homeopathy

Discussing homeopathy on Rip Off Britain

it's been so long since my last post, for which I apologise. I have had a fairly severe case of Writer's Block. But I figure helping out on a national TV programme is worth a few words, right?

if you go down to i-player today (or within the next 20-odd days), you won't find a teddy bears picnic, but you will find yesterday's episode of Rip-off Britain, featuring one of the smartest, bravest community pharmacists I know. And the subject is our old nemesis, homeopathy. 

A few months ago, I got an e-mail asking if I would be willing to help provide some background information to the show. I jumped at the chance, though I was also a little wary, in case it became a hatchet job for the whole profession.

but I decided the risk was worth it, and so had a conversation with a very nice chap one evening, in which I essentially ranted on for a long time whilst made notes. I gave him the background on how pharmacists are regulated, and the difference in roles between the RPS and GPhc. I told him about how I thought homeopathy breached our professional standards if not sold correctly.I told him about how, if I'm in a pub talking about homeopathy, I'll often collect together various pint glasses in order to better demonstrate the dilution process, and how people are then usually amazed and outraged when they realise that homeopathic medicines contain no active ingredient. Most importantly of all, I told him my theory that most pharmacists who sell homeopathy badly do so because of a lack of knowledge, rather than a willful way of exhorting money from poorly customers. 

Then came the dreaded question: would I be willing to appear on camera to say all of this? Yes. Yes I would. I would absolutely adore to, in part because it is the scariest thing I could ever think to do and I haven't been so good at challenging myself of late.  But my workplace would no doubt see it differently, as they have done before. But luckily, I knew exactly who to ask to do it in my place though, and she's done me and the profession proud. 

in the programme, the undercover journalist actually received the best advice from Holland and Barrett. Let's just let that sink in for a bit, shall we? Holland and Barrett gave better advice that several registered pharmacies. Yes, it's a small sample, and the chap in this particular Holland and Barrett is likely an outlier, but if ever something should make our profession hang our heads in shame, it is that. 

There is a mistake in the programme too. They referred to the Faculty of Homeopathy as regulating homeopaths, but that's nonsense. Homeopaths don't have to be a member of the Faculty, and it seems that they do very little in the way of regulation anyway. Homeopaths can do what they please, with no one to slap their wrists when they harm people, unlike real healthcare professionals. 

The researchers contacted Nelson's, who said that they were disappointed that pharmacists weren't giving the right advice. They offered to provide more training, but I certainly do not think that's the sort of thing the profession needs. We need to be better able to distinguish between homeopathy and herbal medicines, and we need to make sure that we are honest with our patients. We need to know that "a lot of people buy it" is NOT the same thing as "it works", and we need to find better ways of connecting community pharmacists with good quality evidence. 

Thank you, Cathryn. You've done us proud. 

Hxxx

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't homeopathy the same as herbal medicines?

A lot of the posts on this blog are looking at homeopathy and its harms.  I've been working on the basis that most people that read this blog have a knowledge of what it is and how it differs from, say, herbal medicines. However, on speaking to a lot of people, it would seem that it is worth reiterating what it actually is, as this really helps to put into context the sort of harms that might be caused by it. 

The ingredients of a homeopathic medicine are beyond a 12 C or 24 X dilution are as follows:

  • Sugar

  • Water

That's it. That's all it is. Homeopathic medicines are so highly diluted that by the time the pills are made, there is essentially no probability of it having any molecules of the "active" ingredient in it at all.

So, although homeopathic medicines are made from all sorts of things- plant materials, heavy metals, conventional medicines, dolphin sonar,  body part, tumours, ducks, exhaust fumes, the light reflected from Saturn etc, none of these ingredients are actually present in the final formulation- the pill or tincture that you take. It probably hasn't even been within a mile of the remedy listed on the pack.

If you didn't know this already, you're now probably thinking 'Eh? What are they playing at? How on earth is that supposed to work?!" Well this website is probably the best one to tell you that: How Does Homeopathy Work?

Herbal medicines are different. They are made from plants or plant extracts, and they haven't been subjected to the dilution process- in other words, there are high enough levels of pharmacologically active component  in them to mean that they could-at least theoretically- work

Lake Superior as a homeopathic solution

A good way to illustrate what I mean about homeopathy is to use Lake Superior as an example.

At its longest, Lake Superior is 360 miles, and it is 160 miles at its widest point. Let's say we filled Lake Superior with a 30C Nat Mur (salt) solution.

  • Lake Superior holds 12,000 square km of water.
  • In this volume of a 30C solution, there would be 40080 molecules of sodium chloride (salt).
  • 40080 molecules = 0.000,000,000,000,000,003,89 grams of salt.
  • 1 grain of salt weighs approx 0.064799 grams

If Lake Superior were a 30C Nat Mur solution, it would a teeny, tiny fraction of one grain of salt. That's how dilute a homeopathic solution is. It makes no sense whatsoever for it to possibly work, and indeed all good quality evidence suggests that it doesn't. 

In memory of Rachel

I didn’t know Rachel at all. But I was told her story last night, and all of today I have been thinking about her. I don’t know how old she was, what her life was like, the colour of her hair, whether she spelt her name with just an 'e' or if there was an 'a' in there too. 

It sounded like Rachel was a nice person. It sounded like she was enthusiastic (I think she met the teller of her story whilst volunteering for something).

Rachel was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was encouraged to try homeopathic treatment for it, and to stop her conventional medicines.

Several days after stopping her medicines, Rachel took her own life.

Many of you might remember that I blogged about a homeopath’s response to my good friend’s request for help for her own bipolar disorder. At the time, I theorised that, had my friend followed this homeopath’s advice, she would have destabilised and it would have killed her. 

I’m so, so sad that this happened to Rachel. I often get questioned about why I do what I do, why I rant on about homeopathy and alternative medicine so much. If other people want to use it, I’m told, then just leave them be. But how can I sit back and not do anything, when there are other people out there just like Rachel? If I can make any difference at all, even a tiny one, then I will do. If I can make even just a couple of people raise their eyebrows and wonder why homeopathy is still used in this day and age in place of effective treatments, then I’ll keep doing what I’m doing.

Sorry, Rachel. I’m really sorry that this happened to you. I didn’t know you, but I’m sorry that you went through all of that, and I’m sorry that your friends and family and the world lost you.

Hxxx

Evidence-Based Ambridge

Ahh. Sunday mornings. They can mean only one thing: bacon.
Okay, two things: bacon and tea
Whoops, no let's make that three things: bacon, tea, and The Archers omnibus. 

So welcome to the first instalment of an occasional series (probably so occasional that this is the only one), in which I critically examine the treatment choices of the fictional residents of Ambridge. 

In today's omnibus, Hell-on's child falls over. There is much hysterical panic, and much bewailing the fact that she wasn't watching him properly. Apparently its hard to look after a child and gaze lovingly off into the distance in the direction of Rob Titchener's house. Who knew. 

But never fear, Hell-on's mother, Pat (who doesn't appear to have noticed that her husband has been kidnapped and replaced by an interloper), is on hand to reassure her that she has done her best with the arnica. 

Arguably, I'd say arnica is one of the most accepted forms of woo in the UK. Arnica cream is a standard item in many pharmacies, and I would say that many people know that it is supposed to be useful for bruises. I wonder just how many first aid boxes have a tube of arnica languishing in them, but I reckon it is quite a few.

Its also a poster boy for the sort of confusion that reigns between the public perception of homeopathy and herbal medicine. herbal arnica cream often sits side by side homeopathic versions with no explanation of the difference. 

Even Nelson's seem rather confused about which modality to use, with both herbal and homeopathic arnica sitting in their "Arnicare" range of products. I can't quite get my head around this to be honest. Imagine going into an off-license and seeing two bottles of Smirnoff, one of which contains vodka and one of which contains water, though the only difference on the label is that one says Smirnoff Vodka 30C. Hmm.

Does the distinction matter? Yes, I think it does. I think its pure, outright deception to sell a homeopathic product to someone expecting a herbal medicine. One has arnica in, one doesn't. 

Anyway, all of this is by the by. Obviously there is no evidence that homeopathic arnica works for bruising. It's homeopathy. It has nothing in it. 

And as for herbal arnica? there's also no evidence that it works, although there is a little bit of prior plausibility, in that some of the chemicals in the arnica plant have an anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet action. There is, however, no information on how clinically significant these actions are, and whether rubbing a bit of cream into an area would get these potentially useful chemicals to the right place in any meaningful amounts.

Let's not forget that bruises are self-limiting. They go away of their own accord (and probably at the same pace), regardless of whether or not you rub some gunk into them. herbal arnica isn't risk free: the cream can cause  contact itchiness, dry skin, and rash. Orally, arnica can be pretty nasty stuff, even causing coma and death in extreme cases. 

So, my evidence-based advice to Helen would be: kiss it better, and leave it be. Henry is a small child, and falling over is pretty common in that age group. Don't apply an ineffective treatment which could rarely lead to side effects, and save your money.  

Homeopathic Harms 3.1 Addendum: C's Story

Imagine you're twelve years old.

You're on the cusp of adolescence, a time where you start to move away from the comfort and protection of your family and begin to forge your own way in life. Friendships become increasingly important, and you're in a constant process of trying to make new ones, maintaining old ones, and falling out with others. The world seems confusing, terrifying, and wonderful in varying measures, and you spend a lot of your time watching those around you and drinking in how they act, what works and what doesn't, deciding how to act yourself to fit in and be accepted. This is the time when, though the ground is constantly shifting beneath your feet. you start to put down little social foundations and try to make sense of the world. 


There is a wealth of evidence that suggests many benefits of connecting with people of your own age during adolescence. At such a crucial, tumultuous time of life, being socially isolated from your peers can have long lasting and harmful effects. 


What's this got to do with homeopathy?

I've written before about how poor advice from homeopaths can potentially cause a lot of damage, and through our Homeopathic Harms series of blog posts, Nancy (of the Evidence Based Skepticism blog) and I have hopefully managed to convey to you an idea of how it can sometimes be the seemingly innocuous and difficult to quantify harms that can be most worrying.

I received an e-mail the other day that I have since been thinking a lot about and which I wanted to share with you. Its a real-life example of just how much harm poor advice from a homeopath can cause. The chap who sent me the email has very kindly allowed me to share his story with you, but of course I am going to respect his anonymity and refer to him as C.

C's story

C. had delayed puberty. Now this is something that is fairly common, happening in about 3% of cases, and which can be caused by a number of factors, but the most common type is Constitutional delay in growth and puberty (CDGP). This is basically a technical way of saying 'Just one of those things, which might be caused a whole load of stuff or possibly just chance.'

Conventional medicine would manage CDGP by... well, usually just by waiting, really. Monitoring, and reassurance are often all that is required. Otherwise, short courses of sex hormones should be enough to do the trick. If the delay in puberty is caused by something, then ideally the underlying cause would be appropriately treated. You can see some good, reliable guidance on management here

Note, by the way, that the definition of delayed puberty according to patient.co.uk specifies '...in boys beyond 14 years old'.  Now, I have no way of saying what the definition of delayed puberty was at the time that we join C's story, but his experiences began when he was 12- well below the point where we would diagnose delayed puberty nowadays.

C's mother consulted a homeopath. He was given some homeopathic pills, which on account of just being made out of sugar, had no beneficial effects, but also no harmful effects. However, the homeopath also appears to have given C's mum some advice, the goal of which seems to have been isolating him from his peers between the ages 

C was:

  • not allowed to stay at school for lunchtime, but instead had to go home.

  • not allowed to stay at school after the school day had finished.

  • not allowed to cross the local footbridge over the motorway, which cut him off from the majority of his peers.

  • not allowed to go down the street of the one classmate who lived on his side of the motorway.

  • allowed and encouraged to socialise with one boy who was two years his junior.

The first question is why. Why on earth would a homeopath give such advice? We can only speculate that the homeopath in question thought- apropos of nothing- that since C was a late developer he should be kept away from people his own age and instead only socialise with younger children. I've had a look around some homeopathic websites on the internet, and found nothing that looks similar to this sort of advice. [I did, however, find this website, which amused me no end due to its impressive reference list. No, really, go and look at the link and scroll to the bottom, if you want a good laugh]. In fact, I couldn't find anything at all suggesting that enforced social isolation is good for anyone or for treating anything, really. 

C's case would appear to be one of a homeopath acting outside of their competence and providing bizarre and very harmful advice. In C's case, homeopathic treatment was certainly not safe, although this had nothing to do with the sugar pills themselves.

The result of this set of rules on C were, in his own words:

"a boy who was immature, shy and lacking in self-confidence. When it came to puberty I had significant mental health problems (starting with OCD due to high levels of anxiety) which have had an impact throughout my life....I didn't regain a sense of normality (in terms of socialising properly) until the age of 25-26."

Limitations

C's story is, of course, merely one anecdote, and as good skeptics we of course have to realise the limitations of it. There's nothing to say that, if C hadn't have followed these rules, he wouldn't have gone on to develop any mental health problems, and indeed delayed puberty itself is not without an increased risk of psychological problems.

Given our very human need to fit in, it may be the case that children with delayed puberty have a preference for younger friends, as they stand out less. This is entirely understandable, but in C's case it is clear that his situation was enforced upon him.

 But given the established link between social isolation in adolescence with mental health issues, I think we can pretty safely say that this is a case where at the very least homeopathy worsened his situation. His quality of life was undoubtedly affected when he had to obey the rules.


Thankyou to C
 

Many, many thanks to C for sharing his story with me. I think its so important to hear these stories, as they might help to raise awareness of the less obvious, nebulous harms that can arise from treatment by unregulated, alternative practitioners. Unfortunately, its really difficult to quantify these sorts of harms into cold hard evidence, and that's why I, and many others like me, keep banging on as loudly as we can about them. If you have any examples of potential harm caused by homeopathy, it goes without saying that I would love to hear from you. 


H xxx

The Society of Homeopaths and what they pass off as evidence

So today has seen some great news for rationality, science, and above all patients. The ASA has announced this ruling, leading to the Society of Homepaths taking down a rather large chunk of their website- the bit about what homeopathy can be used for.

However, using their search function, you can still find some of the nonsense they are promoting. I stumbled across this article, for example, entitled "Homeopathy Offers Alternative Relief for hay fever sufferers". I'd be very surprised if this article doesn't get taken down soon also, to be honest. It really should, given part of the ASA's ruling relates to their claims over the efficacy of homeopathy for hay fever. 

That use of the word alternative (as opposed to complementary) is interesting. That in itself suggests that the Society of Homeopaths are advocating patients not using conventional medicines in favour of their homeopathic products.

One thing that I have learnt about homeopaths is that, despite the fact that they often claim that randomised controlled trials (and indeed science in general) can't explain their wondrous treatment because of its individualised nature and quantum nanoparticles blah blah all the other words that they're clinging onto, they like to cite trials. A lot.

Homeopaths will often spout names of trials and provide links to PubMed abstracts with abandon, even when the trials say little about the clinical use of homeopathy in humans. In vitro or animal trials are favourites, and on the odd occasion where I have been sent a human trial, the result usually show that homeopathy is no better than placebo, and in some cases actually worse than placebo. At best, I'm guessing this is just ignorance- maybe they have misread the results of the trial? At worst (and more realistically), its a pretty obvious and petty method of obfuscation, and a pretty rubbish one at that. Presumably they think I will be so vowed by the fact that a trial exists that I wont bother to check the actual results of what the trial is saying.

This hayfever page overs a great example of this:

"A number of research trials have shown that homeopathic treatment can produce a significant improvement in hay fever symptoms,(4-7) but what does this involve?"

 Let's have a look at the "number of research trials", shall we?  

  • Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response?  Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as a model. Lancet,1986;2: 881-6.

This is a trial from 1986. Really, that's the best they can do, in 2013? The abstract of this trial appears impressive: "The homoeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores", but neglects to mention the most important part of a study like this: blinding. How can we assess the placebo effect in a study that isn't blinded? especially when the results rely on only reported outcomes. We can tick this one off the list as being a pretty rubbish effort at a trial. Must try harder. 

  •  Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of Homeopathy. Br Med J, 1991; 302:316-22.

Ahh, the early nineties. We're getting thoroughly modern and hip now, eh? This is a meta-analysis. hay fever isn't mentioned in the abstract at all, and the conclusion of the paper is that studies performed in homeopathy are rubbish, and better ones need to be done. Hardly a conclusive statement that homeopathy works for hay fever. We can tick this one off the list too.

We're now left with two trials to back up that statement above. To me, two trials is not "a number" of trials, even at this point. Even if these two trials were massive, robust, good quality randomised controlled trials, I still wouldn't be entirely convinced: I'd want to see the result replicated in as many different trials as possible. Anyway, we shalll soldier on, in the hopes of being dazzled by the brilliance of these two references. 

  • Launsø L, Kimby CK, Henningsen I, Fønnebø V. An exploratory retrospective study of people suffering from hypersensitivity illness who attend medical or classical homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy, 2006; 95: 73-80.

Oh dear. A retrospective study. So not a controlled trial at all then? The results? "The two groups of patients were similar in respect of their health at the start of the treatment, 57% of the patients who consulted a CH experienced an improvement of their state of health compared to 24% of the GP patients." well, that's all very well and good, but there is no blinding here whatsoever, and only 88 patients completed the study. means nothing at all, except for- as even the authors put it- as an exploratory study, maybe to try to find ways of how to conduct as more robust actual trial in the future.

That's it, down to the final trial. I'm expecting great things.  

  • Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF. Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Using Homeopathic Preparation of Common Allergens in the Southwest Region of the US: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Ann Pharmacother, 2005; 39(4): 617-24.

HURRAH!!! It's double-blind! We've gotten there! We've gotten some good, robust evidence tha- oh hang on, its only got 40 participants in it. It's just a wee ickle study that's far too small to draw any conclusions from.

So there you have it. This page is still up there on their website, using crappy references that don't back up their claims. The Society of Homeopaths- and quacks in general- need to realise that, no matter how hard they try, just trying to shoehorn poor excuses for studies in wherever they like isn't good enough.

Here's how it should go: you look at the evidence, you evaluate the evidence, and you make your claim on the basis of that evidence. Not: "I shall claim this, then try desperately to find something that vaguely looks like it backs me up, and I'll just hope for the best that no-one else bothers reading it. It seems the Society of Homeopaths are going in for the latter, and good on the ASA for pulling them up on it.

"We told the Society of Homeopaths not to discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including offering specific advice on or treatment for such conditions. We also told them not to make health claims for homeopathy unless they held sufficiently robust evidence of efficacy." -ASA ruling


Hxxx

Making Clinical Trials Sexy

If you're buying a new TV, how do you go about it? My guess is that you probably have a look around the shops or internet, find a model you like, then get online to find some reviews of it and decide whether or not to buy based on what you've read. You may well scroll down to the reviews if you're buying something on Amazon, before you click the "Buy" button. If you book a holiday, you're probably straight on Trip Advisor to see what other people- humans just like yourself- have got to say about the hotel.

