On Jan 30, 2010, at 10:23 am,

more than three hundred skeptics in the United Kingdom (and a handful

of groups internationally) took part in a mass homeopathic “overdose”

in protest against the high-street pharmacy/drug store chain Boots’s

continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies and to raise

public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing

in them…

“Science and rationality

are political issues, whether we like it or not.”

—Amanda Marcotte,

Get Opinionated: A Progressive’s Guide to Finding

Your Voice (and Taking a Little Action)

On Jan 30, 2010, at 10:23 am,

more than three hundred skeptics in the United Kingdom (and a handful

of groups internationally) took part in a mass homeopathic “overdose”

in protest against the high-street pharmacy/drug store chain Boots’s

continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies and to raise

public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing

in them.

But

then what? Clearly Boots and many other similar retailers continue to

sell homeopathic products. Did it change people’s minds as well as

reach the news? Is there more to activism than “placebo” stunts—and

what really ensures effective change?

In

2011, skeptics are challenged to take this protest further by coming

up with their own locally inspired activities. The next 10:23 Campaign

( http://www.1023.org.uk ) will take place on the weekend of

February 5–6, 2011.

SI

online columnist Kylie Sturgess recently discussed 2011’s upcoming

10:23 Campaign with Andy Wilson, one of the event’s masterminds.

Andy Wilson: On the

thirtieth of January in 2010 it was a much more successful event than

we had anticipated … when we first set out, which meant that all of

our measurement criteria were exceeded very quickly, except for one.

So this time, I’m going to be very careful to set good quality objective

criteria and objectives. We’re expecting a sizable participation,

should we say, during February 2011.

Kylie Sturgess: That

is fascinating to me because one of the big questions I have is “How

do you evaluate this?” What evidence do you have that you’re changing

minds by doing something about homeopathy? What do you know of measurement

criteria?

Wilson: Well, [with]

the criteria that we used last time, we had the number one objective

to have Boots remove the homeopathic products from their shelves. We

were not successful in regards to achieving that, [but] we ruffled their

feathers a little bit. But the other objectives were—and these will

be reflected with additional ones this time—to promote skepticism

and rational thinking and to educate the public about the facts of homeopathy.

I think that we achieved those. The original criteria that we’d set

were based upon newspaper column inches and number of television mentions,

those sorts of things; [we were] naively expecting that we’d only

get a few of those. But actually, once it started, it was kind of like

a train—non-stoppable!

So

this time, in 2011, the countries that are participating will set their

own objectives. The thing is that the objectives for the U.K. aren’t

relevant for Hungary. The objectives that are relevant for Hungary aren’t

relative for Australia, and so on. There will be some broad-ranging

overall objectives from the “10:23 head office,” so to speak, but

beyond that it’s an event that is very much tailored by the local

teams on the ground to the local situation. So, I can’t say exactly

what the criteria will be just yet, but last year there was some talk

in America at The Amazing Meeting 8 about getting the pharmaceutical

chain Wal-Mart to stop selling homeopathy, and that seems a reasonable

objective to me.

The

problem is, I don’t think anybody has really said “We don’t want

homeopathy—ever.” I think what we’re really saying is that with

the public browsing the shelves, it becomes less of a choice when they

assume a level of credibility because of the location that they’re

in. So, if you’re in a pharmacy, you expect that the products on the

shelves have some kind of credibility, when in fact homeopathy has none.

Sturgess: The target

audience depends on where you are?

Wilson:

That’s right; in Europe there’s a big problem: any member of the

European Union that has homeopathy in its country has problems removing

it because there’s a concept of European legislation that gives protection

to homeopathy and the wording for homeopathy, which is then reflected

in the countries. I suppose it’s a little like state government and

federal government. So that may well prove to be a target during this

forthcoming campaign.

We’ve

been talking to Willem Betz, the chairman of the Belgian Skeptics organization

(SKEPP) at the recent European Skeptics Conference (ESCO). He gave a

very compelling talk about how homeopathy is given this preferential,

special treatment—literally right from the highest level of law—across

Europe. That seems like a legitimate target for us. We’ve yet to fully

flesh out any targets around that, but I think we’ll focus on that.

