And another thing…

As a result of my dealings with Boots, and my general attitude toward homoeopathic products, I’ve decided to take a leaf out of the book of the 1023 campaigners in England, and launch a similar campaign here in Ireland. The website for the campaign is now live, and I’d love it if you would all take a look, pass the link on, and consider supporting the campaign.

The reason I’m posting this is twofold – firstly, to let everyone know that the campaign is now starting, and that I need your support, and secondly, to talk a little bit more about why I’m doing it.

I think that everyone should have freedom of choice when it comes to their health. The decisions you make can affect the rest of your life dramatically, so it’s important to make the right ones. With so much advertising, it can be a bit tough to siphon out the useful information from all of the advertisement chaff when it comes to healthcare, so many people turn to their pharmacist for advice. And this is really where the problem starts. You could argue that it is someone’s choice to use homoeopathic remedies, and indeed, it is a choice that we should be free to make. But when that choice is made with incomplete or inaccurate information, then it’s not really a choice at all. Unless your pharmacist is specifically telling you that there is nothing in these remedies at all, then you are not making an informed decision.

Another oft-heard argument is that it’s not doing any harm to anyone to have them on sale, or for people to take them. After all, the placebo effect is a demonstrable phenomenon, and surely if that’s enough, we should leave them be? While I would typically refer these people to a number of cases where people have died unnecessarily due to carers withholding conventional medicine in favour of homoeopathic medicine, in this case, I’m going to look a little deeper.

The relationship between patient and pharmacist or doctor is a delicate thing. The doctor/pharmacist relies on the complete honesty of the patient in order to diagnose or treat correctly, and the patient has to trust the doctor/pharmacist enough in order to be completely honest. When this relationship fails, people are wrongly diagnosed and don’t get better. In order for a placebo drug, such as a homoeopathic medicine to work, the doctor/pharmacist has to lie to the patient. They have to say that it is a real medicine, that will cure what ails the patient. Every doctor and pharmacist would have to agree to treat homoeopathic medicine like a giant “emperor’s new clothes” conspiracy, and simply not mention the fact that there’s nothing in it, and lie to the patient if they ask directly. And when the doctor/pharmacist lies to the patient, that delicate bond of honesty and trust is broken.

In addition, it is often forgotten that the placebo effect is not limited to placebo medicines. For example, when you go to a doctor, and they prescribe you with a conventional medicine, the expectation is that you will get better, so you will experience the same placebo effect, along with the conventional treatment. Again, this relies partly on that bond between doctor/pharmacist and patient – the patient has to believe that the doctor/pharmacist is not lying to them and that the medicine will do them good. To return to a world where doctors and pharmacists lie to patients is to take a massive step backwards in the way we look after ourselves, and it shouldn’t be encouraged. In order for doctors and pharmacists to be honest, they need to let people know that there are no active ingredients whatsoever in the homoeopathic remedies that people are purchasing. Currently, this isn’t happening, and people are spending money on useless remedies.

I hope that, by organising this protest, I’ll be able to show some people that there really is nothing in homoeopathy, and that they shouldn’t waste their money on it. And I hope that I can show Boots that we would rather know the truth about our medicines than be lied to. If you agree, I hope that you’ll join me in the demonstration.

Yesterday, I emailed the Boots customer care address, about homoeopathic products. I did this because I discovered that Boots was selling homoeopathic remedies in their stores in Dublin. The store that I visited was in the Jervis Street shopping centre, and it had prominent displays outside promoting the pharmaceutical advice and products available. I was pretty shocked, then, to find that they were selling useless sugar pills alongside actual effective medication. I was shocked enough that I was prompted to write a quick note, as follows:

To whom it may concern:

On visiting a local Boots store over the weekend, I was shocked and horrified to discover homoeopathic remedies for sale in the store (Jervis Shopping Centre branch). This particular store had a heavy emphasis on the pharmacy side of the business in its advertising, so I would not have expected it to also be selling unproven and essentially fake medicine to people, alongside useful drugs.

Homoeopathic remedies contain no actual substance other than sugar pills and/or water. They are diluted beyond the point where one molecule of the original substance can be in the final product, and that is scientifically proven. I cannot understand, therefore, why you would choose to sell such products alongside legitimate medicines.

On a personal note, I’m extremely disappointed to find that a store which I used to enjoy shopping in is continuing to sell these products.

