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

 

The Advertising Standards Authority is one of the few regulatory bodies in the UK regularly prepared to tackle the untruthful and unsubstantiated claims made routinely in the alternative health industry. It is also one of the weakest regulatory bodies in the UK. Nothing could highlight that more than how Life Healthcare (trading under the url http://www.reverseageing.com/) dealt with an investigation.

Life Healthcare had made an advertising leaflet for a product called Thyroid Support Formula and had a heading on the front page that stated "New Scientific Studies Prove That There Is Hope, Read On, and You'll learn the Secrets That Your Doctor Might Not Be Telling You about an Under-Active Thyroid". Particularly worrying was the claim that,

But the truth is that conventional medicine does not have the best testing or treatment methods for an under active thyroid. Just because your test results have come back negative for an under active thyroid doesn't mean you don't have it.

A complainant to the ASA expressed concerns that a leaflet from Life Healthcare was

potentially harmful because it discouraged people from seeking proper medical treatment or from following the advice of their doctor

and doubted that,

the claims made in the ad for the product's efficacy could be substantiated

The ASA took a look a the advertisement and also challenged Life Healthcare if they had proper authorisations to market their products and whether the testimonials and photos included in the ad were genuine.

So, pretty serious charges. How did Life Healthcare respond? They didn't. They completely ignored requests by the ASA to explain themselves. The ASA upheld all complaints and said,

The ASA was concerned by Life Healthcare's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

Their action was,

We told Life Healthcare not to repeat the claims in future advertising. We urged them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again and asked CAP to inform its members of the problem with Life Healthcare.

I, for one, am not convinced that this direction will be adhered to.

Life Healthcare appears to make a business from evading legal restrictions on its practice. The from page of its website informs us,

With draconian EU legislation pending for the UK marketplace your right to buy optimum dose nutritional supplements may be limited, and some ingredients may no longer be available. Fortunately as we are based outside the EU (in the Channel Islands), Life Healthcare can continue to supply these high potency supplements that may have to be withdrawn from the UK and Europe in the coming months and years.

The current weakness of consumer protection laws in the UK will indeed be strengthened in the next few weeks as vastly improved consumer trading legislation comes into force. Whether this makes any difference to companies such as Life Healthcare remains to be seen.

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

Postscript

It would appear that fleeing to the channel island might not be the get out of gaol free ticket Life Healthcare hope for. Yesterday in parliament, the Minister for Health Dawn Primarolo, responded to a question asking what the Government was doing about such loopholes. She replied,

The FSA continues to work with the Ministry of Justice, the Department responsible for the Crown Dependencies, and the administrations in the Crown Dependencies regarding implementation of the food supplements directive and Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation to prevent trade in food supplements that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.

Labels: ASA, regulation, vitamins

 

Part of the wonderful new world of regulated alternative medicine is the insistence that all registered practitioners undergo Continuous Professional Development. Just like in real professions, quacks will be expected to attend a certain number of hours per year in keeping their skills up to date and learning about the latest developments in their field.

The Prince of Wales and his new Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council are right behind this initiative and, with the government, there are going to be lots of shiny new 'training standards' for their members. Existing non compulsory 'regulators', such as the Society of Homeopaths also insist in Continuous Professional Development.

So, what do we expect homeopaths to learn? The latest meta analyses and why scientific results do not support homeopathy? Basic chemistry lessons and why no atoms means no effect? No.

Let me show you an example. This evening, homeopaths can earn on of their CPD certificates by going to a talk in St Albans given by Myriam Shivadikar. The talk is entitled, MEDICAL ASTROLOGY FOR HOMEOPATHS.

Every ancient civilisation used astrology for forecasting events, promoting health and in the prevention of disease. The alchemists used astrology and based prescriptions on the patient’s planetary constitution. As a physician, we need to understand patients in order to treat them. The best physician can predict a disease before it occurs- Why wait for a person to get sick?

This simple yet effective system of astrology is based on ancient wisdom using Planetary Cycles and popularised by Robin Murphy. You do not need to have prior knowledge of ‘Western Astrology’ to use this system.

Western Astrology? I thought 'Western' was bad and allopathic? Fortunately, you do not need prior knowledge of anything before attending this course. Trainees need not have prior knowledge of the differences between their arse and their elbow.

What new skills will homeopaths pick up?

• Your constitutional 3 main planets based on your date and time of birth

• The 7 sacred planets

• 7 year cycles – How to predict and prevent diseases.

• Diseases and remedies associated with each planet

Marvelous. This is for real. Adults appear to believe this stuff.

The event is being put on by Gala Homeopathy (slow load). Gala appears to specialise in charging homeopaths to attend events in exchange for their CPD certificates. In a few weeks, you can hear a talk by Lionel Milgrom who believes quantum mechanics explains homeopathy. It's utter nonsense of course, but the homeopaths lap it up. You can also learn about Live Blood Analysis, a technique that I have discussed recently and has been described as 'High-Tech Hokum' and a 'money making scheme'.

This event simply demonstrates that the whole approach of regulation by 'box ticking' is deeply flawed. The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack) appears to believe that simply ensuring that homeopaths and other quacks are properly trained will protect the public. The important question is; what are they being trained in? No one wants to address this question. All Ofquack will be doing is endorsing nonsense. Once you have accepted that it is quite alright to accredit training in the nonsense foundations of most alternative medicine you loose the ability to sensibly decide what is good training and bad training. Offering training in delusion can only make quacks more efficient at fleecing their customers and engaging in meaningless or even dangerous practices.

I now think that the only way to tackle regulation of alternative medicine is by using prosecution under trading standards legislation. Everything else appears to legitimise the nonsensical, deluded and even fraudulent. Fortunately, despite the best efforts of Prince Charles and the many bodies representing alternative medicine, this is going to be the regime we will get. Time will tell if it is effective.

