Post by Cassus on Oct 18, 2010 20:39:37 GMT
The lobbying charity Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century recently shelled out for two adverts in the New Statesman.
H:MC21 were good enough to provide advance notice on their website so that the sceptics could get their response organised!
www.hmc21.org/#/care-advert/4544163794
www.hmc21.org/#/health-advert/4543756106
The advert in my possession appeared in the 11th October issue under the title
The general thrust of my epic complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - which weighs in at a mammoth fifteen pages - is
It's worth highlighting a few of the arguments the advert makes - and why these arguments are wrong. (Apologies to everyone for whom an explanation isn't necessary.)
According to the advert,
The claim refers to a 2005 study published in a New York-based magazine.
Alas, the study's conclusions are meaningless - it is essentially a large collection of anecdotes, which painful experience has taught us is too unreliable to be taken seriously as scientific evidence.
The advert continues,
In other words, of the many studies which have been done on homeopathy, a majority say that homeopathy works.
The problem with this claim is that many of the studies are of poor quality, and we cannot confidently rely on their conclusions.
Luckily, we have a series of "meta analyses" to rely upon - formal reviews of the available scientific evidence. The most recent one, published in The Lancet in 2005, concluded
In English, this means that homeopathy is no more effective than any other sugar pill. The advert claims
In fact, the opposite is true - homeopathy has no history of success in treating any kind of illness.
The advert continues,
The underlying problem with the above claim is that it is b***cks (that's bulls*it to all our American friends) - Andy Lewis' thorough article (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/labels/cuba.html) explains why.
I won't try reposting the whole 15 pages of whiny complainingness on the forum - it's just below, if you really want to read it. A number of other sceptics have submitted complaints, so we ought to see an adjudication on this one. I'm looking forward to it!
scepticalletterwriter.blogspot.com/2010/10/homeopathy-for-21st-century.html
H:MC21 were good enough to provide advance notice on their website so that the sceptics could get their response organised!
www.hmc21.org/#/care-advert/4544163794
www.hmc21.org/#/health-advert/4543756106
The advert in my possession appeared in the 11th October issue under the title
"Homeopathy Cares"
The general thrust of my epic complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - which weighs in at a mammoth fifteen pages - is
"...but not enough"
It's worth highlighting a few of the arguments the advert makes - and why these arguments are wrong. (Apologies to everyone for whom an explanation isn't necessary.)
According to the advert,
"At Bristol Homeopathic Hospital 70.7% of 6,500 patients with chronic conditions benefited from homeopathic treatment and had reduced need for conventional medication."
The claim refers to a 2005 study published in a New York-based magazine.
Alas, the study's conclusions are meaningless - it is essentially a large collection of anecdotes, which painful experience has taught us is too unreliable to be taken seriously as scientific evidence.
The advert continues,
"...more randomised controlled trials [studies of homeopathy] are positive than negative."
In other words, of the many studies which have been done on homeopathy, a majority say that homeopathy works.
The problem with this claim is that many of the studies are of poor quality, and we cannot confidently rely on their conclusions.
Luckily, we have a series of "meta analyses" to rely upon - formal reviews of the available scientific evidence. The most recent one, published in The Lancet in 2005, concluded
"...the clinical effects of homoeopathy are [compatible with] placebo effects."
In English, this means that homeopathy is no more effective than any other sugar pill. The advert claims
"Homeopathy has a history of success in chronic illness"
In fact, the opposite is true - homeopathy has no history of success in treating any kind of illness.
The advert continues,
"In Cuba an integrated approach to healthcare has lead to homeopathy being used to enable 2.3 million people, including the elderly, to be cheaply and effectively protected against endemic Leptospirosis."
The underlying problem with the above claim is that it is b***cks (that's bulls*it to all our American friends) - Andy Lewis' thorough article (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/labels/cuba.html) explains why.
I won't try reposting the whole 15 pages of whiny complainingness on the forum - it's just below, if you really want to read it. A number of other sceptics have submitted complaints, so we ought to see an adjudication on this one. I'm looking forward to it!
scepticalletterwriter.blogspot.com/2010/10/homeopathy-for-21st-century.html
you are doing their job for them.