It is perfectly reasonable behaviour. We understand and respond to the personal experiences of other people- its part of our nature, stitched into our being. Each review is a little story, and humans love stories, especially when they are about other humans.

Its therefore a hugely unfortunate problem that, when it comes to healthcare, stories just aren't good enough. When peoples' lives are hanging in the balance, reviews and testimonials just aren't up to scratch. Here's why:

I have guttate psoriasis. Imagine I go on holiday (alas this is merely a pipedream this year, thanks to what feels like millions of large unexpected bills that seem to keep turning up in my life) and lo and behold, when I return, my psoriasis has cleared up. I conclude that it is definitely the sunshine that has cured it, and proceed to proclaim that I have found the ultimate 100% effective cure for psoriasis.

Is it reasonable that I have come to that conclusion, based only on my own experience? No, not at all. Why have I focused on the sunshine aspect alone? Maybe a week spent relaxing is what has actually cured it. Maybe its because I've changed my diet on holiday and have been eating lots of lovely fresh fruit and vegetables and fish?  Maybe it is because there is a magic ingredient in Sangria which miraculously beats rogue skin cells into submission. What if chlorine in swimming pool water is my skin superhero? Maybe-just maybe- its because guttate psoriasis can be self-limiting, and it has just faded away of its own accord. With just my experience to go on, there is no way I will ever be able to know what it is that has made my condition improve.

What I would need to do to be able to decide is to scale things up. Get as many people as possible with guttate psoriasis, and divide them into at least two groups- one exposed to sunlight, one not. I'd have to try to control the peoples' behaviour as best as I could for the other factors like diet, chlorine exposure, sangria intake, stress etc. Whilst I could never completely control for everything, if the group exposed to sunshine experience a significantly better improvement in their psoriasis, then I could say with more certainty that it is the sunshine that did it rather than anything else.

This is the beauty and elegance of a clinical trial. They are simply the best, slickest, most reliable way we have of teasing out whether a treatment actually does make a difference. They're like an anthology of stories, carefully selected and analysed by researchers in a bid to start finding an answer to a treatment question. Whilst they're not 100% perfect, they're certainly the best sort of information we have at the moment on which to base any decisions about which treatment to choose for which disease, and for which patient.

This is, however, very easy to forget when you actually have to read one. I do not have a mathematically inclined brain, and when faced with tables full of numbers, p values, confidence intervals, hazard ratios, relative and absolute risks etc, my grey matter is usually to be found quivering and wimpering in the corner of my skull. I have to really try hard to focus on the stats and results when reading a clinical trial- its a constant fight to wrench my thoughts back onto the page, when they keep merrily skipping away to think about kittens or bunnies or *that* picture of a minipig wearing red wellies. And I say this as a geeky pharmacist who has undertaken a decent amount of training in how to read a clinical trial. What hope then, does an individual patient or regular joe have of understanding trial data?

A quick glance at pretty much any website selling an 'alternative medicine' and you'll notice there is usually a "Testimonials" page on there. Many other types of healthcare sites also use testimonials to prove their treatment works. They're easy to read, often full of personality, and can really seem to speak to you as a reader. They may seem convincing, but as you've (hopefully) seen from my example above, they simply can't be used to decide if a product works or not. A glossy celebrity story endorsing a product in a magazine is infinitely more sexy than ten pages full of stats and graphs in a medical journal.

Testimonials and reviews are, at first glance, more attractive and more seductive than the more dowdy clinical trial. So what can we do to help the clinical trial apply a bit of lippy, spray some perfume on itself, and don its heels to get out on the town and make people weak at the knees? My short answer is I don't know. Campaigns like International Clinical Trials Day help of course, but at the moment it feels like we're swimming against the tide somewhat. My ultimate dream would be a primetime TV series, fronted by a hunky Brian Cox type. If he can make physics sexy enough to be at the forefront of our entertainment, surely there is some way that we can do the same for one of the best inventions in healthcare? I'd like to get to a place were it's second nature for everyone, whether they be a patients, pharmacist, healthcare professional or general geek, instinctively bypasses testimonials to look for clinical trial evidence instead.

Do you have any ideas? Have you had any really good experiences of explaining clinical trials to patients? Are there any techniques we can use to simplify the stats and make trials more accessible to all? My friend Nancy had a great idea of including a Plain English summary as part of an abstract for every trial. Is there anything else we could do? Let me know, however outlandish your idea, either by commenting, tweeting me (@SparkleWildfire), or dropping me an e-mail at my new shiny sparkly e-mail address healthydoseofskepticism@gmail.com

Hxxx

The Not-So-Wise Owls

You might have noticed that Holland and Barrett, the high street's most proliferative purveyor of pointless supplements, homeopathic, and herbal medicines are in the midst of a rather odd marketing campaign, called #AskOurOwls.

*Gratuitous Fluffy Animal Pic* Meet Willow. Willow is a fully grown, 10 year old south African Owl who lives in Kielder Forest. Willow does not purport to be an expert in complementary and alternative medicines, but he does have very soft feathers. Willow would like to make it known that he does not condone the actions of Holland and Barrett owls

*Gratuitous Fluffy Animal Pic* Meet Willow. Willow is a fully grown, 10 year old south African Owl who lives in Kielder Forest. Willow does not purport to be an expert in complementary and alternative medicines, but he does have very soft feathers. Willow would like to make it known that he does not condone the actions of Holland and Barrett owls

#AskOurOwls means you can ask any question about a Holland and Barrett product, and if their staff can't answer your question, you get 20% off in store. This is accompanied by a kawaii cute animated advert featuring bunnies, hedgehog, and other adorable woodland creatures. Because natural remedies are always totally cute, safe and innocuous, right? And presumably because everyone who works there is in actual fact a shape-shifting owl cavorting as a human. Its like David Icke stuff, but with more feathers. 

In the words of the ad agency who designed it:

"The campaign aims to demonstrate Holland & Barrett’s USP of considerable staff expertise, endorsing the fact that every Holland & Barrett store within the UK has had an officially qualified associate to give advice on all own label supplements, vitamins, healthy foods and weight management products"

Now, I've lost count of the number of enquiries I've dealt with because of Holland and Barrett. These enquiries are usually along the lines of "My patient has bought <insert Holland and Barrett product> and wants to know if they're safe to use with their other medicines." In some of these cases, patients have presented with over £40 worth of herbal medicines etc, and have then been told that no, they can't take it, either because it will interact with their medicines, or because it isn't suitable to be taken by someone with their medical problems.

I have no idea what the Holland and Barrett in-house staff training consists of, but I'm not sure what part of it would allow someone to buy multiple, expensive remedies beforethey know if they are safe for them to use. Its not only a dangerous strategy, but its really very poor customer service, and doesn't do much to 'demonstrate considerable staff expertise'.

Anecdotally, I have heard that in some areas, Holland and Barrett employees have been known to send patients to a nearby pharmacy to ask if they are able to take a product. Whilst this at least demonstrates an awareness of their knowledge limitations, its also pretty inconvenient for the customer to have to traipse in and out of different shops, and i should imagine pretty irritating for the pharmacist, who is having to do H&B's work for them. And believe me, these sorts of enquiries aren't always easy to do, and can be very time consuming. 

So that's not all that encouraging for their #AskOurOwls scheme, is it? And it is a really quite bizarre strategy. If I ask a question about whether a product is safe for me to take, and they can't answer it, I can't really see how offering me a discount on something that I don't know is safe or not would help.

Of course the skeptical community understandably used this opportunity to Ask Some Owls some reasonable questions about where the evidence is for many of the products they sell, why they sell homeopathy when there is literally nothing in it, why they promote detox products when there is no scientific evidence for detox, why they sell high dose vitamins when there is some evidence that they may increase cancer risk etc. And no answers flowed in at all. I ask three questions, and got no response, then sent a Tweet about how I had gotten no response. This did attract a -very curt and actually pretty damn rude- reply from Holland and Barrett demanding to know if it was a question or not.

Funnily enough, after being bombarded with questions about their selling of quackery, the terms and conditions now read that the offer does not apply to questions asked via Facebook or Twitter. I have no idea at all whether these terms were the same at the start of the campaign (do let me know if you know), but it would seem very strange indeed if they have launched a campaign centred around a hashtag but which is not for use on social media. It would sort of suggest that they was actually being rather misleading, or just very careless in the original advertising campaign. Or, of course, that they hadn't quite thought through the consequences of encouraging people to ask questions about remedies that have no basis in science or evidence. Presumably they think that us mean skeptic-types will be so overwhelmed by their wondrous array of snake oil remedies that we will turn to mush and be unable to think of a question in store. 

Let's see what that ad agency says again, shall we?

"The brand strategy extends to social media, where customers can engage with Holland& Barrett staff via Twitter to answer relevant health questions. By using the hashtag, #askourowls, customers are directed back to the brand."

Suspicious, non? And lets just think about this strategy for a moment. They are encouraging people to ask them health questions in less than 140 characters. Given that people are complex, and may have multiple health issues and be on many different medicines, this seems a somewhat cavalier strategy.

Then again, Holland and Barrett are home to some other really quite bizarre offers as well. What on earth is going on with that buy one, get the other for 1p thing? Save everyone the bother of having to faff about with change and just do a plain old BOGOF, for goodness sake. Or, even better, how about not encouraging pointless polypharmacy with multi-buy offers in an area where they are clinically inappropriate and potentially even dangerous?  

So, next time you're passing a Holland and Barrett store, take a moment or two to drop in, and ask them for the evidence. If they can't provide you with any, then enjoy your 20% off- you should be able to find something to buy there- they do sell Bombay mix after all, which is approximately 50% more baked than their #AskOurOwls campaign ever was. Do let me know how you got on, if you do get a chance to ask a question.

You can read some more about how the #AskOurOwls campaign went wrong for H&B but right for skeptics here, and the sort of non-answer Slipp Digby got here.  

Hxxx

UPDATE: interestingly, a mere few hours after I published this post, I got an @reply from Holland and Barrett on Twitter, promising me that someone was looking into my enquiry about acai and i would hear from a nutritionist soon. At the same time, they were merrily sending out requests for follows so that they could DM answers to many other people who had asked similar questions. However, I've never heard anything since, or been asked to follow them to get a DM response-this is now 3 days after they told me someone would contact me.

Putting aside all the other problems with this campaign, this is just utterly terrible customer service. My job involves me dealing with often very complex enquiries, and it would maybe take me three days maximum to do a complex enquiry involving a full research strategy, medical literature searches, critical appraisal of multiple papers, and to compose an answer. I would, of course, acknowledge the enquiry immediately and let the enquirer know of any delays- its common courtesy.

I can't help but notice that on their Twitter feed they do appear to be answering other questions about their products using their Timeline. So why are they using DMs to answer any which question the efficacy of their products?  

I've decided to give them another chance, however, and have just asked them another, very specific question, which would take a pharmacist maybe 30mins-1 hour to answer fully:



We'll see how long that takes to get a response, shall we?

(Update: I never did hear back at all)

Homeopathic Harms Vol 7: Professional Ethics

In February 2013, my friend @EBMScientist and I delivered a Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled Homeopathy: Where's The Harm? As a follow up to this, we decided to write a series of blog posts expanding on a number of points we covered in the talk:

"Ethics is the science of morals, or moral philosophy. The principles, written or unwritten, that are accepted in any profession as the basis for proper behaviour are the ethics of the profession" -Dale and Appelbe's Pharmacy Law and Ethics

As you'll know by now, I'm a pharmacist. And as such, I have to be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to practice in the UK. I'm therefore governed by the GPhC, and in particular their code of conduct, ethics and performance, which has seven main points:

  1. Make patients your first concern

  2. Use your professional judgement in the interests of patients and the public

  3. Show respect for others

  4. Encourage patients and the public to participate in decisions about their care

  5. Develop your professional knowledge and competence

  6. Be honest and trustworthy

  7. Take responsibility for your working practices.

If I-or any of my colleagues- were to act against this code of ethics, we could be held to account by our regulator and reprimanded accordingly. Other healthcare professionals- Doctors, nurses etc- all have similar codes of conduct produced by their regulatory bodies. They all have one thing in common- that the patient is central to everything you do, and if a member steps outside this code of conduct, there is a clear and organized route through which complaints or concerns can be raised. This is as it should be: healthcare professionals have the lives of patients in their hands, and need to be held to account if anything goes wrong. As I've written before in this series, homeopaths don't have to register with a regulatory body and anyone can set themselves up as a homeopath with no training whatsoever. Whilst some 'professional' bodies exist in the UK, they have no regulatory powers so are unable to reprimand anyone if they receive a complaint.

Health care professionals who also practice homeopathy still have a duty to ensure that they abide by their regulatory body's code of ethics. In my opinion, however, it is very difficult to reconcile some of the clear guidance with homeopathic principles. Let's take a look at what I mean, using some selected points from the  the first two standards of the  GPhC's Code of Ethics July 2012 as a guide. (I'll cover the rest of the points in another post)

1. Make Patients Your First Concern
Under this heading, the GPhC states that we must "Make sure the services you provide are safe and of acceptable quality". Given the lack of high quality information that homeopathy works, we are unable to guarantee that such a service is of acceptable quality. You'll also know if you've read the rest of this series of blog posts that there is a lack of evidence regarding the harms- both direct and indirect- of homeopathy- so how could we guarantee that it is safe?

2. Use Your Professional Judgement In the Interests of Patients and The Public
There are a couple of relevant points here. firstly we are told that we need to make sure that professional judgement is not affected by personal or organizational interests or incentives. If you're going to charge for a homeopathic service on the side of your usual practice, then there is already a clear personal incentive to promote homeopathy.  We can minimize the possibility of such things affecting our professional judgement by making sure that we use evidence to guide treatment decisions wherever we can: evidence-based medicine is not perfect, but its the most objective method we have at the moment. And, as you'll know, there is no good evidence at all that homeopathy works. 

We are also advised to:

 "Be prepared to challenge the judgement of your colleagues and other professionals if you have reason to believe that their decisions could affect the safety or care of others"

I myself-and other pharmacists-have done this: I've spoken out about Tony Pinkus, for example, a pharmacist who endangers patients' lives by promoting unlicensed homeopathic vaccines or sugar pills to prevent malaria. In Nancy's latest blog post, she covered some of this, and I know Adam at Dianthus Med has also been discussing this point on twitter and his blog lately. Its clear-from our own professional guidance-that where patient safety is in danger, we do not protect our own- we need to report, speak out, and denounce those amongst our colleagues who let the profession down.

Homeopaths, on the other hand, seem to have no such obligation. We've been struggling to think of one single example of where homeopaths have spoken out against other homeopaths where patient safety has been endangered. In a conversation on twitter, for example, no homeopath would say that it was inappropriate for a homeopath to have said that a homeopathic remedy could have saved someone who died due to injuries sustained in a horrific gang-rape and disembowelment.  I recently asked some homeopaths on Twitter whether they would speak out against a colleague who put patients in danger. The answer I received from one was shocking:

"When its so easy 2 wink at 1's own sins, seems impossible 2 find judge orjury before whom 2arraign the 1st law breaker. KENT" (sic)- @22VenkateshN

Admittedly this particular homeopath that responded (he was the only one) has a reputation for obfuscation, but this reply seems to suggest that no, he wouldn't report, in case someone did similar to him. I tried to clarify : "so to clarify: you wouldn't speak out in case someone else did the same to you? A yes or no would suffice, thank you". The reply:

"some questions can't be replied with a simple 'yes or no'. for example_ 'are you still mad ?'"- @22VenkateshN


I'm not sure what he is trying to imply by asking about being mad, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and ignore any insinuations he might have been trying to make. What is staggering is the reluctance to admit that he would put patient care first and report a fellow homeopath in a situation. As a health care professional-and a good person- the code of ethics  becomes deeply ingrained in your being. Its second nature- and pretty obvious- that you would put the needs of a patient first. I persisted further,  trying to make it easy for him to agree that you would report a colleague: "It's very easy, if you work under clear ethical guidance. homeopaths do have that, right?: patient safety comes first: therefore yes, you would report and denounce a colleague who endangered it." Again, the reply astounds:

"Its not that easy, every one accusing everyone else would result. That's why I tweeted the appropriate observations of Kent"- @22VenkateshN

Wow. So it would seem- on the basis of this sort of conversation and the complete radio silence from any other homeopaths- that no, they wouldn't report or denounce a fellow homeopath because some sort of petty slanging match would ensue. Instead of a clear referral process to deal with complaints, accusations would be flying all over the shop- and one very, very important aspect gets forgotten: patient safety. 

I'd love to be proved wrong here. I'd love to think that medical homeopaths or pharmacists who also practice homeopathy would do otherwise, in accordance with their code of ethics. But I'm currently deafened by their silence. If I were one of the more professional, caring homeopaths who really did want to do the best for their patients, I would be utterly horrified and disgusted by some of the claims and actions of others, and I'd want to-nay I'd feel obliged to- speak out against them for the good of my own practice. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with them.

So here's your chance, homeopaths. Speak up against bad practice and drown out the previous deafening silence. Go right ahead: I'm listening intently. And while you're at it, please do take a few minutes out to respond to Adam's Challenge to the Society of Homeopaths too

 

Some thoughts on quality and quantity

The sad news about Iain Banks has gotten me thinking today. 

I'll be honest here and say I've never read any of his books (so many books in the world, so little time!). I know nothing at all about him. Yet when I read his statement at work this afternoon, I had tears in my eyes. His words were so dignified, so stoical, and so noble that they really touched my heart. The ability to have humour at such a time is something I admire hugely.

I'm sure his words are the tip of the iceberg. I really can't even begin to understand what a lengthy, horrific process it must be to come to terms with such news. But what struck me most of all was his plans to spend his remaining time with his family, friends and loved ones. Isn't that, when it comes down to it, what we would all want? And yet it seems to me that cases such as his appear to be in the minority of those that are reported in the media. 

Many moons ago, at university, I went to a lecture by Sir Michael Rawlins. He discussed the thorny issue of how NICE assess drugs, and he touched upon quality of life measures. I remember being utterly shocked when he said that the majority of terminal patients choose longevity over quality of life. That's always stuck with me, as it seems so starkly counter-intuitive to me that I genuinely can't get my head around it. I also know that's very easy for me to say, and that I have absolutely no idea what it must be like to have to face such decisions. A few years ago I did my Diploma in Therapeutics, and we had to try out some of the quality of life rating scales that are used at NICE. Believe me, this really gets you thinking about how difficult these sorts of choices are. I also remember a really brilliant workshop with Claud Regnard, a palliative care consultant and author of some highly-esteemed books in the field. I remember being bowled over by how positive and creative such a potentially depressing subject could be.