Labels: BPSDB, Natural Healthcare Council, ofquack, pseudoscience, regulation

 

Some years ago, a well meaning but utterly deluded friend gave me a book entitled Natural Remedies For Your Cat by Christopher Day. It is a slightly disturbing tome that appears to recommend homeopathic remedies for pretty much everything - from fleas to gunshot wounds.

Rational cat lovers might find this book pretty disturbing. In many ways, it is a classic homeopathy text. It sees homeopathy as verging on the panacea, has a brief disclaimer telling owners to seek veterinary help and has a chapter on feline vaccination.

A cat's immune system is a very finely poised and delicately balanced yet powerful entity in the daily battle for life and health. (...) Deaths, severe illness and chronic mild illness have all been recorded as following closely on vaccination. (...) There is an alternative to conventional vaccination but it has not been efficacy-tested on laboratory animals. No proof of efficacy therefore exists. However, many breeders, show people, cat lovers and catteries now feel strongly that the alternative is as effective as, and, safer than, conventional vaccination.

Christopher Day is not some soft-headed amateur pet healer. Day is a fully qualified vet and paid up member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Recently, his name has been popping up a few times. A friend in the pub said she was going to see him about a troubled horse that was clearly in a lot of pain. As tactfully as possible, I suggested that he had slightly unorthodox ideas and another vet might be more appropriate. I was told that "he was a qualified vet" and that "holistic approaches appeal to me because they ultimately have the patients best interest at heart". Apparently, they do not fob you off and they take their time. Fortunately, Christopher Day turned out to be far more expensive than 'mainstream' vets.

I have also been pointed towards him by a few homeopaths with the idea that a vet practicing homeopathy is somehow proof that it works. Animals do not know about the placebo effect, apparently. We shall explore this canard a little more shortly.

There is something important going on here. Day runs the 'Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre' in Oxfordshire. He describes himself as a 'holistic vet' and offers the following treatments,

Homeopathy : Herbs : Acupuncture : Moxibustion : Aromatherapy (Essential Oils) : Tissue Salts : Bach Flowers : LASER : Magnet Therapy : Chiropractic Manipulation : Nutrition : Crystals : Ultra-Sound : Physiotherapy : Positive Health : Holistic Medicine : First-Aid : Preventive Medicine

His site says that he specialises in alternative medicine but does not shun conventional medicine "per se". Apparently, "it is our pleasure not to have to resort to it very often".


It is difficult to imagine a medical doctor who used homeopathy using such language. Indeed, Peter Fisher, the director of the London Homeopathic Hospital, can be quite circumspect and modest when talking about the capabilities of homeopathy. It is not possible to imagine a doctor writing books like this, offering clinics like this and eschewing conventional treatment without getting into trouble with regulations. In the human medical world, such total embracing of the alternative worldview is almost exclusively the reserve of your non-medically qualified private practitioner.


Bizarrely, if a lay homeopath were to set up a practice to treat animals without a veterinary qualification, they would be breaking the law. Homeopaths may practice freely on humans, but not on cats, budgerigars and whippets. Chris Day himself tells us on his web site that,

The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 was put in place to regulate the treatment of animals. Under its provisions, it is basically only veterinary surgeons who may legally diagnose, prescribe, advise on the basis of a diagnosis and perform surgery on animals.

There are exceptions to this. Various massage like 'manipulative therapies' are allowed but should be overseen by a vet. The RCVS web site says,

All other forms of complementary therapy in the treatment of animals, including homoeopathy, must be administered by veterinary surgeons. It is illegal, in terms of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, for lay practitioners however qualified in the human field, to treat animals. At the same time it is incumbent on veterinary surgeons offering any complementary therapy to ensure that they are adequately trained in its application.

What does it mean for a homeopathic vet to be "adequately trained in its application"? Since homeopathy is a pseudoscience and without scientific justification, rational or adequate evidence base, how can you be "adequately trained" in it? The idiocy of this position does not go unnoticed within the veterinary field and has been beautifully spoofed by the The British Veterinary Voodoo Society.

The problems of allowing "adequately trained" homeopaths to have free reign on animals is that homeopathic thinking is diametrically opposed to accepted standards of care. Homeopathy is not a complementary therapy that works alongside real medicine. It is, and always has been, strictly alternative. Homeopathy is a 'complete system of medicine' that is in opposition to the principles of science-based thinking about health. One of the characteristics of homeopaths is to denigrate real medicine. It is how they differentiate themselves and how they appeal to people who feel they have been let down by conventional care.

The latest handbook for homeopathic vets, the Textbook of Veterinary Homeopathy (Saxton, J. & Gregory, P. Beaconsfield Publishers, Beaconsfield, Bucks UK. 2005) has this to say about mixing homeopathy with conventional treatments...

There is little doubt that most orthodox drugs impede the action of homeopathic remedies. This is not surprising when one considers that the action of most of these medicines is in direct contradiction to that of homeopathy; anything which suppresses a reaction of the body will act counter to homeopathy, and considering the subtle energetic nature of homeopathic medicine it is only logical that such powerful drugs as corticosteroids or NSAIDs will antidote its effects.

and,

Perhaps the most important issue here is to be aware that any orthodox Medication may interfere with the action of a homeopathic remedy and to take account of this in prescribing these medicines. Ideally, all orthodox medication should be stopped prior to commencing treatment with homeopathy.

This book was written by two vets, John Saxton and Peter Gregory, who are members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and Fellows of the Faculty of Homeopaths.

So, at least, homeopathy is a big no go for the amateur vet. The Animal Society of Homeopaths would be an illegal organisation. But, veterinary homeopathy is a strange beast. For a start, homeopathy relies on the concepts of 'like cures like'. A substance that causes symptoms in the well can cure the ill. And yet, homeopathic 'provings' are done on humans. Do these translate to animals? All animals? We know different substances can affect different species in wildly different ways. How does my cat's response to Sepia differ to mine? I think that maybe I am taking the principle too seriously. Homeopathy also prides itself on the time spent in consultation with their customers in order to come up with a 'holistic symptom picture' and an 'individualised' remedy. It is this consultation that gives a talking-therapy-like benefit to customers, not the pill iteself. Does Christopher Day spend an hour in a field talking to a herd of cows about foot and mouth and their feelings about the disease, the stresses in their lives, and their hopes for the future, before dropping a vial of plain water in their communal trough? Maybe not.

