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.

Many Thanks

Moving on it is Homeopathy Awareness Week and regulars to this blog, hello to you, will be familar with my attitude to the witchcraft that is homeopathic medicine. You can read previous posts on the topic here, here and over there.

To comiserate (I don’t really think it is the sort of thing we should be celebrating) Homeopathy Awareness Week I would like to draw your attention to these two videos. The first examines the horrific case of Gloria Thomas Sam and the second examines exactly why the parents of Gloria were wrong to put their faith in homeopathy.

Some of you may find some of the images in the first video disturbing. I know I did.

Comparison of standards for organic and ‘free-range’ chickens – poultry meat

Above Table taken from Welfare standards for organic and ‘free-range’ chickens and eggs Soil Association information sheet.

Whilst I am happy to admit that I was wrong on this aspect of organic farming what is revealed in the Disease Prevention And Veterinary Treatment section of DEFRA’s Compendium of UK Organic Standards is this little gem;

5.4 Veterinary medicinal products must be authorised in accordance with current European and UK legislation and should only be used as permitted under such legislation. The use of veterinary medicinal products in organic farming shall comply with the following principles:

(a) Phytotherapeutic (e.g. plant extracts (excluding antibiotics), essences, etc.), homoeopathic products (e.g. plant, animal or mineral substances) and trace elements and products listed in Part C, section 3 of Annex II, shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal, and the condition for which the treatment is intended.

(b) If the use of the above products should not prove, or is unlikely to be, effective in combating illness or injury, and treatment is essential to avoid suffering or distress to the animal, chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics may be used under the responsibility of a veterinary surgeon.

(c) The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited. Where due to an identified disease risk the welfare of animals cannot be maintained by management practices alone, the inspection body may permit the strategic use of a chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicine, other than an antibiotic, in the context of the health plan referred to in paragraph 5.1.2. Vaccination is permitted in cases where there is a known disease risk. Single, two in one or four in one vaccines are preferred to more complex multiple vaccines unless such cover is specifically required. Vaccine choice and use should be agreed with the nominated veterinary surgeon to ensure adequate disease protection during the conversion phase with, where possible, progressive reductions in use as the organic unit becomes established.

Now I would never want to question the commitment of wanting better welfare for livestock but it is within these sentences that organic farming allies itself with pseudoscience. There is a clear guidance to prefer homeopathic remedies over antibiotics and a direct instruction not to use medicine as a preventative measure. It is skirting around the edges of the age old fallacy that everything that is natural is good and therefore everything that is chemically synthesised is bad. This is nonsense, what is bad is alternative treatments that have been proven not to work, if this is what passes as a higher standard of care for animals then the organic label is nothing more than a pretence to bring in alternative medicine to another part of our lives in which it has no place.

The jury is still out on organic food, personally I don’t think that it will offer any solutions to growing food with greater yields and in difficult climates that GM can. While I agree with some of their standards I completely disagree with their central argument that anything genetically modified must be bad especially when they offer no evidence for it.

For more reading on this subject I suggest the following;

Food Standards Agency on some common questions/misconceptions about Organic Farming

Comparison of Homeopathy, Placebo and Antibiotic Treatment of Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows – Methodological Issues and Results from a Randomized-clinical Trial

Ben Goldacre’s column on the trial that proved organic is no better than normal food.

Royal Society of Chemistry’s overview of the Organic/Non Organic debate.

There is no doubt that S-OIV H1N1 can be dangerous but it is important to keep a little sense of perspective on the subject. Data at this stage can be misleading but at the moment, according to a paper recently published by the British Medical Journal, this is a disease which has a case-fatality ratio similar to seasonal flu (around 0.5%).   

Anyway, if you do want more information about Swine Flu it is best to go to a reputable source, don’t take it from the papers or the TV, or me for that matter. Here are a couple of great resources for all your swine flu needs;

The NHS run a fantastic service called Behind The Headlines which “provides an unbiased and evidence-based analysis of health stories that make the news.” Or health stories without the bull shit.

This is their page on Swine Flu.

If you want to delve further and you don’t have access to medical journals then I suggest you check out The Lancet’s page on swine flu (emphasis mine).

“The Lancet‘s H1N1 Resource Centre is the result of a collaborative effort by the editors of over 40 Elsevier-published journals and 11 learned societies who have agreed to make freely available on this site any relevant content. All papers have been selected by a Lanceteditor, grouped by topic and fulltext pdfs made available to download free of charge.”    

What more could you ask for? Here’s a link!

UPDATE

Ben Goldacre just linked to this article on his twitter page. Having critised the media in this post, credit where credit is due.