This week, news about that continual thorn in our side, homeopathy!
First up, I’d like to read you a media release from the Royal Australian College of General Practicioners, which was picked up as a news story by several media outlets this week.
Homeopathy treatment not effective and should not be prescribed
3 June 2015
GPs should not prescribe homeopathic remedies for their patients and pharmacists should not sell or recommend the use of homeopathic products, according to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP).
Releasing its position statement on homeopathy, RACGP President Dr Frank R Jones said GPs practiced in evidence-based medicine and there was robust evidence homeopathy had no effect beyond a placebo as a treatment for various clinical conditions.
“Given this lack of evidence, it does not make sense for homeopathy products to be prescribed by GPs or sold, recommended or supported by pharmacists,” Dr Jones said.
The RACGP position statement maintains that homeopathic alternatives should not be used in place of conventional immunisation.
“It is irresponsible to claim that homeopathic vaccines are a proven alternative to conventional vaccination. The reality is that these alternatives do not prevent diseases or increase protective antibodies and there is no plausible biological mechanism by which these alternatives could prevent infection.
“Individuals and the community are exposed to preventable diseases when homeopathic vaccines are used as an alternative to conventional immunisation,” Dr Jones said.
Another risk of homeopathy is that people delay or avoid seeing a GP – exacerbating their condition through delayed care – and reject conventional medical approaches.
“Spurious claims made by homeopathic practitioners and retailers can mislead people about the effectiveness of conventional medicine and this can result in serious health consequences,” Dr Jones said.
The position statement also outlines that many private health insurers subsidise homeopathy through ‘extras’ cover when alternative evidence-based treatment methods are available.
“Whilst we appreciate and recognise the right of patients who may choose or seek homeopathy, unfortunately all taxpayers are funding homeopathy via the Federal Government’s private health insurance rebate,” Dr Jones said.
“The RACGP is concerned that health insurance premiums continue to rise as significant subsides are paid for homeopathy and other natural therapies. In 2013-14 health insurers paid out $164 million in benefits for natural therapies, an increase of almost 60% from 2010-11.”
Earlier this year the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) analysed the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating a range of clinical conditions. It concluded that homeopathy produces no health benefits over and above that of a placebo, or equivalent to that of another treatment.
While all of this is really good – and an excellent public statement to be making to help the population become more aware of issues surrounding homeopathy… the fact that it doesn’t work, that something that doesn’t work is being sold in pharmacies, that something that doesn’t work is being included in taxpayer subsidised private health cover and is driving up premiums… I can’t help but feel a little stunned that doctors and pharmacists would ever need to be told not to recommend homeopathy. How anyone who has studied medicine – pharmacology in particular – could give a moment’s thought to even allowing patients to select homeopathic treatment without an explanation as to its lack of efficacy – let alone
recommend it – is quite beyond me.
Still, the RACGP’s position statement is, like the NHMRC’s findings, more weight coming down on homeopathy.
Homeopathy in pharmacies is one of my greatest bug bears. It’s easy for people to consider its existence alongside evidence based treatments to be an endorsement for its efficacy, particularly given the credibility of pharmacists.
One argument as to why pharmacies stock homeopathy is that they’re being run as businesses, and there’s a public demand for homeopathic products. Which is frustrating, as they’re businesses which we rely on for vital health information and products (and discount glitter nail polish, an integral item for my personal well being). Pharmacies are businesses, but
they’re also an essential service – one that most of us need to use from time to time, one through which we rely on the services of a university trained professional.
Accepting the business model though, makes me wonder whether part of the push for change could come from consumer demand. Perhaps one day we could get a large enough percentage of the public to say no to homeopathy… and if a pharmacy chain removes it from its shelves, reward them with our custom.
This is highly idealistic, I realise. In the meantime, we do have groups such as Friends of Science in Medicine lobbying for the removal of non-evidence based products from pharmacy shelves – you can see what they’re up to and if you’re so inclined, lend them your support by going to scienceinmedicine.org.au.
Across and up to the UK now, where the Good Thinking Society have been campaigning to have homeopathy struck off of the NHS – that’s the National Health Service, akin to Medicare down here, which funds homeopathic hospitals! The campaign has had a great success so far, with extensive media coverage and Clinical Commissioning Groups – local area groups which organise the delivery of NHS services – reassessing their support for homeopathy – some
announcing that they will no longer be funding such.
As part of the Good Thinking Society’s efforts to examine and publicise what’s going on with NHS funded homeopathy in the UK, our eminent friend Michael Marshall investigated precisely what’s being sold by homeopathic pharmacies which supply the NHS… and came across something rather bizarre… an owl remedy!
Freeman’s homeopathic pharmacy in Glasgow lists all sorts of weird and wonderful remedies on their website, including three different remedies labeled “Owl”! Marsh decided to find out more about the owl remedy, and called Freeman’s.
What followed was a slightly surreal conversation, in which the pharmacy assistant informed Marsh that the remedy was made from owl feathers, and was prescribed by homeopathic “doctors” and practicioners not for owl allergies, but for people who were taking on the characteristics of owls, such as… not sleeping.
The entire conversation is available as a YouTube video, I’ll put a link in the show notes, as it’s well worth a listen – and a watch.
During the conversation, the homeopathic pharmacy assistant stated that homeopathic owl was for doctors and practicioners to prescribe, and not sold over the counter – yet the Good Thinking Society was able to purchase it online without a prescription, nor a warning that one is required. Hmm.
Discoveries such as this, while disturbing in a sense, are also incredibly useful. The strange combination of absurdity and bulldust in the homeopathic owl expose caught not only the attention of skeptics and the like on social media, but also that of the Daily Mirror, which ran a story on the Good Thinking Society’s work around homeopathy and the case of the
owl remedy. A huge well done to the Good Thinking Society!
And you know, if you find something similarly bizarre… pursue more information and consider going public! Weirdness can be an excellent way to draw public and media attention to pseudoscience.
Finally, here’s a fantastic tweet which caught my eye from Andy Lewis, whose Twitter handle is @lecanardnoir:
You can read more about the Good Thinking Society’s amazing work at goodthinkingsociety.org.
Until next week, have a hoot of a time!
A transcript of this report with links has been posted at my blog, which can be found on evidenceplease.net.