George Osborne, psychologist

pj laments that he is one of the few people left who cannot diagnose mental illness in others without the relevant expertise.  Now, according to Guido, diagnosing mental health issues is within the remit of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Either George Osborne is an exceptionally talented politician with the appropriate diagnostic skills in psychology or a cunt who thinks mental health is an acceptable smear to use when attacking ones political opponents.

PS It should be pointed out that Osborne’s wife was the subject of unjustified mental health smears by Damien McBride and Derek Draper recently.

[BPSDB]

The media are missing the point about Derek Draper and psychotherapy

I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for Derek Draper.  He has now been chained to the stone slab of public opinion by the online and on paper media eager to hail the rise of political blogging with a blood sacrifice as testament to its power.  While I stand by every word I have written about Derek Draper’s fitness to practice psychotherapy with respect to misrepresentation of his qualifications, his poorly researched articles and his public conduct I also feel that the media are behaving irresponsibly in their approach to this issue and mental health therapies in general.

In the past I have hinted at disapproval for the many political bloggers who smear Gordon Brown with allegations about his mental health and behaviour, I should make this more explicit.  When people like Guido Fawkes or Janet Daley speculate about the mental state of the prime minister it is worth bearing in mind, as Guido says “this is not a professional judgement”, in other words they do not know what they are talking about, have no conclusive evidence and their arguments can be considered to lack credibility.  And, as Anthony Cox points out, smearing political opponents as mentally ill is not a particularly new phenomenon and those that make such claims typically argue from a position of political partisanship, a misplaced confidence in their own objectivity or a combination of both.  I regard the opinions of Guido and Daley on mental health as barely worth a response.

Derek Draper, like another so called psychotherapist, is of course another matter, he claims to be a practicing psychotherapist, and as someone who has been quite open about a previous breakdown would be expected to be sympathetic to the appropriate portrayal of mental health in the media.  That he considers it allegations of poor mental health an acceptable smear, and of a politician’s wife who is independent of her husbands political activity, is the primary reason why he should not be a psychotherapist.  What Draper should have done is to use his experience of a breakdown and his credentials as a psychotherapist to attack the tendency in the media to use allegations of mental health problems as an acceptable slur.  But he didn’t.  I would speculate that this is because he comes out of a political and media culture that is less concerned about factually presented evidence and informed opinion than in narratives told by headlines and personal attacks masquerading as intelligent thought.

This culture has resulted in the following compaint from Dr Petra Boynton about the stupid and irrelevant comments that some journalists were trying to get from her with respect to Derek Draper:

One journalist asked me to “dish the dirt” on Mr Draper as a “fellow therapist”. I am not a therapist and I have no dirt to dish. I only have concerns over fitness to practice.

Another asked me if I would “analyse Derek Draper’s personality”. Which is ironic given my main complaint about this case is the setting up of case studies as a means of putting down other people. Besides, I don’t do analysis of case studies or celebrities – it’s unethical and it’s one of the reasons I’ve been complaining about this current smear scandal.

It is a shame the media are more interested in prolonging the suffering of their blood sacrifice than real and important ethical and regulatory issues.  Remember Draper is just one of 38,000 or so psychotherapists and counsellors, belonging to one of 34 professional organisations and trained on one of 570 different courses, 2/3 of which not recognised by a professional body.  There is little effective regulation of Draper’s profession, but this isn’t a fact reported much in the media, instead they prefer to solicit opinion from individuals keener to submit arguments to the lowest common denominator review of journalistic opinion rather than face the scrutiny of ones peers, or use a one year MA to diagnose, from a distance, the mental health of a man they have never met.

The media may consider regulation a boring issue worthy of little discussion but there are 38,000 people out there in a position of responsibility over vulnerable individuals whose actions are largely without scrutiny.  I am not implying that all 38,000 are all dodgy but when a professional organisation representing psychotherapists puts out a press release with the following quote it does suggest that there is an urgent need to publicise this issue

Peter Fonagy, professor of psychoanalysis at University College London, says: “Most practitioners have come across individuals who have been inappropriately treated by fellow therapists. This kind of action must not be allowed to undermine public confidence in psychotherapy at a time when evidence increasingly clearly shows that therapy and counselling are among the most effective treatments for psychological disorder and are rapidly growing in popularity. We now need a transparent and independent system which allows clients’ voices to be heard if they feel their therapy has been inadequate or inappropriate.”

It would be nice if the media expressed concern about the scrutiny of 38,000 people working with vulnerable individuals rather than just the activities of one therapist.

Derek Draper is unfit to practice psychotherapy *update*

Derek Draper, educationally diminished psychotherapist, is all over the political blogosphere and Sunday papers today (Times and NoTW have all the detail) for his involvement in a campaign, organised by a government official – Damian McBride to smear several opposition politicians over allegations of sexual health problems, drugs and prostitutes, affairs, outing a homosexual, and the mental health of a politicians wife.

This blog isn’t particularly interested in the prurient details of the allegations, nor the politics that gave rise to a planned campaign to use them – while disgusting and despicable in their conception and planned utilisation they are not atypical of the depths the political blogosphere occasionally plumbs*.  I am, however, interested in Derek Draper’s involvement, the man is a psychotherapist with professional responsibilities and privy to the confidences of his clients who need to trust in his credibility, judgement and demeanour.

Guido and I have already shown that Draper’s qualifications are not as he has stated, his MA is in Psychology not Clinical Psychology – an important difference when you consider that Clinical Psychologists are statutorily regulated whereas Psychologist is an unprotected title, and I have repeatedly asked him to correct this on his personal website.  He has repeatedly ignored this request and resorted to threating me with his lawyers by way of a response.  It is also clear that Draper is happy to promote misleading and nonsensical advice on his website as well as displaying an acute lack of expertise in public pronouncements on gender differences and history, amongst others.  Now it seems he has reached a new low.

Iain Dale has reproduced an email that clearly shows Drapers involvement with and support of McBride, including an express desire to cover these stories on the Labourlist website, of which he is editor.