We're a nation (and potentially a planet) that are very medicalised. We hunt for a cure for everything, and a miracle pill to make us cleverer, slimmer, healthier. When given the choice between taking a tablet and changing our lifestyles, I think it's safe to say that most of us would rather opt for the former. This is fuelled by any number of things, but I think the media has a lot to do with it: there's always a story about how some new drug is going to cure Alzheimer's, or obesity, or heart disease, and there's story after story of families desperately searching for a cure or treatment that can cure their love ones.

And here's what I've been thinking about: when all the options have been explored, and there is no cure, practitioners of conventional medicine (by which I mean medicine which is proven to work) will usually tell you so. 

At this point, the quest for something else, perfectly understandably, kicks in. Of course you would grasp at any straws, any vestige of hope. And so, right at the time where people should be spending their days doing what they love with the people they love, as Iain Banks is doing, some of them turn to alternatives. 

It could be weird diets, it could be homeopathy, it could be a certain well-known quack's clinic in Texas, it doesn't matter. What all of these things do is sell hope when all else has failed. They're a very seductive prospect, and it may well seem perfectly logical that you'd spend every penny in trying them, and you'd leave no stone unturned trying to find the perfect treatment for you, or your loved one. 

Just at the time when you should be kicking back and enjoying your time as much as you can, you end up on a plane across the world, which is stressful enough for anyone at the best of times. Or you might end up on a strict diet regime, having to deprive yourself of the foods you love just when you should be enjoying them more than ever. You might end up a slave to a complex regime of megadose vitamins, enemas, pills and injections when you should be being made as comfortable as possible with palliative care. 

These people who sell false hope rob patients not only of their money, but of their precious time as well. And that, in my opinion, is the most evil and unforgivable of sins. 

I hope that, eventually, we get to a place where a quality life and death become the most important thing to anyone with a terminal illness. 

This is yet another blogpost where I feel the need to write "hope this all makes sense" at the end. I probably should just plan posts better, but I've always found I'm usually better at just writing as I think at times. My humble apologies also for any typos... I'm absolutely rubbish at touch screen typing


Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 5: Interactions

In February 2013, my friend @EBMScientist and I delivered a Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled Homeopathy: Where's The Harm? As a follow up to this, we've decided to write a series of blog posts expanding on a number of points we covered in the talk.

In the next instalment of our series on the harms of homeopathy, I want to talk about interactions. I've covered this a bit in the past, but let's have a look at this area in a bit more detail.

We all hopefully know by now that homeopathic medicines pretty much have no trace of active ingredient in them by now. Do we need to worry about drug interactions with homeopathic remedies?
 

Can homeopathic medicines interact with conventional medicines?

The obvious answer is no. Magic Sugar Water Pills are highly unlikely to affect any conventional medicines. There's a lack of actual evidence to prove this, but I think it's pretty safe to rely on a theoretical basis here. So that's great, right, blog post over and see you later. If only it were that simple. 
 

Can homeopathic practitioners interact with conventional medicines?

Unfortunately, yes. very much so. It's pretty well known that homeopathic practitioners step over (and in some cases stomp over, then jump up and down repeatedly on) the boundaries between conventional and homeopathic medicines, just by the advice they give. One example would be vaccines- many homeopathic practitioners are against vaccines and therefore advise their patients to avoid them- Just look at the emails sent by pharmacist (and embarrassment to the profession) Tony Pinkus to an undercover BBC reporter. Little offhand remarks about the toxicity of conventional medicines, or big pharma conspiracies, or how conventional medicines might not work, all add up to the effect of harming the patient's relationship with their actual doctor. And how about the spectacular example of inappropriate advice in my previous post? 

Can conventional medicines interact with homeopathic medicines?


I'd like to say no here, because of course homeopathic medicines are inert and don't actually contain any medicine. It is the case, however, that homeopathic practitioners unfortunately think otherwise, which can lead to a huge amount of harm as patients discontinue their conventional medicine in favour of homeopathy.

I have in front of me a book called "Homeopathic Pharmacy", by Stephen Kayne. This is a book aimed at healthcare professionals, and indeed is a  recommended resource for medicines information pharmacists in the UK. (EDIT: This book no longer appears as a recommended source.) And yet, even this source, which we could consider to be one of the more balanced tomes (despite the ominous mention of Dana Ullman in the acknowledgements), contains a wealth of dangerous nonsense. This book tells me that, for example, "potent topical steroids are thought to negate the use of  homeopathy in the treatment of eczema and psoriasis" Now I know more than some that skin conditions such as this can be horrifically uncomfortable, not to mention their effects on your self-esteem. Stopping treatment that works in favour of a placebo is not, in my opinion, acceptable in any shape or form, especially given how vulnerable and desperate people can be because of skin conditions- don't forget that in some cases, dermatological conditions are terminal, as they can drive sufferers to suicide.  

There can, apparently, be interactions between oral steroids and homeopathy too. "the patient's symptoms tend to be masked, however, making an accurate choice of remedy much more difficult", we are told on page 205 of Homeopathic Pharmacy. Well, you could call it a masking of symptoms, or you could- as I prefer, refer to it as "working". So what is the average homeopath to do then, when presented with a patient who is taking steroids but seeking their help? It would seem that the obvious (but sadly not the ethical) solution would be to ask them to discontinue their steroids so that that the symptoms are "unmasked". This will obviously lead to an increase in symptoms for the patient, and lead to unnecessary suffering, but it can also precipitate acute adrenocortical insufficiency, which can in the worst case scenario be fatal. Patients should "ideally" discontinue their steroids for 6 weeks prior to initiating a homeopathic remedy- this is more than enough time to result in loss of control in their condition.  

It's not just drugs themselves that can be a problem, but the excipients (inactive ingredients used in the formulation of a medicine) too. Strong flavours used in syrups, for example. This could potentially discourage patients to take- or to give their child- antibiotic syrups, with the potential to worsen or prolong a patient's condition. 
 

Can foodstuffs interact with homeopathic medicines?

  
Yes, apparently so, though again there is no hard study evidence for this- why would there be, when there's no good hard study evidence that homeopathy works in the first place? Coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, and spicy foods are all to be avoided. Aside from being unnecessarily restrictive, and potentially causing a patient anxiety, this idea fills me with horror. Imagine a life without tea, chocolate, or spicy foods. I rely on all of these three things to get me through my daily life, and would inevitably become depressed if I had to avoid any of them.
 

Can homeopathy interact with homeopathy? 


I know, right? What a bizarre question, given that homeopathic remedies are sugar with specially shaken water sprinkled on. Can sugar interact with sugar? Well it seems that someone has decided that they can, based on a grand total of no evidence. Aromatic preparations, such as camphor, menthol, and peppermint, are supposed to inactivate other homeopathic medicines. Remember, though, that homeopathic camphor, menthol  or peppermint is highly unlikely to actually contain any molecules of camphor, menthol or peppermint, and we're left in a bit of a ridiculous situation based on nothing at all. 

It would seem that homeopaths utilize certain foods or remedies as "antidotes". Apparently, if a remedy isn't working, and they want to try something else, they might ask a patient to drink a cup of coffee, or take a remedy like camphor to "wash out" the previous remedy so that they can start again. I'll refer you again to "Homopathic Pharmacy"- with a reminder that this is one of the more reasonable texts:

"It is certainly not dangerous in life-threatening terms, but used injudiciously will interfere with the vibrational pattern of the vital force."

Vital force, vibrational energy, sugar as an antidote to sugar, and none of it- not a scrap- based on science, evidence, or even basic logic.

See you again soon for the next episode :)

Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 3: Poor Advice

And so begins the third installment in our Homeopathic Harms series, a collaboration between myself and @EBMScientist of the Evidence Based Skepticism blog. For this post, I have my lovely, wonderful friend @shandymarbles to thank for the idea and the action.

Indirect harms due to homeopathy can, as we're trying to cover in these posts, come in various different guises. In my opinion, there is none more dangerous than this: poor advice from homeopathic practitioners. 

To set yourself up as a homeopath in the UK, you don't need any medical background. You also don't need to register with any regulatory bodies or undergo any standardized training. Medical homeopaths, i.e. doctors who practice it on the side, are of course regulated by the GMC, but your common or garden variety homeopaths could basically be anyone.

And yet, they claim to practice medicine and give advice on your health. Scary stuff, in my eyes. And I can give you a specific example of how harmful this can be, because one of my good friends contacted a UK homeopath recently. This homeopath is, as is proudly declared on his website, an engineer by trade.

Under the pseudonym Stacey Slater (which apparently didn't appear to ring any alarm bells with the homeopath in question), my friend asked for help in treating bipolar disorder. She said she had stopped taking the medication prescribed for it because she was getting horrible side effects, and asked if there was anyway that homeopathic treatments could help her stay stable and avoid psychosis. There are a few things to note here: the question was very specifically asking if homeopathy could be used instead of conventional medicines, and was asking about avoiding psychosis- we're talking about serious symptoms here, not a vague sort of "could it help with me feeling a bit down" sort of question. The description of "horrible side effects" would immediately ring alarm bells to me- what sort of side effects, and how is she feeling at that time.

Here's the response I would have liked to have seen in a dream world filled with responsible homeopaths (actually, in my dream world there would be no homeopaths at all, but you know what I mean):

"Dear Stacey,
Thank you for your enquiry. I'm sorry that you've stopped talking your medication for bipolar disorder, and would like to advise you in the first place to speak to your GP first of all about the side effects you have been experiencing. You should also discuss with them your decision to discontinue your medicines, as stopping them suddenly may cause your symptoms to worsen.
Homeopathy may be a useful option to help treat some of your symptoms. However, I wouldn't recommend that it is used instead of your usual medicines, unless this is done with the agreement of your medical team. Once you have spoken to them, please do contact me again and I will be happy to discuss any homeopathic treatment with you then."

