Society of Homeopaths breach code of ethics on website – still

Professor Edzard Ernst has recently written a short article in the International Journal of Clinical Practice detailing the failure of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) to apply their own code of ethics to their website.  A BMJ summary of the article contains an interview with Professor Ernst as well as providing a brief overview:

[A] review of some members’ websites showed a series of violations of the code that led Professor Ernst to scrutinise the society’s own website.

Despite there being no good clinical evidence to substantiate such claims, says Professor Ernst, the society’s website carried statements claiming that homoeopathy can help with various symptoms and illnesses, including fever, sore throat, toothache, arthritis, eczema, asthma, anxiety, insomnia, chicken pox, erectile dysfunction, and prostate problems.

“In my view, they [the statements] do ‘expressly or implicitly’ claim ‘to cure named diseases,’” writes Professor Ernst. “If this is so, they violate the SoH’s [Society of Homeopath’s] own Code of Ethics.”

He concludes, “If the SoH wants its members to behave ethically it should evaluate its own website carefully and deliberate whether it is responsible for a professional organisation to make health claims which are not supported by the current best evidence.”

The SoH response is also represented:

Paula Ross, the society’s chief executive, said she was grateful to Professor Ernst for highlighting his concerns and that the society would be investigating the concerns and making amendments “where appropriate.”

Long term readers of this blog may recall that I did infact make most of the points Professor Ernst has in October 2007, with the conclusion

[If] you keep banging on about your Code of Ethics and how that provides a reason to take homeopathy seriously then you should make sure that your website, your interface with the public, is absolutely rigorous in its adherence to your Code of Ethics. If you didn’t do that then people might begin to think that you don’t actually care about enforcing your Code of Ethics and your attempts to silence criticism through legal bullying wasn’t just a mistake but an active attempt to avoid responsibility.

It is my understanding that the SoH were informed of the contents of my blog shortly after I published it, over two years ago.  I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the SoH’s competence, honesty and ethics.

HMC:21 – hammering the nails into homeopathy

The House of Commons Science and Techology Committee are holding an inquiry into the evidence base for homeopathy and government policy.  The deadline for written submissions was earlier this month and many individuals and organisations, from all sides of the homeopathy debate, will have submitted evidence.  Including among this are H:MC21, organisation dedicated to informing the public about homeopathy, from the perspective of homeopaths.

In their latest newsletter H:MC21 have proudly stated that:

We have sent a submission to a Parliamentary Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, which is looking at evidence for homeopathy as part of assessing the Government’s use of evidence in policy-making.

Unfortunately for H:MC21 the newsletter starkly lays out some of the most serious problems with homeopathy:

Low quality evidence

Support for unethical AIDS trials

A tendency to ignore criticism

Anti vaccine attitudes

House of Numbers backed by quacks

You may have heard that the Spectators screening of House of Numbers and the follow up debate have now been cancelled, however, I doubt those of us who follow the antics of alternative therapists will have heard the last of this film.  A major source of information for alternative practitioners is Mike Adams’ Natural News site, while this might at first glance look like the rantings of a lunatic fringe in reality Mike Adams is more a barber surgeon of alternative medicine, slicing and dicing science to transplant evidence with fear and paranoia* to fuel the sense of persecution of the online alternative health movement. Online forums and alternative health websites frequently cite Natural News as a source for their opinions.

Now he is plugging House of Numbers with typical appeals to paranoia and pushing the tropes of alternative health as a means to a cure:

The collection of immune suppression symptoms typically labeled “AIDS” could be far more effectively treated with naturopathic health strategies, including aggressive detoxification strategies, the removal of heavy metals, the avoidance of environmental synthetic chemicals (in foods, drugs, personal care products, homes and offices) and the addition of powerful immune-boosting herbs, foods and superfoods.

Essentially, AIDS can be cured in much the same way cancer can be cured: By radically altering food intake and lifestyle decisions to support a vibrant, healthy immune system.

This is nonsense.  Neither AIDS nor cancer can be cured by a change of lifestyle.  However, I think we will begin to see swellings of support for House of Numbers by alternative therapists as a result of this article.  A lot of alternative health practitioners believe in a big pharma conspiracy that suppresses information and creates disease to sell drugs, Mike Adams is simply validating what they believe they already know.  There is already considerable interest in listening to the opinions of aids denialists, with homeopaths organising seminars, ‘nutrionists’ such as Patrick Holford believing that vitamin C can treat AIDS and pro-alternative health lobby groups collaborating with the likes of Matthias Rath, whose views are in part responsible for in excess of 300,000 deaths in South Africa alone.

To those alternative therapists who read this blog I would urge you, rather than consider the opinions of Mike Adams, to read the content on this site from those misrepresented by House of Numbers instead.  Then you might learn it is not the scientists and drug companies who distort reality for their own ends but those who push fear, paranoia, deceit and denialism from within the alternative health movement.

 

 

 

 

 

* This link goes to the peerless orac who has the patience and the stomach to expose the twisted innards and tripe of Natural News.

Has Lionel Milgrom libelled Simon Singh?

Homeopath and former biochemist Lionel Milgrom has previously accused, erroneously, David Colquhoun of a lack of scholarship in an article on chiropractic and suggested that this questions his credibility.  This was shortly after Milgrom himself published an article whose scholarship is currently being elegantly dissected by apgaylard to expose a logical vacuum where the heart of an argument shoud be.  Now Dr Milgrom has possibly libelled the science journalist Simon Singh, who is himself being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).  In an article published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine (JACM), ‘CAM, Free Speech, and the British Legal System: Overstepping the Mark?‘, Milgrom makes the claim in the abstract that:

The British Chiropractic Association recently won a libel case against the science writer and CAM ‘skeptic’ Dr Simon Singh for publishing an article in a British newspaper in which he accused them of promoting ‘bogus’ treatments.

This is not true, the case is under appeal over a definition of the word ‘bogus’ concerning its use in the alleged libellous article by Simon Singh but it has not gone to trial, there has been no verdict of libel and certainly no compensation paid as Milgrom claims later in the article.  It is false to claim that Simon Singh was found guilty of libel.  To claim otherwise could be seen as an attempt to damage the reputation of Singh with a false allegation, and thus, under Britain’s flawed libel laws, an accusation of libel could be made.

I doubt this will happen though.  Simon Singh has made a principled argument based on the need for scientific discussion to be carried out free of the threat of libel.  Milgrom’s article could be seen as a valid opinion on this particular argument.  Unfortunately though it is in part based on a demonstrably false observation. It is customary in science for an article to be retracted if it contains serious error and I believe that this article does.  Making false accusations that an individual has been find guilty of a offence in a court of law is undoubtedly a serious error.

