British homeopaths are celebrating Homeopathy Awareness Week, yet it seems to me there is very little for them to celebrate.

Earlier this year, a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the principles of homeopathy are implausible and that the evidence fails to show that it works better than placebo. The MPs also criticised homeopaths for trying to mislead the public by providing inaccurate information. Their recommendation to government was to stop funding homeopathy on the NHS.

Then the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, a staunch supporter of homeopathy in the NHS, folded in the midst of a police investigation for fraud and money laundering.

Last month, the British Medical Association described homeopathy as "witchcraft" and called for an end to all funding on the NHS.

A streak of bad luck? Not really. Homeopathy's fortunes have been crumbling for quite some time. The evidence to suggest that it has effects beyond those of a placebo has become less and less convincing. In 2005, The Lancet even pronounced "the end of homeopathy".

As a result, one of the five NHS-funded homeopathic hospitals had to close. After assessing the science, its NHS trust found that the evidence did not justify any further funding.

Faced with increasing criticism, UK homeopaths become more and more desperate. My team has found that the Society of Homeopaths even appears to have been in breach of its own code of ethics in attempting to promote homeopathy. On the society's website, numerous statements about efficacy were made that were not backed by science and so were not allowed under its own regulations.

The society's chief executive commented at the time, in November 2009, that she was grateful to me for highlighting these issues and that the society would investigate and make amendments where appropriate. The website has since changed but many, perhaps even most, members of that organisation continue to make claims that violate their society's ethical standards.

This is not a trivial or academic point. Recently Simon Singh won the libel case that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) had brought against him. Singh had alleged that the BCA made unsupported claims. When the case was brought, several bloggers and sceptics then went through the claims made by UK chiropractors with a fine-tooth comb and subsequently reported around 600 of them to their regulator for violating the rules that regulate their practice.

These are serious allegations that cannot be swept under the carpet. Perusing this number of complaints in an orderly fashion will be extremely costly. The expense could turn out to be unaffordable for chiropractors and thus bankrupt their organisations.

So even as homeopaths celebrate their "awareness week", bloggers and sceptics – enthused by their success on the chiropractic front – might already be considering action against any unsubstantiated claims made by UK homeopaths. This could truly be the end of homeopathy.

Edzard Ernst is professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter