The Quackometer

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere on their web site, they state that,

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

And,

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

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

"I am in receipt of your summary transcripts."

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Labels: Ben Goldacre, homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the meme theory would predict that the stronger the advocate of homeopathy, the more memes need to be believed to fend off scepticism and evidence. This contrasts with a scientist; the closer you are to the science, the more facts and theory you will know - there is no need to hold beliefs that prevent rational enquiry about the science - their defense is the strength of the evidence. The homeopathists on the other hand needs more and more defensive walls around a small core of unchanging beliefs. So here is my hypothesis of the memetics of quackery and pseudoscience:

The greater advocate a person is for quackery, the more that defensive memes need to be held that can stall rational enquiry, whilst the core memes regarding the theory of the quack subject remain fairly constant with the degree of advocacy.

So we need to test this now. Maybe I can even build tests into the quackometer to spot pseudoscience and quackery!

Looking at the homeopathist example a bit further. The BBC's Newsnight programme this week carried a report into how high street homeopathists are giving dangerous advice regarding the prevention of malaria. Of ten surveyed, all offered a homeopathic sugar pill to act as prophylactic and gave no other advice about bite prevention and the need to see your GP. This is appallingly dangerous as malaria kills. Melanie Oxley of the Society of Homeopaths appeared on the programme to answer these allegations. Her response was breath-taking in her inability to grasp the nature of what the accusations were and was a classic example of complete internal denial. Is Ms Oxley stuffed full of quack memes to prevent critical analysis?

The Society of Homeopaths has a list of press releases, the most recent one about the above BBC report. These press releases appear to contain lots of 'official' responses to complaints or criticism and so, according to my hypothesis above, be rich with memes for preventing rational enquiry into homeopathy.

Let's dig out some of those memes...

1. In the response to the BBC report, the society is adamant still that homeopathy can act as an alternative to malarial prophylactics. (An utter outrage.) The society states the truth at one point:

At present, there is no large scale research evidence to support the use of homeopathy in preventing malaria.

but then goes to on to offer a list of memes to get out of this...

Consequently, there is substantial anecdotal evidence from around the world to suggest that homeopathy may offer a gentle, yet effective, complementary or alternative approach.
...
Clearly, this needs more research. Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of inefficacy”.

So, we see several memes to ward of the uncomfortable nature of the truth - anecdotal evidence says is works and the (brilliant) "absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of inefficacy". We would love to point out to them that anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to prove efficacy and of course, that absence of evidence is not evidence of efficacy.

2. The next press release is about Professor Michael Baum's report that homeopathy is an implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness. The press release quotes a number of flawed studies to suggest that Prof. Baum is wrong, but also comes up with the exceptional defensive meme that

Access to [homeopathy] should be a matter of choice for individuals and The
Society of Homeopaths firmly supports the Government’s agenda of patient choice.

In other words, freedom of choice is more important than evidence of efficacy.

3. The next defensive press release concerns an article in the Guardian, by our friend Ben Goldacre, regarding recent meta-analysis of trials showing homeopathy as being just placebo. The Society naturally brush this off and use another well crafted meme to dismiss this criticism:

It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised trial (RCT) is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.

So, the cornerstone of modern evidence-based medicine cannot be used to test homeopathy - a very useful quack meme. Homeopaths complain that the 'individualised treatments' involved in 'real' homeopathy cannot be subject to placebo controlled trials. An obvious canard. Even more bizarrely, the claim here is that what is important is not what is in the pills, but the very experience of the consultation and dispensing of the pills. I would appreciate their sincerity in this belief, but I do not see the Society condemning Boots for offering off-the-shelf homeopathic pills.

I am sure there are more in there, but this blog entry has gone on long enough.

What does this mean for our fight against quackery? If it is true that most participants in quackery (both practitioners and customers) are more likely to be deluded and protected by defensive memes, rather than outright frauds, then legislation and prosecution may not do so much good. Rather we need ways to prevent these sort of memes and canards from being implanted in the first place. Better science education and science reporting in the press would go a very long way here.

Labels: homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths

 

Right. Skeptic Class. Stop what you are doing. Silence. Stop Talking. iPods out of your ears. Orac - no more insolence from you. Are you chewing? You are all here in detention class because I have been hearing very bad things about all of you. You have all brought shame on the Skeptics' Circle. Now swallow your fish oil pills and listen.

Your essays you have just handed in the the last two weeks are a sorry lot. Some of you have been doing some good work, but the bad behaviour of some of you means you are all in trouble.

OK. Who wants to start? Let's hear your essays.

Bronze Dog. Your doggerel essay on the woo use of the 'Unexplainable' was alright, perhaps not your best, but perhaps you would like to explain to me why you were late handing it in? Is that unexplainable? Some paranormal incident perhaps? Left it on the psychic bus? Got eaten by a ghost dog? Next time, stick in a envelope and address it back to a time when I cared.

Next. Orac. Your essay was on 'why we shouldn't debate with woos'. You know too well that your class mate Steve N is this very evening next door in the woo class talking about homeopathy. At least he is being nice to them by talking to them. Some of the others here just want to make them cry - and we shall be hearing more of this later. What do you mean they don't listen to you? Did they ask for your opinion? And anyway, Steve is doing much better at school than you. He will probably grow up to be a brain surgeon or something.

Mr Mendel. Your media studies essay on why newspapers only print 'miracle cure' stories and not 'negative findings' made a refreshing change from your usual obsession with the school canteen and the new chef, Patrick 'the prof' Holford.

Erin - your essay on 'Carbon Dioxide is Life! ' was too short. But quite funny. Are you sure you have not been had? See me.

Back to Steve Novella. He had to hand his essay in early as he is on a school assignment with the homeopaths tonight. But don't think I haven't forgotten about him. He will get his comeuppance when he gets back. But he has written some interesting things on 'the psychological motivations that drive belief in chi and other magical nonsense'. I hope he is not using those words in front of the homeopaths tonight. They will start crying again. I'll have the parents in here complaining.

Martin Rundkvist. Stop digging around in the bottom of your desk. You have no idea what you will find there. And just what is this thing you have posted on psychic archaeology? And your art work looks live a 5 year old drew it. You did not even colour it in. What was that? It's psychic artwork? And for the last time. No weapons in class. Not even swords. I don't know what you allow in Sweden. But it won't do here.

Zoo Knudsen. What is all this nonsense about an image of Charles Darwin being found on a cheese danish? You are not making fun of the girls and boys in the religious education class are you? You know how sensitive they are.

Interverbal - some sensible explanations of trial design. I wish the rest of you would occasionally step back and explain the basics. Its good for the whole class. WhiteCoatUnderground - you too, with a good example about Gary Null. You can go home now.

And Eric Michael Johnson, your Primate Diary on the religious rights hypocritical condemnation of our old teacher J 'the helix' Watson made some interesting points. Blake Stacey - are you trying to be clever talking about Einstein's equations? If some in film class wants to make a school documentary on how E=mc³ then who are you to challenge him? Do you believe everything Professor Einstein tells you? What do you mean, 'evidence'?

Sit back down you lot. That was the bell. It is a signal for me, not for you.

Factician - you are treading on thin ice by criticising the parents of this school. If they are worried about installing WiFi in the school, or measles jabs, or making sure you are taking your fish pills then you have to understand they are doing it for you - the children. Who can argue with them? Don't you care?

And as for you Mark Hoofnagle, don't deny it, but aren't you picking on someone else in skeptics class? It is no good just handing in another essay on Uri Geller. Don't think I haven't noticed.

And Rebecca.

Rebecca. Rebecca. Rebecca. Do you think watching telly and then telling us about it is homework? It wasn't even something educational, like the BBC or Discovery. It was the Psychic Channel. And making fun of the people on the telly is not nice. They really believe in ghosts and who are you to say otherwise?

And now the new boy in the class, Dikkii. You have written about something we are all sick to death of hearing about now - homeopathy. But, I must commend you. Gold Star. At least you took the trouble to use your own words. Keep it up. We want to hear more from you.

Which brings me on to the rest of you sorry lot. How many times do I have to tell you that copying your essays from Google is not acceptable? Its downright plagiarism. And this week we have seen an awful lot of you doing it. About a hundred. Not just from skeptics class, but the politics class too. You should all know better.

It all started with a very naught boy who wrote a story about some homeopaths in Africa who had some magic beans to help cure the poor Africans of malaria and AIDS. I think he also pulled the pig tails of the ginger girl in the class. This story really upset the girls and boys in woo class and they began to cry and ran home to their parents.

So, I have had the school governors demanding I suspend this pupil and destroy the essay. I have never seen them so angry! And what happened. You little lot copied it all over the place. Plain childish.

It started with Head Boy 'the prof' Colquhoun who has written his own story about it. We expected better of you, David. Then Ben wrote about it in the school paper. The rest of you just blatantly copied. Randi! Put the spoons down - we have warned you about destroying school property. Even you did it! Its unheard of. At least you added your own criticisms.

So, I am going to read out the register of bad boys and girls. Fingers on lips.

Mendel, Gimpy, Clegg, MrHunnyBun, Hinkley, jdc325, badchemist, Taylor, Orac, skepticaldog, brayton, pertsovich, sharon and gordon, whitecoatunderground, stacey, conspiracyfactory, bronzedog, infophilia, happy jihad, gas, skeptico, matharu, skeptix, millenium project (check your spelling), lockwood, Mr Toad (swearing!), enomi, d-notice, the crack emcee, homepathiccomplaints, cool girl ordinarygirl, tabasco de gama, Skeptikeren, blogher (are you sure you are meant to be in this class?), dikki good on'yer mate, qnoodle, freeborn john, skeptobot, Randi, Skeptigator, Bishop Hill, CounterKnowledge, Ministry of Truth, BritBlog Roundup at The Wardman Wire, MediaWatch.org.uk, Mike Powers, Aharonic, Amused Cynicism, Humaniform, chicken yoghurt, the devil's kitchen, starshun, gas, be lambic or green, nana's notions, a night on the tiles, powerup, unfiltered perception, action skeptics, apathy sketchpad, sceptiphrenia, thinking is dangerous, rants and raves.

(more to be added when I find the culprits)

So, don't do this again. It is only your own time you are wasting.

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

Skeptics' Circle #73 is at the rather obsessively excellent HolfordWatch.


.

Labels: Skeptics Circle

 

According to Allergy UK, they are "a national medical charity established to represent the views and needs of people with allergy, food intolerance and chemical sensitivity." Amongst their aims they say they are there to

Enabl[e] people with allergy, food intolerance and chemical sensitivity to receive appropriate diagnosis and treatment through education of healthcare professionals and the provision of dedicated services.

Allergy UK give awards to services they feel help promote their aims and "will generally benefit allergy sufferers and improve their state of health and wellbeing." They have given an award to YorkTest who are 'specialists in food intolerance testing'. They say,

The clinically validated York Test foodscan range represents a breakthrough in food intolerance testing. Using the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (elisa) method, the tests provide a rapid, accurate and reproducible way of determining food intolerance and identify which foods your body is and isn’t coping with properly from a pin-prick blood sample.

Patrick Holford gives similar endorsements to YorkTest,

My favourite laboratory is Yorktest Laboratories whose tests are clinically validated. Not only do they use this technology but they are the only lab to offer a home test kit for food and chemical allergies that requires a pinprick blood sample. This is sent back to YorkTest laboratories who then test you for sensitivity to all foods including gluten, gliadin, wheat and yeast. They send you a home test kit that enables you to take a pinprick of blood, so you don’t have to go to your doctor.

