The Quackometer

Neal's Yard Remedies has announced that it is withdrawing is Malaria Officinalis 30C homeopathic remedy from sale. This is the absolute minimum it could have done given that its Exeter Branch was recently caught out by the BBC South West programme Inside Out selling this remedy as protection against malaria. (I wrote about this staggering event recently.)

What reason do Neal's Yard give? Let's look at their press release in detail.

The BBC’s Inside Out programme - Homoeopathy and Malaria

We love the BBC, but we all know from time to time they can be guilty of naughty editing, especially when it comes to showing people apparently storming ‘out’. Our Medicines Director Susan Curtis was interviewed for the Inside Out programme last week, and unfortunately a lot of what she was trying to say was not shown. The most important point, and something we are very passionate about, it that as our health is so important, we advise that people seek professional advice on all matters of health.

So, we note that Neal's Yard remind us of how recently the BBC were discovered to be less than honest in their film report showing the Queen 'storming out' of the BBC filming of a documentary. So, Neal's Yard want to compare the 'misrepresented' Susan Curtis to the Queen. All I can suggest is that you watch the footage of the non medically qualified Medicine's Director 'hurriedly leaving' the interview. Make sure you pay attention during the bit where Susan Curtis rips of her microphone and says 'I have actually had enough" and then quickly leaves as the interviewer asks if what the company was doing was "criminal, unethical and dangerous". A full transcript can be found on 'thinking is dangerous'.

The statement claims that Neal's Yard ensures people "seek professional advice on all matters of health". We shall examine that a little more closely later.

Next in the press release,

We know there have been no clinical trials for the use of homoeopathy in the prevention of malaria but homoeopathy does have a good track record in preventing and treating other epidemic diseases. Susan said that there is no absolute guarantee that you will not get malaria with any treatment and that the most important factor is to take measures to prevent being bitten by mosquitoes.

Neal's Yard acknowledges that there is no good evidence that homoeopathy can prevent malaria. So, why does it sell it then? Malaria kills. By offering a prevention where there is no scientific evidence or reason to suppose that it will prevent malaria, you are simply putting lives at risk. Susan then claims that there is a "good track record in preventing and treating other epidemic diseases." This is bullshit of the highest order. There is no good evidence that homeopathy can prevent or cure any disease - it's just sugar pills. Homeopaths like to tell each other stories and myths about cholera epidemics in the 19th Century. Not good enough. Can you imagine a drug company offering evidence for a new drug based on 200 year old fairy stories? By saying that "no absolute guarantee that you will not get malaria with any treatment " it ignores the fact that there is good evidence that convential anti-malarials, properly prescribed, can do a great deal to protect you, whilst homeopathic sugar pills do absolutely nothing. Weasel words.

And on,

We do not advertise or sell the remedy as a prevention for Malaria. It is supplied on request by practitioners working in Neals Yard Remedies stores, and in fact, the practitioners have been trained to always explain that the remedy should not be considered as a guarantee of prevention of malaria. The name of the remedy is based on its latin name and not on its claim to cure or prevent an ailment.

Now this is one of the most beautiful bits of bullshit I have yet come across. I purchased a tub of Neals Yard Malaria pills. A picture of the product is shown above. So, I am supposed to believe that when the word 'MALARIA' appears on the label it is actually a very technical latin name which a mere lay person like me could not understand and in fact has nothing to do with the deadly disease spelt using the same letters in the same order. Let us remind ourselves what MALARIA CO 30C actually is. It is a homeopathically prepared 'nosode' dilution of the malaria parasite designed with the like-cures-principle in mind. The product is specifically designed to prevent or cure malaria, but is so dilute that all you end up with is the plain sugar pill and so cannot possibly do anything. There is 1 part 'remedy' to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts water. (100 to the power of 30)

Well, did Neal's Yard sell this as a prevention or cure for malaria? The page from their web site has now gone. But, by the amazing powers of the interweb I can remind you what the page looked like here (also here). The product was being sold alongside Medicines Director Susan Curtis' book Homoeopathic Alternatives To Immunisation in which she describes how such a remedy could prevent malaria. And did my purchase come with a warning? Nothing. Not a word about the fact that I should be seeing my GP and taking anti-bite measures? Silence.

The press release ends,

However, as this is obviously a contentious issue which is causing customer concern, we have decided to withdraw the product, Malaria Officinalis 30c from sale with immediate effect.

I have a feeling that the real reason might be to do with the fact that the BBC passed on their information to Trading Standards and the MHRA, the body who make sure all medicines are licensed and marketed appropriately. Selling a homeopathic remedy with claims, implied or otherwise, without a license is a criminal offense. Even if you do have a license, you are only allowed to make claims for conditions that do not normally require a doctor's attention, like 'feeling a bit under the weather'.

