The Quackometer

Dr George Carlo is an interesting character. Founder of the Safe Wireless Initiative in the US, he is the leading thinker behind a lot of the concerns about the dangers of mobiles and Wi-Fi.

The campaigners in the UK are in lurve with him. Sites like Electrosentivity-UK worship him. Mast Sanity too. And the EM-Radiation Research Trust.

What appears to be a common thread in nearly all the electrosensitvity sites is their willingness to make money from sufferers, take money from questionable health product sources, or promote suspect products or cures. We have Powerwatch and their sister sites selling metalic wallpaper; EM-Research and their magnetic healing products. And recently, we have had Rod Read from ES-UK highlighting some strange new treatments for sufferers. Even Mast Sanity appear to have fallen for Clarins quack anti-EMF face spray.

And now, it looks as if Dr George Carlo is putting his name behind a whole host of funny looking products. He as formed a 'strategic alliance' with BOIPRO technology to help electrosensitivity sufferers.

The delights that this company sells include,

BIOPRO Cell Chip - personal anti-EMF boxes
$34.95

BIOPRO’s Cell Chip combines the benefits of two powerful, innovative and scientifically substantiated technologies: BIOPRO’s patented noise field nano-technology MRET (Molecular Resonance Effect Technology), and its proprietary subtle energy innovation ERT (Energy Resonance Technology). Individually and collectively, these cutting-edge technologies offer a groundbreaking and effective way to deal with the cumulative stress associated with living in today’s electronic environment.

BIOLife Pendant
$269

The future of body-worn applications to combat life's stressors, such as electropollution, and many others. Powered by BIOPRO's very own ERTTM Technology, the BioLife Pendant proudly continues BIOPRO's tradition of bringing a "A New Generation of Wellness Solutions" to a world in need of progressive change.

and of course,

BIOProduce Fruit Berry Veggie - supplements!!
$60

BioProduce is a cutting-edge, highly concentrated whole food supplement bursting with the amazing health benefits of Mother Nature’s most life-enhancing fruits and vegetables. Power-packed with natural food actives, BioProduce's unique formulations work synergistically in the body’s cells to ensure you and your family receive the essential nutrients for total well being.

Plus, the hugely profitable,

iWater - energetically enhanced liquids.
$927

A complete system designed to maximize the effective use of iWater in your home and on the go. The iWater system contains our breakthrough iWater Activator andPitcher, which allows you to structure all the water you use in your home and store it at the same time.

I am in the wrong business.

.

Labels: electromagnetic quackery

 

Homeopathy, paid for by the NHS, is under threat. Millions of pounds of NHS money is pumped into a few Homeopathic hospitals so that patients can have 'choice'. It is a good thing, choice. The Queen makes this choice. The newspapers promote this stuff. It is natural. No side effects. Health Freedom. Patient Options. Blah Blah Blah.

Talking to people, with jobs and mortgages and only one cat, I get looks of surprise at my hostility to homeopathy. I think most people just do not understand what homeopathy is. They think it is like herbalism - natural extracts from plants that might cure the odd thing. After all, so many modern medicines have their origins in traditional herbs, why not homeopathy? Well, of course this is nonsense. Explain that homeopathic remedies might start out as herbs, but then they get diluted to the point where none of the herb remains, and eyebrows get raised. "Surely, most products in Boots aren't like that?". Well, pretty much, yes. You then explain the more bizarre elements (e.g. the more dilute the remedy the stronger it is) and the person either concludes you are a liar or makes a mental note to check this, or both. After all, we all know someone who swears by such stuff. They can't be wrong, can they? You might then discuss the futility of anecdote, the placebo effect, spontaneous remission, regression to the mean, wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and so on. By then, they have usually made their excuses. I am so interesting, it is amazing that I have so few friends.

