I heard a teaser for an upcoming episode of CBC’s The Current last week, which hinted Health Canada had just made a major announcement about homeopathic treatments.
I thought, ‘it’s about time.’ So-called “natural health products” should be subject to the same stringent rules regarding scientific proof of efficacy as pharmaceuticals. Homepathic “remedies” are the worst of the bunch because they, by definition, offer no medicinal value whatsoever.
I should have known I was going to be disappointed. If somebody had asked me ahead of time what I thought would be the very least Health Canada could do, that is what it did.
The new regulation requires manufacturers to remove any labeling on children’s homeopathic cough, cold and flu products that makes claims unsubstantiated by scientific evidence.
Honestly, I know I should be applauding this tiny step forward, but it is so frustrating that Health Canada never goes far enough. The regulator obviously recognizes homeopathic preparations are ineffective, so why won’t they just get it over with and stop approving them for sale in Canada?
This is usually the point where someone argues, ‘what is the harm if somebody wants to believe in magic if it doesn’t harm them and may even do them good as a placebo.
Well, there can be plenty of harm. What if the person foregoes actual treatment for a real medical problem? What about the harm if a child is “vaccinated” with a homeopathic “nosode” instead of a real vaccine and ends up with a preventable disease that he then passes to other vulnerable children.
Last year, the national regulator forced manufacturers of nosodes to place a warning label on them stating they are not an alternative for actual immunization.
What the hell kind of nonsensical solution is that? They can still be sold; they are still approved for use. And what does that do to confidence in science. Just the fact Health Canada approves a product puts it on an equal footing with actual medicine.
Not taking a proper stand against this kind of pseudoscientific woo, creates an anti-science bias, something that ultimately affects all of society.
I also have to take umbrage with my journalist colleagues for trading in false balance. Too often, we mistake fairness for equal time. On The Current that morning, the producers started with an interview with a homeopath. What makes it worse is that this quack has actual medical credentials, but still trades in magical fantasy land of homeopathy.
To her credit, Anna Maria Tremonte asked this charlatan some very pointed questions. Unfortunately, snake-oil salesmen always have very slick and practiced answers.
She then had two guests representing the other side, but went back again to the first guy for rebuttal.
The very nature of the guest and the format the show took lends legitimacy to something that has no legitimacy whatsoever.
Balance does not mean giving equal time to every crackpot idea in circulation. We have done this for years with climate change giving deniers equal time with legitimate scientists for the appearance of balance, which just lends credence to the view that scientists are divided on the question when they are not.
Of course, I recognize it is a no-win situation for journalists, if we don’t do it we become part of the conspiracy between the doctors and “Big Pharma” to cover up “the miracle cure your doctor doesn’t want you to know about.”
We live in a free society, so if people want to believe that spinning in place three times, spitting over their left shoulder and screaming supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is going to cure their cancer, so be it.
Regulators, however, have a responsibility to protect people both from potential harm and from being ripped off by con artists.
And journalists have a responsibility not to lend legitimacy to crackpots by putting them on an equal footing with real scientists.
