Judging from their concerted attacks on me perhaps the anti vaxxers are becoming sensitive to criticism of their misinformation.

The latest, from Rachel Freeth Letters 31st Aug, is typical in consisting of generalised slurs against science and medicine in favour of blind faith in “alternative medicine”. And accusing me of similar blind faith in science and what they insist on calling “Big Pharma”, despite my frequent acknowledgement of their failings.

I note that her medical career was in psychiatry and person centred therapy rather than general medicine so perhaps this gives her a different perspective.

She certainly does most doctors an injustice in claiming they are not interested in the whole person, preferring to just dole out drugs. I’m sure most would love to take more time over their patients but with NHS consultation times of 10 minutes or less they have little option.

Of course if you can pay between £35 and £125 you can spend an hour with a homeopath before going home with your magic water. But no doubt you will feel listened to.

The point about real medicine is that it performs better than a placebo, not just the same as one.

Not that I deny the placebo effect is real but it treats the perception of the illness rather than the illness itself. The placebo effect also has its place in conventional medicine, as does reassurance such as when a doctor tells you your symptoms are harmless and will pass without the need for medication.

Finally Rachel Freeth claims to operate within a different paradigm, a claim much beloved of Richard House.

It’s a claim often used to evade the claims of evidence but it won’t wash.

A paradigm does not change the facts or the evidence, it merely provides a different conceptual framework in which to understand them, which admittedly may lead to useful insights. In this case the evidence is overwhelming - alternative medicine is no better than placebo whereas conventional medicine often, not always, is.

Paradigm and fantasy are not synonymous.

Jim Watson

Stroud