The Great DBH Rant

A couple of pro-homeopathy blogs, as well as several homeopathy resource websites which I follow have hailed a publication by Dr Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Laureate which allegedly proves homeopathic remedies are active. The paper in question is here (PDF). Dr Montagnier was credited with co-discovering the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Big name attached to homeopathy again, like Professor Magdalene Ennis. I have already discussed her 2004 publication with regards to the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on basophils previously.

The abstract of the Montagnier et al paper describes a new property of DNA, whereby high aqueous dilutions of some bacterial DNA sequences can induce electromagnetic (EM) waves.

It is not my intention in this article to criticise this particular publication. In fact, I found it quite interesting. I will not attempt to give technical opinions on this paper regarding methodology, since I do not have much background in EM waves. I hope physicists who happen to stumble across this article can give a more balanced opinion on the methodology involved.

However, one point which has to be made is that the paper is published in Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, a non-peer reviewed journal. The findings of such articles have to be taken with caution.

Another point about the article is that it appears to be a preliminary study. Results were simply reported as either “positive” or “negative” with no attempts at quantification or statistical verification.

The main finding of the paper was that bacterial DNA sequences diluted to between 10^-5M to 10^-18M give off specific EM waves at a different frequency which would be expected of background “noise”. At higher dilutions, nothing above background was recorded.

May I point out that at 10^-18M there is still DNA left? It is by no means homeopathic. In fact the authors acknowledge that at higher dilutions, the EM signals were indistinguishable from background.

The findings of the paper raises interesting questions about the properties of specific DNA sequences, and is certainly an area worth pursuing. However, it is not a paper that bears any relation to homeopathy.

It seems like any paper with the phase high aqueous dilutions written anywhere will pass off as evidence that homeopathy works these days.

Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day, me hearties! Arrrrrrr.

In light of classic physiology and pharmacology, we know the action of endogenous or exogenous ligands is via interactions with a specific type (or types) of receptor. The receptor then changes shape and illicit a predictable functional effect. The extent of this effect typically depends on the concentration of the ligand.

Homeopathic remedies are substances diluted well beyond the Avogadro’s constant, and as such can reasonably be expected to contain no active ligand. The basis of homeopathy assumes that the solvent in which the original ligand was diluted in retains some sort of memory of the original ligand, and as such, the more times the dilution is performed, this memory is strengthened.

That is, this memory is transferrable between solvents during the process of succussion or violent shaking.

As a result, homeopathic remedies claim to have a larger effect the more times it is diluted or succussed. However, this claim has not yet been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies.

Another problem which has not been reasonably addressed is the fate of these solvents once it enters the human body, which is a vast aqueous environment. Under normal circumstances, i.e., when “normal” or non homeopathic solvents (such as water) are ingested, it would be expected that the solvent molecules diffuses and become homogenous with the body’s aqueous environment.

In other words, these water molecules are indistinguishable with other water molecules in the body.

The memory of the solvent in homeopathic remedies is believed to be due to specific interactions between two or more solvent molecules. I therefore have several questions:

1. Do the solvent in homeopathic remedies not conform to the laws of diffusion? That is, do they retain their interactions with neighbouring solvent molecules after they enter the body?
   1. If they don’t, there is no reasonable mechanism of action, regardless of whether dilution and violent shaking can confer “memory”.
2. If the memory of solvents is indeed transferrable by shaking, would this memory then be transferred to the aqueous environment in the body, given the turbulent flow of blood in some areas?
   1. If they do, would homeopathic remedies not essentially act as vaccines – the patient would not get ill with the same ailment ever again?
   2. Would the taking in of more water during, say drinking, “potentise” the effects? If so, homeopathic remedies should be self sustaining in the body. There is no need for repeated dosage.

I believe these are important considerations if supporters of homeopathy want to be taken seriously.