Anyway, one aspect of homeopathy that does not get the coverage it deserves is the idea of homeopathic proving. Provings are the method by which homeopaths determine the effects of a particular remedy. In short, because 'like cures like' in the homeopathic world, if a substance makes you lethargic, then it can form the basis of a cure for tiredness. So a proving gives a group of volunteers substances that might tire you. Over a few weeks, diaries are kept of symptoms, dreams are recorded, star positions noted and poems are written. Afterwards, the investigators look through the diaries and record the experiences and conclude that the substance is now part of the suite of remedies.

It gets a little stranger, of course. Nothing is straightforward in the world of homeopathy. Hahnemann, the founder, started off using real poisons to do his Provings; making himself and his friends sick as dogs, blinding headaches, sweats and fevers, and so on. He found, funnily enough, that if you dilute the substance to non-existent levels, provings become a lot more palatable. In effect, you are now free to dream up whatever symptoms you want. Just as cognitive biases can convince you that homeopathy has cured you, cognitive biases can select particular symptoms as being significant. Provings are not done blind. Over the weeks you are going to experience a range of mental and physical states. This means that expectations can be set amongst the proving group, and availability biases, and selective thinking will ensure the proving gets the right 'result'. In summary, you should not confuse a Proving with proof.

Some more progressive homeopaths have had to admit that the whole concept of provings is deeply flawed. At Southampton University, Dr George Lewith has been working on the problems that such illogical and flawed procedures have:

Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (or provings) provide the foundations for the clinical practice of homeopathy. The most recent review of proving studies indicated that provings are generally of poor methodological quality. Methods to improve the quality and scientific rigour are needed to critically assess the clinical basis of homeopathy.

But few homeopaths take notice of such warnings. After all, they all have to undertake provings at homeopathy college and are indoctrinated to defend them. I can believe they are quite good fun. So over the years, many more substances have been drafted into the homeopathic fold through Provings. Given that remedies and provings rarely actually use the substance, doesn't that create a free for all? If the whole process is a delusion, what constrains the process and what substances are actually used?

I thought a competition would be good. Who could dream up the weirdest substance to use in a proving? Unfortunately, such a competition would be futile as the homeopaths are already doing it.

A good example of something I could never dream up is a proving of 'stone circle'. Carried out by 'very scary' Mary English RSHom, this proving took a piece of neolithic upright stone from Stanton Drew, near Bristol, and decided that a homeopathic preparation of rock was good for tiredness.

The longest serving director of one of the UKs' biggest homeopathy schools, Misha Norland, does a lot of new provings with his students. He is quite prolific. Here is a list of some of his provings:

• AIDS
• Trained Peregrine Falcon
• Positronium
• LSD
• Heroin
• Buckyballs
• Bewick Swan
• Condom
• House Sparrow
• Cockroach

That is going to take some beating. The positronium one is interesting. He is obviously quite proud of his antimatter homeopathy remedy. The AIDS remedy was taken from the blood of a man who died.

The sky is the limit for provings. I am sure you can Google your own. But here are a few:

• The light captured from Venus.
• Camel's milk.
• Plutonium
• Vacuum Cleaner Dust
• Caviar
• Tyrannosaurus Rex

It would be easy to think that this stuff is just on the fringe of homeopathic thinking. Indeed, the sheer incredulity of it is what allows homeopathy still to be funded by the NHS. This just cannot be true. But, one only has to visit the web site of UK homeopathy pill manufacturers to be reassured that this is not off with the homeopathic faeries. This is mainstream.

Let's look at Helios, one of the UK biggest fake pill manufacturers. They list their remedies by initial letter. Let's pick, at random, H. Remedies include,

• Hadrian's Wall
• Helicobacter Pylorii
• Helium
• Hepatitis A, B and C.
• Halogen Light
• Hyena Saliva

There are dozens of these, and this is just H. Feel free to explore the other letters.

So, should the NHS pay for Hyena Saliva? Well, if they are, what is sure, is that they are not getting any. For all pratical purposes, all homeopathic pills are identical: no active ingredient.

