The Quackometer

I am well aware that this blog may suffer from a distinct availability bias: I only really comment on and criticise forms of quackery that are easily accessible to me. As such, I may give the impression of highlighting the worst aspects of alternative medicine in the UK when actually I am only commenting on those areas that interest me and I can easily research (i.e. Google). Occasionally, I get glimpses into vast new hinterlands of quackery, unexplored and largely inaccessible. Horse owners appear to be awash with nonsensical beliefs. Even Chinese herbalists on the high street have gone unexamined because their web presence is small and unassuming.

By contrast, homeopaths have been thoroughly raked over, primarily because they crave the recognition and respectability that institutions, regulatory authorities, scientific-looking journals and conferences give them. They desire to be seen, not just as equals, but as superiors to conventional doctors, and to wear the mantle of science, even though they denigrate it when it contradicts them (as it always does). This provides a wealth of material that can be mocked, prodded and played with. But it may not represent a fair snapshot of what abuses go on in the outside world.

Here's a story that may well have escaped my attention. DM Digital TV is a Manchester based TV company (Sky Channel 802) that broadcasts in Urdu to the Pakistani population of the UK and abroad. Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulator, has fined the TV station £15,000 for making unsubstantiated and potentially dangerous medical claims. The programme in question (Health is Wealth) was all about a homeopath called Dr Professor Mohammed Jamil Jilu ("Dr Jamil") who made several amazing claims about the ability of homeopathy to cure cancer, diabetes and hepatitis. The complainant to Ofcom thought the programme was just a platform for the promotion of Dr Jamil's homeopathy practice. Dr Jamil does not appear to have much of a web presence and does not appear to be a member of any of the pretend homeopathy regulators in the UK. Apparently, Dr Jamil is registered in Pakistan. One wonders what meaning their code of ethics has.

It turned out that Dr Jamil did in fact pay to have the programme made and so not only did the programme fall foul of the Ofcom code of practice on medical claims, but also on sponsorship and the Cancer Act of 1939. DM digital claimed in its defence that it was not the only broadcaster who carried the programme and that the programme would have met regulatory guidelines in Pakistan. It also pleaded that it was a small company (20 people) and that a large fine could seriously damage it. They also appeared to believe that Dr Jamil's testimonials regarding his ability to cure cancer were sufficient mitigation. It looks as if the TV station was operating without any regard to the broadcasting regulations whatsoever. It may have been hoping it was under the radar and was unnoticeable to the regulators. Its compliance officer did not even see the programme before broadcast.

Ofcom has regulatory teeth. It is able to impose quite heavy fines. Awareness of availability bias is quite strong with some regulators. For example, the Advertising Standards Authority, although it has significantly less power, does actively monitor foreign language channels to help ensure its reach is not limited by its own accessibility bias. It does not wait for complaints from the public, but actively seeks out problems in areas that may otherwise go unnoticed.

In contrast, the homeopathic self-regulators in the UK are completely passive. They take no role in ensuring their members act responsibly. They will have nothing to say about this case. Even when complaints are made to them, their actions are to brush aside. Self regulation is a failure. Ofcom had this to say about the seriousness of the case,

[T]he case involves significant potential harm to some viewers. A homeopath, who was not medically qualified, was permitted to give medical advice on air to an audience in the UK about how to treat extremely serious conditions such as cancer, hepatitis and diabetes. The Committee was concerned that this kind of advice would resonate with any members of the audience who may be suffering from these diseases and so would be vulnerable. In the Committee’s view there was a material risk that broadcasting the sort of unsubstantiated claims made by Dr Jamil may lead some viewers to buy his advertised products without taking proper medical advice – so causing either a delay in treatment or a failure to seek treatment at all. The seriousness of the breach of Rule 2.1 was compounded by the fact that the programme’s presenter did not challenge Dr Jamil’s claims at any stage.

No doubt, the homeopathic community will not see a problem as their own availability bias precludes reason, evidence and truth.

Labels: DM digital TV, regulation

 

Recently, I wrote about how Julian Graves was selling and age-old cancer quackery cure in the form of quite poisonous apricot kernels. (Julian Graves: Not Just Nuts - Dangerously Irresponsible.) Hardly the tasty snack they normally peddle. And to remind you, the shop assistant actually told me that this cyanide producing inedible food waste was "good for certain types of cancer". One of the readers of this site knocked off a letter to Julian Graves to ask what this was all about. I humbly reproduce the correspondence in full...

Sent: 15 October 2008 14:49

Dear Julian Graves Organisation,

I see with concern that you are not only selling apricot kernels, but recommending to potential purchasers "We strongly recommend that if people want to know more about bitter apricot kernels and vitamin B17, they should go online and do their own research". As I am sure you know, the internet is not a reliable source of information, and may include information which is not just false but also potentially lethal. Can I suggest that you offer a link to Cancer UK's website? This is a charitable organisation, and has no conceivable axe to grind in this matter. To provide such a link would be the act of a responsible retailer - not to do so, and to recommend browsing on the wild web, is irresponsible in the extreme.
I look forward to hearing from you,

Reply: 22 October 2008

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your comments with regard to Bitter Apricot Kernels.
On a daily basis we have consumers and health professionals phoning us requesting information regarding this product. We have taken considerable time to ensure that no health claims or false statements have been made with regard to this product and the amount recommended on the bottle as a daily intake is clearly stated and why.
We provide a link to http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/ because, when having recommended websites such as Cancer Research and Cancer UK, customers have returned to us reporting that the information they wanted was not available. To our knowledge no persons have become ill from eating the kernels. If a customer reports they are receiving medical treatments we always recommend that they see a medical professional prior to starting to eat the product.

With regard to charitable organisations having no axe to grind, when we first started to investigate this product due to customer requests, we contacted a number of these organisations and received no constructive feed back or information; to put it bluntly they were not interested. We have also found no evidence that anyone is going to investigate the kernels or Vitamin B17 formally either as a preventive or possible assistant in the treatment of disease. It has been suggested to us the reason for this is that the kernels are a natural product and therefore no one can make any money from it.

This product and subject can produce an emotive response with many people, but we have tried to be constructive and definitely not give false hope.I hope this answers your concerns but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mrs (name deleted)
Technical Manager

Reply Reply: 22 October 2008
Dear (name),

Sorry, I still think you are being irresponsible. I'm sure you are aware that there are wild claims about laetrile curing cancer on the web, and that searching without guidance will find these. As a professional researcher, I can assure that these claims are without an evidence base.

With regard to the feedback you received, could I suggest that most charities are not able to provide information services to commercial organisations? Moreover, the admin and office staff don't have the qualifications to give such advice. Your organisation still bears responsibility for its actions, and advising people just to look on the web is irresponsible. I mentioned the Cancer UK site because it does indeed include valuable advice to all cancer sufferers, including guidance on alternative therapies. It would cost you nothing to add this link.

You say "It has been suggested to us the reason for this is that the kernels are a natural product and therefore no one can make any money from it." I did rather despair at this. First, it is not true. Vitamin C is a natural product, and businesses make large sums of money from it (and you are making money from kernels ). Second, the assumption is false. I've carried out research into cancer. It was funded by a charity, not by a pharmaceutical company. As part of this, I met both the dedicated charity collectors (often family members of sufferers) and sufferers themselves. My team and I would have done anything, and explored any reasonable avenue, to help alleviate or cure the condition. Profits did not feature. Indeed, if we had discovered a more effective therapy, I would have been famous and well rewarded, especially if it was one that was easy to obtain, effective and safe. Apricot kernels are neither effective nor safe, and 'conspiracy theories' are a way of excusing the evidence that they are not effective. I'd be happy to discuss the evidence further with you, if you like. But at the moment, the people who are aiming to profit from these remedies are you.

You also know that on the web there are a significant number of alternative sites which imply or state outright that cancer sufferers should abandon their medication. By advising potential purchasers to browse the wild web, some will arrive at these sites, and may act on them. You can't stop this happening: but you can provide a link to a measured, kindly and evidence based site as well - such as Cancer UK. Isn't that worth it?

Yours with best wishes,

The response from Julian Graves is just stunning. I love how these organisations, like Neal's Yard Remedies, love to think of themselves as ethical and caring, but actually are deeply corrupt and irresponsible (like lots of other businesses).

