The Quackometer

The Society of Homeopaths have recently had their 30th Anniversary Annual General Meeting and Conference at Leicester University. Lots of pop and cake were undoubtedly consumed. Various guest speakers were there talking nonsense and various 'breakout' sessions allowed homeopaths to share their delusional experience with each other.

One session will be on "Perils and pitfalls in practice" given by Patricia Moroney the current Professional Conduct Officer. She says,

There will be an opportunity for you to assess the professional conduct issues that arise in a variety of situations. The workshop will be a fun and interactive way to engage with The Code of Ethics and Practice.

Now, undoubtedly 'Trish' has been having some fun with the code of ethics over the past year. A few months ago, the Society of Homeopaths produced the first documented expulsion of a member ever. The Quackometer has repeatedly criticised SoH for not taking action against members who obviously flout their rules and not being transparent and accountable in their approach to professional conduct. Could the Society be listening?


The Society claim in their Review of 2007 to have made only one formal investigation,

During 2007, The Professional Conduct Department responded to over a hundred logged telephone calls, letters and emails from members and the general public. Many of the queries arose from misunderstandings or lack of information. The majority were resolved swiftly through means of advice or where necessary mediation. During 2007 the department conducted one Adjudication Panel hearing. The complaint was upheld.

That is surprising given the fact that many bloggers have sent in complaints about members, fellows and directors of SoH who are blatantly breaching the Society rules. My own efforts to complain are well documented on this site. One complaint resulted in SoH taking legal action against me rather than address my concerns.

e.g. See

Homeopaths Through the Looking-Glass
The Society of Homeopaths: Truth Matters
Society of Homeopaths breach own Code of Ethics on website
Patricia Moroney Pwned

and so on.

So, the unlucky recipient of a Society of Homeopaths reprimand was a Mr David Evans of the North West College of Homeopathy.

What events resulted in this investigation?

We do not know.

All we know is the list of rules he was supposed to have broken. These range from "avoid disclosing any information concerning a patient to a third party without the patient’s written consent" and "Maintenance of appropriate records" to rather more disturbing rules such as "Maintaining appropriate boundaries Homeopaths, are responsible for avoiding exploitation of their patients financially, emotionally, sexually; or in any other way." and "Where a patient, student, or supervisee is expressing feelings towards the homeopath, tutor, or supervisor which cause problems for the maintenance of professional boundaries and the professional- for whatever reason- is unable to resolve the situation in an acceptable manner the professional relationship is to be ended"

The Society do not tell us what the defendant was supposed to have done wrong. Perhaps it is a new parlour game. Look at the list of rules breached and imagine the story that led to the hearing. What fun.

And what is the result of the hearing?

The Panel recommended to the Board of The Society of Homeopaths that Mr. David Evans be expelled from The Society with immediate effect. The Board ratified the recommendation of the Panel to be effective from 11th March 2008.

Now, the whole debate about regulation is how the public are best protected against dangerous practices and people who should, perhaps, not be in positions of trust. Is the Society of Homeopaths capable of fulfilling this role? What has the effect of this ruling been? To my best knowledge, the only effect has been the removal of the letters RSHom from the web site of the place where the subject of the investigation works.

So far, I have been complaining that organisations never use their code of ethics to protect the public from harm. Now that they have tried to do so, we are confronted with the obvious futility, uselessness and deceptive nature of the whole facade.

Such is the weakness of voluntary self-regulation. The government see this as the way forward for all of alternative medicine by setting up Ofquack, the new 'federal' register of all alternative healers. Just like the Society of Homeopaths, the code of ethics for Ofquack will be more about putting a veneer of professionalism on the indefensible rather than protecting the public.

Labels: regulation, Society of Homeopaths

 

Unbelievably, nearly two years after BBC Newsnight exposed ten homeopaths offering dangerous advice to travellers about malaria protection, the BBC have found high street chain Neal's Yard Remedies offering sugar pills as protection against malaria.

The BBC, in a press release, said,

The presenter of [BBC] Inside Out South West Janine Jansen was sold homeopathic remedies by the manager of Neal's Yard in Exeter and was advised that she could use them to help deal with malaria.

