For those who are interested, here's my Rapid Response in full:-

Dr Spence says “Our energy would be better used addressing the much bigger issue of the iatrogenic harm of conventional medicine” I would ask – why can we not do both? Challenge mumbo-jumbo AND the various iatrogenic problems of modern healthcare?

Homoeopathy lacks any evidence basis to show that it is better than placebo – in other words it is no better than a “sugar pill”. Those who claim otherwise are guilty of ignoring the scientific evidence. If they fail to tell their patients about the complete lack of an evidence basis that homoeopathy is better than placebo then they are guilty of deception, something of which the GMC should take a dim view if they are doctors. It is also wrong to refer to homoeopathy as complementary therapy. Complementary is defined in the dictionary as that which completes or makes up a whole – when talked about in the same context as evidence – and science-based modern medicine homoeopathy can in no way be described as complementary because it defies the laws of physics and our understanding of physiology. Thus it can only legitimately be referred to as alternative therapy.

Now if that’s the context in which the NHS funded homoeopathy and equal funding, time and weight was also given to things like reflexology, cranio-sacral therapy, hot stone massage, Hopi ear candles or waving crystals around your body to identify your aura then that would be quite legitimate and Dr Spence might have a valid point.

I don’t deny that homoeopathy helps a lot of people but why should the NHS pay for it if it is not prepared to pay for osteopathy, chiropractic, aromatherapy, hot stones massage, reflexology, candles in your ears, tubes up your bottom, footbaths that turn brown? That for me is the fundamental question. Why should the NHS fund some irrational 18th century snake oil scheme just because some people claim that it helps them? (For those who haven’t yet read them I strongly recommend the chapters on homoeopathy by Ben Goldacre and Ernst and Singh in their respective books). Far better to spend that money on counsellors or CBT therapists if you really want to help medically unexplained symptoms.

Hey, but what do I know – I’m just a tax payer who thinks, at a time of overt rationing, the NHS has an obligation to spend my taxes more wisely in future.

To those who would state “What do you know – you haven’t studied homoeopathy or subatomic physics” – I have studied homoeopathy to the level required for MFHom and it’s the only time in my life that the more I learned about something the less I believed it. In addition, I have been reading about quantum theory and subatomic physics for 25 years and I have a fair lay understanding of both. There is nothing in either that provides a good evidence basis for homoeopathy – otherwise I would have been the first to say so and outline why.

However, I digress. The main point of Dr Spence’s article is not whether homoeopathy works at a higher level than the placebo effect – he has effectively admitted himnself that it does not. Rather he is arguing that the NHS should fund it as it’s good for patients and good for the NHS. This is where I beg to differ. If people want to spend their own money on whatever makes them feel better I’m all for that – 100%. But when every day brings another story of the NHS rationing things that we know make a real difference to patients or when the NHS refuses to adequately resourse things like cognitive behavioural therapy then I have a real issue with it spending £40 million a year on homoeopathy because “people like it”. I would love a weekly massage and would definitely feel much better for it. Can I have that on the NHS please?