Friday, September 01, 2006

A Quack's Charter

It's outrageous. And yet another cowtowing to irrational superstition. Once again the touchy-feelies trump evidence-based science. The modern-day medicine-show carpet-baggers who call themselves "homeopaths" will now be allowed to display their absurd claims on the box under the National Rules System. This insane move, apparently, "is designed to bring homeopathic remedies into line with licensed medicines".

According to The Guardian:

Packaging on homeopathic products will be allowed to describe the illnesses they claim to be able to treat under a controversial licensing scheme introduced by the government today. The National Rules System is designed to bring homeopathic remedies into line with licensed medicines - but doctors and scientists say it will legitimise products that have no scientific evidence to support their claims.

Perhaps, if the government wants to bring homeo-potty into line with licensed medecines, it should start by requiring that it comply with clinical trials and peer-reviews to verify and replicate its medicinal claims!

Evan Harris MP is entirely correct to say that this move has "diluted and polluted" the regulation of medicine.

While the government's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency claims that "this is a significant step forward in the way homeopathic medicines are regulated. Products authorised will have to comply with recognised standards of quality, safety and patient information," Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London quips: "This is like licensing a witches' brew as a medicine so long as the bat wings are sterile."

If you think about it, what other products - medical or otherwise - are allowed to make untrue or unverifiable claims?

The horror is that an uninformed person will buy a homeopathic product based on the snazzy packaging and the claim on the box, not realising that it is not the equivalent of Savlon, or any other clinically tested and known-to-be-effective remedy and then use it in an emergency. If your toddler burns her hand or bumps his head, do you want to be unknowingly administering some play-play salve that requires a belief in mumbo-jumbo and an outer-body experience to be effective?

Hopefully some consumer advocacy group will turn this insanity to its advantage and bring a case against products which cannot demonstrate that they do what they claim to do.

Study after study has shown that so-called homeopathic "remedies" show little significant differences as a treatment that sugar pill placebos.

Recently a wealthy sceptic, James Randi, offered $1 Million to anyone who could provide convincing evidence of the effects of homeopathic "medicine". The BBC's Horizon programme went to great legnths to win the money, but failed miserably. The concluded:

"To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."

So why is the government flying in the face of solid evidence? WHy are euphimisms like "complementary therapies" being drafted in to obscure the bleedin' obvious? Perhaps Prince Charles is running the country. We should be told.

Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society has allerted me to a related incident. In the US, reports The Washington Post, "small but growing number of practices around the country that tailor the care they provide to the religious beliefs of their doctors". Brochures advertise services by doctors who blend "the best of modern medicine with the healing presence of Jesus Christ."

Jesus, of course, believed that "unclean spirits" were the cause of medical complaints.

How long before the UK starts allowing the Gideon Society to make medical claims too?


At 6:02 pm, Anonymous Pragmatic homeopath said...

I've just come across the vociferous and opinionated megaphone that is Brett Lock. I am astonished that such a vocal member of an until recently pilloried minority group can steam into things in which he does not believe with such vitriol.

You may be right about religion, Jesus, complementary medicine and in fact the whole world but what if you're not? And how deeply offensive you are in any case.

I work as a homeopath. I know a lot of people in complementary healthcare are annoying, just as people are everywhere, but we're not all deluded. I wouldn't have wasted my time for the past five years on a system of medicine if it didn't work and you, Brett Lock, offend me personally. Clearly the fury you can raise over such an issue tells us a good deal about you as a person, but reluctantly putting that aside, let me tell you that you are uninformed.

So "Study after study" show that homeopathy has a placebo effect. In other words people might be getting better but it's due to the power of the mind, which in itself is interesting because the very people who cry 'mumbo jumbo' wouldn't normally believe in the power of the mind to actually provoke physiological change either. More to the point is that it's the big pharmaceutical machine that drives healthcare in the West. These powerful corporations aren't going to allow homeopathic medicines to work better than theirs. Our remedies won't gain credence until the establishment can figure out how to make money from producing them - and this is hard to do because actually they're really economical and cheap to produce.