The product sold to me by Neal's Yard was manufactured by Ainsworth's, the homeopathic pill company. Their web site still contains the same product. I am sure there is some anxiety there that they do not want the MHRA telling them that they cannot sell this stuff. Let's hope the MHRA are not aware of this.

But back to the main issue. This press release is almost a complete string of bullshit statements designed to obscure the fact the Neal's Yard were selling dangerous products. The company likes to portray its ethical nature, and wants to fill the gap on the high street now that The Body Shop have been acquired by a big multinational. Is this press release a one-off? Sadly not.

Their previous press release was an attempt to discredit the Cochrane review of vitamin supplements that showed that there was little evidence that certain vitamin supplements did you much good and that they even could be shortening your life. The Vitamin Companies and Health Food Industry came out in a massive PR battle to rubbish this study - without even reading it. Ben Goldacre covered this in this Saturday's Guardian where he showed that the Health Food Manufacturers Association had roped in various clueless celebrities to condemn the work. It was obvious that none of the celebrities had either read the work or understood it. The vitamin pill salesman Patrick Holford started saying that it was a 'conspiracy' by vested interests to destroy the vitamin industry whilst neglecting to mention that the Cochrane collaboration is independent and forbids its members from taking corporate funding for its studies and that Holford himself had taken around half a million pounds from the vitamin industry over the past year or so.

The deliberate obfuscation of this serious report is shameful. All have been at it, from Holland and Barrett to the 'mad-as-a-box-of-frogs' website What Doctors Don't Tell You. All of their criticisms were shallow and idiotic. Rather than issue a press release that said they would be "studying the conclusions of this important study and seeing how it affected their business", as you might expect ethical and responsible businesses to do, there was nothing but a universal knee jerk reaction of the type you might expect of the asbestos or tobacco industries.

Neal's Yard Remedies were no different. Their press release did not even give specific criticisms of the Cochrane review but of a previous piece of work by the authors. The Cochrane review was in part a response to these previous criticism and was ten times longer than the study criticised by Neal's Yard. The press release concluded,

there is considerable documented evidence both for vitamin deficiencies in the general diet (particularly for specific at-risk groups), and for the health benefits of vitamin supplementation when taken at recommended doses. Those individuals who wish to take vitamin supplements to maintain good health should therefore continue to do so, and should not be discouraged by the shoddy scientific study by Bjelakovic et al.

That is a shameful statement to make. The only thing that is shoddy is Neal's Yard criticism of a gold standard review that it looks like it has not even read.

Neal's Yard is portraying itself as wearing the mantle of ethical business. It is marketing bullshit. It likes to be seen as green, organic and 'carbon neutral'. What can be ethical about selling overpriced cosmetics to the self-indulgent? What is ethical about selling useless sugar pills for lethal diseases? The business has a new Managing Director, Jonathan Hook. He says "Our ultimate aim is to be entirely organic". Ex mobile phone salesman Mr Hook was shoehorned in by owner Peter Kindersley as Hook's father was an organic farmer, and Kindersley likes that kinda stuff. The company is pleased with itself that it is now 'carbon neutral'. But these claims of being organic and ethical do not take into account the context of their business. Would an atomic bomb be ethical because it has a lower carbon footprint than 100,000 tonnes of TNT?

On the subject of the wild claims Neal's Yard make about their health products, Jonathan Hook shows a hint of doubt. He said in the Times,

“All our products have a therapeutic intent as well as being beautiful,” he says. “You can say: ‘This is really gentle, it will do good.' You can't say: 'It will cure eczema.'”

Therapeutic intent. That's nice. But it is also bullshit. What Neal's Yard sells is shiny blue bottles for the gullible. Any more claims to be ethical and I might start getting angry.

Labels: homeopathy, Neal's Yard Remedies

 

I read a rather disconcerting thing the other day. Apparently, the 'close doors' button on lifts (elevators, for my American friends) does not work. It is there to give us a sense of control in the tin box suspended on a rope. We press it but the lift control mechanisms decide when the doors should actually shut according to their pre-programmed cycles.

My reaction was of course total disbelief. For years I have been getting in lifts, pressing the button and then the doors close. My actions have been effective nearly every time. There is a near perfect correlation between my actions of pressing the button and the doors closing shortly thereafter. Case closed.

But stepping back for a moment and it is easy to see that my certainty may well be misplaced. I still believe that the button works but there is room for doubt. I can recall several times where I have had to press the button impatiently twice. Maybe if the door always closes after a fixed time I had pressed it the first time very soon after getting in. And of course, if the button was not working, then the doors would still close after a set period anyway. It is conceivable that my actions have nothing to do with when the doors close.

But would lift manufacturers really put a redundant button in there just to play some sort of psychological mindfuck on the users of their products? My doubts get stronger when I read that the button does work, but only when the lift is in 'fireman' mode and the maintenance key is turned. A little more plausible, but really?