Let's deconstruct their response a little more...

Thank you for your comments with regard to Bitter Apricot Kernels. On a daily basis we have consumers and health professionals phoning us requesting information regarding this product. We have taken considerable time to ensure that no health claims or false statements have been made with regard to this product and the amount recommended on the bottle as a daily intake is clearly stated and why.

You may have made efforts to ensure your adverts and websites do not make claims as this would break the law. But your shop assistant made claims without any hesitation.

We provide a link to http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/ because, when having recommended websites such as Cancer Research and Cancer UK, customers have returned to us reporting that the information they wanted was not available.

Responsible web sites do not tell people that fruit food waste can cure cancer. There are lots of barking web sites out there that do. Julian Graves is relying on nutty (excuse pun) web sites to do the advertising that it dare not do.

To our knowledge no persons have become ill from eating the kernels.

See here. One would have thought that an ethical business would have done the research. It is easy to have 'no knowledge' if you do not undertake the due diligence required.

If a customer reports they are receiving medical treatments we always recommend that they see a medical professional prior to starting to eat the product.

Did not happen with my experience in the shop.

With regard to charitable organisations having no axe to grind, when we first started to investigate this product due to customer requests, we contacted a number of these organisations and received no constructive feed back or information; to put it bluntly they were not interested.

There is a surprise. Should that not be an alarm bell?

We have also found no evidence that anyone is going to investigate the kernels or Vitamin B17 formally either as a preventive or possible assistant in the treatment of disease. It has been suggested to us the reason for this is that the kernels are a natural product and therefore no one can make any money from it.

Again, not looking is a good way of finding no evidence. Bandolier reports 36 studies (2006) - all rubbish. Its conclusion was "The bottom line is that there is no conclusive evidence of efficacy, but considerable evidence of toxicity, especially that associated with cyanide poisoning." Perhaps the largest study of apricot kernels (amygdalin) concluded "No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. "

The response to the letter above quite nicely dismisses the nonsense about "no one can make any money from it". This is an appalling statement to make and is typical of extreme alternative medicine views who see medicine as a corrupted practice driven solely by money. Many cancer treatments do not rely on pharmaceuticals (radiotherapy, surgery) and the majority of researchers and practitioners are driven by greater goals than shabby financial ends.

This product and subject can produce an emotive response with many people, but we have tried to be constructive and definitely not give false hope.I hope this answers your concerns but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

I have a feeling that this will not be the end of this. If the management of Julian Graves are so convinced that they are not being irresponsible and making claims for a quack cancer cure and if they are so convinced that they have never heard of anyone being made ill by these products then I challenge them. As everything else they sell is a snack food, can I suggest that their board meetings from now on supply apricot kernels as a mid table snack item and that each member must consume 20 kernels at their next meeting?

(Thanks to 'Allo V Psycho' for all the hard work)

Further reading on the shabby history of this quackery at Quackwatch.

Labels: Julian Graves

 

It looks like we have a new comic sceptic genius in our midst. Welcome to the UK, Tim Minchin.




Tour dates available here: http://www.timminchin.com/

Labels: homeopathy

 

The Adverting Standards Authority has today found that a homeopath advertised their asthma clinic for kids by making untruthful, unsubstantiated and irresponsible claims. Archway House Natural Health Centre holds an Asthma and Eczema clinic for children, run by Julia Wilson, a member of the Society of Homeopaths.

Inasmuch, this is not news. The ASA make judgments like this every week. Their weekly published list today contains all sorts of findings against chiropractors and related quacks. But what makes this interesting is that this advert, in the form of a leaflet, has already been subject to a complaint directly to the Society of Homeopaths, who claim to regulate their members. Over a year ago, I was concerned that the Society's Code of Ethics was being widely ignored by their member and there was no evidence that they took any steps to uphold their code which is designed to protect the public. If so, this was pretty serious. People would be visiting homeopaths under the impression that their membership of the Society of Homeopaths ensured that certain standards would be maintained and that they would not be misled or endangered as a result of the consultation.