This is quite an extraordinary happening. The BBC first exposed the dangers of unregulated homeopaths offering lethal malaria advice on their Newsnight programme. The Society of Homeopaths, the largest members club in the UK, refused to discipline or even condemn any of its members caught out. Furthermore, it refused to offer proper guidance to homeopaths on this subject. What it did do was legally threaten me when I pointed out their lack of action, it issued guidance to its members to keep their mouths shut when answering queries about this, and issued thoroughly misleading press statements saying why it took no action.

Nonetheless, an enormous amount of bad publicity was generated and it cannot have gone unnoticed at Neal's Yard Remedies.

Neal's Yard is a very well known brand in the UK with operations now in Japan and the US. Founded in the trendy and touristy Covent Garden area of London, it is well known for its bath and shower products. It also thinks it is in the medical and healthcare market. Its web site shows it offering all sort of herbal and homeopathic remedies as well as in-store therapies. For example, it says it can offer Hopi Ear Candling and tells the fib that that it is "a traditional healing technique of the Native American Hopi Indians".

Neal's Yard Remedies is offering a Malaria 30C Homoeopathic Remedy on its web site. This is again breathtaking. In the past, people like Professor David Colquhoun have exposed the 'wicked scam' of such products, often sold overseas. We now see such products on the high street in the UK. A local newspaper has picked up on the story and interviewed Nicola Gillespie of Neal's Yard in Exeter who said, "Homeopathy can be used for that (treatment of malaria)", but then confusingly added, "We are not going to say they can prevent people from getting malaria".

Let's be quite clear. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that homeopathic sugar pills can prevent or cure malaria. The suggestion is utterly implausible and is no different from witchcraft. Dr Ron Behrens, the Director of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases Travel Clinic in London, said

making claims that homeopathic remedies can prevent or treat malaria was potentially highly dangerous and it puts people's lives at risk.

Dr Peter Fisher, the Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and the Queen's Homeopath, has previously said about such advice,

I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Unfortunately, whilst Dr Fisher is absolutely right that people will get malaria if they follow such advice, he is wrong that you cannot find it in homeopathic textbooks. I founnd a book in my local bookshop this afternoon carrying this crazy nonsense. Rob Hinkley at SemiSkimmed has written about this in detail in response to this story.

We can perhaps understand Neal's Yard's position here when you appreciate that their 'Director of Medicine', Susan Curtis, has herself written a book entitled, Homoeopathic Alternatives To Immunisation, which is promoted as,

An invaluable guide for all travellers. This book contains practical information on preventing and treating major infectious diseases, including hepatitis, flu, malaria, measles and whooping cough.

Staggering. All these diseases are killers, especially in poorer countries, and if you were a traveller, you would want prompt and good medical care. Susan is a Member of the Society of Homeopaths. Their code of conduct expressly forbids them from stating or implying that they can cure named diseases. However, we know that the SoH will never discipline any of its members or fellows for doing so. We cannot look to homeopath's 'professional' bodies to stamp out this insanity.

According to Healthwatch, Susan Curtis has no medical training. She was interviewed by the BBC but walked out after 15 minutes in a bit of a huff. The interviewer had to yell after her to ask if what she was doing was criminal. On the programme, Professor Edzard Ernst, Britian's only holder of a chair in CAM, said,

It's awful. I would not hesitate to call this criminal. I don't know whether this is legally criminal but, in my view, this is so amoral and unethical that I would not hesitate to call it criminal.

This statement stands in stark contrast as to how Neal's Yard likes to portray itself as 'the ethical brand'. It won the Sunday Times 'Best Ethical Brand' last year. Will it put itself forward this year?

Curtis is well aware that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that magic sugar pills have any role in preventing or treating malaria. She is able to justify the sale herself by suggesting there is 'evidence by extension'. What this means is that homeopaths 'know' homeopathy works. They do not need real and direct evidence. They can just 'extend' their delusions in any direction they wish. Criminal? Definitely, irresponsible beyond belief.

One area of law breaking that does need to be fully explored is to see if Neal's Yard Remedies are in breach of the MHRA rules on medicines. Homeopaths have recently been given special dispensation to tell lies on the labels of their products, but as long as it is only for minor illnesses and after they have submitted a 'dosier of delusions' to the MHRA. The BBC have passed on their evidence to the MHRA to see if an offense has been committed. There are two possibilities - Neal's Yard are selling such products without a license; the MHRA have given a license (which I doubt). Both would be a disgrace.