As far as I can see, Christopher Day is a genuine character who believes that homeopathy is a useful way of treating sick animals. It is my opinion that this is a deeply misguided belief as homeopathy is nothing but a pre-scientific magical belief system based on totally implausible premises and with an evidence-base that is far too weak to suggest that anything real is going on. In such circumstances, one would expect that a regulatory authority would have something to say about this, in order to protect the welfare of animals, prevent owners from wasting money and to protect the professional image of veterinary surgeons.

So, who is regulating animal homeopathy? Day is a member of three organisations. He is a member of the RCVS - he has to be in order to practice. He is a Fellow of the Faculty of Homeopaths, the club reserved for medically trained homeopaths (both doctors and vets) and so can carry the designation VetFFHom. Indeed, he is listed as the Veterinary Dean of the Faculty of Homeopaths. Day is also a member BAHVS, the British Association of Homeopathic veterinary Surgeons. Indeed, Day was for 25 years the Secretary of the BAHVS. Out of all these organisations, who is making sure homeopathy is being practiced responsibly and in the best interest of the welfare of animals?

The Faculty of Homeopaths, although quite outspoken about the excesses of non medically qualified human treating homeopaths, appears to welcome vets into their fold without question. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons appears to wash its hands and not want to interfere. We cannot expect BAHVS to take a meaningful role as their officers, like Day, hold the very beliefs that ought to be questioned. I see little evidence that suggests that anyone wants to tackle the inconvenient problem that homeopathy is a useless placebo therapy.

Of course, we hear that customer choice is what justifies the use of voodoo and homeopathy on animals. It would be wrong to restrict choice, when paying customers, like my friend in the pub, believe it helps their pets and farm animals. The big difference between animals and humans though is who is making the choice. The animals have no say and are silent in the matter. Choice can be such a weasel word and we should be suspicious when politicians use it. We usually do not want a choice of schools. We want our local school to be of a high standard so that we can send our kids their with confidence. We do not want a choice of hospitals. We would rather the closest and most convenient one for ourselves and our families was up to scratch. Choices like these is used to hide inequalities and injustices by people who will usually gain financially, socially or politically.

Giving people a choice between quackery and proper care for their animals hides a huge injustice. It adds no choice to owners since there are false options involved which actually detract from the animal owner's empowerment. The owner may well feel better for providing 'holistic' care to their animal. They may well feel superior and 'caring more' than leaving their animal to a standard vet, who may not be able to do too much. But, this is at the expense of the animal who may find it hard to tell us that the magic homeopathy water was ineffective. The owner, full of fresh expectations of improvement in their animal, interprets any sign to justify the expense of their 'alternative approach'. The usual thinking biases kick in such as post hoc reasoning after regression to the mean, wishful thinking and selection biases. Meanwhile, an animal may still be suffering.

Can it be justified to use a placebo on an animal? The debate about humans being given placebos is interesting. It is a valid discussion because placebos are a function of the recipients beliefs and a placebo may well do some limited good. In animals, such complex social and ritualised beliefs can only be marginal. The function of an animal placebo is to palliate the owner's anxieties and fears, not the animal's. This strikes me as unequivocally morally wrong.

Labels: animals, homeopathy, regulation, veterinary homeopathy

 

If you are worried about the activities of an alternative medicine practitioner, there is not an easy way to find the right authority who might look into it. The Advertising Standards Authority are very effective at investigating complex matters, but can only really rap knuckles and leave traders to carry on pretty much unharmed. Often, the only damage is an ASA ruling placed well down in the Google result list. The ASA can only also look into a narrow range of promotional material; they cannot touch web sites, for instance. Trading Standards have deeper powers and can criminally prosecute, but are not too well geared up to look into false medical claims. They are regional in their authority and have a shed load of complicated legislation to work within. The MHRA are probably quite rightly mostly concerned with the evils of Big Pharma. And the regulatory authorities that provide standards of behaviour and codes of ethics to alternative medicine practitioners are a hollow sham: can you find one example where a self-regulatory body has disciplined one of its members and documented the result?

But, the world of quackery is about to be shaken and I am being nice to them by giving them the 'heads up'. The infighting about how best to regulate homeopaths may well become moot as legislation being brought in will allow direct consumer redress against many practices that mislead.


The complexity of trading standards legislation is being largely swept away and replaced with generalised laws to clamp down on unfair sales and marketing practices. The act is a incorporation of an EU directive into English law and so will be applicable throughout the EU area.


The regulations will cover a whole raft of,

Misleading practices, like false or deceptive messages, or leaving out important information.

Now, a lot of alternative medicine is full of that. Have a look at David Colquhoun's blog about Boots and their new wonder drug, CoQ10. Within the act, there will be specific restrictions on certain practices. The ones I am going to be interested in are:

Falsely claiming accreditation
1. Faking credentials
Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not.
2. You’re not who you say you are.
Displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation.
3. Your endorsement is not real
Claiming that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body which it does not have.
4. Not being true to the terms of the endorsement
Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when he/it has not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.

Specifically, if a alt med trader claims to be governed by a code of conduct and their behaviour does not comply, then they will be guilty. To me it looks like it is immaterial as to whether the governing body actually adjudictates on the traders compliance. That should be interesting, given the widespread practice of alternative medicine governing bodies not enforcing their codes of practice. It does look like it will be illegal for the providers of codes of practice to do so if it misleads the consumer.


Specifically, it will be an offense if,

• the trader has undertaken to be bound by a code of conduct (or code of practice), and indicates that he is bound by it,
  AND
  • the trader fails to comply with a firm and verifiable commitment in that code,

Next:

10. Scare tactics

Making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family if the consumer does not purchase the product.
That is a stock trick of the trade. What would Clarins make of this? Should homeopaths be telling their patients about the evils of medical science anymore? What about anti-vax advice from homeopaths?

