Society of Homeopaths exploit death of child for their own gain

The tragic and preventable death of baby Gloria in Australia due to neglect by her homeopath parents has been reported in the news this week and has led to some debate on curbing the excesses of homeopaths.  The Quackometer has argued that it is the nature of homeopathy that allows cases such as this to develop, a rejection of modern medicine is inherent in the teachings of homeopaths and no amount of regulation will change this, and what we need is not regulation but criminal prosecution.  The Society of Homeopaths disagree and have issued the following press release.

The Society of Homeopaths is calling on MPs to support its application for the statutory regulation of homeopaths following the high profile case of a baby who died in Australia after her parents refused conventional medical help.
The move would offer better protection for the public in the UK as under current law, anyone without training can set up and practise as a homeopath.
The Society, the UK’s largest organisation representing professional homeopaths, is in the process of applying to the Health Professions Council (HPC) for 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.
Ten years ago, the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology published a 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 had 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.
On Monday September 28th, Sydney couple Thomas Sam, 42, a lecturer in homeopathy, and his wife Manju, 37, were jailed for the manslaughter of their nine-month-old daughter Gloria, who died of malnutrition and septicaemia in May 2002.
Chair of the board of directors, Jayne Thomas, said: “This was a tragic case where the parents concerned refused conventional medicine even though their daughter was seriously ill. Here in the UK, The Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice (sections 22 & 27) states that cases of a serious nature should be advised to stay in contact with their GP, that patients should be advised where another form of treatment may be more immediate and effective and that any symptoms suggesting an underlying condition should be referred for medical investigation and diagnosis.
“Statutory regulation 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.”
For more information, or to set up an interview with Jayne Thomas, please contact Pamela Stevens at The Society of Homeopaths on 0845 450 6611 or pamela_stevens@homeopathy-soh.org
(1) House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology, Session 1999-2000, p52

The argument put forward by the SoH that regulation, specifically their Code of Ethics & Practice, would have prevented this case is thoroughly specious.  The sections cited by the SoH, 22 &27, state:

22 When dealing with cases of a serious and possibly terminal nature, ensure that the patient is fully aware of the advisability of keeping their GP informed of their condition.  Where possible and appropriate, ask for the patient’s permission to write to their GP concerning their progress.
27 A competent homeopath identifies those occasions when a patient’s condition is:
• beyond the present limits of their clinical competence and expertise.
• likely to receive more immediate, effective benefit from another form of treatment.
• showing signs and symptoms suggestive of an underlying condition which requires referral for investigation and other medical diagnosis.

22 does not place an obligation on the homeopath to inform the GP, only the patient.  Under this section the homeopath washes their hands of any responsibility for the patient informing their GP.  This is quite understandable, the homeopath is entering into a professional relationship with the patient, whatever you may think of the level of professionalism, action cannot be taken against the patients wishes.  This section would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria as the parents did not wish to see a GP.

27 is clearly ridiculous on the grounds that homeopaths are not medically trained so have no clinical competence or expertise and that because it doesn’t work anyway other treatments should automatically be preferred.  However, for the sake of argument, if we assume that homeopathy works, as homeopaths believe it does, then it still would not have prevented the death of baby Gloria.  This section only defines competence, it does not prevent incompetent homeopaths and thus would not stop an incompetent homeopath from causing harm. It would allow the SoH to label them as incompetent though, should that not be obvious.

It is clear that neither of these sections would have prevented the death of baby Gloria.  It is hard not to see this as an attempt by the SoH to exploit a tragedy to further their political aims of regulation, which are opposed by other professional societies.  This viewpoint is supported by the many examples of the SoH supporting similarly reckless behaviours in their own supporters, such as the SoH funded AIDS and malaria trials in Africa, the refusal to condemn homeopathic vaccines used at the expense of proper ones, and seminars by AIDS denialists to give just three examples.

In addition to this, as part of the professional development of homeopaths, the SoH have organised the following event.

