I perceive actual hostility towards those who disagree with the rationalist position over medicine. The best defence of science is to point to the achievements of the rational method (which should be a simple matter). No method will ever uncover the whole truth, and our image would be better if we admitted this. Science proclaims being value free, which translates for many people as being amoral. Either we communicate better or we start lobbying the policy makers to force behaviour. I will not support that, as it would end with state compulsion – which (some might recall) we have gone to war against.

“From 2011 the Advertising Standards Authority have deemed that practitioners can no longer claim that CST and Bowen Technique are able to treat specific health problems.

Therefore, unfortunately I cannot provide a list of conditions that I have treated over many years. Please contact me to discuss your symptoms.”

Clearly she is well aware of the rules and yet her Craniosacral page lists numerous conditions she claims can be helped by this quackery.

No matter, this is still ongoing and I have had confirmation from the ASA that they are investigating these claims, so Mrs Hughes will have the opportunity to explain all. However I feel there may be some changes to her website in the not too distant future!

A website similar to this one in tone declared “First, we came for the homeopaths”. I assume the author knows history, and has read those chilling words from the pre war years in Germany on which her headline is clearly based. Is this the tone opponents of “alternatives” really want to display? If so, who will be next, when the homeopaths are all locked up or otherwise silenced?

Elsewhere on that website, we are exhorted to sign a petition against UK libel laws, for the very good reason that they have been used in a disgraceful attempt to muzzle a writer who is himself well versed in scientific method. Quite right: democracy is hard won and expensive to defend. But it would look, shall we say, ‘ironic’, if those you regard as the other side were harassed into silence.

A similar tactical error was committed by the BBC when they clearly set up Nick Griffin for the Two Minute’s Hate” on “Question Time. If something is prattish, in a democracy, it should be left to expose itself as such. We citizens are not children to be told by him (or you) what to think. As for the ASA, how do you know it does not “cherry pick” what it goes for?

Anyway, science is value free – is it not? It does not require three cheers from its supporters and cannot be undermined by the booing and hissing of its opponents. It is self evidently valid because it provides its own methodological critique – so long as the phenomena it observes can be measured.

The data should speak for themselves, and the assertions of science fans or opponents are a distraction. Nor are scientists themselves automatically the best advocates, as they cannot help but have other sympathies. Remember that JBS Haldane, having rubbished CS Lewis, himself suppressed scepticism at Soviet claims that they had kept an isolated dog’s head alive, and that TS Lysenko’s Agrobiology would feed millions.

If you think the “Alternative” enthusiasts are wrong, point out how. If your camp keep going for them, it will appear to be a witch hunt. Beyond that, if there is no personal god with a right to vie for my soul (and that’s my own position), who are you to do it?

Osteopaths in the UK often make the same claims as craniosacral therapists, usually using terms like ‘cranial osteopathy’, ‘osteopathy in the cranial field’,'Paediatric Osteopathy’ or simply referring to the treatment of babies & children. However the levels of evidence are pretty much the same as for craniosacral = no good quality evidence exists!

Have a look here: Osteopathy: A question of evidence part 1 and also here Osteopathy: A question of evidence part 2.

A 2011 study into the benefits of Cranial Osteopathy for the treatment of Cerebral Palsy found that there was no significant benefit for either patient or carer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110315093247.htm

The format of that study was agreed with by osteopaths from the (FPO) Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy – however when the results were published they continued to advertise
the treatment of cerebral palsy …… until the ASA stopped them!
I strongly suspect that they still offer the treatment, even if they can’t actually put it on their website!

* the Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy underwent a name change and is now called the Osteopathic Centre for Children (OCC), but they are the same organisation.

If your son’s eczema has been successfully treated then that is undoubtedly good news for all concerned, but I would question whether homeopathy was responsible for any improvement in his condition!

Were any other (non-homeopathic) treatments being used at the same time, if so then how can you be sure it was the homeopathy that worked ?

I certainly hope you were not just relying on homeopathy to treat this condition, if you were then, apart from being totally irresponsible, you should be thankful that your son did not suffer the same fate as this baby:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/868785/homeopath-wife-jailed-over-babys-death

Homeopathy doesn’t work and there is no plausible mechanism that could explain how it ever could …… all supporters of homeopathy have are anecdotes and flawed, low quality research that tenuously links homeopathy to improvements in medical conditions.

Sorry to hear you are having problems following your osteopathy treatment.

If you had the treatment in the UK by a UK registered osteopath, then I would suggest you contact the General Osteopathic Council who have a complaints procedure. They will take your complaint seriously!

http://www.osteopathy.org.uk/information/complaints/

I would avoid posting online any specific details of the ‘who, what, where & when’ relating to your treatment as this may prejudice any future hearing.

skepticbarista@googlemail.com

No formal complaints have been submitted and I will now wait to see if the claims are removed without the need for the involvement of Trading Standards etc.

I can understand homeopaths not liking the ASA regulations and they may even wish to protest by refusing to remove the claims ….. however they need to remember that they are also breaking their own professional codes.

If homeopaths have no respect for their Code and the associations refuse to engage those members who break them …… then the Codes are worthless and fail in their main objectives:

SoH Code:
“The aim of the Code of Ethics and Practice is to encourage integrity and responsibility in the practice of homeopathy.”

ARH Code:
“The Code is intended for guidance and assistance to its registrants and to protect the interests of the public”.

This is less about ASA compliance and more about professionalism of the homeopaths and their trade associations.