20. Pyramid schemes
Establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.

There goes Reiki, where practitioners typically only make money by 'tuning' new recruits.


But most interestingly,

11. Over promise, under deliver
Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations.

Now, what is going to be interesting is to what extent words like 'cure' are interpreted. The good news is there is going to be a 'man on the Clapham omnibus' principle here. What are the 'reasonable expectations of the average consumer' when they engage with a trader. It does not matter is a weaselly homeopath uses words like 'treat' - if it is reasonable that the customer expects to get better after the specific treatment then the homeopath could well find themselves on the wrong end of a guilty verdict.


The courts are going to demand that traders are going to be able to substantiate their claims. And we have a good idea of what they will make of anecdotal and testimonial based evidence.

It also looks like that there will be no need to establish there is an intention to deceive. The trader will be expected to undergo sufficient due diligence about their claims. It will not be sufficient just to wander around with your head in La La Land to escape the law.

Traders will also not be able to give false or misleading information is "the typical consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a result." Such information concerns things like:

(a ) the existence or nature of the product
(b) the main characteristics of the product
(n) specification of the product

Will homeopaths be able to get away with saying things like 'contains small amounts of natural remedies'? Probably not. I am sure the list is endless.

Also, the use of titles and credentials is likely to come under scrutiny. It will be an offense to mislead about the 'nature, attributes and rights of the trader or his agent' which include:

(c) qualifications
(d) status
(e) approval
(f) affiliations or connections
(g) ownership of industrial, commercial or intellectual property rights, and
(h) awards and distinctions.

Wow. That could be fun.

The new regulations will come in to force in a few months. As always with new legislation, we will need to see how the act is interpreted and how effectively it is enforced. But it does look like it might be much simpler to complain about certain practices and seek action.

So, if you are running a web site where you imply you are a doctor and you are not, and you claim to part of a regulated profession and you are not, and you offer healing practices that mislead, then you probably need to rethink your business. And you had better be nice to me.

Labels: regulation, the law

 

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

 

So, the Quackometer has been up and running for 24 hours now and most systems have been restored. A bit more to go though. For the technically inclined, this has involved a move from cuddly cotton wool children's Microsoft servers to grown up, open source, Apache/Unix servers where a missed semi-colon can kill faster than a homeopath dishing out malaria pills.

It's been a bit of a bother, but I have time in the evenings now after becoming a Wiidower. Mrs Canard Noir bought me a Wii for Christmas and I have barely used it. She is next to me hogging it at the moment, trying to get Laura Croft to shoot wolves. You should see her on Wii Boxing. It scares me.

So, I might as well blog.

Backstory: Professor Dr Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) did not like some stuff I wrote that highlighted his bizarre behaviour and strange quackery. After a year or so, when the Google search results were displaying my site highly despite his best efforts to write so many third person articles about himself, he gets a professional letter writer, Ms Tanja Suessenbach, to threaten my web hosts, Netcetera, with legal action if they do not pull my site.

One would have thought they would have laughed it off. As was so beautifully put on Gimpy's Blog,

This isn’t the case of a credible individual holding a gun to the head of Netcetera in the form of a grievous and legitimate complaint it is a man in a chicken suit successfully robbing a bank while holding a giant inflatable banana and farting loudly.

But no, they asked me to remove the offending pages and 'seek agreement' with Obi. I did to avoid immediate suspension, but felt that Netcetera had put me in an impossible position of being completely unable to reach any sort of reasonable agreement with Obi. How could I? He had got what he wanted.

All I could do was dig up more info on Obi in an attempt to show Netcetera just how ridiculous he was. It was soon clear that his 'College' he set up in Dublin (Royal College of Alternative Medicine, RCAM) was a complete facade with some strange anomalies in its registration.

I wrote to Netcetera on the 30th of January,

David,

Thanks for getting back to me. I fully understand this is a difficult position for you. Netcetera want to get on with the business of web hosting rather than deal with rubbish like this. However, I feel that an important point is being missed. Obi made his claim of defamation without a shred of evidence to substantiate that. On your request, I asked for that evidence and you still asked me to take down the pages.

I hope that as a service provider you do not feel that it is acceptable for third parties to demand the removal of your customers’ content without having to back up their demand with good reasons. We will not get the evidence required to substantiate Obi’s claims.

You can see the level of Obi’s response here… http://www.professorjosephchikelueobi.com/

We have now waited long enough for either Obi or his ‘legal advisor’ to respond in a meaningful and constructive manner. That has not happened, not will it happen because his case is utterly groundless and he has achieved what he wanted to do - take down those pages. I therefore believe that it is entirely justified to re-instate
those pages and I intend to do so. I hope it will be with your consent.

Regards,

I heard nothing.

Then, last Monday, I got this email,

Thanks for your comments.

We do not wish to be in a position where we could be taken to court, and incur the loss of time and expense that would involve. Consequently Netcetera have decided to suspend the Quackometer website, with reference to our Acceptable Usage Policy, the first part of which is quoted below.

The full policy can be found on our website www.netcetera.im/SiteInfo/AUP/ “Acceptable Usage Policy This policy is subject to change, without alternate notice, so please check regularly for updates. This policy is in addition, and considered part of Netcetera’s Terms and Conditions. Netcetera will be the sole arbiter as to what constitutes a violation of this provision. 1) Web Hosting 1.1) Netcetera reserves the right to suspend or cancel a customer’s access to any or all services provided by Netcetera, where Netcetera decides that the account has been inappropriately used. Netcetera reserves the right to refuse service and /or access to its servers to anyone.”

We will prevent public access to the site as of noon today 18th February 2008. You will be able to access the content to be able to transfer it to another host if you so wish. We will hold the content available to you for 30 days, and then we will remove it from our servers.

Regards

So, that gave me 20 minutes to prepare for the collapse of the Quackometer.