This response covers all bases. It makes sure that the primary outcome of patient safety is covered by referring them to their own healthcare provider, however its also helpful and leaves open the possibility of some homeopathic treatment as an adjunctive, complementary treatment. It does not suggest that homeopathy can be used instead of her usual medication.

Here, however, is the real-life response:

"To,
Dear Stacey Slater,
Yes I am happy to help you for your Bipolar Disorder and will try to restore your previous health. 
Recently, my grandmother has been treated for her 15 years long Bipolar disorder with only two weeks of homeopathic treatment. Now, my father-in law (Himself Medical Practishner) says she is 100% okay with homeopathic remedy and need not take any other medications. 
To help you, I need some more information, like; your physical, mental and spiritual condition.
1. Any skin diseases are you suffering from?
2. Do you have problem of thyroid dysfunction? hyper or hypo?
3. Diabetes?
4.High or low blood pressure?
5. Since how long are you suffering from Bipolar disorder?
6. Your family history, if any one in your blood relation have tuberculosis, diabetes, cancer or high blood pressure?
7. Your liking and disliking? Food,Drink, time and weather 
8. Your family life, etc..
Your detail will help me to prescribe best remedy.
Looking forward to your reply,"

There are a few things to note here, as I'm sure you can tell. This homeopath claims that they will "try to restore to previous health"- in other words, he is offering a cure to bipolar disorder. We've got some anecdotes in there, in lieu of actual clinical evidence, and an extraordinary claim that longstanding bipolar disorder can be cured with only two weeks of magic woo water therapy. Now, given that bipolar is, by its very nature (and name!) a relapsing-remitting disease of two extremes, there is no way that an anecdote could be used as evidence of successful treatment. Who’s to say his grandmother wasn't just going through a good period that just happened to coincide with taking a couple of week’s worth of homeopathic medicines. How do we know she wasn't using effective conventional medicines at the same time? Who's to say she even exists? I can't help but wonder about his grandmother's right to confidentiality as well- has she given consent to be used as an anecdote in his consultations with other patients?

Who is this father-in-law mentioned? If he is so happy with the treatment, why isn't he happy to be named, and why is he even commenting on the grandmother's treatment? What relevance does this have to this homeopath's practice? The advice given that she "need not take any other medications" is a clear indication that this homeopath thinks that the homeopathy he advises can be used to "cure" bipolar disorder on its own, as an alternative to conventional medicine. By trying to make it seem like the advice has come from an actual medical practitioner, the homeopath is clearly trying to give this advice more credibility.

Lets have a think about the consequences of this advice: Our Stacey Slater is reassured that she doesn't have to continue on with her conventional medicines. She responds to the email above, goes on to have a consultation with the homeopath online (which costs £50 by the way- we're not talking pennies here. £50 for an email exchange!) She slips into psychosis, or mania, or a deep, deep depression. Eventually, she can't take anymore and she commits suicide. This homeopath has directly contributed to her death by not advising that she sees her medical team before discontinuing her medicines, and by claiming that she can be cured by inert sugar pills instead of continuing on with effective, evidence-based medication

The problem is, we can't gather robust evidence on this sort of thing, as it would be too unethical to do good, clinical studies. Maybe Stacey hasn't mentioned to anyone that she stopped taking her medicines and she was under the "care" of a homeopath- how would anyone know that the death was caused by him? And even if they did know, they're probably too upset and shocked at that point in time to think about raising a complaint. Who would write up a case report to publish in the medical literature? Certainly not the homeopath in question, he's not going to incriminate himself, and her medical team have probably had little contact with her since she's been advised not to bother with them anymore. And so homeopaths can continue to claim that their treatment is "safe", because we just don't know the scale of these sorts of cases. 

The only bright side here is that, of course, my friend will most definitely not be taking this shoddy advice. She's well aware that homeopathy is a whole load of nonsense and just contacted this guy to see what the response would be. However, we have to wonder how many other emails he's getting, from people who are genuinely seeking help. And we have to wonder what's happening to them, and whether they are safe.As an interesting, and rather creepy, aside the homeopath started following my friend on Google plus and Twitter a couple of hours after responding to her. This is at best weird and unprofessional, and at worst, really quite frightening. I can't think of any healthcare professionals who would do such a thing, just randomly looking up a patient on social media and then following them after one consultation- what about confidentiality? 

Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 2. Where's the Evidence?

Here's the next in our series of blog posts following on from our SITP talk about the harms of homeopathy. This is a guest post written by the marvellous @EBMScientist of Evidence-Based Skepticism fame. Now, I'm going to be a bit bossy here and insist that, if you haven't already bookmarked her blog, you do so right this minute. Future blog posts in this series will just be posted on our respective blogs, but we'll be sure to post links to all of them so you don't miss any instalments. so, without further ado, I shall hand you over to @EBMScientist:

We often harp on about the evidence for homeopathy working or otherwise, and I’m not going to touch on that here, because it’s been covered beautifully by many more eloquent writers than me.  What you don’t often see though, is comment on the evidence for homeopathy doing harm.  In the last post in this series the lovely @SparkleWildfire touched on medicalisation, an indirect harm that’s very real but tough to quantify; but what about direct harms?  I’m glad you asked…

In conventional medicine, randomised controlled trials are the best kind of study we can do of a drug to see if it works and if it it’s safe.  What maybe doesn’t mentioned quite so often is that there’s an even *better* form of evidence – the systematic review.  These are produced when someone sits down to do the very tough but remarkably important job of finding every single scrap of evidence they can on a given topic, and pooling it all together to try and get closer to the definitive answer.  The result is a document that represents the best evidence possible for how well a drug (or anything else, for that matter) works, and how safe it is.

One of the biggest and most respected sources of these systematic reviews is theCochrane Collaboration, who cover all areas of medicine.  Happily, they also have a few reviews related to homeopathy, and that seems as good a place to start as any.  The most recently published is:

Homeopathic Oscillococcinum® for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like illness

The authors searched multiple databases of medical literature, covering a time period dating back to the mid-60s and all the way up until August 2012.  That’s a lot of literature.  Out of all the results they found six randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum that were similar enough to be directly compared.  Since we’re not really interested in efficacy in this review, I’ll skip straight to the safety part: out of these six trials, including a total 1,523 people, there was one reported adverse event.  One. It happened to be a headache. Let’s stop and think about that for a moment.

A good quality randomised controlled trial collects every single adverse event that happens to every single patient.  And the use of the term “adverse event” is very deliberate, because it includes absolutely everything unexpected and unwelcome that happens (and here’s the key part) whether or not it’s likely to be related to taking the drug.  That might sound counter-intuitive, but the reason is simple – we want to pick up every possible side effect of drugs, and sometimes side effects are…weird.  So it might sound odd to include as an adverse event that someone got hit by a bus, but what if the drug they were taking made them dizzy, or confused, or clumsy?  It’s not unreasonable to suggest that any one of those things could end up in getting you involved in a traffic accident.  So every single little thing is recorded, and once the trials is over you do some sums to work out the key question – are these things *more likely to happen in the people who took the drug*? If 20 people broke a leg but they were equally spread out among the trial groups then nothing further needs to be said; if 19 of them were on the drug being studied then there might be something to worry about.  The flip side of that of course is that if 19 were in the placebo group, you might want to wonder if the drug is (perhaps unintentionally) promoting better balance and co-ordination, for example (or if everyone in the placebo group was a keen but inept snowboarder).

Is that one single adverse event out of over 1,500 people taking Oscillococcinum starting to look fishy yet?  What about if I drop in the snippet that some of the people involved (327, to be precise) took the remedy every day for four weeks, to see if it stopped them from getting flu in the first place?  How many times in four weeks would an average, healthy person experience something that you could call an adverse event – a headache, a tummy upset, indigestion, a strained ankle, a touch of insomnia?  I’ve had three of those things in the last 24 hours, and I wouldn’t say I’m a particularly remarkable individual.


So hopefully you can see from this that there’s simply a huge, yawning hole in the evidence about safety in homeopathy.  There are ways and means to address this (though they’re far from perfect), and I’ll address one of those in my next post in this series.

Homeopathic Harms Vol 1: Medicalisation

In February 2013, my friend Nancy and I delivered a Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled Homeopathy: Where's The Harm? As a follow up to this, we've decided to write a series of blog posts about a number of points we covered in the talk. Here is the first:   

Doctor's appointments: often you feel like you're in and out before you know it, and they can't get you out the door quick enough. They have a target number of minutes to spend with each patient, and sometimes you can feel like they don't have as much time as you'd like to discuss all the things you want to with them.

There is, then, one aspect of homeopathic practice which can be superior to that of conventional medicine: the consultation. A homeopath might spend an hour or more assessing each individual, not just asking about particular symptoms but about their personality as well, how they think and feel about the world. I've never been to see a homeopath, but I'd imagine this is really valuable to a patient, particularly those with minor mental health complaints. I know myself that when I've been to see a good GP who I feel has really listened to me, I leave feeling a bit better already. 

I suspect that the consultation itself may be part of what provides benefit to patients, rather than the sugar pills that are given out at the end of it. I'm not aware of any evidence that compared individualised homeopathic treatment to the OTC stuff though, which would be the only way to tease out and quantify any benefit from the consultation.