Peter Smith – Investigative homeopathy and difficult cases This day is designed to introduce some different approaches into your practice when you are faced with puzzling cases. These days the world is a lot more complicated than in the days of Hahnemann, especially when we consider pollution and the environmental toxins that we all face. Peter will share some of the therapeutic tools that he has used during over 25 years in practice, including dealing with panic attacks, sorting out hiatus hernias, pregnancy and childbirth issues, treating the elderly in nursing homes and the importance of a home visit if you just can’t seem to make progress with a client. Participants are invited to bring along ‘tough cases’ for the group to discuss, with a view to finding different and more productive lines of investigation.

This clearly shows that the concept of keeping ‘tough cases’ within the homeopathic family is part of their training, they are encouraged to share their stories of clients who cannot progress and seek advice from the homeopath peers on new treatments to try.  After they have done all this and their patients still aren’t getting better then they may consider going to a doctor.  It is this behaviour that killed baby Gloria, not the lack of regulation.

The Quackometer article on baby Gloria concluded:

protecting future children like baby Gloria will require authorities to abandon the belief that they need to regulate homeopaths like medical practitioners and instead treat them according to the more accurate picture of them being a pseudo-medical and mystical cult with dangerous and irrational beliefs

I agree.

Homeopaths, Herbalists and Matthias Rath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARH object to statutory regulation for homeopaths

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

Though SR [Statutory Regulation] is intended to offer protection to the public, we know that in reality it cannot guarantee public safety: Harold Shipman and Beverley Allit were both serial killers, working under the auspices of SR. Conversely, nurse Margaret Hayward attempted to protect vulnerable and elderly patients from systematic neglect and abuse, yet she was expelled from the nursing profession and vilified by her peers.

They then go on to explain that only dangerous professions need to be regulated so if homeopaths want to be regulated they will have to be dangerous.

The underlying message is that a profession will only have SR imposed on them if they can be proved to represent a significant risk to public safety. On the other hand, if a profession requests SR, it needs to verify that it poses a  significant risk to public safety. In other words, homeopathy will have to redefine itself as a dangerous profession, in order to be eligible for SR!

Obviously the ARH have forgotten about homeopaths claiming to cure cancer, offering homeopathic vaccines, selling sugar pills to treat malaria, undertaking research projects with poorly educated and terminally ill Africans as subjects, etc.  Or perhaps they don’t see how these activities are dangerous and require regulation. This position is consistent with that of the SoH who, while acknowledging the advantages of strict regulation, are happy not to punish homeopaths who offer homeopathic vaccines, sell sugar pills to treat malaria or undertake research projects in Africa, indeed the latter activity is actually funded by the charity wing of the SoH.

However, the ARH are rather annoyed at the SoH for launching a unilateral bid for regulation, it appears they were not consulted and have some objections.

We have recently learned that the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) intends to apply for the SR of homeopaths. ARH, a significant stakeholder within the profession, has not been consulted about this proposal.

The ARH’s key objection seems to be that:

Surrendering our autonomy to the state has potentially serious ramifications for the homeopathy profession, both here in the UK, and in the rest of the world, where our actions are often regarded as setting the standards to which other countries should aspire. This places a tremendous responsibility on us to make the right decisions for the right reasons, and any choices we make regarding the regulation of homeopathy must be informed choices. As homeopaths, we are the custodians of a complex, finely balanced discipline, and we have a duty of care to ensure we preserve the integrity of homeopathy, complete with all its nuances, for the ongoing benefit of our patients. This leads to an absolutely crucial question; what benefit can SR bring to homeopathy?
The justification – SoH state that: SR … ‘best protects standards and the public’. This is misleading. The sole function of SR is to protect the public. The regulator only upholds generic standards applied across the spectrum, to all the  professions it regulates. Standards, which pertain specifically to the homeopathy profession, fall beyond the remit of the regulator, and will not be protected by SR. By their very definition, standards are ‘work in progress’. They change as a profession evolves, and as the recent revision of National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy (NOSs) confirmed, the practice of homeopathy is already based upon quality criteria. These standards meet the requirements generally considered necessary to uphold the principles of best practice, and we use them to inform how we regulate our profession. We already have a high standard of voluntary self-regulation in place, so therefore the public is currently protected when they consult with a registered homeopath.

It is clear that the ARH think statutory regulation will prevent them from making up the rules as they go along.  They also, in an unexpected moment of cogency, recognise the dangers of regulation.

The chiropractors are currently going through a very difficult time, and this is directly linked to the fact that they are statutorily regulated. In May 2009, one of CAM’s more notorious detractors publicly accused chiropractors of offering ‘bogus’ treatments. This was one outrage too many, so the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) sued for defamation and they won their case. Shortly afterwards, the CAM detractors launched a well coordinated attack against the regulatory arm of the profession, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), and lodged over five hundred complaints against registered chiropractors in a twenty four hour period.
These complaints, which were also passed on to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and / or Trading Standards (TS), focused on any claims for treatment made by practitioners on their websites or in other promotional material that could not be substantiated with chiropractic research. When a chiropractor is under investigation, they do not have to pay a registration fee, and given that annual registration for chiropractors costs £1,000, five hundred complaints will potentially deny the GCC of £500,000 in fees. Add to that the cost of managing the complaints procedure, and you can see that the chiropractors are in serious danger of bankruptcy.

Without doubt the moment the homeopaths become statutory regulated there will be large numbers of complaints coming the way of the regulator.   The SoH, in a typically hubristic fashion, believe their rules are robust enough to be upheld effectively.

The Society’s registered members have met our academic requirements, completed a registration process, hold comprehensive insurance and agreed to abide by a Code of Ethics & Practice. Statutory regulation will independently formalise this process and most importantly, offer greater protection for the public.”

Others may disagree.

Personally I think this regulatory debacle is best framed as a landgrab by the SoH for the floating membership fees of unregulated homeopaths and an attempt to steal members from their rival organisations.  By unilaterally approaching the HPC the SoH get to set the terms of engagement with the regulator as well as making a strong case that if homeopaths want to have a voice in the future of the profession they need to be in the SoH. They haven’t considered that statutory regulation could mean the end of the profession, as seems to be the case for chiropractic in the UK. That the ARH have sets up the terms of what promises to be a fascinating debate within the homeopathic community.

It is a shame that neither the ARH or SoH have developed a strategy to combat the excesses of their members nor see a problem with such behaviour, you’d think that would be rather more important for their reputation than the intricacies of regulatory models?

Society of Homeopaths reject Ofquack regulation

Following my reporting of the announcement that the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are seeking registration with the Health Professions Council (HPC) I have seen an email from the SoH to their membership.  This email, while mostly restating their press release, makes clear that the SoH have decisively rejected regulation under the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack).

The Board has carefully considered many other options, including joining the Complementary and Natural Healthcare council (CNHC). However, we are concerned that CNHC is not currently in a position to protect the standards already achieved within the profession. Statutory Regulation will not be a fast fix option but the Board believes it best protects standards already in place.

Ofquack was set up by Prince Charles’ Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), with the help of around £900,000 from the taxpayer, via the Department of Health (DoH), to regulate alternative therapies.  The entire process has been farcical, documented in excruciating detail by the Quackometer, with alternative therapists displaying little inclination to sign up.  As of yesterday (25/07/09) Ofquack’s membership tally was as follows:

• 0      Alexander technique
• 4      Aromatherapy
• 0      Bowen technique
• 0      Cranial therapy
• 0      Homeopathy
• 481 Massage Therapy
• 0      Naturopathy
• 38   Nutritional therapy
• 0     Reflexology
• 0     Reiki
• 0     Shiatsu
• 0     Yoga therapy

523    Total

At the current aggregated rate, they will have 965 members registered by the end of the year.

The Quackometer has calculated the costs and necessary membership number to for the organisation to break even:

From their web site, it would appear that the organisation needs to support the activities of nine board members, a dozen committee members and three office administrators. Now, most of these people will not receive salaries. Undoubtedly, the office staff receive a salary (fairly modest, I would guess) and the senior board staff may do too. Let’s do some back of the envelope calculations and generously suggest that there are two senior full time equivalent salaries to pay and three more junior office staff – I suggest 2 x £50,000 plus 3 x £20,000. Now, as a rule of thumb, total costs for staff can be up to three times salaries when you take into account national insurance, benefit and pension payments, office space, heating, lighting, computing equipment and expenses. Let’s keep numbers down and say total costs are likely to be twice base salary and this gives us an estimated  figure of £320,000 per year. Real costs may well be higher as I have not taken into account any of the costs of administering the register, including hosting costs, design, documentation, legal advice (the lawyers have had some work) and publicity.