On the face of it, it looks like Netcetera were unhappy about being taken to court over something that was not their argument. I think it is worse than that. If anyone there had slightly looked at the complaint (and remember, Obi and Suessenbach refused to respond to request to make clear their grievance), it would appear obvious that the complaint was groundless. Worse than that, the complaint was a blatant attempt to remove legitimate criticism from the web. Netcetera would have won and reclaimed any costs. They just did not want the bother - far easier to lose a customer than to defend their customers.

Positive Internet offered me free hosting after the Magic Watergate scandal. I had been dragging heals over this because of the large amount of work involved when I could have been harassing quacks. Positive are marvelous; you can read about them here. For me it is enough to say that they are the only Internet hosting provider with an entry on the Pilkipedia. Right now, I am aware that I have lost half my audience as they are now exploring the Pilkipedia. Damn, there goes another 50%.

So, for those of you left, I shall finish the story.

The consequences have been inevitable. Such a story spreads quickly and within hours the blogs start appearing. What is more, it starts hitting the mainstream IT sites such as ZDNet, where Rupert Goodwins starts his article by saying,

If you fancy running a controversial website, you might like to think twice before signing up with Netcetera for hosting purposes. The Duck's crime was to collate newspaper reports concerning one Joseph Chikelue Obi.
...
If you fancy doing some waterfowling of your own, do check whether your hosting contract says, as Netcetera's does, that you can be terminated without recourse and without reason. You might like to take your punt gun elsewhere.

The blogs started coming thick and fast too. No Nonsense! was one of the first of the block and described the lilly livered apology for a Web Hosting company, Netcetera. Twonilblankblank asked, "Would your webhost fuck you over?" JDC325 said, "and for all those web hosts out there, please remember: there’s a difference between defamation and criticism." Hawk/Handsaw said "Netcetera fold like a cheap suit"

The story hits the IT mainstream when a full feature makes one of the main stories of the day at El Reg. The Register reporter, Chris Williams, does some digging and phones both Netetera and Suessenbach. Netcetera do not want to play. Suessenbach tells El Reg that "We cannot speak as litigations are imminent." Scary.

Forums are now buzzing with Bad Science, UK Skeptics and the James Randi JREF covering it.

There are now way too many blogs and web pages covering this for me to mention them all (and I want to have a go on the Wii at some point). You can see a comprehensive list here. But some of my favourites are:

• Apathy Sketchpad - "Spineless Morons"
• GagWatch - "Netcetera promptly wet themselves"
• Thinking Is Dangerous - "Netcetera condemn themselves as pathetic caitiffs"
• PalMD on WhiteCoatUndergound - "What a bunch of bloody wankers!”
• Chemo Brain - "we’ll take your site off the internet if a total schmuck frightens us"
• Orac on Respectful Insolence - "outcry from the medical and skeptical blogosphere"
• MediaWatchWatch - Just check out the fantastic picture!

Other sites, such as The Bronze Blog and Paul Hutchinson’s Blog call for a boycott of Netcetera.

What does this mean? Were Netcetera right? At one level, I can sympathize with them. This is a fight they did not choose and could not gain anything from (although Positive will do well). The really big enemy is English Law that is just muddle, unfair and confused - firstly, with its heavy handed libel laws, and secondly, its inability to accommodate electronic media. A more sensible approach needs to be adopted here so that people with genuine grievances can have them heard and addresses whilst the flippant and mischievous can be harried away without fear.

But we should not let Netcetera off the hook. The fact that another host were prepeared to take me on and at their expense at least shows that it is not clear cut. For me, I had a contract with Netcetera and they broke it without giving good reason and relying on an unfair and unequal clause in their lobsided contract. Its all a bit fucked up.

And so, the last word ought to go to Mr Obi himself. What has he got to say? Well, "alighting from the back seat of an Extended Black Daimler Limousine at the start of a Whirlwind Alternative Medicine Tour", he says,

Alternative Medicine Strongman and Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) Boss, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi , has today sent out his very best wishes to the Quackometer Blog Owner Andy Lewis, who is currently transferring his Internet Service Provider (ISP) Ports from Netcetera Ltd to Positive Internet Ltd.

That's sweet.

My fundamentally humble message to all Skeptic Internet Service Providers (out there) today is therefore extremely loud and exceedingly clear : Stop condoning the ruthless harassment of Alternative Medicine Practitioners - or be fully prepared to face the dire financial consequences of your actions !

Obi is truly a spokesperson for the whole alternative medicine movement.

Joseph, perhaps you would like to apply for this job?

Chief Executive Officer and Registrar,
COMPLEMENTARY AND NATURAL HEALTHCARE COUNCIL

£60,000 p.a. pro rata.
The new Complementary and Natural Healthcare
Council (CNHC) has been established to put in place a regulatory body for those complementary therapies which are not statutorily regulated, nor seeking statutory regulation. The main function of the new body will be to enhance public protection and confidence in the use of complementary therapists. The Council now wishes to appoint to the role of CEO/Registrar, as soon as possible.

You would certainly get my full support.

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

Update 23rd Feb

From The Wardman Wire and Humaniform I learn that the presitigous Bear-Faced Usmanov Award has been made to Mr Obi for "extreme efforts in closing down websites which are criticising you by threat without evidence". Also, The Double Headed Schilling is awarded to webhosts who roll over before such threats, has naturally been given to "internet hosting (sometimes) company Netcetera."

Check out the graphics depicting these awards to Netcetera.

(Usmanov, for the uninitiated, is a Russian oligarch, and part owner of Arsenal football club, who tried to suppress ex ambassador Craig Murray from writing alegations of Usmanov's 'colourful' past by threatening ISPs with legal action. Naturally, attempts at this sort of suppression, massively amplified the exposure of the allegations. One would have thought people would learn a lesson.)

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

Dr Aust sums up the mess very well on Respectful Insolence.

I hope he does not mind me reproducing it here...

Yes, the British law on this is a hopeless mess compared to the UK and Canada. The need for some sensible new legislation is clear, but British Govts are historically reluctant to do anything legislative that curtails lawyers' ability to trouser huge fees (such as in defamation lawsuits). Perhaps this is because so many British politicians are lawyers.

