Homeopaths, Herbalists and Matthias Rath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARH object to statutory regulation for homeopaths

I previously reported that the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) were seeking Health Professionals Council (HPC) regulation for homeopaths. This process, if successful, would result in the statutory regulation of homeopathy. The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) have now decided that they don’t want to be statutory regulated. In the latest edition of their magazine they make clear that statutory regulation is for serial killers and is the enemy of whistleblowers.

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.”

Others may disagree.

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?

British Homeopathic Association offer to collaborate with the Society of Homeopaths

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) were keen to roll their reputation in the chiropractic midden and now have decided to further tarnish the stinking remnants by launching a research project with the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and collaborations with lay homeopath organisations to promote homeopathy.

It was also hoped that during the year progress could be made cross organisationally utilising both the BHA’s and Society of Homeopaths’ research committees to create a study which would attract funding and have a good number of practitioners involved across the UK but only preliminary steps have been made to achieve this aim. It is hoped in the coming year a firmer relationship and a project can be agreed.

Homeopathy Awareness Week (HAW) featured an allergy theme, which was collaboratively agreed with communications specialists from other homeopathic organisations to capitalise on the fact that HAW is in June and hay fever affects a large percentage of the population and that it has a good evidence base for homeopathy.

The SoH’s idea of research is to fund the likes of Jeremy Sherr and Peter Chappell to carry out experiments on terminally ill AIDS and malaria patients in the developing world through the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), a charity they control.  Also the SoH, and organisations such as the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), believe that homeopathic vaccines can prevent malaria, yellow fever and other serious diseases.  The BHA don’t.   The BHA are composed of medical professionals, that, as they make clear, “are regulated by their relevant professional body.”.  This has lent them a certain amount of respect when the lunacies of their lay compatriots are considered.  Shackled to a tighter set of professional boundaries than lay homeopaths they have been relatively sensible when it comes to appreciating the limits of homeopathy.  Should they continue to collaborate with the SoH, ARH and other organisations then what little respectability they have left will vanish and there will be no slightly sensible homeopathic movement left in Britain.  If I were in the BHA I would be advising them to distance themselves from the lay homeopaths, after all their report makes clear they will be attempting to influence those in positions of power.

Given the continued attacks on homeopathy it was planned to engage key powerbrokers/decision makers of the value of homeopathy, targeting government and NHS decision makers. To that end the Association investigated engaging a consultancy to set up meetings with and help develop a strategy for developing relationships with key government officials. The trustees where supportive of the idea particularly in the coming year, but given the instability of financial markets it has been decided to wait until additional funding is available to pursue this.

A less programmed, more opportunistic meeting schedule with government officials and decision makers has occurred over the year. This year featured meetings with members of the House ofLords, MPs, NICE, NHS Health Care Alliance and other governing bodies. In the next year we plan to be more systematic and effective in setting meetings and building useful relationships.

Who will listen to an organisation whose friends are idiots?

Alliance for Registered Homeopaths – stupid

The Alliance for Registered Homeopaths (ARH), who I’ve blogged many times before, have come up with one of the most stupid press releases I’ve ever read in relation to researchers at Addenbrooke’s Hospital developing a fascinating peanut desensitisation programme, published in the journal Allergy, for individuals allergic to the legume.  The exceptional NHS – Behind the headlines service describes the principles of the research, based on giving children regular small, but slowly increasing, concentrations of peanut protein or peanuts, as follows:

Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason

After reporting on the actions of the homeopath Jeremy Sherr who is carrying out unethical experiments on terminally ill AIDS patients in Tanzania my blog has become inundated with homeopaths supporting his actions.  These range from those I have never heard of to Dana Ullman, an extremely prominent and notorious writer on homeopathy, and incidentally one who has some experience of the heavy hand of the law as a result of practicing homeoapthy.  Not one supporter of homeoapthy appears to have a problem with Sherr’s actions.

