Ten Reasons why the Society of Homeopaths Should not Receive PSA Accreditation (UK) | The Quackometer Blog

16

The Society of Homeopaths are applying to become accredited as a voluntary professional register with the Professional Standards Authority. Should the PSA approve their application, it will mean that the PSA, rather than ensuring standards in health care, has become a direct threat to public health.

The PSA are calling for feedback by the 17th of January on the Society of Homeopaths before they approve them. Perhaps you might want to let them know what you think about their fitness against the stated standards.

Here are the top ten reasons why the PSA should reject their application.

1. Homeopaths are not healthcare professionals.

Members of the Society of Homeopaths have no knowledge, training or practices that can diagnose or successfully treat illness. Their member are almost exclusively ‘lay’ homeopaths – medically untrained individuals. Homeopathy is based on the 200 year old pre-scientific and magical ideas of Samual Hahnemann.  Homeopaths study his works as if they were religious texts and follow his rituals and beliefs despite their utter implausibility and detachment from reality. Homeopathy is a pseudo-medical cultish belief system, a simulacrum of medical care, and crucially missing the essential ability to be able to make specific positive health improvements in their customers. Whilst homeopaths may have the intention to act as health providers, their beliefs make them systematically incompetent and a threat to the well-being of those they practice on. At best homeopathy is a lifestyle choice for some, not a healthcare profession.

Accrediting homeopaths would be like letting air guitarists join the Musicians’ Union.

2. Homeopathic remedies are not medicine.

Homeopaths administer sugar pills or drops of water/alcohol that are devoid of any active ingredient. All remedies are identical but simply labeled differently. Patients are told that the remedies are specific to their needs. This is indistinguishable from fraud. The remedies are made by a ritual involving sympathetic magic where tinctures of herbs, minerals, and other absurd items are diluted to extreme levels, Many homeopaths manufacture their pills in absurd electrical devices. The public perceive homeopathic remedies as being ‘natural’ and herb based and homeopaths do little to correct this. It is a simple deception and fraud on the public.

Written By: Andy Lewis
continue to source article at quackometer.net

16 COMMENTS

  1. I have some experience of being a regulator (in financial services). I would argue there is little to be lost by letting homeopaths sign up for a formal system of regulation if they wish to do so, then they can be struck off one at a time by the new regulator for malpractice!

    • In reply to #1 by Stevehill:

      I have some experience of being a regulator (in financial services). I would argue there is little to be lost by letting homeopaths sign up for a formal system of regulation if they wish to do so, then they can be struck off one at a time by the new regulator for malpractice!

      I would argue that there is much to be lost for reality and much to be gained for magic water. The legitimizing of a pseudo science is what they are trying to achieve. Like the Canadian mother who killed her son (with lack of the necessaries of life) because she was buying homeopathy from the pharmacist like it was real.

      Remember even clever well educated people fall for the natural fallacy – anyone remember Steven Paul Jobs?

      PS You are also assuming that the regulator will be regulating reality not fantasy, which will probably be his job title so I hold out little hope that they will help.

      • In reply to #4 by alaskansee:

        It is not really about legitimising homeopathy: it’s already completely legal, is to a limited extent available on the NHS, and has the royal seal of approval from the future King Charles III. We are where we are, so the issue – if we are not going to ban it – is how do we regulate it.

        I assume the point of the regulator is to stamp out malpractice wherever it is found, not least following recent scandals in the NHS, and a few issues surrounding quack counsellors/psychotherapists e.g. offering “gay cure” therapy. There is a weight of public expectation that the regulator will have teeth and will use them to (say) strike off nursing staff who let patients die from neglect at Staffordshire Hospitals.

        It’s a fine line but since they are volunteering to be regulated, I’d say get them inside the tent.

        And if, at some future date, the regulator decides that the only medicines which may be prescribed are those which have undergone rigorous controlled clinical trials and have a proven patient benefit, what’s not to like? [That's pretty much how we cleaned up the insolvency profession 30 years ago].

        • In reply to #5 by Stevehill:

          In reply to #4 by alaskansee:
          It is not really about legitimising homeopathy: it’s already completely legal, is to a limited extent available on the NHS, and has the royal seal of approval from the future King Charles III. We are where we are, so the issue – if we are not going to ban it – is how do we regulate it.

          I understand it’s legal but the more royal bodies and regulators it surrounds itself with the more legitimacy it gets. Regulating something that doesn’t exist seems pointless other than the above. I’m big on regulations/rules but this seems like it will protect the homeo’s not the patients who are either taking nothing or nothing. The vitamin and supplement industry got a kicking in Canada when it was discovered they often, 3/4, did not contain what they said they did. I’m less worried about homeo’s putting something in when just nothing will do.

          I assume the point of the regulator is to stamp out malpractice wherever it is found, not least following recent scandals in the NHS, and a few issues surrounding quack counsellors/psychotherapists e.g. offering “gay cure” therapy. There is a weight of public expectation that the regulator will have teeth and will use them to (say) strike off nursing staff who let patients die from neglect at Staffordshire Hospitals.

          You can’t set up a regulator to regulate nothing and then expect them to close themselves down because they’re doing nothing. They are, they’re regulating nothing. It’s like asking for the emperors invisible clothes to be washed and ironed, I’m sure you could find someone willing to but they’d still not help make the clothes visible.

