Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by Maria Jevtics (HO 49)


  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

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 22 February 2010