So what's the problem here? If a consultation with someone who appears to listen to you and care makes you feel better, where's the harm in that? The sort of subtle, indirect harms that we'll be discussing in this series of posts are often theoretical and would be very, very difficult to assess via hard, clinical evidence, so you'll have to bear with me while I discuss them with you and see if they make sense at the end of it. Consider the following story: 

Imagine I'm quite an anxious person (in actual fact I am, so it doesn't take that much imagining to those who know me). Imagine I'm particularly anxious at the moment because I maybe have a public speaking event (something like Skeptics In The Pub, say!) to deliver in a few week's time. I might be finding it hard to sleep, I find I'm worrying about it quite often, and getting some physical symptoms- my heart is beating quite fast at times, say, and my stomach hurts at times, but it's nothing too serious.

I go to visit a homeopath (admittedly, this would be an unlikely thing to do if I was actually talking about myself) who takes time to discuss with me my problems. I get on well with them, and feel like they are really listening to me. During the discussion, I find that vocalising my anxieties helps me to rationalise them and my fears are allayed somewhat. Just the act of talking about it makes me feel better- in other words, the homeopath is delivering a talking therapy service to me. By the end of the consultation, I'm already feeling more in control of my anxieties, yet I'm still given some tablets to take home, and I dutifully follow the instructions I'm given.

As I've discussed elsewhere, there is a stigma about mental health issues. This also, unfortunately, extends to talking therapies too. Its quite likely that some people would be happier to declare "I'm seeing a homeopath" than "I'm seeing a counsellor" in front of their friends or acquaintances. The handing over of the sugar pills at the end of the consultation will no doubt suggest the talking bit is more "justified", and they can convince themselves that they're not mad, or the sort of weak person who would have to resort to a talking therapy. And thus, the stigma is reinforced. Talking therapies shouldn't be something to be ashamed of. You don't need some inert sugar pills to justify and hide the fact that, now and then, you just need to be able to talk to someone about your problems or feelings.

There are wider issues with this kind of thing too. The visit to the homeopath has made me feel better. I've been to see someone, left with some pills in my hand, and I've improved, reinforcing the fact that I feel better when given something to take. Let's say that in the next few months, I feel a bit rubbish because I've had a bit of a cold and I'm left with a cough that's been there for a couple of weeks. I go to see my Dr, who tells me that my chest is clear, and the cough should clear up of its own accord. However, I've expected to get something out of the visit- I don't want to leave the surgery with no pills in my hand, as I know that last time I left a consultation about my health I was given pills at the end of it and I felt better. It's left to the Dr to explain to me that I don't need antibiotics, and this can be a notoriously difficult thing to do. Some Drs might relent and give me a prescription for an antibiotic, contributing to the catastrophic situation we're in now with antibiotic resistance. If the Dr doesn't give me a prescription, I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth and a bit of mistrust in the conventional health care system. 'Next time I'm feeling ill', I think, 'I'll go back to that homeopath. They take me seriously because they gave me pills'.

And so the cycle goes on.... 

Hxxx

 

The General Pharmaceutical Council: Let's hope they do the right thing

Many years ago, just after I qualified, I was working in a new 100 hour pharmacy in a very well known supermarket chain. 

To be honest, the working conditions were pretty terrible in that store. I had brilliant staff, but not enough of them. At the time, the policy of the supermarket for 100 hour pharmacies was to have no support staff there for the first hour and a half of the day, and the last two hours of the day. I argued tooth an nail against this, as we all know that pharmacists should ideally not self-check a prescription, no matter how quiet the pharmacy was between those times. The attitude of the company was that I was in the minority, and that I was complaining unnecessarily. 

At this time I was the only permanent pharmacist working there: the rest of the time we were running on locums. The company policy was to ideally use their locum booking system, but this was notoriously unreliable. I found myself setting my alarm for 6 am every morning, getting up and getting ready to wait for a phone call to tell me I would have to go in because the locum hadn't turned up, even on my days off. I found myself doing 16 hour shifts, occasionally one after the other, and with 3.5 hours of that spent on my own.

Even without the horrendous attitudes from other managers in-store (the daily battles, the snide comments about how much I was getting paid, the total lack of understanding about pharmacy law, and the outright sexism), these conditions were brewing for a dispensing error. 

The day it happened, I was working a 14 hour shift the day after working after a 16 hour shift. I was having to check a prescription whilst also being on the phone, because of the lack of staff. I checked that the drug, strength, directions etc were correct, but I didn't spot that the wrong name was on the label. 

The patient rang up to check that the cream was the right one for them. We apologised profusely, offered to redispense, offered to go through our complaints procedure etc. the patient was happy with the reassurance that it was the right cream and refused the other measures, stating that she was quite happy that the situation was rectified.

Next thing I know, I'm being investigated by the then-regulator, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. You can't even imagine what this did to me. I was an absolute mess, convinced that I was going to lose the career I had worked so hard for. I co-operated entirely with the investigation, just as I had with the patient. I informed the inspector of the working conditions and my fears that it would lead to something more serious. None of this was taken into account in the final report, which gave me a warning, and the fright of my life. 

All this for a minor dispensing error, which caused no harm to anyone. 

You'd think, then, that the current regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council, would come down hard on any pharmacist who actually endangered patients willingly. You'd think they would take decisive action, particularly where a pharmacist has had similar previous warnings which they have chosen to ignore. You'd think this would especially be the case where the pharmacist in question had been caught out by a BBC journalist posing as a concerned mother wondering about whether her child should be protected against whooping cough, a disease which can - and does- kill people.

See where I'm going with this? I'm hearing reports that the GPhC are suggesting that the Ainsworth's pharmacy case is nothing to do with them, and that as homeopathy is regulated by the MHRA it isnt their area. If that's the case, why is Mr Pinkus and the premises even registered with them?

I'm really hoping that this isn't the case, and that the GPhC are actually going to take decisive action. After all, what sort of a message does it give out to the public if they aren't being protected from harm? What sort of a message does it give out to the pharmacists that do their bet every day, trying their hardest to be as accurate as possible in working conditions that are ill-designed for such a purpose? 

Come on GPhC, be fair to the majority of your pharmacists who work according to your standards and actually do put patients first, and who do ensure that their recommendations are evidence-based and made with the best interests of the patient at heart. .

Hxxx
 

Big Pharma & Big Homeo: Titans will clash, and ducks will die.

There has been much talk of homeopathy in the media in the past few days. I want to pick up on one point that is being brought up by homeopathy believers everywhere at the moment in response to any criticism.
 

"But Big Pharma has many problems! Just read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre!"

There are a few reasons why this is an utterly terrible argument.

The Logical Fallacy

This is not a two option scenario, so this is a false dilemma. homeopathic supporters are attempting to suggest that because Big Pharma has its problems, homeopathy is a better alternative. But here's the problem: These are not the only options in the world. Big Pharma does have massive, endemic problems, but that bears no resemblance to whether or not homeopathy works. Even if there were no evidence that any conventional medicine works ever, there still wouldn't be any evidence that homeopathy works either.

There's definitely an element of a "You too!" fallacy here as well. Big Pharma has its problems, but this is no reason to expect anything less than impeccable ethics from any other sector. 

The Misleading Rustic Image

Homeopathic manufacturers would very much like us to have a fluffy, warm, reassuring image in our heads of some nice, compassionate people making a tincture from plants, shaking it in a special way, and making a nice, safe medicine from it. In actual fact, the image is rather more grubby, with diseased body parts, conventional medicines, and limbs being used in the manufacture. Oscillococciinum, supposedly the most popular homeopathic remedy for flu, involves killling a muscovy duck and using its heart and liver to produce a mother tincture. I wonder if folks who are against animal testing and the likes in the pharmaceutical industry are aware of this fact? For the purposes of this blog post, lets call our duck Dave

A Muscovy Duck Named Dave

A Muscovy Duck Named Dave

Homeopathy is not usually made by ethical practitioners in their kitchens. And frankly, if it were, i'd be pretty concerned about hygeine etc and would be wanting inspectors to go round to check it. Its mainly made by large companies who are ultimately concerned with profits. In fact, until very recently, New Era homeopathic products (ooh, sounds all new age-y and nice and hopeful, doesn't it?) were made by Merck (Sounds-and indeed is- a pretty damn large corporate pharmaceutical company).

We also know from the FDA that homeopathic manufacturers can be less than meticulous to say the least in their standards. Broken glass? That's not a problem, just leave it there on the production line, no one will mind. More info on this story can be found at The Quackometer
 

The Massive Mark Up Margins

Pharmaceutical companies spend a HUGE amount on research and development of new drugs. First they have to employ people to find a new chemical entity, whether that be in the rainforest or in the lab. Then they have to find out if it works, which involves a huge amount of lab work. If that seems postive, they then have to do trials, which is hugely expensive. At any of these stages, there is a huge likelihood of failure and it is a very, very small minority of new chemical entities that actually get through to a stage where they can be marketed. At that point, price margins can be pretty damn high, which is in part to cover all of those R&D costs. Yes, there are also huge profits that are made in the pharmaceutical industry, and there are all the associated problems covered in Bad Pharma. This is certainly not an ideal scenario, but at least at the end of the day we are left with some drugs that work.

Big Homeo, on the other hand, puts little-if any- funds into research and development. If it did, we would have a load more trials than we do now. The work in drug discovery has been done for them, by Hahnemann et al who have written Materia Medica and the likes. So not many outgoings there then.