Sturgess: So, people

sending in feedback and suggesting strategies will be very useful to

the 10:23 Campaign?

Wilson:

It would be useful, yes. The thing is that “campaign” is the right

word—[the event] is remembered for the stunt, but it is the campaign

that matters. And the campaign starts before the stunt. The local

groups will use their stunt to publicize the facts about homeopathy

and their objectives. So, it’s not the actual “overdose” that

is important. What’s important is the activities that it generates—and

it does give plenty of opportunities, certainly for some emerging skeptical

communities with a chance to network. In particular, in mainland Europe

where there has not been much of an opportunity for this to be established—now

there’ll be a chance to rally around a single cause. Our objectives

this time will … certainly [have] to do with Europe and public outreach

as well.

Sturgess: Does public

outreach necessarily mean education? Are you aiming at young people,

women…? Could it be for politicians, or open to local interpretation?

Wilson:

Certainly in terms of the European Parliament aspect, writing to members

of the European Parliament will certainly be a part of that; it has

already been a part of the U.K. campaign, and continuing efforts are

underway in the U.K. to lobby Members of Parliament about homeopathy.

How that will work in other countries, I’m not completely sure, but

it’s absolutely a strategy.

Sturgess: Speaking of

strategies: I read that the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital recently

changed their name to that of “Integrative Medicine”!

Wilson:

I think that homeopathy has taken an absolutely pounding in the U.K.,

and it’s still going on; 10:23 is quite a visible campaign, but there’s

a lot more going on with individual skeptics around the country. Simon

Perry (of Leicester Skeptics) and Alan Henness (Zeno’s Blog)

are two very good examples of that. Simon Perry has taken part with

a group of colleagues in a very sizable letter-writing campaign, which

is intended to prevent Boots in particular, I think, advertising homeopathy

[in] a certain way.

There’s

a lot of skeptical activism here in the U.K., so I can understand why

the homeopathic hospital would want to re-brand! It’s unfortunately

misleading, and it’s unfortunate that they’ve adopted that name,

because it does sound a little like the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated

Health, which of course closed its doors this year following a money-laundering

scandal of some kind!

Sturgess: I noticed

that Martin Robbins had a great article in the Guardian as to “How Not To Pass

A Homeopathy Exam” !

There’s been an increase, I think, of skeptical writers appearing

in the U.K. news. Do you think that this is also a win?

Wilson:

Well, yes, the campaign does include the media; it’s about getting

the message out there, and one of the massive wins last time was the

amount of airtime—both on radio and on television. We were being invited

on television; we co-opted Professor David Colquhoun and Professor Christopher

French and all sorts of people to go speak on our behalf on these programs,

so I’d definitely say so.

Sturgess: How would

you advise people to protest?

Wilson:

Well, I would advise that they protest safely and that they start before

the campaign date in February. Obviously I would encourage everybody

who is a skeptic to attend some sort of organization locally; if there

isn’t some group local, they can organize it themselves, can’t they?

If they get in touch, we can give people details.

So

participate in the stunt, but beforehand there will be [a] combination

of local-scale organized campaign activities and national-scale organized

activities through the media. So participate in that and get to know

who is organizing things in your own country. If you can’t find anybody,

contact us and we can help you set it up.

Sturgess: So the overall

mission here is a multi-faceted campaign? If I’m not comfortable with

standing on a street-corner eating a bunch of tablets thinking, “Oh

dear, people think that I’m encouraging eating tablets irresponsibly!”

then I can still take part via traditional means: writing to my Member

of Parliament, starting up a blog-site that addresses certain issues

that are relevant to my town, and so forth?

Wilson:

That’s right. The last time there were examples of people who were

less comfortable with doing the “overdose on homeopathy” [stunt]

and more comfortable with other kinds of work. We’re not trying to

pressure people into doing stuff; there’s no guilt if you don’t

take part in the stunt. Hopefully everyone can take part in their own

way, and … we’ll organize it to provide everybody with the opportunity

to do so.