In the UK situation, if the plaintiff says to the ISP "this libellous thing about me is posted on your servers, take it down", then an ISP that doesn't take the stuff down becomes directly liable for the libel (Godfrey vs Demon internet). Furthermore, the longer the stuff remains up, the greater the potential libel damages "for accumulated damage to reputation" in a defamation suit - the longer the offending passage is up, the greater the potential harm to reputation, goes the reasoning. The ISPs almost certainly take the view that they are a more "attractive" libel suit target, as they are companies and hence clearly have assets, while the blog poster is likely to have no money to speak of. So the ISP has a large vested interest in caving in. This is why the "legal chill by threat to sue" types in the UK go for the ISP rather than the blogger.
All American bloggers should be duly grateful, methinks, for the judgement in Zeran vs. America Online, which effectively says "ISPs are not publishers".

In the UK, where the law conversely does see the ISP a a publisher, it comes down to whether the ISP is prepared to tolerate any potential liability, or even inconvenience, for the sake of some kind of principle.

When UCL was trying to boot David Colquhoun ff their servers following complaints and spurious libel threats, many of the people writing to the UCL Provost (including me) argued that as a University UCL had an overriding duty to protect free comment, and scientific accuracy, as part of its core purpose. But it is a bit harder to make that argument with a business or corporation, whose overriding obligation is presumably to maximize "shareholder value".

An interesting and unresolved question, with wide Internet implications, is to what extent a judgement under the silly UK law can be enforced in any other jurisdiction. In print libel cases there are suggestions that under some circumstances it can,
hence the phenomenon of "libel tourism" I referred to earlier.

You can read more Dr Aust here.

More updates (27th Feb)

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Rebecca Watson - The Skepchick - and Steven Novella, MD - Neurologica - discuss the Quackometer/Obi/Netcetera affair on the weekly Podcast
I hosted u a website, but I eated it
LOLquacks in an easy to understand synopsys of the Obi/Necetera Affair. A Must Read.
Quackometer vs Obi - Abusing Lawsuits to Silence Critics
Steven Novella discussed the implications of net censorship in light of the netcetera/obi affair.

Labels: BPSDB, Netcetera, Professor Joseph Obi, regulation

 

After yesterday's raids by the MHRA on suspect dodgy pill sellers and their 'Internet Day of Action', perhaps one of the largest profiteers from such schemes will get away with it.

Google has been quite happy to take money from triamazon.com to show adverts for the site and the hugely overpriced food supplement pretending to be a miracle cancer cure.

This is despite the fact that Google has a clear policy that it will not do such things. As part of its advertising terms it says that it will not take adverts for:

Miracle Cures
Advertising is not permitted for the promotion of miracle cures, such as 'Cure cancer overnight!'

Furthermore, by taking money for such adverts, Google will be in contravention of the Cancer Act of 1939 which says,

No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof

People do get prosecuted under the terms of this Act. Trading Standards have a duty to enforce it. However, as Trading Standards tend to be highly fragmented across local councils, none of them appear to want to take on the Google giant. I believe Westminster Trading Standards as their UK address is given as,

Google UK Ltd
Belgrave House
76 Buckingham Palace Road
London
SW1W 9TQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)20-7031-3000
Fax: +44 (0)20-7031-3001

However, Westminster undoubtedly have many higher priorities making sure dodgy plumbers do not rip off senile old ladies who live on Buckingham Palace Road.

I have complained to Google before about similar issues and also to Trading Standards. Ignored, so far. Google should be policing their own noble 'do no evil' terms, and if they cannot they should be prosecuted where they flout the law. Perhaps the MHRA, as part of their Internet day of action, could tackle one of the largest advertisers on the web. Google has the power to make or break such companies. The MHRA ought to be concerned.

Labels: Google, regulation, triamazon

 

You know, I do not believe that most of the people that feature on this site are fraudsters. No, the truth is far worse than that - most homeopaths, reiki practitioners and herbalists actually believe what they say and that makes then particularly dangerous. But there are people whose motives are particularly hard to believe are just plain deluded. I fear 2008 is going to feature quite a number of more 'interesting' cases.

I have been keeping an eye on Andrew Harris and his site http://www.triamazon.com/ for six months or more. He also uses a site called http://www.thiskillscancer.com/. Apaprently, Triamazon is a,

NATURAL SCIENCE PROVEN SAFE NON-TOXIC product that is effective against many cancers and is also far superior to chemotherapy as it does not harm healthy cells.

Harris sells 'half a course' of 100 pills of Triamazon for about £250 a bottle from his home in Altrincham. He says,

Skeptics please see... The official independent "Research White Paper" on the proven effectiveness of selected Acetogenins, by clicking on this link below... http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2003/pdf/7502x0259.pdf

Clicking through to this paper reveals information about the synthesis of acetogenins. Nothing about clinical efficacy. The Alliance for Natural Health issued a warning saying that the pill was Graviola (Annona muricata). You can buy Graviola tubs for about £20 or less if you look.

Just about every day I have been getting Google alerts for triamazon as it has been advertised around the web on bulletin boards, chat rooms and in press releases. Typically, such messages say things like:

Andrew Harris an ex-cancer patient exposes the big pharma industry cover-up of a natural cancer killing miracle with astounding incriminating conclusive independent evidence available via a direct link to pubmed archives on his website. Andrew is the founder of www.thiskillscancer.com His strong entrepreneurial background in business, marketing, research and management is combined with his personal experiences in having gone through 14 lots of conventional toxic combination chemotherapy to actually surviving cancer through an alternative natural, non toxic, immune system boosting, cancer killing miracle.

Leaving aside the issue of whether triamazon can do anything for cancer, advertising cancer cures is illegal in the UK under the Cancer Act of 1939. Trading Standards are tasked with upholding this act and have been aware of Triamazon for many months now. Indeed, Andrew Harris has been aware of it too as his web site has, at times, appeared with a disclaimer that his site was intended for doctors only - an attempt to wriggle out of the Cancer Act's glare. It was not fooling anyone.

