The Quackometer

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

 

So, another vague and preposterous legal threat and my web hosts have caved like bullied ginger children. Pages have been taken down and then immediately duplicated to over 30 (at last count) web sites all over the world. The web tends to react like that.

This situation will not last. The Society of Homeopaths did not get away with it and nor will more minor bullies. To be told to remove a web page on the threat of 'one million pounds per day' (hooks little finger to mouth) is just plain daft, especially when we are not told why such offense was being taken.

Professor Dr Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) has failed to respond to my simple request to document his specific concerns, and nor has his 'legal advisor' Tanja Suessenbach. And worse, neither have my web hosts, Netcetera, responded to my last emails to them. That has left me in a difficult position. Netcetera asked me to remove the pages until I have reached an agreement with Obi. He will undoubtedly now have no reason to speak to me now Netcetera have so easily complied. This leaves me with few options. Firstly, go digging and find a reason for Obi to back down and also, just simply move hosts. Positive Internet have offered to host this site for free - the hosts with a real backbone. (Just a few technical headaches to overcome first.)

But on to more fun things.

Part of Suessenbach's letter was to tell Netcetera in no uncertain terms that Obi was the owner of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine's (RCAM) Trademarks and she helpfully provided me with a copy letter of Good Standing from the Company Registration Office in Ireland and copies of Trade Mark registrations. This was quite ridiculous. Writing about a company in no way violates a person's rights under Trade Mark legislation. Nor does a letter of good standing provide evidence of the integrity of the directors. It just shows that the company is registered and is providing statutory returns.

The Registrar letter classed RCAM as 'normal'. So, the obvious thing was to get hold of those returns and a list of directors and their holdings, and see if that was true.

The Company Registration Office (CRO) in Dublin has a handy web interface (http://www.cro.ie/) for accessing such reports. A few euros lighter and I have the latest company returns from RCAM. The first is a Directors Annual Report which truly is a work of art in nice computer generated cursive script. Obi tells us that,

we are joyfully humbled to publicly announce an inspiring interim profit of thereabouts 415 Euros (before tax) which we ethically hope to double by this time next year.

The next quarter was somewhat better with a profit of 1628 Euros. No profit and loss or cashflow statements were provided as Obi sought an exemption due to RCAM's small size. So, it is a modest business to say the least.

Far more interesting was the latest register of Directors and their holdings. Joseph Obi owns all equity in the business, but Irish company law requires a company has at least two directors and a company secretary. So, first Professor Joseph Obi is listed as Wellness Consultant and Professor and gives his residential address as Wellness Cottage, Butlersbridge. That sets off alarm bells. What a coincidence of 'wellness'!

Fortunately, Ireland has another fantastic online resource: the Post Office Address Checker. In using this service, I have failed to find a 'Wellness Cottage' in Butlersbridge. Now I do hope I am mistaken as supplying a false director's address would be an offence and could lead to Mr Obi being disqualified as a director and fined.

The second director of RCAM is given as a Dr Andrew Ifeanyi Obi. His occupation is listed as 'International Medical Advisor', and his address is given as Suite 275, Thomas House, 47 Botanic Avenue, Belfast. Andrew Obi's signature is much more scripted than Joseph's.

This is a picture of 47 Botanic Avenue, Belfast. It must have tardis like proportions to contain at least 275 suites. Most of them will fail to have windows, which must be a shame. Actually, this building has a number of purposes. It is home to Green Inc Film and Television, the TV production company set up by cheeky chappy Patrick Kielty. (Follow link with sound on for full humorous effect).

More importantly, it is also home to Belfast company Mail Boxes Etc. (You can just make them out in the photo.) This company provides business services included rented mailboxes. It would make more sense if Suite 275, was Box 275. Now, once again I do hope I am wrong because providing a mailbox for a residential address would also not please the company registrars in Dublin.

What is also a little irregular is that CRO insist that at least one director of an Irish company is resident in the Republic. Dr Andrew, even if he is in Belfast, does not appear to be, and Professor Joseph appears to be based either Gateshead and/or London. He has hired a London-based 'legal advisor' and many press stories about him do not mention his Irish residence. Being a non-resident director requires a hefty bond to be paid.

One last discrepancy that I do not understand is that I can find no reference to Dr Andrew Ifeanyi Obi on any of Professor Obi's web sites, including RCAM. Indeed Goolging various combinations of either 'Andrew Obi' or 'Ifeanyi Obi' reveals only dire warnings of aliases being used for Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud (419 scams). Now, of course this does not mean that Dr Andrew is involved in such things, but rather we have no idea who he is, what he does with RCAM, why his director report does not appear to list a real residential address, or even if he exists at all.

But we know from the Irish Independent that Banned doctor claims to head college that does not exist. The companies registered address is just another "standard call answering and mail collection service to give the impression that it does [exist]." RCAM is just a web site run by Obi, but registered as a trading company in Ireland. For what reason? To make it sound impressive in intimidating legal letters?

What does all this mean? I am not sure, although the concerned citizen within me compels me to alert my suspicions to the relevent authorities in Dublin. Joseph is being a busy man right now blogging away. Yesterday, he told the world that,

Supermodel Kate Moss has today firmly and comprehensively dissociated themselves from the Quackometer Blog.

What a shame. We were getting on so well. I bet she has gone back to that waster, Dougherty.

Now, what I suggest to Mr Obi, and I have written to his 'legal advisor' to this effect, is that he stops fantasising about Kate (that's my job) and writes to Netcetera and withdraws his threats, writes to Google and withdraws his demands to remove my site from their listings.

It's not too late to back off from this silly nonsense.

Labels: Professor Joseph Obi

 

Another page or two goes missing.

You can read more about this here:

I'm not sure that's ethical

and here:
Legal threats and extortion to suppress the truth

Orac is on the case. Bless him.

The BadScience Forum has more details and discussion as does the Randi Forum

A few more people looking at the issues raised by this:

Science and Progress
Rich Speaks…
No Nonsense!
Ambri-guous
Thinking is Dangerous
Rich Scopie
Brain Duck
Soberish
Skeptico
A day at the pharmacy
Fooeey
jdc325
FlammableFlower
Sunclipse
NeuroLogica I am not worthy
Paholaisen Asianajaja
Shpalman

One or two very big US bloggers picking up on this now...

***********************************************************************************
Here is the 'lawyers' letter that my web hosts received...

Dear Sirs,

Re Defamation

We advise Professor Dr Obi and the Royal College of Alternative Medicine. We are informed that you host the Quackometer`s website (copy evidence enclosed). Our clients hereby give you formal notice that they are determined to sue you directly for the highly defamatory contents contained on the website should you fail to immediately shut down the website and delete all of the defamatory material relating to the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Dr Obi and our clients` lawfully registered Trademarks.

In case the defamation continues beyond 12 noon on Monday the 21st of January 2008, we are instructed to hold you fully liable to the tune of £1 Million (One Million Pounds) per day [hooks little finger to mouth], together with additional punitive damages relating to the many months during which the defamatory material had and has been globally accessible via your server.

Kindly note that Google has already blocked the highly defamatory material from appearing on its search engines in the Republic of Ireland, and is currently in the process of extending the ban to other countries.

Please find enclosed photocopies of the two RCAM Trademarks and a copy letter of Good Standing from the Company Registration Office in Ireland, as well as copies of these highly defamatory articles. Please provide an undertaking that no further reference concerning Professor Dr Obi and/or the Royal College of Alternative Medicine is going to appear anywhere within the Quackometer`s website.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Tanja Suessenbach LLB, LLM

I have now written to Ms Suessenbach asking her to detail her clients concerns as a blanket attempt to close down this site and not give reasons is unacceptable. Ms Suessenbach has yet to respond.

9pm 23rd Jan

I have just received confirmation that a researcher within the University of San Francisco Law School is now annotating the above letter as part of the chillingeffects.org project. That should be interesting.

