By Paul Rodgers

If it were up to me, magic would work. Much of my teens were spent in an imaginary land full of elves and dwarves, steeped in the lore of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Who could resist the idea that waving a wand or drinking a potion could solve life’s problems?

As an adult, though, I found that magic doesn’t work, and science does. Yet the NHS, an institution that should be a bastion of science, continues to spend millions of pounds a year – for remedies, staff and the upkeep of four specialist hospitals – on homeopathy, a practice with no scientific basis whose origins lie in Renaissance alchemy. At best, homeopathy is an expensive placebo, but in leaching scarce resources from treatments that are effective, and by distracting patients from seeking proper medical care, it causes real harm. That kind-hearted Britons are being encouraged to give money to pay for a group of homeopaths to go to Haiti to treat earthquake victims is scandalous.

Let’s be clear. Homeopathy is not the same as herbalism, which has some scientific merit. Its main principle, that “like-cures-like”, dates back to Paracelsus, a 16th century physician, astrologer and occultist who believed that if you suffered from, say, stomach cramps, the cure should be something that causes stomach cramps. The problem – obviously, you might think – was that this “cure” often made things worse. Two centuries later, Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, realised that diluting the like-cures-like medicines reduced their toxic effects, though not, he claimed paradoxically, their efficacy.

And so homeopathy was born. Minute doses of the active ingredients are diluted so much that your chance of finding even one atom of it in your pricey sugar pills could be as low as one in a trillion. Exotic explanations for this vary widely, often involving the sort of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that is the stock in trade for Star Trek scriptwriters. One common idea is that water can “remember” which active ingredient used to be present (though apparently it forgets the myriad other contaminants that have been removed). As David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, put it: “If homeopathy worked, the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned”. Even some of the purveyors of these snake oils don’t have much faith in them. Paul Bennett, the professional standards director at Boots, one of the country’s biggest homeopathic retailers, admitted in November that “I have no evidence before me to suggest that they are efficacious.”

The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee – which reported on 22 February on its investigation into this “alternative therapy” – concluded that public funding for this hocus pocus should be cut. Even research into it should be abandoned as a waste of money. The MPs should go further. Homeopaths should be held legally responsible if they prescribe their placebos for conditions which demand proper medical attention. In Australia, two homeopaths, husband and wife, were jailed last autumn for gross criminal negligence over the death of their nine-month-old baby in 2002. The baby had severe eczema and died of septicaemia after her parents tried to treat her homeopathically. Even the placebo effect doesn’t work on babies.

Homeopaths will counter that they have several centuries worth of experience during which they’ve given their tonics to patients who have subsequently recovered. The flaw here is clear. Just because a treatment precedes a recovery does not mean it caused the recovery. Often patients seek help when their symptoms are worst, when the only way they could change is to get better. The argument that, in a free country, people should be allowed to choose what therapies they take is stronger, but only if patients are told the facts about those nostrums. And once they know that they’re getting a placebo, its effectiveness will mostly crumble. It has also been suggested that homeopathy helps GPs divert chronic time-wasters. Convenient, perhaps, but dishonest; like magic potions, lies have no place in a doctor’s black bag.

By Smitha Mundasad, Paul Rodgers and Nan King

A spoon full of humour to help the homeopathy go down… a comic report from the 10:23 event, brought to you by Smitha Mundasad, Nan King and Paul Rodgers.

Also read Paul’s thoughts on homeopathy, and a news report by Smitha.

By Smitha Mundasad

A mass overdose of homeopathic pills, involving thousands of people across the globe, took place on 30 January 2010 at 10.23am in an attempt to prove that homeopathy is ineffective.

“What we are really trying to do is just to make that key point to the public that homeopathy – there is nothing in it,” said Martin Robbins, press officer of the so-called 10:23 campaign. “10:23 comes from Avogadro’s number which is 6 times 10 to the 23. It is a number you can use to calculate how many molecules of something are in a certain amount of it.”

This name is in reference to the method of dilution used in homeopathic practices. Remedies are prepared by a serial dilution of a certain active substance. According to widely held homeopathic beliefs the more diluted a mixture becomes, the more powerful it is deemed to be. Skeptics argue, however, that due to serial dilution, there can be no active ingredients left.

The 10:23 event was prompted by an on-going evidence check by the Science and Technology parliamentary sub-committee into the use of homeopathy. “I have no evidence to suggest before me that they [homeopathic remedies] are efficacious,” said Paul Bennett, professional standards director of Boots, at the committee’s meeting in November 2009.

While this comment shocked protesters such as Robbins, Evan Harris, the science spokesman of the Liberal Democrats, questions the use of homeopathy in the NHS. “Why it is that the NHS is spending millions of pounds on that particular therapy when it cannot afford to provide treatments for very serious conditions which have proven efficacy in serious trials,” he asked the protestors gathered in central London.

“Homeopathy is still in the NHS and we are fighting to keep it in the NHS as this is about choice,” said one of the few homeopaths present at the event. “We have over two hundred years of homeopathy working. It is used in India in major hospitals for example. …People get better with homeopathy; people still want to use it.”

Asked how he was feeling after the overdose, Evan Harris said: “The serious point is you cannot overdose on homeopathy because there is no active ingredient… clearly if you dilute something so much that there is nothing left and then say this is effective then I think you are relying on people’s gullibility or desperation.”

Dave Gorman, the British comedian, who also took part in the proceedings, commented: “I’m taking arnica, I should never bruise again.”

Twitter activity around the world, suggests that weeks on, the so-called placebocide has caused the overdosers no harm. According to Evan Harris, the select committee will announce the conclusions of its evidence check in the near future.