[BPSDB]The homeopaths never give up on their healing fantasies. I have just been reading this thread on the Bad Science forum.
On it we learn that homeopath Jeremy Sherr is treating Tanzanian AIDS victims with homeopathy. He bangs on and on about how wonderful homeopathy is in treating AIDS, in complete contravention of the Society of Homeopaths Code of Conduct.
In Britain and North America we are familiar with the way homeopaths denigrate evidence based medicine and make overblown unsubstantiated claims for their quackery. If this is what they do when there is consumer protection legislation to hold them in check what will they say in the East African bush where there is likely no-one to call them to account?
Currently about 6.5% of the Tanzanian population is HIV positive. This is bad but nowhere near so serious as the South African situation where some estimate that 14% of the adult population are infected. Part of the reason why the situation is so dire there is the quackery espoused by Thabo Mbeki and his demented alcoholic Health Minister.
HIV denialism and quack remedies have created a plague that is sweeping the townships of South Africa and are responsible for a third of a million extra unnecessary deaths. How many deaths will result in Tanzania as a resukt of quacks convincing people that magic sugar pills will cure them?
As long term readers of this blog will know, I tried complaining to the SoH about their member Sue Young when she made claims about homeopathy being an appropriate treatment for AIDS amongst other things. You will also recall that they did nothing about it.
It will therefore come as no surprise to you that when another blogger complained about Sherr. he received the brush off. Apparantly, as a Fellow of the Society rather than a Member, he is not bound by their Code of Conduct!
In professional Societies with which I have any familiarity, a Fellow is a top-ranking professional and is supposed to exemplify what the society is about. I fail to see why the SoH cannot withdraw the Fellowship.
This case demonstrates that the notion that the quacks can regulate themselves to protect their clients is a laughable nonsense. There is a crying need for legal restrictions on their activities.