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of debates about the effectiveness of homeopathy. The tired arguments of quoting poorly conducted clinical trials, cherry picking data and downright baseless statements have culminated in the Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH) to release a statement yesterday titled “We Answer the Critics” (PDF here). You would think there will be some meat in this 5-page document.

The first two points deals with clinical effectiveness and whether homeopathy is beyond the placebo effect. There has already been a lot of discussion as to the lack of positive data regarding homeopathy in clinical trials. It is not my aim here to discuss clinical trial data for one simple reason: There is no scientific basis for homeopathy and without this, in my view, I don’t think homeopathic remedies should even be tested in a clinical setting. Clinical trials that allegedly favour homeopathy, has already been debunked elsewhere.

It is considered unethical in some cases to use a placebo in some randomised clinical trials, because there should not be a group of patients who are denied treatment, particularly when they are selected because they carry a certain disease. Without basic scientific proof that homeopathic remedies exert any biological effect, they are in fact water, ergo, placebo.

Therefore, I have always been bewildered at the number of clinical trials conducted with homeopathic remedies, when the scientific basis is non-existent. The process of drug testing has always involved basic science research into the mechanisms, targets, efficacy, and dose response relationship. This means, we know the cell type(s) and receptor(s) with which the drug interacts with, as well as the functional effects that this drug produces on the cell, then the system, and finally the whole organism. We also know how much drug would produce a given level of effect (dose-response). We also know the amount of drug which may be fatal. Homeopathic remedies seem to bypass all these basic science research and head straight for clinical trials.

Which brings me to the third point in the FoH statement: That there is a scientific basis for homeopathy. I am interested in basic science, so this will be the focus of my rant.

The So-Called Science

Before I start, a quick recap of the “science” behind homeopathy. The basis of homeopathic remedies lies with 2 key points which flies in the face of all science:

1. The dilution of a substance beyond Avogadro’s constant retains its biological effects.
2. The more dilute, the more effect.

Point #2 needs more clarification. A substance diluted to the point where no molecule remains could not be diluted further. It is plain water (or solvent). Subsequent dilutions result in hypothetical concentrations.

Since the experiments of Jacques Benveniste and the Nature fiasco in 1988, many attempts to replicate Benveniste’s original findings or the effects of ultra-dilute solutions have failed [1, 2].

Belon et al [3] found something though, and this is one of the papers the FoH cited in their statement. Homeopathic concentrations of histamine (<10^-30 M) significantly inhibited anti-IgE mediated activation of basophils.

Bit of quick background: Addition of anti-IgE activates basophils. The cells then release histamine as part of the allergic response. Activated cells can be stained blue by Alcian Blue, which acts as a marker for activation. The histamine released acts on specific receptors on the basophils to stop activation. This is called a negative feedback process.

So theoretically, if we add anti-IgE together with histamine, we should get lesser activation than just anti-IgE alone. In fact, we already know that. The difference here is they are testing ultra-diluted histamine – also known as – no histamine.

Second bit of background. Histamine concentrations of <10^-30 M are exactly what I mentioned above. They are hypothetical concentrations. Nothing is left but water by this point. In fact, at dilutions beyond 10^-23 M, we are already entering the realms of there being one single molecule of histamine left.

The Belon et al Experimental Setup

The Belon et al study was done at 4 separate locations, France, Netherlands, UK and Italy. Basophils were purified from human blood (with all the ethical clearance). They took the basophils and separated them into two groups, one would have 3 concentrations of anti-IgE (1 µg/ml, 0.2 µg/ml, and 0.04 µg/ml) tested with water diluted to different hypothetical concentrations (from 10^-30 M to 10^-38 M). So these lot are the controls. The second group would have the same 3 concentrations of anti-IgE with histamine diluted to the same hypothetical concentrations. So to visualise the different experiments performed, the two sets of experiments could be grouped into a table like this:

Table 1

So the water column acts as controls, and the histamine column is the test. Arranging the data like this means that they are also testing increasingly dilute histamine at various anti-IgE concentrations. It is good, I’d love to see some “reverse dose response”.

