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."

Helios Homeopathy - reanimating the dead

Helios Homoeopathy provide a convenient mail-order service for fans of concentrated sugar pills masquerading as medicine.

(Image credit)

A few months ago I complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about their misleading leaflets.

Today I had a quick read of their website. Among the large range of homeopathic products it promotes, I came upon the following astonishing claim:

'Carbo veg. - No. 1 Remedy for resuscitation. "The homeopathic corpse reviver". This remedy has saved many lives. Symptoms at their most extreme are complete state of collapse due to oxygen starvation. Body (even breath) is cold. May appear limp, pale or blue. Less severe cases have extreme sluggishness.'

That's right, folks. Homeopathy can BRING BACK PEOPLE FROM THE DEAD!

I can't imagine how the advertisers might go about substantiating that particular claim, but I'd love to see them try. ASA complaint follows!

'I'm writing to complain about the marketing claims I read today (4th March 2011, at 2pm) on the website www.helios.co.uk

The site promotes Helios Homeopathy Ltd, of 89-97 Camden Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 2QR.

The pages in question are too big for a screenshot, so I've used a mirroring website. The ASA online complaints form doesn't accept HTML files yet, but I have saved a copy and can send them to you, if necessary.

1. The site makes a number of claims for specific homeopathic remedies. I'd like to challenge whether the following claims can be substantiated, whether the claims are misleading, and whether the phrase 'No. 1 Remedy' is misleading. I'd also like to challenge whether the claims contain information not found on the products' labels. In the case of 'Carbo veg', I'd like to challenge whether the claim is irresponsible and may discourage emergency treatment for a life-threatening condition.

'Helios homeopathic remedies'
https://www.helios.co.uk/Kit_remedies.php
mirrored at http://www.freezepage.com/1299248272PGHOBMQCSI

(i) 'Calendula - No. 1 Remedy for healing wounds... Very useful first-aid remedy for cuts; superficial burns or scalds; ulcers; scalp wounds; after teeth extraction or childbirth. It stimulates formation of healthy scar tissue...'

(ii) 'Carbo veg. - No. 1 Remedy for resuscitation. "The homeopathic corpse reviver". This remedy has saved many lives. Symptoms at their most extreme are complete state of collapse due to oxygen starvation. Body (even breath) is cold. May appear limp, pale or blue. Less severe cases have extreme sluggishness.'

(iii) 'China - No 1 Remedy for de-hydration..."

(iv) 'Drosera - No. 1 Remedy for whooping cough... Excellent (whooping) cough remedy...'

(v) 'Hepar sulph. - No. 1 Remedy for painful, infected wounds...'

(vi) 'Hypericum - No. 1 Remedy for injury to nerves. Useful first aid treatment for lacerated wounds [from] sharp instruments or any injury to nerve-rich areas... Reputed anti-tetanus properties...'

(vii) 'Ledum - No. 1 Remedy for puncture wounds and black eyes. Like Hypericum has reputed anti-tetanus properties. Use to treat deep wounds... and bites from both animals and insects'

(viii) 'Mag phos. - Known as the homeopathic aspirin. Very effective if crushed in warm water and sipped...'

(ix) 'Pulsatilla - No. 1 Remedy for childhood ear infections...'

(x) 'Silicea - No.1 Remedy for forcing out splinters, etc. In first aid treatment excellent for forcing foreign bodies out...'

2. The site promotes some 'homeopathic remedy kits', claiming that 'you can now take all the benefits of our potent and effective remedies with you, wherever you go'. I'd like to challenge whether Helios can substantiate their claim that the homeopathic products are 'potent' and 'effective'.

'The Right kit for every occasion'
https://www.helios.co.uk/kits.html
mirrored at http://www.freezepage.com/1299248333XEXKFUJIME

3. On the page promoting the advertiser's range of homeopathy products for pets, the advertiser makes some more claims. I'd like to challenge whether they are misleading and can be substantiated.

'Homeopathic for Pets'
https://www.helios.co.uk/petcare.html
mirrored at http://www.freezepage.com/1299248375RGZCTUJUJX

(i) 'Animals respond well to homeopathy'
(ii) '...prescribing [the correct homeopathic product] for minor ailments and injuries is straightforward'

4. On the same page, in the section labelled 'HELP HOMEOPATHIC VETS', a number of claims are made about homeopathy being 'under attack by many highly organised sceptics'.

