From 2014: When homeopaths go too far (collected vaccination statements)

This post was originally published on a Woto page but it seems that you can no longer log in with Twitter credentials so instead of trying to update it there I've migrated it here.

When homeopaths go too far

Image from page 205 of "Natural history of birds, fish, insects, and reptiles" (1808)

Reining in the homeopaths

Homeopathy is mostly harmless in that it contains no harmful ingredients (assuming it is prepared correctly, this was not the case for Nelsons in 2012). It is the medical equivalent of 'doing nothing'. But sometimes doing nothing can be a reasonable thing to do (eg 'watchful waiting') but sometimes it's a very bad idea. By taking homeopathic "medicine" people may be under the false impression that they are doing something useful, when instead they need real medicine.

There are a number of examples where organisations, both medical and homeopathic, have had to issue a statement to rein in some of the stranger notion that homeopaths have taken off and run with. Here are some of them.

The World Health Organisation made it clear in July 2014 that homeopathy is of no use for treating Ebola.

There is no evidence base that #homeopathy can cure #Ebola. Severely ill patients require intensive supportive care http://t.co/itpATExjBk

— WHO (@WHO) July 31, 2014

The Society of Homeopaths reminds its members, in June 2014, to be careful about the claims made about homeopathy in any marketing material...

The British Homeopathic Association, the Faculty of Homeopaths and the Society of Homeopaths agreed, in April 2013, that people should get their children vaccinated.

The BHA, British Homeopathic Association

"Vaccinations for infectious childhood diseases is currently a major news story. There is no evidence to suggest that the measles outbreak in Swansea or the fall-off in MMR vaccinations in the Totnes area are as a result of people choosing to use complementary medicines instead of conventional immunisation. However, we would like to state that on the issue of immunisation the BHA has for many years taken an unequivocal position.

In line with the Department of Health’s advice, the BHA recommends that immunisation should be carried out in the normal way using the conventional tested and approved vaccines."
Vaccinations statement British Homeopathic Association (date not given)

The FoH, Faculty of Homeopathy

"Vaccinations for infectious childhood diseases is currently a major news story.

There is no evidence to suggest that the current measles outbreak in Swansea or the fall-off in MMR vaccinations in the Totnes area are as a result of people choosing to use complementary medicines instead of conventional immunisation. However, as a responsible registering body for statutorily regulated healthcare professionals we again want to make clear our unequivocal and long-standing position on this issue.

In line with the Department of Health’s advice, the Faculty of Homeopathy recommends that in the case of infectious childhood diseases immunisation should be carried out in the normal way using the conventional tested and approved vaccines." 

copy of Vaccinations statement, archived on 21 Apr 2015  Faculty of Homeopaths (date not given)

The SoH, Society of Homeopaths

Philip Edmonds, chairman of the Society of Homeopaths said: "The Society does not endorse the use of homeopathic medicines as an alternative to vaccination for the prevention of serious infectious diseases and recommends that members of the public seek the advice of their GP, and/or relevant Department of Health guidelines, concerning vaccination and protection against disease."
Parents need to know homeopathy does not protect against measles, says MP The Guardian 15 April 2013

Public Health England, in February 2011, issued a statement about malaria and homeopathic remedies clarifying that

"The Health Protection Agency Advisory Committee on Malaria Prevention does not recommend relying on any herbal or homeopathic remedies for the prevention of malaria." Guidance: Malaria: Homeopathic Remedies Public Health England 1 February 2011 

Dr Peter Fisher, a homeopath, acknowledged in 2011 that homeopathy is of no use in preventing malaria and that fellow homeopaths do themselves no favour when pretending that it does

"So, yes I believe that eventually something, maybe descended from homeopathy, using the key techniques of homeopathy, will be accepted. I have to say I think the homeopathic community is in many ways its worst enemy, particularly in this country [UK]–we have people who make silly claims, frankly, who are not qualified and say things they really shouldn’t say, for instance, about preventing malaria.  That is potentially very dangerous and gets us a bad press."   An interview with Peter Fisher World of Homeopathy 4 July 2012

Useful as it is to have a senior homeopath acknowledge this @Blue_Wode has pointed me towards this nice quip (curated here on EBM-first, originally posted at Skeptico) from a skeptic, which makes a good point and references similar comments made by Dr Fisher in 2007.

The World Health Organisation made it clear in August 2009 that homeopathy is of no use for HIV, tuberculosis or malaria (or infant diarrhoea, or flu)

"People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned."
Homeopathy not a cure, says WHO BBC News 20 August 2009

"WHO also said that it does not recommend homoeopathy for treating diarrhoea in infants or flu. WHO experts, who have clearly criticised the use of treatments that have not been proved clinically and that are not evidence based, said that homoeopathy had “no place” in treatment of these five dangerous diseases."
WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases BMJ  24 August 2009

Dr Michael Dixon, Medical Director for the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health also lent his support to the WHO's statement on homeopathy, agreeing that

"There is no place for homeopathy in treating serious illness such as HIV, TB, malaria and infant diarrhoea in developing countries. The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health absolutely supports the recent statement by the World Health Organisation."
WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases (response) BMJ 11 September 2009

Summary
From this it's clear that both homeopathy organisations (in the UK at least) and medically qualified people agree that homeopathy is no substitute for vaccination, does not prevent or treat malaria and cannot treat HIV, TB, diarrhoea or flu.
I'm not aware of any homeopathic organisation which has acknowledged publicly that homeopathy is of no use in treating Ebola though. Which is a shame because, as @sciencebabe puts it bluntly, homeopathy contains #NoFuckingMedicine.

