Prince Charles congratulates homeopaths who try to treat AIDS with homeopathy

The School of Homeopathy are celebrating their 30th anniversary this weekend.  Amongst the attractions are talks from some of homeopathy’s leading lights including Jeremy Sherr, a patron of the school who is somewhat infamous for attempting to conduct unethical trails on HIV/AIDS patients in the developing world.  Pride of place amongst the school’s programme is a very special announcement from a very special supporter.

There will be a special written announcement from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

“This is one of the largest most exciting events ever held in homeopathy. Never before have so many influential homeopaths come together to present at one free online event  – it is truly world class! We are honoured and proud by the added endorsement from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We are so pleased to be bringing all of this to UK and our local community”.

Mani Norland, the School’s Principal

This is somewhat inappropriate as the School have endorsed the use of homeopathy for HIV/AIDS and Africa as well as the work of Mr Sherr.  The activities of Mr Sherr have been condemned by the World Health Organisation and Sense About Science.  While the work of Mr Sherr and the School of Homeopathy in Africa is small scale their beliefs, when found in governments, can have devastating consequences.  In South Africa, where then Prime Minister Thebo Mbeki was influenced by unconventional theories, there have been devastating consequences with preventable deaths being measured in the hundreds of thousands.

While Mr Sherr’s ideas remain unpopular their harm, although real, will not be on this scale. However, should Mr Sherr or the School of Homeopathy gain the endorsement of prominent figures, such as HRH The Prince of Wales, the consequences may be devastating should this increase their influence on the governments of the countries in which they work.

Given the support of HRH The Prince of Wales, and his family, for organisations that seek to ease the hardship faced by those who are victims of HIV/AIDS it is concerning that he should lend his name to the School of Homeopathy.

I wrote to the Clarence House, the Prince’s residence, to express my concerns as laid out above. Their response was brief and to the point.

The Prince of Wales has sent a letter of congratulations to the Stroud School of Homeopathy’s [sic] on their 30th Anniversary. The Prince has not endorsed any particular individuals or treatments.

This is to miss the point somewhat. Prince Charles is a man who has and uses influence. Sometimes he uses it to prevent building projects, other times he uses it to try and fire academics who challenge his beliefs on alternative medicine. He can apply his title to a charity by honorary appointment or endorsement and this is seen as increasing both the profile and fund raising ability of that charity. For the prince to act as though a formal letter of congratulation has no influence, and is not an endorsement, is at best staggeringly naive.

However, when you consider his long standing support for alternative medicine, and his meddling in academic appointments in this field, it is hard not to think that he is a man whose belief in alternative medicine have blinded him to the worst behaviours in that field, such as the delusional attempts to treat AIDS in Africa. The Prince, should he continue to support alternative medicine, should look closely at those he lends his name to. It is not in his interests, or those of the country which he will one day head, to be seen to lend his name and congratulations to the kind of people who see Africans as subjects for their medical fantasies.

Brian Haw and the false cures of quackery

Brian Haw, the protester whose dogged presence outside of parliament turned him into a cause célèbre, has died of lung cancer.  Mr Haw was a divisive figure, with often unorthodox opinions, whose determination to camp outside parliament became a matter of considerable political debate on the right to protest.  In recent years Mr Haw’s supporters dwindled to a hardcore group with fringe opinions.  They have let him down badly.

Mr Haw’s cancer has very low survival outcomes, for a man of his age, his chances of surviving 5 years following diagnosis were less than 10%. There is little that Mr Haw could have done to delay the disease.  However, this did not stop proponents of alternative medicine offering to help with false promises of cures and treatments based on nothing but quackery.

Following Mr Haw’s diagnosis, fans of David Icke, a notorious conspiracy theorist, took charge of fund raising for his treatment in Germany, via the Shen Clinic.  The Shen Clinic believes in, and has promoted, the theories of Tulio Simoncini.

Dr. Simoncini’s therapy uses Sodium Bicarbonate to destroy the fungus colonies which he believes are the cause of both cancer and mastatasis[sic]. Although controversial, many have personally witnessed the dramatic drop in cancer markers following his therapy, even in some advanced cases. He also recommends the use of natural and complementary medicine such as nutrition, homotoxicology, acupuncture and others.

Mr Simoncini is banned from practising medicine and has fraud and wrongful death convictions in his native Italy.

Despite the clarity of the evidence against Mr Simoncini, his theories and his outcomes, Mr Haw moved to Germany to undergo therapy.  Reports in April of this year asserted successful treatment.

Brian Haw is currently living in my flat in Germany while having treatment for his lung cancer – the good news is that he had an MRI scan this week and he’s on the mend – by the way, his treatment consists of intraveneous Vitamin C and Sodium Bicarbonate (not at the same time!) – THIS IS ILLEGAL IN THE UK !!!! – WTF !!!! – IT’S VITAMIN C !!!! – AND BAKING SODA !!!!

This was sadly optimistic.

Mr Haw’s cancer was almost certainly incurable, but rather than spending his final days being cared for by medical professionals in the UK, he was sent to Germany by conspiracy theorists, offered the false prospect of a cure, and was subjected to unnecessary and ineffective treatments.

There is certain to be a resurgence of debate about Mr Haw’s principles, politics and behaviour as a result of his death, but probably little on the circumstances surrounding it.  Regardless of what you may think of Mr Haw, perhaps the greatest injustice he has undergone in the last decade is not the disruption, court actions and parliamentary discussion surrounding his protest, all of which have been debated and ruled on by a transparent democratic and legal system, but the falsities told to him by supporters of alternative medicine in denial of the facts.

Homeopaths respond to the Abha Light Scandal

There is a fine piece of investigative journalism in today’s Independent from Melanie Newman and Alex Chepkoit who have investigated the Abha Light Clinic in Kenya, where homeopaths have been advising patients not to take anti-retroviral drugs to stave off HIV, instead suggesting that homeopathy is a suitable substitute.

The Quackometer has the full story and is a must read.

A homeopath claiming to treat HIV/AIDS with sugar pills is sadly not an isolated event.  Homeopathic societies have featured guest speakers on the subject, funded unethical trials, and even awarded fellowships to those who believe that the AIDS epidemic can be halted through homeopathy.

This is a belief that runs deep in the profession.

In response to this expose, homeopaths on internet forums such as Minutus, have shown absolutely no awareness of the egregious nature of their behaviour in Kenya.  Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths – the second biggest organisation representing lay practitioners in the UK, has said ‘Here we go again. The trashers are about to have another feeding frenzy!’.

More worringly, the head of the Abha Light Clinic, Didi Ruchira, has posted the following:

Please remember that the African-based projects are being used as “cannon fodder” for the UK battle. We (all the African projects) continue to need your support and welcome it.

The article was first published in nairobi on 1 May, but is originated from Melanie Neumann for the Independent. We were given right of reply, but it seems that they mostly ignored our points. I will post more information as I can organize it.

Needless to say, the articles are full of distortions and “un-facts”. The only fact I can stand by in that article is the mention that ALF started 1998 and “it runs the country’s largest homeopathic pharmacy“

1 May, Sunday Standard, Kenya

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000034272&cid=159&story=Concern%20over%20NGO%27s%20HIV/Aids%20%27treatment
3 May, The Independent, UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/an-alternative-for-kenyas-hiv-patients-ndash-or-a-health-scandal-2278049.html
Abha Light Foundation is one of the oldest organizations working for the promotion of homeopathy in Africa. We started in 1998. It is through ALF that homeopathy has grown in presence in Kenya until there are now more that 4 organizations/groups regularly working here to promote homeopathy and 3 schools.

Between the expat community, Indian-trained or EU-trained Kenyans and the locally trained homeopaths we can count about 100-150 trained homeopaths working in Kenya.

ALF is not the first presence of homeopathy in Kenya. The first homeopath in Kenya came in 1928 from now-Pakistan. His son (now in his 80′s) and his grandson are both homeopaths. But it wasn’t until ALF organized in 1998 that there was a steady outreach and popularization into the local communities.