In the meantime, what will Neal's Yard do? On their web site they say their values are to "take great care to be responsible in everything we do." The only responsible thing to do right now would be to fire their Medicines Director, Susan Curtis, withdraw their homeopathy products, conduct a thorough review and get back to the business of selling perfumed bathroom products.

Something tells me this will not happen.


*********************************************************************

A full transcript of the programme is now available at Thinking Is Dangerous.

See the follow up post to this at "Neal's Yard Ethical Bullshit Remedy."

And how the MHRA has clobbered them.


*********************************************************************

Labels: homeopathy, Neal's Yard Remedies, Society of Homeopaths

 

Here are the stated aims of the Society of Homeopaths for 2007 and set out at the start of the year...

Labels: Society of Homeopaths

 

We know it is going to be a fun year for watching Homeopaths. The fight is well and truly on for who gets to pretend to regulate the profession. The beleaguered Society of Homeopaths have today gone on the offensive for total and unyielding control.

The year started off with Prince Charles and the Foundation for Integrated Health announcing the arrival on the scene of the government backed Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council, or Ofquack. This was something of an ambush on the various factions of homeopaths. They have been fighting amongst each other, trying to poach members and accusing each other of dastardly crimes and not being true homeopaths, but on one thing they appear to be unanimous: their opposition to CNHC and 'federated regulation'. What this means is that they do not want to be regulated by non-homeopaths. Heaven forbid someone who does not 'understand' homeopathy, ever tell them what they can and cannot do.

But the CNHC know that the various groups' objections to Ofquack do not mean that individual homeopaths will object. There may well be advantages of being seen to be regulated by the Princes' organisation, not least of all that it might well be a lot cheaper then the subs that the SoH demand. So, CNHS have been ploughing on as if there is no problem and appearing in newspapers and on the radio telling the world that homeopaths are happy and ready to join.

No so fast.

Today, the Society of Homeopaths have upped their game and issued a press release to tell the world that they, and they alone, are ready to set up a single register. If the CNHC succeed, SoH may well cease to exist in a year or two. They are planning their counter attacks.

Consultation commences today on regulation of homeopaths.

The Society of Homeopaths resolves to divest regulatory framework from its membership organisation to create the UK’s first independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths

The Society of Homeopaths, Britain’s largest professional association of homeopaths, today announced that it has begun a wide-ranging consultation as it prepares to launch the UK’s first independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths. Following a recent meeting with the Department of Health, the Board of the 30 year old Society resolved to divest its self-regulation and governance arm from its membership and continuing professional development functions in order to create a first-class regulatory body, which will govern the professional practice of an
expanding number of homeopathy practitioners.

What this means is, at the moment, a bit confusing. First of all, what is new? SoH already have the largest single register and if it wasn't for those pesky, breakaway splitters, the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, they would have a near monopoly. They make no mention of working with other homeopaths groups and so we must assume that it this is an initiative solely within the Society and aimed at wrong footing the CNHC. How will they get ARH splitters to join the new SoH backed register and not Ofquack? My guess is that SoH believe that ARH will fold quicker than a spineless internet service provider as soon as members stop renewing their subscriptions.

There is also the implication that they are doing this with the approval of the Department of Health. But we know we have to be dead careful with Society press releases. Things should not be taken at face value. We know that the Department of Health are planning to bankroll CNHC for the next year and so it is unlikely they are supporting both initiatives. We must assume that the Society mean exactly what they say: they had a meeting with the DoH and then they embarked on this initiative. Two unrelated facts. They might have well have said that they had a bowl of cornflakes, brushed their teeth, and then decided to divest themselves of their self-regulatory powers.

The press release then goes on to praise the high level of self-regulation within the Society of Homeopaths. Regular readers here will know how difficult that is to accept. Despite obvious, numerous and well documented breaches of their code of ethics, there is little evidence of the Society ever making any adjudications and disciplining any of their members. They say in press releases that they have a "transparent complaints process". Can you find a list of their cases considered on their web site? We know complaints have been made. Where is the transparency?

So what is going to happen? Well, it looks like there is going to be a consultation,

Commenting on the Board’s resolution and the consultation process, Chair designate, Jayne Thomas said: “Today marks an important watershed in our profession. The consultation is to be widespread. We are seeking the views of patients, other homeopaths, the many colleges and universities that train the professionals, other organisations in the homeopathy field and of course politicians from all parties.