Apparently a team of homeopaths have taken themselves off to Liberia with a box of 'remedies'. It seems like they could cause problems in several ways:

• giving people who may need actual medicine medicine that isn't actually medicine
• generally getting in the way and making a nuisance of themselves
• harming themselves by getting infected and increasing the workload of real doctors and support staff, coffinmakers etc.

WDDTY, homeopathy, cancer and vaccines - well it's an odd way of going about things

It's always a bit mean, in an argument, to bring up things like "well you said..." but in the case of What Doctors Don't Tell You I am going to do precisely that. I'm a bit miffed with them at the moment, partly because they have a poor selection process for the adverts in their magazine (many have been sanctioned by the Advertising Standards Authority for being misleading), partly because some of their health advice is poor (not all of it I hasten to add) and partly because they persist in accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being in the pay of 'big pharma' and part of some cabal of people whose only joy in life is spoiling their fun.

Their recent difficulties arose when someone spotted that the teaser in the current issue (October) was going to be talking about cancer and homeopathy in the following November issue (out in a few weeks). Homeopathy is straight-up nonsense and no responsible health magazine should be talking about it, other than to recommend people avoid spending (wasting) money on it. The other problem is that the magazine is going to be talking about alternative (or complementary, if you prefer) treatments for cancer. Because of the Cancer Act of 1939 you have to be a bit careful what you imply in terms of treatments, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

If I could be convinced that the magazine's intention is to suggest things like homeopathy alongside conventional treatment I'd probably not bleat very much. Still a waste of money but as long as someone's getting real medicine then the extra chat they get with a homeopath or the placebo effect from the pills is OK with me.

Sadly WDDTY have a tendency to frame everything that comes from regular medicine as being a bit suspect, providing information about alternatives to real treatments. The magazine's name implies that doctors keep information from their patients, or don't have the latest information.

Even the Daily Mail, which can occasionally be fairly horrendous in its health information, doesn't treat doctors as self-interested employees of pharmaceutical companies so while I'd not lose sleep if they ran out of ink I can put up with their paper being sold everywhere.

A brief timeline
1. The Times recently ran a story (1 October) suggesting that WDDTY had implied that "homeopathy could treat cancer" and that "the cervical cancer vaccine has killed hundreds of girls". Here is the full quote taken from The Times' site (most of the article is behind a paywall):

"Experts are calling on high street shops to stop selling a magazine that claims that vitamin C cures HIV, suggests homeopathy could treat cancer and implies that the cervical cancer vaccine has killed hundreds of girls."

2. WDDTY was annoyed by this, feeling that The Times had wrongly attributed statements to the magazine which hadn't bee made and that, in addition, the author of the article (Tom Whipple) had failed to get in touch with magazine staff for their comment on the story (Tom Whipple makes it pretty clear that he did and eventually WDDTY conceded that he had tried).

It is now 7 October and I think WDDTY have published at least four separate press releases within three days complaining about The Times and the campaign to have the magazine removed from high street shops and supermarkets.

• Subscribe before we are banned (1 October 2013)
• What the Times didn't tell you (1 October 2013) 
• Our Word (1 October 2013)
• The WDDTY wars (3 October 2013)  

3. WDDTY also produced a video with Positive TV in which someone asks them if they said that homeopathy could treat cancer or that the HPV vaccine killed girls - to which they respond forcefully that they did not, and that they were merely reporting on others' research.

Thrill as the #WDDTY duo are gently bowled soft, pillowy questions in this hard-hitting interview http://t.co/pjzCpDLHnJ
— Rob (@PencilBloke) October 7, 2013

They also addressed the accusations on Facebook and threw a few insults towards Sense About Science, the Nightingale Collaboration and skeptic bloggers. 

They have been at great pains to state on Twitter, Facebook, on YouTube videos and in press releases / emails to their subscribers that they have never said that homeopathy might cure cancer or that the HPV vaccine might kill people who have it.

I disagree!! I think they've said precisely that.

Here they are saying, in the headline, that the HPV vaccine has killed hundreds of girls (to be fair the article is a bit vaguer but why go and say it in the headline?!).

‘Safe’ HPV vaccine kills up to 1,700 young girls

Here's a screenshot...

and here they are saying that homeopathy can be used to 'treat' or 'reverse' cancer - I concede that they have not used the word cure, but nor have they been sufficiently careful to ensure that anyone reading (particularly someone vulnerable) couldn't draw that conclusion. Harrumph!

.@The_Angry_Nurse @COMAGazines @_JosephineJones @_wddty pic.twitter.com/jSZRiEMtjD
— Alan Henness (@zeno001) October 5, 2013

the headline "Much more than placebo: Homeopathy reverses cancer" rather suggests that homeopathy is a solution for cancer and other text within the body of the article (published September 2013 October 2012) implies the same:

"Several homeopathic remedies are as effective as powerful chemotherapy, according to clinical trials, and thousands of cancer cases are being reversed by homeopathy alone." - this specifically implies that homeopathy is equally effective as chemotherapy, and that it might be used as a standalone treatment.

So this discussion on the use of homeopathy is not about its use as a complementary (and therefore harmless when running alongside real medicine) treatment, it is being suggested as an alternative.

I don't think anyone's died or been injured yet from reading or following the advice in this magazine but I hope you'd agree that it's not very good and the way they've framed it is a bit worrying. We know, from an amazing collection at What's the Harm?, that plenty of people do die or are injured from bad advice though - http://whatstheharm.net/