I didn’t. Shame.

Botched Controls

First up, simple science. If the experiments were set up correctly, we would expect that in the control group, nothing would happen in increasingly dilute water. But, we would expect that in varying concentrations of anti-IgE, there would be a dose dependent effect. That means there would be more activation of basophils at 1 µg/ml, lesser at 0.2 µg/ml, and least in 0.04 µg/ml.

This was not the case.

From the data in 3 out of 4 labs, there were clearly no changes in activation between the different anti-IgE groups in control conditions. To me, that means that the controls were already botched. The basophils were not responding in a predictable, physiological manner.

Dodgy cells, or dodgy anti-IgE preparation, I don’t care which. This was not a rigorous experiment as the authors claim. To be fair, this paper is already not worthwhile pursuing. Actually, the journal itself has lost a lot of credibility, since their peer review process didn’t even pick up something this obvious.

But lets plough on with another point, because in one of the labs, there was the expected dose dependency in controls. Before I even get into what they actually found, there was another strange occurrence.

Moving the Goal Posts

They clearly went through the trouble to test increasingly dilute water and histamine by knocking up 5 different concentrations of the stuff. But they presented and analysed their data by lumping together all 5 different concentrations as one – called “+histamine”. So the groups now look like this:

Table 2

Suddenly much simpler eh? You assume differences with varying concentrations of histamine, then put them together as one variable?

Are they retrospectively assuming that “Ah there is nothing in them anyway, just lump them together”?

You cannot do that.

Still, putting this aside, only the lowest concentration of anti-IgE tested showed what you would expect of histamine, a significant reduction in activation. And this was only by around 12%. At the highest concentrations of anti-IgE, there was actually a significant increase in activation. The complete opposite to what you would expect. Of course, in the discussion, the authors just glossed over this.

Missing Data

Looking at some of the raw data revealed an issue which may explain why different dilutions were lumped together to be analysed, and also the significant reduction in activation at 0.04
µg/ml anti-IgE. The authors stated in the paper that some 30% of data points were discarded because of either “lost” data, or “censored” data, where the basophils did not respond to anti-IgE treatment. This is hardly surprising, considering the gaping problem with their control data.

But missing and/ or discarded data is not uncommon, so long as there is a good justification for it.

Within the raw data, the only times where ultra-diluted histamine seemed to have an effect was when the N number was exceptionally low, i.e. very few measurements were recorded. At some dilutions, only 3 or 6 repeats were available, where the rest of the groups were composed of between 15 to 40 measurements. Incidentally, the low number of repeats were where the dilutions had a large effect. So when the different dilutions were averaged together, erroneously, a significant effect is not too surprising.

And even then, the difference was only small.

The rest of the paper shows some anomalous effects here and there, with no correlations to anything. Given the controls were not adequate, this is hardly surprising. One graph showed that the effect of histamine at 10^-10 M is similar to that at 10^-40 M. At 10^-10 M, there is still histamine in the solutions. If anything this graph clearly shows that the more dilute a substance, there is no more effect. Something to bear in mind considering homeopathic remedies get more expensive as they get more dilute.

It bewilders me that the authors described the data as “highly significant”.

It is highly significant if the controls were done right.

When The Method is Rigorous, We See Something Different

The same experiments were performed in 2005 (a year on) by a second group in Switzerland [4]. The conclusion:

We were not able to confirm the previously reported large effects of homeopathic histamine dilutions on basophil function of the examined donor. Seemingly, minor variables of the experimental set up can lead to significant differences of the results if not properly controlled.

The Belon et al study showed nothing.

There is still no scientific basis for homeopathic remedies. I maintain my view that with no physiological basis that the remedies have any biological effect, it is unethical to test them on patients in clinical trials.

