Steve Scrutton Is Angry

Steve Scrutton, the homeopath, isn't very happy with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

(Image credit)

While venting smoke from his ears, Steve writes

"The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is now supporting this attack on homeopathy, placing websites like this one under the threat of prosecution."

This seems unlikely to be true; the threat of prosecution is one wielded by local Trading Standards offices - not by the ASA, which is not a statutory regulator.

Steve continues

"The ASA has refused to discuss [this attack] with the major homeopathic organisations... Instead, it is working closely with people from another anti-homeopathy organisation, the Nightingale Collaboration..."

The charge that the ASA is improperly in cahoots with the sceptics is a pretty serious one. I wonder what the ASA will have to say about it? ASA complaint follows!

"The website makes a number of claims in support of the advertiser's homeopathy services. I suspect the claims are misleading.

1. ( http://www.stevehomeopath.co.uk/Core/steve-homeopath/Pages/Advertising__and__attacks_on_Homeopathy_1.aspx )

"The current attacks are being led by organisations like ‘Sense about Science’, funded largely by the drugs industry."

I challenge whether the claim that Sense About Science are "funded largely by the drugs industry" can be substantiated, because in fact only a minority of their funding comes from pharmaceutical companies.

2.

"The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is now supporting this attack on homeopathy, placing websites like this one under the threat of prosecution."

I challenge whether this claim can be substantiated, because I understand this role would be performed by Trading Standards Offices, not the ASA.

3.

"The ASA has refused to discuss this with the major homeopathic organisations, like the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, the Faculty of Homeopathy, and the Society of Homeopaths."

I challenge whether the claim that the ASA has refused to discuss the current regulatory situation with these bodies can be substantiated, given that I've read on their respective websites about their discussions with the ASA.

4.

"Instead, it is working closely with people from another anti-homeopathy organisation, the Nightingale Collaboration"

I challenge whether the claim that the ASA is giving favourable treatment to the Nightingale Collaboration, to the detriment of the above homeopathy bodies, can be substantiated.

5.

"The Evidence for Homeopathy - The best evidence for the effectiveness and safety of any medical therapy, including homeopathy, is individual testimony..."

I challenge whether the claim that the best evidence "for any medical therapy" is anecdotal evidence is misleading.

6.

"However, RCT evidence has demonstrably failed to prevent the development and use of pharmaceutical drugs that have ultimately proved to be ineffective, or dangerous to health, or both, and have eventually been withdrawn or banned."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading and can be substantiated.

7.

"In contrast, Homeopathy has never had to withdraw a remedy because it was unsafe, which makes any evidence based on RCTs both unnecessary, as well as unreliable."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading, because at least one homeopathic remedy (homeopathic hCG) has been shown to be unsafe. I challenge whether the claim that RCTs are "unnecessary" and "unreliable" can be substantiated.

8.

"4 Meta-analyses... suggest that homeopathy is, indeed, an effective medical therapy"

I challenge whether the claim that the results of the four meta-analyses suggest homeopathy is effective is misleading.

9.

"This website... points you to the evidence for homeopathy, both in relation to personal testimony, the evidence of the homeopathic Materia Medica, and the evidence of RCTs. You can examine this evidence for homeopathy yourself, and come to your own judgement about the powerful vested interests that are seeking to deny you access to this important information about your health."

I challenge whether the description of "personal testimony" and the Materia Medica as evidence comparable in reliability to RCTs is misleading.

I challenge whether the claim that "vested interests" are trying to suppress information about homeopathy can be substantiated.

10. ( http://www.stevehomeopath.co.uk/Core/steve-homeopath/Pages/What_is_homeopathy_1.aspx )

"Homeopathy is a gentle, safe and effective medical therapy."

I challenge whether the claim that homeopathy is effective can be substantiated.

11. ( http://www.stevehomeopath.co.uk/Core/steve-homeopath/Pages/Failure_of_Conventional_Medicine_1.aspx )

"Conventional medicine is also largely ineffective, certainly over the longer term. One recent study found that nearly 85% of conventional drugs were useless."

I challenge whether this claim is misleading and whether it may discourage essential treatment.

12.

"So it is perhaps not surprising that many people now feel that conventional drugs are something to avoid, at all costs."

I challenge whether this claim may discourage essential treatment.

I've made some screenshots of the relevant pages, which are available at:
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=QvJnDOuiSJ
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=MASJjcWsjc
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=NwpARWhjjo
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=2aHdNGSbV2
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=kAkVlBIKBH
http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org/FishBarrel/ci.aspx?id=TzjWKBgDc4

I can confirm that I have no connections with the advertiser or with the alternative medicine industry in general."