Society of Homeopaths in untruthful hypocritical AIDS press release non-shock *update*

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) have just released a press release justifying their astonishing AIDS conference. If you remember both Ben Goldacre and Nick Cohen have been highly critical of this conference. Fisked for your pleasure and my blood pressure below.

Symposium offers open debate on homeopathy, HIV and AIDS

With over 2 million deaths from AIDS worldwide in 2007 and nearly 8,000 people diagnosed with HIV in the UK alone last year , the HIV pandemic remains one of the greatest health crises facing our planet.

The Society supports open debate in the development of the profession

The role of homeopathy in the treatment of individuals with this devastating disease is in its infancy. More research is needed. However, this symposium recognises there are many people with HIV and AIDS using homeopathy, alongside existing treatment programmes eg anti-retroviral drugs, where they are available.

This Society symposium is not offering a cure for this disease nor is it endorsing in any way any of the methods used by the speakers. However, it is facilitating an important forum for a constructive and open debate as a starting point for learning more about the future role of homeopathy in this field.

The SoH have invited the following three speakers to present at their AIDS conference.

Jonathan Stallick, whose book “AIDS: The Homeopathic Challenge, will set the context for the day” according to the SoH. This book has come under heavy criticism

This book is, in my view, a hypocritical and unprincipled work which, although it raises important questions, is a futile exercise that proves nothing and achieves nothing. In the best style of the twentieth-century political demagoguery mixed with a trendy X-Files type of conspiratory paranoia, Stallick, with the help of Kenneth Metson, presents himself as a brave hero fighting the homoeopathic old guard of puritans and fear-inducing tyrants. The words “dogma” “rigid technique”, “fixed idea”, “narrow-mindedness” abound.

Sadly it seems criticism of this book does not rest on the apparent ludicrousness of treating a serious disease with magic water but with the deviation from homeopathic dogma. The book also contains information on the AIDS nosode , which, amongst other things, can cure a tendency to have things fall on ones head (seriously). It seems the context for the day is set by a book which many homeopaths disagree with, sees value in treating a terminal disease with water and believes that remedies made from AIDS patients can prevent head injuries.

Hilary Fairclough, who turned Jeannete Winterson on to homeopathy and inevitable humiliation. Hilary runs the Maun Homeopathy Project who treat AIDS patients in Botswana with magic water.

Harry van der Zee who will introduce “a new set of healing remedies created by Peter Chappell”. Peter Chappell and Harry van der Zee claim AIDS can be cured by their remedies. Peter Chappell also thinks that music can cure AIDS and malaria. Peter Chappell is a fellow and one of the founders of the SoH.

So it seems this “open and constructive” debate features three people, all of whom believe that homeopathy can actively help AIDS patients and some who believe it can cure them. There is no dissenting view and it seems the SoH are happy to give space to people who can only be described as dangerous cranks. It displays no apparent discomfort at describing homeopathic treatments of AIDS as “in its infancy” and that “more research is needed” and then exclusively inviting speakers who actively use these remedies. Imagine the outcry if a pharmaceutical drug were released without proper testing and trials and then used in the developing world. The SoH are happy giving a platform to people who use untested remedies on terminally ill people in the developing world. Nice.

Homeopathy offers a patient-centred approach

Homeopathy puts the patient at the centre of each homeopathic consultation, treating their own individual symptoms rather than the disease itself. Just as symptoms vary from one individual to another, so do homeopathic prescriptions, which are necessarily tailored to each patient.

In its patient-centered approach, The Society does not endorse the stopping of existing treatment programmes eg anti-retroviral drugs. What it is exploring is a homeopathic and integrated approach that can help deal with some of the symptoms of this disease.

Surely the first paragraph here contradicts the view of some of their speakers. After all Harry van der Zee is advocating a single remedy which can cure AIDS. The SoH should surely be quick to criticise this. They claim they are exploring a “homeopathic and integrated” approach. So why the hell are they inviting van der Zee to speak as he advocates the stopping of existing treatment programmes and claims to cure the disease? This is just a weaselly get out that tries to create the impression that they are a serious body when they will gladly entertain any quack who fits their prejudices.

The Society is committed to the regulation of homeopaths for the protection of the public

As the UK’s largest regulator of homeopaths, The Society has long been committed to promoting the highest standards within homeopathy, evidenced through its Course Recognition system, comprehensive registration processes and professional conduct services to the public. The Society represents professional homeopaths (identifiable by their designation ‘RSHom’) and would support a call for all homeopaths to be registered.

The Society is committed to a strategic goal of the establishment of an independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths. This would offer the public just one register of homeopaths in the UK alongside the reassurance that they meet the required standards.

Right this provides me with an excuse to finally finish the second part of my CORH post. As it happens I do think the SoH have the most detailed Code of Ethics and the best organisational structure and media profile. I think it would be useful if all homeopaths were bound by a common set of rules and regulations. Unfortunately, time and time again, the SoH have been shown to tolerate all manner of ludicrous opinion and prefer to silence critics through legal threats rather than engage with them. I will also spoil the conclusion of my CORH post by telling you that it seems the SoH are largely responsible for the collapse of attempts to make a single regulatory body.

Jayne Thomas

Symposium Chair

Vice Chair, Board of Directors

National AIDS Trust: www.nat.org.uk

It is particular disingenuous, even by the standards of the SoH, to link to the National AIDS Trust. NAT are dedicated to

• Effective HIV prevention in order to halt the spread of HIV
• Early diagnosis of HIV through ethical, accessible and appropriate testing
• Equity of access to treatment, care and support for people living with HIV
• Eradication of HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

That the SoH, who promote individuals who believe that HIV/AIDS can be treated and/or cured with homeopathy or music,associate itself with NAT, that tries to makes those with HIV/AIDS accepted and treated justly by society, is beyond contempt. There is also no mention of homeopathy or the SoH on the NAT website. I wonder if they are aware their good name is being abused by the SoH? The SoH are involved in a particularly disgusting PR activity. They deny they support bizarre theories and claim more research is needed, then they give a platform to these bizarre theories and people who practice them, then they try to associate themselves with a highly respected AIDS charity. They are deceitful, dishonest and beyond contempt.

*update*

It seems that the reference to the NAT was a misplaced footnote. The NAT have made clear that they do not know of the conference and do not endorse it. The SoH have corrected their press release to remove the possibility that some might think the NAT was involved.

However, this does raise interesting questions in itself. The press release states that there are”over 2 million deaths from AIDS worldwide in 2007 and nearly 8,000 people diagnosed with HIV in the UK alone last year”, figures claimed to be from the NAT. I have had a good look through the NAT website and can find figures showing nearly 8,000 people diagnosed in the UK in 2005 (warning pdf) but not 2006. Also why do the SoH mention the 2007 figures when this year is not yet over and presumably the figures will increase by ~8.33% between now and the new year. Perhaps they mean the 2006 figures (warning pdf)? But these figures put the deaths at ~2.9 million, that is a number almost 50% greater than 2 million so why not mention that. It would be much more dramatic and effective at getting the point across about the impact of AIDS. Have the SoH actually read the NAT website? Their figures seem to be plucked out of the air.

The NAT also had this to say on the subjects of treatments for HIV/AIDS.

There is no current cure for HIV. But there is effective treatment in the form of antiretroviral therapy which is saving millions of people and enabling them to live healthy active lives. The tragedy is that there are still far too many governments not funding the treatment properly, and too many people with HIV who have not been informed of its benefits. Quack cures abound of course, all unproven, all cruelly deceiving, all a massive distraction from what we know genuinely works.

I think their opinion on the SoH AIDS conference would be rather damning.