Society of Homeopaths apply to join Health Professions Council

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are applying for membership of the Health Professions Council (HPC). The HPC function as a regulatory body acting to protect the public by keeping a register of health professionals and ensuring that members meet stated professional standards, membership by a profession also means that the title used by members of that profession would be restricted to HPC members.  The SoH would like nothing better than to gain official professional status and have released the following statement.

The Society of Homeopaths, the UK’s largest organisation representing professional homeopaths, is to apply to the Health Professions Council (HPC) for the statutory regulation of homeopaths.

The Society is the lead body for homeopaths and a survey of its members in 2006 showed that 65 per cent supported statutory regulation.

Currently, 65 per cent of all registered homeopaths are members of the Society, which has long been committed to the highest standards for homeopathy, having run a voluntary regulatory system for the last 30 years and a course recognition process for the last 15 years. Further, it was the first homeopathy organisation to institute a Code of Ethics & Practice.

The move to statutory regulation is therefore seen as a logical progression for both The Society and the profession, most importantly to offer protection to the public as, under existing laws, someone without training could practise as a homeopath.
The application coincides with the tenth anniversary of the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology report into Complementary & Alternative Medicine (session 1999-2000), which categorised homeopathy as a ‘Group One’ therapy along with acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine and osteopathy.

Of the five, homeopathy is the only profession not yet in the statutory regulation process although the report acknowledged that “Under The Society of Homeopaths, the non-medical homeopaths have organised themselves well and their professional organisation should mean the transition to statutory regulation does not present too great an upheaval(1)”

The House of Lords’ report also called for more research. By the end of 2007, 134 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these trials, 59 were positive i.e. demonstrating that homeopathy has an effect beyond placebo; eight were negative and the remaining 67 were inconclusive.

The Society has already held preliminary meetings with the Health Professions Council and is now working on the submission of an application for its consideration.

Chair of the board of directors for The Society, Jayne Thomas, said: “This is a natural step forward for homeopathy and builds on the work of the profession over the last ten years to independent regulation. The Society’s registered members have met our academic requirements, completed a registration process, hold comprehensive insurance and agreed to abide by a Code of Ethics & Practice. Statutory regulation will independently formalise this process and most importantly, offer greater protection for the public.”

There are several things wrong with this statement.

1)  Homeopathic training to a satisfactory standard (ignoring concerns over the inherent implausibility of homeopathy) is going to be difficult as universities are rapidly dropping CAM courses, including homeopathy, as criticism and falling intakes bite. All that will be left are unaccredited homeopathy schools, such as Dynamis, run by the unethical Jeremy Sherr.

2) The SoH have been very selective in their claims about research.  The claim about 134 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) comes from the Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH), who make these claims on their website (PDF).  This document, published by a pro-homeopathy organisation, ignores the very robust meta-analysis carried out by Shang et al., that concluded:

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

3) The SoH as an organisation are incapable of abiding by their own ethics code.  They have displayed frequent and persistent breaches in their official leaflets and website.

4) SoH members are incapable of abiding by their own ethics code.  The Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), a charity controlled by the SoH and their members, is continuing to fund unethical experiments in the developing world on terminally ill HIV+ve individuals and populations at risk of malaria.

I hope the SoH are refused permission to join the HPC.  Far from protecting the public it would put them at greater risk of harm.  The professional status accorded to homeopaths could make people less wary of using them, it could embolden homeopaths to offer even more bad medical advice, and it would run the risk of discrediting the HPC, already under some criticism for not applying its own rules on evidence, by endorsing obvious nonsense often practiced in an ethical vacuum.

British Homeopathic Association offer to collaborate with the Society of Homeopaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will listen to an organisation whose friends are idiots?

British Homeopathic Association offer qualifications to chiropractors

In recent years the British Homeopathic Association (BHA) have been suffering a decline in new members and decreasing uptake of their MFHom and DFHom qualifications, perhaps due to a decline in the reputation of homeopathy in recent times.  To remedy this situation, according to the latest accounts and trustee’s report, they have opted for a marketing masterstroke – offering their qualifications to chiropractors.

b) Increase the number ofhealth professionals gaining the Faculty’s MFHom and DFHom qualifications
The Faculty has been working to encourage students to take the DFHom and MFHom exams through modification of the MFHom exam from summative to formative, and it has developed curricula for osteopaths and chiropractors, and podiatrists to the MFHom level.

Chiropractors, after the British Chiropractic Association’s (BCA) mistaken decision to sue Simon Singh, have seen their reputation plummet after scrutiny in blogs and other media while a substantial proportion of the profession has now found itself under investigation for alleged breaches of the General Chiropractic Council’s rules.  Chiropractic is probably the only alternative health profession under more sceptical scutiny than homeopathy.  This is a tactical calamity on the part of the BHA, the economic good times are gone, chiropractic is fighting for survival, it is unlikely that the rewards of flirting with the homeopathic profession would be worth it during this painful phase of reputational emasculation.