Today, I received a reply from Boots:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your concerns over the retail of Homeopathic and Alternative remedies.

At Boots we take our responsibilities as the leading Pharmacy-led Health & Beauty retailer in the UK very seriously and as part of this we?re [sic] committed to providing our customers with a wide range of healthcare products to suit their individual needs.  We know that many people believe in the benefits of complementary medicines and we aim to offer the products we know our customers want.

Our Pharmacists are trained healthcare professionals and are on hand to offer advice on the safe use of complementary medicines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain issues guidance to pharmacists on the correct selling of homoeopathy, which our pharmacists adhere to. We would support the call for scientific research and evidence gathering on the efficacy of homoeopathic medicines as this would help our patients and customers make informed choices about using homoeopathic medicines

We take the concerns of all of our customers very seriously and we thank you for the time you have taken to give us this feedback.  Please be assured that I have shared your comments with our Healthcare and Pharmacy teams.

Yours sincerely

Boots Customer Care

I would hope that, in the light of the recent 10.23 demonstrations, Boots would be receiving many emails complaining about their sale of homoeopathic products, so I expect that the reply is a standardised form letter by now. What their letter says is that, even if they are aware that the products are useless and pointless, they believe people want to buy them, and so they have no problem selling them. I do have a problem with a brand that is so associated with healthcare selling products which are not only ineffective, but which could well damage people if taken instead of conventional medicine when sick.

It is my opinion that it’s not enough to merely support the call for research while also profiting from the sale of useless pills and tinctures. Hundreds of studies have already been done on a wide range of homoeopathic remedies, and the results are almost unilaterally negative. Why ignore those studies in favour of future research, when the evidence is already there? The answer: profit.

I think it’s dangerous and misleading for a healthcare professional to recommend or advise on the use of homoeopathic remedies, as it lends credibility to a completely incredulous field. The only advice that “trained healthcare professionals” should give about homoeopathic remedies is “don’t take them”.

So, with the above in mind, I replied to Boots:

Hi,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

My concern is precisely that Boots is considered a leading pharmacy, and that many people would turn to staff in store for health advice. If the advice given to them includes advice about homoeopathic remedies, then it undermines the advice that is being given.

Homoeopathic remedies contain no active ingredients whatsoever. Most remedies are sold at 30C dilution, which equates to 10 to the power of 60 dilution, or 1 part of the molecule in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of water. This means, essentially, that it is physically impossible for even a single molecule of the original substance to be present in the final product. What you are selling, as medicine, is essentially sugar pills with drops of water added. When people eschew conventional medicine in favour of homoeopathic remedies, there can be disastrous consequences. I refer you, for example, to the recent case of Thomas, Manju, and Gloria Sam.Gloria Sam was an infant who suffered from severe eczema. Rather than use the conventional medicine and creams which were recommended by their healthcare professional, her parents, Thomas and Manju Sam, chose to turn to a homoeopathic healthcare professional. As a result, Gloria’s condition continued to deteriorate rapidly. By the time the child was seen by a conventional medical professional, a doctor she was so ill that they had to immediately put her on morphine simply to manage the pain. Due to systemic infections, and a total lack of legitimate care, she died after 3 days in the hospital. This is a death that could have easily been prevented had the parents followed the advice of their healthcare professional. This case is just an example of the kind of thing that will continue to happen for as long as large institutions, such as Boots, are seen to support homoeopathy as a legitimate and effective choice when it comes to dealing with health problems.

Unless your healthcare professionals are informing people that no active ingredients are present in the homoeopathic remedies, and that they will have no effect on their health, then you are not helping them to make informed choices. Making an informed choice can only happen when all of the information laid out is correct.

I implore you to reconsider your support of homoeopathic medicine, to examine the evidence which has already shown that these medicines are ineffective, and to help your customers make a truly informed choice.

Yesterday, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of a number of misconduct charges, related to his medical research. This has caused quite a buzz, as the press and other media speculate as to whether he will be struck off as a result.

In 1998, Dr. Wakefield published a paper which speculated on a link between a rare bowel disorder, autism, and the MMR vaccination. He suggested that parents should give their children the vaccines individually (measles, mumps, and rubella), rather than as a triple vaccine. The paper also seemed to suggest a link to the MMR vaccine and to autism.