5. This section appears exactly two lines under the sentence 'With an A-Z of complaints which can be treated holistically using Homoeopathy, Acupressure, Bach Flowers, Aromatherapy, and much more. £27.50', and a clickable link labelled 'Buy'.

6. The claims in the 'HELP HOMEOPATHIC VETS' section are immediately adjacent to clickable links to 'Buy' the advertiser's products, so I'd like to challenge whether the following claims are misleading:

(i) Given the scientific concensus on the efficacy of homeopathy, the word 'misinformed' in the sentence 'Doctors and vets are continually being misinformed that homeopathy "does not work" and is merely a placebo'

(ii) Given that animals can probably respond to cues from their human handlers, the claim that animals cannot respond to placebo treatments

(iii) Given that anecdotal evidence is normally not acceptable to CAP, the claims that 'Those of you who use homeopathy for your animals and have had successful treatment from your homeopathic vet know that a positive outcome is evidence that homeopathy works' and 'if it can be used in animals, it cannot be a sham treatment as the sceptics claim'

(iv) The indirect claims that 'homeopathy [is an] effective form of medicine' and 'They are campaigning to show how effective homeopathy really is'

Helios Homeopathy

It's easy to compose a response to most homeopathy adverts.

All that's needed is to click on some random past complaint, choose a paragraph or two, and type CTRL+C CTRL+V.

(Image credit)

Helios Homoeopathy specialise in placebo sugar pills. They sell the expensive sweets to unsuspecting idiots from their "pharmacy" in Covent Garden.

Helios Homoeopathy's advert (available here) boldly claims that

"...the healing qualities of homoeopathy are equally effective in the treatment of all creatures great and small, both domestic and wild? ...Animals respond well to homoeopathy and prescribing for minor ailments and injuries is straightforward... With the expertise of a qualified homoeopathic vet, homoeopathy can often bring results where conventional medicine has failed, even if the most difficult cases."

The claims would be funny if they weren't so dangerously misleading. ASA complaint follows.

"I write to complain about an advert appearing in "Health and Homeopathy" magazine, September 2010 issue, back page. The magazine was mailed to me last week by the British Homeopathy Association as part of a promotional pack.

The advert, for Helios Homoeopathy, promotes homeopathic products for the treatment of animals.

I suspect that the advert may be in breach of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code). I can provide the original advert by post, if necessary.

1. (i) I am unaware of any rigorous RCT that has ever demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy in either humans or animals.

(ii) A 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet [1] discussed the quality of the available research:

"110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed...21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials..."

(iii) The meta-analysis concluded:

"Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

(iv) In response to this meta-analysis, "the Lancet ran an editorial entitled 'The End of Homeopathy' in which they argued that 'doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy's lack of benefit'". [2]

(v) Earlier meta-analyses such as the 2002 study by Ernst [3] reached comparable conclusions.

(vi) Rigorous clinical trials of homeopathy in animals have likewise shown no effect beyond placebo [4] [5].

2. Under Section 3.1, I challenge whether the following claim misleadingly implies that homeopathy is of proven efficacy:

(i) "We all know the benefits that Homoeopathy can bring to people throughout every stage of their lives..."

3. Under Section 12.1, I challenge whether the advertisers can substantiate any of the following claims:

(i) "...did you know that the natural healing qualities of homoeopathy are equally effective in the treatment of all creatures great and small, both domestic and wild?"

(ii) "Animals respond well to homoeopathy..."

(iii) "...and prescribing [homeopathy] for minor ailments and injuries is straightforward..."

(iv) "With the expertise of a qualified homoeopathic vet, homoeopathy can often bring results where conventional medicine has failed, even in the most difficult cases."

4. I confirm I have no connections with the advertiser. I confirm I am not involved in legal proceedings with the advertiser.

Footnotes:

[1] Shang, A et al., "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy", Lancet 2005; 366:726-32

[2] Singh, Ernst, "Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial", First American Edition 2008, p137

[3] Ernst, E., "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy', Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54:577-82.

[4] de Verdier K, Ohagen P, Alenius S. No Effect of a Homeopathic Preparation on Neonatal Calf Diarrhoea in a Randomised Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Acta Vet Scand. 2003; 44(2): 97–101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831551/

[5] Holmes MA, Cockcroft PD, Booth CE, Heath MF. Controlled clinical trial of the effect of a homoeopathic nosode on the somatic cell counts in the milk of clinically normal dairy cows. Vet Rec. 2005 Apr 30;156(18):565-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866899
"