We have also sent a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to Earl Howe at the Department of Health in response to a statement by the department that "The majority of independent scientists consider the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy to be weak or absent, and that there is no plausible scientific mechanism for homeopathy."
We are asking for details of the research evidence for this statement, and particularly information about:
1. What criteria were used to identify these people as “independent scientists” for the purpose of this
statement, and what evidence was gathered to show that they had no conflicting interests?
2. What criteria were used to identify that these alleged “independent scientists” were qualified to hold
a scientifically informed opinion on the subject of homeopathy? For example, what homeopathic
qualifications did they hold, or what research had they undertaken in this particular field to arrive at
3. How many countries, and which countries, were involved in providing these “independent scientists”,
or was the research confined to a particular geographical area, in which case, could the specific
area be identified together with the reasons for selecting this area and the grounds for extrapolating
4. What process was used to gather the views of those who took part in the research, and how did this
process secure confidentiality for participants?
5. What was the actual size of the majority, both numerically and proportionally?
6. How many scientists were included as “independent”; how many were excluded; how many dropped
out of the research; and what was the total number of scientists involved as potential participants?
Watch this space for the reply!