Now back to writing my thesis…

References

1.    Hirst, S.J., et al., Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE. Nature, 1993. 366(6455): p. 525-7.

2.    Ovelgonne, J.H., et al., Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties. Experientia, 1992. 48(5): p. 504-8.

3.    Belon, P., et al., Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflamm Res, 2004. 53(5): p. 181-8.

4.    Guggisberg, A.G., et al., Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro. Complement Ther Med, 2005. 13(2): p. 91-100.

I have recently blogged about my experiences of poking the giant bear (a practicing homeopath in Hong Kong) with a wee stick. I got the handbag treatment. I also said that I will post his response once I have digested all the Chinese thrown at my face. Well here it is. I have included the original text (in Chinese so unless your computer can read the characters, they might just be a load of garbage to you) for completeness. Of course, this outburst was translated to the best of my ability, but nevertheless it is still a translation, and by someone who has just been “cyber-yelled” at. It may be biased, although I think this is a pretty good translation. I did not add any thoughts of my own to what he said. Also I feel it is necessary to include here, my original comment to him. For the entire background to why I gave this particular comment to him and his outrage at a fairly level headed comment, see this post.

So I said (and may I point out this is all I have said):

“Hi. I am originally from Macau, but I am not sharing your delight in the “success” homeopathy is enjoying in Macau. It is scary that while homeopathy is not evidence based medicine, that practicing homeopaths like yourself will come out and say that homeopathy is better than conventional, evidence based medicine.

May I point out that homeopathy, at this moment in time, is at best only a fancy and expensive form of placebo treatment. At worst, it is life threatening, because of delays in seeking medical advice and diagnosis from trained medical professionals.

Finally, the only selling point of homeopathy – the lack of side effects, is simply because of the extreme dilutions in homeopathic remedies, where I am sure even you would agree with me, there is no active substance in the remedy really, isn’t there? This aspect of succussion and potentisation of homeopathy remains a laughing point among scientists and medical professionals who believe that medicine should be evidence based.

I apologise for the stinging attack on homeopathy (and please do not take this personally). I am sure that homeopaths are good people. Afterall, you are doing this for the noble reason of curing patients. But please exercise common sense when advertising your beliefs in homeopathy. While there is no concrete, well conducted experiments that show homeopathy actually provides significant effects, homeopathy can only be considered as a complementary form of treatment, not main stream. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to think otherwise.”

And this is what he replied (all English are my translation; all colour changes and highlighting were from the disgruntled homeopath, to emphasise how pissed off he is with me I guess):

身在United Kingdom (英國)？碩士學歷嗎？

Living in the United Kingdom? Masters level of education?

原来你是在大學讀自然科學、為左研究一ｄ有人講係違反科學定論的事、你一定是看到那套以機械来講解順勢療法的可笑節目、所以就寫順勢療法不可信吧～

So you are at university studying natural sciences, researching a topic that some think is anti-science, you must have seen that laughable TV show which used machines to describe homeopathy, that’s why you are writing that homeopathy cannot be trusted.

我都有看過BBC那套節目、用機械去模擬人體・・・研究西薬就得。模擬人體的微循環系統・・・・真的可以的話早就有有血有肉的智能機械人啦～你以為西醫洗腎？你知唔知洗腎的病人因為依頼機械去洗血個腎會壊死架？你認為現在科學的進歩真的可以解析這個世界上的所有？

I have also seen that show by the BBC, which used a machine to mimic the human body… this can only be used to research western medicine. Mimicking the micro-circulatory system… if it is really possible, then by now we would have intelligent blood and flesh robots ~ And then there is kidney dialysis. Do you know that dialysis patients have damaged kidneys because of these dialysis machines? You think that modern day advances in science can deal with everything in this world?

你是為隨波逐流而跟隨那些講順勢療法不可信但無親身體驗過的消極科學家去寫？

Are you just following the words of those scientists who say that homeopathy is not trust-worthy, when they have not tried homeopathy for themselves?