If I was running Helios, I would have a big skip of blank pills out the back. When an order came in, I would scoop up some pills into a pot, print out a label, stick it on, ship it out, and no one would be the wiser. There is not a diagnostic test in the world that would tell you whether you really had Hepatitis B or if you had Bewick Swan. You might think you are taking caviar but really you could be sucking on condom. Is your medicine really the dog's bollocks? No instrument in the world is sensitive enough to convict me in court of defrauding you.

And this is what your taxes are supporting. The NHS, by providing Homeopathy, is legitimising this fraud. The NHS is funding witchcraft. Dr Peter Fisher, the clinical director of the London Homeopathic Hospital and the 'respectable' face of homeopathy defends this voodoo. He may appear to make reasonable statements about homeopathy, but looks as if he is out of touch with mainstream practice.

Witchcraft does not belong in the NHS. It is not adding to patient choice. People are being conned, deluded and harmed. Let your MP know.

Oh, and if you can think up an even weirder substance to do a Proving on, please post below.

Labels: homeopathy, NHS, Society of Homeopaths

 

Bored Bored Bored.

.

 

Last Friday, saw Trevor McDonut's 'Tonight with' programme showcase Patrick Holford's 'Food for the Brain' charity and its involvement with a school. The school apparently saw lots of improvements with their children and so will obviously boost the standing of the Food for the Brain charity.

And today, we see that Food for the Brain is starting to see itself as an accrediting authority now as it gives its first award to Ashridge Business School.

But regular quackometer visitors will know what I think about the science of Patrick Holford and some of his more worrying associations.

As for Food for the Brain, I have collated a number of specific concerns I have about the charity:

• The 'trials' being undertaken are unscientific and produce ambiguous results.
• There is an over-emphasis on giving and selling supplements to children, which is not justified by science.
• The influence of the nutritional ideas of Patrick Holford's Optimum Nutrition Programme may be disproportionately influencing thinking.
• The charity use inaccurate techniques to determine the need for children to take mineral supplements.
• There is inadequate regulation of the nutritional therapists in the UK.
• The costs of taking the Food for the Brain's approach of nutritional testing and taking supplements would be prohibitively expensive for most parents.
• The charity recommends inaccurate techniques to look for 'allergies and intolerances' in children.
• The charity has given out dangerous advice regarding autism and elimination diets.
• Food for the Brain lists among its affiliations an American organization that holds strong anti-psychiatry views and has links with Scientology.

I have given a more detailed appraisal of these concerns and this can be found on HolfordWatch.


.

Labels: Patrick Holford

 

The absence of the Bad Science column in yesterday's Guardian has all the makings of a bigger story than had there actually been a column. Ben Goldacre, writer of the column, has been one of the few voices in the British press that has reliably and careful pointed out the evidence against the assertion that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children. Last Sunday's appalling story in the Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, and the non-appearance of Ben yesterday, cannot be a coincidence.

• reporting unpublished research that has not gone through a proper peer-review and scientific analysis and promoting such reports as if it was reliable and important.


• feeling the need to report 'balance' by giving undue prominence to fringe views and small numbers of dissenting voices


• failing to properly report careful and sound science that could settle the issues and instead continue to look for a sensationalist angle.

Newspapers appears to misunderstand that good science reporting is intrinsically different from reporting financial issues, politics, fashion and sport. Science is not democratic. It is not about the fair counterpointing of opinions. It is not 'pluralistic'. It cannot be selective. Science reporting should not focus on the motives of researchers as its primary analysis. It should not be about conspiracies and shenanigan's as a matter of course.

And the reason is that science is the the best way, indeed the only way, that we know of finding out the truth about the world. And it is a truth that is deeper than the 'truths' of politics and the love lives of celebrities. Our wishes, aspirations, prejudices and world views make no impact on scientific reality, no matter what the post-modern educations of our media masters may have told them. Does MMR cause autism? This is a question that cannot be answered by readers' polls, a show of hands and an editorial in a paper. It is a question about the nature of reality; a scientific question that can be, and has been, answered by the meticulous collection of relevant evidence.

