[bpsdb] Well it seems that intrepid homeopath Jeremy Sherr has been busy on his blog. In a classic case of not having the balls to stand by your words, having edited posts and deleted comments, he's now deleted pretty much the entire blog save for three entries (fortunately the missing entries had been archived), the most recent of which is a response to the criticism he recently received. Here's a quick rebuttal of his response.
How predictable; the Pharmaceutical Inquisition have discovered my site and they are squawking away in a hysterical frenzy. I take this as a compliment and thank them for the publicity.
This is a bizarre statement to make, completely diconnected from reality. Ben Goldacre, myself and I believe Gimpy all have a history of strongly criticizing and pulling apart pharmaceutical firms and their claims, so to accuse us and the dozen-or-so others that protested on his blog of being part of some "Pharma" gang is a bit odd. At any rate, it's just a sweeping ad hominem - even if we were paid by GSK, it makes no difference to the validity of the points made.
Alas, the pharma-inquisition has a nasty little habit of nit picking other peoples blogs as if they were a scientific document,
Translation "wahh, I'm allowed to say what I like and you're not allowed to criticize because it's not real science." This is pathetic. Sherr made a variety of specific, scientific claims on his site - for example the statement that: "I know, as all homeopaths do, that you can just about cure AIDS in many cases. But shhhh… I'm not allowed to say that, so you didn't hear it." To complain when people criticize you for making these claims is a bit daft. It's even dafter when your response is to immediately delete them (although fortunately copies have been kept, and his claims are repeated all over the internet anyway).
"1. We have never offered, advertised, advocated or suggested homoeopathy as an alternative to ARVs to any AIDS patients in Tanzania or elsewhere. Not one patient has BEEN PERSUADED TO STOP or has been prevented from taking conventional medication as a result of our treatment. Most of the patients I treat are currently on ARVs. All patients have received prior medical advice."
So publicly stating that homeopathy cures AIDS, while also making bizarre and incorrect statements about ARVs ("To take ARVS you must eat 5 regular healthy meals a day. Otherwise the poison is too strong. Seeing all the kids eat is a very diluted porridge with a bit of sugar, there is no way they can survive ARVs") isn't "suggesting" or "advocating" homeopathy as an alternative to ARVs? It's certainly pushing the envelope.
2. At this time I am not involved in any homoeopathic research in Tanzania or elsewhere.
Sherr is in his own words experimenting with an unproven medical intervention: "I am a bit nervous; this is the first test, will my prescriptions work?" To say that this is somehow not homeopathic research is simply bizarre.
3. Any research I may undertake will be subject to rigorous ethical review of the highest standard.
I can't prove what Sherr will or won't do in the future (the same applies to his forth point, which is why I've not bothered replying to it here), but I can quote his own words, from an interview with Rowena Ronson, in which he said: "You have to find willing partners and get a protocol through an ethics committee, and you need to talk their language. I hope it will work but if not, I will just go and do it on a small scale myself - I am determined to do that." Not exactly consistent, is it, but I suppose I should be glad about the U-turn.
I hope that is clear enough. I have no doubt the pharma-inquisition will try to take this apart too. They just can't help it. Quite sad.
Why? Because people care about AIDS? Because people are deeply concerned when a quack heads off to Africa to promote a treatment for which there is neither any evidence nor any plausible mechanism for efficacy? If Sherr wants to play around with his fantasy water in Britain that's bad enough, but to go out to the third world and claim - as Rath did - to be able to cure AIDS is grossly irresponsible, and the outcry about it from a whole host of ordinary people is understandable given the potential for harm caused by misguided interventions.
See more at:
Homeopathic Aids Fantasies
Woo Will Kill
Jeremy Sherr: A Rath in the Making?
http://layscience.net/trackback/470
perhaps you should change:
"even we were paid by GSK" to "even IF we were paid by GSK" :-)
Damn, the secret's out...
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Homeopathy works. It works well and much better than conventional medicine. If it didn't work, it would not last for more than 200 years and have so many followers and supporters around the world. Numbers do not lie (unlike this blog). If homeopathy were such crap, why does this blog and so many other people, from the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies, make such an effort to fight against it? If it didn't work, people would not turn to it and it would fissile out, like many medical theories have over the years.
Shelley: Medical people fight against homeopathy because it does not work. If you take homeopathiic remedies for diseases such as AIDS or malaria you will die.
You accuse the writer of this blog of being a liar but the quotes from Sherr are accurate.
The liar is Sherr. It would appear that the institutes he claims to work with deny ever having met him. Sherr and his ilk need to be stopped. Pseudoscience has killed hundreds of thousands in South Africa. It must not be repeated elsewhere.
OK I'll bite - I know you are a troll funded by Big Homeo, but nonetheless.
Homeopathy works.
It doesn#t matter how often you say it, you still need some evidence of which there is none.
It works well and much better than conventional medicine.
No, because then it would be part of "conventional medicine"
If it didn't work, it would not last for more than 200 years and have so many followers and supporters around the world.
A lot of nonsense has survived more that 200 years - most religions have lasted way more than that - choose whichever one you think is invented for sake of this argument.
Numbers do not lie (unlike this blog).
Standard baseless whinging. Proof please.
If homeopathy were such crap, why does this blog and so many other people, from the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies, make such an effort to fight against it?
What makes you think there is a pharma connection or from the medical establishment? Homeopathy can be crap without any involvement from them. The fight is due to the fact that there is a sugar pill sales man trying to get people to take nothing instead of ARV, thereby helping them to die. That's worth writing a few blogs, wouldn't you say or is it OK to test on them cos their only Africans?
If it didn't work, people would not turn to it and it would fissile[sic] out, like many medical theories have over the years.
No, because it isn't a medical theory. It is a religion. There is a fairly low bar for me (and any other rational person) to appreciate that homeopathy has efficacy. However, I suspect there is no level of evidence that would convince you that it is nonsense, which is why it is treated as a religion, and not worthwhile discussing with you.