Yorktest have also carried out a number of ‘double-blind’ trials on their IgG test and have solid science to back up their claims of effectiveness.

His schools food charity "Food for the Brain" is supported by YorkTest.

Now what is funny is that the Advertising Standards Authority disagree with all this. Some mischievous member of the public complained about their adverts. The issues considered were:

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim "clinically validated" could be substantiated; and

2. the advertisers could substantiate the efficacy of the test

The ASA challenged whether:

3. the ads made claims that could lead to a mistaken diagnosis

All three complaints were upheld. YorkTest were found to be in breach for unsubstantiated claims, untruthfulness and for claims about Health and Beauty and Therapies.

This is about time. Misdiagnosis of allergies caused people to drastically and unnecessarily alter their diets in ways that may be harmful. It causes distress and may prevent them from seeking proper medical help. There is a huge industry out there preying on peoples concerns about allergies and food intolerances and it needs reigning in.

How long will it be do you think before Allergy-UK take away their award to YorkTest? And how long before Patrick Holford amends his web pages?

My personal guess is never. I may be wrong.

UPDATE:

A little dickie bird has just pointed out that a trustee of the charity Allergy-UK is a DR MICHAEL CHARLES MATTHEWS.

A Dr Michael C Matthews MB, BS, FHS was also a medical director of YorkTest.

Labels: Allergy UK, ASA, Patrick Holford, YorkTest

 

That BBC Newsnight Video Again...



more info from the BBC

And James Randi giving his witty insights into homeopathic 'thinking'.

Labels: Society of Homeopaths

 

Bach Flower Essences are a sort of homeopathic flower essence made with brandy. As such, what you buy is just pure (cheap) brandy. Their medicinal quality is limited to what a few drops of brandy can do for you.

But bachflower.com have just issued a press release telling us how Naomi Klein, prominent critic of our globalised brand-oriented consumer culture, appears to be a big fan of Bach Flower remedies.

Via the New York Times, she tells us that,

“It’s very, very mild, especially if you dilute it,” she said. “I use it if I’m having trouble sleeping, or before a speech if I’m tense.”

But the contents of the bottle (a blend of flower essences, according to a spokesman for Nelsons, the British company that makes the Bach line) are not its real charm.
“I have no real sense that it works,” Ms. Klein said. “I think of it like a kind of talisman. I like the old-fashioned country-doctor packaging.”

I am not the first to notice the irony of her belief here. Bach Remedies are nothing but packaging. Their logo is the cure. Starting off in a little cottage in Brightwell-cum-Sotwell in Oxfordshire, these little bottles are now a major globalised quack industry.

Naomi Klein is the 11th top global intellectual as declared by Prospect magazine.

Labels: celebrity quackery

 

Just in case you were wondering, here is the letter I wrote to the Society of Homeopaths, asking them just why they were so upset about me.

This letter was written about in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday October 20th.

You can follow the story on BadScience, DCScience, Respectful Insolence, Gimpy's and Randi, plus many more too numerous to mention.

URGENT

For the attention of Paula Ross, Chief Executive of the Society of Homeopaths

Dear Ms Ross,

I have just received the email below from my web site hosting company. I believe they originally forwarded the email to an incorrect address and so today is the first day I have been able to respond to it. My name is Andy Lewis and I am the owner of the domain quackometer.net and I write the blog that can be found on that site. As such, I would very much like to make sure that I fully understand your concerns expressed in the fax to netcetera and I am keen to see that we can resolve any concerns and reach an amicable understanding for all.

I understand you are unhappy about this post, http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/gentle-art-of-homeopathic-killing.html. This post was written to highlight my concerns and opinions that the Society of Homeopaths is not taking a firm enough stand, and taking enough action, to ensure its members do not use homeopathy where it is totallyinappropriate. Furthermore, the widespread denigration of evidence-based medicine amongst homeopaths is something that the Society should be seeking to reduce should it truly wish to be complementary. It is my opinion thatthe Society should have done a lot more after the BBC Newsnight sting on homeopaths and malaria. As Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital said, "people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice". Hence, the title of my post. I have similar concerns about the role of homeopathy in managing AIDS and the advocacy for such treatment that so many homeopaths appear to make. The stark difference of opinion between medical homeopaths, such as Fisher, and your lay membership is concerning.

I hope you understand that my concerns are genuinely held and my motive is the wider highlighting of a problem that may well end in harm or even death to people unless action is taken. I am sorry you have felt it necessary to ask my web hosting provider to take down the page in question. If you could tell me urgently what the wording is that you feel is incorrect, defamatory or not fair comment I will examine it immediately and will ensure a friendly and swift resolution of this matter. In addition, if you wish to respond to my concerns on the site, I will be more than happy to prominently publish your thoughts in full on my web site.

I am sure we can come to a quick and happy conclusion here, but should you feel it necessary to follow a legal route directed at me rather than my hosting company, then please can I suggest you initiate the appropriate pre-action protocols to help ensure we all have the right information and communications. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_def.htm

I am sure you are aware that, being scientifically trained, I am sceptical of homeopathic claims. However, as you might see from my site, I believe that homeopaths could play an important role in healthcare in the UK, but that a good, healthy debate amongst all opinions would be required to get there. I would be humbled to think that I could play a small part in that. I look forward to your
response,

Yours,

Andy Lewis

The Quackometer

Labels: Society of Homeopaths, SoH

 

Homeopathy is fun. Pretending you can cure minor self-limiting ailments with magic water and sugar pills obviously brings countless hours of pleasure to lots of people and I, for one, would not want to take their ball away. Hey! You can even make some money out of it too, as lots of people like to join in and pay money to play patient and be part of the fantasy. But like all fantasy games, there really ought to be some pre-arranged agreement on limits; someone to shout a code word, or hold up a red card, when it looks like things might be going a bit too far, and where someone might get hurt. All participants can then step back, have a laugh, a cup of tea, and re-start tomorrow with some more bumps and bruises.

I have written many times on this blog that there appears to be nobody in the homeopathic community who really wants to take on this role of referee. Without someone to blow the whistle, people may actually get so deep into the homeopathic game that they really start believing they can cure serious illnesses, like malaria and AIDS. And, as part of the role playing is to pretend that real doctors are nasty, conspiratorial and in it for the Big Pharma money, some of the patients may also start crossing the safety boundaries.

There are a number of homeopathic members' clubs out there that have ethics codes and complaints committees, but after the BBC Newsnight/Sense about Science malaria sting which resulted in little visible change, one has to wonder how effective these procedures are? As Simon Singh, the science writer and broadcaster, said at the time,

I was shocked that there was such willingness to give advice and sell products that would leave people exposed to a highly dangerous disease… Beforehand I suspected that one or two homeopaths might offer pills to protect against malaria, but it turned out that ten out of ten were guilty of such irresponsible practice. This makes me think that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way homeopaths are regulated.

Now, Peter Chappell, you may remember, claims to be able to do wonders for just about everything, including AIDS and cancer, with not only his own magic homeopathy concoctions, but downloadable homeopathic MP3 files. Peter sports the designation FSHom (Fellow of the Society of Homeopaths) in a number of places, so, I rattle off a quick letter to them to see what they make of his practices. The Society of Homeopaths complaints officer, Patricia Moroney, replies that Peter is 'no longer a member of the Society of Homeopaths and therefore is not bound by our Code of Ethics and Practice. He is not entitled to FSHom."

My mistake.

In my defence, Peter Chappell carries the FSHom designation all over the web. Surely the Society of Homeopaths will be furious that he is still promoting himself as FSHom, whilst outrageously breaking their own code of practice, and try to do something about it? So furious in fact, that there could be no way that they would still be promoting his book on the society web site, under "Recommended Reading", and describing him as FSHom and 'a Registered Member and Fellow of the Society"? And so furious that there is no way that they would be holding an AIDS symposium on the 1st of December (World AIDS day) which will specifically give a platform to Peter Chappell's ridiculous healing ideas?


The second complaint I made was regarding Julia Wilson RSHom who holds a homeopathic asthma clinic and says that she has worked in a Kenyan homeopathic AIDS, TB and malaria clinic. In my opinion, her advertising literature advocated specific homeopathic cures for asthma that are superior to real medicine. The Society of Homeopaths found that no breach of their code had been made.

Let me repeat what I believe to be one of the difficult sections of the leaflet.

Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Although creams and puffers can provide temporary relief, they are not offering your child a cure.

Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...

Leaving aside the self-contradictory nature of these claims about suppressing symptoms, it appears to me that Julia is saying that homeopathic approaches can do things that medicine cannot and that it offers a better approach. Julia, in her defence, says that 'absolutely no cure is implied'. Please re-read the above to make your own mind up. Specifically, she says to the SoH complaints officer that 'my leaflet makes no claims, stated or implied, that homeopathy can treat asthma...Absolutely no cure is implied' and SoH accepts this. "No further action will be taken". What do you think?

The response to my complaint also pointed out that the leaflet made clear that 'it does not claim superiority over conventional treatment, it is at pains to make it clear that homeopathy can be integrated with conventional treatment'. The only section that goes anywhere near such a statement is 'Homeopathic treatments are safe for children – and they work alongside conventional medicines such as creams and puffers.' Is that 'going to great pains' and advocating 'integration'? I think not. Is this why she talks of a 'drug free approach'?

As for her involvement in the Kenyan homeopathy clinic that claims to be a centre for treating AIDS and malaria, "[I] did not, at any point, claim to cure malaria, HIV/AIDS or TB. ... Not only would such a claim contravene section 72 of the Code of Ethics & Practice, it would of course, be counter to the very way in which homeopaths practice'. It is well worth visiting the Abha Light Foundation's web site and attempt to understand if that is what Abha believe too.

I wish I could point you to a relevent page on the SoH website that publicised the outcomes of the above investigations, but their ethics and complaints procedures appear to be private and closed. It is worth comparing and contrasting this with the GMC and their conduct enquiries in doctors' standards. Full details of their current investigations and decisions can be found on their site. I would argue that the GMC was better protecting patients' interests by being open and public.

In closing, when dealing with homeopaths, it does look like we have to be very careful about words. Their world view is so far from reality that we can never be sure we are talking about the same thing. Many homeopaths do not recognise illnesses like AIDS, malaria and TB and their pathogenic origins . They see these illnesses as being symptoms of underlying imbalances in mystical energies, miasms, or fairy dust, or something. These 'life-force problems' are what homeopaths claim to be treating - not the disease. When they talk about 'treating' and 'curing' they are talking about the 'underlying reason' and the 'whole person'. Such pseudo-scientific subtlety will be lost on most people. And so, what look like contradictory thought process to us, make perfect sense in their Humpty Dumpty world. In a world where words mean whatever you want them to mean, it is difficult to see how any complaint against you could ever be upheld.

Labels: homeopathy, Society of Homeopaths, SoH

 

Some of you around here may have noticed that homeopaths are feeling a little threatened at the moment. Some have responded to the perceived threats with rather impolite and aggressive behaviour. Others are setting up new campaigns.

A new web site has appeared in the last few days called Homeopathy: Medicine of the 21st Century. (I won't link to it, they do not need the Google points, but you can find it here: www.hmc21.org). Now, leaving aside the obvious mistake that they have put a 21 in their name rather than an 18, their rational for setting up the site is as follows:

H:MC21 was set up in September 2007 to inform the public about homeopathy and its relation to orthodox medicine. It will do this through research, publication and campaigning. Our first project is to counter the wave of negative publicity by collecting signatures to the following declaration.