I would urge Dr Milgrom to write to the editors of JACM and request that this article be retracted.

This article may be updated to include further comment.  Dr Milgrom was contacted with respect to this earlier today and I hope to carry a statement from him.

The Spectator and House of Numbers *update 2*

Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator Blog is justifying The Spectator’s forthcoming showing of ‘House of Numbers’ as follows:

Is it legitimate to discuss the strength of the link between HIV and Aids? It’s one of these hugely emotive subjects, with a fairly strong and vociferous lobby saying that any open discussion is deplorable and tantamount to Aids denialism. Whenever any debate hits this level, I get deeply suspicious.

The link between HIV and AIDS is indisputable according to the scientific evidence.  AIDS denialism has also contributed to the deaths of over 300,000 people in South Africa alone.

I am not sure what Fraser Nelson is suspicious of.  I suspect he is just drumming up support for the screening and debate.

However, the debate is extremely unlikely to be helpful to the public understanding of HIV, AIDS and the relevant pseudo-science.  Of the panel Richard Wilson has pointed out that:

all three ‘expert’ panelists have, at one time or another, adopted fringe views on HIV and AIDS, and been active in disputing the established scientific consensus. Of the five panel members chosen, only one [...] appears unambiguously to share the view held by the overwhelming majority of scientists currently involved in AIDS research.

I am not sure what the Spectator are aiming to achieve here.  Their senior staff are not fools and I find it difficult to believe they are unaware of the lack of credibility of ‘House of Numbers’.  This is likely little more than a misguided attempt at publicity.  What is likely to happen however, is that they will have large numbers of crazed AIDS denialists in the audience screaming and shouting at those who criticise the film, their blog comments will be overrun with cranks and quacks and they will be regarded as part of a healthcare problem.

*update*

In 2004 The Spectator carried an article title “AIDS denial costs lives“.  Perhaps Fraser Nelson can allay some of his suspicions by reading his own magazine.

*update 2*

The Spectator have apparently carried an article from Neville Hodgkinson in support of the film. Hodgkinson was the science journalist at the Times when they took a stance that questioned a link between HIV and AIDS in the late 80s/early 90s.

Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism Part II

Earlier I blogged on the decision by the Raindance Film Festival to show the AIDS denialist documentary ‘House of Numbers’ and the endorsement given to it by the festival through Xavier Rashid and Elliot Grove, the festival’s founder. Since then I have been in contact with Mr Grove and presented to him evidence of the harm the ideas behind ‘House of Numbers’ have caused and argued that its promotion risks further harm.  Mr Grove has agreed to allow me to publish the following, unedited, statement from him:

I chose and agreed to play House of Numbers for three reasons, all of which fit the Raindance Film Festival criteria:

- debut filmmaker
- quality filmmaking
- an extreme message which I decided after hours of research and debate with my team, deserved to be seen and heard.

I grew up in Somalia and have first hand knowledge of the destruction wrought on that continent by ‘aid’. I also live in the UK and witnessed the hysteria and misinformation wrought by the so-called swine flu epidemic

MAny of my closest friends are AIDS/HIV positive, and several have died as a result of AZT or other AIDS related illnesses.

I do not, not have ever denied AIDS/HIV. I feel that the arguments surrounding the AIDS issue amy not be exactly as I have been told, as indeed the real cause of the 9/112 tragedy might not be what they seem, as Charlie Sheen is saying.

I am glad we showed the film. I wish we had worked harder to reach more people with it. As a filmmaker, like the director Brent Leung,  it is difficult to balance the financial aspects of distribution with the economic realities of film production.

I think the postiive actions of showing House of Numbers, and the debate it has caused will help anyone concerned with issues of health and hopefully will enable anyone living under the curse of HIV/AIDS hope for a better life.

Elliot Grove
Founder
Raindance Film Festival
British Independent Film Awards

As well as the three reasons for showing the film that Mr Grove presents above I would suggest a fourth, money.  The following communication is from an independent film makers forum, and it clearly shows that there were concerns from some parties prior to Raindance of the wisdom of showing it but the financial benefits of doing so were the most immediate concern of Mr Grove.

Re: Is House of Numbers an AIDS denialist film?

I haven’t actually seen House of Numbers so I’m not commenting directly on it but it has certainly been causing a fair amount of concern, as in this article from Ben Goldacre in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/26/ben-goldacre-bad-s (…)
Worth a read. If he’s right about the distortion of facts, cherry picking of quotes and murky funding behind this film, then I’m not sure it isn’t a little irresponsible to be showing it, to be honest, given what’s at stake with this subject.

Mr Grove’s response:

We are getting legal letters, telephone calls, threatening emails claiming about the screening of House Of Numbers this Thursday at 2:30pm. Ive never never seen anything like it.
Legal letters delivered by courier from America – the whole 9 yards
They claim it’s about AIDS denialism – which anyone seeing the movie would realise it isnt. Or is it?
Question is, are we going to be able to sell anymore tickets?
A few still available, and the director has flown in from Canada.

Watch the film and see for yourself.

The power of cinema. Check it out: http://bit.ly/vTm98

And let me know
Elliot Grove Diretor 9and founder, goldarnit) of Raindance Film Festival

It is clear from the statement and the communication that Mr Grove is ignorant of the consequences of AIDS denialism, wilfully ignores the problems with ‘House of Numbers’ and is incapable of judging scientific evidence.  I also suspect that Mr Grove is enjoying the experience of being controversial, something his festival seems to deliberately set out to achieve – they seem very proud of an advert that was banned because of its treatment of suicide.  As the ruling on the advert shows film, as a medium, is capable of sending out very powerful emotional messages.  There is a danger, in particular with documentaries, that emotion can be used to gloss over or ignore awkward facts.  Emotion can also be used to incite anger and stir up settled and forgotten controversies.  This appears to be the case with ‘House of Numbers’, its supporters are extremely passionate and increasingly vocal and the film is sufficiently well made to fool otherwise sceptical thinkers.  However, the questions raised by ‘House of Numbers’ have already been answered by science, the tactics of denialists explored and the deaths from AIDS denialism established.  The only purposes the film serves is to suggest scientific controversy where there is none and to encourage support of discredited ideas, that is a poor contribution to public debate.

When contacted about this film a Terrence Higgins Trust spokesperson said:

“Worldwide more than 33 million people are living with HIV, the virus that – untreated – leads to AIDS. 88,000 of them are in the UK and every year about 7,500 more people are newly diagnosed here. Each of them, over their lifetime, will cost around a quarter of a million pounds to treat. In other countries, without modern antiretroviral treatments, people are still dying in droves.