Yesterday, at 7.30 am a house in Sale was visited by Trading Standards, the MRHA and the Police and the raid seized 'quantities of an unregistered drug called Triamazon' and a 48 year old was arrested. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have teamed up with police to take part in a number of dawn raids around the country as part of an 'Internet day of action'.

It has been slow, but it is good to see that existing legislation can deal with some of the worst sorts of quackery out there. Taking money from desperate and scared people in exchange for worthless pills, has to rank amongst some of the lowest scams imaginable.


If you see similar sorts of things on the web, the Consumer Direct site is a pretty good place to start.

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

The Mirror Now Cover this too:

Police swoop on cruel internet cancer "cure" pill conmen

Labels: regulation, triamazon

 

Professor Joan Higgins, Chair of the Federal Working Group on Complementary Therapies, is in charge of setting up the Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack). From April, this will be a voluntary self-regulated body that will be tasked with protecting the public from the dangers of alternative medicine. The Professor wrote to the Guardian today to complain about Polly Toynbee's straight talking article,

I am sorry that Polly Toynbee feels that the creation of a new regulator "gives non-science a new authority". As a lay person, I am certainly not able to judge the scientific validity of these therapies and this is not what my working group (to which she refers) was set up to do. I would ask her to consider an alternative scenario. Complementary therapists have been in practice for many years. There is public demand for their services and there is no move to stop therapists offering their services to sometimes quite vulnerable people. If complementary therapy is not to be banned, is it not, therefore, wise to regulate it and offer the public some measure of protection and a body to whom to complain if things go wrong?

The problem is that the Professor is not the only person who is 'certainly not able to judge the scientific validity of these therapies'. No one involved appears to want to tackle the inconvenient problem that most alternative therapies do not work. But without acknowledging this, how can a regulator protect the public? If a homeopath advises a mother that sugar pills can be used to 'treat' their child's asthma will the homeopath be in breach of any code? Their training as a homeopath may be thorough, their professional conduct may be solid - but their medical advice is appalling. Who is going to set the standards of what is good practice? Who is going to guard the standards that Ofquack guard?

Professor David Colquhoun is tackling this problem and is using the Freedom of Information Act to get to the bottom of this. His most recent blog post on the (Un)-Natural Healthcare Council is hilarious.

Professor Colquhoun believes that the whole regulatory infrastructure is unnecessary and that a strengthening of existing legislation would suffice. I would tend to agree with him and I have commented on these pages about the shortcomings of Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority in dealing with quackery.

However, there may be other options. The Financial Services Authority has created huge upheavals in banking and lending over the last decade. In short, they have forced anyone offering financial advice to conform to standards of disclosure and product information. Anyone offering financial services must make an initial disclosure to their clients outlining the nature of the service they are offering, the method by which they will receive payments and commissions, how the service provider is regulated and how to make a complaint. When recommending a financial product, the advisor must present a Key Facts Illustration (KFI) document that outlines in standard terms the features of the products, the risk associated with the product, and full costs.

I see merit in exploring this idea for alternative medicine. In fact, this would bring CAM practitioners more in line with their hospital colleagues - it is giving their clients the information required to make informed consent.

In the USA, California have already introduced a similar scheme: California Senate Bill SB577 . The reason for introducing this bill though was rather different. Before that, people like Homeopath Dana Ullman got arrested for practicing medicine without a license. The Bill allowed people to practice CAM but within a legally controlled framework. This is not the same as self-regulation. This is external regulation.

There are some pretty sound elements to it, like making it illegal to:

• recommend the discontinuance of legend drugs or controlled substances prescribed by an appropriately licensed practitioner.
• ...shall disclose in the advertisement that he or she is not licensed by the state as a healing arts practitioner.

Importantly, they have to perform a disclosure:

(1) Disclose to the client in a written statement using plain language the following information:

(A) That he or she is not a licensed physician.
(B) That the treatment is alternative or complementary to healing arts services licensed by the state.
(C) That the services to be provided are not licensed by the state.
(D) The nature of the services to be provided.
(E) The theory of treatment upon which the services are based.
(F) His or her educational, training, experience, and other qualifications regarding the services to be provided.

(2) Obtain a written acknowledgement from the client stating that he or she
has been provided with the information described in paragraph

I would go further than that list. For example, any attempt to undermine this disclosure or denigrate or undermine a person's GP or their advice would be an offense.

As I believe that the biggest threat to homeopathy is people finding out what it is. I would suggest that the CAM Key Facts Illustration contained two extra elements: the theory behind the therapy and whether it is supported by science and the evidence base for effectiveness of the treatment. Obviously, such statements could not come from the practitioner themselves. We are trying to protect people from their non-medically qualified practitioners delusions. The MHRA could possible provide such statements for each therapy in the same way that the Financial Services Authority provide sample paragraphs for inclusion in mortgage documents.

I see the challenges here are with how to enforce this sort of regulation. What is to be avoided is any sort of licensing as this implies government approval. Can we find a way to carry out licensing in a way that does not imply endorsement? For example, Oxford City Council licenses a sex shop on the Cowley Road, apparently. (Ben Goldare tells me there is one there.) This does not imply that Oxford approves of any the appliances found therein. Do we need licensing? Trading Standards does not need a list of licensed plumbers to enforce various regulations. Who would pay for the extra demands on local councils? Maybe Sue Blackmore's proposals to Tax the homeopaths would be required in parallel.

Discuss.

Labels: David Colquhoun, Natural Healthcare Council, regulation

 

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

 

Prince Charles' Foundation for Integrated Health and its new regulatory quango, the Natural Healthcare Council (or Ofquack, as it is bound to become known), is due to launch in April. Ofquack is designed to be an 'independent self-regulatory body for complementary therapists.