          It’s a fine line but since they are volunteering to be regulated, I’d say get them inside the tent.

          As I said they will use they fake regulation to lend themselves legitimacy that they do not deserve. I could imagine the testing lab;

          Yup, nothing in it. PASS

          And if, at some future date, the regulator decides that the only medicines which may be prescribed are those which have undergone rigorous controlled clinical trials and have a proven patient benefit, what’s not to like? [That's pretty much how we cleaned up the insolvency profession 30 years ago].

          This is the connection that I think you have erroneously made. If I have to check that there’s nothing in the sugar pills then I’m sure I have a long and profitable career. Having been given a well paid job would I work my way to ending it?

          I also strongly object to you putting high finance and bankers in the same category as snake oil sales men.

          • In reply to #8 by alaskansee:

            I also strongly object to you putting high finance and bankers in the same category as snake oil sales men.

            I am aware I may be unduly flattering investment bankers here….

      • In reply to #4 by alaskansee:

        In reply to #1 by Stevehill:

        I have some experience of being a regulator (in financial services). I would argue there is little to be lost by letting homeopaths sign up for a formal system of regulation if they wish to do so, then they can be struck off one at a time by the new regulator for malpractice!
        

        I would argue that there is much to be lost for reality and much to be gained for magic water. The legitimizing of a pseudo science is what they are trying to achieve. Like the Canadian mother who killed her son (with lack of the necessaries of life) because she was buying homeopathy from the pharmacist like it was real.

        I assume you’re referring to the case of Tamara Sophia Lovett and her 7 year old son Ryan who died of a flesh eating strep infection.

        I couldn’t agree more. In the context in which homeopathic or holistic products are considered legitimate pharmaceutical medicine, this woman would have a case that could allow her to be acquitted. Which would be a serious failure of justice and in turn set a dangerous legal precedent because it would leave the door wide open for neglectful, irresponsible and severely ignorant parents to get away with murder (like in the USA).

        A lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can get its boots on. Legitimizing quackery is anything but innocuous.

        • In reply to #7 by NearlyNakedApe:

          In reply to #4 by alaskansee:

          In reply to #1 by Stevehill:

          I have some experience of being a regulator (in financial services). I would argue there is little to be lost by letting homeopaths sign up for a formal system of regulation if they wish to do so, then they can be struck off one at a time…

          There is however a flipside to this, once regulated and accepted, the burden of knowing weather or not homeopathy works or not is moved away from the parents and on to the practitioner, if the patient dies due to ineffective treatment then the practitioner will be responsible or at least should be and dealt with accordingly.

          If enough Homeopathy Doctors are tried for manslaughter due to unnecessary deaths, you can bet the uptake in said quack medicine will decline (So long as said trials get enough publicity), It should also get the practice barred from being practiced due to PROVEN ineffectiveness.

  2. Well the only good thing I can say about homeopathy is that it is very good at curing imaginary illnesses, as any good imaginary remedy should be. And it has no side effect, as expected from any medicine with no effect at all.

    Now, we would certainly hear less bullshit if real medical doctors were willing to take more time being nice to each patient and had sometimes the guts to tell them “you are not sick, you idiot. Eat carrots, do some exercise, work less, don’t smoke, make love and chill out. I will not give you any medicine. It’s all in your freaking head.”

    Did you know that some people lose their hair if you give them sugar pills pretending it’s chemotherapy ?

    I don’t know much about you over there, but down here, we have had Malades Imaginaires since Molière.

    • In reply to #2 by Ornicar:

      Well the only good thing I can say about homeopathy is that it is very good at curing imaginary illnesses, as any good imaginary remedy should be. And it has no side effect, as expected from any medicine with no effect at all.

      Now, we would certainly hear less bullshit if real medical doctors were…

      We actually found a use for it with our daughter Elizabeth, who became fond of medication for colds and would regularly fake sick to get some. We just started giving her as much homeopathic crap as she wanted. You can’t give the real stuff for an extended period.

  3. There was a tragic case in Calgary a few weeks ago where a mother who was extremely sceptical about “Big Pharma” gave homeopathic remedies to her sick son. He died from a virulent bacterial infection.
    In Alberta there is a woman who advertises herself as a registered “Doctor of Homeopathy” (so many of these quacks advertise that they are registered, but there is no recognized register). She averred that had Angelina Jolie taken her homeopathic nostrums, she would have been protected against breast cancer and her double mastectomy was therefore unnecessary. Unfortunately, spineless lawmakers ignore these charlatans and have even given the nod to naturopaths to create a formally recognized association. Not only that but two publicly funded universities have departments/institutes of CAM that push this kind of quackery.

  4. Homeopathy is in many ways a quasireligious belief ,without the slightest evidence to support its logically nonsensical empiricism.
    Quack quack quack!
    They need more regular derogation(homeopathy believers)

  5. The only reason British government is turning a blind eye to the blatant criminal activity of homeopathic practitioners is the secret hope Prince Charles will die trying to cure a serious illness with water. This will pass the throne on to his son and we will not have to suffer the brutal reality of a moron King. If this isn’t their plan, then we are fucked. How the hell do they expect to get the financial players to follow rules and not sink our world into another wicked depression if they can’t round up a bunch of quacks.

Leave a Reply