So, I have now sufficient doubts to suspend my initial judgment of the effectiveness of my lift button pressing prowess. I could be kidding myself, but I am not sure. I do not want to fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "After this, therefore because of this". Just because one event happens after another does not mean that the first event caused the second event. A dog barks at the postman and is convinced the barking makes the postman go away. You swear at the traffic lights (robots, for my South African friends) and they go green. I press the lift button, the doors close. I am ill, I take my homeopathy pills, I get better.

How we respond to such information helps to define us as to what sort of thinker we are. Human brains are finely tuned belief engines. Millions of years of evolution have honed our grey stuff to spot causation in the world and form beliefs about what causes what. It helps us survive when we notice that certain events always follow other events. Such knowledge helps us reliably find food, mates and shelter. But our brains are taking efficient shortcuts. We filter out and ignore failures and remember and reinforce successes. And most of the time this works. But beliefs formed in this way can lead to mistakes. My pressing the lift button may well be a false conclusion drawn from my experience because I have failed to spot hidden causes and alternatives to the obvious. Maybe it really is just the lift closing the door without my intervention. Maybe the postman will just leave anyway without the dog barking and maybe my cold will clear up without the homeopathic sugar pill having to remember any 'vibrational energies'. It takes care, training and caution to spot when our monkey brains might not be instinctively getting things right. And it is not easy.

James Randi gave a talk this weekend in London with Sue Blackmore, Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre and other sceptics. Everyone there was familiar with his work, but he wanted to remind us that even us die hard sceptics are easy to fool. He stood in front of the microphone and talked to us and then at the end revealed that the microphone was not on and the glasses he was wearing had no lenses in them. He could not see us. Our brains were inventing information about the experience to make sense of it. What sort of idiot pretends the standing microphone was on when really he was using a collar device? What sort of idiot wanders on stage without being able to see? What sort of idiot puts useless buttons in lifts? Or takes useless sugar pills for that matter?

Now, one factor that prevents us testing our cherished beliefs is our investment in them. For the beliefs we value and have spent time and money nurturing there is a natural aversion to testing them. We just do not want to find out that our effort was for nought. The greater the investment, the more inclined we are to only seek confirmatory evidence for our beliefs and the less notice we take of negative evidence. I can honestly say that despite the thousands of times I have pressed the close door button, I do not feel wedded to the idea that my actions have been effective. I am happy to admit that I may have been taken for a fool.

Maybe if you were an old fashioned lift attendant in a posh department store, you might have more psychological investment in your beliefs about button pressing. You have been doing it for years, helping customer up and down between floors. They have been happy customers and pleased that you shortened the journey by pressing the close door button when everyone was ready. They tip you. They would not tip you if you had actually been doing nothing. You spent three years training (by correspondence) on effective lift management. You have a diploma (unaccredited). Your parents are proud. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT THE BUTTON DOES NOTHING!

So, there is only one answer: science. Test my assumptions. Collect some objective data and see if it confirms my expectations about my ability to influence lift doors. I can do a simple trial. I can time the interval between the doors fully opening when the lift in this building arrives at the ground floor and when the doors finally close before we move off. I can do this six times with a button press and six times without. There is probably no need to invent some sort of blinding mechanism as the opening and closing events are not overly susceptible to subjective interpretation and the lift will probably be unaware that a trial is going on. Maybe I will randomise the trial by tossing a coin as I step in - just in case there are trends or other factors that might make the interval different over the day. I will seek ethical approval.

Will you do the same? Can we settle this issue and see if we really are powerless and dehumanised in the face of the cold reality of vertical transportation mechanisms? Let me know.

(Mind you. I have always been a big fan of paternosters. Much more gentle, holistic and natural - and no need for reductionist, mechanical, electrosensitivity-inducing close door buttons. Why have they taken the paternosters away? Where is our choice?)

Labels: fun

 

The homeopaths, like Dana Ullman, treat original scientific works like scripture - as a source of truth. Their own Hahnemannian scriptures trump scientific knowledge and evidence at all turns. This fact exposes their pseudoscience. I bet the majority of practicing biologists have never read Darwin's Origins.

Homeopaths like the authority of scientists, celebrities and politicians. It gives them a source of validation that is independent of the reality of the world. But in doing so, they abuse truth and Darwin has been roped into this misadventure. Charles Darwin's letters have been thoroughly abused in an attempt to show that he was a supporter of homeopathy and I have shown how this is utter nonsense.

More manuscripts are now online and we can can see writings about Darwin from his colleagues and families. A biography by his son reveals this snippet and I thought it worth sharing as an insight into the man, his illness, and his mischievous humour.