Although traditional African herbal medicine has always been used here, when I first came to Kenya, few people had awareness about alternative medicine or homeopathy. But over the years, Kenyans – even from the poorest to the richest- are increasingly turning away from allopathy due to its ineffectiveness and side-effects.

That last sentence is chilling.  Allopathy is a derogatory term homeopaths use to describe conventional medicine.  It is clear there is a missionary zeal at play here, but rather than save the souls of Africans, homeopaths intend instead to  sacrifice their bodies by turning them away from lifesaving medicine and towards their ineffective sugar pills.

The average life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is 30 years less than that of the developed world.  This represents a humanitarian problem of immense proportion that will take much wealth, effort and ingenuity to solve.  It requires the production and dispersal of life saving medicines and the cooperation of the United Nations health agencies and often unstable governments.  What it does not need is are homeopaths from Europe and America whose persistent delusions, and idiotic confidence, can and will kill.

The Nobel Prize winner and the unethical autism trial

Luc Montagnier is a winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.  Since then his achievements have been more ignoble; he has asserted that nutrition can be used to clear the body of HIV on camera in an interview for a film denying the link between HIV & AIDS and has patented a machine that he claims is capable of detecting radio waves from the DNA of pathogenic bacteria.  This latter invention turns out to have been identical to a machine created by discredited scientist Jacques Benveniste, who believed it could be used to transmit homeopathy down telephone wires.  Montagnier has even claimed that this machine can be used to detect the presence of HIV derived DNA in tissue samples, including in red blood cells, which do not have any DNA.  Montagnier is clearly sincere in these nonsensical beliefs as he presented this research at a meeting of fellow Nobel Prize winners, to incredulous muttering and a minima of polite applause – damning criticism considering the audience.

Now Montagnier is preparing a research project that combines these eccentricities and adds to them extraordinary ethical breaches.

In conjunction with the Autism Treatment Trust (ATT) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI), both of whom support unorthodox and sometimes dangerous treatments for autism, the following research proposal has been advertised:

We are finally in a position to run some very exciting investigations/interventions with the support of Professor Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (for the discovery of HIV) and Dr. C. Skorupka a DAN! practitioner from Paris and long time friend. The project proposes to look at potential bacterial and viral chronic infections in autism. Prof Montagnier is of the view that some abnormalities in autism as well as in a whole range of neurological conditions, such as chronic fatigue and multiple sclerosis may be caused by potential infective agents. These would be difficult to the immune system to track down and would affect cell function thereby contributing to the development of the pathologies. He has developed a new technique that detects, by resonance, the genetic material of these potential infective agents. Additionally, using a very sensitive PCR assay, he can screen for a range of gram positive and gram negative bacteria as well as mycoplasma and borrelia (Lyme disease). He can also look at viruses (PCR assays under development). We are not alone in believing that this approach can help develop our understanding of the causes of autism and enable it to be treated more effectively. The proposed treatment combines a succession of antibiotics with basic biomedical supplements and probiotics. These antibiotics block cell division rather than kill bacteria, thereby avoiding potential side effects. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no funding available to cover the costs of this project, but we are hoping to use the data collected to help us obtain funding for future research.

We offer your child the opportunity to be part of this project and to access to the Montagnier Infection Screen protocol. There will be medical follow up from Dr. Skorupka. The details of the project are outlined below. The total cost per child is likely to be around £1800, spread over a six-month period (details below). The antibiotic treatment is not included and may cost some £30- £60 a month, depending of the particular antibiotic selected. Every two months each child’s progress will be reviewed by Dr. Skorupka and Dr. Amet at ATT with interim progress reviews carried out by phone.

The project involves 2 blood tests, one at the start and the other after 6 months of treatment. Also integral to the project are a standardised behavioural evaluation (ADOS) and Vineland Test, both at the start and at the end of the project. If you are interested in participating in this project please contact us as soon as possible. We intend to commence testing on the 14th and 15th of September. We will be able to accommodate 12 children at first, but will consider including additional participants if demand is high. Please note that there is absolutely no obligation to continue with the full proposed treatment if your child clearly does not benefit from it, but we recommend at least 3 months of treatment in order for you to evaluate of potential benefits, and of course the treatment will depend on the laboratory findings and clinical evaluation of each child.

Aims of the project:

1- Investigate the possibility that some cases of autism are associated with a range of bacterial infections, based on laboratory testing and clinical examination conducted by Dr. C. Skorupka in Edinburgh.

2- Assess the ASD children for the presence of nanobacteria following Prof Luc Montagnier’s protocol of investigations. The protocol would require a blood draw conducted at the clinic with the help of our nurse. The blood normally has to be centrifugated immediately and the supernatant extracted, then frozen to -80C and shipped on carboice to France.

3- Evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic intervention as well as behavioural evaluations (ATEC and ADOS). This would involve meeting with Dr Skopurpka and Dr. Amet every 2 months and reviewing progress over the phone in the interim month.

4- Report outcomes.

Montagnier believes that his resonance machine can detect the distinguish the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.  There is no evidence, other than a non-peer reviewed paper Montagnier self published in a journal he edits, that this is possible.  This paper makes  most extraordinary claims that remain unreplicated – a basic requirement for research to be considered worth responding too, much less accepted.  Therefore it would be unwise to consider it real, and mistaken to use it as a basis for a treatment protocol.

However parts of the protocol are rational from basic scientific point of view.  PCR assays can be used to detect bacterial and viral DNA present at low levels and it may be the case that antibiotics that block cell division in bacteria have reduced side effects, if the side effects are caused by the toxic byproducts of bacteria dying.  Arresting their growth would theoretically allow various immune mechanisms to act with greater efficiency.  Unfortunately there is no evidence that bacterial or viral infections have a part to play in the causes of autism.  It is not good practice to base a research protocol on assumptions that are inconsistent with observations.

Perhaps the most fatal flaw is that there appears to be no control group.  There is no means of determining whether this treatment, nonsensical as it may be, has caused changes in a treatment group compared to control.  By design it cannot produce meaningful data.

The most disturbing part of this protocol is not it’s flawed premise, disregard of existing data, the use of implausible technology or even the lack of a control group but that it will cost £1800, plus an additional £180 – £360 for participants.  This suggests an extraordinary disregard for ethics, to charge parents of autistic children, desperate for succesful intervention, large sums of a money to participate in a useless trial  is ethically questionable at best.  This leads to the question, was ethical permission sought for this trial?

Most research trials involving humans are passed through an ethical review process, and in some cases this is a statutory requirement, as the MHRA make clear:

Clinical trials in the UK are regulated by The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (SI 1031) as amended. These regulations implement Directive 2001/20/EC (‘The Clinical Trials Directive’).  According to the Clinical Trials Directive, clinical trials of medicinal products in human subjects requires authorisation by the competent authority (MHRA in the UK) and a favourable opinion by an ethics committee. This authorisation is granted in the form of a clinical trial authorisation (CTA).

The criteria for coming under the authority of the MHRA are laid out in this document below.

This research may need MHRA oversight with respect to the answers to  A.1, B.1, C.1, D.1 & E.1-5.  It is a study involving human patients investigating the use of medical products aimed at treating disease to determine their effects in a non-standard manner.  There is no indication that this research has been approved by the MHRA and attempts to contact the Autism Treatment Trust have been unsuccessful.  If this research should have been overseen by the MHRA and has not then there will be a clear breach of legislation.  This trial, and those who run it, will be breaking  the law.

Luc Montagnier’s eccentricities have led him to a situation where vulnerable people will be exploited and the possibility that criminal acts will be committed.

This is the inevitable end point of quackery.  Staunch believers in unorthodox medical treatments and theories inevitably run foul of acceptable ethics, whether it’s homeopaths in Tanzania or  Nobel Prize winners in Paris.  It doesn’t matter how respectable the person or how prestigious their prize, quackery corrupts the mind and corrodes the reputation.  Their belief in the fundamental correctness of their thinking eventually leads them to actions where the norms of ethics and the rule of law are secondary considerations or no consideration at all.  This is why quackery should be challenged and those who associate with it discouraged.

