Thanks for taking the time to persist with this! I like Boots – lots of useful things on sale and I pop in there every now and again for things. The fact that they’re failing to ‘disambiguate’ herbal from homeopathic does concern me a bit. It seems like cloaking homeopathic products by hiding them next to something that does have some active ingredient in it. I’m not sure if this is by accident or design. I think you have a very nice analogy against the misuse, in this instance, of patient choice. Can’t help wondering though, if the products were removed, would this be exploited as being ‘because they’re super-effective (secretly) and big pharma is scared of them’ 😉 I’d rather Boots had a section within its ‘alternative medicine’ for ‘unproven remedies’ with big signs saying “buyer beware” everywhere. Maybe more effective to relegate homeopathy to comic status rather than remove it? Reply
Great letter. I hope it gets the desired response. To be honest I can’t see how Boots can persist with their current untenable position. 🙂 Reply
I agree in principle that Boots shouldn’t be conning people. However, I think the critical statement in the above letter is “there is good evidence that homeopathy doesn’t work over placebo”, in other words homeopathy often *does* work, in the same way that a placebo does. If a placebo works, why not use it? The problem being that if you call it a placebo, it definitely won’t work. So in effect, homeopathy is just a means of delivering placebos – it gives them a legitimacy and a high enough price to make most people think they should work, as a result of which they may well actually do some good. But to make them work, Boots has to be dishonest. A dilemma indeed. Reply
A friend of mine insists that tobacco calms his nerves. He suffers from acute anxiety attacks and self-medicates with cigarettes (and alcohol) so as to “avoid taking drugs” 🙂 I wonder though, do Boots stock cigarettes given that there is an obvious demand for them and that they are seen, by some, as an alternative to science-based medicine? Reply
Atheist: have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present? do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG? WRONG now listen to this arrogant puffed up son of a bitch…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilWM7jIEN_k little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!! Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces… http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.html you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy… Reply
@atheismisdead “comment moderation”, like foolish threats, has no place in the open exchange of ideas… Sure, your position is intellectually bankrupt and you’d need to filter replies to maintain any illusion that it had merit, but that’s not Zeno’s problem. idiot. Reply
“If a placebo works, why not use it? The problem being that if you call it a placebo, it definitely won’t work.” Two points here: one is that Lee Crandall Park tried an open trial of placebo and found that patients reported improvement despite being told they were taking a placebo (link). The other is that a placebo will only “work” if you are measuring (subjective) patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain. Even then, the effect of placebo “could not be clearly distinguished from reporting bias and other biases.” This is something I wrote about here: The Powerful Placebo. Reply
@James Cole: thanks for the links – most interesting. If there is little evidence that placebos actually do any good, then I withdraw my previous comments and agree completely with the original article. Boots should not be peddling homeopathic products without at least making it very clear that there is no clinical evidence that they work. Reply
Great letter Zeno. I wonder what Boots pharmacists will do with it. Re atheismisdead – if you put Zeno to death, I will sue you. You will find that your resulting legal bills will be far worse than being put to death 😉 Reply
Jack of Kent, that is priceless. Thank you for making my evening. Zeno, well done. Atheismisdead, your comments are obnoxious and silly. You appear to be a twit. Reply
Lifelinking I’m scared to say anything – JoK may consider he has given me advice and send me a bill! Reply
Just a thought, but maybe instead of stopping Boots selling overpriced water – perhaps we should encourage them to increase the price? Given that research indicates that a more expensive placebo is more effective than a cheaper one – imagine all of the good that could be done by doubling the price!?! In fact, why stop there. Increase the price by a factor of 30 – imagine how incredibly effective that could be! Reply
Paul is right If one considers the dilution of a product before it is a homeopathic remedy it is difficult to understand how there is any scientific evidence for this to work as thers is unlikely to be many molecules (if any) of the original product in the final product Where is the scientific evidence Reply
They may well have been trying to stop you bothering them. The last response I got from them said “In response to your final comments” – How do they know it’s my ‘final’ comment! Actually I have further questions for them that will be on their way at the weekend. Reply
Maybe the thing to do would be for someone with a cold/dodgy leg/misaligned chachra to buy a homeopathic remedy and follow the course. When it doesn’t work, to contact Boots and demand redress. Boots will, naturally, hide behind the fact that they don’t *guarantee* any of their medicines work, conventional or otherwise. If it were a coventional drug, there would be supporting information they could use to defend their decision to stock it. But since there won’t be for this, you demand to know the reason why they have sold you a drug that they know doesn’t work. Can we then do them under trades description, given their position as a chemist and our reasonable expectation that they wouldn’t sell something that they knew didn’t work? A hypothetical argument is one thing, but might it not have more power if it was an actual upset customer demanding action, going to local trading standards, maybe also appearing on local news? Yes I know you wouldn’t atually have to take the potion, though it you did and documented it, then it might be useful supporting evidence. Reply
Since homeopaths emphasise that their remedies contain powerful, potentised “water memory”, how do they refute allegations that a proportion of this does not pass right through the patient and enter the water supply/food chain? Statistically, the chances that the “right” patient will then be drinking the “right” potentised water (further diluted and strengthened by succussion in its journey through the pipes belonging to Southwest Water or whomever) at some point in the future are surely fairly high? Maybe you could include a question about “active ingredients” in your next missive 😉 Reply
Isn’t what they’re doing Fraud? I went and had a look at the Fraud Act 2006. IANAL, but ” Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people. 11. Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4. 12. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. 13. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person’s state of mind. 14. Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website. ” Seems to me there might be a case… Reply