Frequently Asked Questions

10:23 refers to the time at which campaigners across the globe took part in our 'overdose' stunt.

On January 30th 2010, at 10:23am, over 400 of our supporters swallowed an entire bottle of homeopathic pills in an attempt to raise public awareness about the fact that these so-called "remedies" have no active ingredients.

We chose the time 10:23 as a reference to Avogadro's number, 6.022x10²³ and beacuse unusual times are more likely to stick in the mind.

The 10:23 Campaign is being organised by the Merseyside Skeptics Society. Neither Merseyside Skeptics, nor the 10:23 Campaign, has any ties or affiliations with any pharmaceutical manufacturer.

As a side note, it is perhaps worth pointing out that Boots, of whom this campaign is critical, is a pharmaceutical company.

Any patient choice must be an informed choice, otherwise it is no choice at all. The best scientific data says that homeopathy does not work and patients must be made aware of this before they choose homeopathy.

Additionally, this campaign does not seek an outright ban on homeopathy. We are simply asking for the high street pharmacist Boots to stop lending legitimacy to this unproven "treatment". The simple act of Boots stocking homeopathy in their pharmacies implicitly suggests to patients that homeopathy works. Even Boots admits they have sought evidence to support homeopathy and found none.

Homeopathic products remain readily available from health food shops, the Internet and direct from homeopaths, if people wish to use them.

There are dozens of reasons why homeopathy may appear to work for some individuals.

For example, people will often confuse correlation with causation. The human body has a very robust and amazingly intricate immune system, which is capable of fending off all sorts of nasty things all on its own. When someone starts to feel better shortly after taking a homeopathic remedy, they might assume that the remedy has hastened their recovery. Actually, there is no good reason to believe these two events are related. They may have recovered just as quickly without the homeopathic intervention.

Another example is what are known as placebo effects. This is where an inert substance, such as a sugar pill, can be shown to improve the condition of a patient simply because the patient expects it to. Someone using homeopathy may start to feel better because they expect to feel better, not because the homeopathy has actually done anything to cure them.

Scientists have devised a technique called the Randomised Controlled Trial, which corrects for errors in thinking, placebo effects and other biases. Through these trials, scientists have been able to reliably demonstrate that, when all sources of error are removed, homeopathy does not, in fact, work.

No, though it's a common misunderstanding.

Herbal medicine and homeopathy are two distinct concepts, with homeopathic 'remedies' being more akin to a magic potion than anything else. Many herbal medicines can have real, measurable effects on the human body; some even form basis of modern medical treatments. Aspirin, for example, was derived from willow tree bark.

Conversely, there is no active ingredient in most homeopathic treatments. They are just sugar and water.

Homeopathic preparations are created by repeated dilution in water, often until the 'active ingredient' is totally diluted away.

Some homeopaths will simply administer the remaining water directly as their 'remedy'. Others, including those who supply most high street retailers, will drip the water into a tube of sugar pills then allow them to dry. It is this sugar which is then sold as 'medicine'.

Either way, sugar or water, there is nothing in it.

In principle, yes, but this research has already been done. It shows there is no effect.

For example, in 2005 the respected medical journal 'The Lancet' published an analysis conducted by the University of Berne in Switzerland. This analysis examined the available research on homeopathy and identified 110 well-designed investigations into its effects. The results of those trials were then compared to 110 well-designed investigations of conventional medical therapies for the same ailments.

The paper concluded:

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

To continue to call for more research, when excellent research has already confidently shown that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo, would simply be disingenuous.

It is a commonly cited fallacy that children and animals are somehow immune to placebo effects. In fact, placebo effects are quite readily observed in animals and children - even in babies.