Understanding science is about understanding the evidence: about how that evidence has been collected, analysed and criticised. It is about the best conclusions we can draw from that evidence and how we might improve on that evidence to gain deeper insights. Reporting that concentrates on fringe views, that are in contradiction to reliably established facts, might do when we discuss base-rate changes, Spice Girl reunions or the size of Tony Blair's manhood, but cannot make the mainstay of scientific reporting. The end result is just a total distortion of what science knows and just adds to public mistrust of the reliability of science.

Now, of course there are very important human interest stories in the MMR controversy. Science is a human process too. But the process of science is different from the established conclusions of science. In science there are deceptions, intrigue, anguish and politics. These issues too need reporting. The charges that Andrew Wakefield will face need covering to counter the arguments in the mad press that this is just the 'establishment' hitting back. There are thousands of confused parents and many who are convince that MMR caused their children's problems, despite their beliefs being due simplistic and faulty reasoning. There are the quacks that seek to exploit the fear of MMR and offer their own self-serving money making schemes. But the science is different from the human ping-pong. The non-MMR/Autism link is as settled as any scientific question can be now. This ought to be the starting point of the stories, not something that can be played with like antics of Paris Hilton.

So, will the Guardian let Ben write what needs to be written? What is more important, can the Guardian and the Observer cover the GMC disciplinary hearings for Andrew Wakefield in a way that can start putting the whole sorry mess to bed? We desperately need newspapers that can do this. We do not need more sensationalist rags. I shall not be buying a paper this week. A small step, I know.

These things are important. As a society, we have forgotten how bad childhood illnesses can be. We have forgotten how they were feared by our grandparents. Instead we just just get idiots in the Daily Mail saying how we should not be too worried about immunising our children, because there are no cases of measles about.

---

.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, journalists, MMR

 

Maybe we are witnessing the death throes of the MMR controversy. The arguments that autism is caused by the triple-jab have been shown to be without merit and only the foaming go on about mercury in vaccines anymore (MMR never had any mercury in it). Andrew Wakefield is scrabbling with his last gasp of PR before his GMC disciplinary meeting. Undoubtley, the die-hard campaigners will see a cover up and conspiracy, but there is evidence now that other autism cuplrits are being sought.

Enter the electrosensivity lobby. I have stated my worry before that the organisations that supposedly support people who claim to be electrosensitive are doing their supporters a disservice by not being open minded to the causes of the problem. Ignoring science, or being selective about it, will open a multi-dimensional portal into an evil world of quackery. We have seen innocent Independent journalists already succumbing to fraudsters and quacks. Next up, is electrosensitivity regular Sarah Dacre.

Sarah has found meaning in her illnesses by blaming electromagnetic radiation. She was told that radio waves are the cause of her suffering by an 'expert' in flower esscences. She has been ably supported in that conclusion by Rod Read of electrosensitivity.org.uk. Rod goes a bit potty if you suggest that Sarah's illness has to do with anything other than radio waves. The delusions are re-inforced.

And now Sarah is reporting on Rod Read's pages that a new 'Pilot Treatment' has been found for her illness.

Dr George Carlo and Tamara Mariea are preparing to conduct a one month pilot ES/EHS treatment for 3/4 EHS in late October/November 2007. The Internal Balance clinic is located in Franklin, Tennessee.

The treatment protocol working on the degree of membrane sensitivity syndrome exhibited by each individual, is being written up currently and will be circulated to any interested participants. The costs will include accommodation, travel and clinicians and tests.

Dr George Carlo is well known in this field. He is prominent in supporting organisations that push the idea that mobile phones and Wi-Fi cause ill health. See him with some MPs here.

Dr. George Carlo, Ph.D, M.S., J.D, is a public health scientist, epidemiologist, lawyer, and the founder of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

A scientist and a lawyer! An interesting combination when litigation starts. You may remember him when he got angry at Ben 'Andrew' Goldacre's comments on the electrosensitivity lobby.