I picked on one homeopath from their register pretty much at random. Not only was Julia Wilson making claims to treat asthma (which would be in breach of the code) but also she has spent time in Kenya in a clinic that dishes out sugar pills to prevent malaria and to treat HIV. One would have thought that a responsible organisation would want to rein in such dangerous excesses. This homeopath appeared to be in breach of several points in their code including treating named diseases and advertising in a way that claimed superiority to real treatments.

You can read about the Society of Homeopath's response here. Julia Wilson defended herself by claiming that her adverts (see here) did not claim superiority of homeopathy over conventional treatment, that she made no stated or implied claim that homeopathy can treat asthma, and that no cure was implied. She also said that she could not be held responsible for the Kenyan clinic's claims on their website and that she did not claim to cure HIV or malria when working there. I would suggest you read the leaflet yourself and see if this defence merits any credibility. The Society of Homeopaths wrote to me to tell me that they were satisfied that no breach of their code had taken place and that "no action will be taken."

Well, the Society of Homeopaths did take action. Their solicitor wrote to my web hosts demanding that I take down web pages that commented on this and other aspects of their lack of concern for the dangerous practices of their members. When I wrote to the Society's CEO Paula Ross asking for an explanation, I got a threatening letter back from their solicitor. Naturally, bloggers on the web went crazy, reposting my articles and condemning the behavior of the society, calling them 'Cowards and Bullies".

The ASA read this leaflet and decided that on four counts it was in breach of the CAP rules on advertising for being unsubstantiated, untruthful and irresponsible. They decided the leaflet did imply a cure for asthma because it denigrated conventional treatment - "puffers can provide temporary relief, they're not offering your child a cure. Homeopathy is different...". They asked Archway House for evidence that their treatments 'helps alleviate the flaring skin and tightening lungs of your child's allergic reactions". They could not answer this to any degree of satisfaction. Most strikingly, the ASA found the leaflet was irresponsible because it was likely to dissuade parents from seeking medical advice. A testimonial read "I was frightened by how much my daughter relied on her inhalers". Damningly, Archway house could not provide any evidence that the testimonials on the leaflet were real.

I have emailed the Society of Homeopaths to ask why their conclusions were so different from the ASA. I have also asked if they will relook at the complaint and take action against their member as it is a requirement of their code that member's adverts do not breach Advertising Standards rules. Importantly, I have asked if the public can have confidence in their code of ethics and complaints process. (Update: response, so far, below)

Does this matter? Asthma is not a trivial disease. Asthma UK report that,

A person is admitted to hospital every 8 minutes in England because of their asthma. That's on average 185 people per day and one in six people require further emergency care again within two weeks, yet 75% of admissions for asthma are avoidable and could save the NHS in England an estimated £43.7 million a year.

It is estimated that there are 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions for asthma each year in UK. A child whose parents go a homeopathic route rather than following the management plan of their doctor is being put at risk. The Society of Homeopaths do not appear to care about this. But people in the UK quite rightly have choices. When homeopaths take their sugar pills to Africa and tell them that they are better and cheaper than medicine at preventing malaria and managing HIV, then the delusion of homeopathy becomes truly murderous. If you want to believe the homeopaths that they act responsibly over this, then you should see the latest newsletters from the Abha Light Foundation in Kenya where Julia Wilson worked. They are handing out homeopathic remedies to 1,500 families and telling them that they are malaria prophylactics. 34,000 people die in Kenya each year from malaria. Over a third of children die before their first birthday from Malaria. Telling families that magic water pills can protect them will reduce the likelihood that they will seek proven safe alternatives, such as mosquito nets for babies. The Society of Homeopaths have never spoken out against this terrible western delusion inflicted on Africa.

In the year 2000, the House of Lords looked into the question of regulation of Alternative Medicine and made a large number of recommendations about how various treatments should be controlled. Eight years on and the government strategy is in tatters. The homeopaths have actively campaigned to be exluded from greater regulation and decided that they can regulate themselves. This is clearly not true. The deluded cannot regulate the deluded if the public want to be protected. The government has set up the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (better know as Ofquack). This has failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, few alternative medicine groups have wanted to join. As Ofquack will have council members that are not part of the alternative medicine communities that they will regulate, none of the practitioners want to be judged by anyone who does not share their delusions. And secondly, as Ofquack has failed to get up and running and will be entirely voluntary, there has been no compulsion for quacks to subject themselves to any meaningful scrutiny.

Prince Charles has been deeply involved in trying to set up Ofquack. The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health put one of their own people into a group that would try to unite the homeopathic profession and create a single register that could be effectively managed. The squabbling between homeopaths ensured this failed. Ofquack appears to have abandoned any pretense that it can now regulate vast swathes of the alternative medicine industry. The Society of Homeopaths have now stated that they intend to create their own 'single register' - a move that has angered the rest of the UK homeopaths and is doomed to failure too.

So, in the UK, when a member of the public seeks the services of an alternative medicine practitioner, they are likely to see someone with letters after their name and a web site that says that they are members of professional bodies with a strict code of conduct. This is a thoroughly misleading picture. Homeopaths and other practitioners may well sign up to a code of conduct, but in the knowledge that it will never be enforced.

In the Guardian recently, the same comment was made in an article entitled "A Question of Ethics". The article noted that one of the most senior member of the Society of Homeopaths was a strong advocate for providing homeopathic 'immunisations' - the belief that magic water can protect people from dangerous diseases. The arctile concluded, "It seems that codes of ethics are good for window dressing while pragmatism is better for profit. ". The Society responded with a press release,

The Society would like to advise Guardian readers that any suspected breach of The Society's Code of Ethics & Practice should be formally reported to its Professional Conduct Department where it will be fully investigated.

Investigated maybe. Enforced? Doubtful. The codes are an illusion and we are being taken for fools.

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

Update

I have had a reply from Jayne Thomas, Chair of the Board of Directors at the Society of Homeopaths:

As we have not yet seen the findings of the ASA adjudication to which you refer, The Society of Homeopaths is unable to comment on the specifics of this case.

However, we would like to reassure you that due process was followed in the handling of this case.

By their own admission, The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), have been delayed in finding an expert to assess the evidence base for homeopathy, which was submitted to them earlier this year.

The Society of Homeopaths is therefore awaiting the outcome of this assessment to inform future guidelines to our members concerning the advertising of homeopathy

So, we will have to wait for a more detailed response. I must admit that I surprised that SoH have not seen the adjudication yet. The ASA release a preliminary report to all parties several weeks before publication to allow the advertiser to respond and make corrections. Did Archway House really not consult SoH both originally and on the preliminary finding? The advertiser would also have been aware of the final outcome about a week before publication too. How do the SoH know that the ASA could not find an 'expert' to help them? In what way have SoH been involved here?

Labels: ASA, homeopathy, Natural Healthcare Council, ofquack, Society of Homeopaths

 

So. Today. I had a quite jaw dropping conversation in my local branch of Julian Graves. For my American readers, Julian Graves is a shop that sells large bags of nuts, seeds, dried fruit, food ingredients and confectionery. I quite like them. Low on packaging, low on branding, and excellent value for money for kitchen basics. And they are not too puritanical in their outlook. You can buy enough liquorice allsorts, for a couple of pounds, to make a family of six sick.

But passing their window, I see a big stack of jars (pictured left) on offer at half price for £3.49, containing a quarter of a kilogram of bitter apricot kernels. The label contains a dire warning not to eat more than 2 in 24 hours. How odd! Now, some spices are not good for you if you eat large amounts: nutmeg springs to mind. But these kernels are not a spice. What are they selling this for? It hardly looks edible to me.

So, I walk in and as the shop assistant what these bitter apricot kernels were for. She responded straight away, "They are good for some sorts of cancer". OMFG!

Is that all? Apparently, yes. They are not food - they are far too bitter to eat. What is more, the disclaimer is there because they produce amounts of cyanide when eaten. Eat too many at one go and it will be your last visit to Julian Graves and that is not too good for repeat sales.

I am not too sure about the legality of this conversation. The Cancer Act of 1939 says "No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof." As this was a conversation, maybe it falls outside this act. I return home and check on the Julian Graves website about what they say. It is worth repeating their page in full...

You have been requesting them in your hundreds and now they are available online and in stores.

We are the first UK retailer to sell this controversial product which many people believe may offer significant health benefits.

The kernels, seeds of the apricot fruit, are one of the highest sources of vitamin B17 - also known as laetrile -which, it is alleged, may help protect the immune system.