“It’s a huge waste of life. But although the methods we currently have won’t stop AIDS completely, we can reduce transmission by condom use and by other means. Our main focus now and for the years ahead needs to be preventing the spread of HIV and supporting people already living with the virus.”

The methods of achieving this are what the public debate needs to be on, not to become distracted by settled controversies.  It is unfortunate that both Raindance and Mr Grove seem uncaring or ignorant of this, they clearly believe ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ when it comes to film promotion.

Incidentally, the full version of this paraphrased quote is ‘”There’s no bad publicity except an obituary.“‘.  Here are the obituaries of some of those who have died through AIDS denialism.

I hope there are no more.

Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism

Last month the editor of the New Humanist, Caspar Melville, magazine committed a sceptical faux pas and appeared to endorse some aspects of the documentary ‘House of Numbers’, a film whose purpose is to sow doubt where none exists on the theory that HIV causes AIDS.

Lets be absolutely clear.  HIV causes AIDS – the science is certain, Nobel prizes, not baubles awarded when doubt remains, have been won .  ‘House of Numbers’ is supportive of AIDS denialists, distorted the opinions of many interviewees, and presents utterly discredited researchers and journalists as holding valid opinions.  ‘House of Numbers’ is bunk, a denialist film, it has nothing constructive to say, and it deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the annals of human stupidity.  Unfortunately it can seem convincing to an intelligent lay person.

Dr Melville is not an idiot, prone to taking irrational theories seriously or endorsing quackery yet he was fooled by a showing of ‘House of Numbers’ at the Cambridge Film Festival.  With admirable candour, and some bravery in facing the blogosphere, Melville has explained in depth how and why he was fooled in two blog posts, here and here.  As his blog posts show he is more than capable of understanding evidence and changing his opinions to fit with observable facts yet, like most of us, he can be persuaded by a convincing lie in an area that lies outside his comfort zone of knowledge.

This common tendency to be fooled is a robust argument against the uncritical promotion of AIDS denalist films such as ‘House of Numbers’.  The consequences of being wrong about AIDS can be lethal.  In South Africa, as a result of the endorsement of the discredited theories of Peter Duesberg, a contributor to ‘House of Numbers’, by the government of Thabo Mbeki, it is estimated that more than 300,000 people died unnecessarily.

Unfortunately film festivals have not done been careful in their coverage of ‘House of Numbers’.  The Cambridge Film Festival made an attempt, as detailed in Melville’s blogs, to conduct a critical discussion afterwards but as Melville proves this was not enough to prevent false information from appearing convincing.  It is hard not to disagree with Ben Goldacre that this was ‘attention-seeking smugness’ on the part of Cambridge Film Festival despite the explanations of organisers.

However, Raindance Film Festival have surpassed the smugness of Cambridge in their screening of ‘House of Numbers‘. Xavier Rashid, a programmer for Raindance is extremely proud of Raindance showing the film despite the protestations of scientists, lawyers, AIDS victims and others.  In fact he is so proud he has offered it his full endorsement and is plugging it on the film’s Youtube channel.

Likewise Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance.

This goes far beyond the smug behaviour of Cambridge, at least they were willing to debate the film rather than endorse it.  The atrocious behaviour of Raindance has now been compounded after criticism was made of their showing the film.

Ben Goldacre, using his common subjective ontological classification of cock-end or not, tweeted the following on Friday 2nd October.

Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance film festival, loves the Aids denialism: cock-end http://bit.ly/Btyd4

I retweeted this minutes later which was to be the start of a bizarre twitter exchange with @Raindance_Fest, the official twitter feed of the Raindance Film Festival, edited and presented at the foot of this page in reverse chronological order.

In this exchange, conducted with the usual decorum and subtlety of internet discourse and a 140 character limit, the lack of wisdom of Raindance was expressed as well as several links to sources of criticism of ‘House of Numbers’ and the dangers of AIDS denialism.  Sadly @Raindance_Fest rather than engage in constructive debate opted for the tired old arguments of ‘if you haven’t seen it you can’t criticise it’, cited the blog of a disgraced ex-policeofficer who thinks the beating of Rodney King was justified before finishing it off with a potentially libellous allegation that sceptical author Richard Wilson (twitter user @dontgetfooled) was in the pay of ‘big US drug companies’.  The last tweet on the subject from @Raindance_Fest following this exchange was this:

YouTube – House of Numbers reaction from Elliot Grove at Raindance http://bit.ly/2r1h4b

I think it is fair to conclude from this and the videos above that the Raindance have come out in firm support of ‘House of Numbers’, endorse AIDS denialism, have fallen prey to the delusions of conspiracy theorists and have contempt for their critics.  This issue is more important though than merely being a matter of twitter commentary and idiotic artistic posturing.  When asked for comment Richard Wilson made the following points:

Raindance are welcome to insinuate what they like about me on Twitter – what bothers me is the deadly damage which is done by perpetuating these tired old, long-debunked ideas about HIV and AIDS. We might have hoped that the media and artistic establishment would have learned their lesson by now – it does kind of feel like “Groundhog Day”. Back in the early 1990s Andrew Neil’s Sunday Times were being taken in by pretty much these same arguments [...] the damage caused by denial can’t always be undone. AIDStruth’s list of HIV-positive AIDS denialists who have died from the disease in the last few years makes for grim reading – my fear is that this list is only going to get longer until the media finally wises up to the real nature of AIDS denial.

The organisers of Raindance need to understand that their childish attempts at being artistic provocateurs are not big, not clever and certainly not something to be proud of.  They are endorsing a theory that has killed hundreds of thousands and caused untold miseries to millions as described in ‘Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience & Human Tragedy’ by Seth Kalichman..  There is no scientific justification for ‘House of Numbers’ and it is an act of careless immorality to endorse it.  I hope both Xavier Rashid, Elliot Grove and Raindance come to realise this.

Update

Raindance have linked to this blog post saying that:

Raindance founder Elliot Grove has been accused of being an AIDS Denialist (which he isn’t) because he dared to show House of Numbers despite over 100 thretening emails and legal letters.

I have made no such accusation against Mr Gove.  My argument is that he, and Raindance, endorse AIDS denialism through their support for House of Numbers.

Gordon Brown makes unhelpful comment on cancer

All the political blogs are busy interpreting the nuance and debating the policy implications of Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour conference.  I’ll leave them to do that.  I have a major issue with this particular part of his speech though:

And because we know that our investment in breast cancer screening works and early intervention saves lives, I am proud to announce that we will go much further.

We will finance a new right for cancer patients to have diagnostic tests carried out, completed and with results – often same day results – within one week of seeing your GP. That is our early diagnosis guarantee, building on our current guarantee of only two weeks wait to see a specialist.