What income can Ofquack expect this year? Their target was for 10,000 registered members. The registration fee is between £30 and £45 and an application fee of £15 is payable. So, let’s say average first year income per registrant is £50, then Ofquack could expect an income of £500,000, which looks like the sort of income required to self-finance the body.

As you can see 523 current members, and, assuming growth trend is maintained, just under 1000 members for the year is the most they can expect.  This is a long way short of the 10,000 required for viability, embarrassingly the nutritionists are largely refusing to sign up to Ofquack despite being encouraged to.  The Quackometer has argued that:

The Ofquack project was really dependent on the homeopaths to succeed. Homeopaths represent the largest group of alternative medicine cranks in the UK and if the various homeopathic factions had played ball, the CNHC could have been secure with subscriptions from many thousands of homeopaths.

Now the homeopaths have rejected this option making membership numbers of 10,000 all but impossible.  While the SoH have made a unilateral statement the other organisations will have to follow suit in applying to the HPC, statutory regulation would cover every homeopath, there would be no choice, if homeopathy becomes HPC registered then only homeopaths paying their dues to the HPC will be allowed to use the professional title ‘Homeopath’.  Any possibility of homeopaths joining Ofquack is over for the foreseeable future.  While I imagine the HPC application process will be tough for homeopaths with no guarantee of success, there will be considerable opposition and much dirty laundry to be aired to HPC committees, while the application is ongoing there is no point in registering with Ofquack.  That duck is dead to homeopaths.

So where does this leave Ofquack?  Finished I would imagine, it has failed completely in its recruitment process.  Without homeopaths, and with the rejection by nutritionists, it can never recoup its costs. Its credibility as a regulator with the quack professions is also severely damaged, as well as the vote of no confidence from the nutritionists it has been firmly rebuffed by the SoH who believe incapable of protecting standards.  It is time to wind up this sorry endeavour and put it out of its misery.

Thanks to Zeno

[BPSDB]

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?

Homeopathic Action Trust still funding unethical AIDS trials

The Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the homeopathy charity controlled by the Society of Homeophs (SoH) and funders of Jeremy Sherr have had the ethical issues associated with funding amateur trials of AIDS patients in the developing world pointed out to them.  This did not stop them funding Jeremy Sherr and it has not stopped them continuing to fund extremely dubious projects in Africa.

Peter Chappell and Harry van der Zee’s Amma Resonance Healing Foundation (ARHF) has been criticised by many bloggers, Sense About Science and newspapers columnists for claims such as that AIDS patients using his remedies ” do better or sometimes much better than on ARVs alone.”.  There is no evidence for this despite the recruitment of Professor Harald Walach of Northampton University to oversee research.  Chappell’s remedies are not physical substances, but vibrations of atoms and molecules, what we call ’sounds’.  Chappell believes sound can cure AIDS, the trauma of rape and the side effects of ARVs.  So convinced is he of his products success that he is actively pushing it to healthcare workers in the developing world.  Chappell’s work is funded in part by HAT, who take donations on behalf of ARHF, their 2008 annual report stating the following:

Peter Chappell Projects
The projects are now undertaking a new series of AIDS research initiatives in Africa and India and are
also putting in place a low cost clinic education and support structure for Africa, which involves special
remedy kits, training manuals and clinical support. We have assured funding for this for the next year
and we are also applying to the Gates Foundation for more funding and also the EU.

This makes HAT complicit and responsible for any harm done by Chappell or the ARHF.  As HAT are controlled by the SoH, they too are complicit and responsible for any harm.

This is what homeopathy is.  It’s not just sugar pill placebos, it’s not a harmless eccentricity, it’s a dangerous and irresponsible delusion.