Despite the many flaws in this research (small sample size, no permission from parents, etc.) the research was published.  After its publication in The Lancet, the information was disseminated among the newspapers, gaining momentum at a furious pace. Before long, there were campaign groups, newspapers taking one side or the other, vox-pops of weeping parents and crippled children, etc.

Unfortunately, due in large part to the way the paper was reported, parents believed that they were doing the right thing in choosing to decline the MMR vaccination. They thought they were protecting their children from autism, a condition which must strike fear into the heart of any parent. What they should have been worried about was protecting their children from the crippling effects of measles, mumps, and rubella – diseases which can be fatal, or which can leave a child brain damaged and needing lifelong care. The effects can still be seen today, with many parents perpetuating the myth that the MMR will give your child autism. Unvaccinated children are contracting measles and they are infecting other unvaccinated children. In many countries, we are now seeing a rise in the number of outbreaks of measles, and deaths relating to those infections. The numbers are continuing to rise, whereas before the media circus relating to the MMR happened, numbers were at an all time low.

Now Wakefield is in the docks, and is being made to face the music for shoddy research, flouting the rules, and being irrespnsible with the lives of other people. But what of the journalists? What of those writers who read only the abstract of his paper, or worse, who read only the summary of his paper in other publications? What of the newspapaers who sold publications by splashing dangerous headlines about autism?

The sad fact is that the newspapaers, the journalists, they won’t be in the docks for their irresponsible reporting. Not many people outside of the medical and scientific worlds read journals like The Lancet, so had they been more responsible, it’s possible that the scare may not have spread so widely.

Wakefield will take a fall, and the newspapers that helped to bouy him up will now chronicle his demise, while they wait for another paper to tell them that cherries give you cancer, and three green tea enemas can cure it.

It’s easy to paint Wakefield as a scapegoat – after all, it was his paper that started it all. But he’s not alone in the blame. Sadly, there’s no way to punish those irresponsible journalists. The PCC is toothless, and has so many restrictions about taking a case that it’s barely worth the time at all. Legal action costs money, and it would be to difficult to prove damage as a result of any one article.

The lesson here is that same old tune you’ve been hearing your whole life – you can’t believe everything you read. As our information networks reach further around the globe, their scope is narrowed. One paper publishes an article, ten more simply rearrange that article and publish it as their own, and before you know it, there’s an MMR scandal all over again.The only thing that can be done is to keep checking sources, to keep checking facts, and to take everything that’s written with a pinch of salt until it’s verified.

The bottom line is this – it is safe to vaccinate your kids. It is irresponsible and dangerous not to. Read every newspaper with both eyes open.

I used to think that the above quote was a little odd. I mean, surely knowledge is a thing to be shared, and the gaining of knowledge, something to be encouraged. I think I understand it now though. Knowledge, full and complete, is a wonderful thing. A little knowledge, however, really is a dangerous thing…

As an example, I present another fine article from that favourite of mine, the Daily Mail. The article deals with a planned protest of sorts by a group called 10.23. Members of the group plan to “overdose” on homoeopathic medicines in protest at Boots’ continued endorsement and sale of homoeopathic remedies. The Daily Mail article is sadly riddled with errors, and is attributed to a generic “Daily Mail Reporter”, who appears to have as poor an understanding of the subject matter as the many people who commented on the article itself. On reading the article, it’s clear that the author did very little research before writing (hardly surprising) and instead simply threw in a few names of “homoeopathic” products that he or she knew of. However, the products that are mentioned are not homoeopathic products at all – they’re herbal products.

The problem is that homoeopathic remedies and herbal remedies are not the same thing, and to imply that they are leads to confusion and, at worst, damage. A herbal remedy consists of dried, powdered, or otherwise prepared plant, mineral, etc parts and extracts, formed into pills, powders, liquids, etc. There are many herbal remedies for sale in Boots and in other health food shops. And there have been a number of studies that have shown that some herbal remedies can have beneficial effects on the conditions that they are supposed to treat. However, like “conventional” medicine, these herbal remedies are not without their side effects. Perhaps the most well known example of this is St. John’s Wort. This, to reaffirm the point, is a herbal, not a homoeopathic, remedy. St. John’s Wort (or Hypericum perforatum) is a small yellow flowered plant that is considered a noxious and toxic weed in many countries. It has been traditionally used to treat depression. Recent clinical studies have shown that it can be effective in cases of mild to moderate depression. However, clinical studies have also shown that the side effects of St. John’s Wort are many and varied, and it can interact with a number of prescription drugs, such as contraceptive pills, antiretrovirals, immunosuppressants, etc., making them less effective. So, like many over the counter medications, it has been shown to have both benefits and side effects. And like anything that you plan to take that may potentially effect your health, you would be well advised to consult a doctor (a real doctor) before taking it.