The one group that is conspicuously absent is scientists and the medical profession. And in that we see that this is one more futile bit of gesture and power politics. This is about control of the profession and not about protecting the public. My guess is that my opinion will not be welcome at this consultation.

If protecting the public was paramount then any regulatory structure must take into account the quality of advice that is given out by homeopaths. Both the CNHC and SoH want to control training standards but neither want to take on the content of that training. We know there is a deep problem within the homeopathic community that their training makes them systematically incompetent. They are trained not to recognise and actively reject normal standards of scientific evidence. They are trained to accept unquestioningly the teachings of their founder Samuel Hahnemann as if it was revealed truth. And in doing so they pose a real danger to their patients that they will offer useless or even dangerous advice, and worse, they will undermine the relationship that they might have with their GP. The failure of the Society of Homeopaths to tackle the problem of members giving out dangerous anti-malaria advice effectively rules them out as a competent body in regulating the profession.

Professor Dame Joan Higgins, who set up the CNHC, suffers from the same problem. Professor Higgins has recently given a presentation reviewing progress and expectations. One slide notes that there has been 'press criticism' that CNHC will 'endorse quackery'. Well I never! How does she respond to this criticism?

FWG role was not to evaluate the effectiveness of CAM and it did not have the capacity to do so. Its task was to establish a regulatory structure to protect the public not to promote CAM. This does not mean that it was positive/negative about CAM. It did not take a view.

This statement is somewhat disingenuous in that no one would expect them to evaluate the effectiveness of CAM, or at least homeopathy. That evaluation has already been done. Homeopathy is the ritualised prescription of plain sugar pills for all illnesses. As such, it is pure placebo and the best clinical evidence to date suggest that this is just the case. It is not a hard problem to understand. In principle, it is perfectly possible to draw up a set of regulations that take this into account.

So, Professor Higgins also washes her hands of the rather inconvenient problem that homeopathy does not work as described but practitioners are too deluded to work competently within the boundaries set by that knowledge. Whilst we have all these fighting organisations struggling to come out on top as the pretend regulators of the profession, we will have no one prepared to protect vulnerable people from homeopaths who practice their 'healing art' without care as to what is true and what is not true.

I wonder what is going to happen next?

Well, the CNHC will be late in setting up. There are already signs of slippage. There has only just been an advert go out to look for a Chair of the body. For an organisation that has stated it is ready to go in April, that looks rather late. A new chair may not be up and running until mid Summer at the earliest.

It's all going to be a complete shambles.

********************************************************************

Your contribution to the consulation can be made by sending thoughts to consultation@homeopathy-soh.org

Labels: Natural Healthcare Council, regulation, Society of Homeopaths

 

The ambush by the Prince of Wales on the various factions of Alternative Medicine by announcing the set up of the Natural Healthcare Council, Ofquack, is starting to have effects. In the Guardian yesterday, Polly Toynbee ran an article entitled, Quackery and superstition - available soon on the NHS. She argues that we should,

Labels: Natural Healthcare Council, ofquack, regulation, Society of Homeopaths

 

How should homeopaths be regulated? I am not sure I have made up my mind yet about what I would like to see and I am not convinced there is a perfect solution. However, I hope some debate has been kicked off by all the goings on last year, here and on various other blogs and forums. One thing I am pretty sure of is that homeopaths have pretty much ruled themselves out of the discussion. Adults only from now on.

And the reason for this is that they have had their chance - and a good shot at trying to regulate themselves. Indeed, this was the stated aim of the Society of Homeopaths last year. Two of their annual goals were:

To facilitate the smooth handover of Society regulatory processes to a new regulatory and registration body

and,

To uphold and review The Society’s professional standards especially in relation to the development of a new regulatory and registration body (NRRB)

They failed miserably at both.

The farce of creating a single homeopaths' single register is being documented at gimpy's blog. Squabbling about money made sure the register did not get off the ground. I believe this reflected deeper rivalry between the various homeopaths' groups based on philosophical differences and also just plain old human power struggles.

The Society also demonstrated that their code of ethics could not protect the public from the worst delusional beliefs of their members. Their utter two-faced failure to tackle the problems posed by members offering anti-malaria advice led to the Society being prepared to directly misrepresent their own actions to the papers. They were also last year promoting homeopathic intervention in HIV people in Africa. It is difficult to think of more exploitative, deluded and dangerous actions.

So, to start off - what are we trying to protect against? Ben Goldacre has been quite clear about the dangers of alternative medicine - bullshit. And that bullshit manifests itself in a couple of dangerous ways with homeopaths. Firstly, they may delay a customers access to effective treatment - in the case of serious illness this can be fatal. Secondly, they may present themselves as serious alternatives to real medicine. We have found this most shocking when homeopathic missionaries tell vulnerable African people with HIV that they can treat them. Homeopaths use the denigration of medicine as a standard marketing tool. Homeopaths stand out in the alternative medicine crowd in their anger and hostility towards real doctors and medical practices. It is how they define themselves and what makes them most dangerous to the public. They most definitely are not a 'complementary medicine'.

It is not that I want people to stop visiting homeopaths and other therapists. People often do get benefit from the self-indulgent friendly chat that a GP is just not in a position to offer. Homeopaths ought to be in a prime position to offer this as I have said before. However, in visiting a practitioner, we need to consider how the public may be protected against two main problems we find in quackery: being exploited financially, and being given inappropriate and dangerous medical advice.

One potential solution is coming from Prince Charles and his Foundation for Integrated Health. FIH is looking into setting up a Natural Healthcare Council that will offer regulatory functions to the broad church of complementary and alternative therapies. The Times reports that this new voluntary register should be established this year and,

will be able to strike off errant or incompetent practitioners. It will also set minimum standards for practitioners to ensure that therapists are properly qualified.

Their hope is that,

all practitioners will be forced to join or lose business as the public will use the register as a guarantee of quality. The council will register only practitioners who are safe, have completed a recognised course, are insured and have signed up to codes of conduct.

Funnily enough, the homeopaths appear to be deeply hostile to this move. "The homeopathy profession has been unanimous in rejecting federalisation as an option for regulation" reports the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths. But, as I have said, I am not really interested in what they think - their only motives in discussing regulation appear to be self-interest and survival.

So, will the chief tree-talker's ideas be a good move? Should Prince Charles' organisation be allowed to succeed?

I have some serious reservations.

Firstly, by what standards will the Natural Healthcare Council set for competence and training? Professor David Colquhoun has documented the training dilemma of alternative medicine by noting that most alternative therapies are based on nonsense ideas that have no scientific and objective merit. "It cannot be expected that a universities will provide a course that preaches the mumbo jumbo of meridians, energy lines and so on... Can any serious university be expected to teach such nonsense as though the words [of alternative medicine] meant something? ". Since, homeopaths cannot even agree amongst themselves what homeopathy is and what are its essential elements (not surprising, as it is not based on reality) then the Council risks either alienating large swathes of practitioners or being completely arbitrary in its criteria. Either will not protect the public. Setting education standards for homeopaths is like trying to accommodate Hogwarts into the National Curriculum.

Secondly, by what standards will practitioners be judged in handling complaints and when upholding professional standards? Should we uphold a homeopath to standards of homeopathy, aromatherapy, reiki or - heaven forbid - evidence and science? This is important. In deciding whether a homeopath has crossed a line of ethics in offering malaria prophylactics, who will judge them? If homeopaths are involved, the the public will not be protected as they have dangerous and delusional ideas about their magic sugar pills. However, if they are to be judged by the standards of best evidence, then no homeopath will join the organisation as they know that they cannot practice within their strongly held beliefs. In either case, the Council will fail to protect the public. You might think that homeopaths would be willing to disengage from their wilder healing fantasies in order to gain the credibility of the name of Prince Charles, but all my experience says that homeopaths are fiercely proud, angry and determined not to be constrained by any external forces (probably orchestrated by 'allopaths').

And if the Council do uphold the strongest standards and do this in a transparent and accountable way, will the UK suddenly be free from rogue practitioners? Well, no. My recent example of the the ASA upholding a complaint against Osteomylogist, Robert Delgado, showed that even statutorily registering complementary therapists has big loopholes. This non-statutory and voluntary registered body, the Natural Healthcare Council, will have even less power over practitioners.

