Memorandum submitted by Maria Jevtics
(HO 49)
ENQUIRY RECEIVED
BY THE
COMMONS INFORMATION
OFFICE
1. How were the witnesses selected? What
qualification did Dr Ben Goldacre, Paul Bennet and Tracey Brown
have to give evidence on a highly academic discipline which take
more than four years to learn and understand? The committee was
far better informed than some of the witnesses.
2. There was no witness representing consumers
who use homeopathy with satisfaction. There is a large number
of people who use homeopathy and are satisfied and these people
are taxpayers and voters. They have a right to be represented
in an enquiry such as this.
3. The issue that a homeopath may miss a serious
underlying condition is a valid one, however it is the same across
the board of all medical disciplines. Homeopaths are trained to
ask certain questions to exclude serious underlying conditions.
They arev also bound by their code of ethics to recognise these
and refer on to a medical doctor if in doubt. There are many misdiagnoses
taking place on a daily basis in every GP surgery and the numbers
of people affected or killed by misprescribed pharmaceutical is
in the hundred thousands per year.
4. If we need scientific evidence for everything
we allow, then we must close churches and temples. There is no
scientific evidence that God exists and still we allow priests
to promise eternal life and salvation. We allow the church to
extract money on a monthly basis from churchgoers all on a scientifically
unfounded basis. This is the boggest hoax in human history.
5. Homeopathy is physically harmless and
risk-free. It also gives people mental and emotional peace of
mind. There is no reason to undermine it with demands for scientific
validity when history teaches us that often the science lags behind.
Let's not repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Quantum physicas also does not make sense to
the untrained mind. I do not expect most of the witnesses or committee
members to understand something they simply do not know enough
about. Just check whether it is harmful ordangerous. If it is
not then what is the problem?
November 2009
| 
