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. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
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
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.
Professor Edzard Ernst has recently written a short article in the International Journalof 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 seriesof violations of the code that led Professor Ernst to scrutinisethe society’s own website.
Despite there being no good clinical evidence to substantiatesuch claims, says Professor Ernst, the society’s websitecarried statements claiming that homoeopathy can help with varioussymptoms and illnesses, including fever, sore throat, toothache,arthritis, eczema, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, chicken pox, erectiledysfunction, and prostate problems.
“In my view, they [the statements] do ‘expressly or implicitly’claim ‘to cure named diseases,’” writes ProfessorErnst. “If this is so, they violate the SoH’s [Societyof Homeopath’s] own Code of Ethics.”
He concludes, “If the SoH wants its members to behave ethicallyit should evaluate its own website carefully and deliberatewhether it is responsible for a professional organisation tomake health claims which are not supported by the current bestevidence.”
The SoH response is also represented:
Paula Ross, the society’s chief executive, said she wasgrateful to Professor Ernst for highlighting his concerns andthat the society would be investigating the concerns and makingamendments “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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Though SR [Statutory Regulation] is intended to offer protection to the public, we know that in reality it cannot guarantee public safety: Harold Shipman and Beverley Allit were both serial killers, working under the auspices of SR. Conversely, nurse Margaret Hayward attempted to protect vulnerable and elderly patients from systematic neglect and abuse, yet she was expelled from the nursing profession and vilified by her peers.
They then go on to explain that only dangerous professions need to be regulated so if homeopaths want to be regulated they will have to be dangerous.
The underlying message is that a profession will only have SR imposed on them if they can be proved to represent a significant risk to public safety. On the other hand, if a profession requests SR, it needs to verify that it poses a significant risk to public safety. In other words, homeopathy will have to redefine itself as a dangerous profession, in order to be eligible for SR!
Obviously the ARH have forgotten about homeopaths claiming to cure cancer, offering homeopathic vaccines, selling sugar pills to treat malaria, undertaking research projects with poorly educated and terminally ill Africans as subjects, etc. Or perhaps they don’t see how these activities are dangerous and require regulation. This position is consistent with that of the SoH who, while acknowledging the advantages of strict regulation, are happy not to punish homeopaths who offer homeopathic vaccines, sell sugar pills to treat malaria or undertake research projects in Africa, indeed the latter activity is actually funded by the charity wing of the SoH.
However, the ARH are rather annoyed at the SoH for launching a unilateral bid for regulation, it appears they were not consulted and have some objections.
We have recently learned that the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) intends to apply for the SR of homeopaths. ARH, a significant stakeholder within the profession, has not been consulted about this proposal.
The ARH’s key objection seems to be that:
Surrendering our autonomy to the state has potentially serious ramifications for the homeopathy profession, both here in the UK, and in the rest of the world, where our actions are often regarded as setting the standards to which other countries should aspire. This places a tremendous responsibility on us to make the right decisions for the right reasons, and any choices we make regarding the regulation of homeopathy must be informed choices. As homeopaths, we are the custodians of a complex, finely balanced discipline, and we have a duty of care to ensure we preserve the integrity of homeopathy, complete with all its nuances, for the ongoing benefit of our patients. This leads to an absolutely crucial question; what benefit can SR bring to homeopathy?
The justification – SoH state that: SR … ‘best protects standards and the public’. This is misleading. The sole function of SR is to protect the public. The regulator only upholds generic standards applied across the spectrum, to all the professions it regulates. Standards, which pertain specifically to the homeopathy profession, fall beyond the remit of the regulator, and will not be protected by SR. By their very definition, standards are ‘work in progress’. They change as a profession evolves, and as the recent revision of National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy (NOSs) confirmed, the practice of homeopathy is already based upon quality criteria. These standards meet the requirements generally considered necessary to uphold the principles of best practice, and we use them to inform how we regulate our profession. We already have a high standard of voluntary self-regulation in place, so therefore the public is currently protected when they consult with a registered homeopath.
It is clear that the ARH think statutory regulation will prevent them from making up the rules as they go along. They also, in an unexpected moment of cogency, recognise the dangers of regulation.
The chiropractors are currently going through a very difficult time, and this is directly linked to the fact that they are statutorily regulated. In May 2009, one of CAM’s more notorious detractors publicly accused chiropractors of offering ‘bogus’ treatments. This was one outrage too many, so the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) sued for defamation and they won their case. Shortly afterwards, the CAM detractors launched a well coordinated attack against the regulatory arm of the profession, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), and lodged over five hundred complaints against registered chiropractors in a twenty four hour period.
These complaints, which were also passed on to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and / or Trading Standards (TS), focused on any claims for treatment made by practitioners on their websites or in other promotional material that could not be substantiated with chiropractic research. When a chiropractor is under investigation, they do not have to pay a registration fee, and given that annual registration for chiropractors costs £1,000, five hundred complaints will potentially deny the GCC of £500,000 in fees. Add to that the cost of managing the complaints procedure, and you can see that the chiropractors are in serious danger of bankruptcy.
Without doubt the moment the homeopaths become statutory regulated there will be large numbers of complaints coming the way of the regulator. The SoH, in a typically hubristic fashion, believe their rules are robust enough to be upheld effectively.
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.”
Personally I think this regulatory debacle is best framed as a landgrab by the SoH for the floating membership fees of unregulated homeopaths and an attempt to steal members from their rival organisations. By unilaterally approaching the HPC the SoH get to set the terms of engagement with the regulator as well as making a strong case that if homeopaths want to have a voice in the future of the profession they need to be in the SoH. They haven’t considered that statutory regulation could mean the end of the profession, as seems to be the case for chiropractic in the UK. That the ARH have sets up the terms of what promises to be a fascinating debate within the homeopathic community.
It is a shame that neither the ARH or SoH have developed a strategy to combat the excesses of their members nor see a problem with such behaviour, you’d think that would be rather more important for their reputation than the intricacies of regulatory models?
Some months ago I contacted the Green Party expressing an interest in blogging the following claims made on their website and requested details of the evidence base supporting them.
Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology.
Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances.
Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests.
There are viable alternatives to animal testing including epidemiology, the use of cell cultures, human tissue and computer simulation.