When you go to the declaration, you are presented with the following form to describe your homeopathic experience:

For me, nothing sums up homeopathic thinking more than this. It is the blind refusal to accept anything other than that homeopathy can be a positive experience. There is no acknowledgment that homeopathy needs to have boundaries and can pose dangers, if not practiced within its limited scope. Those of us who criticise homeopathy fully acknowledge that people can have positive experiences with it: the placebo can work wonders on some minor, self-limiting conditions, and a nice hour long chat with a 'caring' person is a wonderful thing. That is not our complaint.

Our complaint is that homeopaths appear to lack any insight into what they are doing. There is almost no critical self-appraisal of their own work. There is widespread denigration of 'allopathic' real medicine and you set yourselves up as an alternative panacea without the slightest shred of reliable evidence for this, and very good reasons to think that homeopathic theory is utter nonsense. In that climate, harm will be done. People may shun effective treatments and homeopaths may attempt to manage dangerous conditions on their own. The BBC/Sense about Science report into homeopathic advice on malaria prevention was a scandal that should have galvanised the homeopathic community into action. The silence was deafening. And it gets worse, with conferences being held on the management of AIDS with homeopathy which give platforms to people who really ought to be subjected to heavy criticism because people will unnecessarily suffer and even die.

The worldwide criticism of homeopathy will not stop because homeopaths cover their ears, or worse, reach for their lawyers. It will stop when someone within the homeopathic community has the courage and leadership to tackle these issues head on. I believe that there is possibly a useful role for a homeopathic community to offer a genuine and responsible complementary therapy in the 21st Century.

But, where is that responsible and courageous leadership going to come from? Can anyone see where?

Labels: homeopathy, SoH

 

Labels: humour and trifles

 

At last, the Quackometer has been banned by the Net Authority. I feel justified and vindicated.

Labels: quackometer

 

Here's something that I feel passionate about.

Le Canard Noir is a diving duck and has just come back from a diving holiday. Most divers I meet have developed a special sense of awareness of the fragility of the underwater environment and many of my scuba friends are involved with conservation projects. We see things non-divers do not: damaged reefs, bleached reefs, discarded nets, rubbish, hooks in fish, and disturbingly, we see no sharks. In years of diving the Med, I have never seen a shark. I have seen multitudes of sharks elsewhere, but never in the Med. Shark numbers are in decline.

All my diving friends, who have encountered sharks, have similar tales about their first shark dive. They do not report feeling afraid, just awe. Regardless of prior apprehension or fear, every first time shark diver swims towards them, not away. Something strange happens. After that first sharp intake of breath, you quickly want to experience them to the full and fill yourself with this fleeting moment. They are beautiful creatures that make a diving trip in a way that no other creature does. You talk about nothing else in the bar, afterwards. In the diver magazines causes of diver deaths are often reported and I have never seen a death or injury by shark. It just does not happen. Scuba deaths are overwhelmingly caused by ignoring, or diving beyond, your training.

Conversely, millions of sharks are killed by humans every year and their long maturation and gestation periods make them particularly vulnerable to over fishing. Unlike bony fish, blue sharks vivipariously give birth to a low number of young and take a long time doing it, and demand for shark products is growing, raising serious questions about their future in the hands of the terrifying marine predator known as the human.

And so it comes as no surprise to see a letter in this month's Diver magazine about Holland and Barret selling shark cartilage food supplements. Sue Wright of Bradford wrote a letter headed "Pills make me see red" and continued,

I recently visited a Holland and Barrett and was disgusted to see shark's cartilage tablets on sale... I later emailed the company, which replied saying that it sold 'loads' of the tablet, and apologies for upsetting me. They had not just upset me, they had really angered me!

I looked online to see why anyone would buy these tablets. They seam to be aimed at three illnesses - arthritis, cancer and fibromyalgia - bit as far as I can see, it is only the maker that recommends them.

Holland and Barrett replied to Diver enquiries,

We take the threat and welfare to endangered species very seriously and would not be selling any product that contained a by-product of an endangered species of shark. ... our product ... is a by product of the blue-shark which we are assured is not an endangered species.

Shark cartilage is a hugely popular dietary supplement used by thousands of our customers. Customers say it benefits their health with ailments such as arthritis. There is also clinical evidence that backs up such claims...

Holland and Barrett will continue to sell shark cartilage due to popular demand, until such time that the species is classed as endangered.

Let's take that apart. What are Holland and Barrett really saying?

Holland and Barrett will of course support banal platitudes about green issues and saving the planet. Our actions are of course different. Someone has told us that fishing for sharks is OK, probably our suppliers.

We sell shed loads of these pills and will continue to do so while our clueless customers continue to believe the nonsense on the web about the magical properties of shark cartilage. Sharks never get cancer, don't you know? We read it on Wikipedia.

As Holland and Barret is owned by one of the largest American pharmaceutical companies, we will continue exercise our inalienable rights to make shed loads of money regardless of what you think, and to flog this stuff as long as it is legal, the customers remain gullible, and we can source the raw materials.

So, does Holland and Barrett's defence add up? Do they sell endangered species by-products? The difficulty with sharks is that so little is known about them. We just do not know enough to fully understand the impact of fishing 10-20 million blue shark individuals. The World Conservation Union, a Swiss-based conservation body, consider the blue shark to be "Near Threatened" and is on their 'red list'. So whilst, Holland and Barrett may be technically correct, what are they doing about their trade to ensure that the blue shark retains viable numbers? Uncertainty in understanding how fishing impacts this species should encourage us to be cautious for using this species for trivial uses.

And is the use of shark cartilage trivial? Do these supplements do anything? Again, as with most CAM, the stories about shark cartilage appear to be just that - stories. Sharks do get cancer. Gary K. Ostrander et al report in Cancer Research that "justifications for using shark cartilage are illogical extensions of the finding of antiangiogenic and anti-invasive substances in cartilage".
Furthermore,

The claims that sharks do not, or rarely, get cancer was originally argued by I. William Lane in a book entitled "Sharks Don’t Get Cancer" in 1992, publicized in "60 Minutes" television segments in 1993, and reargued in another book in 1996. The titles of the books do not match their texts in which the authors note that sharks actually get cancer but claim incorrectly that sharks rarely get cancer. We make three main points below: (a) sharks do get cancer; (b) the rate of shark cancer is not known from present data; and (c) even if the incidence of shark cancer were low, cancer incidence is irrelevant to the use of crude [shark] extracts for cancer treatment.

As for other claims of healing benefits from shark cartilage, it is worth noting that there are other, far cheaper and more environmentally friendly sources of cartilage that could be used. Pig's ears spring to mind. I speculate that this might be somewhat harder to market in your local high street, even if it were effective - which it isn't. Holland and Barrett fail to give references for their 'clinical evidence'. There is no good evidence - at best, just some speculative test tube experiments.

It is difficult to think of another shop on the high street where the vast majority of their products do absolutely nothing and are based on nothing but delusions. Holland and Barrett are leaches on our culture of distrust in science and medicine and prey on people who 'like to to take control of their health'. This story exposes the myths of alternative health care being green and caring, about small alternative health businesses versus 'Big Pharma', and enabling people to manage their own illnesses. Shark cartilage is sold by a billion dollar US based pharmaceutical company, NBTY (owners of Holland and Barrett and GNC), with no good evidence of effectiveness and who in doing so, threaten vulnerable species. On top of this, the Food Standards Agency have issued warnings about US imported shark cartilage pills being a source of salmonella. NBTY issued a recall on their shark products earlier in the year.

Some conservation organisations are on the case. Bite-Back, a shark and marine conservation body, have a ready made web form for you to sign and send to Holland and Barrett expressing your concern. Why not give it a go?

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

More campaigns and info on sharks and overfishing here...

http://www.bite-back.com/

http://www.visiondive.com/sites/protection/english/holland_and_barrett.html

http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=28209

http://www.seashepherd.org/longline/

Labels: Holland and Barrett