I don't have time to answer individual posts here as there are so many, so I'll do a bit of a round up. Firstly, dear Dr Hewitt, I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on the esteem you seem to have for those opposing the motion in the Lords. Half of them were hereditary peers with no more claim to intellectual high ground than my cat. Well at least the cat is not easily deluded. Do you despise science so much that you prefer their opinions to the facts? I think you should be aware of some of the latter.
I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary. Dr Hewitt, how can it possibly be undesirable to include such a warning? The answer is to be found in the MHRA's own explanatory memorandum - anything like that would `inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry'. What does this mean? The influence of the homeopaths is more pervasive than we had imagined. Don't forget that Michael Fox, until recently chief exec of the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, is a director of the MHRA.
On reading all this material, what strikes me is that such imaginary concepts as homeopathic `provings', `stocks', and `potentisation' are all discussed as if they were real science. This is our own medicines regulatory agency deluding itself with quackery. They might as well try to regulate alchemy or astrology.
I am less concerned about someone's qualifications than I am about their commitment to truth. However, anyone who has read `The March of Unreason' will know that Dick Taverne has a better grasp of science than many who claim to practise it. How condescending you are being Dr Hewitt - it ill becomes you. I see that Baroness Barker, who also opposed the motion, is a Lib Dem spokesperson for health - without as far as I can see the slightest qualification for the job. Should you not have criticised her as well?
So in conclusion Dr Hewitt, do you really think you have done yourself any credit here? You decide......