Homeopathic Action Trust are aware of the issues regarding Jeremy Sherr

Angus Wood, who has been very active in investigating and challenging Jeremy Sherr – the homeopath working on AIDS in Tanzania, was invited to give a presentation to the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), funders of Sherr, on Friday 6th March about his concerns. Without further ado, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present Angus’ presentation, already given to HAT, as well as an edited version of his description of the slides and his interpretation of HAT’s immediate response.  I hope to have the opportunity to publish HAT’s formal response at a later date.

ANH undermine public health care efforts *updated*

I have an unfortunate compulsion to sign up for mailing lists from organisations working under the auspices of quackery.  As a result of this compulsion the other day I received an email from the Aliance for Natural Health (ANH), supporters of Matthias Rath and agitators against the regulation of the alternative sector.  This email, promoting the latest campaigns from the ANH, argues against bureaucrats who believe health products should be regulated and condemns the perceived machinations of big pharma to suppress natural healing.  It also contains a list of 10 behaviours the ANH want their readership to follow:

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.

Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Sherr – a Rath in the making?

Via Ben Goldacre’s miniblog I have come across this blog from the homeopath Jeremy Sherr.  Mr Sherr is a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), found and principal of the Dynamis homeopathic school and a subject of one my earliest blog posts.  That post was critical of Mr Sherr’s stated aims of carrying out trials investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating AIDS and malaria.  This prompted me to email both Mr Sherr and the SoH  expressing concerns.  Mr Sherr did not reply although the SoH did stating that as he was a Fellow rather than a Member he was not bound by their code of conduct.  At that time Mr Sherr was only planning his trials, he is now carrying them out in Tanzania.

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.

BANT response to regulation – not entirely honest

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) have issued a press release(PDF) expressing their desire for strict regulation of the nutritionist profession under the auspices of the Nutritional Therapy Council (NTC) and, in 2009, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC). Unfortunately the press release contains a statement that is an astonishing exercise in mendacity.

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy is the largest Professional body representing NT practitioners. BANT was set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee in February 1997. It is a non-profit organisation funded neither by pharmaceutical, agrochemical or government agencies but by member subscriptions and donations. It promotes high standards of education in Nutritional Therapy and high standards of practice and ethics within the profession and acts as a professional body regulating the activities and practice of its members. It also provides opportunities for Continuing Professional Development.

This reads as if BANT are not influenced by commercial or government concerns, are a wholly independent body with a commitment to education and high standards of ethics as well as encouraging practitioners to maintain their continuing professional development.  Unfortunately the facts disagree with this reading.  Any implication of independence is misleading at best, BANT were happy to change their code of ethics after pressure from business interests to allow its members to profit from commission on supplement sales.  An astonishing act that officially sanctioned the ability of practitioners to profit by pushing particular brands of pills on their clients.  Their claims about promoting high standards of education are also suspect.  The British College of Natural Health (BCNH), a BANT approved source of nutritionist qualifications, responded to criticism from Ben Goldacre about the lack of critical appraisal within the industry by stating “everyone [...] is in agreement that critical appraisal from outside (and inside) can be only beneficial, as it is the start point for improvement”.  Fine words you might think, but the BCNH acted on these words by employing a nutritionist firmly embedded in the profit focused side of the industry and who charges hundreds of pounds for tests of no benefit as a scientific advisor.  BANT’s commitment to ethics is also not quite as bold as suggested.  Not only are their ethics swayed by commercial considerations but the head of BANT’s own Ethics Committee breached her own code of conduct and committed a criminal offence by falsely claiming to be on the Nursing Register.  The final point about Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is also misleading, what BANT do not say is that most of their CPD courses are run by supplement companies such as Biocare – “the first choice [...] amongst Nutritionists“.

BANT, despite any claim to the contrary, are a Professional body in thrall to commercial interests, their courses are paid for by industry, their colleges seek scientific advice from industry, their code of ethics is shaped by industry and their lax attitude to ethics is exemplified by the head of their Ethics Committee breaching their rules.   I hope both the NTC and the CNHC see BANT for what they really are, an industrial lobby group with little regard to ethics.

More information on BANT can be found on the excellent Holfordwatch site.

[BPSDB]

The perils of online polls – The Guardian get outwitted by idiots *update*

Online polls are notoriously inaccurate, unreliable and open to manipulation and no serious decision should be taken on the basis of one.  However, they are often used to capture a snapshot of a particular confluence of public opinion, societal pressures and agendas at a particular point in time which can be later used to either argue a position or decide influence editorial direction in the case of media outlets.  By asking online readers of a newspaper their opinions on a subject allows that newspaper to plan the design and focus of its online reporting and opinion pieces to best respond to the desires of its readers.

The Guardian, in response to reports of measles rates increasing, have placed a poll on their website that asks the question ‘Should the MMR jab be compulsory?‘.  This poll exemplifies the perils of online polling, highlights the stupidity of the media on health matters and accentuates the downside of online comment boxes.

The problems with the poll start not with the question, which is an interesting one that requires a thorough appreciation of the safety of the MMR jab, the rights of an individual to make individual decisions balanced against their responsibility to society for the outcome of that decision, and the loss of trust that results from perceived bullying behaviour by state organisations.  But with the responses, of which there are two.

Yes: letting measles spread is irresponsible

No: parents must be free to choose

Now I appreciate that it can be argued that the initial question does have a binary yes/no response but it is unfortunate that The Guardian felt the need to shape respondents opinions with flawed responses.  Choose what exactly?  Of course it is irresponsible, not to mention damaging and fatal, to let measles spread but it is also important that patients have some autonomy in their health decisions.  By asking, and answering, the question in this manner distills the MMR story into a false dichotomy that feeds into the fantasies of MMR/Autism advocates that the issue is one of state or business suppression of an individuals right to choose.

The MMR story is one of the tragedies of the modern media age where the dubious findings of a dubious experiment were pumped, primped and pimped from humble beginnings into a hysterical exercise of shrieking excess where columnists and journalists abused science, taunted experts and tainted public discourse in their willingness to accept and promote the theories of a rogue researcher who claimed that there was a link between autism and MMR.  A rogue researcher who breached ethics, conducted unnecessary invasive surgical techniques, ignored concerns over data from colleagues and who stood to profit from his findings.  This media taint has permeated society to such an extent that it is almost impossible, a decade after the start, to discuss this issue sensibly in a public forum without attracting a clucking horde of quacks whose opinions have been informed by previous scaremongering.

The quacks fear of vaccination has remained constant and their support for dubious research remains strong but they have begun to modify their public arguments.  No longer do they argue against MMR based on fears of autism, rather they argue that we should support health freedoms – the peoples right to chose their treatment.  They will mutter darkly about vaccination weakening the immune system, mercury causing autism and appeals to people’s natural distrust of industrial science but their initial arguments will be that healthcare is about choice.  Not the choice between hospitals or treatments of proven efficacy, as per the rhetoric of the UK government, but the freedom to choose alternative medicine and to reject vaccination.  The phrasing of this Guardian poll feeds this fantasy that begets ignorance but it also acts as a beacon and outlet beckoning quacks only too keen to share their ignorance with and promote their prejudices in the comment boxes below.

The comments section has degenerated into the familiar MMR debate where the forces of reason, armed with their scientific evidence and clinical trials, take on the forces of alternative thinking where chelation and sugar pills cure autism and science is to be ignored when it conflicts with deeply held beliefs.  One of the major factors in the persistence of the MMR/Autism myth has been the media habit of promoting two contrasting views in the name of ‘balance’, even if one view is utterly discredited it still seems to be given more space or air time than it would deserve.  The Guardian’s poorly phrased poll responses and willingness to provide a forum for the debate are only fuelling the passions of quacks who will continue to be encouraged by the forums offered to them, demand rights of reply, and become inspired to seek out other outlets.