Besides the holidays which I have mentioned there were his visits to the water cure. He began in 1849 when very ill suffering from constant sickness. He was urged to try to water cure by Fox (or Sulivan) and at last agreed to try Dr. Gully's establishment.1 — His letters to Fox show how much good the treatment did him: I fancy he thought that he found a cure for his troubles, which but like all other remedies it had only a transient effect on him. However he found it at first so good for him that he built himself a douche when he came home, & Parslow learned to be his bathman. He thought Dr. Gully a clever Dr but I do not think he liked him. He was repelled by all the homeopathy & spiritualism that Dr Gully favoured. — He so far humoured Dr G. as to allow himself to be examined by a medical clairvoyante. who This person who localized the mischief in the stomach, in doing so he followed as my father believed some unconscious hints from Gully or his assistant." It was I think to this clairvoyante to whom my father offered a £5 note if she could tell him the number. She scornfully refused demean herself in such a way...

Another quack who refused to be objectively tested!

Labels: dana ullman

 

It's the big story this morning all over the British papers - the new killer in our midst - vitamin pills.

Today, a new Cochrane review tells us that guzzling antioxidant vitamin pills 'do us no good and may be harmful'. The Independent tell us that,

We swallow them by the bucketload at great expense but there is no evidence vitamin supplements do us any good, and they may even be doing us harm, scientists have concluded. In a blow to the multimillion pound dietary supplement industry, a review of 67 randomised trials of vitamin pills has found that far from prolonging life, they may actually shorten it.

This conclusion was the result of a meta-analysis of 232,000 people and confirms earlier findings that taking certain vitamins in high doses may kill us earlier rather than do us good.

The Scotsman quotes the researchers,

Goran Bjelakovic, a visiting researcher who carried out the review at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, added: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier." If anything, people given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality.""The bottom line is that current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population or in patients with certain diseases."

The Herald tells us that "some popular pills might kill you."

The Daily Telegraph leads with the story in its front page. Vitamin pills are no substitute for healthy diet,

[the researchers] warn healthy people who take antioxidant supplements, including vitamins A and E, to try to keep diseases such as cancer at bay that they are interfering with their natural body defences and may be increasing their risk of an early death by up to 16 per cent.

Not surprisingly the food pill pushers have reacted angrily.

In the Daily Mail we learn that,

Pamela Mason, of the industry-backed Health Supplements Information Service, said: 'Antioxidant vitamins, like any other vitamins, were never intended for the prevention of chronic disease and mortality.

'They are intended for health maintenance on the basis of their various physiological roles in the body and in the case of antioxidant vitamins, this does, in appropriate amounts, include a protective antioxidant effect in the body's tissues.

So, the vitamin industry has been telling us that their pills are not to prevent disease and death? That is news. But somehow without preventing disease and death they assist 'health maintenance'? Does that mean I could die but still be in 'optimum health'?

Patrick Holford, vitamin pill entrepreneur responds.

But Patrick Holford, a nutritionist who has formulated some [sic] supplements for the firm Biocare, said the Cochrane review was a "stitch-up". He added: "Antioxidants are not meant to be magic bullets and should not be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy habits. But used properly, in combination with eating a healthy diet, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role in maintaining and promoting overall health."

In the Daily Mail, Holford is reported as saying,

there is a campaign by the medical establishment to discredit their products and their role in optimising health.

and

Mr Holford said the review was 'a stitch-up' because all the studies were chosen strictly for reducing mortality, and not for the many advantages reported in other studies.

The quackometer would like see his evidence for any of his remarks. Just why a secretive cabal of the 'medical establishment' wants to discredit vitamin pills is not explained. It is paranoia and conspiratorial thinking. And isn't it a perfectly legitimate exercise to ask if chomping pills allows us to live longer? What is Holford saying? That we might lives shorter lives while scoffing his wares, but at least we will be in 'optimum health'?

But there may well be good reasons to try to discredit vitamin pill salespeople like Holford. Guzzling pills has more insidious effects that a possible reduction in lifespan. Vitamin pills are seen as a shortcut to health - a quick fix to make up for shortcomings or excesses elsewhere. Spending a fortune on pills and focusing on supplementation means that the importance of good diet is marginalised. The quackometer has long supported the view that we should 'eat food'.

What is somewhat frustrating about all of this is that the original Cochrane paper is not yet up for reading on their web site. All we have is press reports from press releases. This has not stopped Patrick Holford reviewing and rubbishing the work on his web site.

I am sure we get a detailed response from HolfordWatch in due course.

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

9am : The paper is now available here.

Listen to the Victoria Derbyshire show on BBC Radio 5 live where Mr Holford transforms himself into an industry spokesman.

Labels: Patrick Holford

 

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

The BBC, in a press release, said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something tells me this will not happen.


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

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

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

And how the MHRA has clobbered them.


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What new skills will homeopaths pick up?

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

• The 7 sacred planets

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

• Diseases and remedies associated with each planet

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

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

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

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

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