 

Update

Anthony Cox has also blogged this and has made enquiries to the MHRA.

NICE & the Cancer Drugs Fund – politics based medicine

It has been reported that Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, is to alter the powers of the National Institude for Clincial Excellence (NICE) so that it cannot turn down new medicines for use on the NHS.  NICE was set up to provide an evidence based approach to healthcare advice and take often difficult drug funding decisions so that NHS healthcare is as equal as possible.  According to The Guardian:

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, believes that Nice, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, should continue to write guidelines for doctors on the best treatments for their patients, but the Guardian understands he will remove its controversial power to ban the use of drugs it considers too expensive for the benefit they offer.

This is a hugely significant change as it could allow influence from patient lobby groups, pharmaceutical companies or newspaper headlines to undermine evidence based treatment decisions.  It is difficult to predict the outcome of any such change directly, especially as scarce detail is available of checks and balances one would assume would play a part.  However, we can look at how politicians use healthcare funds that are independent of NICE as a model to hypothesise about the future.  One such fund is the Cancer Drugs Fund, set up by recently by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government:

The UKIP MEP and Andrew Wakefield

Andrew Wakefield is a discredited scientist who was struck off the medical register for acting against the interests of his patients and conducting research in a dishonest and irresponsible manner.  He is speaking at an event today hosted by Marta Andreasen, a United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) MEP.  Ms Andreasen is an interesting individual who was sacked by the European Commission for refusing to sign off accounts after claiming the EU accounting system was open to fraud. Since then she has campaigned for changes to EU accounting rules and in 2007 joined UKIP, becoming their treasurer, before resigning this position over the management of their finances although she remains in the party.

It is curious to see an MEP with a strong sense of ethics, even though she lacks a scientific background, supporting an event featuring as noxious a character as Andrew Wakefield.  UKIP may have an eccentric approach to scientific issues, they have not, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion on Andrew Wakefield and the discredited assumption that their is a link between vaccination and autism.  In fact they do not seem to have an official opinion on autism, even if their members occasionally try and link it to things with which they disagree, such as certain types of lightbulb.

Ms Andreasen was contacted last week about her hosting of the event with Andrew Wakefield, however she did not reply.  Thus, it is not possible to know her motivations, or her understanding of the issues.  However, there are some clues as to her involvement.

Kathy Sinnott, a former MEP and target of this blog for her association with one of Matthias Rath’s, the man who believes people do not need to take HIV/AIDS drugs, organisations is also speaking at the event.  She supports Wakefield’s discredited theories through her presidency of  ‘The Hope Project’ (PDF), a charity dealing with learning disability.

Ms Sinnott’s former press officer and brother-in-law, Richard King, now works for Ms Andreasen and is the point of contact for enquiries about the event.  As well as working for Ms Andreasen, he also worked for the Independence/Democracy group in the EU parliament, a eurosceptic grouping formerly chaired by UKIP’s Nigel Farrage and before that Kathy Sinnott.

It is possible that Ms Andreasen may be involved at the request of Mr King and Ms Sinnott and might not have been aware of the controversial nature of Sinnott’s views on autism and MMR.  It is also possible she did not reply to a statement of these concerns because she has not read it.

Regardless of Ms Andreasen’s understanding of autism, MMR and Andrew Wakefield there have been unpleasant previous associations between eurosceptic groups and fringe thinking organisations.  As well as Ms Sinnott’s association with Matthias Rath’s organisations, the Democracy Movement, who Ms Andreasen has supported, have also chosen to work with him.

Supporters of eurosceptic parties and MEPs should be worried about a growing tendency to work with some of the most odious characters working in the field of pseudoscience.  Such associations will only tarnish their credibility, even MEPs such as Ms Andreasen who are prepared to lose their job for their principles will not escape the sulphur that surrounds Wakefield and Rath.

 

 

Homeopathy and the NHS in Scotland

There is a BBC documentary showing tonight in Scotland (BBC One Scotland 1930 or channel 971 for non-Scottish viewers) titled ‘Magic or Medicine – Homeopathy and the NHS’.  You might think that this documentary was treading old ground and that issues of homeopathy in the NHS were already well understood.  However, healthcare is a devolved matter in Scotland, and thus healthcare spending is controlled by the Scottish government so arguments have to be fought anew north of the border.  In fact the dynamics of electoral politics in Scotland are such that The Scottish Green Party bear some considerable responsibility for homeopathy on the NHS, unlike in England where they are an irrelevance.  This is why this BBC Scotland documentary is to be welcomed.

According to this BBC article by the lead reporter Scotland spends disproportionately more than England on homeopathy, as FOI requests show. Scottish lay homeopaths are also shown to be as stupid as their English cousins in offering homeopathic versions of vaccines.  This is something that the professional homeopathic societies have been ignoring, or even endorsing, for some time and now something that the medical homeopaths are creeping towards.

The Scotsman carries a piece by Dr Brian Kaplan, a medical homeopath, Harley Street physician and Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy, today defending homeoapthy on the NHS in response to the documentary, that opens with the following statement:

NO DOCTOR who uses homeopathy would support the use of such treatment as a vaccination. This may be supported by some non-doctors using homeopathy, but it is not something the medical community would advocate.

Sadly Dr Kaplan views are more conservative than those of his professional society.  The journal Homeopathy, is published by the Faculty of Homeopathy and edited by Peter Fisher, the head of the, soon to be renamed, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.  This journal recently described a homeopathic vaccine as “Similar to a conventional vaccine” before going on to argue that homeopathic vaccines have a place in medical care:

“Homeoprophylaxis with nosodes could be a bridging device in a serious epidemic for the period until a fully effective vaccine is available. In less serious diseases, it could be the only prophylaxis offered. The lack of side effects, low cost, and rapid speed of manufacture and deployment would make it acceptable for use in large populations. Coverage of animal vector populations with the nosode may also be feasible.”

and

Infectious diseases are still the bane of humanity, particularly in the developing world. Effectively reducing their morbidity and mortality using homeopathic nosodes could have immediate practical and economic impacts.

I recommend you read apgaylard’s excellent analysis of this editorial and surrounding issues. Brian Kaplan would also do well to read this before making statements that are easily shown to be untrue.

It seems the only thing that separates medical homeopaths from lay homeopaths these days is not their ethics or their reluctance to use dangerously ineffective treatments, it is NHS funding and it’s time to bring that to an end.

Farewell to the RLHH, hello to the RLHIM

The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH), one of the few state funded bastions defending alternative medicine against the enlightenment hordes, is no more.  A change of name has been announced by the League of Friends of the RLHH, it will become the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (RLHIM) from the 16th September.

Although we are sorry to see this time-honoured and respected name replaced, the history attached to it remains. The change of name better reflects the developing services and will lead to a more accurate perception of its unique role in the NHS.

[...]

For much of its history the RLHH was a small general hospital incorporating a specialist homeopathic department. From the early 1980’s surgical and other conventional specialities were closed and replaced by a wide range of complementary medicine services, including the NHS’s first complementary cancer care, acupuncture, musculoskeletal medicine and herbal medicine services. Since joining UCLH there has been rapid progress in integrating these services.

[...]

Dr Fisher, Clinical Director of the RLHH said “We are very proud of our homeopathic heritage, but it is essential to understanding the nature of our work that our name accurately reflects our role. We hope that you will support this historic change.”
The RLHH is Europe’s largest and, as part of UCLH, best integrated public sector centre for integrated medicine. The hospital offers a diverse range of therapies, all practiced by fully registered health professionals and integrated with conventional medicine.
The change of name to Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine reflects the reality of services at the hospital and its exceptional position in the NHS.