Anyway. Tamara Mariea CCN, CERCA (picture above) is new to us. Her web site shows she is working with Dr Carlo on a (as yet unpublished) paper on links between electromagnetic radiation and autism. Her ideas are as follows:

Although Mariea believes that autism is a complicated condition that must have several factors at play for a child to fall to this diagnosis, she does believe that the three largest factors at play are:

• Genetically determined detoxification capacity,
• Early insult to immune system via contaminated vaccines and
• Being born with high levels of toxic burden and into a technologically advanced society riddled with ever increasing levels of radiation.

These are the key areas for research regarding the cause and etiology of autism spectrum disorders. Perhaps the genetic mutations that are being discovered in autism research are created through the DNA damage from radiation emitting devices used by families and in the households of ever member of our global society.

So there you have it. MMR is not enough anymore. You have to have some 'vaccine damage' plus DNA damage from mobiles and Wi-Fi, and a poor ability to 'detoxify'.

Tamara is a nutritionist. That is what her certifcates say, proudly displayed on the web. Athought, the certifying body of her certificates (Clinical Nutrition Certification Board (CNCB))has been described as 'questionable' and 'promoters of highly dubious practices' by QuackWatch.

She also has the letters CERCA after her name. This stands for 'Certified Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Advisor'. A quick search reveals that in order to gain these prestigious letters after your name you have to answer 45 multiple guess questions set by Dr George Carlo, and get 80% right. I hope George, her collaborator, was not too harsh on her.

So, Sarah Dacre is going over to Tennessee for some detox of toxic heavy metals, nutritional advice no doubt, and other 'therapeutic interventions to detoxify these trapped toxins from the body'.

The Internal Balance, Inc. studio is outfitted with state-of-the-art equipment that opens and detoxifies the body, or pulls the toxins that are negatively affecting people’s health, out of their bodies. Often when children see the studio for the first time they think it looks like a place where astronauts might hang out.

And I thought astronauts hang out in bars like the rest of us. Or at least those without restraining orders.

For Sarah though, she has a problem. Travelling all that way, surrounded by airport Wi-Fi, passenger mobile phones and aircraft electronics could be very debilitating. Luckily, George and Tamara have thought of that one. They say,

The 8 hour journey and airport routine is a challenge but Dr Carlo/ Ms Mariea are to consult NASA for their best recommendations.

The little black duck is speechless. But I too must consult NASA next time I have some tricky travel plans.

.

Labels: electromagnetic quackery, MMR, nutritionist

 

Just a few days before Andrew Wakefield appears before the GMC disciplinary body on charges of misconduct, a front page article in the Observer makes fresh claims of links between the MMR vaccine and autism. In a separate interview in the same newspaper, Dr Wakefield says that he 'told the truth all along'.

He rather remarkably compares himself with Vaclav Havel,

'As Vaclav Havel once said: "Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it." I can't tell you that we know that the MMR vaccine causes autism. But the Department of Health can tell you with 100 per cent certainty that it doesn't, and they believe that, and that concerns me greatly.'

Rather ironic really as the vast majority of scientists working on the causes of autism would quite readily admit that they have not really got a good grasp at all on the truth behind the causes of autism. It is Wakefield, who nearly alone in the scientific community, appears to have the answer in the face of a 'reluctant' medical community and 'political establishment'.

He predicts that 'the truth' about MMR will eventually come from America, not the UK.

The truth is apparently out there, just waiting for the vested interests and the government conspiracies to fold.

The problem is that there is not a shred of evidence to support that MMR may have anything to do with autism, despite a lot of work having now been done in this area. The newspaper article reports a new study that may show a link. But this is unpublished and so we have no idea at all what it will say. It supposedly shows that 1 in 58 kids now show signs of the condition. The papers says that,

Two of the academics, leaders in their field, privately believe that the surprisingly high figure may be linked to the use of the controversial MMR vaccine.

But even these two controversial doctors freely admit that MMR cannot explain the huge rise in reported numbers.

Dr Fiona Scott and Dr Carol Stott both say it could be a factor in small numbers of children.

So, even if there was a link then it must be a minor player in the overall story.

So, why am I bothering with this? It is not quackery as such, but anti-MMR campaigners get a lot of support from quack corners. The anti-vaccination brigade are more than welcomed and supported by homeopaths and other quacks as this whole story adds to their delusions that the medical 'establishment' is blind to their own failings and tries to suppress dissenting voices. Their own perceived persecution is made real by the perceived persecution of other dissenters. Andrew Wakefield is being judged by the GMC not in an attempt to silence to him but to see if he has acted with misconduct and unprofessionalism in making his claims, exposing children to unnecessary procedures and not declaring his interests.

This newspaper article appears to have done its trick though. The story has been picked up by many other newspapers now, e.g.

New fear over MMR link with rising autism - The Telegraph, UK
One in 58 British children is autistic, new figures reveal - the Daily Mail, UK
One in 58 British children is autistic, new figures reveal - China Daily, China

So quickly this story has got to China! But like Chinese whispers, these stories get passed around, confused and their sources forgotten. We have MMR being something to do with measels virus, or is it mercury in vaccines? It accounts for the huge rise, or is it just a 'small number if children'? It is an incoherent mess, but the large number of stories, albeit not independent, give the impression that 'there must be something in it'. There is no smoke without fire.

More stories will follow, I am sure. Dr Wakefield will be going into his hearing with a background of 'fresh revelations' when in reality there is absolutely nothing new to report. The Observer, normally a fairly sensible paper, has been duped into a PR campaign for Wakefield. I doubt the GMC will be swayed by this, but the press will be in there reporting the trial in the next few weeks, and will undoubtedly be putting the story in the context of these new revelations. All good grist to the quackery mill.

Well done, Dr Wakefield, on a very impressive PR campaign.

Labels: MMR, newspapers

 

Iatrogenesis is not a concept that is confined to quackery, but like most of the words in my Quack Words series it tends to show up more often than not on quack web sites and so can be a good quackometer word.

Iatrogenic illness covers the concept of harm having been done by the healer. Harm could come from many quarters including mistakes in diagnosis or treatment, professional negligence, adverse reactions to drugs, infections acquired during surgery or in the ward, and mis-presciption. Undoubtedly, all these things happen and quite regularly too. But, the charge by quacks, when discussing iatrogenic illness on their web sites, is that medical greed and their 'addictions' to using toxic drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily. The conspiracy of 'Big Pharma' wants to keep us ill and sell us more toxic and harmful drugs.

Often figures are presented that are used to show that iatrogenic death is the third or fourth leading cause of death in the western world. A typical example is given here where figures for adverse drug reactions cause 106,000 deaths per year in the USA.

On this basis, doctors look like mass murderers. Their pursuit of profit and the monopoly of health care is causing genocidal-scale evil. By contrast, alternative medicine is presented as risk-free, gentle, holistic and free from commercial influences.

On the face of it, the charge is very serious. Is it that simple?

In short, the sort of analysis used by quacks to present real medicine as a terrible killer is completely devoid of the medical context of the supposed deaths and concentrate only on negative outcomes and ignore positive outcomes of treatment. These figures are unbalanced and deliberately misleading.

For example, looking at the first reference given in the link above (Lazarou et al), it is worth noting that the authors point out that the major cause of problems was due to known highly toxic treatments, such as warfarin. These sorts of drugs are given to people who are seriously ill and at risk of dying. If a small percentage experience an adverse drug reaction then that has to be balanced against the overall benefits of lives saved by the treatment. In considering seriously ill patients who would inevitably die without intervention one should be able to take risks with known drugs in order to save a high number of them. Deaths in this case are a special sort of failure - not a case of negligence or malpractice - but a part of the risks of doing real grown-up medicine. Hospitals have to deal with seriously ill people and sometimes have to be quite aggressive in their treatments. The alternative is certain death. Most quacks are spared this confrontation with reality as they treat their headaches and skin complaints.

