives legitimacy to their nonsense and gives the impression that the opinions of those with a vested interest in homeopathic witchcraft is somehow the same as a considered standpoint from the British Medical Association. This isn’t an argument from authority I’m making because the authority has evidence on its side. It is a great shame the BBC doesn’t take the time to represent these differences fairly.

Just a quick note on the Society of Homeopaths argument that homeopathy shouldn’t be banned because “the cost of homeopathy on the NHS is low – just 0.001% of the £11 billion drugs budget.” This small amount has been reported as about £4million per year, that might seem a small amount to spend on water and sugar pills to the Society of Homeopaths but to me it sounds like a hell of a lot. Just because something is relatively cheap in comparison to a huge budget it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about how that money is spent. You could spend that money on hiring some more doctors or nurses but if the Society of Homeopaths are going to support that kind of attitude I have a great idea; give me just half the £4million the NHS would otherwise throw literally down the drain on homeopathy and I will spend my time sitting in the Caribbean praying for people to get better. I’ll save the NHS £2 million a year, will guarantee that some of the people I pray for will get better and I don’t even believe in God.