Regardless of this change of name, the hospitals supporters are still concerned about its long term future.

we learnt that the 5 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) making up the North Central London Sector – Camden, Islington, Enfield, Haringey and Barnet – have agreed a ‘Low Priority Treatments’ Policy which could be the final blow to the viability of the RLHH

The Policy is an underhanded process aimed directly at reducing or completely stopping patient referrals to the RLHH. Although the hospital is not named and complementary medicine is just one of several ‘Low Priority’ treatments listed, the hospital is the only dedicated NHS provider of complementary medicine in the area. This is a direct attack on its continued viability – if there are no patient referrals, there is no need for the hospital.

How could this affect you?
If your GP refers you to the RLHH, you are likely to receive a letter from the PCT stating that your case has been referred to an Individual Cases Panel, or Exceptional Treatments Panel or something of a similar name (different PCTs have different names for them).
You, or your GP, may be asked to provide conclusive evidence that any conventional treatment had been unsuccessful and of the effectiveness of the treatment you are being referred for. This puts you, the patient, in a difficult situation and more often than not will result in a refusal.

I suspect these concerns are well founded and that this rebranding exercise may be futile in the long term.  Indeed it may even open the hospital up to new attacks.  The arguments against the NHS funding of homeopathy have permeated the consciousness of the political establishment and wider society. There is little more that can be added to these arguments, they can only be restated and may in time fade through familiarity.  However, there is much yet unsaid in the popular discourse on Integrated Medicine.  The collapse of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health due to financial fraud has thrown the spotlight on the failed attempts of its bastard offspring, the Faculty of Integrated Medicine College of Medicine (see update below).  While this blighted institution has no formal links with the RLHIM, it is sustained from the same well of establishment delusion that supports many of the eccentric notions that spring half formed from the mind of the Prince of Wales and the organisations he supports.  One wonders if the unscientific notions that are will be taught at the Faculty of Integrated Medicine College of Medicine are being put into practice at the RLHIM?  If so, that may be scandal waiting to happen.

*update*

Looks like I confused my quackstitutions: copied from the comment below by Prof Colquhoun.  My argument still stands though.

<Good news, on the whole, The name change is something that Michael Baum and I urged on The UCLH Trust years ago, though our suggestion didn’t include the weasel word “integrated”.

One small correction though. The Faculty of Integrated Medicine was nothing to do with the late unlamented Prince’s Foundation. It was the Rosy Daniel/ Mark Atkinson outfit that was temporarily accredited by the University of Buckingham, but thrown out after a year. Trading Standards made then tone down their claims to “heal” cancer, after I brought the claims to their attention. The Prince’s Foundation gave rise to the “College of Medicine“, final details of which have yet to be revealed. We do know, though, that when Daniel sought a new home for the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, even the new College gave them the push. As far as I know, FIM is still homeless.

*update 2*

The Quackometer now carries an obituary for the RLHH.

Politicians, their babies & MMR

The MMR vaccine, since it was wrongly and fraudulently associated with autism, has been a favourite of media scare stories concerning healthcare.  A recent example was the Mail on Sunday’s recent story linking a legitimate and successful claim for compensation following a possible injury caused by the vaccine to autism, despite this forming no part of the claim nor the reasons given for its award. Both Evan Harris and Martin Robbins have good analyses of this story in the Guardian’s new science blogs section, citing statements by Nadine Dorries, MP, a member of the Health Select committee, suggesting that she, despite having responsibilities as a politician, in intent on fanning the dying embers of a seemingly settled controversy.

Dorries has some ability to attract press attention thanks to questionable judgement and simplistic, and factually wrong, moral judgements but she shows little sign of being much of a threat to society’s understanding of healthcare via her political career.  She is not an obvious choice for any ministerial or lesser government role and has shown a reluctance to attend the meetings of any committee of which she is a member.

However, the views of politicians can have an impact on healthcare.  Tony Blair, the former Labour Prime Minister, whose willingness to indulge his wife, Cherie’s, association with alternative health gurus, who are typically associated with anti-vaccination views, has been accused of giving credibility to opponents of MMR when he refused to say whether or not his son, Leo, born when he was in office, was vaccinated despite eventually issuing a statement following press attention.

The reason we have refused to say whether Leo has had the MMR vaccine is because we never have commented on the medical health or treatment of our children.

The advice to parents to have the MMR jab is one of scores of pieces of advice or campaigns the government supports in matters ranging from underage sex to teenage alcohol abuse or smoking, to different types of advice for very young children on a huge range of activities from breastfeeding to safe play.Once we comment on one, it is hard to see how we can justify not commenting on them at all.

However, the suggestion that the government is advising parents to have the MMR jab whilst we are deliberately refraining from giving our child the treatment because we know it is dangerous, is offensive beyond belief.

For the record, Cherie and I both entirely support the advice as we have consistently said throughout.

It is not true that we believe the MMR vaccine to be dangerous or believe that it is better to have separate injections, as has been maliciously suggested in the press, or believe that it is linked to autism.

We now know that, according to Cherie Blair’s autobiography, Leo was vaccinated and a Daily Mail report on Tony Blair’s autobiography suggests that the press were briefed off the record at the time that this was the case, although he appears to regret that he had not been clearer on this issue.

Tony Blair is yesterday’s man though, and while his past actions may influence current events he is no longer a frame of reference for current UK politics.  He is out of parliament and out of favour with respect to his party, the press and the public.  We have a new government, a coalition between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, whose views will now influence public health care.  Given that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has a new baby it is inevitable that some questions of infant healthcare will be framed with reference to his new born daughter.  With this in mind it is worth considering his and his party’s previous views on MMR.

In the past Cameron has stated that his children have had the MMR but that he supports the option of single vaccines if vaccine uptake continues to fall.  This support for single vaccines was a feature of the Conservatives when they were in opposition with the then shadow, and now current Health Secretary Andrew Lansley sharing these views.  Single vaccines are regarded as being no safer than the MMR vaccine, and carry additional risks with respect to intervals between vaccinations, and single mumps vaccines are now not licensed for use in the UK.  By contrast the Liberal Democrats, primarily via Evan Harris, then an MP, have supported the MMR vaccine as the best option.

However, as supporters of the coalition government often argue, positions held in opposition are often lost in the compromises that come with the wielding of actual power and there is little sign that the current government is going to change policy on MMR, despite the Conservative Party’s previous views.  Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative MP, recently asked the Health Secretary if he would ‘assess the merits of reintroducing a license for the single mumps vaccine?’.  The answer was to defer to the MHRA – which typically uses an evidence based approach to drug licensing and has opposed single vaccines in the past.

The Daily Mail remain opposed to MMR, despite all the evidence of safety and the punishment inflicted on the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, and it would be wise of politicians not to give credibility to their views.  I hope that questions with respect to MMR will not be asked of Cameron, but that if they are he answers sensibly and in accordance with the evidence.

Karol Sikora is a very confused man

A few months ago I posted on the very silly views of Karol Sikora in commenting on the life expectancy of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.  The words of Professor Sikora have apparently informed the US senators who are demanding an enquiry into the release of al-Megrahi.  I was interested in finding out just how a man such as Sikora, who has previously been in trouble for claiming affiliations he does not have, got involved with the reasonably competent Scottish Prison Service, so I asked them.  This the (edited) reply:

The decision of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to release Mr Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was based on advice from the Director of Health at the Scottish Prison Service, who drew on expert advice from a range of specialists. These specialists did not include Dr Karl Sikora, who has been the subject of recent media attention. The decision was also based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor.

The views of Sikora played no part in any official decision.  Any claim that they did is not compatible with this statement.

Sikora was interviewed for The Observer yesterday.  Here is an excerpt:

“What I find difficult is the idea I took the key and let him out. I provided an opinion, others provided an opinion, and someone else let him out. That decision of compassionate release is nothing to do with me. No one asked me, ‘Should we let him out?’ All they said was when do you think he will die?”

Maybe Sikora is genuine in assuming that his views were considered, perhaps this is why he feels he should distance himself from a decision that it is denied he had any part in.  If so he should probably be relieved at the Scottish Government’s insistence that he played no part, his conscience is clear.