Apart from the the amusement value in the BHA trying to recruit the one profession more endangered than themselves is what the fact that they were willing to approach CAM practitioners such as chiropractors and osteopaths (the poor podiatrists are conventional practitioners and don’t deserve to be lumped with the quacks) tells us.  The BHA describe themselves as existing to “promote homeopathy practised by doctors and other healthcare professionals.“.  Typically their membership consists of medical doctors, dentists, nurses and vets who also practice homeopathy and in the past they have differentiated themselves from the lay homeopaths, such as when Peter Fisher, the Queens own homeopath, criticised lay homeopaths for claiming homeopathy could prevent malaria. This has been the sole saving grace of the BHA, the medical training of their members.  Bound by strict regulatory requirements and medical knowledge medical homeopaths have largely resisted the excesses of the lay profession.  Now, it seems in a search for new members, the BHA are prepared to strip the last veneer of respectability from their organisation by the recruitment of non-medically trained, poorly regulated CAM practitioners in the form of osteopaths and chiropractors*.

This will be another nail in the coffin of homeopathy.

*Admittedly chiropractors are statutorily regulated but their appreciation of evidence has been shown to be somewhat lacking and the GCC’s ability to regulate is questionable.

[BPSDB]

Lymphoma Association appoint former head of British Homeopathic Association as Chief Executive *Update*

Sally Penrose, former head of the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), has been appointed the new Chief Executive of the Lymphoma Association (LA).  The Association, in their latest newsletter, state that:

She joins us on 6 July and brings a wide range of experience.  Sally spent the early part of her career in the book publishing industry, and more recently has held the position of Chief Executive of a charity, with a good knowledge of the health-care sector.  I am sure you will join me in welcoming her to the Association and wishing her every success.

This is a worrying appointment by the LA as they have a well deserved reputation for good advice for people in a difficult situation.

Founded by patients in 1986, the Lymphoma Association is the only specialist UK charity that provides accurate medical information and support to lymphatic cancer patients, their families, friends and carers.

The British Homeopathic Association by contrast are a lobbying group for quackery, describing their role as follows:

The British Homeopathic Association exists to promote homeopathy practised by doctors and other health-care professionals.

We strongly believe that homeopathy should be fully integrated into the health-care system and available as a treatment choice for everyone.

Homeopathy is utterly implausible as a treatment for any condition, any effect observed is most likely due to placebo and it may well cause harm by delaying or preventing medical treatment.  With this in mind we should consider how Penrose has spent her time at the BHA.   She has managed the organisation while they launched campaigns for the use of NHS funding for homeopathy, promoted it as a valid treatment option and harassed and tried to discredit critics over minor issues in attempts to preserve NHS funding.

The attacks on homeopathy by a group of eminent scientists and doctors continued this year and the impact started to be felt as a number of Primary Care Trusts started cutting contracts with Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital and the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. In May, a second letter from the same group of eminent scientists to PCTs, accompanied by a decommissioning document for use by PCTs, which included an NHS logo in the top right hand corner, was leaked to The Times. An immediate rebuttal was made through the media and this was followed by a letter to all PCTs refuting the arguments levelled against homeopathy together with our two-page summary of the evidence base.

The application document for the role of Chief Executive details the following desirable qualities:

•    A proven track record of setting and articulating a compelling vision and leading and managing diverse operations.
•    Effective team-building, staff and organisational development with ability to create a culture of professionalism and cohesiveness within an organisation.
•    A proven track record of effective strategic planning and financial acumen.
•    Demonstrable experience of building and sustaining relationships with a range of internal and external stakeholders including influencing key decision makers.
•    Confident and highly developed communication skills with a wide range of audiences, including the media.
•    Ability to demonstrate a full understanding of governance and how to work effectively with a board and how to act as a conduit for information between the board and staff.
•    A track record of achievement in income generation.
•    Knowledge and understanding of the structure, financing and politics of the health/cancer sectors in the UK.
•    A nursing or healthcare qualification whilst not essential would be an advantage.
•    Ability to quickly absorb the medical issues and terminology surrounding lymphomas and to represent the work of the Association intelligently in a variety of medical and non-medical settings.
•    A clear and persuasive communicator who is capable of delivering complex messages to a variety of audiences, raising the profile of the organisation.
•    A commitment to the highest standards of service delivery.
•    Ability to instil confidence and trust in others through a collaborative style of working and making difficult decisions.

While there is no reason to doubt Ms Penrose’s ability to manage the internal workings of an organisation the evidence would suggest that her ability to manage their external appearance and to generate income is questionable.  During her time at the BHA Ms Penrose has seen falling membership, declining revenue, failed to save Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital and managed largely unsuccessful attempts to reverse the growing criticism of homeopathy within the media and health professions, of course these aren’t her sole responsibility and she was reacting to external events to some extent but nevertheless it’s tricky to spin positively.  MS Penrose’s obvious expertise would seem to be restricted to  Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).