Then there's the constant harping on about laboratory tests - which as we all know are the only way to establish whether human beings are getting better. These trials are designed for certain kinds of products - for example, chemicals which have an effect on bacteria, or on human cells. Homeopathic medicines don't have the same effect on all the lymphocytes in a row. They don't have the same effect on all the humans in a row. Badly selected, they don't have an effect at all. In fact we don't know why the ones that work do work at all - not really. Which is why intelligent, thoughtful and educated homeopaths flap helplessly when they're attacked. But let me tell you and your readers now what I have witnessed many many times. Well targetted homeopathic remedies have a laser-like accuracy and powerful results; they turn people's lives around. No, not just people, animals too. Ask any dairy farmer in Somerset whether his cows believe in homeopathy and he will probably say they must do because he used it and they don't have mastitis any more. When I was a student my first patient was a horse who'd had an ulcerated eye for months. We gave him Arsenicum and days later his ulcer was gone but to this day I wouldn't attempt to explain why. The horse's owner and I don't need to translate this information into Glaxo-speak.

I don't know why people like you get so vicious towards us but I suspect it's not the system of medicine that aggravates you but the people who practise homeopathy with whom you have a problem. I do too - with some of them. But it's immoral of you to launch an attack when you're not in a position to know everything that you need to know to reach an informed decision. And an unemotional decision.

It's not enough to read a few mainstream newspaper articles. Have some integrity. Take some time to read about the tests themselves, how information is sorted and suppressed, and how statistics are fabricated. The medical world is full of it. Take cholesterol, for instance - find out how studies which disprove the theory that high cholesterol leads to coronary heart disease are simply ignored. Of course! The drug companies have a lot invested in statins. Why not find out how many people have been damaged by pharmaceutical drugs and then have a go at them? Not such an easy target, are they?

As for having a pop at Jesus Christ's beliefs (familiar with his thoughts as well, are you?) you've taken a cheap shot and you've missed. Jesus Christ is a historical figure and not the product of religious maniacs. You're probably mad at Billy Graham, or just organised religion generally because of its traditional aversion to homosexuality. Jesus was an educated radical and in spite of our currently known version of the Bible being the result of much rewriting and editing there are plenty of reliable texts confirming his successes.

I don't usually bother arguing with sceptics because it matters not one jot to me what you believe, but today I realised that maybe people read what you write and it's about time we stopped allowing the bully boys to push the rest of us around - especially not in the name of so-called science.

At 9:10 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the early hours of Saturday morning my seven year old son was gasping to breathe, he was in the grip of the most frightening colic. I grabbed my remedies with trembling hands as my husband hovvered by the phone. The first remedy under his tongue, thirty seconds later no better. Second remedy (spongia tosta), 30 seconds still nothing. My husband was getting twitchy and wanted to call for an ambulance, one more try (a remedy called sambucus nigra) and within 10 seconds he visably relaxed, was able to breathe again, and fell asleep.
I feel that this proves that the remedies are not placaebo, if they were then surely first remedy would have been sufficient.
This experience is just the latest of many . My son has NEVER had alopathic medicine, even though he was born covered in angry red eczema, cured after one tiny dose of potentised sulphur. We have always used homeopathic remedies, sometimes it takes a few attempts before we get the right one.

At 9:22 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

When these 'miracles' are replicated under controlled conditions, I'll be convinced. Since asthma attacks are exacerbated by stress, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that it was the passage of time and the security of knowing that 'medication' was being adminstered that had the positive effects.

At 8:01 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

Oh yeah?
- How about a seven year old thrashing about in the throes of croup, desperately gasping for breath in the middle of the night. One small pill pushed into the side of her mouth and she INSTANTLY relaxed, fell asleep and had not even a wheeze 5 minutes later. I was there I gve her the pill.
- What about an 11 year girl old ( at night) vomiting and screaming with pain and frantically grasping at her sides from the agony of a colic attack; one pill from me and she relaxed INSTANTLY and slept peacefully in minutes

Both the above cases had previously been administered other remedies but not until given the one that was correctly homeopathic did they respond.

There is a big difference between all the wild opinionated speculation and ignorant dismissals and what happensd in real life.

Homeopathy works. Hard for people to accept, but tough, get your head around it.