There is another possibility of course, that maybe Sikora is using his peripheral involvement as a medical advisor (paid for by the Libyans), whose advice was not considered, as an opportunity for self-promotion.  In this Sikora has caused distress to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, facilitated the misinterpretations of US senators and failed to correct erroneous assumptions.  Just to see his name in lights.

Dore are in financial trouble – again

I, and other bloggers (here, here and here), have previously covered the collapse of Dore, a business promoting an unscientific and ineffective treatment for dyslexia and other specific learning disorders, into administration and their subsequent reincarnation, fronted by former rugby player, Scott Quinnell, as Dynevor CIC, a Community Interest Company (CIC), under the Dore brand.  Now Dynevor have released their accounts and it looks like the new business is in as much financial trouble as the old one was.

Despite an £810,000 investment from shareholders, the liabilities of Dynevor outstrip their assets by £215,462 as of 31st December 2009.  However this calculation assumes that the Intellectual Property (IP), the Dore method and branding, is worth £115,046.  It is not specified how Dynevor calculated this figure, but it can only be an estimate as IP is essentially intangible and its value can only be inferred from its potential to increase profitability.  Given that Dynevor’s IP is not considered credible by experts in learning disorders and the failure to create a profitable business out of it it can be reasonably inferred that Dynevor’s estimate of its worth is highly optimistic. It is thus likely that assets minus liabilities as given is an underestimate.

The accounts also point to problems with establishing a profitable client base.  The companies debtors (presumably mainly customers paying via finance schemes) and cash in the bank are worth £102,023 and £105,110 respectively.  They owe their creditors £212,357 within one year, a deficit of a few thousand pounds that only results in a positive value for net current assets as they have ~£30,000 of stocks, which naturally depreciate.  Given that the programme costs ~£2,000 pounds this implies a client base of little more than 100 customers at most.  While this might sound like a lot for a small business, there are likely about 15 staff on the payroll, it is clearly not enough to be profitable and even if they pay their staff no more than £10,000 it is hard to see a steep rise in profits any time soon.  This seriously questions their survival given that they owe ~£500,000 in the long term.

Dynevor were asked to comment on their profitability but did not respond.

I would not be surprised if Dynevor were to enter administration soon, just as Dore did.  The only possibility for long term survival would be for further loans, presumably from the shareholders as I doubt banks would consider it a safe investment, in the hope that business improves.  However, unlike Dore, whose owner, Wynford Dore – a multimillionaire, had sufficient personal investment in his business to prop it up for many years, the current shareholders may be more hard headed about cutting their losses.  These shareholders are rather mysterious – the directors of Dyenvor, Scott Quinnell and Glen Allgood, own a small minority of shares (respectively ~3% and ~2.5% of the total), placing the business outside their overall control beyond day to day decisions.  It is not their decision whether or not it survives.

Last time Dore collapsed existing clients were left with substantial losses, they were low down on the list of creditors and Dore made little effort to keep them informed.  Should Dynevor collapse it is likely that clients will be in an even worse situation.  This is because Dynevor is CIC, this means that its assets are ‘locked’ and are not availably should the company be wound up or go into administration, instead they would be transferred to a nominated body, in Dynevor’s case the inactive charity ‘The Dore Foundation’. This would leave Dynevor’s creditors with nothing *(see update).

I have previously examined the problems with Dynevor’s application to become a CIC, including unjustified claims of efficacy and the lack of published accounts.  This latter concern, now that we have the accounts, points to a serious problem with the CIC regulator, the official that confers CIC status.  The CIC guidelines state that companies financial situation, especially the Current Ratio (Current Assets/Current Liabilities), should be considered.  As Dynevor’s Current Ratio is ~1 (2 is usually considered healthy) it is possible that had the CIC Regulator seen their accounts their approval would not have been given.  That they granted CIC status without checking Dynevor’s financial situation is a failure, and one that will be costly to Dynevor’s clients should the company go into administration.

The CIC Regulator is supposed to be a ‘light touch regulator’, but the situation with Dynevor suggests neglect rather than a light touch and raises serious concerns about oversight of this entire sector.

Update

*from the comments, and from somebody who knows more about this than me:

FYI I think you are wrong on what would happen in the event of winding up. It is only residual assets that would go to the charity, not the gross assets. So assets go to creditors first, then shareholders, then the charity.

‘The exception, provided for in regulation 23, is where some of the company’s property remains after satisfaction of the company’s liabilities (including the cost of proceedings). Normally, these residual assets would be distributed to the members according to their rights under the company constitution. However, in the case of a community interest company the legislation limits distribution to members, who may not receive more than the paid up value of their shares (i.e. what was paid to the company in respect of their shares, including both the nominal value of the share and any premium paid to the company).’

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/guidance/Chapter%2010%20-%20Oct%202009%20version%205%20final.pdf

Insurance giants sponsor seminar by delusional homeopath

The Quackometer has blogged on an astonishing secret email from the Abha Light Foundation in Kenya that boasts of unethical human experimentation, endorses homeopathy as a cure for malaria and actively undermines the use of effective and efficacious medicine for malaria, TB and HIV. Andy Lewis right calls for the criminal prosecution and deportation of the homeopaths of the Foundation.  However, as he also points out, it is the UK homeopaths who help fund and organise these activities, and these show no sign of giving up their delusions. The Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the charitable arm of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are continuing to fund projects in the developing world and the SoH have organised a seminar by Jeremy Sherr, as part of the professional development of their members.

Jeremy Sherr is the homeopath who boasted of treating and performing research on AIDS sufferers in Tanzania while falsely claiming the support of academic institutions.  In response to this, and other examples, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that homeopathy has no role to play in the treatment of malaria, TB or AIDS.  In relation to Sherr, the SoH claimed that he was not a member and they did not endorse behaviours that were in breach of their Code of Conduct.

Now they have decided to invite him to give a seminar.

International teacher Jeremy Sherr will focus on the philosophical and practical approach to epidemics in this two-day seminar, which will include video and paper cases, new remedies and a fresh look at old materia medica.

According to Jeremy, acknowledged as a brilliant and creative thinker, “epidemics
are an advanced stage of homeopathic treatment that leads to a deeper understanding of individual treatment, proving and miasms.” This, he says, “is a subject we will all need to be versed in, with the return of many major epidemics to the west.”

This lecture will be based on the principles of the Organon and practical experience in this field. Jeremy has proved many new remedies and included in this two days will be Cryptococcus, Dama dama and Pomegranate.

As a homeopathic practitioner, Jeremy is known for his unprejudiced clarity and profound insight. His lectures are an inspiring blend of classical homeopathy and original thought, delivered with vitality and humour.

He has been a leader in homeopathic thinking and education for three decades. He taught in most British schools, before establishing the Dynamis School in 1985. Jeremy has taught the
Dynamis curriculum throughout Europe and North America, and has lectured in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, India and China, and was the first to re-develop the science and
art of provings after a century of near silence with his first proving – Scorpion. Since then he has completed 34 Hahnemannian provings.

Jeremy was born in South Africa and grew up in Israel, beginning his studies at the College of Homeopathy, London, in 1980, and completing a degree simultaneously in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Though he practices classical homeopathy exclusively, his knowledge of Chinese Medicine shines through his homeopathic thinking.

Such hypocrisy is a feature of the homeopathic movement and barely worth remarking on these days.  What is though is that the SoH have managed to attract sponsorship from two reputable multinational insurance companies, Royal and SunAlliance PLC and Lockton Companies International Ltd.

I tried to contact these companies giving them details of the activities of Mr Sherr, the WHO statements and the ongoing controversies regarding homeopathy in the UK to see if they would reconsider their sponsorship.  They did not reply.

If any readers would like to write to them then let me know if they respond.

I have no reason to believe that these companies endorse the views of Mr Sherr, or are indeed in any way aware of just what it is they are sponsoring.  Both of these provide insurance to homeopaths and I assume their involvement is related to that.  While this does not excuse their association, it does perhaps point to a wider problem in society, that many people who involve themselves in the activities of homeopaths are unaware of how they really behave and what they really think.  This is a concern given that the governments response to the Science & Technology committee’s evidence check on homeopathy is so lack lustre (my quick thoughts here).  Regardless of the science, the behaviour of homeopaths with respect to the developing world is genuinely disturbing to most people.  Perhaps more attention should be spent highlighting the problems with homeopaths, and other practitioners of alternative medicine, in their ethical conduct if we are to argue that such things have no place in a healthcare system.

Sikora & al-Megrahi

The Guardian are reporting today that the British Government regards the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, as a ‘mistake’, but a matter for the Scottish Government.  This is consistent with their views in opposition.  Hilary Clinton is also reported as looking into claims by Democrat senators that BP lobbied Libya.  This is politics, the US is rapidly expanding its business ties with Libya and it is incoherent to criticise the release of a terrorist while doing business with the government under whose instruction he acted.  But that is not my interest.  The Guardian state that:

New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.

But yesterday, professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were “less than 1%”.

He said: “There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.

“So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that.”

Sikora was one of the doctors who originally examined Megrahi and claimed last year that his 3 month estimate was made on the request of the Libyans.  This was not the first time Sikora has found himself in trouble.  Imperial College sought legal advice to prevent Sikora from erroneously claiming he was an honorary professor at the instituition.  He was also Dean of  the Faculty of Integrated Medicine until it has its contract terminated by the University of Buckingham, where Sikora is also Dean of the Medical School.  Sikora was also involved with the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, Prince Charles’ pro-quackery charity until it collapsed due to financial fraud.

With respect to the claims above about the chances of living 10 years as being less than 1%, according to Cancer Research UK (CRUK), in England & Wales (Scotland is similar) 10 year survival rates are approximately 70%.  The one year survival rates are close to 90%.  Sikora’s claims appear to be inconsistent with this.

It remains a mystery to me why figures such as Sikora are employed by governments and universities.

*Update*

A commentator has pointed out that al-Megrahi had metastatic prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 9 so the figures I quoted above do not apply.  This is quite correct.  Men with metastatic prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis and with a Gleason score of 9 have a 20% chance of surviving for 10 years for someone of Megrahi’s age.  Sikora is still out by a factor of 20 and my criticism stands.

Just another point, I do not intend to let the comments descend into conspiracy theories and will delete those that persist in posting them.  My focus here is on the public credibility of Sikora, not the wider detail surrounding the Lockerbie bombing or the politics behind the extradition of al-Megrahi.

Homeopathic Action Trust still funding unethical trials

As regular readers will know I have been covering the funding of homeopathic AIDS trials by the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the charitable arm of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), for some time.  HAT have been aware of my coverage and even invited a reader of my blog, Angus Wood, to give a presentation to them about the issues raised by their activity.  The World Health Organisation (WHO) have even criticised these kind of activities.

This did not change anything.  Their latest accounts are now available at the Charity Commission website and it is clear that they are still funding homeopaths who believe that sugar pills can successfully treat AIDS and malaria and are now expanding into India.

Health in Africa project
The charity has been fundraising to meet the requirements of what is now the Tanzanian project. With an annual volume of 12,000 patients in the Natural Therapies Centre, Dar Es Salaam, consultant Mr. Sigsbert Rwegasira, experienced in treating patients with homeopathy, is working closely with the team.

Africa Project
The projects are now undertaking a new series of research initiatives in Africa and India and are also putting in place a low cost clinic education and support structure for Africa, which involves special remedy kits, training manuals and clinical support. We have assured funding for this for the next year and we are also applying to the Gates Foundation for more funding and also the EU.

The Swaziland Homeopathy Project is one of HAT’s initiatives.  In their objectives they very clearly state their intent to perform medical trials on people with an incurable disease who do not have access to appropriate healthcare:

carry out a scientifically verifiable study on the effect of Homeopathy as a treatment for the side effects of the ART

This study, like previous HAT projects, appears to be in breach of the ethical requirements for human trials, not least The Declaration of Helsinki.

The homeopaths at HAT and the SoH are medical fantasists and cargo cult researchers, anybody who thinks they have a role to play in healthcare is very, very wrong.

The lurking fear in Tredinnick’s Integrated Health Care debate

Last week I mentioned that David Tredinnick, Conservative MP for Bosworth, was being a bit silly in the lead up to his adjournment debate on integrated healthcare.  At the time I boldly suggested that if Tredinnick was the best ally alternative health had in the Houses of Parliament then it was in a great deal of trouble.  Sadly I may have been too confident.  The transcript of the debate is now available and Tredinnick’s contributions are as fanciful as you would expect.  However, it is not these that cause me concern, the man is not a credible figure and his voice carries little wait in tilting the healthcare debate one way or another, it is Anne Milton, the Under Secretary of State for Public Health, whose replies are troubling in many respects.  Readers may be interested in her pronouncements about ‘service providers’, and changes to the structure of NHS healthcare, which suggest some hard questions about their commitment public healthcare need to be asked of the new government.  My focus though, as usual, will be on those replies more pertinent to quackery and its regulation.  While Milton is clear and sensible on the need to defer to NICE and the evidence base, especially in these uncertain economic times where finite NHS resources are already strained and further threatened by the enthusiastic swishing scalpels in the Treasury, there are nevertheless some arguments that offer succour to alternative practitioners.

From her second paragraph:

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that although I trained as a nurse and worked in the NHS for 25 years in conventional medicine, my grandmother trained at the homeopathic hospital in London, and was herself a homeopathic nurse. Later, she became a Christian Scientist. I am therefore not without my own roots in alternative therapies. My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that my grandmother never, until her death at the age of 89, took any conventional medicine.

While this may be an opening gambit of flattery, designed to lessen the rejection of Tredinnick’s ideas, the claim about her grandmother does not seem particularly appropriate.  While good health, of the sort that lets you live until 89, may not require conventional medicine so much as luck, in both genes and environment, it is undeniable that many lives are saved by its use.  To imply by anecdote, not the most reliable of measures, that homeopathy may allow one to live long in the absence of accepted healthcare is unbecoming of a health minister upon whose decisions the health of millions rests. Worryingly the following paragraph suggests the the Minister may indeed have some mistaken opinions about the benefits of an agitated sugar pill.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of homeopathic hospitals and his concern about them. I understand that there are five such hospitals in the United Kingdom, based in London, Bristol, Tunbridge Wells, Liverpool and Glasgow. However, the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital stopped providing services in March 2009 owing to the primary care trust’s decision to end funding. All the hospitals have experienced a reduction in the number of referrals over the past three years, and it has been claimed that all of them are now in a precarious position as a result of such significant funding losses. That is a matter of concern, given that they have clearly offered valuable treatments to patients.

I would like to know the evidence that showed clear benefit from these relics.  It certainly isn’t in the Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy, which the Minister claims to be considering:

I note my hon. Friend’s comments on the Lords [sic] Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy, and I am aware that it caused quite a lot of concern. It was published on 22 February, and we are still considering it and will formally respond in due course. He raised considerable concerns about the report, and highlighted the low cost of many alternative therapies and the important contributions they make. He also made reference to experiences from around the world-he mentioned Australia in particular, and also the USA-and he made an important point about the open-mindedness of some countries to alternative therapies.

In considering outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures must be an important factor. As my hon. Friend rightly said-and as I mentioned-individuals’ own experiences are very important, and if we want to achieve the best outcomes, one step we must take is to ask the patient whether they actually got better.

In conclusion, I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate and to suggest that perhaps the picture is not as bleak as he fears-I noted a certain weariness in his voice; he feels that he has raised this issue on so many occasions and it has fallen on deaf ears.

I do not expect the government to fundamentally disagree with the reports recommendations, that would be a foolish fight to choose given homeopathy’s many vociferous critics, however the comment about patient-reported outcome measures intrigues.  As mentioned in the previous post on Tredinnick, these are the brain child of Boo Armstrong, ex-writer for an AIDS denialist magazine and former Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), and a rather curious thing for the Minister to pick up on.  While an inherently weak form of evidence that NICE would not normally consider, they are amenable to misinterpretation by those seeking to attribute what most would consider human bias to unscientific modalities, or magic if you prefer.  One wonders who briefed Anne Milton before this debate and why she considers that alternative therapies are not as threatened as Tredinnick fears?

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the new government’s views on regulation:

The issue of regulation was raised, and it is a thorny one. When I was a shadow Health Minister, I met on numerous occasions psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors who were very concerned about the regulation of their professions. Across the professions allied to health care, there are those who are keen on regulation and those who feel regulation would be wrong and would be unable to deal with the intricacies of their work. There is no doubt that vulnerable people are often preyed upon by unskilled and unscrupulous practitioners, and I think that professions wanting to achieve the highest standards will welcome proper regulation. The issue for Government is always whether statutory regulation is the most appropriate way of dealing with that risk, or if a lighter-touch approach would be more appropriate. That is why, as I understand it, last year the Department of Health, along with devolved Departments, consulted on the regulation of practitioners of acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the consultation closed in November, and more than 6,000 responses were received. The high response rate is a testament to the strength of feeling about public access to complementary and alternative medicines; I am sure I am not alone in having received a huge number of letters on the subject.

The consultation examined in detail the options for regulation, including alternatives to statutory regulation. Once the Government have considered the consultation responses, we will make clear the next steps in the regulatory process. In acknowledgment of my hon. Friend’s keen interest in the matter, I am very happy to keep in touch with him about it. In the meantime, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council [CNHC] provides for voluntary registration for practitioners from nine complementary therapy disciplines. I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels that that is not sufficient, but that is in place for the moment while we consider the consultation that has taken place and make a decision on what the next steps should be.

While there is no firm commitment to any particular position here there are two things the Minister needs to consider.

1) ‘light touch’ regulation does not work.

The CNHC have declared that they will ignore complaints from some members of the public, and have been utterly ineffectual in what little concerns they have considered. Not only that they have had to tolerate some outrageous conspiracy theories and false accusations widely circulated by email.

2) Statutory regulation does not work.

Consider the Chiropractors, The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) are supposed to be the statutory body that regulates Chiropractic.  However, since one of the GCC affiliate associations decided to unsuccessfully sue Simon Singh, the profession has found itself under considerable scrutiny, with many of its members subjected to professional standards complaints.  The GCC have been obstructive, inconsistent, dishonest and completely ineffectual in dealing with these.

The regulation of quackery requires some fresh thinking and if the government chooses either of the options above then there will only be chaos from quacks and complaints from skeptics.  Whatever their choice it looks like the eternal battle between reason and woo will continue.  With the collapse of the FIH, quackery is in search of new allies and its former employees may already be making contacts.  As the governments ideologically enthusiastic and economically necessary cuts bite, the temptation to favour cheap placebos may lead many astray.  Anne Milton may not yet have chosen her side, but her lack of commitment is telling, the dark mutterings of the deluded are being listened to if not yet obeyed.

David Tredinnick in quacks for questions

David Tredinnick, Conservative MP for Bosworth, fulfils a traditional role, required of those who are outliers to the left of the ability curve, in the Westminster Village.  The idiot.  This has enabled him to have a long undistinguished career, previously he was best known for his role in the ‘cash for questions‘ affair, taking a cheque for £1,000 to ask a question in parliament, now his concerns are quacks and their questions.

In an ePolitix article, to promote his adjournment debate on integrated healthcare, Mr Tredinnick presents all the ability and skills that have kept him out of the 3rd reserves for the Conservative front bench.  An ungracious observation about Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and Abingdon, one of the previous parliaments most rational and respected members is followed by much crowing about the poor performance from one his challengers in Bosworth, the science writer Dr Michael Brooks.  Mr Tredinnick’s reasoning then goes the way of his charm with the following paragraph:

Surveys show that support for a healthcare model that allows doctors to refer to other therapists such as herbalists, acupuncturists, homeopaths and aromatherapists is increasing. The new coalition government seeking to both give more say to doctors and more choice to patients should embrace integrated health care as its model.

This is presumably referring to the infamous Northern Ireland Trial.  This was carried out by a marketing company, hired by a lobby group fronted by Boo Armstrong, who used to write articles for an AIDS denialist magazine and was latterly Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), until it fell victim to fraud.

Tredinnick would like the new government to consider this report.  He would also like them to consider regulating alternative therapists through the Health Professionals Council (HPC), rather than the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC).  This is interesting as the CNHC, an offshoot of the disgraced FIH, has been struggling to recruit enough members to survive, and has already been rejected by herbalists and the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), who have previously collaborated with Tredinnick. Is this a move by these alternative elements and their political proxy reflecting a power grab in the alternative healthcare sector?

And what of Boo Armstrong, now that the FIH are disgraced she must be looking for a new job, is she in league with the legions of the dumb?  Is it coincidence that Tredinnick has cited her report?  Time will tell.  However, such an alliance would be a reflection of the fall of alternative medicine in recent years.  The collapse of the chiropractors, thanks to an ill advised libel claim, as well as the damning Select Committee report on homeopathy has put tremendous pressure on this sector.  Once Boo Armstrong and alternative medicine had the ear of Peter Hain, a former government minister of some considerable standing, now they have the ear of David Tredinnick, a minister only in his imagination.

Paranoia, conspiracies and leaks – are you now, or have you ever been a homeopath?

Sometimes paranoia is rational, sometimes they really are out to get you and sometimes you can prove it.  But in situations like this you should ask yourself what it is you are hiding that you don’t want them to find out?  This seems to be the position homeopaths in the UK now find themselves.  Delusions of big pharma funded conspiracies of doctors ranged against the profession have long been prominent in their thinking, now it seems there may actually be an organised movement against them. The following excerpt is from an email posted to the Minutus mailing list:

Two months ago I accepted a position as research assistant to a London based office.

It has quickly become apparent that their sole remit is to discredit complementary medicine and the current focus is homeopathic education and the London Homeopathic Hospital.

In accordance with a very structured plan a bbc science correspondent has been hired to infiltrate homeopathic education. I am aware that he has been funded to attend a college in east anglia as an apparent homeopathic student. Last month he has been told to find fabricated reasons to move to another college. The college chosen for him to go to next has links to the Royal London Homeopathic hospital and he has been told to gain access to this hospital and to prepare articles to entirely discredit the treatment given there to pave the way for the hospitals closure. The new college chosen to receive this man is the biggest college and therefore when it is discredited and dragged down by this man and his articles the plan is that it will take all homeopathic education down with it.
Incidentally I saw part of his presented report on his present homeopathic college in east anglia and it is scathing of “magic black box sugar pills given to the vulnerable sick and dying”.

My reason for contacting you is that I feel an enormous debt to homeopathy and feel that this is an opportunity for me to give something back to homeopathy itself.

[...]I can only tell you to treat this with utmost care – the funding is very large and the people involved determined.

Now I have no knowledge of this investigation, I cannot confirm the veracity of the claims, it may be a spoof for all I know but the response from the homeopaths is telling.  Remember this is a profession whose educational colleges and degree courses have been ruthlessly exposed as presenting a dangerously misinformed understanding of scientific and medical realities by David Colquhoun.

Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, would prefer that the public’s knowledge of homeopathy is carefully managed:

we need to be extra vigilant in all matters relating to how we communicate with the public.

while Fran Sheffield of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) is more critical:

Well, if this is true, and if there really is a college that is preparing standard remedies by radionics, it deserves to bite the dust for leaving the whole profession exposed, let alone the standards it is passing on to its students. There is no way responsible and respectful homeopathy can protect itself if associated with this practice.

And if this does result in a great deal of damage to homeopathy it won’t be the fault of the people involved in the sting but with the sloppy standards and behaviours engaged in by those who will do this because ‘it doesn’t matter’. It is like a decay within our profession.

It’s not so much the radionics that is the problem but the covert way they are used and the rationale (is there any rationale for standard remedies) behind a college that would do this with its students and a trusting public using its clinic. It’s about time this sort of thing did come out in the open and was weeded out.

And these comments are coming from someone who has no problem with radionically prepared remedies as a second best option when traditionally prepared ones are not available – just as long as everyone knows what is being done and the limitations involved.

Radionics is based on a belief that ‘energies’ can be tuned by a machine to remotely confer healing properties to an object or person.  It does not have a scientific basis and does not work.  Presumably this is the ‘magic black box’ referred to in the original email.  Ms Sheffield clearly believes that such a process is less efficacious than banging a sequentially diluted solution, to the point at which no molecule of the original solution survives, 50 times against a leather bound board.

Those friends of homeopathy in high places should be concerned by the attitudes revealed in these responses.  Ms Mont, who leads the second largest professional homeopathic body in the UK, is it seems dedicated to a culture of secrecy that is determined to keep the realities of a homeopathic education out of the public domain.  The apparently more considered views of Ms Sheffield should be seen in the context of her belief that ‘responsible and respectful’ homeopathy is defined as telling the public that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy can protect against the lethal diseases of childhood, from diptheria to whooping cough. Ms Sheffield is more concerned with ideological point scoring, there is ongoing debate with radionics vs succussion in the community, than actually examining the perception of homeopathy in public and its related problems.

However, assuming the veracity of the email, it is not just the behaviour of homeopaths themselves that is concerning, it is that their supporters are prepared to leak information to them and are in a position to do so.  One imagines that conspiracies are undertaken with a relative degree of secrecy, so having them leaked is unfortunate.  I am not bothered about the success or failure of any BBC report, rather that supporters of homeopathy seem to be present in organisations combating alternative medicine, whether mysterious London based offices, or the BBC.  My concerns are not those answerable by McCarthyesque interviews, but that despite all the exposes, scandals and reports into homeopathy it still has supporters willing to risk their jobs for the cause.  It seems the concerted efforts of the 10:23 campaign, bloggers, Ben Goldacre and the Science and Technology Committee have failed to quell the passion some feel for a well shaken sugar pill.
This then raises questions about the best ways to deal with a profession whose beliefs are dangerously wrong.  I have a lot of tolerance for people who hold views at odds with the evidence, I am sure facets of my own thinking could be described in this manner, but it is a problem when practiced by those with responsibility over others.  In the case of homeopaths this is primarily their patients so is a matter for the regulators of the profession.  It will be interesting to see if the new government offer any fresh thinking on this issue, the last government recommended regulation by the CNHC, something that split the homeopathic community.  It will also be fascinating to see if any of the new crop of MPs are avid supporters of homeopathy and are prepared to attempt to water down regulatory options, if they are inclined this way then informing them about the response of homeopaths to investigations will be necessary. Perhaps this will occur through a BBC report, I look forward to finding out.

Why am I using posterous and where will you find it on my blog?

I am starting to use posterous as a repository of idle musings that don’t necessarily fit into the quackery obsessed main page of my blog.  With a bit of luck I’ve set up the tubes so that anything I send to posterous is simultaneously posted to a special page on my blog

http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/posterous-posts/

and to my twitter feed

http://www.twitter.com/gimpyblog

if you care

Voting

I have not blogged about the election.  I was going to but other things got in the way and I decided not to.  However, if some really stupid MPs are elected then I will be sure to comment from my usual perspective.

If anyone is interested my voting intention is described on my posterous page.

http://gimpyblog.posterous.com/

Any comment should be left there.

Statement from the Society of Homeopaths on the departure of Paula Ross

The Quackometer has reported the recent departure of the Chief Executive, Paula Ross, from the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), sharing with us some of the more egregious examples of homeopathic conduct during her tenure. These include their inept strategy for dealing with homeopaths who claim their pills can treat or cure malaria as well as a misguided attempt to sue the Quackometer for reporting one of their members claims about malaria. Curiously, although having removed almost every reference to Ross on their website, the SoH have not yet issued a public statement on her departure, which comes just before this weekends AGM.  However, they did release the following statement to their members a few weeks ago:

Following a Board meeting on Friday 9th April, The Society of Homeopaths and its Chief Executive, Paula Ross, have agreed to part company amicably. The Board wishes to extend its thanks to Paula for all the hard work she has put into the Society over the last 7 years, and notes in particular that the Society is in a much healthier financial position than when she arrived.

With the AGM coming up this Saturday, there will be 4 new directors elected. The Board looks forward to the beginning of a new era for The Society, which will look to build on the solid foundations that Paula has laid in so many areas of its work.

The Society also intends to support and build on its long traditions of high standards in homeopathic education, as well as continuing to support the transition to independent accreditation for Course Providers.

The Board is looking forward to working in close harmony with other registering bodies, and all homeopaths and organisations who would wish to see the benefits of homeopathic treatment be made clearer to the public.

The Board wishes to take time to reflect on the best way forward following Paula’s departure, and will be exploring various options as a matter of high priority. Interim arrangements are already in place to ensure the smooth running
of the Society on a day-to-day basis, and all the usual membership services remain fully in place.

The Board also wishes to emphasise at this time its full support for all the staff who are carrying on their splendid work in the smooth running and operations of all aspects of the Society’s work.

Finally the Board wishes to reassure members that it is confident of continuing to deliver great value for money, and is looking to make The Society one in which its members can continue to feel proud as it prepares to deliver a clearer
and stronger homeopathic message to the public. May we all feel we can unite behind that vision.

Diane Goodwin
Zofia Dymitr
Caroline Jurdon
Phil Edmonds
Felicity Lee
Graz Baran

Diane Goodwin RSHom., PCH
Acting Chair
Director

While no reason for the departure of Ross is given, this statement is notably conciliatory on an issue that the SoH has taken a hardline on previously.  In the past the SoH has been keen to spike the regulatory guns of the other registering bodies, particular the ARH, now they call for harmony.  This position is also remarkably different from that expressed in their Annual Report of a few weeks ago, where there is much boasting of their increased market share of registered homeoapths in 2009 and this firm commitment for 2010:

Aim to increase our current market share of 65% of members registered with the 3 largest homeopathic organisations

This remarkable turnaround, correlated with the departure of Paula Ross, could be a sign that the homeopaths have finally realised that the divide and conquer tactics of Paula Ross, not a homeopath but a business woman, offer only short term gains at the expense of the profession as a whole.  Perhaps the SoH believe that no one can do better than the homeopaths themselves when it comes to saving the profession?

Sadly this view would be misguided.  The original article by The Quackometer that the SoH found so objectionable, ‘The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing‘, contained this criticism of a homeopathic clinic in Kenya:

The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked practice recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

The SoH have consistently supported and funded the use of homeopathy in Africa for years but under the PR savvy leadership of Ross they did not draw much attention to this following the Quackometer’s article.  This may now change.  Didi Ruchira, the director of Abha Light, has recently made the following claims:

in my own correspondence with my UK and USA homeopath colleagues, I’m advised to tread carefully and silently about malaria. The skeptics have them on the run in UK and we had better not shout too much of our successes. A bit odd, but that is the way to fight a battle sometimes.

Please, dear reader, just because UK homeopaths have decided it’s presently strategic to keep silent on Malaria, HIV and TB, doesn’t mean that we in Africa have stopped work in these fields. We are just working quietly, that’s all. This battle will be won ultimately by homeopathy, because drug-based medicine is running out of steam. Those of us working tirelessly on the ground for the benefit of humanity need your support, both morally and financially. I will suggest to you to select your favorite pioneering project in any country in Africa, South America or Asia and support it wholeheartedly.

Without the leadership of Ross it is likely that the membership of the SoH, believing as they do that conventional medicine is a big pharma conspiracy and that homeopathy cures everything, will give more prominence to views such as these.  Views that kill.  It is hard to see how this will be helpful to the reputation of homeopathy in the UK.