And so with three major steps forward – early diagnosis, early treatment and our historic investment in research for cancer cures, we in Britain can transform cancer care; and our ambition is no less than to beat cancer in this generation

My bold.

Sadly it is a myth that there is a cure for cancer and that cancer can be beaten in a generation.  The best succinct explanation I have seen of this is from PHD comics (below).  I’m all for politicians making arguments for more research and healthcare, I’m less keen on them distorting public perception of the results of that research and healthcare.  It bothers me somewhat that this speech without doubt underwent a substantial number of revisions and likely had contributions from many individuals and not a single one of them noticed that this claim about cancer was remarkable.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162 (copyright Jorge Cham)

A recommendation to read part three of apgaylard on Milgrom

apgaylard has published Part III of his wonderful dissection of Lionel Milgrom’s article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here, analysing criticism of homeopathy.  All three parts are below:

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-one

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-three/

apgaylard exposes numerous instances of poor scholarship in Milgrom’s analysis which thus far have gone unanswered by Milgrom, even though Milgrom is keen to highlight, mistakenly, flaws in other people’s scholarship.  Milgrom must be aware of apgaylard’s arguments as I have taken the liberty of emailing them to him, as I will do with this one.  That he has not responded suggests a disappointing unwillingness to engage and a fear of answering critics.  Sadly this attitude is all too typical of homeopaths.

Neal’s Yard Remedies in financial trouble

Neal’s Yard Remedies are high street purveyors of vaguely new age bathroom products.  Unlike similar capitalist entities, such as The Bodyshop, they seek more than a scented and organic potion and lotion derived parting of the ways between high street hippes and their monies.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are also purveyors and propagators of alternative notions, providing space for dubious therapies and flogging magical remedies.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are also losing money, fast.  A combination of an ill-timed expansion as the economic good times were rolling to a stop as well as considerable investment in a fancy new factory, funded by a 2005 £10m buyout from Peter Kindersley, seem to be taking their toll on their finances.

According to the most recent accounts, in 2008 Neal’s Yard Remedies (Ltd) lost ~£1.3m, the year before they lost ~£600,000.  This loss is not unexpected given the investment during this period in new infrastructure and assets.  However, the accounts also reveal debt of ~£3.5m due in the next year, and long term debt of ~£7m.  The debt due in the next year is offset, at least at first glance, by ~£4.5m owed by creditors, much of this, ~£2.8m, is from group undertakings, revealed to be an interest free loan to the holding company, Neal’s Yard Holdings Limited.  The long term debt appears to be a mortgage to pay for the new factory and is secured against the assets of the company as well as an interest free £500,000 loan from one of the directors.

Now this is not really much of a surprise, explicable by a combination of ill-timed expansion and an economic downturn, and while a cause for concern in the short term does not say much about the long term viability of the business.   The loan of ~£2.8m to the holding company was a surprise though.  The accounts of Neal’s Yard Holdings Limited reveal that not only has the company borrowed ~£2.8m from Neal’s Yard Remedies but is surviving only by ~£4m of loans provided by Peter Kindersley at 1.5% above the LIBOR rate.  In fact the accountants, KPMG, make clear that Peter Kindersley has indicated that his loan is for at least the next 12 months and he will continue to provide funds for the foreseeable future to cover new and existing debt but the company is essentially reliant on this.  Should it be withdrawn the company may not be able to trade.

In summary it appears Neal’s Yard Remedies are dependent on Peter Kindersley lending them money.

Is this a problem?  There are no doubt many companies supported by wealthy benefactors at this moment in time.  They will be hanging on, waiting for the market to recover and their loans to be repaid.  However, there are considerable grounds to argue that Neal’s Yard Remedies may not recover sufficiently quickly or at all once the economy picks up.  Neal’s Yard Remedies are prone to the typical excesses of the alternative zealots, being sanctioned by the MHRA for selling homeopathic malaria treatments, and consequently, as the quackometer has pointed out, behaving unethically.  Public perception of the unethical nature of many of Neal’s Yard’s products spread sufficiently so such that when they reneged on an agreement to engage with Guardian readers as part of the paper’s ethical living blog when faced with probing questioning of their business practices.  This farce and consequent commentary now lives on in the internet harming the Neal’s Yard brand.  Not only has the Neal’s Yard brand been tarnished but many of the therapies they offer in their stores are currently under vigorous and sustained scrutiny and criticism from bloggers and journalists.  Recovering business is going to be difficult and it will have to be done in the face of trenchant opposition.  Luckily for Neal’s Yard, Peter Kindersley is very rich, with this Times profile suggesting that he acquired at least £100m from the sale of his publishing company, so their short term future looks reasonably secure.  The question is for how long does he want to keep pumping money into a business whose return to profitability is only ever going to be more uncertain?

West London Homeopaths organise talk by AIDS denialist Janine Roberts

West London Homeopaths (WLH) is a local support group for homeopaths and their supporters in west London.  WLH run a seminar programme whose past speakers cover subjects such as ‘Fats don’t make you fat’, ‘Chinese facial analysis’ and ‘Indigo Essences’.  So far, so lifestyle section.  Their next seminar, on the 29th September, is more sinister.

Janine Roberts – Investigative Journalist, and author of ‘Fear of the Invisible’

THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATION

How are they made? Are they safe? How scared should we be of viruses and vaccines, HIV & Aids? The amazing story of the cell and the virus – and much more!

Tuesday 29th September, 7.15pm – 9.30pm

Janine Roberts is a notorious AIDS denialist, author of a book, Fear of the Invisible that denies the scientific realities of AIDS and HIV as well as a proponent of long discredited MMR/autism theories and similar scaremongering against vaccination.

At a time when homeopathy is under increasing scrutiny and has been condemned in recent months by the WHO for its use in the developing world one would expect its practitioners and supporters to be careful about linking themselves to deluded and dangerous ideas.  Do not forget that AIDS denialism is estimated to have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Africa alone. Sadly it seems homeopaths are utterly incapable of recognising a bad idea when they see one, apparently the best they can do is to write articles of a very low academic standard while simultaneously making snide, and mistaken, allegations about the professionalism of their critics to their employers, or, in the case of the professional societies, clear their members of all charges of misconduct by asserting there is proof that homeopathic vaccinations work.

There must be some homeopaths out there willing to curb the excesses of this profession?  Surely all homeopaths aren’t anti-vaccination morons delusional about the capabilities of their little vials of sugar pills?  Will nobody from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital speak out against this madness?

