Listen at the 3m15s mark, to hear skeptical critique of an award for homeopathic medicine for cows.

http://podcast.radion...

The only bad thing was they merely quoted Vicki Hyde for 18 seconds, but quoted and played an extended recording of the President of Rural Women, Liz Evans, defending the award for over a minute!

Further to that, I sent the following email to Morning report:

---

To: morningreport at radionz.co.nz
Subject: Demelza Leslie's 11/08 report on skeptic's critique of award for homeopathic cow remedies

Hello

I would be interested to hear why Vicki Hyde of the NZ Skeptics was only quoted for 18 seconds critiquing a Rural Women's award for homeopathic remedies for cows, on Morning Rural News for 11 August 2010.

On the other hand, Demelza played 50 seconds of Liz Evans, President of Rural Women, defending the award. Liz Evans was also quoted further, with the defense of "magic water" lasted for over a minute.

I would have thought that ripping farmers off by selling them fake medicines was a serious charge, and should have deserved a more equal hearing. Why is Demelza supporting "woo"?

I would appreciate a comment from Demelza about this.

Regards,
Stephen Minhinnick

Mairangi Bay,
North Shore

---

Just to complete the story, here is the response from Radio NZ:

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your email about our coverage of the Rural Women award to a homeopathy company. I'm afraid you are shooting the messenger, here. While Demelza read the item in our rural news, she didn't write it. She was simply presenting the bulletin on that day.

I accept your point that the Skeptics were given less time than Liz Evans in the item. However, it shouldn't be seen in isolation, but as part of the debate that's been going on in the rural media since Rural Women NZ made the award.

I was interested to find out how Rural Women would respond to the criticism that they gave the award to a company that was selling animal remedies which the Skeptics argue have no scientific basis or therapeutic value. Rural Womens' rationale was that the award was to recognise the achievements of a rural business and not to promote homeopathy, per se. They say the award decision was made by a judging panel that comprised the Rural Women president at the time and two business people, Theresa Gattung and Doug Langford. Listeners interested in the debate will no doubt make up their own minds whether that's a legitimate point of view.

However, we are expecting to have further coverage of the issue. I am following up a point made by the Skeptics, that the award has concerned vets who are worried about animal welfare implications of relying on homeopathic preparations that they regard as useless.

Regards,
Kevin Ikin,
Radio NZ Rural News.

---

Kevin

Thank you for your response, which clears up my questions.

My main issue is if homeopathy is as useless as tests show, isn't it
unethical for Rural Women to give a "good business" award to a company
that is effectively undermining other businesses, namely the farmers?
Then isn't it consequently unethical for Rural News to lend apparent
support for that original unethical behaviour?

The really funny thing is that double-blind tests show the only effect
detectable in homeopathic remedies is the placebo effect. Note that cows
will not exhibit any placebo effects as they have no expectation that
they will be cured! So what tiny effect homeopathic remedies have in
people, will certainly not occur in animals.

I am enjoying this topic, which is part of a much wider debate.