So, why isn’t it the same as homoeopathy? Well, when you buy St. John’s Wort over the counter, as a herbal remedy, what you are buying is part of the plant, processed and made into tablets or a similar delivery method. The tablet that you receive will have a defined amount of the plant in it. The same cannot be said of homoeopathic remedies, due to the nature of their creation.

Homoepoathic remedies are often based on a theory originally put forward by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. The theory states that you should treat like with like – i.e. if you can find a compound which, when taken, causes the symptoms of malaria, then you will be able to cure malaria in an ill patient using this compound. The theory also states that the more diluted a preparation is, the more potent it is. The act of striking the preparation after each dilution (known as succussion) makes the mixture more potent. In Hahnemann’s time, knowledge of molecular chemistry was poor, so it was not unreasonable for him to assume that anything could be diluted infinitely and still contain some of the original chemical. However, the same excuse is not applicable to the people who now practice homoeopathy. Hahnemann advocated a dilution of 30C for almost everything – that is a dilution of 10 to the power of 60, or 1 part of the molecule in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of water. Modern science tells us that, using Hahnemann’s “C” scale of dilutions, that no trace of the original molecule is likely to be found at anything higher than a 12C dilution. Many homoeopathic remedies use dilutions even higher than advocated by Hahnemann, such as the infamous Oscilliococcinum homoeopathic flu remedy, which is diluted at 10 to the power of 400. As it is thought that there are only 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the whole universe, Oscilliococcinum would require several more universes (10 to the power of 320 universes, in fact) to even have a single molecule of the original substance in the final dilution. With those numbers in mind, you will hopefully see that it is extremely unlikely that a finished homoeopathic product (in the form of sugar pill or fluid) will likely contain absolutely none of the original molecule that it perports to contain.

This is the crucial difference between herbal medicine and homoeopathy, and it is a difference that the author of this article, and many of the people who left comments, have missed. Herbal medicinal products may actually contain some part of the plant they come from. Homoeopathic remedies are so unlikely to contain some part of what they originally came from as to be utterly laughable.

To those commenters, and the author, who spoke of the group members overdosing on things like St. John’s Wort and belladonna, you are sadly mistaken, and your little knowledge on the subject will go a long way to fuelling the misunderstanding and mistaken beliefs surrounding alternative medicines.  If the group truly choose only homeopathic remedies to overdose on, then they are in no danger at all. They will merely be swallowing water, possibly flavoured or coloured (such as in Rescue Remedy), or sugar pills. Unless an unfortunate member manages to drown whilst swallowing the remedies, I don’t expect that any medical treatment will be necessary in the aftermath. I expect that the members of the group will have done more than enough research to be aware of the difference between the medicines, as they seem well informed.

I do hope that others reading the article, and deciding to demonstrate the same way, do some research first. To swallow several hundred tablets of 30C nux vom. will be very unlikely to cause you harm. To swallow several hundred tablets of St. John’s Wort could very well leave you quite ill.

And so we return to my original point – a little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. A little knowledge, in the case of this author, has lead to a confusion between two very different kinds of alternative medicine, and one that could lead to trouble for a lot of people. As a journalist, it’s your duty to know what you are telling people and to make sure it is accurate. “Daily Mail Reporter”, whoever you may be, I’m sorry to say that you have failed.

This week has seen some interesting news with regard to Rom Houben, a man who appears to have been suffering from Locked In Syndrome for over 20 years. A while ago, he made headlines when it seemed that he had been misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, when in fact he had been minimally conscious and “locked in” all these years. While the diagnosis was made in 2006, it is only recently that a paper detailing the case was published, which is, in turn, what has driven media attention to the man.

At first glance, the story seems to be pretty miraculous. A man is left in a permanent vegetative state after an accident, and remains that way for 23 years. He is assessed for signs of brain activity again, by a new doctor (and at the behest of his family) and it is seen that there is brain activity. And now, 3 years later, he is giving interviews on tv, through the medium of Facilitated Communication. He is eloquent, optimistic, and smart. The case must shine out like a beacon to any who have previously questioned the notion of removing life support from people in long term comas or vegetative states, or to people who are perhaps now hoping that their loved one will awaken from their coma and return to the person they once were.