But what it will achieve is that Prince Charles' name will give credibility to all sorts of unproven therapies and wacky non-medically qualified people to go out there and pretend to be healers. And at the same time, offer no guarantee of protection to the public.

I don't think this is the answer and I think it will even lead to a greater threat to the public.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, homeopathy, Natural Healthcare Council, regulation, Society of Homeopaths

 

In his Guardian article, Ben Goldacre wrote about how homeopaths respond to criticism:

Labels: Ben Goldacre, homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

One thing always puzzled me about Tony Blair (well in fact, many things) was when he rather suddenly came out in defence of homeopathy. Out of the blue, he told the detractors of this weird superstition to back off:

Labels: ARH, homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

This, morning David Colquhoun was on the Radio 4 Today programme (listen again, 20 minutes in) making the charge that today's Society of Homeopaths Symposium on AIDS was deeply irresponsible.

Labels: homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

On the eve of the Society of Homeopaths' symposium in London on homeopathy and AIDS, the SoH issue a press release. It is a statement about how they are warm and cuddly and complementary and working oh so hard to dominate create a single register of homeopaths. They are definitely not promoting quack cures for AIDS.

It is well documented now about how so many of their press releases are simply misleading. (The current press release is thoroughly taken apart by Gimpy).

What caught my eye was the link at the end to the National AIDS Trust. Did this organisation support them, endorse their views and think homeopathy has a role in AIDS management? I had to find out. So, I emailed their policy advisor, Alana Lewis.

Yusef Azad, their Director of Policy and Campaigns, emailed me back to say that, of course, they do not support the seminar and would be in contact with SoH. He rang them. And now, the reference has been removed from the online press release. Their excuse was that it was a reference for their AIDS figures. Typical quack referencing: incomplete, inappropriate and confusing.

Tomorrow is World AIDS day. Yusef has this to say:

"There is no current cure for HIV. But there is effective treatment in the form of antiretroviral therapy which is saving millions of people and enabling them to live healthy active lives. The tragedy is that there are still far too many governments not funding the treatment properly, and too many people with HIV who have not been informed of its benefits. Quack cures abound of course, all unproven, all cruelly deceiving, all a massive distraction from what we know genuinely works."

I really cannot add anymore.

Labels: homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

Readers of Prospect Magazine have voted Jeanette Winterson as one of Britain's 'top intellectuals', falling well below Richard Dawkins and Germaine Greer, and somewhat below Matt Ridley, recently resigned chairman of the troubled Northern Rock bank.

There have been a number of articles in the press recently criticising homeopathic remedies as worthless at best, and potentially lethal at worst, if they are being taken instead of tried-and-tested conventional medicines for conditions such as malaria or HIV.

Of particular concern is a claim by the British homeopath Peter Chapel [sic] and his Dutch colleague, Harry Van Der Zee, that Chapel [sic] has developed a remedy, PC1, that can be used to treat the HIV virus.

it is hard to talk about what it is that homeopathy actually does,

where is the [...] sense in saying that because [homeopaths] don't understand something, even though [homeopaths] can discern its effects, [homeopaths] have to ignore it, scorn it, or suppress it?

The patients in Botswana have no knowledge about homeopathy, and are very rarely interested in learning more. All they need to know is that the homeopaths have helped a neighbour or a relative and, personal recommendation being the way of life in Africa, they come full of confidence that they’ll be healed.

For the people visiting the clinic, we are “doctors”. A bit weird for doctors - no white coats, no nurses, the clinic is sometimes a bit of shade and a couple of plastic chairs, and the pills are small and few - but they seem to trust us more than the doctors in the hospital, who never seem to have time to listen.

Labels: celebrity quackery, homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

Labels: homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

I doubt we will ever see an X-Factor moment where a homeopath is forced to brutally confront the totality of their own delusions as they are exposed to a direct and uncompromising truth assault by a quackbusting Simon Cowell. Their emotional commitment to their healing fantasies is far stronger than their intellectual commitment to reason, truth and evidence. But I would have hoped that a homeopath's disregard for truth was limited to the truths of science, however, events in the last week or two have made me wonder.

