[bpsdb] A little while ago, Jeremy Sherr was interviewed on an online video-cast about homeopathy. Viewers - all seventy of them - were invited to ask questions, posing them in a forum that had been set up for the event. Since I've been following Sherr's activities recently, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask a couple, but they weren't answered, and after a while I forgot about them. Then Gimpy e-mailed me to say that @lecanardnoir had spotted some answers being posted, and the answers are rather amusing, and more than a little disturbing.

The first question I asked referred to a comment he made on his blog: "I have little interest in the many new paths of homoeopathy that have addressed Aids and the epidemic." Naturally I can't refer you to this, since Sherr decided to delete his posts after they were heavily criticised. At any rate, it was rather an odd thing to say, and I was curious to know more about it. Here is Jeremy's reply (emphasis mine):

"It is just not for me. I respect anyone who is trying to help the situation holistically and especially with homoeopathy. But my way is the classical way as described by Hahnemann. And the first thing one must know about treating epidemics according to Hahnemann is not to have any prior notions, ideas or theories (par 100). I therefore actively avoid other peoples' findings that are not based on the classical way, because I would rather find out for myself. By the classical way I mean that if anyone has seen 100 or more cases, sifted out the pure AIDS symptoms and sorted out the most essential ones, and then worked the case As If One Person (par 102), I would be very interested in that.

I am sure a great many homoeopathic methods 'work', but that is not my only criteria".

I'm truly speechless at the sheer irresponsible wild-eyed lunacy of this statement. Yes, he really did say that: "I therefore actively avoid other peoples' findings that are not based on the classical way." This is a man who is trying to set up homeopathic AIDS clinics in Tanzania stating that he ignores research produced by other homeopaths, and that he doesn't care if what they produce works or not because he would "rather find out for myself" and apparently "working isn't everything" (paraphrasing).

I'm trying in vain how to make the stupidity of these words any clearer, but I can't. It astonishes me that anyone can not see how utterly irresponsible this attitude is. The job of a doctor is to treat people, and the only thing that matters is the efficacy of the treatment. To reject a potential cure for AIDS because it doesn't suit your particular style of homeopathy is just inconceivable. What kind of mind produces this nonsense?

Answering that to some degree, and equally remarkable, is his response to my second question, in which I commented on the "hostility" he had received from some bloggers, and asked if he had any advice on "how we should deal with these sorts of people". This reply is almost Obi-like:

"From my enquiries these blogs actually have very little traffic going through them. Most of the traffic is actually from homoeopaths, and a close group of the bloggers’ friends swimming around in their own swill. My advice is to ignore, ignore, ignore. Don't even visit these pages, and if you do never use links or Google to get there, because that just ups their Google rating. There is no chance of convincing or influencing them, especially because some are supported by powerful bodies. And they are experts at distorting anything you say. Just forget them, or if you want, write your own blog with your opinions, and make sure not to put links to them in it.

It might help to imagine these bloggers as a group of noisy naughty adolescent kids playing outside your window. Their games have meaning for themselves only. Probably not wise to get into an argument with them, easier to close the window and get on with your work."

At this point, Sherr has degenerated into pure fantasy, and the claims made are just bizarre. I don't know where Jeremy's "enquiries" took him, but badscience.net is one of the top blogs in the UK, while layscience.net has been visited over 166,000 times in April already, representing around 25,000 unique people from around the world. Jeremy's video interview attracted 70 viewers. And one of those was me, with several other badscience.net forum denizens in attendance.

Equally deluded are the dark conspiracy theories about funding by "powerful bodies." This blog and the BPSDB server currenly cost me around £360 per year to run, and when I install BPSDB v3.0 soon, that will rise to nearly £600. Against that, I have one advertising contract for around a hundred quid a year. I would dearly love to know where I'm supposed to be picking up these Big Pharm cheques from, but they'd probably refuse me since I've happily savaged pharmaceutical firms before. I write about these issues because I find them interesting, and I care passionately about them, not because I make money from it.

Which brings me neatly to this gem: "Their games have meaning for themselves only."

These aren't "games". These are people who see the activities of people like Sherr and find them disgusting. These are people who, when they see somebody without medical training setting up AIDS clinics in Africa, are deeply concerned. These are people who, when they see that person "treating" Africans while happily explaining that they refuse to even read information about potential cures that don't fit their particular style, are disgusted. Public health is not a game, nor is it primarily an opportunity for personal development, it is an ongoing battle to get the right treatments to people, and even if you believe that homeopathy works, Jeremy Sherr's cavalier attitude to not just modern medicine but the findings of other homeopaths, simply cannot be acceptable.