These are absolutely totally brilliant Damian.

I’ll think about timing and sort out the technology with Andrew this week so we can go asap.

Do we want to tip off anyone about Red Rag having set up? Walters? I could do it and say LabouLlist had been sent the link anonymously.

PS Don’t forget LabourList Damian!

Draper insists on his website that he is professionally competent and that he is

[...] a member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) and adhere[s] to their ethical framework (PDF)

I have previously complained about his breaches of this ethical framework in relation to his qualifications but this latest scandal is far more damaging, there was no allegation that Drapers qualifications rendered him unqualified to be a psychotherapist, his latest actions suggest he is.  While ordinary members of the public, bloggers, and even government advisers are free to behave publicly and privately as they choose within the bounds of the law, those who sign up to membership of a professional organisation are making a formal acknowledgement that they are committed to upholding a stated standard of conduct and practice.

The BACP demand that their members display the following personal moral qualities:

Empathy: the ability to communicate understanding of another person’s experience from that person’s perspective.
Sincerity: a personal commitment to consistency between what is professed and what is done.
Integrity: commitment to being moral in dealings with others, personal straightforwardness, honesty and coherence.
Resilience: the capacity to work with the client’s concerns without being personally diminished.
Respect: showing appropriate esteem to others and their understanding of themselves.
Humility: the ability to assess accurately and acknowledge one’s own strengths and weaknesses.
Competence: the effective deployment of the skills and knowledge needed to do what is required.
Fairness: the consistent application of appropriate criteria to inform decisions and actions.
Wisdom: possession of sound judgement that informs practice.
Courage: the capacity to act in spite of known fears, risks and uncertainty.

Draper’s involvement with McBride’s planned smears do more than question his sincerity, integrity, respect, humility, competence, fairness, and wisdom, they firmly dissociate him from these traits.  How can one of Drapers clients look him in the eye knowing that he has no qualms about smearing somebody over allegations about their sexual health, morality, sexuality or mental health?

He has signed up for a set of standards in his role as a psychotherapist that he ignores as a blogger removing any pretence at sincerity.  His integrity is compromised by his dishonesty and lies over his relationship with McBride and his misrepresentation of his qualifications.  He has shown no respect to the targets of McBride’s smears, preferring instead to express his glee and support.  He has no humility, no understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses by his involvement in this affair.  No competence, not just in his ignorance in newspaper profiles, but in his failure to understand appropriate behaviour.  His fairness is clearly questionable as he is happy to smear individuals over problems that he would be demanded to be considerate of in a professional capacity.  His wisdom is lacking as his poor judgement in supporting McBride, and his attempts at legal bullying, shows.  Perhaps, charitably, the only traits above Draper displays are resilience and courage, but probably not in the manner the BACP expects.

Derek Draper has been walking a tightrope between his activities as a blogger and his practice as a psychotherapist, a few months a go he would have been well advised to choose between one or the other so as to avoid situations that might challenge his professional activities.  It is now too late, his involvement as a semi-official Labour blogger is almost over, his fitness to practice as a psychotherapist certainly is.  In my opinion he has brought the profession into disrepute through his actions, something the BACP take strong views on:

A finding of bringing the profession into disrepute signifies that the practitioner has acted in such an infamous or disgraceful way that the public’s trust in the profession might reasonably be undermined, or might reasonably be undermined if they were accurately informed about all the circumstances of the case.
A finding under this head must amount to ‘disgraceful conduct in a professional respect’.
This involves consideration of three elements:
Conduct that is regarded as ‘disgraceful’ need not amount to moral turpitude or be restricted to acts of serious immorality.
The conduct must have had some connection with a professional role in order to be considered as falling ‘in a professional respect’. It ought not to be concerned with matters that can reasonably be viewed as solely personal and private.
Conduct ‘in a professional respect’ is not confined to the pursuit of the profession in question.
What is not considered to be disgraceful to an ordinary person may be considered to be disgraceful to a professional person.
A finding of bringing the profession into disrepute will result in withdrawal of membership.

Draper has used his psychotherapy practice to offer opinions to newspapers and frequently as a shield to avoid criticism.  That he has not mentioned it in the McBride affair is irrelevant, he has firmly associated himself with psychotherapy in the media.  Furthermore, it cannot be argued that his involvement with McBride was personal and private as it concerned attempts to smear public figures in public forums.  That his behaviour is disgraceful is beyond dispute, even to ordinary people, let alone professional persons – one only has to look at the outrage expressed on Labourlist.

I strongly encourage anybody named as a target by McBride, and any concerned members of the public,  to submit a complaint to the BACP regarding Draper.  I also encourage Draper to show some semblance of professional responsibility, if only in the dying of his career, by resigning from the BACP and publicly stating he will not continue to practice as a psychotherapist.

* Although the involvement of government officials really is profoundly sad, government should be above this, there are considerably more pressing issues that they should be concerned with.

thanks to Guido and Petra.

update
Dr Petra Boynton has put together an excellent analysis of just why a psychotherapist should not be smearing people in the manner Draper has and the issues this raises for the regulation of psychtherapy.

But what do you do with this latest case of Mr Draper? That’s taken us to a whole new level where someone isn’t just speculating on a case study. From the media coverage of this case it appears Mr Draper is endorsing invented scandals to be used within a media context to discredit people.

While the media’s been obsessing over blogs and politics I think they’ve missed a major shift within ‘media therapy’. We’ve seen therapists speculate and judge to benefit their own careers, but now we’re seeing the potential case of them creating problems in order to benefit themselves AND which have the ability to deliberately harm others.

I wish there was another way of looking at this case, but I can’t see it. And it scares the hell out of me.

[BPSDB]

Irresponsible journalism and mental health #119

Bit of a fad for quack mental health diagnoses in the media of late, whether Lucy Beresford on the Daily Politics show, Derek Draper and Oliver James everywhere and now Janet Daley in The Telegraph.  Daley, a woman with less mental health qualifications and knowledge than Derek Draper, asks ‘Is Gordon Brown Insane?’.

The answer, via Blacktriangle, can be found here.

No.

What makes somebody like Janet Daley believe that she is qualified to speculate about the mental health of someone she does not know and likely has not met in public?  Why does she not realise that having an opinion is not the same as being qualified to express it?  Would she write an article titled ‘Does Gordon Brown have cancer?’?  Probably not, she would be derided as being offensive, ignorant and unprofessional.

Why is mental health treated differently?

Derek Draper clarifies his qualifications and promotes his ignorance

Derek Draper, former Labour spindoctor and psychotherapist of uncertain qualification, has been offering paeans to psychotherapy in the popular press from The Guardian to The Daily Mail.  The inspiration for Draper’s public statements of praise seems to be the imminent publication of his new book “Life Support: A Survival Guide for the Modern Soul“.  While there is a small correction of his qualifications in the media and on his personal blog there are other problems that negatively affect further his professional credibility.

The educational correction comes in his profile in this recent Guardian appearance:

Derek Draper gained an MA in psychology after three years full-time training at the Wright Institute, Berkeley, California

This of course differs somewhat from previous profiles where Draper was claiming a Clinical Psychology MA in/at Berkeley, California*.  Should you think that Draper’s educational honesty in one media profile signals a more transparent approach in others then this Observer article may surprise as it contains a rather misleading claim.

His work on curing depression won a Mind award.

Draper has no academic publications.  He does not work on curing depression in any academic or research sense.  He did not win a Mind award for curing depression.  He won the ‘BT MIND journalist of the year‘ award in 2007 in conjunction with his co-author, Cecilia d’Felice, a genuine Clinical Psychologist, for the workbook, Break Free From Depression – which he sells for £4 on his website.

It is interesting to note that although Draper now seems to present his credentials somewhat more accurately in the media he has failed to do so on his professional website, where he is still claiming an MA in Clinical Psychology despite being informed, several times, that this is not true.  Derek Draper’s continued misrepresentation of his professional credentials on his website is of greater concern than the continued confusion in the press over his achievements.  It is one thing to allow journalists to repeat inaccuracies, it is quite another to openly permit them on a professional website.  Derek Draper will enter a practitioner/patient relationship based on trust with people who have been misled by his inaccurate presentation of his qualifications.  Not only that, they will pay him money, money he will earn by the wilful and wrong misrepresentation of credentials.

But the concerns with Draper are not just about his contempt for professional responsibility and his displays of personal dishonesty, a recent Daily Mail article where Draper expresses his views on gender differences led Dr Petra Boynton, who has a PhD in Psychology, to highlight a few confusions in Draper’s understanding of the scientific literature, to add to his ignorance of nutrition, and raise serious concerns about his competence as a practitioner.

[I]f Mr Draper truly had read the literature in this area he’d know even the very concepts of ‘natural’ and ‘gender’ within such debates has been questioned and perhaps wouldn’t use the terms in such a cavalier manner.

Being critical about Mr Draper’s ability to understand evidence is only one part of this problem. The other part is much more worrying and a lot more sinister.

Mr Draper is a psychotherapist who publishes self help books. Couples often look to these when having problems within their relationship, and frequently relationship difficulties are related to the division of labour within the home.

Research suggests that where gender roles are unequal and where women do more of the unpaid work in the home, resentment, arguments and psychosexual problems can often follow.

[...]

If Mr Draper truly operates a gender divided approach within his own home, believes this are natural and can be supported by science, and thinks we should all live this way, then what hope is there for a client whose husband refuses to help her with the ‘household chores’? Would Mr Draper recommend she learns to see this as part of the natural order and accept her position? Is this in keeping with current good practice in psychotherapy?

By way of contrast between the attitudes of Dr Boynton and Derek Draper to media inaccuracies, Dr Boynton felt it nececessary to blog to correct inaccurate media reports of a story where she was asked for an opinion and included this passage critical of the media presentation of her credentials.

I’m a Social Psychologist and I work in health care. But that doesn’t make me a ‘medical expert’. I never used that term when talking to the journalist and carefully pointed out that while I may research and teach medics (as well as non medics) I am not a clinician. As someone who frequently takes issue with those who claim qualifications they don’t have I’m always dismayed to see myself misquoted like this. Mostly because I know those reading it (particularly my employers) may be less than sympathetic at what they might see as me passing myself off as something I am not.

Derek Draper threatened to sue me when I challenged, correctly, his qualifications as presented by the media.

As well as being ignorant of the literature in research areas on which he gives opinions to journalists Draper displays an ignorance of historical individuals he cites in support of his arguments, as shown in this quote from the Daily Mail piece:

Men are competitive and goal-orientated (think Horatio Nelson), while women are nurturing and consensual (think Florence Nightingale)

Florence Nightingale was a remarkable and brilliant woman, she took on the unsanitary conditions in the male dominated army establishment to improve hygeine in hospitals during the Crimean War, she helped found and develop the modern nursing profession, she was a gifted statistician and the first woman to be awarded membership of the Royal Statistical Society as well as making important contributions to developing ways of conveying complex statistical information to civil servants and MPs.  She is also considered an early feminist and spoke out against the idea that women should be over-feminised and thought of as helpless.  Nurturing and consensual she was not.

This leads to my final concern about Draper – like Florence Nightingale he wants to influence the provision of healthcare.  Among his media appearance he is quick to offer his opinions on the role of various therapies on the NHS.  He has even shared these opinions in articles written for MPs.  Unlike Florence Nightingale, Draper does not appear to understand what he is talking about.  Instead his approach uses inaccurate reports of his qualifications, misrepresented research and historical ignorance.  I suspect Draper is listened to because of his involvement with the Labour establishment supporting blog, LabourList, his personal relationship with senior politicians and his presenter wife.  He is certainly not listened to because of his professional competence.

* To reiterate, Draper failed to complete a doctoral ClinPsych programme at the Wright Institute in Berekeley, California, and was awarded an (unaccredited by any professional Psychology body) an MA Psychology by default for sustaining a certain duration of study.

[BPSDB]

The perils of privately commisioned polls – Auschwitz and Beer

Both today’s Telegraph and Yahoo News carry a press association story condemning children for not understanding the holocaust and confusing Auschwitz with a beer.  According to the Telegraph:

a survey of more than 1,000 secondary school pupils aged 11-16 revealed that a quarter still did not know its purpose.

Of those, about 10 per cent were not sure what it was, 8 per cent thought it was a country bordering Germany, 2 per cent thought it was a beer, the same proportion said it was a religious festival and a further 1 per cent said it was a type of bread.

This survey was carried out by the firm Dubit Limited who specialise in market research involving teenagers, and commissioned by Miramax and the London Jewish Cultural Centre to promote the release of the film The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas on DVD.  The data from the survey appears worrying and the reportage is quick to condemn the perceived ignorance of the young about the greatest atrocity to have taken place on European soil.

However there are a number of problems with this survey, as a private company whose polling method is clearly of commercial value, Dubit do not describe in any detail their methodologies on their site.  This means that the validity of the poll in terms of the questions asked, statistical weightings used and data collection method are impossible to analyse and such research would not pass muster in the halls of academia.  It is not possible to know how credible this poll can be with respect to its methodology and data set.

But this is not the greatest concern I have with this story as it is reported.  The curriculum for history specificially states that the Holocaust is to be covered in some detail, but not until Year 9, when the pupils are 13-14 years old.  This means that a large part of the dataset used by Dubit, covering ages 11-16, would not have studied the Holocaust, thus skewing the findings of the poll.  Given this it is a fairly positive finding that three quarters of the polled students know the purpose of Auschwitz.  This was not the line taken by the press, Dubit, Miramax and the London Jewish Cultural Centre. Were none of these organisations or individual journalists capable of checking what proportion of 11-16 years olds would be expected to understand the Holocaust based on the curriculum, or did they just not care?  Miramax have publicised their film, the London Jewish Cultural Centre have increased their media profile and Dubit have taken money for a useless survey.  The only loser here is the public who have been misled by all of the above.

Derek Draper repeats some canards of the alternative health industry on nutrition

Derek Draper, as well as having an unreliable CV, has appeared on ITV1’s Kyle’s Academy through his DIY-Therapy website – described as “The one-stop-shop for information and tools to improve your emotional wellbeing.”.  Jon from the magnificent and recently redesigned Holfordwatch has alerted me to a document published by DIY-Therapy ‘The Good Mood Diet‘ which contains some dubious claims typical of nutritionists, such as Patrick Holford – another individual with an interesting history of CV revisions.

The document starts off with a rather simplistic telling of the serotonin hypothesis of depression arguing that lowered levels of serotonin cause depression and that high doses alleviate, it is of course more complicated than that, as this recent review argues.  It also contains the claim that aspartame lowers serotonin levels, a claim wide spread amongst the more alternative corners of the internet but one on which the scientific evidence is confusing, contradictory and limited.

More canards creep in as you read further, especially relating to the effect diet has on mood.  Draper claims that eating food rich in tryptophan can increase brain serotonin, this is a claim not borne out by the scientific evidence. Where diet can affect mood is more likely to be due to the fluctuation of insulin levels related to the amount and type of carbohydrate in a meal and not to tryptophan.  Although there is some evidence that supplementing with tryptophan may be beneficial.    Draper also recommends a protein intake of 60-90g/day, up to 50% more than the recommended daily average for a male adult. There is also slight comedy value in misplaced parenthesis suggesting that rye, oats and barley are in fact wheat.  This is part of a section on ‘bad mood foods’, and betrays a worrying belief in the opiod theory of wheat proteins that has informed the opinions of Andrew Wakefield and others on the alternative fringe of autism science.

The source of these canards appears to be a book titled ‘The Mood Cure’ by Julie Ross, I have not read the book but judging by it’s interpretation of the science of depression it would not feel overqualified sitting next to the works of Patrick Holford in the lifestyle section of your local bookshop. Julie, like Patrick, holds a qualification in psychology, although only an MA, which she feels sufficient to pass herself off as an expert in nutrition and diet.

In fact this raises an interesting point about those who operate in the more alternative spectrum of healthcare, there seems to be little awareness of the limits of professional competence.  Merely holding a qualification in a particular discipline is seen sufficient to hold an experty type opinion in tangentially connected or completely unrelated fields.  Not only that but individuals such as Draper, Ross and Holford seem very keen to enhance their actual credentials through ommission and lack of clarity, there is failure of understanding that the strength of a position in science and healthcare is defined, not by the qualifications of those holding it, but by the strength of the supporting evidence.  It is a shame that the media favour individuals such as Draper and Holford whose arguments of ‘trust me, I’m an expert’ come at the expense of evidence based reasoning and whose personal trust is somewhat undermined by an exaggerated CV.

[BPSDB]

Derek Draper – quack in a spin *updated 3 times*

After a couple of really rather charming emails from Derek Draper I have made a couple of modifications to this post.

You may remember that the BBC disgracefully employed the services of a quack psychoanalyst who, overcome with delusions of competence, blurted out inappropriate, unfounded and irresponsible comments on the mental health of the prime minister, Gordon Brown.  Now it turns out that the Labour Party are employing the services of a quack psychoanalyst of their own, former spin doctor Derek Draper, with all the problems that come with quacks.  Such as honesty over qualifications.  Derek Draper in a recent Guardian profile claimed to have a MA in Clinical Psychology from Berkeley, University of California.  Guido Fawkes has been doing some digging and found out that Mr Draper has not been entirely honest.  It turns out that Berkeley have no record of Derek Draper and, as The Guardian report today, he actually received his degree from a private institution, the Wright Institute, which does not offer full time degrees, which no longer runs a full time MA, and has no affiliation with Berkeley, merely sharing a neighbourhood.  Derek Draper admits that while the Wright Institute have no academic connection with Berkeley “I did have the use of the facilities at the Berkeley campus.”, but his use of the gents at Berkeley has not prevented him from implying that he studied there on his website.