In fact I can’t help but think the poll itself is being manipulated by quacks.  When the poll was initially presented the percentages supporting compulsory vaccination was over 75%, since the quacks entered the comments boxes that percentage has now fallen below 50%.   I’m not sure this is coincidence.  I’m not going to criticise the manipulation of the poll, people will always do it and on all sides, but it does continue to suggest The Guardian was being less than wise in deciding to do this poll.  This is The Guardian that features a column from Ben Goldacre, scourge of the media’s role in MMR scaremongering, is disappointing.  Looking at the results of this poll and the comments you might think that it accurately represents the views of society.  Of course then you would be taken outside and shot for being stupid enough to believe an online poll.  But that is not the point, even the BBC news report The Guardian use to justify their running of the poll shows that vaccination levels are at 75% for MMR.  That this poll and comments flatly contradict the report just shows online polls tell you little.  So why then would The Guardian choose to run it?  It has attracted scaremongering and ignorant opinion, has apparently been manipulated and in my opinion has done nothing to further the necessary education of the public about the benefits of vaccination.  In fact it has provided yet another outlet for the voices of idiocy.  The poll and comments are proof that asking such polls and inviting such comments are pointless and even harmful.

*Update*

This sorry little exercise in futility is getting worse.  There is an excellent article on media reports of MMR by Ben Goldacre in today’s Guardian.  One of the commentators to the article is somebody called ‘Pluralist’. Now Pluralist is John Stone, one of the founders of the anti-vaccination pressure group JABS.  John Stone claims that

I note that even in the Guardian where we had a poll last week about making MMR compulsory (with very slanted presentation) the final result was 78.7 against, 21.3 for.

What John Stone fails to mention is that JABS actively encouraged manipulation of this poll on their forum, as I suspected.  So here we have a leading anti-vaccination campaigner whose organisation manipulated a poll and who is now citing this poll to support his position.  Nice one Guardian.

[BPSDB]

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]

Chair of the BANT ethics commitee breaks own code of ethics (and commits a criminal offence)

You may remember the British Association of Nutritional Therapists (BANT) as the nutritional therapists body that claims to regulate nutritionists yet is remarkably secretive about its code of ethics and disciplinary procedures, perhaps because it altered them after pressure from the nutrition industry to allow members to accept commission from companies for pushing company pills on to their patients.

Despite this slippage on the ethical banana skin (Fairtrade no doubt) of financial exploitation BANT still maintains that it exists to:

“[...] assist its members in attaining the highest standards of integrity, knowledge, competence and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interests, nutritionaltherapy and the Nutritional Therapist.”

Unfortunately for BANT and what little reputation that remains untarnished it appears that the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Val Mowlam – the only member of the committee with any training in conventional medicine, is in breach of the code of ethics and has committed a criminal offence.  On the Ethics Committee site Ms Mowlam is described as BSc (Hons) NT, BA, RGN, RHV.  RGN and RHV stand for Registered General Nurse and Registered Health Visitor respectively and refer to registered members of the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) who hold these qualifications.  Such qualifications give, as is their intent, the impression that the holder is a competent and regulated individual, this presumably has market value when touting for customers.  This might explain why Ms Mowlam is using these titles on websites advertising her services, after all it is reassuring to know that you are going to see a registered and regulated health professional.  Unfortunately Ms Mowlam isn’t.

Ms Mowlam’s qualifications and experience are not in doubt, but she is neither registered with nor regulated by the NMC.  Thus it is a very serious matter for her to use these qualifications professionally while not on the register.  The NMC are very clear about this:

The NMC’s position regarding the use of qualifications after registration has lapsed is governed by article 44 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001:

“44 (1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication-
(a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register,…
(b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitled…
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this article shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
Article 6(2) states:
“6 (2) Each part shall have a designated title indicative of different qualifications and different kinds of education or training and a registrant is entitled to use the title corresponding to the part of the register in which he is registered.”

It is important, therefore, for nurses and midwives to distinguish between their qualifications and registration status. Those who allow their registration to lapse can still refer to the fact that they are a qualified nurse, midwife or specialist community public health nurse but must not give the impression that they have a current registration.
Nurses and midwives must not cite their previous registration with their name, for example, by placing initials relating to this registration after their name on business cards, e.g. Jane Smith RN, RM, when Jane Smith is currently only registered on the midwives’ part of the register or Jane Smith RN, when Jane Smiths’ registration has lapsed. In doing so it could have the effect of misleading members of the public and that anyone doing so may be committing a criminal offence.