At first glance, I’d be almost inclined to agree, but the scientist in me wanted more than a newspaper article, so I looked a little deeper into it. I found the paper published by (among others) Stephen Laureys, who is the doctor that is being credited with discovering that  Houben was in a minimally conscious state (MCS) rather than a persistant vegetative state (VS). The paper can be viewed freely here and I’ve also grabbed the PDF, lest that link disappear in the future. I also did some investigating into Facilitated Communication, as watching some of the videos featuring Houben (and his facilitator) left me questioning the validity of the method. (One such video is featured here Houben interview)

To my mind, anyone believing that the story will signal a mass re-diagnosis of all comatose patients should read the original paper. It’s linked above, and is freely available (and I applaud the authors for allowing the paper to be open access online, it is a refreshing and welcome change from the norm). At first glance, one of the points made in the conclusion leaps out at me – “Despite the importance of diagnostic accuracy, the rate of misdiagnosis of VS has not substantially changed in the past 15 years.” While misdiagnosis of VS has always occurred, the rate of misdiagnosis has not changed. People are not being diagnosed with VS in order to be shelved, or because doctors don’t have time for them. They are being diagnosed based on a set of criteria that has proven to be reasonably reliable over time. I hope that this article does not bring renewed, dashed hope for many people.

I’ve also looked into facilitated communication, and having done so, I have my doubts about its legitimacy, and it’s efficacy. In some cases, people have moved from facilitated communication to independent communication, but these do seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. The alleged goal of facilitated communication is not to be there to facilitate for the rest of the person’s life, but to allow them to further develop so that they can communicate themselves. Where this has worked has been, for example, cases where the facilitator now need only hold a keyboard while the person uses it, or where the facilitator helped to train the person in the use of a communication device. I don’t see this in the case of Houben.

I understand that learning to use a new communication tool can take some time. I can imagine it would be very difficult. But if Houben’s FC is still communicating for him after 3 years, isn’t there a failure in technique there? After 3 years, shouldn’t he be able to use a device by himself, or at least more independently than to have a facilitator actually moving his finger? Also, as has been pointed out by several articles, it seems remarkable that a man, essentially trapped in solitary confinement for 23 years, should have no psychological problems evident. There appears to be no mental damage, as a result of the accident, or, as a result of the prolonged isolation. It seems to me that someone who has been removed from society, institutionalised, and isolated, for such a long time, really shouldn’t be so well adjusted.

Many detractors of Facilitated Communication say that the words that are spoken are really those of the facilitator, whether it be intentional or unintentional. I would have expected that selecting letters on a full qwerty keyboard, one by one, with only small hand movements to direct you, would be hard, and slow going. In the video above, and many others, the facilitator is moving his hand around with remarkable speed. If he has the muscle tone and strength to move so significantly that he can direct her at that speed, can he not now move toward independent communication?

Or is this all just giving false hope to people? Houben was found to be in a MCS by new technology. This is another matter for dispute, should it interest anyone. However, being in a minimally conscious state is not the same thing as being awake, and nor does it necessarily mean that you will have the physical ability to communicate.

I would hope, for the sake of his family, that Houben really is communicating and feeling alive after his second birth. As with many such things, I find the evidence rather thin, and until such time as I can find something more substantial, I’m forced to conclude that this story is potentially damaging to anyone in the unpleasant position of caring for a comatose loved one. I think it will serve to raise hopes only to dash them sharply again.

And I wish that this had been considered before the media declared him a miracle coma man.

And the effort to categorise all foods into arbitrary “good” and “evil” groups continues, with this stunning example of a completely useless article, which contains overall less nutritional value than the “superfoods” it recommends (or poo-poos).

The term “superfoods” has come into common usage quickly, and almost silently, and while some foods could certainly be described as pretty good (containing a high nutrient content while also containing little poor nutritional content) the amount of foods now carrying the “super” moniker has gone beyond a joke.

Superfoods is a term that continues to inspire debate among nutrition professionals (e.g. dieticians) as it has become little more than a marketing tool, used to promote foods as having health benefits which are in some case questionable, and in others, entirely fictitious.