But the kernels have a very bitter aftertaste and can be toxic if eaten in large amounts. Yet, as more data becomes available – particularly on the net – about the benefits of vitamin B17, people will probably be willing to accept the bitter taste in the belief that these kernels may help maintain their health.

But it's important to stress that - to date - no medical or scientific research has been carried out on the kernels so their 'perceived' benefits cannot be proven in any way.

As a responsible retailer, we do not make any claims about the product’s ‘alleged’ powers. All we can do is make them available and ensure the potential problem of eating too many in one go is highlighted.

We strongly recommend that if people want to know more about bitter apricot kernels and vitamin B17, they should go online and do their own research.

They end with the statement,

If you firmly believe in the power of bitter apricot kernels, we would love to hear from you. Please email us at snacks@juliangraves.co.uk

Staggering stuff.

Where do we start? The most obvious thing is that there is no such thing as vitamin B17. A vitamin is a nutrient that the body requires in tiny amounts. B17 is sometimes called laetrile. This compound was called Vitamin B17 by an Ernst T. Krebs who claimed it was a vitamin, mostly so that it could be sold as a food supplement and avoid medicine laws. He claimed cancer was caused by a lack of 'B17'. Laetrile is pretty big stuff in the USA with many alternative medicine hucksters offering it in one form another. The web is chockablock with misinformation and wild claims about the stuff. This makes the Julian Graves request to " should go online and do their own research" pretty despicable.

What do reliable resources say about laetrile? The Cochrane Review says,

RESULTS: No RCTs or non-RCTs were found, so no abstraction of outcome data could be performed in this systematic review AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data
from controlled clinical trials.

Bandolier at Oxford come to a similar conclusion,

The bottom line is that there is no conclusive evidence of efficacy, but considerable evidence of toxicity, especially that associated with cyanide poisoning.

Cancer Research UK give warnings to cancer sufferers,

Your doctor may tell you that there are no further conventional cancer treatments available that could cure your cancer. But treatments to control your symptoms are still possible. The news that your cancer can’t be cured is very difficult to accept. And in this situation, many people consider alternative therapies, including laetrile.

There isn’t enough proof that laetrile is an effective treatment for cancer or any other disease. Most of the websites promoting laetrile base their claims on unsupported opinions and anecdotal evidence.

Their web site is full of sensible advice on this quackery.

Julian Graves have previously got into trouble over selling apricot kernels. The Food Standards Agency stepped in previously to stop their sale as there was no warning that eating only a small handful could potentially be fatal. The Daily Mail reported,

The chain pulled them in line with FSA advice but would start selling them again with a revised dosage recommendation if the food watchdog gave it permission to do so.

Has the FSA allowed them to sell this dangerous and useless product? The product is not just dangerous because of the cyanide poisoning thing, but it allows desperate people to engage with dangerous web healing fantasies. There is no other use for this product and Julian Graves appears to be happy to assist.

A few weeks ago Julian Graves was acquired by American pharmaceutical company NBTY after troubled Icelandic conglomerate Baugur sold them on. Their CEO, Scott Rudolph, said,

The acquisition of Julian Graves is an integral part of NBTY's strategic plan to enhance its position as the number one supplement retailer in the UK and gain geater market share. We continue to seek acquisitions which generate growth and further entrench NBTY as the worldwide leader in the nutritional supplement industry.

Julian Graves has not really been big on 'health' supplements up til now. NBTY already own Holland and Barrett and GNC in the UK. They dominate the industry of useless pills that trade of web rumours for their effectiveness. A few dayas ago I speculated they might be interested in troubled UK supplement pill pushers Neutrahealth. I think we can be expecting to see a lot more irresponsible supplement nonsense in the shop that used to sell chocolate covered banana chips.

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

Follow up

We hear back from JG about how they justify the sale of this poisonous fruit food waste cancer quackery cure:
Julian Graves' Mendacious Defence of Cancer Quackery

Northern Doctor writes about what eating apricot kernels can do to you.

Labels: Holland and Barrett, Julian Graves, NBTY, vitamins

 

In the last few days, vitamin pill company Neutrahealth (NUT.L), has seen a precipitous drop in its share price. Its investors look like they believe the company is going to have a difficult time weathering the credit crunch.

Neutrahealth is known to us through its involvement with Patrick Holford. He sold his online pill company to them for £464,000. He then joined their team as Head of Science and Education at Biocare as they believed he was "a leading figure in the industry with wide recognition amongst informed consumers". Readers of this blog, badscience and HolfordWatch will be well aware of the many doubtful aspects of Holford's science and just how well informed those consumers must be.

When Neutrahealth floated on the stock market in 2005 its shares were sold at 10p. This year, pharmaceutical company Elder invested heavily in the company at 16p per share, already a significant premium over their then current price. Now the stock is trading at about 2p after collapsing last week.

The reasons for this are twofold. The company has a stated dual strategy of growth through increased sales of its pills to consumers and by acquisition of other companies to add to its market share. So, firstly, the subsidiary companies of Neutrahealth are struggling to increase sales for a number of reasons. Even before the current financial turmoil, it was becoming obvious to them that consumers were not going to nutritionists to buy expensive pills from the 'Practitioner channel'. Despite rule changes to the code of 'ethics' at BANT that allowed registered nutritional therapists to take kick backs on pills they sold to their customers without disclosing them, it would appear that consumers of vitamins would prefer to take their advice from the Internet than pay for a consultation. Neutrahealth have then been hoping for a pick up in their 'direct to consumer channels', principally Patrick Holford's 'Health Products for Life' website. We shall come on to the very simple reasons why this will be a vain hope.

Neutrahealth issued a profits warning on the 25th of September, saying that it will fall short of the market's expectations. The market has not taken kindly to this news. It cites consumer spending as a problem and the raised cost of raw materials, such as fish oil. But this situation has lead to a more serious threat to the business.

The second part of the 'double whammy' is that Neutrahealth can no longer execute their desire to grow through acquisition. Investors have bought into the company on the basis that their capital will grow through the value created from 'synergies' between acquired companies. Companies were bought on the strength of their share price by, effectively, buying companies through the value of their own equity. That, pretty much, does not exist now. And, it is unlikely they will be able to raise cash through loans in the current climate. By pushing the company into the penny shares bracket, it would prove near impossible to raise cash from investors as they might have done twelve months ago.

In their annual report last year, they noted a principle risk to their business: Access to Capital.

We reported last year that we viewed access to finance as a principal risk. The challenges this year are more significant. We remain an acquisitive company with an objective of increasing our size to become more visible for investors and to be more dominant in our industry. The former requires a higher market apitalisation through either a higher share price, increased equity, or a combination of both.

That risk has now materialised.

The company has significant debts to service this year - it looks like they will need to find nearly a million pounds to service their loans. They have cash in the bank, but with sales falling, this may not last too long. Challenging times for the management.

So, why are sales falling? The answer is obvious: there are so few people who need their products. And of those who buy them, the benefit they get from them is marginal at best. Selling vitamins trades off the myth that people need them to achieve a healthy diet. Furthermore, Holford is excellent at promoting doubtful ideas that vitamin pills can prevent and treat illnesses. But belief in this is soft. When the shopper is looking to save a few pounds each week, they will not be cutting back on fruit and vegetables - the pills will go. Harder for Neutrahealth will be that once a consumer has got out of the habit of buying pills, it will take a large effort to get them back on board. They may well notice that they do perfectly will without them. Shoppers are changing their habits as prices are increasing and are spotting the superfluous in their spending habits.

But the woes of Neutrahealth may well point to a more general tale of hardship within the world of alternative medicine. The credit crunch is going to have a harsh effect on those who trade off quackery. The problems at Neutrahealth are visible as they have obligations under public company rules to inform the market of pertinent information. But for most private quackery, the problems are going to be acute but silent.

When people see their fuel bills this winter struggling against toxins in a spa is going to seem rather redundant. Balancing their chequebook is going to be more important than balancing their chakras. Worries about jobs will mean that people will be conservative in their spending and may not worry so much about the continuous demand of quacks to achieve 'optimum health' and 'lifetime wellness'. Homeopaths, struggling to see more than a few customers per week, may well decide to devote their vast intellects to more mundane matters, such as gardening for a few quid. Chiropractors' subluxations will just have to be lived with. Your chi flow through your meridians may well have to remain blocked for a short while as your acupuncturist is just a tad too expensive now.

Quackery has boomed over the credit years because it has nothing to do with health. It is an indulgence of the comfortable who wish to use it to make a certain sort of identity for themselves. The worried well define themselves as 'people who take care of their health'. It creates a sense of independence and control that might otherwise be lacking. Buying vitamin pills is a act of personal expression, not an act of prudent healthcare. The worried well are now the worried working, and they have some good reasons to focus on more tangible and immediate concerns.

Labels: neutrahealth, nutritionist, Patrick Holford, vitamins

 

Anyone who has ever entered into a debate with a homeopathy about the nature of their trade will have sooner or later bumped into this objection to their arguments. At one level, it is a simple deflection away from whatever point you were trying to make and an attempt to turn the conversation to your apparent lack of credentials and authority to question the subject. Without doubt, the homeopath will have paid for their three or four years of correspondence courses, or may even have obtained a BSc from a minor UK University. They have letters after their name and certificates on their walls. You do not. So shut up.

Instead of a coherent and credible voice we are steadily turning into a veritable dawn chorus of approaches, systems, methods and madness that sit uncomfortably under the umbrella we call ‘homeopathy’. It is a cacophony of noisy speculations, so singly indefinable that it is almost impossible to raise a critical objection to anyone, and if so, the questioner risks being taunted and accused of obstructing other people’s views by being critical, right-wing, right-brained and probably paid by Swiss drug companies to boot. We should be careful. Ironically, the veneer of that all embracing, ‘lovey-dovey, kisses and cuddles’, Californian approach, that so marks the alternative scene, actually masks a hidden and tyrannical agenda.

Labels: homeopathy

 

The newspapers today were delighting in reporting that a new cold treatment was being made available to us in Britian. Kaloba is an extract of the geranium Pelargonium sidoides, and has been "used by Zulus for hundreds of years".

The Telegraph tells us that "extracts are particularly good at reducing the amount of phlegm." Remarkably, the paper tells us that,

Research by the Cochrane Review showed it to be "effective in resolving all symptoms including headaches and nasal discharge in adults when taken for an extended time period.

The Daily Mail tells us that,

A herbal medicine used by African tribes to counter colds and flu has been given the go-ahead for use in Britain.

For hundreds of years, Zulus have taken extracts from the geranium plant to stop coughs and sneezes.

They say it is particularly effective at cutting phlegm.

To the Daily Mail's credit they do point out that licensing the pills in the UK does not require the manufacturers to produce evidence of efficacy. They say,

However, because it is a herbal remedy the manufacturers, who claim it can activate the body's anti-viral defences, do not have to prove it is effective.

Indeed, the MHRA have issued their own assessment and say that,

This registration is based exclusively upon the longstanding use of the extract from the roots of Pelargonium sidoides as a traditional herbal medicine and not upon data generated from clinical trials. There is no requirement under the Traditional Herbal Registration scheme to prove scientifically that the product works.

There are a number of odd things here that are worth noting. Firstly, the MHRA does not look at the use of this stuff within Zulu tribes to assess whether there has been sufficient 'traditional use' to determine whether it should be granted a license. They actually looked at evidence of usage within the EU - not amongst Zulus, but principally amongst Germans where this herbal remedy has been on sale for some time.

The second is whether there is any evidence at all for the effectiveness of Kalabo. The Telegraph were remarkably selective in quoting the Cochrane review about this plant. Far from being "effective in resolving all symptoms" as reported, the Cochrane review actually concluded that "There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of P. sidoides in the treatment of ARIs. (acute respiratory tract infections)". From the trials reviewed, there was a lot of heterogeneity of outcomes (read 'confusion') and that the 'significant' results came from an unpublished trial. So, it may be effective. But the evidence is too confusing to draw firm conclusions.

But the manufacturers Schwabe Pharmaceuticals and their sales outlet Boots will undoubtedly be welcoming the MHRA's decision to let this stuff loose on us and the misleading and (mainly) uncritical reporting by the nations finest newspapers are undoubtedly providing a good sales launch.

Labels: MHRA