At 8:06 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

Well if it works, why can't you prove it in clinical trials?

Your anecdotal 'evidence' is worthless. For all anyone knows, you're making it up.

At 8:09 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

"There is a big difference between all the wild opinionated speculation and ignorant dismissals and what happensd in real life."

And by the way, these aren't "ignorant dismissals". It isn't the case that scientists are scratching their heads wondering why these 'remidies' work in defiance of rational explanation, they simply do not work - as one clinical trial after another clearly demonstrates.

At 11:57 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

My anecdotal evidence is far from worthless to those that got the benefit of homeopathy

- Across the world there are millions of people for whom their experience of homeopathy is far from worthless.
People are being killed all over the world. That is anecdotal. Is it worthless?
People are being cured from illness all over the world by homeopathy and without the need for clinical trials - ergo clinical trials do not make the medicine.

Clinical trials ( of the sort you mean) are unneccessary for homeopathy as unlike orthodox medicine it doesn't kill thousands of people a year
- i.e. homeopathy isn't inherently dangerous.

- The dismissals are ignorant in that they are trying to fit homeopathy into a paradigm which is diametrically opposed to that paradigm; one which was designed to JUSTIFY the use of sometimes highly toxic chemicals.

Were the researchers to actually study homeopathy in depth rather than scratch their heads because it doesn't fit their current model of medicine they would do a lot better.

A couple of views for your consideration

At 3:32 am, Anonymous Clive Stuart said...

From reading a few of your blogs, I can see that you are someone who rightly rails against bigotry and prejudice. However, is there not a large helping of this in your comments about homeopaths ?

As a homeopath, I am more offended by your lack of originality than the comments themselves. You could put the name of Jamie White or Ben Goldacre after your diatribe and you really wouldn't have to change much of the content. Same old crap, different day.
As a profession, we get results for our patients. Homeopathy works and works well when carried out with competence. Yes, we have our share of nutjobs just like any other profession but it should tell you something when many conventionally trained doctors and surgeons swear by it.
If you want to carry on deluding yourself that homeopathy is a placebo and there is no evidence of it's effectiveness, fine. If you would like to see some scientific fact on the subject, then read on....

Homeopathy has been shown to work equally well on animals and small babies as well as adults. This link will take you to a report of a study where mice were detoxified from arsenic poisoning by homeopathic arsenic, mice that weren't open to the power of suggestion, I presume.
Plenty more scientific trials here :

There are more scientific studies with animals in "The emerging science of homeopathy" by Bellavite and Signorini, both medical doctors/scientists. It is a book written specifically for doctors about homeopathy.

Last year a double blind, randomised placebo controlled study published in the "European journal of pediatrics" gave scientific evidence that homeopathy was effective in treating ADHD. Go to and type "ADHD homeopathy" in the search box. You won't find too much written about this study on ADHD websites however. It might just have something to do with the fact that ADHD lobby groups are funded by the manufacturers of Ritalin, Adderall etc.

A high quality scientific study carried out by 4 separate labs all found homeopathic preparations to have a verifiable biological effect. The study was headed by professor Madeline Ennis from Queens University Belfast and the results were published in "Inflammation Research" 2 years ago. The study was given further kudos by the fact that Ennis started the research as an out and out sceptic.

Homeopathy is flourishing in the dairy industry here in NZ. Pragmatic farmers use it to treat mastitis etc. instead of antibiotics. Why ? Because it works. A recent scientific study showed that it worked at least as well as antibiotics for mastitis. The same is happening in the dairy industry in the UK. This has not gone down well with a small band of vets who have taken great trouble to set up a puerile website "Voodoo vets" to slag off homeopathic vets. Could it have something to do with money ? I wonder.

In Kenya a large trial is starting on a homeopathic combination remedy for the managemnent of AIDS. It has already shown an ability to reduce viral load in AIDS patients.

I could go on but I'm sure you are getting the gist. If you are willing to check this stuff out then good luck to you. Before you comment on homeopaths or homeopathy again it might be a good idea to move your brain a little closer to your gob.

At 9:21 am, Blogger Brett Lock said...

"People are being killed all over the world. That is anecdotal. Is it worthless?"