This is a position shared by BANT whose own code states that:

8.7
c) The law makes it a criminal offence for anyone who does not hold the relevant qualification to use any of the titles specified hereunder or to use any other title or description which suggests or implies that he is on the appropriate statutory register.
Titles include; Chemist, Chiropodist, Chiropractor, Dental Practitioner, Dental Surgeon, Dentist,
Dietician, Doctor, Druggist, General Practitioner, Medical Laboratory Technician, Midwife, Nurse,
Occupational Therapist, Optician, Orthoptist, Osteopath, Pharmacist, Physiotherapist,
Radiographer, Remedial Gymnast, Surgeon, Veterinary Practitioner, Veterinary Surgeon. (L).

As chair of the BANT ethics committee it is unacceptable for Ms Mowlam to breach the BANT ethics code by committing this criminal offence.  To have such a high profile member with a responsibility for upholding the code of ethics and passing judgement on breaches of this code to break this same code in such a flagrant and criminal manner is highly embarrassing.  Or it would be if BANT were prepared to make their code of ethics public.  As Holfordwatch have testified BANT like to keep their code of ethics, like their ethics committee, secret and away from the prying eyes of the public.  This contrasts with serious regulatory bodies like the NMC that are statutorily obliged to make their codes and their committees decisions public.  The public would have no way of knowing if Ms Mowlam’s breach of criminal law was also a code of ethics violation so would be unable to complain about her to BANT.  If no complaints were recieved then BANT would not be obliged to take any action and Ms Mowlam will be secure in her job. If you want to complain about Ms Mowlam then feel free but you won’t get a code of ethics from BANT nor will any decision be made public.  You get the feeling that this is a situation that BANT would like to maintain. After all they are a lobbying group representing nutritionists and in cahoots with the vitamin pill manufacturers, it would be bad for business to publicly admit mistakes.

[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]

The plural of anecdote is not data – except for homeopaths

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

Homeopaths in Ghana

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

Why homeopaths will always be mad about malaria

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

Ben Goldacre and The Guardian triumph over murderous Matthias Rath

Matthias Rath, a vitamin pill entrepreneur, has pulled out of his attempts to sue Ben Goldacre and The Guardian newspaper for libel.  Rath claims that his vitamin supplements can reverse AIDS, that his pills are better than conventional AIDS treatments and actively campaigns against the use of drug treatments for AIDS patients in the townships of South Africa.  The Guardian published columns from Goldacre criticising these claims so Rath decided to silence this criticism in the generous libel courts of Britain.  The Guardian, to their immense credit, have spent £500,000 defending Goldacre against this malicious action and yesterday’s victory is a fantastic triumph for free speech.  Before you read further I urge you to click on the following links to appreciate just how egregious the actions of Rath were.

The Society of Homeopaths issue a challenge over Ralf Jeutter

[BPSDB]

On Saturday September the 6th Professor Edzard Ernst wrote an article for The Guardian’s Comment is Free site criticising homeopaths attitude to immunisation and the complicity of some pharmacists in selling homeopathic vaccines, homeoprophylaxis.  Ernst focussed in particular on Ralf Jeutter, vice chair of the board of directors of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and a strong advocate of homeoprophylaxis.  Ernst alleges that Jeutter is in breach of both the advice offered by the SoH on homeoprophylaxis and their code of ethics.

This may sound familiar to readers of this blog.  In November last year I wr

Patrick Holford distorts research findings on statins to push his pills

[BPSDB]

I am a masochist. This is why I signed up for ex-Visiting Professor Patrick Holford’s health e-news bulletins. Normally these emails consist of a plug for some dubious piece of pseudo-scientific equipment or vitamin supplements from one of the companies Patrick has a financial interest in. However, sometimes you get his thoughts on a new scientific study or perhaps an attack on one of his many critics. These type of things are usually covered by the always admirable Holfordwatch but Patrick does produce a surfeit of nonsense so this time round I think I will deal with it.