10pm 23rd

A few more

Holford Watch
UK-Skeptics
Mugs and Money twice
Chemo Brain

jaycueaitch adds some commentary on the affair.

24th January

Apathy Sketchpad dissects the issues.
Overscope

And now Joseph Hewitt's marvelous Ataraxia Theatre is in on it too with
The Insolence of Pigeons

Science Punk catches up.


************************************************************************************
I think I can safely say that this matter is now closed. I did a bit more digging on Prof Obi, and I must say I am quite pleased with myself...

Joseph and Andrew Obi: International Men of Mystery

Posts are restored. Obi now has a Google profile like a pig farmer's timberlands.

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


*

Labels: Professor Joseph Obi

 

The louder a food screams 'natural' or 'healthy' at you, the further you should run. That is the somewhat counter-intuitive message of Michael Pollan's essay, Unhappy Meals. Pollan tells us to avoid those food products that come bearing loud health claims.

Labels: diets, Holland and Barrett, Patrick Holford, vitamins

 

Bertrand Russel said,

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.

Labels: Patrick Holford, vitamins

 

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, regulation, Society of Homeopaths

 

It looks like the campaign to clean up homeopathy is having effects! A new supplier of homeopathic remedies appears to have entered the market with the promise that "we won't lie to you".

They say,

"For some reason, many homeopaths feel they have to tell their patients lies and fairy stories, and try to baffle them with pseudo-science. Here at FairDeal Homeopathy, we treat you like adults, and only tell you the truth."

For example, on their FAQ, they ask the question: "What side effects can I expect?". They respond,

None. That's one of the great things about homeopathy - there are no side effects (unless you're allergic to sugar, or water) as there are neither actual medical effects, nor active ingredients in the remedies!

They point out the power of the the placebo effect and that it is very effective for certain conditions, but echoing the smoking patches that "require willpower" to give up, homeopathy "requires belief" to be effective in any way.

Refreshing stuff from FairDeal Homeopathy. I suggest we all buy our "Remedies" from them straight away!

We at the Quackometer welcome this innovation in the world of self-empowered healing.

Talking of miraculous innovations, not quackery related, but another great little website that you may wish to peruse: bovine descenders. We have all done it. Accidentally, lead a cow upstairs only, to find that it is impossible for a cow to walk down stairs. You prayers are now answered with these specialists and "world-wide leader in the getting-cows-down-stairs field".


Marvelous. The white hot pace of technology amazes me.

Labels: fun, homeopathy

 

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, regulation

 

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

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

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

and,

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

They failed miserably at both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their hope is that,

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

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

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

I have some serious reservations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

As I am sure you are aware, the marketing departments in pharmaceutical companies employ hoards of cartoonists to mock the alternative medicine industrty, alledgedly.

Here is the latest attempt to reduce the grand holistic arts to beano style ridicule. Joseph Hewitt's Ataraxia Theatre obviously has a thing going on about homeopaths. His latest scribble is a beautifully observed mocking of the absurdity of homeopathy. Joseph Hewitt is an English teacher living in South Korea. He likes iced tea and he says,

If you know me, and I know a few of you do, you'll know that the thing I hate most in this world is quack medicine. I have nothing but contempt for those who make their living fleecing money from the desperate.

He also refers to me as an 'internet celebrity' which is why I am plugging him here.

Which brings me onto an aside: I did not do a review of my last year of the Quackometer. Maybe I should have done. Lots happened and my readership has gone through the roof since I became an 'internet celebrity'. There is only one person I could thank for that and so I dedicate this cartoon to this person and give a special Quackometer 'Services to Stamping out Quackery' Award to Paula Ross, Chief Executive of the Society of Homeopaths. Thanks for all you did for me last year. If this was a real awards ceremony, now would be time for tearful hugs and the handing over of a crystal glass duck trophy. I couldn't have done it without you.

May 2008 be an even more exciting year! Happy New Year to all visitors to my site.

Labels: fun