My last post has attracted an anonymous comment referring to a response to the CMO by one Lionel Milgrom. I’ve read the response. Mr Milgrom gives a number of references to support his argument that homeopathy works and there is evidence to support that argument. I then ploughed through the references only to find that there was no such support. Many of the references are to articles that make no mention of homeopathy, but are simply criticisms of conventional medicine, as if that somehow were to make homeopathy respectable. There are other articles looking at the concept of evidence based medicine, but again simply criticising the scientific method is hardly the same as endorsing the nonsense that is homeopathy. The ultimate cherry pick is there in the list, a link to the British Homeopathy Association website. So he doesn’t actually present any evidence at all to support the implausible notion that homeopathy is of any value. Can it be true then than Mr Milgrom has distorted the facts, misrepresented evidence, exaggerated, fabricated and invented? I don’t have to look far to find evidence to answer that question. These two articles by Ben Goldacre and Jack of Kent adequately sum the man up.
This page of one of my favorite sites also gives a nice accurate view.
Lionel Milgrom, hardcore loon.