Perhaps I have been remiss in not making clear the international norms for medical research, and research on AIDS specificially.  First off there is the Declaration of Helsinki, the World Medical Association’s document guiding the use of human patients in medical research.  These are its basic principles for medical research:

Jeremy Sherr does not act alone, but with the support of the homeopathic establishment

I, and others, have been doing some digging and complaining about the activities of Mr Sherr, the homeopath carrying out his healing fantasies by human experimentation in Tanzania.   There is an excellent summary of the situation by Martin over at Layscience who also has another post examining Mr Sherr’s recent attempts to edit and censor his blog as well as an examination of the dishonest defence of his actions.  Our investigations have revealed that not only is Jeremy Sherr making false claims of academic support but that he could not have achieved his goals of taking homeopathy to Tanzania without the support of sections of the homeopathic establishment.

The plural of anecdote is not data – except for homeopaths

‘The plural of anecdote is not data’ is an aphorism often heard in sceptical circles.  This phrase is typically used to point out that subjective personal experiences do not become objective impartial evidence when collated.  The flaws and biases inherent in any subjective measurement do not cancel each other out when overlaid.  This is why anecdotes, or case reports, are of relatively little value compared to blinded randomised controlled trials when determining the effectiveness of a course of treatment for the purposes of evidence based medicine.  While an observant doctor may notice that a particular patient improved greatly on a novel combination of drugs and submit a report on this to a journal we cannot properly assess if this patient got better because of this novel combination until a proper clinical trial has been performed.  The patient may have been lucky, the doctor’s analysis flawed or some other factor unknown to the doctor induced the effect.  By carrying out a properly controlled trial we can eliminate or reduce subjective measurements and assess whether or not a population of patients on the novel drug treatment perform better than a control population.

Homeopaths in Ghana

In recent weeks we’ve seen the beginning of the end for AIDS quackery in South Africa with Matthias Rath dropping his libel claims against The Guardian and Ben Goldacre and more recently the replacement of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, known as Dr Beetroot for her belief that healthy eating rather than ARVs is the best treatment for AIDS, with Barbara Hogan in the recent political upheaval.  Unfortunately this does not represent the end of the promotion of quackery within Africa.

Why homeopaths will always be mad about malaria

Dr *T and the Quackometer are reporting some superficial good news today – both Helios and Ainsworths, homeopathic remedy shops, appear to have stopped selling malaria nosodes – remedies claimed to prevent malaria.  These remedies, needless to say, are indistinguishable from blank water or sugar pill or indeed from any other homeopathic remedy except by the label.  You might think that this would represent the beginning of the end for the dangerous tendency of homeopaths to insist that their remedies can treat, cure or prevent malaria through homeoprophylaxis.  Sadly this is wishful thinking.

Prominent member of Alliance of Registered Homeopaths says “Conventional drugs are something to avoid – at all costs.”

The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) are one of the bodies purporting to regulate homeopaths and protect the public. Their Registrar, Steve Scrutton, has one of the most insane, dangerous and idiotic websites I have ever seen a homeopath unleash upon the internet.
On the failure of conventional medicine he has this to say:

Conventional medicine is dangerous. Its drugs are killing more and more people every year. Conventional drugs are something to avoid – at all costs.

Conventional medicine is expensive. The NHS spends over £80 billion per year. Some drug treatments can cost over £30,000 – per individual – per year! Good for the Pharmaceutical Companies, bad for the taxpayer.

Conventional medicine is ineffective. Despite spending increasing amounts on health care over the last 60 years, we are facing epidemic levels of disease such as Autism, Alzheimer’s Disease, ADHD, Suicide, Cancer, Allergy, Asthma, COPD, Cornary Heart Disease, Diabetes, Arthritis, IBS, osteoporosis – etc., etc.

Homeopaths in sacka with Big Quacka – lacka ethics and evidence

I have just noticed that Nelsons, a major supplier and manufacturer of homeopathic pseudomedicine and assorted quackery, have developed a PR toolkit for homeopaths with an organisation called 4homeopathy. Now I’ve never heard of 4homeopathy and google reveals little apart from a defunct website, however they are described as ‘media specialists’. Perhaps they are some dubious front group, the homeopathic equivalent of Trotyskyist groupuscules, either way I’m not interested. What is of interest to me is the motivations, means and methods of this toolkit and the now public sally of Big Quacka into the fray before Homeopathy Awareness Week (HAW) 14th-21st June.

