This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 22, Issue 3, from 2012.
I’m sure most of you will be aware of the 10:23 campaign which organised a simultaneous national overdose of homeopathic remedies earlier this year, to demonstrate they contain no active ingredients. The following, however, you won’t know.
About two weeks prior to the event, I sent ten emails. I sent messages to five pro-homeopathy organisations, and five organisations I thought more likely to recognise genuine science. The initial messages were identical and contained the question, “In short, what guidance could or should be given to an individual or group of individuals who are planning to consume an overdose of homeopathic remedies?” I qualified the question by stating “I would like to include any relevant advice in a column on the topic of public health and social policy”.
Clearly if such a query were ever raised regarding orthodox pharmacology, the reply would undoubtedly be to seek medical or psychiatric attention but I was curious about the advice which might be offered when the risk to healthy individuals extends to a sugar-rush.
I received some curious responses. The Professional Standards Pharmacist for a well-known high street pharmacy briefly recommended that no-one should take a deliberate overdose of any product. In contrast, the Customer Care team behind a better-known high street pharmacy replied with three paragraphs thanking me for my “positive feedback”, expressing delight that “you want us to continue to sell these items” and stating “We know that many people believe in the benefits of complementary medicines and we aim to offer the products we know our customers want.” I received no reply to my follow-up email clarifying that my query contained no feedback or statements regarding the availability of homeopathic remedies. Two weeks after the overdose event I bizarrely received a further, unsolicited, response stating they were unable to answer my query.
Another organisation, which exists to promote “an interest in and understanding of homeopathy”, kindly replied stating unfortunately it doesn’t give advice and I should perhaps contact the Society of Homeopaths. I replied with the following: “Given the role of your organisation is to promote interest in and understanding of homeopathy, I was wondering if you might be able to answer a different query, specifically whether it is actually possible to consume an overdose of any homeopathic remedies, and if so, how? This is a topic about which I’ve read quite conflicting statements, so any clarification you could offer would be most helpful. I like to ensure my writing is accurate and well-informed as possible.” Regrettably and somewhat bizarrely, I apparently again “need a homeopath to address that question.”
The most curious response was received from an individual who appears to be involved with three of the five pro-homeopathy organisations I contacted, including the Society of Homeopaths. Indeed, I wonder if the same individual also provided quotes to the BBC for its online news coverage as some of the phrasing seems remarkably similar. The first response read “I am curious as to why you would want to give advice on homeopathy without being qualified to do so. May I suggest that you clarify in your own mind what you mean by ‘an overdose of homeopathic remedies’, and then come back to us.”
I responded, clarifying that “I consider an overdose to be ‘taking more of a given remedy within a given period of time, than the maximum suggested in the product guidance’”, to which the individual kindly confirmed that “”Overdose” is a term used in orthodox pharmacology. To use it with reference to homeopathic treatment is inappropriate as it has no definition within homeopathy”. I’m glad I didn’t spend any longer trying to clarify in my own mind something which has no definition within homeopathy. I’m somewhat of a pedant and it could have been a tedious night.
Following the quite reasonable reference later in this email to a fee for further assistance, I rather rudely failed to reply. It therefore came as a slight surprise to receive a third, again unsolicited, response stating, “I understand now why you were interested in the issue of an ‘overdose’ of homeopathic remedies, since it is presumably in connection with the absurd stunt planned to take place outside Boots”. The email concluded with “Experiments conducted without recognising the need for a proper scientific framework are simply stunts, and they are potentially dangerous depending on the conditions”.
This seemed a relatively fair reply despite the fact that I have never heard the 10:23 overdose event described as an experiment. It is without question a publicity stunt. Testing under appropriate scientific frameworks is vital for accurate and reliable evidence but homeopathy fails to withstand criticism based upon the most fundamental of physical, chemical and biological hypotheses.
It is wonderful if homeopathic remedies provide relief to some individuals but there exists a great potential for public confusion and misapplication of the field. I was routinely directed to contact a pharmacist or homeopath to resolve this basic query but the Head of Corporate Communications for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society provided the most succinct and clear advice I received:
We are not aware of any clinical evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy. However, some people do find they get benefits from taking homeopathic medicines. The best person for an individual to talk to about a health issue that concerns them is their local pharmacist, who can provide advice across a wide range of medicines.