Last week, Ben Goldacre wrote an article in the Guardian newspaper (Threats – the homeopathic panacea) about how the Society of Homeopaths had attempted to silence this site over its criticism of the Society's ability to protect the public from harmful advice from its members. This was highlighted by the BBC Newsnight/Sense about Science investigations into homeopaths giving advice about malaria prevention. As you might recall, at no point did the society try to contact me to explain their grievances - they used legal chill on my website hosts to silence me. The Society saw fit to respond the Guardian article and sent the editor a letter. To the best of my knowledge it has not been published. However, it is published on the Society web site and is the first insight into their thinking.

However, before exploring that, a number of things jumped out. In their letter of 22nd October 2007, they said (with my emphasis),

We contacted the programme makers directly to ask for their evidence that any Society members had given dangerous or misleading advice to members of the public. They were unable to provide a single example. The Society’s professional conduct procedures cannot be invoked without a specific complaint, an alleged offender or any evidence. In these circumstances, The Society was unable to investigate a specific case.

Elsewhere on their web site, they state that,

The Society of Homeopaths takes any alleged breach of its Code of Ethics & Practice very seriously and we must follow a due process when dealing with any allegation.

And,

The research conducted by Sense About Science failed to identify the homeopaths interviewed. Not all homeopaths are registered members of The Society. Nevertheless, any alleged breach by a registered member, of The Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice, will be investigated by our Professional Conduct Department.

Now, what I do not understand is how these statements can be made in light of the fact that I have an email from Paula Ross, Chief Executive of the Society of Homeopaths, addressed to the programme investigators (dated 22 August 2006), that starts,

"I am in receipt of your summary transcripts."

The transcripts contain two conversations between an undercover investigator and a named homeopath who just so happens to be a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths. I will not name him, but I am happy to do so if the Society dispute this.


In the transcripts, the investigator asks if the named homeopath is able to offer a homeopathic alternative to her doctor-prescribed anti-malarials. The homeopath confirms that he is able to, and offers a consultation on that basis. In a subsequent transcripted conversation, when asked by the investigator why the Health Protection Agency web site says that you should not take homeopathy for malaria, the named homeopath laughs and replies “Of course they did. Right, if you are influenced by that go with whatever will make you comfortable.”


The investigator, still acting as a client, asks why the Faculty of Homeopaths says pretty much the same thing. The homeopath replies, “the faculty are all medics so they must more or less toe the medical line.” The homeopath constantly portrays this as an either/or choice for the client: either they stick with their side-effect inducing ‘orthodox’ treatments or go with homeopathy. The homeopath tells the investigator to do some research on the Society of Homeopath’s web site and on the What Doctors Don’t Tell You web site. When asked to confirm again that there is a homeopathic alternative, he replies, “The answer to that is yes, but not approved by orthodoxy. Plain and simply.”

(You can see a summary of all the transcripts here.)

So, what the hell is going on here? It is possible that the Chair of the Society of Homeopaths, Andy Kirk, who wrote letter to the Guardian, may not have been aware that the Chief Executive, Paula Ross, was in possession of the transcript evidence and had been given the name of the Fellow of the Society who gave the advice. Presumably, their complaints officer, Patricia Moroney, was also not in possession of the evidence. This would be fairly shambolic - a word I used in the first sentence of my 'banned' article.

It may also be possible that Paula Ross came to the conclusion on her own that the transcripts did not contain sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. However, the Society is quite clear that "we must follow a due process when dealing with any allegation". Was due process not undertaken? Again, they are quite clear: "the Society was unable to investigate a specific case." It is worth pointing out that Paula Ross is not a trained homeopath, nor is she trained scientifically. She is an English graduate who has a Post-Graduate Diploma in Management.

There are, of course, far worse interpretations of this situation. Unfortunately, it looks like we may never know why these contradictory statements have been made by the Society. Did an investigation take place? If not, why not? If it did, why no apparent action? And why make statements that suggest that it was the failure of the BBC/SaS team to hand over evidence and names that prevented the Society from taking action? They quite clearly did hand over the evidence required. I have written to the Society and Ms Ross twice now over the past week to help me clarify the issues and they have seen fit not to reply.

One reason they might not have replied is contained in their letter to the Guardian. Rather than highlight what they thought was defamatory in my blog post, they say,

Dr Lewis, in his article, stated as fact highly offensive comments about The Society and it is for that reason that The Society decided it had no option but to take action.

Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.