Another recommendation to read apgaylard on Milgrom

Last week apgaylard published Part I of his rigorous analysis of Lionel Milgrom’s article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here, analysing criticism of homeopathy.  Part II is now online.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/a-homeopathic-refutation-%E2%80%93-part-two/

I urge you to read it and recognise the serious issues regarding his level of scholarship that it raises.  Particularly so since Dr Milgrom has taken upon himself to alert UCL to percieved errors in the scholarship of David Colquhoun, writing in a private capacity in the New Zealand Medical Journal.  Errors, incidentally, that proved non existent as David has blogged about with admirable candour.  I would urge Dr Milgrom to respond to apgaylard with similar openness, perhaps there is an innocent explanation for the many errors in his own article.

A recommendation to read apgaylard on Milgrom

I meant to plug this when apgaylard first blogged it, but I forgot.  My apologies.

http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/a-homeopathic-refutation-part-one

Lionel Milgrom, he of the quantum entaglement, published an article in Forsch Komplementmed, available here.  There are many problems with this apparent scholarly attempt to analyse the predicament UK homeopaths find themselves in and apgaylard is applying his exemplary methodical and informed approach to criticism.  It should be required reading for all homeopaths interested in understanding the more thoughtful crititiques of their profession.  I had some correspondence with Dr Milgrom about this paper previously but I got the feeling that he was reluctant to involve himself in a discussion typical of the tenor of my blog, perhaps he feels it a little shrill.  I believe it would be to his advantage to read apgaylards thoughts and I will be referring him to them.

The Green Party are dangerously wrong on animal rights

Some months ago I contacted the Green Party expressing an interest in blogging the following claims made on their website and requested details of the evidence base supporting them.

Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology.

Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances.

Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests.

There are viable alternatives to animal testing including epidemiology, the use of cell cultures, human tissue and computer simulation.

The homeopaths respond to allegations of misdeeds by inciting a campaign of harrassment

You may have noticed that last week the Voice of Young Science (VoYS), part of Sense About Science, managed to persuade the World Health Organisation (WHO) to issue a recommendation to the health ministers of all countries to combat the promotion of homeopathy for serious diseases. This excellent work has elicited a furious response from homeopaths who want to preserve their right to treat the terminally ill populations of developing countries as human guinea pigs.  This following email and document is being passed around the homeopathic community and appears to call for a mass harassment of UN and WHO figures who have committed the sin of condemning the inappropriate use of homeopathy.

I think this illustrates the difficulties of attempting sensible debate with homeopaths and furthers arguments that they should be excluded from any discussions of healthcare provision.  The mistaken reference to The Young Voices of Science rather than VoYS is just further proof they lack the capability to read things properly.  They are morons.

More tomorrow, when I look at how the UK homeopathy organisations have responded.

HOMOEOPATHY ACTION ALERT -SERIOUS ATTACK ON HOMOEOPATHY

Dear Homeopathic Colleague -

Homeopathy has suffered a very serious attack. The Young Voices of Science, a UK based group dedicated to eliminating homeopathy, sent a letter to the World Health Organization asking WHO to condemn homoeopathy in developing countries, especially in the areas of influenza, childhood diarrhoea, malaria and AIDS. WHO replied last week with statements from various Departmental Heads saying there is no indication of effectiveness of homoeopathy in any of these areas. YVoS has now circulated the response of WHO to the media and have amplified the letter as if it is a public announcement from WHO, WHICH IT IS NOT. Additionally, YVoS has stated on its website that it will be contacting the Health Ministries of all countries in the world to let them know about the WHO response and press them to condemn homoeopathy in their country.

The BBC then spread this false item and has since admitted that is was hasty and mistaken in posting the article as an official statement, without checking the facts. But if we let this go it will be too late, people will believe this dirty trick campaign. Please send emails or letters to the BBC complaint department or to any other newspapers publishing the statement.

Homeopathy not a cure, says WHO

20 August 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

Here is one of the BBC apologies. Sad they could not check the facts first!

Many thanks for your e-mail. We have since updated this report and it now includes two comments putting the case for homeopathy – one referring to treatment for diarrhoea – although we accept that it would have been desirable to have had these in the article earlier.

It became clear from correspondence that some readers found the original headline – WHO warns against homeopathy use – ambiguous, and this has been altered to reflect the fact that people are being urged not to rely on homeopathy.

Best wishes,
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

We are asking you to help launch a mass protest. We have prepared a rebuttal letter to send to WHO which is attached to this email. There are other homoeopathic organizations who are preparing protest statements as well. We think it is important that WHO hear from as MANY INDIVIDUALS AS POSSIBLE, and are appealing to you–

Please read the attached letter.  Please adapt it to your own wording, while keeping the main points.

It is best to have a variety of letters

· Please send it to one or more of the email address below.

· Please do this immediately, as a response to WHO is needed quickly.

· Please forward this email with the attached letter to as many of
your colleagues and patients as possible and urge them to take action. USE BCC AND DELETE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO SENT IT TO YOU.

· If you can send a written letter as well that would help.

If you are living in the US or have no contact with developing countries, you may wonder why this is an important issue for you to act upon. In fact some suggest that no response be made and that we continue to focus our energies on our good work.

However, this attack is different—

1. This is a group (YVoS) that is aggressively dedicated to destroying homoeopathy. They have stated this on their website and in their letter to their members announcing the WHO letter. While located in the UK, they are reaching out to all countries. They have tried to influence India and right now they have specifically targeted several homoeopathy projects in Africa. They contact governmental, national health ministries, academic medical departments and other organizations in these countries and warn them against homoeopathy using distortion and half truths. They use every means at their disposal to disrupt or end the projects. They have only one goal and they are effective and dangerous to homoeopathy.

2. Existing homoeopathy projects will suffer because of these attacks, hindering rising of funds and initiating research. We are a holistic healing community. When one of our practitioners or one location of our profession is attacked, it is an attack against all of us. Just as we would not turn our backs on treating patients with acute attacks of cholera or malaria, who without homeopathic treatment might die, we should not be complacent about this group. This is a serious acute attack and needs a like response.

3. These attacks are coming because homoeopathy is gaining approval and popularity. We must be ready to stand firmly beside the good work that we are doing and be ready to assure that all people, especially those in developing countries, have access to this healing modality. If we do not respond this could affect each and every one of us.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW

STAND UP FOR HOMOEOPATHY

HOMOEOPATHY LIVES!