Undoubtedly, the side effects could be reduced by better understanding of the drug and that is exactly why medical research is done, with trails and experiments. For anti-rational alternative medicine quacks to use such data as a way of highlighting the ‘evils’ of real medicine is an act of propaganda and scaremongering. It is shameful denigration of a profession that has to daily make life or death decisions with the most complex system in the known universe - the human body.

If you are not convinced, an analogy: ambulances are responsible for many accidents, injuries and deaths every year. They charge at high speed through populated areas, ignoring road conventions and distracting other drivers. If you were to publish a table of injuries and deaths due to ambulances, they would look quite starting. In fact, one source reports an average of one collision each day involving an ambulance in the UK. Not all result in death of course, but still a big number.

Would you ban ambulances and set up alternative, low pollution, holistic and carbon neutral cart and horse emergency transport? How about bicycle ambulances? Of course not. There is no such thing as alternative and complementary ambulances. Even quacks get in the ambulance after a bad road accident. The reason is that by taking appropriate risks, ambulances save thousands of lives every year. Seconds counts when hearts and lungs are failing or you are bleeding badly. The lives saved vastly outweigh the iatrogenic injuries caused. It is up to society to balance the benefit and risks and choose how ambulances should behave.

The same goes with medicine. The culture of informed consent requires doctors to discuss the risks and benefits of any treatment. Patients, doctors and society all have a role to play in deciding if the risks for a particular treatment outweigh the benefits. This is an open process. Mistakes are reported and outcomes monitored. The fact that quacks can find the statistics show this to be true.

But what about alternative medicine? Do quacks consider that they may too cause iatrogenic illnesses? Homeopathy is a classic example. The mantra is that their pills are completely side effect free and homeopathy is gentle and safe. At one level, I would agree. Sugar pills with no active content ought to be pretty safe for the same reason that they are also completely ineffective against anything. But manufacturing processes can go wrong. Some very nasty substances are used in some preparations including viruses, poisons and mobile phone radiation(!). Getting it wrong could risk the patient. Do homeopaths know that they get it right? What tests have been done?

One Italian study claims to have looked at this. "Harm in homeopathy: Aggravations, adverse drug events or medication errors?" reports that.

Out of 335 homeopathic consecutive follow-up visits between 1 June 2003 and 30 June 2004, nine adverse reactions were reported (2.68%) including one case of allergy to lactose, excipient of the granules.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Seriously, I would take this report with a pinch of salt, much as I would take any study of homeopathy by homeopaths with deep scepticism. What worries me far more is that homeopathic iatrogenesis is going to come from the skewed and twisted propaganda they dish out about the evils of real medicine and the power of their own 'gentle art'. Its the thinking that leads homeopaths, like the SHEAF charity, to go out to Kenya to set up homeopathic malaria clinics that scares me to death and undoubtedly ends in iatrogenic deaths of the most negligent and deluded kind.

Labels: homeopathy, Quack Words

 

If you were to believe the Society of Homeopaths, the quacks that were handing out lethal advice to Newsnight investigators about malaria prevention, were just a few rogue and unregistered practitioners and unrepresentative of the profession.

Peter Fisher , the Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (currently funded by the NHS) told the programme that,

Fortunately for us, we do not have to subscribe to get an idea of what the ARH promotes through this journal. We have access to a list of contents and even some sample articles. A quick scan through shows one article entitled, Silent and deadly: Prophylaxis and treatment of malaria by Theresa Partington. Luckily, the full text is available for us to view. The article views the recommended homeopathic prophylaxis and treatment options as given by 'experts'. On prophylaxis it says,

All recommended [homepathic] prophylaxis for visitors. The 'African' homeopaths recommended Malaria Co Nosode 30 on a weekly basis for visitors, starting a week before arrival and continuing for a month afterwards, Jennie also recommends the concurrent use of China 30, following recommendations of Susan Curtis in ‘Alternatives to Immunisation’; Liz Hennel, who works in Nicaragua, uses Plasmodium falciparum nosode (available as a single nosode from Ainsworths) and China sulphuricum in areas where this type of malaria is prevalent, but otherwise Malaria officinalis and China.