So first, offensive is not the same as defamatory. And, as Richard Dawkins put it so well, "offense is what people take when they can't take argument". Offense is so often the refuge of the unquestionably right. What I find offensive is the fact that a Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths is quite prepared to let a gap year student or young tourist travel deep into Africa with nothing but a magic fairy pill to protect themselves against a common and often fatal disease. And more deeply offensive is that his so-called regulatory body sees no reason to take any action at all and is even prepared to state untruths about the matter in a national newspaper and on their website. And unpleasant? I hear dying of cerebral malaria is unpleasant.

Vitriolic? Vitriol suggests I was abusive. That I was not. What I was, was shocked and angry at what I was discovering and I was forthright in my opinions. I was not the only angry person. It is always worth re-quoting Dr Peter Fisher - the Queen's Homeopath - on the affair, "I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice."

The vitriol undoubtedly came from a stream of emails from around the world to the Society following their attempt to silence me. I do not condone this abuse - reasoned argument is much stronger and it has given the Society a fig-leaf to hide behind. But their quoting of this vitriol is typical of homeopathic thinking - it has confused the nature of cause and effect. The vitriol was the result of their actions, not the prompt for them to take action.


And so, as Nick Cohen discussed in yesterday's Observer, we live in a society that sees organisations like the Society of Homeopaths as "a funny little alternative institute we too casually dismiss as quaint". But homeopathy is founded on a cavalier attitude to reason and truth and that makes the practice dangerous. Their propaganda tells us that homeopathy is safe, natural and effective. This is not true - and truth matters most when dealing with life and death issues. I do not favour heavy handed legislation to stamp out these practices - I still believe homeopathy could just about evolve into something genuinely useful. But maybe the zeitgeist is changing. Holding dangerous beliefs, that show such a lack of care for consequences, should be as seen as socially unacceptable and as selfish and as irrational as running a gas guzzling 4x4 for city school runs, or as dangerous and irresponsible as drink driving.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

This is an old post, but I wanted to bump it up given the current homeopathic shenanigans

***********************************************************************
originally posted: Monday, July 17, 2006

In looking at countless quack web sites and having discussions with various quacks on message boards, the inevitable question that I ask myself is "What sort of quack am I dealing with - deluded or fraudulent?" The fraudulent quack knows they are promoting cures and remedies that do not work (above the placebo) but make money out of it anyway. The deluded quack believes they are promoting something genuinely wonderful, but misunderstood by 'science'.

The more I delve into quackery, the more I believe that we are mostly dealing with the deluded. Frauds can be dealt with by legislation and prosecution. The deluded appear to be a tougher nut to crack - minds have to be changed. However, the belief systems around alternative medicine appear to be impervious to criticism and rational enquiry. The defensive walls are high.

This situation appears to be very similar to arguments surrounding religious beliefs. Religion is largely immune to rational enquiry with people who hold such beliefs as they have many defenses against such enquiry.

Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' to represent a 'replicator of cultural information that one mind transmits (verbally or by demonstration) to another mind'. The God meme is usually at the foundation of religious beliefs. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the meme then best start here. The point I want to make is that memes rarely appear on their own, but usually cluster together to form cooperating meme-plexes that help each other to survive. A God meme on its own may not last in a culture for long. Gods are notorious in their reluctance to offer direct evidence of their existence and so a God meme may soon be subject to attack from a sceptical mind. However, if you couple a God meme with a 'faith is good' meme and a 'doubt is bad' meme then together, these memes may form a more stable meme-plex. Any sceptic can be brushed aside as a 'doubter' and any self-doubt can be parried with a renewed sense of the need for faith.

I would suggest that Alternative Medicine advocates must surely also carry around similar meme-plexes of symbiotic ideas that prevent logic, reason, intelligence, science and experimental evidence from demolishing the core ideas of the practice.

However, a customer of alternative medicine need not carry around huge meme-plexes in order to take their medicine. A person need only believe a few things about homeopathy in order to try it - gentler than 'western' medicine, ancient principles, no side-effects, and so on.

However, the meme theory would predict that the stronger the advocate of homeopathy, the more memes need to be believed to fend off scepticism and evidence. This contrasts with a scientist; the closer you are to the science, the more facts and theory you will know - there is no need to hold beliefs that prevent rational enquiry about the science - their defense is the strength of the evidence. The homeopathists on the ot