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.

An early day motion supporting the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Homeopath says it’s patients fault they are ill

Homeopaths like to present themselves as a caring profession with their talk of holistic medicine and treating the person not the disease. One might also be inclined to think that they themselves are of sensitive disposition as their innocent bleatings grow ever louder as their ideas come under attack. Indeed I have often said that I believe homeopaths are fundamentally decent people. However, a recent lecture announcement questions the assumption that homeopaths are well meaning if querulous quacks. This lecture is billed as “REVEALING THE INNER CONFLICT” and the lecturer, Liz Lalor, will:

present[s] a body of work which is new and interesting. Liz will teach homeopaths and students alike how to listen for the mental and emotional dialogue within the patient and how then to use the Mind and Delusions sections of their repertory to best advantage.

Far from being the well meaning pseudo-psychoanalysis (if there is such a thing as a pseudo-pseudo-science) one might expect it seems this lecture exposes the dark heart of homeopathy. The belief that the patient brings their pain, suffering and disease on themselves. It’s not their environment, their genes or bad luck that causes disease, it is the patients state of mind.

The deceptive lies by deliberate misinterpretation of science by the CAM community

Via the ever hilarious Zeus mailout I have come across this article from the What Doctors Don’t Tell You site (WDDTY):

It was news when it was first revealed three years ago – and it was news again last week: antioxidant vitamins can speed up the development of cancer. But the researcher who first published the study has now admitted that she got it wrong.

The original study – which made headlines around the world – found that cancer patients who took either vitamin A (beta-carotene) or E (alpha tocopherol) supplements were 40 per cent more likely to suffer a recurrence of their cancer than those who didn’t take any supplements.

Ever since, nutritionists and alternative therapists have been on the back foot, and have tried to defend the antioxidants. But their task was made even tougher last week when the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative released a meta-analysis that suggested that antioxidants may even shorten our life.

But the researchers, led by Isabelle Bairati from the Quebec Research Centre, who published the 2005 study, have re-analysed their original data, and have discovered they got it wrong. The only people in the study who were seeing their cancer return were smokers who refused to kick the habit while they were receiving radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Now leaving aside the odd inaccuracy such as that beta-carotene is a Vitamin A precursor and not Vitamin A by reading this article you would get the impression that supplementing with vitamin A and E has no effect on cancer recurrence but smoking does and that the researchers were forced into a humiliating retraction. This is merely CAM lies.

University of Westminster debase science degrees

Alternative medicine has long debased the ideals and principles of science in private and in public.  Now, as David Colquhoun shows, it is beginning to corrupt science in universities with the awarding of B.Sc degrees in various facets of alternative medicine.  These degrees don’t teach the intellectual rigour and critical thinking required to understand and appreciate scientific thinking, rather they teach credulous notions of auras, healing crystals and vitalism without any sign of critical thought.

Please read David Colquhoun’s article.  It’s both a damning expose of the unthinking thinking behind alternative medicine and the corruption of academic standards in the face of profit.

BANT consider profit more important than ethics

According to their website the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) is a conscientious professional organisation for nutritionists. It’s primary function is described as being

to assist its members in attaining the highest standards of integrity, knowledge, competence and professional practice, in order to protect the client’s interests, nutritional therapy and the Nutritional Therapist.

BANT makes clear that:

[it] 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.

and that:

BANT promotes high standards of education in Nutritional Therapy and high standards of practice and ethics within the profession.

BANT acts as a professional body regulating the activities, training and Continuing Professional Development of its practitioners.

So far so good, any professional body that sees itself as a regulator must remain untainted by whims of the market and must uphold the highest standards of public behaviour. However, as Holfordwatch discovered last year, BANT see themselves as

a professional association and not a regulator

so it is quite mystifying why their public webspace would use the word ‘regulation’ when what they really mean is that they don’t regulate. Regardless of this bit of Orwellian doublespeak one would expect a professional association, as BANT claim they do, to promote high standards of ethics and practice.

Hilary Fairclough and AIDS idiocy (again)

I’ve just come across this astounding press release from the College of Practical Homeopathy which is recognised by the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) amongst others.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO TREATING COMPLEX DISEASE

By Hilary Fairclough

Sunday April 27^th 2008, 10am -5pm

College of Practical Homeopathy

Homeopaths are required to treat increasingly complex disease. This requires an understanding of a full range of homeopathic prescribing styles and methodologies.

The ability to deal with disease processes, suppression of natural diseases and intense emotional states related to pathology is needed. Also important is the ability to deal with illness in the context of societal factors that have important implications for disease progression and homeopathic treatment.

Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath and a former nurse, set up The Maun Homeopathy project in Botswana in 2002. Since then about 1500 people have been treated for Aids and HIV.

Hilary Fairclough is going to share her immense experience and knowledge gained from running the Maun project. The day will cover:

· Various homeopathic analysis techniques used in the project

· The Triad Method

· Using the Triad Method alongside conventional medicine

· Using this method for children and adults, similarities and differences and implications for case-taking and management

· What to look for in follow-ups

· Importance of miasmatic prescribing

· Understanding posology

· Homeopathic principles related to the triad method

· Palliation of incurable conditions

At the end of the day you will have an increased knowledge of treating difficult cases including HIV and Aids with confidence.

BOOKING AND PAYMENT:

Seminar: Treating Complex Disease

Date: Sunday, April 27th, 2008

Time: 10am – 5.00pm

Venue: College of Practical Homeopathy, 760 High Rd, North Finchley

Cost: CPH students: £40.00

CPH Graduates: £45.00

Non-CPH students and graduates: £50.00

Cheques payable to: Nimisha Parekh

Please return the booking form with your payment to: Nimisha Parekh, 1491 High Rd , Whetstone, London N20 9PJ

CPD certificates will be provided. Refreshments will be served. There is a wide choice of restaurants in the area for a great lunch. Parking is free on Sundays.

Hilary Fairclough is the homeopath who runs the Maun Homeopathy Clinic in Botswana and gave a SoH organised talk last year resulting in numerous critical articles from Ben Goldacre, Nick Cohen, David Colquhoun, Orac and many others.

You would have hoped that the homeopath profession would have taken on this criticism and responded appropriately. However, from this press release it seems business as usual in the world of conducting unethical homeopathic treatments in third world countries without fear of professional misconduct charges. Still what can you expect from a profession that is utterly incapable of forming a coherent regulatory body. The most depressing thing about this press release is the small print in italics at the bottom.

CPD certificates will be provided.

Certificates of Professional Development (CPD) mean that this course is recognised as part of the ongoing professional development of homeopaths, a requirement of the SoH and ARH.  This, together with other examples, is yet further proof that homeopaths are dangerously deluded and need to be independently regulated to avoid the spread of such counterknowledge.  Or that the profession should be abolished except for those medically qualified homeopaths who are regulated by their strict professional bodies and would b e statutorily prohibited from such idiocy.

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

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

Quackometer silenced!

I have a confession to make. I find the tawdry spectacle of the Diana death inquiry quite fascinating. On the one hand we have evidence from numerous witnesses which stands up to fiercely objective scrutiny and on the other we have the ridiculous conspiracy theories of a bereaved father. The believability of the claims from all sides is rigorously investigated and eventually, one hopes, the truth of the matter will become clear. Essential to this process is the fact that all arguments are subjected to equal scrutiny and assessed by a panel of jurors.

The bereaved father has a long history of writing letters to newspapers and hassling pillars of the establishment to support his lurid allegations. However far from being silenced by the sinister hand of the state he, as his is right, is allowed to make baseless claims with little fear of sanction. However, he is being derided as a clueless fantasist utterly bereft of reason and decorum over his beliefs and nobody in their right mind takes him seriously any more. Now imagine if he could censor these opinions and prevent free discussion purely by the act of penning an angry letter, allow his conspiracy theories to propagate unchallenged? Would we want to live in a society where emotional fantasists can silence criticism and delusional beliefs go unchecked?

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.

Joseph Chikelue Obi is a quack, a fantasist guilty of serious professional misconduct, unfit to practice medicine and he hates the Quackometer

Joseph Chikelue Obi MD MPH FRIPH FRCAM FACAM MICR is very obviously a fantasist quack who has been sacked for professional misconduct and suspended by the GMC, taken advantage of a poor widow and is in charge of an imaginary college amongst other misdeeds. So why bother with such an obvious charlatan? Well it turns out that being an obvious charlatan is no barrier to the suppression of free speech on the internet. The Quackometer penned a couple of highly critical, although absolutely not defamatory, articles on Mr Obi a while back and now Mr Obi has taken a leaf out of the Society of Homeopath’s book in an attempt to censor the Quackometer. This attempt has been successful with the Quackometer having had to take down the relevant articles. However, this isn’t an example of a professional organisation, which loosely and arguably the SoH are, trying to prevent criticism, this is an example of a spineless hosting company, netcetra, caving into the demands of charlatan who is attempting extortion.

Adventures in paediatric homeopathy

Let me take you on a journey through the homeopathic education system. I recently came across this site, Adventures in Medicine, that offers a postgraduate course in paediatric homeopathy. The rationale for the course is described as follows:

There is a large gap in the training of homoeopaths when it comes to treating children. Most homoeopaths have to struggle for years to gain the knowledge and experience required to create a successful practice in paediatrics.

This course is designed to bridge that gap by providing training in paediatric care by experienced teachers who are experts in their field.

It is also designed to empower and support students to enable them to practice with knowledge and confidence in what is often a very little understood area of homoeopathy.