WHO contacts

Media Office of Director General Dr. Margaret Chan

Fadela chaib

Mr Etukudo at the Division of AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria at the World Health Organisation’s regional office in Africa

E-mail:
Contact: Mr. A. Etukudo, AO/ATM Congo

Dr Elisabeth Mason,

Director Department of Child & Adolescent Health Development,

World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland

Dr Mario Raviglione, Director, Stop TB Department, no email found see press contact below

Dr Mukund Uplekar, TB Strategy and Health Systems,

Dr Teguest Guerma, Director Ad Interim, HIV/AIDS Department, (congratulated VoYS no email found see press contact below)

Dr Sergio Spinaci, Associate Director, Global Malaria Programme also
congratulated them

WHO press contacts in Geneva:

Valeri Abramov
HIV/AIDS Department, Tel:

Email:

Glenn Thomas
Stop TB Department,
Tel:
Email:

and here is the letter

We the undersigned are outraged at the way the World Health Organization has allowed itself to be coerced by the Sense About Science Voices of Young Science into condemning the use of homoeopathy in developing countries.
This condemnation comes after what appears to be blind acceptance by WHO of the contents of a single letter from ‘young scientists’ living in the UK in June. VoYS is an offshoot of Sense About Science an aggressive anti-homoeopathy lobby that have well documented funding connections to pharmaceutical companies. WHO appears to have made no efforts at all to establish the veracity of the claims of VoYS or to check with the homoeopaths in the named countries on what they are doing, their treatment policies or the results they are having in treating patients with a wide range of conditions.
There is an increasing body of evidence in favour of homoeopathy’s effectiveness. The respondents from WHO’s various departments, in their rush to fulfill the ‘Young Scientists’ request to condemn homoeopathy, apparently are not aware of, or have chosen to overlook, the positive results of many research studies. e.g
• A recent high quality trial by the prestigious, WHO qualified facility, the Finlay Institute in Cuba, involving two and a half million people, found homoeopathy to be extremely effective in the prevention of Leptospirosis (Dr. Concepción Campa Huergo report to Finlay Institute ‘Nosodes 2008 conference’ December 2008, to be published).
• A trial conducted by Quebec homoeopathy organization in partnership with McGill University in Honduras found homoeopathy effective in preventing and treating parasitic Chagas disease (Martine Jourde report to Finlay Institute ‘Nosode 2008 conference’ December 2008).
• Three studies that show homoeopathy is effective in the treatment of child hood diarrhea. Furthermore, counter to the uninformed claim of Joe Martines, on behalf of Dr Elizabeth Mason, Director, WHO Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, rehydration was included in the protocol of the trials (See below).
• A pilot study in Ghana showing homoeopathic treatment equal to and slightly more effective than chloroquine in the treatment of acute malaria (Br Homoeopath J 1996 Apr;85(2):66-70).
• The Stanford study treating tuberculosis in HIV patients resulted in significant improvement in patients receiving homeopathic immunotherapy (Stanford, Comm Br Hom Res Grp Dec 1992 22 30-9).
Furthermore, the WHO department directors have ignored the rich and well documented history of homoeopathy’s success in treating major worldwide epidemics of cholera, influenza (including the 1918 epidemic), yellow fever and many other serious epidemics. Homoeopathy has a well developed approach to epidemics which mean homoeopaths can respond rapidly to an epidemic infectious disease. In light of these and more studies of homoeopathy and the extreme challenge of emerging drug resistant epidemics in developing countries, it is cause for wonder why WHO itself has not sponsored research into homoeopathy treatment.
Homoeopaths operate in a complementary way to conventional medicine, they do not recommend stopping any prescribed conventional medicines. Treatment results of patients in the developing countries where homoeopathy is used are impressive. Patients are happier and healthier and despite the constraints of lack of funding from established research foundations, studies are being undertaken and proving homoeopathy’s effectiveness.
In 2005 the World Health Organization proposed an extremely positive report on homoeopathy and its potential in the developing world noting that it is cost effective, has no side effects, and above all is positively health enhancing. It was only after pressure from critics of Complementary and Alternative medicine to revise it, that the report was held back and despite considerable revision it has still not been published.
The VoYS has issued a press release to the media that widely publicises the statements from the WHO Departmental Heads. VoYS has stated that they will be contacting the Health Ministries of every country to tell them of the opinion of WHO and discourage the use of homoeopathy in order to accomplish their mission to stopping the use of homoeopathy altogether. VoYS has presented the communication from WHO as a public announcement from WHO and as a way to pressure countries to alter their internal health policies. Is this the intention of WHO ? Does WHO condone other organizations speaking and acting on its behalf in such a way??
We have several questions for WHO.
• How can you allow your organisation to appear to condemn homoeopathy on the basis of one letter by an antagonistic lobby that receives funding from the pharmaceutical industry and without first checking the facts?
• How can you reverse your own previous recommendations without verification and dialogue?
• Why when all over the world doctors, scientists and patients are choosing homoeopathy because of their positive experience in regaining health, does WHO decide to condemn homoeopathy? How is the WHO statement and the subsequent contact by VoYS to be received by countries such as India, where homoeopathy doctors have a long and respected record of treating all diseases, including epidemics?
• Why when Ministries of Health in many developing countries have responded to the requests of their own citizens to make homoeopathy a registered medicine, does WHO choose to lend their authority to the dedicated campaign of an anti-homoeopathy group located in the UK?
The citizens of Switzerland recently voted in a national referendum to include homoeopathy as one of their medical choices. Should the poor sick of Ghana, Botswana, Swaziland, Tanzania, Brazil, Cuba, Thailand and other developing contries, living in rural areas with little or no access to other medicines, be deprived of this safe and affordable choice? How can WHO allow, through the contents of one arbitrary letter, removal of freedom of choice from the people who need it most? Is this not an issue of basic human rights?
The VoYS press release, which was further distorted by the BBC, has gone to the media throughout the world under the headline of “WHO Warns Developing Countries against Homoeopathy.” This is a deliberately inflammatory, malicious and false declaration that appears to have the backing of WHO. As a role model of good health and disease treatment to the world, we appeal to WHO not to let commercial powers and vested interests of a small vocal group influence your stated goal of bringing the “highest possible level of health” to all the people of the world.
We urge you to reverse your premature and apparently unconsidered condemnation of homoeopathy –a safe, effective and cost-effective therapeutic option for developing countries.
Please give health a chance!
Yours truly

“Homoeopathy cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete medical science.” Mahatma Gandhi
3 Research studies childhood diarrhoea: Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea in Nicaragua
This trial involved 81 children aged from 6 months to 5 years in a randomised, double-blind trial of intravenous fluids plus placebo versus intravenous fluids plus homoeopathic remedy individualised to the patient. The treatment group had a statistically significant decrease in duration of diarrhoea.
Jacobs J. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea with homoeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 719-725.
Treatment of acute childhood diarrhoea, repeated in Nepal
In a replication of a trial carried out in Nicaragua in 1994, 116 Nepalese children aged 6 months to 5 years suffering from diarrhoea were given an individualised homoeopathic medicine or placebo. Treatment by homoeopathy showed a significant improvement in the condition in comparison to placebo.
Jacobs J., Jimenez M., Malthouse S., Chapman E., Crothers D., Masuk M., Jonas W.B., Acute Childhood Diarrhoea- A Replication., Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6, 2000, 131-139.
A meta-analysis of childhood diarrhoea trials
This meta-analysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhoea (P=0.008).
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homoeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Meta-analysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial, The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22 (3): 229-234, March 2003.

Homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic sinusitis: A prospective observational study with 8 years follow-up 27th July 2009
Witt, Ludtke, Willich.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6815/9/7

Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial
U. C. Adler, N. M. P. Paiva, A. T. Cesar, M. S. Adler, A. Molina, A. E. Padula and H. M. Calil
eCAM Advance Access published online on August 17, 2009
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep114v1

Jan Scholten, esteemed homeopath is carrying out homeopathic AIDS trials

Jan Scholten is a prominent homeopath whose theories have been endorsed by the respectable medical face of the profession, including Peter Fisher of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and the Royal Family’s own homeopath.  Jan Scholten is indulging his healing fantasies, like Jeremy Sherr and Peter Chappell before him, by carrying out unethical, unapproved trials based on nonsensical ideas on terminally ill patients in the developing world through his charity, the Aids Remedy Fund (ARF).

A pilot study of Iqulai has been performed in Kenya in 2006. 228 patients have been treated with Iquilai. The results were very promising. More than 95% of the patients reacted positively.

You can download more about this here.

Don’t you think it is time representatives of the medical homeopaths faction stepped in and stopped this kind of thing?

Needed – irresponsible idiots to work with AIDS patients in Botswana

Do you have no medical qualifications?  Ignorant of medical ethics?  Do you think homeopathy should be used to treat terminal illnesses?  Want to indulge your healing fantasies without adequate oversight?

Yes?  Then maybe this request is for you.

Due to unforseen circumstances we are looking for volunteers to go to Maun this year at the following times:

September 2009: we need one volunteer for a 3-6 week stint.  You will be with Lesley Murphy, an experienced homeopath who has volunteered in Maun for several years running.  You do not need to be an experienced homeopath – we are looking for someone to assist Lesley with the running of the Clinic in Maun and our outreach clinics.  You will have the opportunity to be part of the team, be involved in case-taking and supporting our training programme.

October – December 2009:  we need two volunteers for a 6-12 week stint.  You may want to be in Maun with someone you know or we can find someone to go with you.  You need to have at least 2 year’s experience practicing homeopathy and be experienced in and / or interested in teaching homeopathy.

Maun is a town in the north of Botswana on the edge of some of the most beautiful national wildlife reserves in the world, including the Okavango Delta.  We provide safe and restful accommodation overlooking the river, and you will work as part of a team, immersed in inspiring homeopathy and providing a service which is valued and cherished by the local community.

We will give full induction and support whilst you are in Maun including regular management and personal supervision telephone calls from the UK .  We will pay for your accommodation, living expenses and transport in Maun.  All you need to do is give your time and pay for your own flight.  It is a fantastic opportunity to live and work in a foreign country, treat people living with HIV and AIDS and witness first hand what homeopathy can achieve in treating people with deep pathology and living often in very difficult circumstances.

For more information and details about how to apply to be a volunteer, please contact me as soon as possible.

Please pass this email on to anyone who might be interested.

Thank you for your support -

Hilary Fairclough RSHom

Director

The Maun Homeopathy Project

37a Hartham Road

London N7 9JQ

Tel: 020 7607 3613

Email: mhp@homeopathybotsw ana.com

Web: www.homeopathybotsw ana.com

Royal London Homeopathic Hospital call for volunteers to infiltrate Local Involvement Networks *update*

Local Involvement Networks (LINks) are a Department of Health innovation aimed at improving NHS healthcare by giving citizens a “stronger voice in how their health and social care services are delivered. Run by local individuals and groups and independently supported – the role of LINks is to find out what people want, monitor local services and to use their powers to hold them to account.”. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH) has recently sent out an appeal to its supporters to join LINks and to encourage them to argue for support for homeopathy on the NHS.

We would like to establish a group of about 5 people in each area, who will join their local LINk and get the LINks support to ensure that local people have access to NHS complementary therapies in their area.

The steps to achieving this would be:

Letting me know if you would like to actively promote access to complementary therapies in your local area.

b)      Meeting with other like minded people in your area to discuss this.

c)      We would provide advice and training on how to work with your LINk.

d)      Members of your area group would attend the LINk meeting and ask for their support to ensure the access of NHS complementary therapies.

e)      The LINk meets with the local PCT to make the case for local access to homeopathy and other complementary therapies.

If you have the time and would like to be involved in this project, please complete the form provided below this letter with your details

It seems that the RLHH are no longer even attempting to make their case using scientific evidence and medical debate but instead are trying to infiltrate LINks, directing them from their original purpose – empowering local citizens, and turning them into lobby groups for CAM.

*Update*

I have received this email from a representative of The League of Friends of the RLHH.  I have agreed to publish it.  The original email which inspired this post was assumed to be expressing the views of the RLHH as it was sent from a RLHH NHS email address.  I have been informed that The League of Friends have permission to use such an email address.

I am concerned that the heading in your blog (http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/royal-london-homeopathic-hospital/#comments) is inaccurate – Royal London homeopathic Hospital call for volunteers …

The letter you refer to was sent by The League of Friends – representing patients and supporters of the RLHH. We operate under our own initiative and independently of the hospital and I can assure you, as signatory of this letter that none of the hospital staff, including Dr Fisher, were involved with its content in any way whatsoever.

Government policy is to involve patients in the LINks initiative on an area to area basis – this is not a case of underhanded ‘infiltration’ – any organisation with an interest in health issues is free to encourage its members to participate and put forward their views, it doesn’t mean they will succeed but it does give them an opportunity to be heard.

I would be grateful if you would correct your heading to – League of Friends of the RLHH call for volunteers….

Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this.

Simon Jenkins on AIDS

In December 1993 the Time published this article by Simon Jenkins in defence of the Times’ support of Duesberg and other HIV denialists, this resulted in the Nature response I blogged previously.  There have been over 300,000 estimated deaths in South Africa alone attributed to views similar to and influenced by those expressed in this article.  Journalists speculating about science can kill.    Former Times science journalist Neville Hodgkinson’s mainstream career was effectively ended over his role in promoting false information about AIDS.  Simon Jenkins’ career apparently was not.  I would really like to know why?  I think it is extremely unlikely Simon Jenkins holds these views today, however the arguments he currently employs against swine flu, the Met Office, or whatever current scientific issue displeases him are deployed in this article; the accusations that science exists to satisfy its funders, statisticians are wrong, and dissenting voices should be given as equal prominence as the mainstream.  Simon, it appears, has learnt nothing over the 15 years that the tragedy of AIDS denial has reaped its toll of deaths by ignorance, sown, in part, by his and The TImes’ views of that era.

To attempt to be dispassionate about Aids is to court the experts’ wrath. What would Voltaire say? Whenever I suffer a bout of agnosticism, I turn to “the smile of reason”. What would he say of the debate on Aids? I think I know. He would warn us to beware of hysterics and look to the money. Last week the review section of The Sunday Times went spectacularly over the top. It reprinted a searing attack on its own Aids coverage from the magazine Nature, together with a ferocious counterattack on that magazine and its editor, John Maddox. A vast headline in red on black cried, “Aids: Why We Won’t Be Silenced”. Both attack and response dripped vitriol. “Terrible blunder, costly in money and lives”, said The Sunday Times of Nature’s support for the conventional view of Aids. “Seriously mistaken and probably disastrous”, replied Nature of The Sunday Times.

Back came The Sunday Times: “Nature has led a propaganda war which may have unnecessarily  tigmatised millions of HIV-positive people by implanting the idea that they harbour a new and deadly virus which threatens everybody.” An apoplectic Nature pondered launching a boycott of the Sunday paper, perhaps even picketing its offices. It decided instead to reprint Sunday Times stories on Aids, so readers would save 90p not having to buy the original. Wow! Remove shoes and tiptoe with care. To attempt to write dispassionately about the “new plague” is to court the wrath of both sides. Unlike other diseases, Aids evinces intense feeling. Round it swirl big lobbies, big fundraisers, huge swings in drug company profits. The sensitivity derives largely from the impact of Aids on homosexuals and from predictions of its plague-like proportions. HIV has been called a “time-bomb”. It will “decimate the planet”. A third of Africa might be depopulated. The Royal College of Nursing said in 1985 that there would be a million Aids cases in Britain by 1990. For a while, swimming pools were closed, communion cups abolished.

Most of the predictions have proved wrong. (Somebody should one day bring a class action for forecasting negligence against statisticians.) As recently as 1988, a government committee said there would be “up to” 17,000 deaths by 1992. There have been fewer than 5,000 to date. In America, instead of growing exponentially, the number infected with HIV appears (I use words with care) to have stabilised at about one million. In Britain, deaths are running at about 450 a year. The most recent projection, from Cambridge University last month, suggests that Aids cases in Britain would start to decline after 1997. Aids has been confined largely to homosexuals and drug abusers, whose activities put them at risk of blood contamination and leave them vulnerable to lethal disease. There are some Aids cases outside the “high-risk” groups, but numbers are tiny: 60 at most in Britain. As far as Britain is concerned, the plague appears to be passing.

Or is it? Aids is an intellectual Catch-22. Question the amount of public alarm and public money generated by campaigners, and they will say these were vital to their success so far. The changes in homosexual and addict behaviour have been salutary. Alarming the mass of the population was perhaps extravagant, but an error on the safe side. Now is no time for complacency. The forecasters may have been wrong in their timing, but not about the possible cataclysm. So back to the barricades. The danger is not past.

On this basis, any campaign is self-validating. Perhaps this is why the Sunday Times/Nature argument has plunged into deeper waters: what is the cause of the condition known as Aids, and why, after ten years’ intensive research, are we no nearer an answer? It appears to arise in people infected with HIV, a retrovirus identified in 1983, but no causal chain has been proved. To most Aids experts, the high statistical correlation, while possibly spurious, is reason enough to concentrate on HIV as a cause, if not the, cause. An unproven link is not a disproved one. Since HIV is clearly communicable, its spread must be watched.

Two difficulties now arise. First, the past failure of forecasting and the current absence of a causal link have led sceptical scientists to search for Aids elsewhere than in HIV. They have fastened most obviously on the lifestyles of infected victims, and the potent medicines with which they bombard their bloodstreams (as haemophiliacs are bombarded with alien blood). Second, so much money is at stake as inevitably to pollute the debate itself. Some Pounds 230 million has been spent on research in Britain alone ($6 billion worldwide). Researchers in hospitals, universities and drugs companies are fighting for huge grants. Lobbyists and public relations firms are retained and journalists are besieged with publicity, especially for the “heterosexual plague” thesis.  If the conventional view is right, more money should be poured into research. The Wellcome company, producer of the controversial AZT drug and lavish supporter of Aids charities, should be put on a war footing. If the other side is right, such money is probably wasted. Homosexuals and needle users should go on being careful. Those who are infected with HIV should be treated normally for whatever illnesses they may (or may not) get. HIV is widespread in Africa but nobody knows how long this may have been the case. HIV victims should not be dismissed as hopeless “Aids” cases. If ill, they should be treated for that illness. Meanwhile research grants should be diverted to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.

These two arguments cannot both be right. As a lay reader, I sense that the link between Aids and HIV is, at very least, being more widely questioned. The government has cut back its Aids budget. Jenny Barraclough’s excellent BBC series has shown an extraordinary cast of ambitious, fractious scientists feuding over vast sums of money as well as committed doctors struggling througha thicket of politics and disease.
So what says the smile of reason? It certainly tells us to be humble before the awesome task of the scientist. But it reminds us of the sanctity of debate. From all I have read, it seems that the rubbishing by the orthodox of the views of the American arch-sceptic Peter Duesberg was a denial of scientific method. The Sunday Times and Channel Four were right to break ranks and give space to his arguments. Here is a massive difference of opinion. The task of any scholar is to reveal an argument. That means giving opposites a hearing.

I suspect an old syndrome (familiar to newspapers) of money polluting professionalism. Science has become a little craven over Aids. That wise historian Liddell Hart told students always to consider when a man offers them advice what that advice would mean for his job. Beneath each round in the Aids battle lurks a dark question: who is backing whom and with how much? If the stakes really are so high, and for the drugs industry they are high indeed, science must purify itself.

I have a Voltairean suggestion. It is quite simple. Why not ask scientists to declare who funds their research? Publications might do the same for their advertising revenue. Then we can be sure where everyone stands.

Beware the Spinal Trap Redux

Today a number of magazines and websites are publishing Simon Singh’s Guardian article on chiropractic from April 2008, with the libelous part removed.

They are reprinting it because they think the public should have access to the evidence and the arguments in it that were lost when the Guardian withdrew the article after the British Chiropractic Association sued for libel.

This proves that threatening libel or bringing a libel case against a science writer won’t necessarily shut down the debate.

Here is the article, I urge you to share and disseminate it as widely as possible.

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

You can also read this article at the Sense About Science website which contains further details of the Singh Case, a petition to sign and links to wider coverage.