Some MEPs make misleading statements to support the quack nutrition industry

*update*

Due to discrepancies and ommissions in EU documents I may have got the names of the attending MEPs wrong.  I have also confirmed that one additional MEP, Mairead McGuinness was also present. I cannot confirm for certain whether Proinsia de Rossa and Gay Mitchell were present, nevertheless I have chosen to keep their names here as they are members of the petition committee (assuming EU documents are up to date).

Before Christmas I investigated how the Matthias Rath funded European Referendum Initiative had enlisted the support of several organisations and individuals including the Irish Associate of Health Stores (IAHS) and the MEP Kathy Sinnott.  Ms Sinnott has now distanced herself from Rath while the IAHS chose not to, now both have colluded to present a misleading and inaccurate petition to the Eurpean Parliament in an attempt to subvert an evidence based review into nutritional supplements.  They have been aided in this attempt by the Irish MEPS, Marian Harkin, Proinsias de Rossa, Mairead McGuinness, Gay Mitchell, Eoin Ryan and the UK MEP Roger Helmer – according to a press release from the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), advisors to the IAHS and supporters of Rath themselves.

On Monday, the Irish Association of Health Stores (IAHS) defended its petition in the European Parliament against the European Commission’s planned setting of EU-wide maximum limits for dosages of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The petition, submitted originally in December 2007 with the support of 60,000 Irish citizens, claims that measures to harmonise maximum levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements under the Food Supplements Directive (2002/46/EC)—soon to be implemented by the European Commission—will unduly impact consumers, health stores and practitioners in Ireland.

Now there is sound scientific evidence that supports arguments for the regulation of vitamin and mineral food supplements, not least because there is no proven benefit for healthy individuals but there is the possibility of harm from the taking of such supplements.  It is this that makes the following statements from MEPs so absurd

Kathy Sinnott, MEP, and alternative health eurosceptics still associating with Matthias Rath

Last month I blogged about the relationship between alternative health eurosceptics, the MEP Kathy Sinnott and the murderous quack Matthias Rath.  During the leadup to that blog post I had corresponded with the MEP Kathy Sinnott and informed her about the reputation and practices of Matthias Rath, while I found it difficult to get Ms Sinnott to criticise Matthias Rath I thought at the very least she might rethink her association with the European Referendum Initiative (ERI) – a Dr Rath Foundation funded organisation.  Sadly I was wrong.

The latest press release from the ERI was published on the 8th of December and not only features contributions from Ms Sinnott but from large sections of the Irish alternative community.  The GM-free Ireland Network, the Leitrim Organic Farmers Co-operative Society, the Irish Association of Health Stores (IAHS), and the Irish Institute of Nutrition & Health also contributed.  These organisations, as well as Ms Sinnott, are campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty because they feel it threatens their business interests by imposing regulations and standards on their respective industries.  They are entitled to do this as part of a democracy and as part of the EU but it raises serious questions about their judgement that they associate with Matthias Rath funded organisations to gain publicity for their arguments.

I contacted all the organisations above providing them with details about the activities of Matthias Rath.  I have recieved only two replies, one from GM-free Ireland and one from Jill Bell of the IAHS.  GM-free Ireland informed me that they had never heard of Matthias Rath and only heard of the ERI the week previously when the IAHS contacted them about releasing the statement – which they were happy to do as it supported their political position.  This is credible as the ERI seem to have removed information about the role of the Dr Rath Foundation from most of their pages since I last wrote about them.

Jill Bell, president of the IAHS simply informed me:

I am well aware of where my allegiance lies and with whom I correspond, as is the Association I represent.

I do not associate with anonymous individuals or causes.

This bizarre statement seems to suggest that Ms Bell and the IAHS are happy with their collaboration with the ERI.  Certainly they have been aware of my concerns and my correspondence with Kathy Sinnott since at least the 20th October when they were copied in on emails sent by Ms Sinnott.  In fact these emails were sent directly to Ms Bell as well as the ERI and another email address used by the IAHS.

Both Kathy Sinnott and the IAHS cannot claim ignorance over the activities of Matthias Rath and his involvement with the ERI as justification for their involvement.  There is no doubt that they have both taken the decision to continue their association with the ERI in full knowledge of the allegations against Matthias Rath.  Should any curious readers want a quick guide to the character of Rath then Ben Goldacre’s explanation of his court case with Rath, which will also be included in a new edition of his book, is revealing as is this blog post detailing how Rath exploits the Holocaust and surviviors of Auschwitz for his own ends.

Both Sinnott and the IAHS are behaving absolutely reprehensibly and it beggars belief that an MEP is prepared to associate with somebody who is partly responsible for the deaths of thousands just because it suits her prejudices.  Ethics are clearly alien to Ms Sinnott.  It also seems that the ERI are gently airbrushing the involvement of Matthias Rath from their pages, as the ERI are aware of my blog post and my contacting of  Ms Sinnott I do not think it too paranoid or conspiratorial to suggest that this is a deliberate attempt to hide their true nature.

Now that the Irish government have declared that there will be another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty I think it highly likely that the Dr Rath Foundation, through the ERI, Ms Sinnott, the IAHS and others, will attempt to manipulate the voting intentions of the citizens of Ireland through their propaganda.  This will not be an issue that dies, and it is one that crosses borders.  As my previous post stated the ERI are involved with many organisations and political parties across Europe and I expect that attempts by the Dr Rath Foundation to lobby politicians and the public will continue for some time.  I also expect that many more politicians, organisations and individuals, like Ms Sinnott and the IAHS, will happily sacrifice principles and ethics and use the ERI to further their political aims.  I would like to be proved wrong though and I will certainly make a point of contacting these to inform them about Matthias Rath to minimise his influence.    Meanwhile voters of Ireland, don’t listen to Ms Sinnott.  She has demonstrated that she has no ethics and is nothing more than a mouthpeice for the most vile aspects of the alternative health industry.