The same type of advice is given for treatment. Shockingly, the article proudly reports how a homeopath is teaching people in high risk areas of Africa about the 'benefits' of homeopathy,

[Assie Pittendrigh] is working in the Great Lakes region of Africa, teaching homeopathy to local nurses and doctors who run charity clinics in the region. The project began at the end of January 2006 and has two purposes:

1) To introduce homeopathy for First Aid and Acute Diseases (her quick reference guide is being translated into the required language).

2) To run a professional clinical trial to test the effectiveness of malarial prophylaxis using homeopathy. The exact format of the trial will be agreed with the medical staff and this information will be made available as soon as is feasible.

In other words, according to Peter Fisher's above criteria, Assie (Alison) Pittendrigh is killing people. The title of this article is 'Silent and Deadly'. The denial of Peter Fisher, and the silence the Society of Homeopaths, and the ARH is indeed deadly.

Again, this failure to set boundaries for the profession is not limited to its views on malaria. Grace DaSilva-Hill MSc LCPH MARH MAAMET RGN has written, in the Winter 2006 edition, a two part essay on 'Treating acutes with homeopathy'. Fortunately again, the first part is available to us to read. DaSilva-Hill discusses the use of homeopathy in serious acute conditions, when the 'most common reaction amongst people is to take the patient to the hospital'.

She says after discussing a case of bacterial meningitis,

It requires a great deal of trust between patient and homeopath, for a serious acute to be treated solely with homeopathy.

Amazing. I would also add a great deal of stupidity, negligence and arrogance too. The only reason we do not see too many deaths from thinking like this is that the vast majority of parents would be at their GPs and casualty in a flash if a serious illness threatened their children. The danger is that a few hours delay while a homeopath picked their 'ultra-potentized' sweetie pills, could make all the difference between a favourable and tragic outcome. A parent taught by their homeopath that this is the safer and gentler route to health might be misplacing a lethal trust.

DaSilva-Hill pulls back from saying that she does treat without recourse to real medicine by saying,

I guess it’s the voice of my nursing background still lurking somewhere reminding me of professional accountability to a statutory body.

Her inference is thought, that others may not feel such a compunction. Homeopaths have no statutory body to make practitioners accountable.

The journal gives us another freebie article worth checking out: Vaccinations: what cost? By Christina Head. It is as if being in one area of alternative medicine, you are required to adopt a full credo of beliefs about the evils of real medicine and science. We find in this article the usual discredited MMR-autism story and a general distrust of all vaccinations. Head gives us sentence after sentence of the usual anti-vaccination canards, including,

I have in my practice about 500 unvaccinated children of all ages. They are much more straightforward to treat because they don’t have a ‘kinked up’ immune system. But they still have their inherited or acquired susceptibilities.

and

Treating unvaccinated children is truly creative medicine and provides a real base for good health in the future life.

Now, as you know, vaccinations have saved countless lives. But on their own do not guarantee immunity from childhood killers. A particular vaccination may only be 80% effective, say. Real protection comes when the vast majority of the infectable community are vaccinated. The infection can then not get a foothold in the population and spread. If the level of vaccination drops below a threshold, then the disease can spread, even to vaccinated children. Thus, Christina Head's advice not only endangers the children of parents who believe this rubbish, but all children too. Peter Fisher also supposedly believes that the homeopathic community supports vaccination. Is he in touch with his community?

It is easy to be lured into believing the homeopaths' platitudes that their practice is without side-effects and is harmless. What does not appear to be recognized, as Ben Goldacre pointed out in the Guardian last weekend, is that the effluent and discarded waste of alternative medicine is bullshit. And bullshit can be very dangerous, especially medical bullshit. Complementary medicine undoubtedly has beneficial roles in health care, but not if it is in the business of dishing out pseudoscientific nonsense, lies about real medicine and doctors, and over inflated claims about its own efficacy. Quackery kills.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, homeopathy