I have no deep interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
If it was not for the propensity of some of its misguided practitioners to sue (or threaten to sue) critics for libel, I suspect CAM would not often feature on this Blog at all.
What concerns me about some chiropractors and homeopaths is that their natural impulse is to get a lawyer involved and send a nasty letter, rather than actually producing evidence.
Of all the matters which have arisen out of the misconceived libel case brought by the BCA against Simon Singh, perhaps the most damning is the contrast between the speed of the libel claim and the tardiness in then producing the "plethora" of evidence.
I have never had any doubt that the BCA could have brought a libel claim; but I have always maintained that they should not have done so.
And events continue to prove this view correct.
Like chiropractors, homeopaths are sometime quick to threaten libel: the Society of Homeopaths tried to sue Quackometer and its webhosts for defamation, whilst the dangerously misguided and unethical Jeremy Sherr also bandied libel threats.
I remember when I first read about homeopathy.
I sort of could see what the like treats like principle was all about, though it seemed hopelessly irrational; but I was flabbergasted when I read about extreme dilution.
Did these people really believe in this?
I cannot express my bewilderment any better than to refer you to my friend Crispian Jago's practical demonstration.
I have no objection to anyone making an informed choice to drink water with lets pretend but non-existent ingredients.
However, it must be wrong for homeopathy to be sold as if it is an effective and efficacious treatment.
I thereby support an excellent new campaign to raise awareness about homeopathy generally and to challenge its availability at Boots the Chemist in particular.
Please go and have a look at the Ten23 site and, if you agree, do sign their open letter.