Harry van der Zee & homeopathy in the developing world

The Voice of Young Science (VoYS) have published a letter condemning a homeopathy conference, ‘Homeopathy for Developing Countries’, organised by Harry van der Zee and featuring blog regular Jeremy Sherr, in the Netherlands on the 6th June.  VoYS point out that:

Many people in developing countries urgently need access to evidence-based medical information and to the most effective means of treating these dangerous diseases. The promotion of homeopathy as effective or cheaper makes this difficult task even harder. It puts lives at risk, undermines conventional medicine and spreads misinformation.

VoYS will be shocked to read about the latest article from van der Zee in the online journal Interhomeopathy about his Amma project.  The Amma project is based on the belief that musical can be embedded with ‘resonances’ that can cure AIDS and malaria, this ludicrous idea has been presented at the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) conference in 2007 where it attracted considerable condemnation.  Van der Zee and his supporters have ignored this criticism and have now taken their ideas to the developing world.

I’m in Kenya and am just back from my second trip to Congo and Burundi. I cannot hide my excitement about the results I’ve seen there, nor do I wish to. Potentially this Amma concept can grow very fast as the investment in terms of time and funds to implement it in a clinic is minimal. The clinic in Congo is already planning to start mobile clinics for villages and to open more clinics in larger communities. Connections have been made from Burundi to Tanzania and Rwanda to also start clinics there. Among the nurses the interest to know more about homeopathy grows and a program with advanced courses to learn to also use classical homeopathy for all those cases where a genus epidemicus approach is insufficient will hopefully follow soon.

This, like Jeremy Sherr’s activities in Tanzania, is utterly abhorrent, immoral and profoundly unethical.  VoYS are right to draw attention to the madness of homeopaths whose belief in their abilities is evangelical rather than rational, a triumph of faith over reason and morality.

[BPSDB]

The latest deceit from Jeremy Sherr

Jeremy Sherr, the homeopath conducting unethical treatments in Tanzania, made the claim on his blog that:

When I was in South Africa 5 years ago, we had designed a very complex trial together with the Nelson Mandela hospital in Durban.

Well blogger Warhelmet, whose comments here are always appreciated, has contacted the Nelson Mandela hospital and obtained this reply:

Please note that Mr Jeremy Sherr has no association with the University of KwaZulu-Natal and that its Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine has not conducted any research with Mr Sherr.

Looks like another lie to add to the litany of Mr Sherr’s misdeeds.  In summary Mr Sherr has:

1. claimed the support of the Muhumbili University of Health Sciences in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.  This is not true.
2. claimed the support of the Department of Integrative Medicine at the University of Maryland, USA. This is not true.
3. shown disregard for established notions of medical ethics.
4. may be in breach of Tanzanian law
5. caused the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) to lie on his behalf

The Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the SoH affiliated charity and Sherr’s funders, have had concerns about Mr Sherr put to them.  They refused to take action.

Mr Sherr remains fairly blase about all the allegations raised against him, dismissing all concerns as the activities of “a close group of the bloggers’ friends swimming around in their own swill“.

It is worth remembering that Mr Sherr is a highly respected homeopath whose teaching are admired by many other homeopaths and whose Dynamis school teaches many students.  In many ways Mr Sherr is one of the most respected members of his profession.  No homeopath has criticised Mr Sherr on this blog, they endorse what he does.  Mr Sherr’s failings are the failings of the homeopathic profession.

[BPSDB]

The Homeopathic Action Trust is controlled by the Society of Homeopaths

Over the past few months the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) have been pitiful in their condemnation of Jeremy Sherr, refusing to condemn the unauthorised experimentation on terminally ill AIDS patients in Tanzania, merely offering up a dishonest press release in response to a Private Eye article.

Now I understand why – the Society of Homeopaths and their members control Sherr’s funders, the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT).

HAT was formed from an amalgamation of The Society of Homeopaths Trust Company Limited and Friends of Homeopathy. Both of these organisations were part of the SoH and were used to fund student bursaries and give grants for homeopathic research.  These functions have now been combined into HAT with the SoH providing funds and facilities during the merger (according to 2004 accounts – PDF).