That must be homeopathic logic. When people are killed, the evidence is far from merely anecdotal. For a start, you have the actual body, and from that forensic science can determine a likely cause, which can be investigated further, and so on and so on.

In the meantime, why not work on your theory of why homeopathic 'remedies' don't work when subjected to clinical trials.

At 11:02 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well well, how about how come even when conventional drugs don't work in trials the drugs companies can use the media to get patients to clamour for them - do some research yourself, take a look at what has happened with the 'latest' breast cancer drugs.

It is possible to construct tests to show something doesn't work if you try hard enough - eg using arnica for carpel tunnel syndrome when everyone knows that is not an appropriate remedy. It is also possible to ignore all the tests that show it does work - like the Glasgow hospital tests for hayfever..... bit like you've been doing.

At 11:06 am, Anonymous Simon King said...

Brett, we have absolutely no need to work on the theory of why homeopathic remdies don't work when subjected to 'clinical' trials. We already know why and have explained it many times.

Homeopathy is also far from anecdotal as you also have the actual patients who had actual diseases who are actually cured.
You're the reporter, why not go out there, find them and report what they have to say; it would be more interesting and more informative than your unbiased diatribe

The problem here is that whilst you are of course perfectly entitled to express your opinion, you are not well informed and are only reiterating (vociferously) the lowest common denominator from uninformed public opinion.
In other words you are simply propogating commonly held myths, whilst trying to present your arguements as well informed and authoritative, which they are not.

Like the majority of people who are more interested in defending their position rather than exploring both sides objectively, you can't or won't look at the real evidence.
Homeopathic literature is full of Doctors who set out to disprove homeopathy and became its staunchest supporters, why might that be? I suggest it is because when one allows oneself to explore a subject with an open mind, the outcome is not predetermined as it clearly would be were it only to be prodded at with a closed mind

As it stands you have made your decision as to whether homeopathy is viable or valid, based on opinion and conjecture.
Your readers (some of them) no doubt enjoy your vitriol, let's hope however they both they and yourself understand that that is all it is.

Did you look at the links I provided?

The answers to your questions are already out there on the web. Volumes upon volumes of it.
All it takes is a little time to properly reseach and a BIG slice of daring to explore a world and medical paradigm that isn't definded by 'clinical' trials

At 11:09 am, Anonymous Simon King said...

ps - sorry that should have read' biased diatribe ' - obviously ;-)

At 11:51 am, Anonymous Grant said...

I see no reason why homeopathy cannot be tested in a double blind randomised medical trial. Such a trial can certainly take into account using what trained homeopaths prescribe tailored to particular patients and ailments.

I haven't heard of such a trial showing clear postive results and I expect I would have done so. I'm not a clinician so I need to rely on comment from specialists who are. However I am trained and work in science and so can probably understand their comments if written in logical lay form.

The trials mentioned above are interesting and if replicated I'd change my mind on the effectiveness of those particular treatments and would be happy to see them on the NHS.

Anecdotal evidence, however much of it there is can be a good reason to run a controlled trial but can't replace such a trial because of the placebo effect. Selling drugs before such trails have been accepted I think risks people not taking other more proven remedies or paying for treatments that turn out to be useless. At least homeopathic treatments do no direct harm.

I'm happy to consider all manner of medical interventions and listen to criticisms of traditional medicine. However, there need to be facts to back up claims and not just advertising and taking money off the vulnerable.

Selling "snake oil" to me ranges between a mistaken belief and outright fraud.

p.s. can people at least make some attempt to stick to discussing the subject rather than posting personal insults?

At 12:18 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

Trained homeopaths prescribe for patients not ailments. This point is important because it is why it would be imposssible to do double blind trials.
To understand what I mean by prescribing for patients not ailments please see my website.

This blog really cannot fully discuss the issue, again I would encourage anyone interested in homeopathy to search the net because this discussion has been had many many times over and all the replies to all the questions are out there.

At 12:23 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

The implication that snake oil is akin to homeopathy is yet another example of how bias blinds clarity of thought

At 1:12 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

An extremely good article on homeopathy's bizarre claims by John Allen can be found here.

It includes a link to Terry Sanderson's review of the BBC's Horizen programme which effectively debunked this mumbo-jumbo.

And just a question for Simon King: If you prescribe for patients, and admit that every remedy is suitable generically, then how can you support medical claims being made on the box?

At 1:16 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

Tha should of course read "and admit that every remedy is NOT suitable generically..."

At 1:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Brett should shut up.

I myself am a practitioner of Magick. On more than one occasion, I have found that Magick has helped solve problems which conventional means are incapable of sorting out.


I was waiting for a bus last Thursday. After an hour sitting in a freezing cold bus shelter, I had almost despaired.

Fortunately, I knew a spell for finding lost things. I recited the incantation and - hey presto - a bus turned up.

I have written to Transport for London, offering my services as a Sorcerer. I think Magick could solve all the Capital's timetabling problems.

So far, the ignorant close minded fools haven't written back to me.


I had a brown growth on my back, which I feared might be cancer.

I rubbed the growth with a toad, under the light of a full moon (this was in Summer when the nights were quite clear) while chanting a spell.

The next day, I went to the doctor, who sent me to hospital for tests. They took the growth out immediately - it was a cancerous melanoma!!!

I firmly believe that if I had not said the incantation and rubbed myself with a toad, this diagnosis would not have been made and I would now be DEAD!!!!


I really hate my boss and so I stuck some pins into a Magick voodoo doll.

He has not yet died, but I live in hope!!!!!!!!

Face it, Brett.

Magick works.

At 2:03 pm, Anonymous grant said...

I don't see why per-patient treatment by homeopathy can't be tested as a whole. You get a reasonable sample of people, a trained homeopath diagnoses them and prescribes a homeopathic treatment if suitable. Without the researchers or the patients knowing which is which at the time, 1/2 the treatments given are as prescribed and 1/2 are plain water, both labelled in the same way. Your trained homeopath and the patient then report on whether they think the treatment worked. You then look up which were given the recommeded treatment and which were the control group and see if the treatments worked better than the control and if this is significant statistically. You can also break down the results by condition or by treatment provided you have a big enough study.

At 2:40 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

Exactly, Grant. This is especially important if medical claims are going to made on the boxes, and, if our homeopathic visitors have the courage of their convictions, there's always that Milion Dollar payout to consider!

At 4:23 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

Hi Brett, re medical claims made on the Box

I really do not like this trend at all!

Very hit and miss approach to homeopathy, personally I'm agin it.

At 4:27 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

Hi Brett, re: the John Allen report

This has been discussed ( to death I thought!) on the web

It has even been mentioned above I think ( can't read the lot again).

The issue is that that particular type of surgery should have used the homeopathic remedy 'staphysagria', which is a remedy for INCISED wounds, rather than using arnica which is a remedy for CONTUSIONS

At 4:33 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

Hi Grant,

I like your idea ( I just don't think it can be called 'double blind ' but I could be wrong)

I also would like to see results from such a trial, in fact what I proposed once long ago was that over the course of a year the homeopath takes the place of one doctor in a surgery and treats all comers. Compare the results with conventional medicine and see if the results are as effective or anywhere near so. I guess you could have another 'homeopath' just giving placebo, but it seems a little unfair.

The biggest fly in the ointment would be who was going to pay the homeopath?

At 8:37 pm, Anonymous Clive Stuart said...

The ADHD study I referred to in my post was the first example (to the best of my knowledge) where subjects were prescribed for individually and then incorporated into a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. So, Grant, what you have mooted is indeed possible. The results were positive in favour of homeopathy. This is the way that all trials of homeopathy should be carried out in future, evaluating a treatment by the way it is meant to be practised.

An abstract of the paper can be found at (Type ADHD homeopathy in the search box)

At 9:00 pm, Anonymous ozzie said...

If homeopathy doesn't work and is purely placebo, why when my son went to hospital recently did the consent form ask whether he was taking any homeopathic remedies? The medical profession can't have it both ways, either they believe that homeopathy dosen't work - in which case why do they need to know whether it is being taken; or they believe it does work and are worried by the implications!
MD's please discuss!

At 9:14 pm, Blogger Brett Lock said...

Ozzie, your question is a non-sequitur. Just because they ask what he's taking does not imply any belief in the effectiveness of what he's taking. If your annecdote demonstrates anything it is the reverse - your son landed up in hospital in spite of whatever homeopathy was at your disposal.

At 11:16 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way we homeopaths find out what remedies are capable of curing is by a group of people known as 'provers' taking the remedy with some of the group taking the placebo. Nobody knows what they are taking and they keep a detailed journal of any changes over the test period. When a common symptom appears amoung enough of the provers taking the actual remedy, it is then considerd to be a symptom which can be cured by the remedy. For example Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) will give a bursting headache, dilated pupils and a high temperature, therefore we can use it homeopathically to treat certain febrile states.
I once took Lachesis, a remedy made from a snake, and unwittingly produced a proving of the remedy. Over two days my skin started to dry out, crack and bleed, finally by the time I got back to my homeopath I couldn't move without my skin tearing and it was shockingly painful. The antidote to this strange and previously unheard of (by me) condition was given (Rhus tox to anyone who is interested) and within the next 24 hours my skin was back to normal.
My challenge to you Brett, is that you get a bottle of homeopathically potentised Sarsaparilla, and take one tablet in the morning and one in the evening for a month.
It's not scientific, I realize but it would be a very interesting experiment!
All the best.

At 12:59 pm, Anonymous Simon King said...

The important point here really is that this discussion was premised on opinion and pop science, which while great stuff for a good ol' chin-wag does nothing to actually further the understanding of the subject in question;
that will only happen if those interested actually do some work and investigate properly and in depth the subject they are pronouncing on.

So my point is this; if one's purpose is to do more simply just reiterate opinions, i.e. if one wants to genuinely understand the subject under discussion it does actually have to be studied - IN DEPTH

That takes time and effort of course, and it is so much easier and gratuitously satisfying to vent one's spleen on a topic on which one has a blinkered and entrenched view.

I do admire passion, but encourage all to match that to an inquisitiveness, after all do we want to be dictated to by the staus quo?

At 7:01 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just FYI kiddo, be very careful about whom you choose to hang with.

Randi is cool, so-called Dr. Stephen Barrett (of quackwatch fame) is not. He has been discredited as a complete fraud in court and lost his clients cases by making up stories that he was a phyciatrist (he's not, he flunked his boards and never practiced) and that he is an expert although he refuses to take the board exams of those whom he calls quacks (Osteopaths, Chiropractors etc.)

Homeopathy has been proven in double-blind placebo studies by the way. A good reference for starters is as follows:

A study6, carried out in the USA in 2002/2003 on 62 patients shows that personalised homeopathic treatment is effective in treating fibromyalgia, especially as regards pain management. During this study, the personalised homeopathic treatment was compared with a placebo of strictly identical appearance (double-blind trial). The patients taking the homeopathic treatment showed significantly greater pain relief at sensitive points and a reduced tendency to depression compared to the patients taking the placebo. The authors believe that this study, "by using a wide selection of medicines, has demonstrated that personalised homeopathy performs significantly better than the placebo for patients suffering from fibromyalgia".

- Reference: I.R. Bell et al., Amélioration de l’état clinique chez des patients souffrant d’une fibromyalgie par des médicaments homéopathiques personnalisés contrôlés contre placebo., Rheumathology, Janvier 2004 (This is a peer-reviewed medical journal by the way)

There are plenty more if you want to do the scientific thing and actually... RESEARCH!


Nick - Physician at Large....

At 7:11 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Study after study has shown that so-called homeopathic "remedies" show little significant differences as a treatment that sugar pill placebos."

same story with SSRIs wise guy
but that doesn't stop Big Pharma
do us a favor and grow a brain, pleeez

At 2:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't we just respect people's freedom to choose their own treatment? No one is enforcing homeopathy on the public and even if they were it would not have the potentially disastrous consequences of conventional medicine. Why do writers like Mr Lock assume everyone who doesn't agree with him is stupid and needs to be guided by his own superior wisdom? I think homeopathy is great but I don't need everyone to agree with me, just not to campaign so viciously to remove my right to choose it.


Post a Comment

<< Home