Hilary Fairclough and AIDS idiocy (again)

I’ve just come across this astounding press release from the College of Practical Homeopathy which is recognised by the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) amongst others.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO TREATING COMPLEX DISEASE

By Hilary Fairclough

Sunday April 27^th 2008, 10am -5pm

College of Practical Homeopathy

Homeopaths are required to treat increasingly complex disease. This requires an understanding of a full range of homeopathic prescribing styles and methodologies.

The ability to deal with disease processes, suppression of natural diseases and intense emotional states related to pathology is needed. Also important is the ability to deal with illness in the context of societal factors that have important implications for disease progression and homeopathic treatment.

Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath and a former nurse, set up The Maun Homeopathy project in Botswana in 2002. Since then about 1500 people have been treated for Aids and HIV.

Hilary Fairclough is going to share her immense experience and knowledge gained from running the Maun project. The day will cover:

· Various homeopathic analysis techniques used in the project

· The Triad Method

· Using the Triad Method alongside conventional medicine

· Using this method for children and adults, similarities and differences and implications for case-taking and management

· What to look for in follow-ups

· Importance of miasmatic prescribing

· Understanding posology

· Homeopathic principles related to the triad method

· Palliation of incurable conditions

At the end of the day you will have an increased knowledge of treating difficult cases including HIV and Aids with confidence.

BOOKING AND PAYMENT:

Seminar: Treating Complex Disease

Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2008

Time: 10am – 5.00pm

Venue: College of Practical Homeopathy, 760 High Rd, North Finchley

Cost: CPH students: £40.00

CPH Graduates: £45.00

Non-CPH students and graduates: £50.00

Cheques payable to: Nimisha Parekh

Please return the booking form with your payment to: Nimisha Parekh, 1491 High Rd , Whetstone, London N20 9PJ

CPD certificates will be provided. Refreshments will be served. There is a wide choice of restaurants in the area for a great lunch. Parking is free on Sundays.

Hilary Fairclough is the homeopath who runs the Maun Homeopathy Clinic in Botswana and gave a SoH organised talk last year resulting in numerous critical articles from Ben Goldacre, Nick Cohen, David Colquhoun, Orac and many others.

You would have hoped that the homeopath profession would have taken on this criticism and responded appropriately. However, from this press release it seems business as usual in the world of conducting unethical homeopathic treatments in third world countries without fear of professional misconduct charges. Still what can you expect from a profession that is utterly incapable of forming a coherent regulatory body. The most depressing thing about this press release is the small print in italics at the bottom.

CPD certificates will be provided.

Certificates of Professional Development (CPD) mean that this course is recognised as part of the ongoing professional development of homeopaths, a requirement of the SoH and ARH.  This, together with other examples, is yet further proof that homeopaths are dangerously deluded and need to be independently regulated to avoid the spread of such counterknowledge.  Or that the profession should be abolished except for those medically qualified homeopaths who are regulated by their strict professional bodies and would b e statutorily prohibited from such idiocy.

CORH – a quorum of quackery (part two)

At long last here is part two of CORH. This post is primarily to make the public the back stabbing, money grabbing and devious actions of the main contributors. There will be another post over the weekend looking at the fallout, plans for the future and the apparent defection of prominent members of one society to another.

The nice people at the SHEAF trust practice dangerously delusional activities

One of the most alarming things about homeopaths is that they are nice caring people but in the grip of a delusion so terrible that it has the potential to cause death and needless suffering. Take the SHEAF Trust for example, this is an organisation dedicated to improving healthcare in Africa, homeopathic healthcare. Most people have a certain automatic respect for people who are willing to give up a reasonably comfortable existence in the developed world to spend time helping people less fortunate than themselves in the developing world. Taken at face value the SHEAF Trust (which stands for Supporting HEalth in AFrica) seems an admirable organisation, they fund water tanks in villages in Kenya and educate the population. Unfortunately by education they mean brainwashing, their aim is to replace conventional medicine with homeopathy and carry out research into malarial prophylaxis using homeopathy.