The Wikipedia article you posted lists many other controversies Elsevier have been involved in- this goes beyond homeopathy.

I wrote this piece because I feel strongly about the use of astroturfing, to push any agenda- note that I mentioned examples from pharmaceutical companies above, and I am certainly not biased in their favour.

You seem familiar with Gimpy’s blog, and if you read my comments on the related article there you will see that I have no problem with empowering citizens: if enough of them want access to NHS homeopathy, they will attend LINks consultations of their own accord and the outcome will indicate a genuine high demand. What I do have a problem with is interest groups- any interest groups- mounting campaigns to skew the outcome in their favour.

Homeopathy itself is not the issue here.

I am not a PR person, nor would I ever wish to be. I am not supporting just Homeopathy, I am supporting common sense, where it appears absent, only to be replaced by hysteria and received opinion. “Ad Hominem attacks”, as you call them, are sometimes a necessary way to make people sit up, as you did.

The article being published by Homeopathy does not make the study void, only your bias does that in your head. Not the magazine is the story, it is the study published through it (your mantra, I believe).

I am sure those scientists would be happy to publish it through you, but than you would not qualify, nor be interested in doing this, because, well, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier
Respected Elsevier publishes a whole lot more than just so called ‘fakes’ (the Australian Merck case?) and Homeopathy, you can find the long list here:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cws_home

Cherry-picking aspects of Elsevier perhaps?

Why did you write this piece?
Where did you get your facts from? Gimpy? You know s/he is a publisher, who could be accused of publication bias, something you apparently do not approve of.

Did you read the letter? Where does it say it was written by a PR team?
I think you find there is no PR team, as resources go into treatment at the Hospital. I might be wrong, but I have not come across one.
Would you be interested to volunteer?

I believe The League of Friends of RLHH have written this letter, which is not the same
as the RLHH. Look it up.

And what exactly is wrong with “empowering local citizens” (As Gimpy complaints)? Whatever ‘local citizens’ are. Did you not know that the RLHH has been part of the NHS ever since the NHS started to exist? You do not have to go there, but why do you feel the need to prevent those, who do wish to go there and are being helped?

Astroturfing is a morally questionable tactic at the best of times, requiring discretion if it is not to be exposed. The example in this post shows how such a tactic can backfire, and suggests that the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital’s PR team have much to learn.

As for the link to the paper, I note it was published in the journal Homeopathy. As this is a journal seeking for homeopathy to be taken seriously, one could accuse the publisher of publication bias, so I would need to see a paper published in a more respected journal before passing judgement- you would be welcome to link me to a paper from Nature, if you can find one.

I also note that the publisher of Homeopathy happens to be Elsevier, a publisher known to have engaged in morally questionable PR practices before now. These include running the imprint Excerpta Medica- described as “a strategic medical communications agency” on its official site- to publish fake journals promoting clients’ products.

One last bit of PR advice: ad hominem attacks should be avoided as there are better ways to confront critics. If you would like to support homeopaths, whose cause you are clearly passionate about, I would recommend that you volunteer to help them with their PR activity. They clearly need all the help they can get.