In 2000, the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee looked into the regulation of non-medically trained health workers. It asked the Prince of Wales Foundation to look into setting up a body to mop up all the 'harmless' CAM therapies, such as reiki, massage, aromatherapy, yoga and homeopathy. Alternative therapies that have the potential to have real effects on people such as osteopathy, herbalism and acupuncture have already been statutorily regulated or are soon set to be. Ofquack, The Natural Healthcare Council, will not be a statutory body; it will be voluntary (for now) and will involve representatives from each 'discipline' and lay people to help self-regulate.

The idea behind setting up this new body is to attempt to provide protection to the public from exploitative or dangerous practices. The Quackometer believes the structure of the body will mean that it will be impotent to carry out this role. For this reason, I am disappointed that Ofquack is being set up in its present from and I would hope Prince Charles team, headed by Professor Dame Joan Higgins, would stop and think again.

However, I need not worry. As is becoming increasingly clear, large swathes of the alternative medicine industry want nothing to do with this initiative. This was totally predictable and the consequences are going to be hilarious.

Let's start with the Homeopaths. The Society of Homeopaths has issued the following press release following yesterday's report on Ofquack in The Times,

As the UK's largest membership association and regulator of homeopaths, The Society of Homeopaths supports the establishment of an independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths. Indeed, a recent survey of its membership indicated that at least 65% would support statutory regulation for homeopaths.

Registered members of The Society of Homeopaths (identifiable by the designation 'RSHom') have a recognised professional qualification, comprehensive insurance and have agreed to abide by a strict Code of Ethics & Practice.

The Society of Homeopaths has yet to assess the suitability and standards of the Natural Healthcare Council for the purpose of providing regulation of homeopaths.

Paula Ross
Chief Executive

Now, as with all press releases from SoH, you have to take great care in interpreting what they are saying. Let me do that delicate task for you and sum up their thoughts...

"Over our dead bodies."

The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths has been a little more straight talking over Ofquack. Karin Mont of ARH, wrote in their in house rag, Homeopathy in Practice:

Federal Voluntary Self Regulation [Ofquack] is a recently introduced concept that is intended to bring a diverse group of complementary therapies under one central control. The homeopathy profession has been unanimous in rejecting federalisation as an option for regulation.

In other words,

"Over our dead bodies."

It's not just the homeopaths that are hostile to Prince Charles' new quackery club. The Reiki practitioners (wave their hands around to 'channel healing energy') set up their own regulatory committee to 'respond' to the development of Ofquack.

On their web site they now note,

Following a meeting in November 07, The RRWG has now formally withdrawn from the Federal Working Group set up by the Princes Trust for Integrated Health. The Group is considering its options and the way forward in January 2008.

Further explanation is given in a letter from Anthony Perry, Chair of the Reiki Regulatory Working Group. He explains that no-touch Reiki practitioners are looking for 'light touch' regulation. Central to this is the desire that,

We believe the Regulator should have an overriding duty to regulate the practitioners, but not the practices or therapies themselves, e.g. such as the teaching of Reiki in its many diverse forms.

So, in short: you may keep a list of our members, but don't dare tell us how to wave our hands around and who we can wave them over.

The aromatherapists are not quite so well organised. They too have set up a regulatory body, but it looks still-born. Their web site http://www.aromatherapy-regulation.org.uk/ appears to be down. For some insight, we must look at the few aromatherapy bloggers around.

Tony Burfield on the aromaconnection blog writes that the 'sky fell in' with the announcement of the set up of Ofquack. He thinks it will be an "an unmitigated disaster for CAM". Tony then goes into a lot of conspiracy theories, describing Sense about Science as 'sinister'. He clearly believes there is some sort of corporate conspiracy to control aromatherapists. Tony smells a rat.

But tellingly, he says,

Within aromatherapy, the low educational entry requirements & abysmal course standards set in UK colleges are a national joke, so setting minimum standards for practitioners will presumably be a great source of material for satirical magazines such as Private Eye. The profession is starved of finance, so no substantial evidence-based aromatherapy data-base exists as such - anything that does exist is likely to consist of published (so-called) aromatherapy studies by non-practising academics, rather than tapping the massive collective experience of everyday practitioners

One would have thought that aromatherapists could have done with all the friends they needed, but it looks like one more case of,

"Over our dead bodies."

Tony concludes with a prayer:

Please pray with us that Prof. Edvard[sic] Ernst is not promoted to a position of adviser or authority within the National Healthcare Council. Ernst is a Corporate Science sympathiser who is working undercover as Director of Complementary Medicine at Exeter University, & whose sole purpose seems to be to rip the soul out of CAM, armed only with a Corporate Science device called "the meta-analysis". Ernst's stature & reputation is such that it has even over-awed normally sensible Herbalgram staff who worship & reproduce his every utterance, & who apparently haven't noticed that now HE'S WORKING FOR THE OPPOSITION. Wake up!

I think we can see a full picture now amongst the various proposed members of Ofquack. There is deep suspicion that they will not be allowed to practice the way they wish to practice. Homeopaths do not even trust each other to regulate themselves with at least ten different registering factions looking after the interests of different beliefs. And worse, heaven forbid that a scientist like Ernst should get involved and apply some reason and evidence to their regulation. (Fortunately for Tony, I doubt Ernst will get invited to this little party. Charley and Edzard are not the closest of friends.)

We also see fear of conspiracies. Ofquack will receive government funding and this lays it open to charges of being controlled by the enemies of quackery. Users and practitioners of alternative medicine have a strong anti-establishment streak about them. Asking them to trust in Ofquack will be like asking wildebeest to use crocodile endorsed river crossings.

But the biggest problems lie in the arrogance and independence of each faction. The homeopaths are the worst. They see themselves as a 'complete system of medicine' and holders of the true keys to healing. Other healing practices are wrong or corrupt. To lump homeopaths in with the smell sniffers, the crystal danglers, the foot ticklers and the bendy yoga lovers would be a deep humiliation for them and a completely unacceptable loss of autonomy and status.

Over their dead bodies.

Labels: Natural Healthcare Council, ofquack, regulation