Additionally the application form for the position at the Lymphoma Association makes clear that Ms Penrose will be expected to

[...] raise the profile of the Association externally and to enhance its development and reputation as the leading provider of information and support for those affected by lymphatic cancers.  As the external face of the charity the Chief Executive will be expected to represent the views of those affected by lymphomas to the wider cancer community including policymakers and parliamentarians.

Ms Penrose carries considerable reputational baggage amongst those concerned with evidence based practice and the proper distribution of NHS funds to valid and effective treatment options.
Worryingly the LA, despite their stated commitment to ‘accurate medical information’, have recently appeared to start endorsing CAM therapies.  At their recent National Conference, Jacky Owens, who describes herself as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine – a title anyone prepared to pay a £300 subscription can use, gave a presentation on alternative therapies that claims homeopathy, amongst other treatments, has “some scientific evidence of effectiveness” as well as bizarre claims that healing touch can restore energy fields, aromathrapay oils affect specific structures in the limbic system and hypnosis works at a ‘cellular level’.  This is nonsense and it is depressing that the Association are appearing to promote these concepts.  These clash badly with their detailed, well researched and balanced articles on effective interventions for lymphoma and the possible side effects.
There is no doubt that conventional treatments for lymphoma are nasty, but they work.  Nice smelling oils, sugar pills and hypnotic suggestion may have a placebo effect and act as pleasent distractions from the unpleasent side effects of chemotherapy but the Association should not be endorsing these in the way they seem to be doing.  The employment of a cheerleader for homeopathy as Chief Executive only bolsters an impression of serious misjudgement.
I put my concerns about Sally Penrose to the LA.  On the subject of complementary medicine the LA responded:

[...]all of our information, which is distributed to thousands of people a year, assumes conventional therapy to be the standard treatment for all patients, and any mention of complementary therapy, including homeopathy, to be just that – complementary.  Indeed, our booklet, entitled Lymphomas, states ‘Complementary therapies do not claim to cure lymphoma.  Be suspicious of any that do.  Complementary therapies should not be used instead of your hospital treatment but can be used in addition to it if you choose.’

On the subject of Ms Penrose

Ms Penrose was employed because of her professional management experience to lead the organisation as its Chief Executive.  Certainly, in appointing Ms Penrose to this role, nothing has changed with regards to the organisation’s position on this subject, and she is committed to this policy.

But the reassuring nature of this last statement is somewhat undermined with the admission that

a booklet about Complementary Therapies will be available soon

although it should be made clear this booklet has nothing to do with Ms Penrose, having being commissioned before her appointment.

I sincerely hope that Ms Penrose’s appointment has nothing to do with her past experience in CAM and that the Lymphoma Association maintain their admirable commitment to conventional medical treatments.  But I find it difficult to believe that somebody who has spent several years campaigning for a utterly discredited branch of CAM can suddenly switch her allegiances to that of promoting evidence based medicine.  This, combined with recent and upcoming promotion of CAM by the association, is a cause for concern.  People with serious diseases, and their relatives, are often easy prey for those who wish to offer treatments outside the scientific and medical mainstream, almost always at a price.  Charities working with these individuals have to be incredibly careful that they act in the best interests of their members.  I do not wish to undermine the Lymphoma Association or their work, it is essential, but I believe it would be desirable to keep a close eye on their position on CAM and the advice they offer.  With a cheerleader for CAM at their helm they may be tempted by the empty platitudes offered by alternative practitioners, or worse, they may become an active part of the CAM lobby that seeks to divert the precious resource of NHS funding into implausible treatments.

*Update*

It appears the Lymphoma Association have amended their website to remove references to homeopahty and the presentation of Jacky Owens from this page, although her presentation is still hosted on the site.    They also now include this news item, which describes Sally Penrose as having “worked closely with both patients and the medical profession.”.  Yes, she has.  Unfortunately she’s worked with the part of the medical profession that is quackery inclined.

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.

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.

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.

Homeopaths in sacka with Big Quacka – lacka ethics and evidence

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

NHS support for homeopathy evaporates

According to a study by Pulse, homeopathy is the highest profile victim of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) cost effective approach to NHS resources. According to Pulse only 37% of NHS PCTs still have contracts for homeopathic services while a quarter have stopped or reduced funding over the past two years. Pulse suggest that this is a result of the open letter written in 2006 calling for the abandonment of homeopathy, and other alternative therapies, on the grounds of no evidence of efficacy.

CORH – a quorum of quackery (part two)

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

Faculty of Homeopaths are just as silly as the Society of Homeopaths

I have just come across this press release from the Faculty of Homeopaths (FoH), the medically qualified scion of the homeopath industry. The FoH have been fairly muted in their criticisms of the homeopathy can cure AIDS/cancer/malaria claptrap and have refused to criticise organisations representing the non-medically qualified homeopaths. However they have emphasised that: