Society of Homeopaths – Appetite for destruction, not regulation

In July the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) declared that they would be seeking statutory regulation via the Health Professions Council (HPC).  At the time I suggested that such a move would be problematic given homeopathy’s inability to train properly, analyse research and appreciate the value of ethics.  I also reported that the SoH had rejected Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) regulation, a non-statutory form, in strong terms:

The Board has carefully considered many other options, including joining the Complementary and Natural Healthcare council (CNHC). However, we are concerned that CNHC is not currently in a position to protect the standards already achieved within the profession. Statutory Regulation will not be a fast fix option but the Board believes it best protects standards already in place.

Sadly for the homeopaths it looks like the SoH’s drive for statutory regulation will not only be unsuccessful but it will actively prevent attempts by other homeopathic bodies to co-ordinate the professions attempts at asserting responsible behaviour.

According to a recently released FOI response the SoH have not made a formal application to the HPC and the HPC feel that they should be regulated by the CNHC instead:

I can confirm that the Society of Homeopaths has, to date, not made a formal application to us under our new professions process. We met with the Society of Homeopaths in June 2009 to talk about our new professions process and about regulation more generally.

Our legislation has provisions which allow us to make recommendations to Government about the regulation of new professions. We have established a set of ‘new professions criteria’. Normally an application for registration is made by a professional body or bodies representing an aspirant profession. They submit a formal application showing us how they believe they meet the criteria. This is then assessed and discussed at public meetings of our Council and a decision made. If the criteria is met, we can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the devolved administrations about the regulation of that group. However, any decision about regulation is one for government and, ultimately, for parliament.

At present, the stated policy of the Department of Health in England is that a range of complementary therapies, such as homeopathy, should not be subject to ‘full blown statutory regulation’. Instead the Department has funded the CNHC to set up a federal,system of voluntary registration

In addition to this, at the recent Science & Technology committee ‘homeopathy evidence check’ Mike O’Brien the Minister of State (Health) confirmed that the SoH have a problem talking to the CNHC but ruled out any government sanctioned move to the statutory regulation of homeopaths.

Mr O’Brien: We do not propose at this stage to have statutory regulation. We did fund some work by the Princes Foundation for Integrated Health through £110,000 pounds over three years to set up some voluntary self-regulation. Basically the Complementary and National Healthcare Council was set up in 2008; it is still having some discussions, shall we say, with the Society of Homeopaths – or maybe sometimes not having discussions, because I still think there is some disagreement there – and the question is whether voluntary self-regulation in an area like this is the better approach. There is to some extent some statutory recognition, of course, of homeopathy, which is very limited, but the question as far as we are concerned is should we undertake a larger scale statutory regulation, and at this point we are not convinced that is the right approach.

Together this suggests that homeopaths joining the statutory HPC is not an option for the forseeable future.  I have no particular comment on whether or not this is a good thing.  It is impossible to judge how homeopathy could be statutory regulated without seeing a proposed mechanism that deals with the stated HPC criteria for aspiring entrants:

Aspirant groups must:

Cover a discrete area of activity displaying some homogeneity

Apply a defined body of knowledge

Practise based on evidence of efficacy

Have at least one established professional body which accounts for a significant proportion of that occupational group

Operate a voluntary register

Have defined routes of entry to the profession

Have independently assessed entry qualifications

Have standards in relation to conduct, performance and ethics

Have Fitness to Practise procedures to enforce those standards

Be committed to continuous professional development (CPD)

I do however suspect fulfilling these criteria might be difficult.

Additionally the SoH appear to be in denial about this, in their submission to the Science & Technology committee they stated that:

2.3 The Society is applying to the Health Professions Council (HPC) for the statutory regulation of homeopaths, following a survey in 2006 which showed that 65 per cent of our membership supported statutory regulation. [...] The move to statutory regulation is seen as a natural step forward for both The Society and the profession, most importantly to offer protection to the public as, under existing laws, someone without training can currently practise as a homeopath.

This strikes me as slightly deluded, at the point this was submitted the SoH would have been well aware that the HPC were not offering encouragement for an application for statutory regulation but, consistent with government policy, were stating that CNHC regulation was a viable route for regulation.  To suggest to a parliamentary committee that HPC supervised statutory regulation was a viable option is a far stronger conclusion than the evidence would suggest possible.  Additionally, although 65% of SoH members might be a plurality but it is not a majority of homeopaths, the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), the second largest professional organisation in the UK, officially reject the SoH’s attempts at regulation.  The SoH cannot claim to speak for the bulk of the profession on this matter.

Talk of regulation, either via the HPC or CNHC is irrelevant though.  According to the CNHC, when asked about homeopaths being included in the list of professions they are prepared to regulate

Homeopathy is the only profession in the group listed which has not yet indicated an ‘in principle’ willingness to recommend CNHC registration to their practitioners. We would hope this situation will change over time. Individual homeopaths are already seeking registration with CNHC but until a PSB is in place for that profession, regrettably they cannot be registered.

This also represents a serious problem for the CNHC, the quackometer has argued that:

The Ofquack project was really dependent on the homeopaths to succeed. Homeopaths represent the largest group of alternative medicine cranks in the UK and if the various homeopathic factions had played ball, the CNHC could have been secure with subscriptions from many thousands of homeopaths.

So there you have it, the SoH will only settle for a form of regulation they have been told they will not get in the forseeable future, the ARH reject any form of regulation at all, other than their own, and the CNHC depend on homeopaths being regulated for their survival.  Unfortunately for them there is no appetite for the regulation of homeopathy in the UK, only it seems, an appetite for destruction.

Launch of National Campaign for Libel Reform

The Coalition for Libel Reform have put out a press release stating that:

“England’s libel laws are unjust, against the public interest and internationally criticised – there is urgent need for reform” this is the message performers, writers, poets, patient groups, legal experts, broadcasters, journalists and others represented by the Coalition for Libel Reform (English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science) are sending to politicians urging them to support a bill for major reforms of the English libel laws now, in the interests of fairness, the public interest and free speech.

Today at the launch of the National Campaign for Libel Reform, performers and others urged the public to sign a petition demanding reform of the libel laws, highlighting that for the first time in over a century we have an opportunity to change our unfair and repressive libel laws.

Today leading academics, medical and science editors, human rights activists and writers will be taking the campaign to Parliament to tell MPs and Peers what the public don’t get to hear under the English libel laws.

You can find out more about the campaign and sign the petition here:

www.libelreform.org

The press release has a plethora of quotes from the great, the good and those who work in journalism, demanding libel reform.  However, this is not a campaign for the benefit of those whose professional practice is limited by the nature of England’s libel laws, it is about removing barriers that restrict the flow of knowledge to the public and restoring the principle that all are equal before the law.  I have signed the petition and offer this campaign my full support and would urge others to do so too.

The FIH and AIDS denialism

The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) is an organisation that promotes and purports to regulate complementary healthcare.  Set up by  Charles in 1993 the foundation is run on a day-to-day basis by a curious mixture of establishment figures and alternative health care advocates, both George Gray and Dr Michael Dixon, Acting Chief Executive and Medical Director respectively, have a long and fairly respectable history of working in the medical sector while Boo Armstrong, Head of Integration and Development, is founder and director of Get Well UK, whose Peter Hain endorsed ‘trial’ in Northern Ireland has come under some considerable sceptical criticism.

Boo Armstrong has a far more controversial past that either Gray or Dixon.  Boo Armstrong was a contributor to Continuum magazine, active in the 1990s, whose editorial position was that AIDS was not caused by HIV and that provided a home for prominent AIDS denialists including Peter Duesberg, Neville Hodgkinson, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and others.

Homeopaths use witchcraft to influence parliament

Recently I blogged the wholly inadequate response of H:MC21 to the upcoming House of Commons Science and Technology committee hearing on the evidence for homeopathy. Now it seems that the homeopaths have taken a look at the list of those giving oral evidence*, thrown up their hands and cried the familiar call of conspiracy that suits those that have no comprehension of scientific evidence coupled with insufficient insight to recognise the universal human trait of incompetence.  They have also turned to witchcraft.

BANT want permission to impersonate genetic counsellors

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) have recently expressed concern in their newsletter that moves by the Health Professionals Council (HPC) and Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses (AGCN) to support the statutory regulation of Genetic Counsellors may impact on their freedom to practice quackery.

We live in the age of the genome. Jeffrey Bland presented in his yearly seminar event in the UK on the subject of the genetic blueprint. BANT practitioners speak of ‘biochemical individuality’ and it is of this that we speak as being the major factor in how we approach individual help for clients. We are aware that a growing number of practitioners are using genetic testing, either the single gene or combined tests.
•     The first nutrigenetic tests appeared on the market in 2001 and have been used by nutrition counsellors since then.
•     In 2002 BANT representatives gave evidence to the Human Genetics Commission in its Genes Direct inquiry on genetic testing supplied direct to the consumer (defined as outside a medical consultation).
•     In 2008 BANT submitted evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into Genomic Medicine about nutrigenetic practice.

BANT is now aware that the Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses (AGCN) have applied for statutory protection of the title ‘Genetic Counsellor’ (GC). We are concerned that BANT members who already work in nutrigenetic counselling may be unable to continue to practise their profession without hindrance if the AGCN succeed in getting statutory regulation. In view of this fact BANT has written to the Health Professions Council to ask several questions relating to this topic. Namely;

•     can the HPC assure us that statutory protection will NOT impact on the use of ‘Nutrigenetic Counsellor’ as a title;
•     should BANT be making an immediate application to HPC to be considered alongside that of GCs;
•     should BANT representatives, as Nutrigenetic Counsellors, give a presentation to HPC at the same time as the AGCN present their case?

As mentioned earlier, BANT practitioners  work with biochemical individuality. Most students are now having modules on genetic testing in their studies and even more practitioners attend seminars on the subject. More practitioners are using these tests and it is right that BANT protects our rights to the use of these tests .  Please continue to check the BANT website for the latest information on this subject.

The ethics of genetic counselling are complex and the AGCN have an admirable code of conduct that takes this into account.  Genetic testing is a form of medical diagnostics looking at mutations in particular genes that can have profound and devastating implications for the patient and their family that may fundamentally change their life, such as Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anaemia, and Phenylketonuria.  The role of the Genetic Counsellor is to inform the patient about the test and the implications throughout the process.

Genetic counselling is defined as ‘a communication process which deals with human problems associated with the occurrence, or the risk of occurrence, of a genetic disorder in a family

(American Society of Human Genetics, 1975)

A Genetic Counsellor is a highly skilled individual with either a primary qualification in nursing or midwifery or has completed a Masters degree in Genetic Counselling after obtaining a Bachelors in a relevant subject, in addition to this they must undertake at least 120 hours of specific counselling training as well as more general training for a period of around 2 years.  A nutrigenetic counsellor does not.  A nutrigenetic counsellor must hold a qualification, most likely not accredited, from an instituition approved by BANT and then must pay BANT a membership fee.  After this they may call themselves a nutrigenetic counsellor.
A Genetic Counsellor is expected to have a scientific understanding of genetic illness and testing, a firm commitment to evidence based practice and a commitment to a proper regulated professional relationship with a patient.  A BANT nutrigenetic counsellor undergoes dubious training, lacks effective regulation, belongs to an organisation that altered its code of ethics to allow commision to be recieved by members for products sold to customers and whose former ethics committe head pretended to be on a nursing register when she was not, a criminal offence.

The tests a Genetic Counsellor will advise on are of proven accuracy and are conducted in a carefully controlled environment.  The tests involved in nutrigenetics prompted this statement from the Human Genetics Commission (HGC):

Genetic tests that claim to be able to give nutritional health information, but have not been robustly and independently evaluated, are a concern for the HGC.

The HGC believes that test providers need to be able to provide evidence that the genetic tests they offer can reliably and accurately, predict what they claim to be able to predict. The link between a gene and a condition or trait should be proven for all genetic tests, including nutrigenetic tests, before they are sold to the public and proof of this link should be made available to consumers. The sale of genetic tests without this proven level of clinical validity can give rise to unnecessary anxieties about health or give an individual a false level of reassurance. With nutrigenetic tests in particular, this could lead to an over-consumption or avoidance of certain food groups, which could cause potential harm to the individual and lead to further costs to the NHS.

The HGC advises any individual who is thinking about taking a nutrigenetic tests to obtain the following information first:
• general information on genetic testing and specific information on the nutrigenetic test including the evidence of the link between the gene and the condition/trait and whether this link has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal
• the measures the test provider will take to ensure the confidentiality of their biological samples and personal records
• how they will be provided with the genetic test results and who they will be able to contact if they don’t understand the results
• information on the limitations of the test so that they are aware of the level of significance that they can attribute to the results of the test
• whether their biological sample will be used for any secondary purposes or if their personal details will be passed on to any third parties

The Commission believes that individuals taking a test should be aware that the interaction between genes and environment factors, such as food, is complex and constantly changing which makes interpretation of nutrigenetic tests very difficult and in some cases impossible without knowing these environmental factors. Consumers should also understand that some nutrigenetic tests are less predictive than the results they might receive for other genetic tests.

These are not issues that BANT appear to have considered.  The following letter is the HPC’s response to BANT’s concerns about their use of the term nutrigenetic counsellor.

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the continued use of the title ‘Nutrigenetic counsellor’ by your members. Marc has passed your letter to me for a response.
As you note in your letter, the Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses have applied for statutory regulation and have proposed that the title ‘genetic counsellor’ should become a protected title. The Association is due to present at the HPC Council meeting in December 2009. If the Council decides that the new professions criteria have been met, they can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Health. However, any decision about whether that group becomes regulated in the future is one for government.
The 2007 White Paper Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ identified the priority groups for future statutory regulation including psychologists (regulated by the HPC from 1 July 2009), healthcare scientists, psychotherapists and counsellors, and other psychological therapists. We consider that it is unlikely that Government will proceed to consider whether to regulate further groups until at least 2011/2012 at the very earliest.
You may be aware that we have been undertaking a piece of work looking at the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. As part of this we have been considering with stakeholders in the field which titles should be protected and have considered whether it would be possible to protect the title ‘counsellor’ given it is widely used by practitioners undertaking therapeutic work with clients, and readily recognised by members of the public. However we have also acknowledged that the term is sometimes used, often as part of an adjectival title, by individuals practising in fields outside of ‘therapeutic counselling’. Examples include debt counsellors and financial counsellors.

In protecting a professional title the government has to be sure that that title is in wide usage by those it intends to regulate, and that protecting that title would not effectively bring into regulation others that it is not sought to regulate. With respect to protecting the title ‘counsellor’ as described on the previous page, we think that this title might be protected given its wide usage by ‘therapeutic counsellors’ but with provisions in legislation to ensure that this does not prevent its continued use by others outside of the ‘therapeutic counselling’ field. So the intention is that any future protection of the title ‘counsellor1 for the psychotherapists and counsellors part of the Register would not prevent the continued use of titles such as ‘debt counsellor’, ‘genetic counsellor’ and ‘nutrigenetic counsellor’.
With regards any potential future regulation of genetic counsellors and protection of the title ‘genetic counsellor’ it is very unlikely this would impact upon the continued usage of the title ‘nutrigenetic counsellor’ by your members. We apply out protection of title powers pragmatically and only take action where someone uses a protected title or implies their use of a protected title with the intention to deceive members of the public.
You do not need to make an immediate application to us. However, it is certainly very helpful to be aware of the use of this title in any subsequent discussions about regulation and we will highlight this to the HPC Council in their discussion about the genetic counsellors’ application. If government was to decide to regulate genetic counsellors at a future point, the decision to do so would be subject to a full public consultation at which point issues such as these could also be further considered.
Should you require any further information, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,

It is clear that BANT are not concerned with the need for proper regulation of genetic testing and those who advise on these tests but are simply seeking to protect their members business interests.  If they recognised the stark differences between Genetic Counselling and what they term nutrigenetic counselling they should feel obliged to come up with a description that more accurately reflected their members abilities and did not have the potential for confusing the public over the differences between highly qualified and capable Genetic Counsellors and those with dubious qualifications in nutrition.  The abbreviation ‘nutri’ does not translate into ‘unethical pseudoscientific nonsense, exploiting the uninformed and the gullible for personal gain’ in any dictionary I possess.

This is yet another sad illustration of how alternative therapists crave the respectability that comes with conventional medical practices but want nothing to do with the ethics, professionalism or evidence based practice.

Society of Homeopaths breach code of ethics on website – still

Professor Edzard Ernst has recently written a short article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice detailing the failure of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) to apply their own code of ethics to their website.  A BMJ summary of the article contains an interview with Professor Ernst as well as providing a brief overview:

[A] review of some members’ websites showed a series of violations of the code that led Professor Ernst to scrutinise the society’s own website.

Despite there being no good clinical evidence to substantiate such claims, says Professor Ernst, the society’s website carried statements claiming that homoeopathy can help with various symptoms and illnesses, including fever, sore throat, toothache, arthritis, eczema, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, chicken pox, erectile dysfunction, and prostate problems.

“In my view, they [the statements] do ‘expressly or implicitly’ claim ‘to cure named diseases,’” writes Professor Ernst. “If this is so, they violate the SoH’s [Society of Homeopath’s] own Code of Ethics.”

He concludes, “If the SoH wants its members to behave ethically it should evaluate its own website carefully and deliberate whether it is responsible for a professional organisation to make health claims which are not supported by the current best evidence.”

The SoH response is also represented:

Paula Ross, the society’s chief executive, said she was grateful to Professor Ernst for highlighting his concerns and that the society would be investigating the concerns and making amendments “where appropriate.”

Long term readers of this blog may recall that I did infact make most of the points Professor Ernst has in October 2007, with the conclusion

[If] you keep banging on about your Code of Ethics and how that provides a reason to take homeopathy seriously then you should make sure that your website, your interface with the public, is absolutely rigorous in its adherence to your Code of Ethics. If you didn’t do that then people might begin to think that you don’t actually care about enforcing your Code of Ethics and your attempts to silence criticism through legal bullying wasn’t just a mistake but an active attempt to avoid responsibility.

It is my understanding that the SoH were informed of the contents of my blog shortly after I published it, over two years ago.  I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the SoH’s competence, honesty and ethics.

HMC:21 – hammering the nails into homeopathy

The House of Commons Science and Techology Committee are holding an inquiry into the evidence base for homeopathy and government policy.  The deadline for written submissions was earlier this month and many individuals and organisations, from all sides of the homeopathy debate, will have submitted evidence.  Including among this are H:MC21, organisation dedicated to informing the public about homeopathy, from the perspective of homeopaths.

In their latest newsletter H:MC21 have proudly stated that:

We have sent a submission to a Parliamentary Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, which is looking at evidence for homeopathy as part of assessing the Government’s use of evidence in policy-making.

Unfortunately for H:MC21 the newsletter starkly lays out some of the most serious problems with homeopathy:

Low quality evidence

Support for unethical AIDS trials

A tendency to ignore criticism

Anti vaccine attitudes

House of Numbers backed by quacks

You may have heard that the Spectators screening of House of Numbers and the follow up debate have now been cancelled, however, I doubt those of us who follow the antics of alternative therapists will have heard the last of this film.  A major source of information for alternative practitioners is Mike Adams’ Natural News site, while this might at first glance look like the rantings of a lunatic fringe in reality Mike Adams is more a barber surgeon of alternative medicine, slicing and dicing science to transplant evidence with fear and paranoia* to fuel the sense of persecution of the online alternative health movement. Online forums and alternative health websites frequently cite Natural News as a source for their opinions.

Now he is plugging House of Numbers with typical appeals to paranoia and pushing the tropes of alternative health as a means to a cure:

The collection of immune suppression symptoms typically labeled “AIDS” could be far more effectively treated with naturopathic health strategies, including aggressive detoxification strategies, the removal of heavy metals, the avoidance of environmental synthetic chemicals (in foods, drugs, personal care products, homes and offices) and the addition of powerful immune-boosting herbs, foods and superfoods.

