Recently I blogged the wholly inadequate response of H:MC21 to the upcoming House of Commons Science and Technology committee hearing on the evidence for homeopathy. Now it seems that the homeopaths have taken a look at the list of those giving oral evidence*, thrown up their hands and cried the familiar call of conspiracy that suits those that have no comprehension of scientific evidence coupled with insufficient insight to recognise the universal human trait of incompetence.  They have also turned to witchcraft.

Homeopathy is taking a real bashing in the UK, and the ‘anti-brigade’ is achieving spectacular hits – they have already managed to shut down one homeopathic hospital on the grounds that it is a waste of public money as it doesn’t work anyway. Now they are homing in for the kill. Here’s what’s happening:

There is a parliamentary ’scientific committee’ which examines the scientific evidence for certain contentious problems, and the anti-homeopathy brigade have asked this committee to examine the evidence base for homeopathy.

First hurdle for us to jump: the announcement that this enquiry was going to take place was made only 10 days before the deadline for submissions! ! (but I’m willing to bet on it that the anti-brigade knew about this weeks ago.

Anyway, the deadline has now passed, and the committee, after looking at the written submissions, has called certain people to give oral evidence.

Second hurdle: there are only a token 3 people who we know are solidly pro-homeopathy (including one doctor, one head of the homeopathic pharmacies organisation, but not a single head of any organisation of professional homeopaths!) All the rest (out of 12) are anti-homeopathy.

So, as you can see, it’s a stitch-up. When the results of the enquiry are published, it is highly likely that they will find “there is no evidence for homeopathy.. .blah…blah. ..blah… and therefore we recommend that homeopathy be removed from the NHS”. As it’s a parliamentary committee, the government always takes thier conclusions seriously, and will probably implement them.

Hence the seriousness of our predicament.

Anyway….we are not taking this lying  down. We have decided to carry out an Intention Experiment, and we are doing this every day, at 9 p.m. GMT until 30th November, day when the committee makes its final deliberations.

PLEASE WILL YOU HELP IF YOU CAN? This involves 15 minutes of focussed, meditative, positive intention-making in order to support homeopathy and try to confound our enemies. This technique has been shown to be very powerful when applied to other situations. How to carry it out follows below, and for more information, go to: http://www.theintentionexperiment.

HOPE YOU CAN JOIN IN – THE MORE PEOPLE, THE MORE POWERFUL THE ACTION!!

HOW TO DO AN INTENTION EXPERIMENT:

Lynn Mctaggert from ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’ has run several Intention Experiments with interesting and successful results. We have begun a Homeopathy Intention experiment along similar lines in the media group, HMA and SoH,intending how we would like the outcome of the evidence enquiry. We aredoing the Homeopathy Intention every evening on a given evening at 9 pm until the 30th Nov. when the Committee publishes its findings.

We spend 15 minutes intending the same outcome. We all focus on the same intent, giving it more power.

Lynne Mctaggert recommends powering up to increase and enhance the available energy. See this link for details on how to do an Intention Experiment:
http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/aboutlynne

The more people participate the more effective it is.

1. Choose a place away from electronic interference, mobiles, phones, TV etc.
Add a plant, meditation music whatever helps you personally get into a meditative state.

2. Sit either in an upright chair or cross legged or similar

3. 1st 5 minutes: slow your breathing… in through your nose and out through your mouth for 15 seconds each minute, then

4.From 9:05 – 9:15 pm focus clearly on the statement below in whatever way suits you, see the Committee accepting Homeopathy works, or people being able to
have Homeopathy treatment on the NHS, feel positive and joyful, really see, hear, smell, sense (whichever way you imagine/visualize) the reality of it.

“We intend the outcome for the UK homeopathy evidence check to be wholly and fully in favour of homeopathy. We intend for the vast and thorough body of scientific data supporting the efficay of homeopathy to be seen, heard and recognised as valid, solid and scientific. This is so, and it is done”

There is something rather sweet about a bunch of homeopaths sitting at home and using their imagined psychic powers to create compelling scientific data for their profession, it certainly nicely illustrates the supernatural beliefs of the profession.  However, it is worth thinking about what they believe and what they want to achieve.  They believe that there is a conspiracy by parliament and by government to destroy their profession, they believe that the Science and Technology committee have deliberately and actively conspired against them, and they want to use dark magics to craft a new reality in their favour.  Leaving aside the implausibility of the Intention Experiment** this is a clear demonstration of a paranoid mindset that believes that the world is set against them and will stop at little to destroy them, so should be stopped by any means available.  It is this paranoid mindset that has driven their poisonous little campaigns, often at high levels, against Simon Singh, Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun amongst others, lacking the evidence to convince a rational observer they have turned to smears and harassment.

Homeopath’s worst enemies are not the forces of reason ranged against them, but the dark and bitter prejudices against medicine that are fundamental to their theories.  It is these that drive them to claim cures for cancer, to believe they have a cure for AIDS and to explain all opposition as a big pharma conspiracy.  They have failed to confront these prejudices and change the profession from within.  I now suspect it will be changed from without, and not in a manner to their liking.

*

Oral evidence

Forthcoming sessions:

Wednesday 25 November 2009
9.30am: Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain;
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers;
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director, Boots;
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science;
Dr Ben Goldacre, Journalist, The Guardian

10.30am: Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital;
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School;
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent;
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association

Monday 30 November 2009
4.15pm: Mike O’Brien QC MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health;
Professor David Harper, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health;
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

**I recommend Paul Wilson’s series of posts on previous Intention Experiments for those who wish to learn more of this peculiar strategy.

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) have recently expressed concern in their newsletter that moves by the Health Professionals Council (HPC) and Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses (AGCN) to support the statutory regulation of Genetic Counsellors may impact on their freedom to practice quackery.

We live in the age of the genome. Jeffrey Bland presented in his yearly seminar event in the UK on the subject of the genetic blueprint. BANT practitioners speak of ‘biochemical individuality’ and it is of this that we speak as being the major factor in how we approach individual help for clients. We are aware that a growing number of practitioners are using genetic testing, either the single gene or combined tests.
•     The first nutrigenetic tests appeared on the market in 2001 and have been used by nutrition counsellors since then.
•     In 2002 BANT representatives gave evidence to the Human Genetics Commission in its Genes Direct inquiry on genetic testing supplied direct to the consumer (defined as outside a medical consultation).
•     In 2008 BANT submitted evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into Genomic Medicine about nutrigenetic practice.

BANT is now aware that the Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses (AGCN) have applied for statutory protection of the title ‘Genetic Counsellor’ (GC). We are concerned that BANT members who already work in nutrigenetic counselling may be unable to continue to practise their profession without hindrance if the AGCN succeed in getting statutory regulation. In view of this fact BANT has written to the Health Professions Council to ask several questions relating to this topic. Namely;

•     can the HPC assure us that statutory protection will NOT impact on the use of ‘Nutrigenetic Counsellor’ as a title;
•     should BANT be making an immediate application to HPC to be considered alongside that of GCs;
•     should BANT representatives, as Nutrigenetic Counsellors, give a presentation to HPC at the same time as the AGCN present their case?

As mentioned earlier, BANT practitioners  work with biochemical individuality. Most students are now having modules on genetic testing in their studies and even more practitioners attend seminars on the subject. More practitioners are using these tests and it is right that BANT protects our rights to the use of these tests .  Please continue to check the BANT website for the latest information on this subject.

The ethics of genetic counselling are complex and the AGCN have an admirable code of conduct that takes this into account.  Genetic testing is a form of medical diagnostics looking at mutations in particular genes that can have profound and devastating implications for the patient and their family that may fundamentally change their life, such as Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anaemia, and Phenylketonuria.  The role of the Genetic Counsellor is to inform the patient about the test and the implications throughout the process.

Genetic counselling is defined as ‘a communication process which deals with human problems associated with the occurrence, or the risk of occurrence, of a genetic disorder in a family

(American Society of Human Genetics, 1975)

A Genetic Counsellor is a highly skilled individual with either a primary qualification in nursing or midwifery or has completed a Masters degree in Genetic Counselling after obtaining a Bachelors in a relevant subject, in addition to this they must undertake at least 120 hours of specific counselling training as well as more general training for a period of around 2 years.  A nutrigenetic counsellor does not.  A nutrigenetic counsellor must hold a qualification, most likely not accredited, from an instituition approved by BANT and then must pay BANT a membership fee.  After this they may call themselves a nutrigenetic counsellor.
A Genetic Counsellor is expected to have a scientific understanding of genetic illness and testing, a firm commitment to evidence based practice and a commitment to a proper regulated professional relationship with a patient.  A BANT nutrigenetic counsellor undergoes dubious training, lacks effective regulation, belongs to an organisation that altered its code of ethics to allow commision to be recieved by members for products sold to customers and whose former ethics committe head pretended to be on a nursing register when she was not, a criminal offence.

The tests a Genetic Counsellor will advise on are of proven accuracy and are conducted in a carefully controlled environment.  The tests involved in nutrigenetics prompted this statement from the Human Genetics Commission (HGC):

Genetic tests that claim to be able to give nutritional health information, but have not been robustly and independently evaluated, are a concern for the HGC.

The HGC believes that test providers need to be able to provide evidence that the genetic tests they offer can reliably and accurately, predict what they claim to be able to predict. The link between a gene and a condition or trait should be proven for all genetic tests, including nutrigenetic tests, before they are sold to the public and proof of this link should be made available to consumers. The sale of genetic tests without this proven level of clinical validity can give rise to unnecessary anxieties about health or give an individual a false level of reassurance. With nutrigenetic tests in particular, this could lead to an over-consumption or avoidance of certain food groups, which could cause potential harm to the individual and lead to further costs to the NHS.

The HGC advises any individual who is thinking about taking a nutrigenetic tests to obtain the following information first:
• general information on genetic testing and specific information on the nutrigenetic test including the evidence of the link between the gene and the condition/trait and whether this link has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal
• the measures the test provider will take to ensure the confidentiality of their biological samples and personal records
• how they will be provided with the genetic test results and who they will be able to contact if they don’t understand the results
• information on the limitations of the test so that they are aware of the level of significance that they can attribute to the results of the test
• whether their biological sample will be used for any secondary purposes or if their personal details will be passed on to any third parties

The Commission believes that individuals taking a test should be aware that the interaction between genes and environment factors, such as food, is complex and constantly changing which makes interpretation of nutrigenetic tests very difficult and in some cases impossible without knowing these environmental factors. Consumers should also understand that some nutrigenetic tests are less predictive than the results they might receive for other genetic tests.

These are not issues that BANT appear to have considered.  The following letter is the HPC’s response to BANT’s concerns about their use of the term nutrigenetic counsellor.

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the continued use of the title ‘Nutrigenetic counsellor’ by your members. Marc has passed your letter to me for a response.
As you note in your letter, the Association of Genetic Counsellors and Nurses have applied for statutory regulation and have proposed that the title ‘genetic counsellor’ should become a protected title. The Association is due to present at the HPC Council meeting in December 2009. If the Council decides that the new professions criteria have been met, they can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Health. However, any decision about whether that group becomes regulated in the future is one for government.
The 2007 White Paper Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ identified the priority groups for future statutory regulation including psychologists (regulated by the HPC from 1 July 2009), healthcare scientists, psychotherapists and counsellors, and other psychological therapists. We consider that it is unlikely that Government will proceed to consider whether to regulate further groups until at least 2011/2012 at the very earliest.
You may be aware that we have been undertaking a piece of work looking at the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. As part of this we have been considering with stakeholders in the field which titles should be protected and have considered whether it would be possible to protect the title ‘counsellor’ given it is widely used by practitioners undertaking therapeutic work with clients, and readily recognised by members of the public. However we have also acknowledged that the term is sometimes used, often as part of an adjectival title, by individuals practising in fields outside of ‘therapeutic counselling’. Examples include debt counsellors and financial counsellors.

In protecting a professional title the government has to be sure that that title is in wide usage by those it intends to regulate, and that protecting that title would not effectively bring into regulation others that it is not sought to regulate. With respect to protecting the title ‘counsellor’ as described on the previous page, we think that this title might be protected given its wide usage by ‘therapeutic counsellors’ but with provisions in legislation to ensure that this does not prevent its continued use by others outside of the ‘therapeutic counselling’ field. So the intention is that any future protection of the title ‘counsellor1 for the psychotherapists and counsellors part of the Register would not prevent the continued use of titles such as ‘debt counsellor’, ‘genetic counsellor’ and ‘nutrigenetic counsellor’.
With regards any potential future regulation of genetic counsellors and protection of the title ‘genetic counsellor’ it is very unlikely this would impact upon the continued usage of the title ‘nutrigenetic counsellor’ by your members. We apply out protection of title powers pragmatically and only take action where someone uses a protected title or implies their use of a protected title with the intention to deceive members of the public.
You do not need to make an immediate application to us. However, it is certainly very helpful to be aware of the use of this title in any subsequent discussions about regulation and we will highlight this to the HPC Council in their discussion about the genetic counsellors’ application. If government was to decide to regulate genetic counsellors at a future point, the decision to do so would be subject to a full public consultation at which point issues such as these could also be further considered.
Should you require any further information, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,

It is clear that BANT are not concerned with the need for proper regulation of genetic testing and those who advise on these tests but are simply seeking to protect their members business interests.  If they recognised the stark differences between Genetic Counselling and what they term nutrigenetic counselling they should feel obliged to come up with a description that more accurately reflected their members abilities and did not have the potential for confusing the public over the differences between highly qualified and capable Genetic Counsellors and those with dubious qualifications in nutrition.  The abbreviation ‘nutri’ does not translate into ‘unethical pseudoscientific nonsense, exploiting the uninformed and the gullible for personal gain’ in any dictionary I possess.

This is yet another sad illustration of how alternative therapists crave the respectability that comes with conventional medical practices but want nothing to do with the ethics, professionalism or evidence based practice.

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

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

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

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

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

The SoH response is also represented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low quality evidence

Support for unethical AIDS trials

A tendency to ignore criticism

Anti vaccine attitudes

Low quality evidence

The H:MC21 newsletter cites two papers as supporting homeopathy.

Influence of very low doses of mediators on fungal laccase activity – nonlinearity beyond imagination
Nonlinear Biomedical Physics 2009, 3:10
doi:10.1186/1753-4631-3-10

Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences

Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
DOI: 10.1007/s12539-009-0036-7

While I have not read the first paper in any detail the second has come under considerable criticism from both the quackometer and science based medicine.  The quackometer in particular is quite cutting about the paper accusing Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize winner, of ripping off a long discredited patent and suggesting he be awarded an Ignobel prize.  This latter paper, by the way, was published in a journal edited by Montagnier and was not peer reviewed, if  a Nobel prize winner is reduced to self publishing you know something is not quite right.  The first paper is published in Nonlinear Biomedical Physics, a journal which does not appear to have an impact factor suggesting it is of little credibility. It certainly is not where you would publish information proving that accepted theories of physics and chemistry are wrong, which any experiment supporting homeopathy would do.

Support for unethical AIDS trials

H:MC21 have reported on a homeopathic AIDS trial in glowing terms.

With funding from the Aids Remedy Fund foundation, a pilot study in Kenya has proven the new homeopathic remedy Iquilai to be very effective in improving the clinical status of patients with HIV/Aids.

The remedy was developed by Dr.Jan Scholten, one of the world’s leading researchers and writers in the field of homeopathy. The study was conducted by him and Dr. Leo van Gelder, the co-founder of the organisation Homeopathy without Borders. Some 250 HIV/Aids patients were treated with Iquilai; the treatment group included patients under ARV treatment and those not under any ARV therapy (according to WHO, standard antiretroviral therapy consists of the use of at least three antiretroviral (ARV) drugs to maximally suppress the HIV virus and stop the progression of HIV disease). Patients were not taken off their conventional treatment. More than 90% of the patients in both groups showed improvement in their health, with CD4 tests (a blood test measuring the number of lymphocytes that maintain the operation of the human immune system) showing an average increase of 123 points.

H:MC21 say

In our May newsletter we told you how Darwin tested ultra-high dilutions. Now an article by Dana Ullman, MPH, America’s leading spokesperson for homeopathy and the founder of www.homeopathic.com , has been publish about Darwin’s encounter with homeopathy.

It is true that Darwin took homeopathic cures, but it is also obvious that he only did this as part of the hospital regime he was in and that he was utterly contemptuous of the practice.

H:MC21 say

Several supporters as well as visitors at Camexpo have asked us about the swines flu vaccine. Below we have collated some of the very latest very information; do listen especially to the Polish Health Minister!

The Polish Prime Minister is asking European Union health officials  – pressing for countries to buy vaccines – whether they will guarantee the safety of these as drug companies refuse to do so.  Click here to watch the YouTube video.

The Polish Health Minister is asking why pandemics have not been declared in previous years given that each year many many more people die of the seasonal flu. She is also asking why she should agree to jeopardise Polish people’s health when the vaccines on offer have not been properly tested, and when drug companies refuse to take responsibility for any complications the vaccines might produce.  This is the link.

We can only add that we wish our government had ask these questions on our behalf.   Instead, the UK is one of the countries most vigorously promoting vaccination, whilst – as was widely publicised – many UK doctors and nurses refuse to be vaccinated. According to the Nursing Times (November 8), the Department of Health is in the dark about the general uptake of the vaccine.

Detailed information about the GlaxoKlineSmith vaccine Pandemrix including the main ingredients can be found in this official document (see especially pages 2 and 13).  We found this information on the NHS Choices Swine flu web page . The link provided there to the Baxter vaccine ingredients page does not seem to work.

If you do want the vaccine but it is not yet available at your local surgery, or they have run out because of the huge uptake, here you can learn how to make your own supply for the whole family.

We can point you to many other good sources of information about swine flu and swine flu vaccines; please contact us if you would like to know more.

It is clear by the mocking tone and dubious links that H:MC21 are happy to undermine public health vaccination efforts through scaremongering rather than cold headed risk assessment.

Conclusion

The Science and Technology committee has considerable power and among its members includes many MPs who are sceptical of homeopathy.  For homeopathy to be considered sympathetically homeopaths will have to make strong arguments for the benefits of a treatment of no proven efficacy in certain situations, arguably in palliative care or for the worried well, by stating the value of the caring application of placebo, and argue on the basis of placebo they should because that is what the evidence suggests.  It will have to demonstrate that its practitioners do not undermine healthcare options of proven efficacy, have an appreciation of ethics and are willing to allow evidence to change their practice. Only by doing this may it stand a chance of being reviewed sympathetically

What homeopaths should not do is demonstrate a tendency to argue that weak papers in dubious journals represent proof of its efficacy, that it can treat and cure terminal illness, that its proponents have minds closed to changing in the face of evidence and that it actively undermines evidence based medicine.  Unfortunately H:MC21 seem to believe in this latter option, I wonder what their submission to the committee looks like?  If it is of the same quality as their newsletter then they will have handed hammer, nails and coffin lid to the select committee and invited them to bury any chance of support for the profession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*update*

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

*update 2*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elliot Grove
Founder
Raindance Film Festival
British Independent Film Awards

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

Re: Is House of Numbers an AIDS denialist film?

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

Mr Grove’s response:

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

Watch the film and see for yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope there are no more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

Raindance have linked to this blog post saying that:

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

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

Twitter Exchange with @Raindance_Fest

dontgetfooled .@Raindance_Fest …but if you want sordid big pill-pusher AID$ escapades, try this for size: http://tr.im/AyAY @gimpyblog @dnotice about 19 hours ago from web

dontgetfooled @Raindance_Fest Damnit Damnit, how did you guess? …It’s a fair cop – me and @gimpyblog are all part of the conspiracy about 19 hours ago from web

jdc325 Fluffy Mike’s comment: http://bit.ly/3Lm34q on @Raindance_Fest & House of Numbers about 22 hours ago from web

gimpyblog Onto big pharma conspiracy theories now. you really are clueless. RT @Raindance_Fest: @dontgetfooled – the big US Drug companies love U! about 22 hours ago from TweetDeck

Raindance_Fest @dontgetfooled dontgetfooled .@raindance_fest Harvard says AIDS denial caused 300,000 deaths in S Africa – the big US Drug companies love U! about 22 hours ago from web

gimpyblog @Raindance_Fest for goodness sake, you could learn from Caspar Melville of @NewHumanist on when to stop digging holes http://bit.ly/Rti0r 1 day ago from TweetDeck

dontgetfooled .@raindance_fest Harvard says AIDS denial caused 300,000 deaths in S Africa – or did that holocaust not happen either? http://tr.im/AwWg 1 day ago from web

dontgetfooled @raindance_fest Charmed… Did you look that up or do you have some kind of DIY ‘holistic wisdom’ generator as your screensaver? @gimpyblog 1 day ago from web

dontgetfooled @gimpyblog Clark Baker – great source; next they’ll be giving us Rwandan genocide/AIDS denier Chris Black: http://tr.im/AwUn @raindance_fest 1 day ago from web

si_streetworks @Raindance_Fest HIV AIDS denialist campaigns have contributed to well over 300,000 deaths in SA, the documentary is propoganda not science. 1 day ago from web

si_streetworks @Raindance_Fest That’s not how science progresses. If there’s evidence that contradicts the HIV AIDS theory you publish not do documentaries 1 day ago from web

Raindance_Fest RT @Raindance_Fest Ok this is getting silly. Can you point to the scientific evidence backing up the claims in House of Numbers – SEE IT 1 day ago from web

gimpyblog Review by a racist, violent conspiracy loon, nice bedfellow RT @Raindance_Fest: Stunning review: Hollywood Gumshoe: http://bit.ly/1XpAX0 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog source @Raindance_Fest linked to support screening of house of numbers endorses beating of rodney king. http://bit.ly/4hHSQ 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog @dontgetfooled did you see @Raindance_Fest just linked to this to support their argument? http://bit.ly/PpRMB the barrel has been scraped 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog #fail you just linked to a crazy right wing birther conspiracy monger e.g. http://bit.ly/hrBKJRT @Raindance_Fest: http://bit.ly/1XpAX0 1 day ago from TweetDeck

dnotice .@Raindance_Fest As someone said “Truth’s 3 Stages Denial|Opposition|Acceptance”. You deny us & oppose us, so now u just need to accept… 1 day ago from TweetDeck

dnotice I, @gimpyblog & @dontgetfooled just got insulted by Raindance Fest (@raindance_fest) for criticising them showing an AIDS denialism film 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog @Raindance_Fest Ok this is getting silly. Can you point to the scientific evidence backing up the claims in House of Numbers? 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog RT @dontgetfooled: Is Elliot Grove the new Andrew Neil? http://tr.im/Awyz @raindance_fest http://bit.ly/Btyd4 1 day ago from TweetDeck

dontgetfooled Is Elliot Grove the new Andrew Neil? http://tr.im/Awyz @raindance_fest http://bit.ly/Btyd4 1 day ago from web

dontgetfooled dontgetfooled Is Elliot Grove the new Andrew Neil? http://tr.im/Awyz @raindance_fest 1 day ago from web

dnotice .@Raindance_Fest … so if I say something about you, which you deny, it *must* be true, even if there’s little if any supporting evidence? 1 day ago from Power Twitter

dontgetfooled RT @Raindance_Fest Truths 3 Stages Denial|Opposition|Acceptance <== are these guys for real?! This is beyond parody… 1 day ago from web

gimpyblog Abusing a Schopenhauer quote to suggest house of numbers has point?Pathetic RT @Raindance_Fest: Truths 3 Stages Denial|Opposition|Acceptance 1 day ago from TweetDeck

dontgetfooled If David Irving starred in a nicely-edited, beautifully-shot film about the holocaust, would @raindance_fest show that too? 1 day ago from web

dontgetfooled “Triumph of the Will” was also a “really good piece of film-making” – would @raindance_fest enthuse about that too? 1 day ago from web

dontgetfooled @gimpyblog …Totally missing the point that beautiful, well-produced lies are far more dangerous than the usual schlock @raindance_fest 1 day ago from web

gimpyblog @dontgetfooled did u see @Raindance_Fest who love the flm http://bit.ly/Btyd4 pulling the ‘if u haven’t seen it u can’t criticise it’ trick? 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog @Raindance_Fest I suggest you read @sethckal on House of Numbers to start with to see why it is all bollocks http://bit.ly/18VZI7 1 day ago from TweetDeck

gimpyblog @Raindance_Fest i don’t need to see house of numbers to know its bollocks, i can read the scientific literature to confirm that… 1 day ago from TweetDeck

Raindance_Fest RT @gimpyblog Elliot Grove @Raindance_Fest loves the Aids denialism: cock-end http://bit.ly/Btyd4 Have you actually seen House of Numbers? 1 day ago from web

si_streetworks “scientific community is divided” is well known in the climate change and creationism areas. @Raindance_Fest http://bit.ly/Rti0r 1 day ago from web

si_streetworks Oh no! @Raindance_Fest is promoting the AIDS denialism #houseofnumbers using the ridiculous “scientific community is divided” misinformation 1 day ago from web

gimpyblog RT @bengoldacre: Elliot Grove, @Raindance_Fest , loves the Aids denialism: cock-end http://bit.ly/Btyd4 1 day ago from TweetDeck

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.

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.