The Quackometer

I am well aware that this blog may suffer from a distinct availability bias: I only really comment on and criticise forms of quackery that are easily accessible to me. As such, I may give the impression of highlighting the worst aspects of alternative medicine in the UK when actually I am only commenting on those areas that interest me and I can easily research (i.e. Google). Occasionally, I get glimpses into vast new hinterlands of quackery, unexplored and largely inaccessible. Horse owners appear to be awash with nonsensical beliefs. Even Chinese herbalists on the high street have gone unexamined because their web presence is small and unassuming.

By contrast, homeopaths have been thoroughly raked over, primarily because they crave the recognition and respectability that institutions, regulatory authorities, scientific-looking journals and conferences give them. They desire to be seen, not just as equals, but as superiors to conventional doctors, and to wear the mantle of science, even though they denigrate it when it contradicts them (as it always does). This provides a wealth of material that can be mocked, prodded and played with. But it may not represent a fair snapshot of what abuses go on in the outside world.

Here's a story that may well have escaped my attention. DM Digital TV is a Manchester based TV company (Sky Channel 802) that broadcasts in Urdu to the Pakistani population of the UK and abroad. Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulator, has fined the TV station £15,000 for making unsubstantiated and potentially dangerous medical claims. The programme in question (Health is Wealth) was all about a homeopath called Dr Professor Mohammed Jamil Jilu ("Dr Jamil") who made several amazing claims about the ability of homeopathy to cure cancer, diabetes and hepatitis. The complainant to Ofcom thought the programme was just a platform for the promotion of Dr Jamil's homeopathy practice. Dr Jamil does not appear to have much of a web presence and does not appear to be a member of any of the pretend homeopathy regulators in the UK. Apparently, Dr Jamil is registered in Pakistan. One wonders what meaning their code of ethics has.

It turned out that Dr Jamil did in fact pay to have the programme made and so not only did the programme fall foul of the Ofcom code of practice on medical claims, but also on sponsorship and the Cancer Act of 1939. DM digital claimed in its defence that it was not the only broadcaster who carried the programme and that the programme would have met regulatory guidelines in Pakistan. It also pleaded that it was a small company (20 people) and that a large fine could seriously damage it. They also appeared to believe that Dr Jamil's testimonials regarding his ability to cure cancer were sufficient mitigation. It looks as if the TV station was operating without any regard to the broadcasting regulations whatsoever. It may have been hoping it was under the radar and was unnoticeable to the regulators. Its compliance officer did not even see the programme before broadcast.

Ofcom has regulatory teeth. It is able to impose quite heavy fines. Awareness of availability bias is quite strong with some regulators. For example, the Advertising Standards Authority, although it has significantly less power, does actively monitor foreign language channels to help ensure its reach is not limited by its own accessibility bias. It does not wait for complaints from the public, but actively seeks out problems in areas that may otherwise go unnoticed.

In contrast, the homeopathic self-regulators in the UK are completely passive. They take no role in ensuring their members act responsibly. They will have nothing to say about this case. Even when complaints are made to them, their actions are to brush aside. Self regulation is a failure. Ofcom had this to say about the seriousness of the case,

[T]he case involves significant potential harm to some viewers. A homeopath, who was not medically qualified, was permitted to give medical advice on air to an audience in the UK about how to treat extremely serious conditions such as cancer, hepatitis and diabetes. The Committee was concerned that this kind of advice would resonate with any members of the audience who may be suffering from these diseases and so would be vulnerable. In the Committee’s view there was a material risk that broadcasting the sort of unsubstantiated claims made by Dr Jamil may lead some viewers to buy his advertised products without taking proper medical advice – so causing either a delay in treatment or a failure to seek treatment at all. The seriousness of the breach of Rule 2.1 was compounded by the fact that the programme’s presenter did not challenge Dr Jamil’s claims at any stage.

No doubt, the homeopathic community will not see a problem as their own availability bias precludes reason, evidence and truth.

Labels: DM digital TV, regulation