順勢療法是安慰劑效應？

Homeopathy is the placebo effect?

那你有無膽得罪那班話順勢療法無效的科學家、和證明順勢療法有效的科學家一起親身證明順勢療法是有效？

Then do you dare contradicting those scientists who do not believe in homeopathy and come prove homeopathy with scientists who do believe in homeopathy?

再者、我不理會你信不信順勢療法、你可以永遠講順勢療法無效、騙人。

Then again, I don’t care whether you believe in homeopathy, you can forever say that homeopathy is useless, and is a scam.

我認識和使用順勢療法６年多、我媽媽的高血壓用順勢療法醫好、我的鼻敏感用順勢療法醫好、我朋友的媽媽的胃病用順勢療法醫好、我見過一個小朋友食西薬食到急性類風濕、行唔到、用順勢療法醫番好、識行識走。

I have known and used homeopathy for 6 years. Homeopathy cured my mother’s hypertension, it cured my allergic rhinitis, it cured my friend’s mom stomach trouble, I have seen a child taking western medicine and got acute rheumatism, couldn’t walk, but ultimately cured by homeopathy.

我感受過、體驗過、使用過順勢療法、我就是活生生的證據、證明順勢療法是有效的。

I have felt, experienced, and used homeopathy. I am the living proof, that homeopathy works.

如果順勢療法是安慰劑效應、那你不如問一問西醫能不能醫好鼻敏感、哮喘、糖尿和高血壓？

If homeopathy is the placebo effect, then why don’t you ask western doctors if they could cure allergic rhinitis, asthma, diabetes and hypertension?

西醫能不能不用做手術、化療和電療便能醫到癌症？

Can western medicine cure cancer without surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy?

西醫話得番幾個月命的癌症病人、運用順勢療法来治療他的癌症、現在已活了超過西醫所講的“３個月命“X２０倍、現在還非常精神。這是安慰劑效應？

For those patients who were deemed to only have several months left by western medicine, they turned towards homeopathy to cure their cancer, by now they have lived past the “3 months” that western doctors said they have left, and by 20 times more, and at present are still very healthy. Is this the placebo effect?

西醫“可　以　嗎“？

Can western medicine do this?

西醫能醫到大部分的病嗎？

Can western medicine cure most diseases?

記住、是“醫“不是“止“。

Remember its “cure” and not “relieve”.

你認為順勢療法不可信、

You think that homeopathy is not trustworthy,

你生於澳門、那你知不知道葡萄牙也有用順勢療法？

You were born in Macau, do you know that homeopathy is used in Portugal?

你在英國生活、那你知道英國的御用醫學是順勢療法嗎？

You live in England, do you know that the primary medical treatment for the Royal Family is homeopathy?

你知道這個世界有多少個國家用緊順勢療法嗎？

Do you know how many countries in this world use homeopathy?

你有没有認真使用過順勢療法来處理自己的病？

Have you tried using homeopathy to manage your own illnesses?

你有感受過比西醫折磨的病人来找我們時的痛苦嗎？

Have you felt the pain of those patients who turned to us after being tortured by western medicine?

你有為病人的痛苦、為病人的康服而流過涙嗎？為病人的病情而緊張過？

Have you ever felt pain for a patient, shed a tear for a cured patient? Have you been anxious about your patient’s disease?

你知不知道膽石和腎石是不用開刀或用什麼震散的？

Do you know that gall stones and kindey stones do not require surgery?

你知不知道腦溢血不用開刀也可處理？

Do you know that a brain haemorrhage does not require surgery?

你知不知道癌症根本不用做手術、化療和電療？

Do you know that cancer can be cured without surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy?

你知不知道醫學的基楚是整全營養學？

Do you know the basis of medicine is nutritionism?

天外有天、你讀得書多、讀大學、但有好多野你真係未見識過呀。。。

You have studied a lot, in university, but there are a lot of things that you have not seen…

I don’t know about you but I found this person amusing, funny, condescending, patronising, insulting, and downright “intellectually-challenged” at the same time. I had no idea whether to laugh, feel insulted or feel sorry for this person. All I said was really that he should be a bit careful when advertising homeopathy, and to not use his imagined short falls in conventional medicine to divert patients away from life saving treatments.

The BBC show he was referring to was the “Horizon” production where they showed on TV that homeopathic dilutions indeed have no (big fat surprise) pharmacological effect. The show is still on YouTube broken down into 5 parts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The “machine” he was referring to was a flow cytometer. The experiment did not attempt to mimic the human body, they were only trying to repeat the Benveniste “water memory” experiment (using histamine instead of IgG) in a more controlled manner. Flow cytometry was used as a high throughput method of quantifying activated basophils, in addition to the conventional counting methods. No Frankenstein stuff here, no intelligent blood and flesh robots, just good old science.

How very dare he accuse me of coming to a conclusion about homeopathy just because of one TV show. And for the record, I never knew about that Horizon production until after I read his reply. Subsequently of course I went off and searched for this show and watched it. Good show though.

For those of you who may have a better command of Chinese than myself, feel free to point out my mistakes in the translation. I promise I am not going to throw a hissy fit.

So would a rational medical professional or scientist talk like this in a seminar when someone questions his/ her work? There may be some sarcastic or snide comments, all to the amusement of the audience, but rarely more than that. Because that’s how science works, its discussion, being critical in order to improve on current thinking. But I am sensing a hint of extremism from this man, and that is worrying.

It is not everyday you see a full blown hissy from a “professional”.

Having got quite interested in the subject of homeopathy and its crack-pot view of medicine, I did a simple search to look at the state of matters in and around my hometown, Macau and Hong Kong (both ex-European colonies). Did not take me long to find pro-quackery (in particular homeopathy) posts littered everywhere, and the most shocking thing is, no-one is making a stand! Doctors and scientists are keeping quiet. All post replies on these blogs of practicing homeopaths were of astonishment and awe at the magical wonder that is homeopathy. Sensing a niche (and also the argumentative side of me was getting antsy), I set up shop and proceeded to gently lay on a few truths about homeopathy. The “pseudoscience can kill” blog is here. I borrowed one of Professor Colquhoun’s figures (the distance from earth to sun figure) to make a point, hope he doesn’t mind. Mind though, it was properly referenced. One of the things which immediately got my back up was the outrageous claims from blog authors (which are either trainee or practicing homeopaths), and also the Hong Kong Association of Homeopathy (HKAH) website as well as the Macau Association of Homeopathy (MAH) website that homeopathy is superior to western medicine. They have their usual mumbo-jumbo of how it works, like cures like, succussion and potentisation, etc… but also the following phrase, which I find highly disturbing (the thing was in Chinese so I had to translate it; and in the interests of good scientific practice I have to hold my hand up and say now that this translation by yours truly may have some experimental bias in it and should be translated again in a controlled environment by several neutral people):

“…from the homeopathic point of view, the correct method of medical treatment should involve non-invasive procedures, and toxicity free remedies, to restore imbalances in the body, to strengthen the body, to strengthen the immune system, so as to minimise the negative effects that symptoms have on the body, but must not counteract the symptoms, and suppress the body’s self protection powers, for instance through the use of drugs to control coughing, emesis, inflammation and pain etc, doing so will inevitably lead to serious and dire consequences.”

I apologise for the excessive use of the comma, but that’s how Chinese is written. To minimise bias, I feel it is necessary to include all the commas. This seems to be a swipe at western medicine to promote their hocus-pocus beliefs and frankly I found that out of order. A closer read at blog posts by practicing homeopaths reveals even more shocking statements. How the future of medicine should be left with homeopaths, western medicine should be an obsolete method of treatment, that patients should stop using western medicine. The final straw was when I found a post hailing “success” that homeopathy is now “mainstream” medicine in Macau (they held a large conference apparently), and how Hong Kong should follow suit to avoid being seen as “backwards” and “closed off”. So I proceeded to poke the bear with a wee stick with this reply to his post:

“Hi. I am originally from Macau, but I am not sharing your delight in the “success” homeopathy is enjoying in Macau. It is scary that while homeopathy is not evidence based medicine, that practicing homeopaths like yourself will come out and say that homeopathy is better than conventional, evidence based medicine.

May I point out that homeopathy, at this moment in time, is at best only a fancy and expensive form of placebo treatment. At worst, it is life threatening, because of delays in seeking medical advice and diagnosis from trained medical professionals.

Finally, the only selling point of homeopathy – the lack of side effects, is simply because of the extreme dilutions in homeopathic remedies, where I am sure even you would agree with me, there is no active substance in the remedy really, isn’t there? This aspect of succussion and potentisation of homeopathy remains a laughing point among scientists and medical professionals who believe that medicine should be evidence based.

I apologise for the stinging attack on homeopathy (and please do not take this personally). I am sure that homeopaths are good people. Afterall, you are doing this for the noble reason of curing patients. But please exercise common sense when advertising your beliefs in homeopathy. While there is no concrete, well conducted experiments that show homeopathy actually provides significant effects, homeopathy can only be considered as a complementary form of treatment, not main stream. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to think otherwise.”

Note that I said “please do not take this personally”. I have read somewhere that trying to reason with a homeopath will always incur the wrath of the said homeopath (because someone who has the answers will try and debate with you). I got a reply to my (I must say fairly level headed) comment with what can only be described as “verbal diarrhoea” (you think homeopathy could cure that?). The guy went berserk and as if one reply was not enough, he came back on two other occasions to add to his emotional outburst. Obviously I hit a nerve there! His response was simply a whole list of questions to me and I was pretty sure he was crying while composing the said outburst. I could feel the emotion in the reply. There were font changes, colour changes, highlighting going on. This guy was properly pissed! I am still in the process of digesting all the Chinese thrown at me (I can read but not fast or fluent) and will formulate a level headed response to it soon. You’d think that a professional would at least try to reason and debate instead of throwing a hissy fit when queried and doubted? All I wanted to do was to induce some intelligent scientific debate, and this was what I got? Handbags?!

Ok so I am quack-spotting. And it has been fun. Over the past couple of days, I have been looking more into what the science-wannabes is selling to the unsuspecting public (unfortunate to see, even the Royal Family is falling for these fairy and goblin methods of treating your cold and flu). Not wanting to go into details of what they think is legitimate science (I am rather angered by this and so there will be a post soon once I regained some consciousness from my mandatory Saturday night bottle of wine), I will go straight to the point to what can only be described as a full (albeit small) victory for those of us who believe in proper evidence-based science. This is essentially old news (but give me a break – I am new to this), but I believe if there is one more blog post on this it will only amplify the “awareness”. The UCLan, which in “My Quack-Watch #1” I have already talked about how they offer quack degrees, has dropped their first year BSc Homeopathy course (I have a major problem with these courses offering BSc degrees, I have a BSc – they should really be BHDMYBTPUFT for Bachelor of How Daft Must You Be To Pay Us For This). If only they come with a money-back guarantee for second and third year students who are already neck deep into the course! They cite low recruitment levels for making this decision, and I say WhoopDeeDoo to that. Seems like the penny is finally dropping for some people and the quack-bubble might be showing signs of rupture. They also cite “relentless attacks from the anti-homeopathy league” for this decision – apparently requests for teaching materials are considered relentless attacks. I also have a problem with the term “anti-homeopathy league” – it makes it appear as though it’s a minority, and should be re-termed “scientists”. Full credit to those who are making a big effort to eradicate this tumour in medicine. I hope more universities will take heed and follow suit.