[BPSDB]

*update*

I neglected to mention in the text above this blogpost by Dr Aust that is a fine examination and condemnation of the actions of AIDS denialists, including Rath, in South Africa.

Matthias Rath, the alternative health eurosceptics and the MEP

Matthias Rath, the deeply odious and murderous quack nutritionist, is collaborating with representatives of the alternative health industry to campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and other EU legal decisions.  This alliance incorporates minor political parties in Germany and the Netherlands – AGFG and Partij voor Mens en Spirit respectively, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), the National Health Federation (NHF), La Leva di Archimede and the Zeus Information Service, all organised and brought together by the Dr. Rath Health Foundation.   I do not have the Dutch or German necessary to comment on the claims of the political parties but the other organisations are fundamentally dishonest, fraudulent and dangerous.

The Alliance for Natural Health

The ANH are supporters of Matthias Rath and chose to defend his failed attempt to silence Ben Goldacre in Britain’s libel courts despite the fact that Rath was unable to demonstrate that his case had any merit.  Matthias Rath is not the only discredited individual with dangerous ideas and practices that the ANH choose to support, they have been vocal in their support for Andrew Wakefield, the utterly discredited MMR/Autism hypothesis and the libellous and deranged writings of the deeply unpleasant Martin Walker.  In fact the ANH is a repository of many documents attacking the character and motivations of those who ask probing questions of the alternative health industry, including the highly respected Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Edzard Ernst and many others.  The ANH also represent the supplements industry and are implacably opposed to the European Food Supplements Directive, an attempt to “harmonise the legislation and to ensure that these products are safe and appropriately labelled so that consumers can make informed choices”.

The National Health Foundation

The NHF are an American organisation that claim to be a consumer education and health freedom organisation with the aim of removing government restrictions on food, supplements and alternative therapies.  However this organisation is committed to more than the unfettered influence of market forces and an uncontrolled alternative health care sector, it actively promotes misleading and plain wrong ideas that potentially have dangerous and lethal consequences.

The NHF are opposed to vaccination and fluoridation amongst other health concepts and promote conspiracy theories, cancer cure quackery, homeopathic autism cures, AIDS denialism and many other egregious and dangerous lies through their suggested reading lists.

La Leva di Archimede

The English section of the La Leva di Archimede website is a collection of conspiracy theories and lies about science from various alternative health sources the world over with the familiar implacable opposition to evidence based healthcare that the previous sites show.

Zeus Information Service

Zeus is mainly a collection of links and articles that present the familiar distortions of science, character assassinations and support for discredited quacks, like Rath and Wakefield.  Zeus also send out a weekly email alerting the alternative health industry and supporters to criticism or support in the press or in blogs (I have had the occasional honour of a mention for this blog).

Dr Rath Health Foundation

The Dr Rath Health Foundation are a despicable and utterly irrational organisation that responded to Matthias Rath’s dropping of his libel case against The Guardian and Ben Goldacre with an unrepentent restating of his view that AIDS does not need to be treated with ARVs and accusations that drugs companies are complicit in genocide.  They believe that there is a conspiracy between oil and drug companies to control the IMF and restrict the actions of Barack Obama and previously claimed that George Bush and Dick Cheney would start WWIII by the 4th November to maintain the hegemony of the oil and drug cartel.  So far so delusionary but these delusions are not restricted to fantasies of armageddon and one world governments that would put an evangelical Christian to shame, they include the belief that vitamins and other quackery can cure AIDS.  A belief that some estimates suggest is responsible for over 300,000 deaths in South Africa alone.  A belief that Matthias Rath is evangelical about spreading to other parts of the world, his current focus seems to be Russia.

eu-referendum.org

These organisations have united under the banner of the European Referendum Initiative, an organisation that ostensibly campaigns against the Lisbon Treaty but a deeper analysis of their website reveals them to be little more than a lobbying group for the alternative health care industry, albeit one that misleads and lies and equates the horrors of the Holocaust with modern science and medicine.  Their aim is to prevent regulation of alternative medicine and campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty is just part of that aim.

The EU Parliament and the MEP, Kathy Sinnott

It would be hoped that this organisation consisting of deceitful lobby groups, anti-science fantasists and murderous AIDS denialists would be shunned the European Parliament and the elected representatives therein. Sadly this is not the case, Kathy Sinnott, MEP for Ireland South and member of the UKIP associated Independence/Democracy Group, has backed the European Referendum Initiative and leant her good name to this Matthias Rath backed organisation.  The support of an MEP is just what with this organisation wants, with it comes access to the halls of power, a name to drop to increase support and the cloak of political respectability.

I have been in contact with Ms Sinnott and put a number of questions to her concerning her involvement with Matthias Rath and the above organisation.  Ms Sinnott states that she had never heard of Matthias Rath, did not know of the link between the European Referendum Initiative and does not back him.  The European Referendum Initiative website clearly states that it is run by the Dr. Rath Foundation both on their homepage and about section and Ms Sinnott has refused to make a comment on or withdraw her support from the European Referendum Initiative.

Regardless of this Ms Sinnott did inform me that her involvement came about through the Irish Association of Health Stores (IAHS) who put her in touch with their scientific advisors(!), the ANH.  It seems the IAHS, like the other lobby groups and industry representatives above, are opposed to the regulation of supplements and alternative therapies.

It is clear from reading some of the questions asked in parliament by Ms Sinnott that she is supportive of many of the views of the Dr Rath Foundation, the IAHS & ANH and their allies.  She is persistently asking questions on the safety of fluoridation,  the non-existent link between mercury and autism, scaremongering over dental amalgam, wifi in schools, and this is just in the last year.  She also has a track record of trying to allow the alternative health industry to profit from health tourism as well as asking for reduced/no VAT on alternative therapies.  It is also interesting to note she has condemned drug companies for carrying out unethical trials in developing nations, a lethal practice of Matthias Rath’s she has not commented on.

Ms Sinnott is naive, scientifically illiterate and an elected official who puts her support for favoured industries before evidence and the rights and health of consumers by arguing for increased market share, reduced taxes and little regulation of the alternative health sector.

A lobby of lies

It is saddening to see lobbying groups, political parties and MEPs actively promote utterly discredited, but culturally persistent, half-truths and lies about medicine, healthcare and herbal supplements.  There seems to be a fundamental disrespect for the role of the scientific method in healthcare or perhaps a gross ignorance of science within much of political and lawmaking institutions.  It is not surprising that elected officials operating within this environment are prepared to consort with highly dubious groups and individuals who flatter their prejudices and confirm their mistaken and ignorant beliefs.  Kathy Sinnott’s inability to appreciate scientific evidence has led her to put her good name to the odious Dr. Rath Foundation and allowed the offensive grouping behind the European Referendum Initiative access to the halls of power.

The alternative health sector has proven time and time again to be incapable of self-regulation, this is why it is of considerable concern that they are lobbying the EU parliament against legislative regulation of their products.  If they succeed will will reach a situation where the deaths and injury from alternative healing fantasies will not just be the responsibility of the practitioner concerned, they will be the responsibility of all those who lobbied against regulation, including elected officials like Kathy Sinnott.

[BPSDB]

BBC gets quack to speculate on mental health of Prime Minister during time of financial crisis *updated*

The Daily Politics show on BBC Two have broadcast an interview with, in their own words, “Psychologist Lucy Beresford [who] tells Daily Politics Gordon Brown is ‘deeply insecure’ and bringing Peter Mandelson back was “Freudian” bordering on “self-mutilating behaviour“.”.  Frankly I was stunned to see this as Psychologists are regulated by the British Psychological Society (BPS) and such public speculation about somebody the Psychologist in question has no personal knowledge of would be strongly frowned upon, in fact if the person was a patient of theirs then such speculation would be forbidden.

So is Lucy Beresford a Psychologist?  Her website describes her as “a writer, psychodynamic psychotherapist, and media commentator” but there is no mention of a professional qualification in psychology.  Unsurprisingly then she is not registered as a member of the BPS, not even on their register of psychotherapists, so she should not be described as a Psychologist.  She is a psychotherapist and she is a member of the UK council for Psychotherapy, an organisation that is one of several voluntary regulatory bodies for psychotherapists, ie it as useful as the Society of Homeopaths in preventing misconduct.   If its members don’t like its regulations then they are free to join another more permissive body.  It is telling that an organisation such as the UK council for Psychotherapy even exists when the BPS are prepared to regulate psychotherapists, despite some qualms:

after many years of thought and work, the Council of the British Psychological Society approved the establishment of a Register of Psychologists Specialising in Psychotherapy, which has now been established. The structure of this Register represents a radical departure from the traditional systems based on adherence to a theoretical position. The new Register is competence led with an emphasis on an evidence and enquiry-based tradition within psychology. To gain entry to the Register an individual must be a Chartered Psychologist.

Given that the financial world is in some turmoil right now which is having knock on effects in the wider economy it beggars belief that the BBC should get somebody who is free from the shackles of competency, responsibility and evidence to speculate on the mental health of the Prime Minister.  Such an act is grossly irresponsible.  This interview has already being seized upon by political blogs (no links – google it if you want) and the speculation of an uninformed, irresponsible quack is being used to challenge the authority of the Prime Minister.   The BBC should be deeply ashamedof itself and a complaint will be submitted.

*Update*

Psychologist is not a protected term so anybody can call themselves one.  However this does not change the fact that the BBC allowed an effectively unregulated quack to speculate on the PM’s purported mental health issues.

*Update 2*

There are some fascinating consequences of this appearance by Ms Beresford and her comments about Gordon Brown in the political blogosphere (google search), including blogs hosted by mainstream newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Independent.  These comments by an unqualified, unprincipled, ex-city trader and literary sex reviewer* are being seized upon by those who object to Gordon Brown and his policies and are being passed off as informed opinion demonstrating a real issue of public concern.  This ignorance and mendacity is typical of the political sphere where personal reputation is as important, if not more so, than ideology and evidence based debate and I have little to say on these blogs other than to observe that politics is just as prone to quackery, cherrypicking and false expertise as the alternative health sector.

However, this does put the BBC in an even worse position.  They have actively promoted and given undue representation to a woman who was falsely represented as a psychologist, she herself makes no such claim, and allowed to make subjective judgements based on no professional expertise about the mental health of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.  These subjective judgments of an unqualified individual have then been disseminated, promoted and endorsed by bloggers and I suspect will begin to appear in print editions of newspapers before long.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” – Mark Twain.

*thanks to The Ministry of Truth & Chris Paul who supply more background on Ms Beresford.

*Update 3*

Well my prediction above has come true.  Unsurprisingly The Daily Mail have now published this story, calling Ms Beresford a ‘psychologist’.

*Update 4*

The BBC have now amended the text beneath the videoclip linked to at the start of this article to “Psychotherapist Lucy Beresford tells Daily Politics Gordon Brown is ‘deeply insecure’ and bringing Peter Mandelson back was “Freudian” bordering on “self-mutilating behaviour”.”.  She is still referred to as a psychologist in the actual clip (although I’m not suggesting the BBC indulge in any more rewriting of history by changing this).  This changes nothing however.  Any person on the street, any journalist, any member of parliament is free to express an opinion on the mental health of the Prime Minister in writing, on the television and in public unless they have professional expertise in the field of mental health. In which case they, in most cases, would be unable to express an opinion publicly. This because with professional expertise comes a professional attitude to ethics. What is most interesting about the BBC is that they felt it necessary to ascribe, by implication, professional qualifications to an opinion of no merit. When you cannot find an expert, make one up. That’s really quite an indictment of journalism.

[BPSDB]

An early day motion supporting the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital

Just a quick bit of light relief and the opportunity to point the finger of idiocy at our Right Honourable elected members. You may remember David Tredinnick as the MP with the obsession with homeopathy and CAM and the incredulity bypass making him the parliamentary equivalent of Douglas Adams’ electric monk. He believes so you don’t have to this pillock of the establishment. Not content with the scorn and derision the previous Early Day Motion (EDM) heaped upon this blustering buffoon he is doing his best to drag his reputation down from that of an MP of little brain to that of one having no brain at all by proposing yet another idiotic EDM. EDM 1549 is as follows:

HERBAL CLINIC AT THE ROYAL LONDON HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL
That this House welcomes the opening of the first NHS herbal clinic at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH); notes that the clinic is staffed by highly qualified conventionally-trained doctors with additional qualifications in complementary medicine; further notes that herbal medicines can be used for a wide range of conditions, acute and long-term, alone or as a complement to other treatments; considers that herbal medicine is particularly helpful in treating skin and digestive disorders, allergies, joint problems, stress and recurring infections, thus saving funds and resources in NHS primary care facilities; observes that the clinic only uses herbal medicines produced to the highest standards and approved by UCLH’s Use of Medicines Committee; welcomes the RLHH’s aim to integrate clinical excellence in complementary therapies with the best of conventional medicine; and calls on the Government to establish a network of integrated healthcare clinics encompassing herbal medicine at the existing regional homeopathic hospitals.

I shall comment little other than refer readers to this post from David Colquhoun on the efficacy of herbal medicines and his opening paragraph.

A paper published in the Postgraduate Medical Journal, October 2007, has been reported widely. In the same issue there was a commentary by Edzard Ernst. They show the astonishingly poor evidence than herbal treatments work, despite the fact that they have been around for thousands of years. They looked at 1330 published trials on herbal medicines and found 3 (yes three) that stood up to scrutiny, Of those three, two were negative and one indecisive.

And I will finish up by listing his fellow MPs who have signed this EDM and between them don’t even manage to make up a half-wit let alone a whole one.

Alan Meale, Jeremy Corbyn, Mike Hancock, Alan Simpson, Rudi Vis, Glenda Jackson, Kevin Hopkins and Ann Cryer.

I wonder what it will take to make David Tredinnick and others say,

“I have been foolish and deluded and I am an MP of no brain at all”

Homeopathic supporting MP David Tredinnick misleads Parliament and offers staggeringly dimwitted endorsements.

What is it about supporters of homeopathy and their inability to honestly appraise evidence (and indeed be honest)? In the early hours of Tuesday 19th Feb MP David Tredinnick (Bosworth, Con) spoke out in support of homeopathy. Like many public statements of support for homeopathy his speech is riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths, lies and appallingly dangerous endorsements.

Jeremy Sherr, Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths, wants to cure AIDS and Malaria with homeopathy

Jeremy Sherr is a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths (FSHom) (SoH), founder and principal of the renowned Dynamis School and a software entrepreneur. He is the author of several respected homeopathic tomes and acquired legendary status in the homeopathic community with his provings of Hydrogen, Plutonium and Chocolate amongst others. His admirers include Louis Klein, John Melnychuk and the SoH who have accorded him the honour of being a Fellow as well as promoting his seminars. He also is in possession of a Ph.D. from Medicina Alternativa, founded by Lord Pandit Raja Guru Maha-Atma Who qualified Chinese Master Acupuncturist Professor Doctor Sir Holy Tibetan Lama Shaman Healer Anton Jayasuriya, a member of the North American Society of Homeopaths (NASH) and an honorary professor of Yunan Medical College, Kunming, China. From his own website:

Jeremy is acknowledged by the homœopathic community as a brilliant and creative thinker who is well grounded in the philosophy and writings of Hahnemann.

Jeremy is an international homeopath maintaining busy practices in Malvern, New York and Tel Aviv as well as running the Dynamis Certificate in homeopathy (~£1700 for five meetings). In fact he is so important he even has his own Wikipedia entry.

Jeremy also believes that homeopathy can be used to treat or cure AIDS and malaria and encourages such treatments.

Society of Homeopaths fan the flames of untruth

Look what they have done now, just when you think standards cannot get any worse for the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) they do. In recent weeks they have failed in their attempts to bully a blogger into silence, had their ethical failings exposed and organised conferences with dangerous quacks who believe they can cure autism and AIDS. As well as this they have been exposed as having a lackadaisical attitude to notions of truth, accuracy and accountability. Right now they have repeated their untruths in a fresh press release despite being told that their claims were misleading and inaccurate both in private and in public. So let’s look at their latest affront to honesty….

Dawkins you idiot

Richard Dawkins, defender against faith, proselytiser for the non-godly and the rosy cheeked face of atheism has decided to take his atheist campaign to God-fearing America.   

 Dawkins argues that atheists “have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need”.  In his quest to uphold the rights of the oppressed he wants to form a organisation similar to the ‘Jewish lobby’ (his quotes, not mine), “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” as well as co-opting the language of gay-rights organisations with his The Out Campaign.  

 Sadly, with these examples Dawkins exposes himself as a politically naive idiot.  

Ian Gibson, MP – a supporter of homeopathy?

Ian Gibson, MP for Norwich North and former hardcore geneticist, has recently attracted a bit of concern from the badscience crowd over his signing of an Early Day Motion (EDM) in support of the NHS provision of homeopathy. Now EDMs are largely an opportunity for MPs to draw attention to their political correctness or lack thereof and poor sense of humour so can normally be safely ignored. However, the plain speaking Dr Gibson has a long track record of support for science and scientific issues in the House of Commons so it is disappointing to see him expressing support for magic water.

The professional background of MPs – why are they are so dim when it comes to science?

I have often wondered if our noble and ignoble parliamentarians are capable of making informed decisions. I’m not talking about such trifling matters as declarations of war or the optimum level of taxation, my interest is in decisions which should be informed by science. I found a report this morning on the social background of MPs (2005) from the Library of the House of Commons