What about the costs of the ingredients? Well sugar is cheap, as is water. And even if your mother tincture comes from a valuable substance, you can make a hell of a lot of homeopathic medicine from it. Here is the recipe for Boiron's Oscillococcinum (according to Wikipedia)

  • Active ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum (extract ofMuscovy Duck liver and heart) 200CK HPUS 1×10−400 g[9]

  • Inactive ingredient: 0.85 g sucrose0.15 g lactose (100% sugar.[10])

So to make 1 gram of oscillococcinum, you only need 1×10−400g of extract of poor Dave's heart and liver. This is a ridiculously tiny amount, and as you will hopefully now know, there will be VERY VERY VERY little chance of any of Dave's molecules remaining in the resulting solution. 

I have no idea how much the heart and liver of Wor Duckie Dave would weigh. I also have no idea how much an extract made from him would cost. I'm guessing, however, that the number of packs of homeopathic pills I could make from his unfortunate organs would mean it is very, very lucrative, and I would be laughing all the way to the bank with my profits were I a company with few scruples about selling nonsense to vulnerable people. 
 

The Pointlessness Of It All

Poor Dave. Dave has been killed to make a medicine. However, none of Dave's molecules actually make it into that medicine in the end, because it has been diluted to such extremes. There's no memory of Dave in the water or sugar left in the medicine, only in the minds of his little duckie friends and his family who miss him dearly. There are huge outcries about bear bile being collected for use in chinese traditional medicines- why is no one speaking out for Dave?

At the end of the day, evidence suggests that after all the sacrificing, succussing, potentization, and all the other fancy words they use for magic rituals, what we are left with is an inert sugar pill.We could have saved ourselves all the bother, and saved Dave's life, if we just made an inert sugar pill in the first place and didn't bother with all the pretending. 

Won't anyone think of the ducks?

Homeopathic Vaccines: An impassioned challenge

Its been a hard week for us pharmacists. To be honest, I'm sort of at a loss as to where to start, but the most obvious place is in London, at a pharmacy called Ainsworths, where a man called Tony Pinkus works.

Ainsworths is a real life, registered pharmacy, and Mr Pinkus is a real life, registered pharmacist. The main problem with this story, however, is that Mr Pinkus is not selling real life medicines to his real-life patients, and in doing so he is putting peoples' lives at risk.

In an expose by BBC News, Mr Pinkus has been caught recommending by email that homeopathic whooping cough "vaccines" are used instead of getting a proper, real-life vaccine. In the email exchange, Mr Pinkus is careful to express his recommendations as personal choice, and this will presumably form his defence. However in my eyes this is absolutely no defence at all. For years, the pharmacy profession has been slowly but surely promoting ourselves as the trusted healthcare professionals that we are, therefore we have a responsibility to be aware of the position of high esteem we may be held in by the public. We have a duty to know that any 'personal recommendations' we make will constitute medical advice in the eyes of many patients.

Mr Pinkus also states that the patients' GP "will undoubtedly throw a lot of fear in your direction". Now, I remember having it very firmly drummed into me that we need to be careful in our role as a pharmacist not to break the trust a patient has in their GP. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should cover up any mistakes or errors from them, but it does mean some quite careful wording as enquiries arise. Mr Pinkus is clearly and flagrantly attempting to reduce the trust this patient would have had in their GP's advice and showing a shocking lack of respect to the GP in question, despite knowing absolutely nothing about their practice. I wonder if he has ever considered the longer term implications of such wording. "oh, the GP has told me I should be worried about this lump in my breast, but of course they'll just throw a lot of fear in my direction", for example.

Mr Pinkus has also been investigated by pharmacy's governing body before. In 2006 he was caught selling homeopathic travel vaccines. In 2009 he was investigated by the PRSGB for selling homeopathic swine flu vaccines. In 2011 he was investigated for marketing homeopathic travel vaccines again and malaria prophylaxis. In each case the regulator has let the public down by not taking decisive action over a pharmacist who is regularly and routinely endangering lives, all in the name of "free choice". I don't think i actually need to point out the serious indirect harms that could happen if a patient were to use a sugar pills to prevent malaria, or yellow fever etc. 

Free patient choice is not a defence when patient's lives are at risk.

I've been asking for a response to the case from the GPhC on twitter for a few days now and have heard nothing. I'm also wondering why the story hasn't appeared in some of the major pharmacy news publications (Chemist and Druggist, I'm looking at you).  

This story has really angered me, and i can pinpoint exactly why. I've written before about the constant fear I and many other pharmacists feel whilst at work- the fear that one little throwaway mistake could have huge implications for a patient's life. And there's an added, secondary fear that, if something goes wrong, a regulator could step in and your whole livelihood and career could be at stake. This is a fear that all good pharmacists carry to some degree, and it  can weigh heavily on your life. And yet here strides Tony Pinkus, who waves away any notion of patient safety, and flagrantly (I know it's the second time I've used this word, but it seems to fit the situation rather well) ignores the standards of the regulatory body without, apparently, a care in the world.

Well, I'm taking to heart the GPhC standards for conduct, ethics and performance, one of which is:

"Be prepared to challenge the judgement of your colleagues and other professionals if you have reason to believe that their decisions could affect the safety or care of others"

So this, Mr Pinkus (and any other homeopathic pharmacists who would recommend a homeopathic vaccine) is me challenging your decision, because I believe it most definitely could affect the safety and care of others.

UPDATE: Chemist and Druggist have now covered the story (registration required). The comments section is interesting, with a couple of folk showing a staggering lack of knowledge about homeopathic products.
The Pharmaceutical Journal have also covered the story (registration required). This includes some interesting tidbits, like the fact the MHRA have been investigating 20, yes TWENTY unlicensed medicines being sold on the Ainsworth's website. And the post script is particularly interesting:

'Some of you have noticed that the pertussin products highlighted in the BBC investigation are still on sale. We've clarified this with the MHRA - a spokeswoman confirmed that the MHRA asction (sic) was against products labelled as vaccines. 
"Substances and products labelled with the names of serious diseases such as pertussis are part of a wider, ongoing investigation," she said. So it's watch this space for the outcome of that branch of the investigation."'

This wider, ongoing investigation sounds very interesting indeed. 
 

A Christmas Dinner Conversation

Hi all,

Hope you all had a lovely festive period, whatever religion (or lack of) you may follow.

I spent christmas day with my parents and remaining grandparents, and thought I'd regale you with the tale of part of our christmas dinner conversation.

Having been asked what I was doing in life at the moment, one of the things that was mentioned was the Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk that my good friend and Helper Dog Nancy and I are doing in February. This prompted Mum to state that she thought that homeopathy might work, after all plants had been used for many years in medicine. Now, I have written before about the case of the magic crystals, and do remember mum trying homeopathic remedies on me as a child (out of desperation due to my awful car sickness. Out of interest, I also remember them not working) when I was a bit older, so this stopped me short. I do have a suspicion that the majority of users of homeopathy have little knowledge of how it is made, and therefore no idea how unreasonable it is to expect it to work. And here was living proof that this was, indeed the case. Dad was aware of the like-cures-like principle, but they had no idea at all of the serial dilutions used in homeopathy.

Cue a demonstration (involving wine), and an explanation that beyond 12C there is virtually no likelihood of any molecules of the "active" ingredient appearing, and the general consensus was that they were amazed at this turn of events, and couldn't understand how on earth it could work and how anyone could possibly be taken in by such nonsense. 

And so it seems to me that a general lack of good information about what homeopathy is, and what the principles of it are, may well be responsible for the majority of people who may believe it still works.

What do you think? I wonder if there is any way to measure this? If you have any ideas, do give me a shout.

Hxxx

The Importance of Being Human

The more I talk to homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners, the more I realise that the distinction between in vitro and in vivo testing is unclear to many.

It may be due to ignorance, or it may be in a desperate bid to pad out the lack of real-life clinical evidence, or to stun us all into silence with impressive looking sciencey stuff, but it seems that alternative medicine supporters are desperate to throw in vitro studies my way as "evidence" that their treatments work. But here's the thing: it's not evdience that it works at all. In fact, for the purposes of informing treatment decisions, any in vitro data might as well be discarded before you even bother reading it. 

Why do i say this? Well, the easiest way to explain this is in picture form (drawings are courtesy of Haymond) :

A petri dish filled with gel, with some cells in it (an in vitro experiment)

A petri dish filled with gel, with some cells in it (an in vitro experiment)

A human being&nbsp; (well, okay, I know some people might think scientists aren't quite human beings but, y'know, we thought we'd still use one as an example). (in vivo)

A human being  (well, okay, I know some people might think scientists aren't quite human beings but, y'know, we thought we'd still use one as an example). (in vivo)


As you can see from these pictures, a few cells in a petri dish actually look (and act) rather differently to a functioning, whole human body. So positive (or negative) results in an in vitro study actually bear very little resemblance to real life clinical situations. What  in vitro testing is great for is as preliminary evidence- to make new discoveries and to guide further research, and to find out the all-important details of how something may work. But we can't use some cells in a petri dish to say "Yes, this will definitely work for this or that illness". The only sort of evidence that we can use to decide if a drug is effective in any particular illness is a robustly designed clinical trial, and even then we can't use that as a cast iron guarantee. 

I'm hoping that you will forgive me for this horrendous oversimplification, but it is hopefully a useful point to make. So, the next time you come across some in vitro studies being used as "evidence" that homeopathy works, you know that they're actually scraping the barrel, particularly gievn the fact that homeopathis is supposed to have been around for 2000 years. I'd expect after that amount of time that they'd have more than cell culture studies to their name. 

Hxxx