Jump to content

User:Chris Neville-Smith/EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDM 908[1] is an early day motion in the UK Parliament, tabled by David Tredinnick MP (Conservative) on February 23, 2010, objecting to the recent Science and Technology Select Committee Report on Homeopathy[2]. The list of MPs who have signed is regarded by sceptics as the stupid list.[3] [4] and David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, has called it a "handy list of dimwitted members of parliament".[5]

The EDM has become a battleground among supporters and detractors of homeopathy with the Faculty of Homeopathy[6], the British Homeopathic Association[7] and other homeopathic organizations and homeopathic practitioners encouraging supporters to write to their constituency MPs asking them to sign the EDM while sceptics have encouraged people to do the opposite[3]. As a direct consequence of David Treddinick tabling the EDM and the level of support it has received from sitting Members of Parliament scientist and author Dr. Michael Brooks announced in The Guardian that he was to stand for Parliament as a candidate in the forthcoming 2010 UK General Election on a pro-science/anti-pseudoscience platform in David Treddinick's Bosworth-Hinckley constituency[8] [9]. David Tredinnick held his seat, with Brooks gaining 197 votes and 0.4% of the vote.

The Science and Technology Select Committee Report on Homeopathy

[edit]

The Committee assessed the Government's policy on the issue, including funding of homeopathy under the National Health Service and government policy for licensing homeopathic products. The decision by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee follows a written explanation from the Government in which it told the select committee that the licensing regime was not formulated on the basis of scientific evidence. "The three elements of the licensing regime (for homeopathic products) probably lie outside the scope of the ... select committee inquiry, because government consideration of scientific evidence was not the basis for their establishment," the Committee said. The inquiry sought written evidence and submissions from concerned parties.[10][11]

In February 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that:

... the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.

The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.

The Committee concluded - given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy - that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.

In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.

Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.[12]

The Committee also stated:

"We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals — hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos — should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths."[13]

The EDM

[edit]
“SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHY 23.02.2010
Tredinnick, David
That this House expresses concern at the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee's Report, Evidence Check on Homeopathy[2]; notes that the Committee took only oral evidence from a limited number of witnesses, including known critics of homeopathy Tracy [sic] Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science, and journalist Dr Ben Goldacre, who have no expertise in the subject; believes that evidence should have been heard from primary care trusts that commission homeopathy, doctors who use it in a primary care setting, and other relevant organisations, such as the Society of Homeopaths, to provide balance; observes that the Committee did not consider evidence from abroad from countries such as France and Germany, where provision of homeopathy is far more widespread than in the UK, or from India, where it is part of the health service; regrets that the Committee ignored the 74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective, and that the Committee recommends no further research; further notes that 206 hon. Members signed Early Day Motion No. 1240 in support of NHS homeopathic hospitals in Session 2006-07; and calls on the Government to maintain its policy of allowing decision-making on individual clinical interventions, including homeopathy, to remain in the hands of local NHS service providers and practitioners who are best placed to know their community's needs.”

Inaccuracy and misrepresentation in the EDM

[edit]
  • The time reserved for oral submissions and the number of witnesses presenting oral evidence was limited but as well as hearing from the two known critics of homeopathy named by Tredinnick it also heard submissions from Dr Peter Fisher (Director of Research at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital), Dr Robert Mathie (Research Development Adviser for the British Homeopathic Association) and Robert Wilson (Chairman of the British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers).
  • The Committee's request for memoranda was met with 58 responses, 56 of which were published in the report. Eleven submissions were by organizations directly involved in the promotion of homeopathy (including The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health and the Society of Homeopaths). In addition several memoranda supportive of homeopathy were submitted by practising homeopaths and Mr Tredinnick himself.
  • The British Homeopathy Association submitted a written report which detailed five systematic reviews of homeopathy claiming that four of the five "have reached the qualified conclusion that homeopathy differs from placebo". An examination of conclusions given by the cited studies showed this claim to be false[14] The Society of Homeopaths made two written submissions and were not asked to present oral evidence.
  • Tracey Brown’s evidence[2] to the select committee concerned regulation.
  • Ben Goldacre is a medical doctor and journalist, who analyses misrepresentation of science and pseudoscience
  • Mr Tredinnick's memorandum to the Committee made no mention of the "74 randomised controlled trials comparing homeopathy with placebo, of which 63 showed homeopathic treatments were effective" and there is no reference to these figures among the remainder of the evidence submitted to the Committee. The evidence submitted by the British Homeopathic Association stated that there had been 142 randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy of which 63 had been positive.[15]
  • The committee heard from the only Primary Care Trust known to have fully reviewed its use of homeopathy. They decided to stop funding it.[16]
  • The report analysed the scientific evidence for efficacy; evidence that homeopathy is used does not fall into this category
  • The Committee did not look at individual trials but at the statistically more powerful systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • The Committee received several written submissions from outside of the United Kingdom including Liga Medicorum Homoepathica Internationalis (International Homeopathic Medical League), the European Central Council of Homeopaths and Dr. Vijay Vaishnav of India.

Signatories

[edit]

As of April 9, 2010, there are 70 signatories[1] (Andrew George, Jeremy Browne, Tim Farron, John Hemming and John Leech all Liberal Democrats, signed and later withdrew their names[1]). They are:

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c "EDM 908 - Homeopathy". UK Parliament. 2010-02-23. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
  2. ^ a b c "Science and Technology Committee - Fourth Report— Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy". UK Parliament. 2010-02-22.
  3. ^ a b "MP David Tredinnick is Wrong about the Homeopathy Report". Quackometer.net. 2010-03-01.
  4. ^ "Letter sent to Nicholas Winterton regarding EDM 908". spidercomment.blogspot.com. 2010-03-16.
  5. ^ ""A handy list of dimwitted members of parliament". David Colquhoun. 2010-03-12.
  6. ^ "Faculty of Homeopathy - Ask your MP to sign EDM 908". Faculty of Homeopathy. 2010-02-26.
  7. ^ "British Homeopathic Association - Ask your MP to sign EDM 908". British Homeopathic Association. 2010-03-03.
  8. ^ Brooks, Michael (2010-03-30). "Taking a stand for science". London: The Guardian.
  9. ^ "Scientist to challenge Leicestershire MP at election over alternative medicines". Leicester Mercury. 2010-03-30.
  10. ^ "News in brief: Homeopathic assessment". Times Higher Education. 29 October 2009., timeshighereducation.co.uk
  11. ^ Evidence check: Homeopathy, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 20 October 2009, parliament.uk
  12. ^ UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"
  13. ^ Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, Fourth Report of Session 2009–10, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 20 October 2009, parliament.uk
  14. ^ Robbins, Martin (2010-02-04). "Homeopathic association misrepresented evidence to MPs". London: The Guardian.
  15. ^ Mathie, RT. Memorandum submitted by The British Homeopathic Association (HO 12) November 2009
  16. ^ "West Kent PCT withdraws funding for Homeopathy - Press Release". West Kent Primary Care Trust. 2007-07-28.
  17. ^ a b c d e f "EDM908 - Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy". UK Parliament. 2010-02-22.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chris_Neville-Smith/EDM_908_Science_And_Technology_Committee_Report_On_Homeopathy&oldid=485888782"