Essentially, AIDS can be cured in much the same way cancer can be cured: By radically altering food intake and lifestyle decisions to support a vibrant, healthy immune system.

This is nonsense.  Neither AIDS nor cancer can be cured by a change of lifestyle.  However, I think we will begin to see swellings of support for House of Numbers by alternative therapists as a result of this article.  A lot of alternative health practitioners believe in a big pharma conspiracy that suppresses information and creates disease to sell drugs, Mike Adams is simply validating what they believe they already know.  There is already considerable interest in listening to the opinions of aids denialists, with homeopaths organising seminars, ‘nutrionists’ such as Patrick Holford believing that vitamin C can treat AIDS and pro-alternative health lobby groups collaborating with the likes of Matthias Rath, whose views are in part responsible for in excess of 300,000 deaths in South Africa alone.

To those alternative therapists who read this blog I would urge you, rather than consider the opinions of Mike Adams, to read the content on this site from those misrepresented by House of Numbers instead.  Then you might learn it is not the scientists and drug companies who distort reality for their own ends but those who push fear, paranoia, deceit and denialism from within the alternative health movement.

 

 

 

 

 

* This link goes to the peerless orac who has the patience and the stomach to expose the twisted innards and tripe of Natural News.

Has Lionel Milgrom libelled Simon Singh?

Homeopath and former biochemist Lionel Milgrom has previously accused, erroneously, David Colquhoun of a lack of scholarship in an article on chiropractic and suggested that this questions his credibility.  This was shortly after Milgrom himself published an article whose scholarship is currently being elegantly dissected by apgaylard to expose a logical vacuum where the heart of an argument shoud be.  Now Dr Milgrom has possibly libelled the science journalist Simon Singh, who is himself being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).  In an article published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine (JACM), ‘CAM, Free Speech, and the British Legal System: Overstepping the Mark?‘, Milgrom makes the claim in the abstract that:

The British Chiropractic Association recently won a libel case against the science writer and CAM ‘skeptic’ Dr Simon Singh for publishing an article in a British newspaper in which he accused them of promoting ‘bogus’ treatments.

This is not true, the case is under appeal over a definition of the word ‘bogus’ concerning its use in the alleged libellous article by Simon Singh but it has not gone to trial, there has been no verdict of libel and certainly no compensation paid as Milgrom claims later in the article.  It is false to claim that Simon Singh was found guilty of libel.  To claim otherwise could be seen as an attempt to damage the reputation of Singh with a false allegation, and thus, under Britain’s flawed libel laws, an accusation of libel could be made.

I doubt this will happen though.  Simon Singh has made a principled argument based on the need for scientific discussion to be carried out free of the threat of libel.  Milgrom’s article could be seen as a valid opinion on this particular argument.  Unfortunately though it is in part based on a demonstrably false observation. It is customary in science for an article to be retracted if it contains serious error and I believe that this article does.  Making false accusations that an individual has been find guilty of a offence in a court of law is undoubtedly a serious error.

I would urge Dr Milgrom to write to the editors of JACM and request that this article be retracted.

This article may be updated to include further comment.  Dr Milgrom was contacted with respect to this earlier today and I hope to carry a statement from him.

The Spectator and House of Numbers *update 2*

Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator Blog is justifying The Spectator’s forthcoming showing of ‘House of Numbers’ as follows:

Is it legitimate to discuss the strength of the link between HIV and Aids? It’s one of these hugely emotive subjects, with a fairly strong and vociferous lobby saying that any open discussion is deplorable and tantamount to Aids denialism. Whenever any debate hits this level, I get deeply suspicious.

The link between HIV and AIDS is indisputable according to the scientific evidence.  AIDS denialism has also contributed to the deaths of over 300,000 people in South Africa alone.

I am not sure what Fraser Nelson is suspicious of.  I suspect he is just drumming up support for the screening and debate.

However, the debate is extremely unlikely to be helpful to the public understanding of HIV, AIDS and the relevant pseudo-science.  Of the panel Richard Wilson has pointed out that:

all three ‘expert’ panelists have, at one time or another, adopted fringe views on HIV and AIDS, and been active in disputing the established scientific consensus. Of the five panel members chosen, only one [...] appears unambiguously to share the view held by the overwhelming majority of scientists currently involved in AIDS research.

I am not sure what the Spectator are aiming to achieve here.  Their senior staff are not fools and I find it difficult to believe they are unaware of the lack of credibility of ‘House of Numbers’.  This is likely little more than a misguided attempt at publicity.  What is likely to happen however, is that they will have large numbers of crazed AIDS denialists in the audience screaming and shouting at those who criticise the film, their blog comments will be overrun with cranks and quacks and they will be regarded as part of a healthcare problem.

*update*

In 2004 The Spectator carried an article title “AIDS denial costs lives“.  Perhaps Fraser Nelson can allay some of his suspicions by reading his own magazine.

*update 2*

The Spectator have apparently carried an article from Neville Hodgkinson in support of the film. Hodgkinson was the science journalist at the Times when they took a stance that questioned a link between HIV and AIDS in the late 80s/early 90s.

Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism Part II

Earlier I blogged on the decision by the Raindance Film Festival to show the AIDS denialist documentary ‘House of Numbers’ and the endorsement given to it by the festival through Xavier Rashid and Elliot Grove, the festival’s founder. Since then I have been in contact with Mr Grove and presented to him evidence of the harm the ideas behind ‘House of Numbers’ have caused and argued that its promotion risks further harm.  Mr Grove has agreed to allow me to publish the following, unedited, statement from him:

I chose and agreed to play House of Numbers for three reasons, all of which fit the Raindance Film Festival criteria:

- debut filmmaker
- quality filmmaking
- an extreme message which I decided after hours of research and debate with my team, deserved to be seen and heard.

I grew up in Somalia and have first hand knowledge of the destruction wrought on that continent by ‘aid’. I also live in the UK and witnessed the hysteria and misinformation wrought by the so-called swine flu epidemic

MAny of my closest friends are AIDS/HIV positive, and several have died as a result of AZT or other AIDS related illnesses.

I do not, not have ever denied AIDS/HIV. I feel that the arguments surrounding the AIDS issue amy not be exactly as I have been told, as indeed the real cause of the 9/112 tragedy might not be what they seem, as Charlie Sheen is saying.

I am glad we showed the film. I wish we had worked harder to reach more people with it. As a filmmaker, like the director Brent Leung,  it is difficult to balance the financial aspects of distribution with the economic realities of film production.

I think the postiive actions of showing House of Numbers, and the debate it has caused will help anyone concerned with issues of health and hopefully will enable anyone living under the curse of HIV/AIDS hope for a better life.

Elliot Grove
Founder
Raindance Film Festival
British Independent Film Awards

As well as the three reasons for showing the film that Mr Grove presents above I would suggest a fourth, money.  The following communication is from an independent film makers forum, and it clearly shows that there were concerns from some parties prior to Raindance of the wisdom of showing it but the financial benefits of doing so were the most immediate concern of Mr Grove.

Re: Is House of Numbers an AIDS denialist film?

I haven’t actually seen House of Numbers so I’m not commenting directly on it but it has certainly been causing a fair amount of concern, as in this article from Ben Goldacre in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/26/ben-goldacre-bad-s (…)
Worth a read. If he’s right about the distortion of facts, cherry picking of quotes and murky funding behind this film, then I’m not sure it isn’t a little irresponsible to be showing it, to be honest, given what’s at stake with this subject.

Mr Grove’s response:

We are getting legal letters, telephone calls, threatening emails claiming about the screening of House Of Numbers this Thursday at 2:30pm. Ive never never seen anything like it.
Legal letters delivered by courier from America – the whole 9 yards
They claim it’s about AIDS denialism – which anyone seeing the movie would realise it isnt. Or is it?
Question is, are we going to be able to sell anymore tickets?
A few still available, and the director has flown in from Canada.

Watch the film and see for yourself.

The power of cinema. Check it out: http://bit.ly/vTm98

And let me know
Elliot Grove Diretor 9and founder, goldarnit) of Raindance Film Festival

It is clear from the statement and the communication that Mr Grove is ignorant of the consequences of AIDS denialism, wilfully ignores the problems with ‘House of Numbers’ and is incapable of judging scientific evidence.  I also suspect that Mr Grove is enjoying the experience of being controversial, something his festival seems to deliberately set out to achieve – they seem very proud of an advert that was banned because of its treatment of suicide.  As the ruling on the advert shows film, as a medium, is capable of sending out very powerful emotional messages.  There is a danger, in particular with documentaries, that emotion can be used to gloss over or ignore awkward facts.  Emotion can also be used to incite anger and stir up settled and forgotten controversies.  This appears to be the case with ‘House of Numbers’, its supporters are extremely passionate and increasingly vocal and the film is sufficiently well made to fool otherwise sceptical thinkers.  However, the questions raised by ‘House of Numbers’ have already been answered by science, the tactics of denialists explored and the deaths from AIDS denialism established.  The only purposes the film serves is to suggest scientific controversy where there is none and to encourage support of discredited ideas, that is a poor contribution to public debate.

When contacted about this film a Terrence Higgins Trust spokesperson said:

“Worldwide more than 33 million people are living with HIV, the virus that – untreated – leads to AIDS. 88,000 of them are in the UK and every year about 7,500 more people are newly diagnosed here. Each of them, over their lifetime, will cost around a quarter of a million pounds to treat. In other countries, without modern antiretroviral treatments, people are still dying in droves.

“It’s a huge waste of life. But although the methods we currently have won’t stop AIDS completely, we can reduce transmission by condom use and by other means. Our main focus now and for the years ahead needs to be preventing the spread of HIV and supporting people already living with the virus.”

The methods of achieving this are what the public debate needs to be on, not to become distracted by settled controversies.  It is unfortunate that both Raindance and Mr Grove seem uncaring or ignorant of this, they clearly believe ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ when it comes to film promotion.

Incidentally, the full version of this paraphrased quote is ‘”There’s no bad publicity except an obituary.“‘.  Here are the obituaries of some of those who have died through AIDS denialism.

I hope there are no more.

Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism

Last month the editor of the New Humanist, Caspar Melville, magazine committed a sceptical faux pas and appeared to endorse some aspects of the documentary ‘House of Numbers’, a film whose purpose is to sow doubt where none exists on the theory that HIV causes AIDS.

Lets be absolutely clear.  HIV causes AIDS – the science is certain, Nobel prizes, not baubles awarded when doubt remains, have been won .  ‘House of Numbers’ is supportive of AIDS denialists, distorted the opinions of many interviewees, and presents utterly discredited researchers and journalists as holding valid opinions.  ‘House of Numbers’ is bunk, a denialist film, it has nothing constructive to say, and it deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the annals of human stupidity.  Unfortunately it can seem convincing to an intelligent lay person.

Dr Melville is not an idiot, prone to taking irrational theories seriously or endorsing quackery yet he was fooled by a showing of ‘House of Numbers’ at the Cambridge Film Festival.  With admirable candour, and some bravery in facing the blogosphere, Melville has explained in depth how and why he was fooled in two blog posts, here and here.  As his blog posts show he is more than capable of understanding evidence and changing his opinions to fit with observable facts yet, like most of us, he can be persuaded by a convincing lie in an area that lies outside his comfort zone of knowledge.

This common tendency to be fooled is a robust argument against the uncritical promotion of AIDS denalist films such as ‘House of Numbers’.  The consequences of being wrong about AIDS can be lethal.  In South Africa, as a result of the endorsement of the discredited theories of Peter Duesberg, a contributor to ‘House of Numbers’, by the government of Thabo Mbeki, it is estimated that more than 300,000 people died unnecessarily.

Unfortunately film festivals have not done been careful in their coverage of ‘House of Numbers’.  The Cambridge Film Festival made an attempt, as detailed in Melville’s blogs, to conduct a critical discussion afterwards but as Melville proves this was not enough to prevent false information from appearing convincing.  It is hard not to disagree with Ben Goldacre that this was ‘attention-seeking smugness’ on the part of Cambridge Film Festival despite the explanations of organisers.

However, Raindance Film Festival have surpassed the smugness of Cambridge in their screening of ‘House of Numbers‘. Xavier Rashid, a programmer for Raindance is extremely proud of Raindance showing the film despite the protestations of scientists, lawyers, AIDS victims and others.  In fact he is so proud he has offered it his full endorsement and is plugging it on the film’s Youtube channel.

Likewise Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance.

This goes far beyond the smug behaviour of Cambridge, at least they were willing to debate the film rather than endorse it.  The atrocious behaviour of Raindance has now been compounded after criticism was made of their showing the film.

Ben Goldacre, using his common subjective ontological classification of cock-end or not, tweeted the following on Friday 2nd October.

Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance film festival, loves the Aids denialism: cock-end http://bit.ly/Btyd4

I retweeted this minutes later which was to be the start of a bizarre twitter exchange with @Raindance_Fest, the official twitter feed of the Raindance Film Festival, edited and presented at the foot of this page in reverse chronological order.

In this exchange, conducted with the usual decorum and subtlety of internet discourse and a 140 character limit, the lack of wisdom of Raindance was expressed as well as several links to sources of criticism of ‘House of Numbers’ and the dangers of AIDS denialism.  Sadly @Raindance_Fest rather than engage in constructive debate opted for the tired old arguments of ‘if you haven’t seen it you can’t criticise it’, cited the blog of a disgraced ex-policeofficer who thinks the beating of Rodney King was justified before finishing it off with a potentially libellous allegation that sceptical author Richard Wilson (twitter user @dontgetfooled) was in the pay of ‘big US drug companies’.  The last tweet on the subject from @Raindance_Fest following this exchange was this:

YouTube – House of Numbers reaction from Elliot Grove at Raindance http://bit.ly/2r1h4b

I think it is fair to conclude from this and the videos above that the Raindance have come out in firm support of ‘House of Numbers’, endorse AIDS denialism, have fallen prey to the delusions of conspiracy theorists and have contempt for their critics.  This issue is more important though than merely being a matter of twitter commentary and idiotic artistic posturing.  When asked for comment Richard Wilson made the following points:

Raindance are welcome to insinuate what they like about me on Twitter – what bothers me is the deadly damage which is done by perpetuating these tired old, long-debunked ideas about HIV and AIDS. We might have hoped that the media and artistic establishment would have learned their lesson by now – it does kind of feel like “Groundhog Day”. Back in the early 1990s Andrew Neil’s Sunday Times were being taken in by pretty much these same arguments [...] the damage caused by denial can’t always be undone. AIDStruth’s list of HIV-positive AIDS denialists who have died from the disease in the last few years makes for grim reading – my fear is that this list is only going to get longer until the media finally wises up to the real nature of AIDS denial.

The organisers of Raindance need to understand that their childish attempts at being artistic provocateurs are not big, not clever and certainly not something to be proud of.  They are endorsing a theory that has killed hundreds of thousands and caused untold miseries to millions as described in ‘Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience & Human Tragedy’ by Seth Kalichman..  There is no scientific justification for ‘House of Numbers’ and it is an act of careless immorality to endorse it.  I hope both Xavier Rashid, Elliot Grove and Raindance come to realise this.

Update

Raindance have linked to this blog post saying that:

Raindance founder Elliot Grove has been accused of being an AIDS Denialist (which he isn’t) because he dared to show House of Numbers despite over 100 thretening emails and legal letters.

I have made no such accusation against Mr Gove.  My argument is that he, and Raindance, endorse AIDS denialism through their support for House of Numbers.

Society of Homeopaths exploit death of child for their own gain

The tragic and preventable death of baby Gloria in Australia due to neglect by her homeopath parents has been reported in the news this week and has led to some debate on curbing the excesses of homeopaths.  The Quackometer has argued that it is the nature of homeopathy that allows cases such as this to develop, a rejection of modern medicine is inherent in the teachings of homeopaths and no amount of regulation will change this, and what we need is not regulation but criminal prosecution.  The Society of Homeopaths disagree and have issued the following press release.

The Society of Homeopaths is calling on MPs to support its application for the statutory regulation of homeopaths following the high profile case of a baby who died in Australia after her parents refused conventional medical help.
The move would offer better protection for the public in the UK as under current law, anyone without training can set up and practise as a homeopath.
The Society, the UK’s largest organisation representing professional homeopaths, is in the process of applying to the Health Professions Council (HPC) for statutory regulation.
Currently, 65 per cent of all registered homeopaths are members of the Society, which has long been committed to the highest standards for homeopathy, having run a voluntary regulatory system for the last 30 years and a course recognition process for the last 15 years. Further, it was the first homeopathy organisation to institute a Code of Ethics & Practice.
Ten years ago, the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology published a report into Complementary & Alternative Medicine (session 1999-2000), which categorised homeopathy as a ‘Group One’ therapy along with acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine and osteopathy.
Of the five, homeopathy is the only profession not yet in the statutory regulation process although the report acknowledged that “under The Society of Homeopaths, the non-medical homeopaths have organised themselves well and their professional organisation should mean the transition to statutory regulation does not present too great an upheaval(1)”
The House of Lords’ report also called for more research. By the end of 2007, 134 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these trials, 59 were positive i.e. demonstrating that homeopathy has an effect beyond placebo; eight were negative and the remaining 67 were inconclusive.
On Monday September 28th, Sydney couple Thomas Sam, 42, a lecturer in homeopathy, and his wife Manju, 37, were jailed for the manslaughter of their nine-month-old daughter Gloria, who died of malnutrition and septicaemia in May 2002.
Chair of the board of directors, Jayne Thomas, said: “This was a tragic case where the parents concerned refused conventional medicine even though their daughter was seriously ill. Here in the UK, The Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice (sections 22 & 27) states that cases of a serious nature should be advised to stay in contact with their GP, that patients should be advised where another form of treatment may be more immediate and effective and that any symptoms suggesting an underlying condition should be referred for medical investigation and diagnosis.
“Statutory regulation is a natural step forward for homeopathy and builds on the work of the profession over the last ten years to independent regulation. The Society’s registered members have met our academic requirements, completed a registration process, hold comprehensive insurance and agreed to abide by a Code of Ethics & Practice. Statutory regulation will independently formalise this process and most importantly, offer greater protection for the public.”
For more information, or to set up an interview with Jayne Thomas, please contact Pamela Stevens at The Society of Homeopaths on 0845 450 6611 or pamela_stevens@homeopathy-soh.org
(1) House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology, Session 1999-2000, p52

The argument put forward by the SoH that regulation, specifically their Code of Ethics & Practice, would have prevented this case is thoroughly specious.  The sections cited by the SoH, 22 &27, state:

22 When dealing with cases of a serious and possibly terminal nature, ensure that the patient is fully aware of the advisability of keeping their GP informed of their condition.  Where possible and appropriate, ask for the patient’s permission to write to their GP concerning their progress.
27 A competent homeopath identifies those occasions when a patient’s condition is:
• beyond the present limits of their clinical competence and expertise.
• likely to receive more immediate, effective benefit from another form of treatment.
• showing signs and symptoms suggestive of an underlying condition which requires referral for investigation and other medical diagnosis.

22 does not place an obligation on the homeopath to inform the GP, only the patient.  Under this section the homeopath washes their hands of any responsibility for the patient informing their GP.  This is quite understandable, the homeopath is entering into a professional relationship with the patient, whatever you may think of the level of professionalism, action cannot be taken against the patients wishes.  This section would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria as the parents did not wish to see a GP.

27 is clearly ridiculous on the grounds that homeopaths are not medically trained so have no clinical competence or expertise and that because it doesn’t work anyway other treatments should automatically be preferred.  However, for the sake of argument, if we assume that homeopathy works, as homeopaths believe it does, then it still would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria.  This section only defines competence, it does not prevent incompetent homeopaths and thus would not stop an incompetent homeopath from causing harm. It would allow the SoH to label them as incompetent though, should that not be obvious.

It is clear that neither of these sections would have prevented the death of baby Gloria.  It is hard not to see this as an attempt by the SoH to exploit a tragedy to further their political aims of regulation, which are opposed by other professional societies.  This viewpoint is supported by the many examples of the SoH supporting similarly reckless behaviours in their own supporters, such as the SoH funded AIDS and malaria trials in Africa, the refusal to condemn homeopathic vaccines used at the expense of proper ones, and seminars by AIDS denialists to give just three examples.

In addition to this, as part of the professional development of homeopaths, the SoH have organised the following event.

Peter Smith – Investigative homeopathy and difficult cases This day is designed to introduce some different approaches into your practice when you are faced with puzzling cases. These days the world is a lot more complicated than in the days of Hahnemann, especially when we consider pollution and the environmental toxins that we all face. Peter will share some of the therapeutic tools that he has used during over 25 years in practice, including dealing with panic attacks, sorting out hiatus hernias, pregnancy and childbirth issues, treating the elderly in nursing homes and the importance of a home visit if you just can’t seem to make progress with a client. Participants are invited to bring along ‘tough cases’ for the group to discuss, with a view to finding different and more productive lines of investigation.

This clearly shows that the concept of keeping ‘tough cases’ within the homeopathic family is part of their training, they are encouraged to share their stories of clients who cannot progress and seek advice from the homeopath peers on new treatments to try.  After they have done all this and their patients still aren’t getting better then they may consider going to a doctor.  It is this behaviour that killed baby Gloria, not the lack of regulation.

The Quackometer article on baby Gloria concluded:

protecting future children like baby Gloria will require authorities to abandon the belief that they need to regulate homeopaths like medical practitioners and instead treat them according to the more accurate picture of them being a pseudo-medical and mystical cult with dangerous and irrational beliefs

I agree.

Gordon Brown makes unhelpful comment on cancer

All the political blogs are busy interpreting the nuance and debating the policy implications of Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour conference.  I’ll leave them to do that.  I have a major issue with this particular part of his speech though:

And because we know that our investment in breast cancer screening works and early intervention saves lives, I am proud to announce that we will go much further.

We will finance a new right for cancer patients to have diagnostic tests carried out, completed and with results – often same day results – within one week of seeing your GP. That is our early diagnosis guarantee, building on our current guarantee of only two weeks wait to see a specialist.

And so with three major steps forward – early diagnosis, early treatment and our historic investment in research for cancer cures, we in Britain can transform cancer care; and our ambition is no less than to beat cancer in this generation

My bold.

Sadly it is a myth that there is a cure for cancer and that cancer can be beaten in a generation.  The best succinct explanation I have seen of this is from PHD comics (below).  I’m all for politicians making arguments for more research and healthcare, I’m less keen on them distorting public perception of the results of that research and healthcare.  It bothers me somewhat that this speech without doubt underwent a substantial number of revisions and likely had contributions from many individuals and not a single one of them noticed that this claim about cancer was remarkable.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162 (copyright Jorge Cham)

A recommendation to read part three of apgaylard on Milgrom

apgaylard has published Part III of his wonderful dissection of Lionel Milgrom’s article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here, analysing criticism of homeopathy.  All three parts are below:

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-one

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-three/

apgaylard exposes numerous instances of poor scholarship in Milgrom’s analysis which thus far have gone unanswered by Milgrom, even though Milgrom is keen to highlight, mistakenly, flaws in other people’s scholarship.  Milgrom must be aware of apgaylard’s arguments as I have taken the liberty of emailing them to him, as I will do with this one.  That he has not responded suggests a disappointing unwillingness to engage and a fear of answering critics.  Sadly this attitude is all too typical of homeopaths.

Homeopaths, Herbalists and Matthias Rath

There has been an exciting development in the world of herbalism.  A split.  A shattering of a previously indivisible atom of stupid and the release of a wave of witlessness, sweeping across the quackosphere, and leaving idiocy  in its wake.  Save our Herbs is its manifestation, and the reason they give for their existence is this:

The call for Statutory Regulation (SR) was started by a small group of herbalists, who have professed that Herbal Medicines are dangerous and the public need protection through statutory regulation, that such proposals would assure public safety.

The powers-that-be have no right to restrict the entitlement of the people of the UK to continue to use herbal medicines in the way that they currently do.

Yes, this is a group of herbalists who reject the suggestion that herbs can be dangerous and those who prescribe them need regulating. Paracelsus would disagree:

“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”

As would Whatstheharm.net and the National Insitute of Medical Herbalists (NIMH). And, as David Colquhoun points out, herbalist degrees show an imaginative approach to facts and evidence that creates a danger to the public.

Joining the herbalists are everybody’s favourite homeopath splitters, the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), who too have rejected accusations of harm and the thought of statutory regulation.  Also involved are the National Health Foundation (NHF), a mainly American lobby group, the obscure International Register of Consultant Herbalists and Homoeopaths (IRCHH), the unknown Mohsin Institute and the invisible Cropwatch.

This coalition of uncertain competenecy are pushing anti-EU arguments, of the conspiratorial sort, as part of their campaign and this has led them to the parlous abandonment of mainstream Euroscepticism and a rush into the arms of arch AIDS denialist and conspiracy theorist Matthias Rath.  A fair assessment of Rath’s character as a charlatan and bully who bears some responsibility for the deaths of thousands can be drawn from this book chapter by Ben Goldacre.  Rath’s EU-referendum.org, who have come under some criticism before on this blog, are now citing SaveOurHerbs as official supporters.  Rath, in his EU-facts.org site, argues that the pharmaceutical and oil industries are using the Lisbon Treaty to create a European dictatorship.  I suspect this belief may have drawn the herbalists and homeopaths to his side.

Alternative heath practitioners and their supporters often believe that the reason why their therapies are often rejected has little to do with their inherent implausibility, the weight of convincing evidence against them, and the allegations of harm but is due to a grand conspiracy of politicans, journalists and bloggers funded by the pharmaceutical industry.  It is hardly surprising that many of them have a sufficiently strong belief in this to turn, without question, to the likes of Rath.  I do not know how representative of herbalists Save our Herbs is, but the ARH represent about a third of UK homeopaths and have a sufficiently strong voice to make the Society of Homeopath’s (SoH) desired pathway to statutory regulation a rocky road indeed.  I also suspect many SoH members may fall prey to the conspiracy adorned blandishments of Rath, the SoH after all are more than willing to endorse dangerous Rath-like AIDS nonsense even going as far to fund homeopathic trials in Africa.  It would be foolish to assume that the ARH’s embrace of Rath strengthens the case for regulation, it just draws further attention to the idiocies of all homeopaths.  I suspect the same may be true of these renegade Herbalists.

Neal’s Yard Remedies in financial trouble

Neal’s Yard Remedies are high street purveyors of vaguely new age bathroom products.  Unlike similar capitalist entities, such as The Bodyshop, they seek more than a scented and organic potion and lotion derived parting of the ways between high street hippes and their monies.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are also purveyors and propagators of alternative notions, providing space for dubious therapies and flogging magical remedies.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are also losing money, fast.  A combination of an ill-timed expansion as the economic good times were rolling to a stop as well as considerable investment in a fancy new factory, funded by a 2005 £10m buyout from Peter Kindersley, seem to be taking their toll on their finances.

According to the most recent accounts, in 2008 Neal’s Yard Remedies (Ltd) lost ~£1.3m, the year before they lost ~£600,000.  This loss is not unexpected given the investment during this period in new infrastructure and assets.  However, the accounts also reveal debt of ~£3.5m due in the next year, and long term debt of ~£7m.  The debt due in the next year is offset, at least at first glance, by ~£4.5m owed by creditors, much of this, ~£2.8m, is from group undertakings, revealed to be an interest free loan to the holding company, Neal’s Yard Holdings Limited.  The long term debt appears to be a mortgage to pay for the new factory and is secured against the assets of the company as well as an interest free £500,000 loan from one of the directors.

Now this is not really much of a surprise, explicable by a combination of ill-timed expansion and an economic downturn, and while a cause for concern in the short term does not say much about the long term viability of the business.   The loan of ~£2.8m to the holding company was a surprise though.  The accounts of Neal’s Yard Holdings Limited reveal that not only has the company borrowed ~£2.8m from Neal’s Yard Remedies but is surviving only by ~£4m of loans provided by Peter Kindersley at 1.5% above the LIBOR rate.  In fact the accountants, KPMG, make clear that Peter Kindersley has indicated that his loan is for at least the next 12 months and he will continue to provide funds for the foreseeable future to cover new and existing debt but the company is essentially reliant on this.  Should it be withdrawn the company may not be able to trade.

In summary it appears Neal’s Yard Remedies are dependent on Peter Kindersley lending them money.

Is this a problem?  There are no doubt many companies supported by wealthy benefactors at this moment in time.  They will be hanging on, waiting for the market to recover and their loans to be repaid.  However, there are considerable grounds to argue that Neal’s Yard Remedies may not recover sufficiently quickly or at all once the economy picks up.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are prone to the typical excesses of the alternative zealots, being sanctioned by the MHRA for selling homeopathic malaria treatments, and consequently, as the quackometer has pointed out, behaving unethically.  Public perception of the unethical nature of many of Neal’s Yard’s products spread sufficiently so such that when they reneged on an agreement to engage with Guardian readers as part of the paper’s ethical living blog when faced with probing questioning of their business practices.  This farce and consequent commentary now lives on in the internet harming the Neal’s Yard brand.  Not only has the Neal’s Yard brand been tarnished but many of the therapies they offer in their stores are currently under vigorous and sustained scrutiny and criticism from bloggers and journalists.  Recovering business is going to be difficult and it will have to be done in the face of trenchant opposition.  Luckily for Neal’s Yard, Peter Kindersley is very rich, with this Times profile suggesting that he acquired at least £100m from the sale of his publishing company, so their short term future looks reasonably secure.  The question is for how long does he want to keep pumping money into a business whose return to profitability is only ever going to be more uncertain?

West London Homeopaths organise talk by AIDS denialist Janine Roberts

West London Homeopaths (WLH) is a local support group for homeopaths and their supporters in west London.  WLH run a seminar programme whose past speakers cover subjects such as ‘Fats don’t make you fat’, ‘Chinese facial analysis’ and ‘Indigo Essences’.  So far, so lifestyle section.  Their next seminar, on the 29th September, is more sinister.

Janine Roberts – Investigative Journalist, and author of ‘Fear of the Invisible’

THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATION

How are they made? Are they safe? How scared should we be of viruses and vaccines, HIV & Aids? The amazing story of the cell and the virus – and much more!

Tuesday 29th September, 7.15pm – 9.30pm

Janine Roberts is a notorious AIDS denialist, author of a book, Fear of the Invisible that denies the scientific realities of AIDS and HIV as well as a proponent of long discredited MMR/autism theories and similar scaremongering against vaccination.

At a time when homeopathy is under increasing scrutiny and has been condemned in recent months by the WHO for its use in the developing world one would expect its practitioners and supporters to be careful about linking themselves to deluded and dangerous ideas.  Do not forget that AIDS denialism is estimated to have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Africa alone. Sadly it seems homeopaths are utterly incapable of recognising a bad idea when they see one, apparently the best they can do is to write articles of a very low academic standard while simultaneously making snide, and mistaken, allegations about the professionalism of their critics to their employers, or, in the case of the professional societies, clear their members of all charges of misconduct by asserting there is proof that homeopathic vaccinations work.

There must be some homeopaths out there willing to curb the excesses of this profession?  Surely all homeopaths aren’t anti-vaccination morons delusional about the capabilities of their little vials of sugar pills?  Will nobody from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital speak out against this madness?

Another recommendation to read apgaylard on Milgrom

Last week apgaylard published Part I of his rigorous analysis of Lionel Milgrom’s article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here, analysing criticism of homeopathy.  Part II is now online.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/

I urge you to read it and recognise the serious issues regarding his level of scholarship that it raises.  Particularly so since Dr Milgrom has taken upon himself to alert UCL to percieved errors in the scholarship of David Colquhoun, writing in a private capacity in the New Zealand Medical Journal.  Errors, incidentally, that proved non existent as David has blogged about with admirable candour.  I would urge Dr Milgrom to respond to apgaylard with similar openness, perhaps there is an innocent explanation for the many errors in his own article.

A recommendation to read apgaylard on Milgrom

I meant to plug this when apgaylard first blogged it, but I forgot.  My apologies.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-one

Lionel Milgrom, he of the quantum entaglement, published an article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here.  There are many problems with this apparent scholarly attempt to analyse the predicament UK homeopaths find themselves in and apgaylard is applying his exemplary methodical and informed approach to criticism.  It should be required reading for all homeopaths interested in understanding the more thoughtful crititiques of their profession.  I had some correspondence with Dr Milgrom about this paper previously but I got the feeling that he was reluctant to involve himself in a discussion typical of the tenor of my blog, perhaps he feels it a little shrill.  I believe it would be to his advantage to read apgaylards thoughts and I will be referring him to them.