Lets take the article linked above as an example of current “superfood” buzz. I particularly enjoyed reading this one, because it ticked not one, but two boxes on the “rubbish” checklist – not only did it contain a list of superfoods, but it actually contained a list of “bad” foods, reasons why they are actually “good”, and the vice-versa for “good” foods.

The article takes a number of “bad” foods, such as cheese, jam, chocolate, coffee, and lists health benefits which make it ok to eat them. Jam will cure cancer, bacon will prevent the artery clogging normally associated with fats, and ice cream and chocolate will cure your depression and solve all your problems from the first nibble.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a superfoods spectacular if they didn’t also include some “good” foods. What I particularly enjoyed here, though, is that they include these “good” foods simply so that they can rubbish them! Yes, that’s right – Tofu will make you sterile, orange juice will give you diabetes, and heaven forbid you should eat wholemeal bread…

I do hope that this is another article that no one will take any notice of, but I feel sure that that’s not likely to happen. Instead, it will be trotted out during discussions as a reason to avoid “good” foods, and indulge in “bad” foods instead.

This article, like others in the same vein, quietly promises that by eating foods you really like, you can be healthy (and that by avoiding foods you maybe don’t like, you’re really doing yourself a favour). I think this is because if anyone actually wrote a useful article about nutrition, it would never be published, because it’s not news.

The simple fact of the matter is that we have known for years how to have a healthy relationship with food, and the key isn’t loading your diet with “superfoods”, eating millions of berries or tomatoes, or kilos of chocolate to prevent cancers and render you superhuman. The key is, as it has always been, balance and moderation.

So, here’s my proposal for a new article, that I’m sure will blow people away with its new and exciting information. The key to living long and prospering is right here – Eat a balanced diet that doesn’t include too much sugar or fat. Eat a diet that includes a variety of foods. Eat when you’re hungry, and learn to stop when you are full. And hey, every now and again, indulge in a bit of vigorous activity.

Now then, where’s my phone – I’m sure it’s about to start ringing off the hook…

A blog that I quite enjoyed reading can be found here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/hmc21-hammering-the-nails-into-homeopathy/

I have always been fairly skeptical of homeopathy, and some of my recent reading material (Bad Science, Trick or Treatment, Suckers) has really served to reaffirm my beliefs and to provide me with a wealth of evidence to back them up.

To my mind, it is clear that homeopathy does make some people better, but for different reasons than they would assert. Varying degrees of the placebo affect, the feeling of being more cared for, the comfort of a “diagnosis”, etc., will all, I believe, make a person feel better if they have been suffering from some vague malaise.

In this case, I don’t begrudge them. If you really believe that taking a drop of Rescue Remedy before an exam will help you succeed, then who am I to burst your bubble? Largely, this kind of thing doesn’t harm anyone, and while you are essentially buying into something I don’t believe in, I have seen what positive thought and belief can do to, and for, people.

I have to draw the line, however, when it comes to real, problematic diseases and conditions. There have been far too many cases where people have died of easily preventable and/or treatable conditions because, rather than take medicine, they opted for “natural” medicine, or homeopathy. Once such example particularly offended me recently – the case of Thomas, Manju, and Gloria Sam. This article will give you more details, but in summary – the child (Gloria) suffered from severe eczema, and the parents refused conventional treatments, instead opting to provide homeopathic drops and other remedies. They also flew the child to India to receive further homeopathic treatment. When Gloria was eventually brought home and to a hospital, with an eye infection so severe that her corneas were melting, there was little the professionals could do. Her body was literally worn out from fighting the various infections that her compromised skin could not keep out of her body. She died of septicaemia.

The child in the above story suffered much more pain than she ever should have, simply because her parents refused conventional treatment. When cases like this come up, I think that removing all the homeopathic remedies from the shelf might not be such a bad idea.

I am aware that there are many plants that have important pharmaceutical properties, and that many of the drugs we now use today originally came from plants. However, most of these drugs are not produced from the original sources, because it is too difficult to control – by producing them artificially, dosage, strength, quality all can be controlled. I don’t believe that there is a big conspiracy on the part of the pharmaceutical companies to suppress “natural” remedies – many medical remedies come from “natural” sources. I genuinely believe that if there was a flower out there that could cure cancer, people would already be exploring its properties, cultivating it, and seeing how they could make it most effective, and also safe.

I think that when it comes to making healthcare decisions, you should look to the proof, not the spin, to decide. And to my mind, there is too little proof of efficacy in homeopathic remedies.