Although HAT appears independent of the SoH, with the SoH website not claiming any links with them, this is not the case as these clauses from HAT’s Articles of Association show:

At least 60% of HAT voting members must be longterm members of the SoH and the SoH are represented by at least two members of the Committee of Management.

It is now no surprise that the SoH have not criticised Sherr or HAT.  The funding of Jeremy Sherr is the responsibility of the SoH and their members.

Ben Goldacre has released a new chapter of his Badscience book today detailing the activities of Matthias Rath, the quack nutritionist who believed vitamin supplementation can cure AIDS and who lied, cheated and harassed his way into carrying out experiments on terminally ill AIDS patients in South Africa.  I have compared Jeremy Sherr to Rath in the past, I now extend that comparison to the Society of Homeopaths and their members.

[BPSDB]

The Homeopathic Action Trust continue to support Jeremy Sherr

On the 6th of March the Homeopathy Action Trust (HAT) generously allowed Angus Wood to put forward many of the concerns people had about the actions of the HAT funded Jeremy Sherr in Tanzania.  They have now issued their response to these concerns in a letter to Mr Wood:

HAT does and has acted within the law and its own governing documents in supporting Jeremy Sherr’s work in Africa

Here is Mr Wood’s response:

In many ways I’m not suprised by this outcome. I’m disappointed, very disappointed. I understand that any admission of wrongdoing could have legal ramifications and any statement on the ethical aspects of this could also be seen by the HAT as being too dangerous an arena to even step in to but “we don’t think we’re breaking the law” from a registered charity limited company is a bit weak.

HAT have been further pressed by Mr Wood to respond to the ethical concerns surrounding the work of Jeremy Sherr but have so far declined to reply.

It is not surprising that HAT have failed to respond.  The Trustees of HAT include Francis Treuherz, former editor of the SoH magazine, Simon Taffler, a graduate of Jeremy Sherr’s Dynamis School, Jacqueline Anne Becker, a homeopath at Nelson’s – a favourite of Prince Charles, and Mary English, who believes in the healing powers of shipwrecks.   This motley collection are very much the homeopathic establishment and would not dream of criticising Sherr, a mentor of many. Their failure to act is merely representative of the whole of homeopathy, supporters of Mr Sherr have left several hundred comments on this blog in support of Mr Sherr, his claims that Homeopathy can treat AIDS and homeopathy in general despite my commentators taking the time to explain just exactly what the problems are with Mr Sherr (and I am very grateful to these commentators).  Homeopaths are also instituitionally dishonest, the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), who awarded a Fellowship to Mr Sherr, have claimed they retracted this award in 2005, despite telling me in 2007 and that he as still a Fellow.  Not only that but I had informed the SoH of Mr Sherr’s intentions at that time, they took no action and made no statement until Private Eye reported on Mr Sherr – and then they lied.  Further evidence of homeopathic dishonesty comes from a bizarre correspondence I had with a representative of the Dynamis School who refused to comment on Mr Sherr, stated that they had nothing to do with him or his school – despite being listed as a contact on the Dynamis website and emailing me from a dynamis.edu email address!

I think it was very naive of Mr Wood to expect a sensible response from HAT.  They are an organisation composed of people who believe sugar pills can cure diseases and shipwrecks have hidden powers.  They lack the education, experience and intellect to understand medical ethics.  That they have funded and endorsed Sherr’s excesses is further evidence of the complete absence of sensible behaviour and rational thinking within the entire homeopathic profession.  I hope, behind the scenes (and I know they read this blog), that HAT will take quiet steps to avoid a repeat of the Sherr situation but I doubt it – they are also funding the work of someone who believes that music can cure AIDS.

[BPSDB]

Society of Homeopaths respond on Sherr – dishonestly

After a week in which Jeremy Sherr managed to get a mention in Private Eye and his funders, the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), were treated to a presentation on why people have concerns about him, the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) have finally made a public statement on Jeremy Sherr in response to the Private Eye piece.  Sadly this statement squeals and squawks in the familiar dishonest tone and tenor typical of the organisation.

Jeremy Sherr – blind to ethics and reason

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.