The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH), one of the few state funded bastions defending alternative medicine against the enlightenment hordes, is no more.  A change of name has been announced by the League of Friends of the RLHH, it will become the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (RLHIM) from the 16th September.

Although we are sorry to see this time-honoured and respected name replaced, the history attached to it remains. The change of name better reflects the developing services and will lead to a more accurate perception of its unique role in the NHS.

[...]

For much of its history the RLHH was a small general hospital incorporating a specialist homeopathic department. From the early 1980’s surgical and other conventional specialities were closed and replaced by a wide range of complementary medicine services, including the NHS’s first complementary cancer care, acupuncture, musculoskeletal medicine and herbal medicine services. Since joining UCLH there has been rapid progress in integrating these services.

[...]

Dr Fisher, Clinical Director of the RLHH said “We are very proud of our homeopathic heritage, but it is essential to understanding the nature of our work that our name accurately reflects our role. We hope that you will support this historic change.”
The RLHH is Europe’s largest and, as part of UCLH, best integrated public sector centre for integrated medicine. The hospital offers a diverse range of therapies, all practiced by fully registered health professionals and integrated with conventional medicine.
The change of name to Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine reflects the reality of services at the hospital and its exceptional position in the NHS.

Regardless of this change of name, the hospitals supporters are still concerned about its long term future.

we learnt that the 5 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) making up the North Central London Sector – Camden, Islington, Enfield, Haringey and Barnet – have agreed a ‘Low Priority Treatments’ Policy which could be the final blow to the viability of the RLHH

The Policy is an underhanded process aimed directly at reducing or completely stopping patient referrals to the RLHH. Although the hospital is not named and complementary medicine is just one of several ‘Low Priority’ treatments listed, the hospital is the only dedicated NHS provider of complementary medicine in the area. This is a direct attack on its continued viability – if there are no patient referrals, there is no need for the hospital.

How could this affect you?
If your GP refers you to the RLHH, you are likely to receive a letter from the PCT stating that your case has been referred to an Individual Cases Panel, or Exceptional Treatments Panel or something of a similar name (different PCTs have different names for them).
You, or your GP, may be asked to provide conclusive evidence that any conventional treatment had been unsuccessful and of the effectiveness of the treatment you are being referred for. This puts you, the patient, in a difficult situation and more often than not will result in a refusal.

I suspect these concerns are well founded and that this rebranding exercise may be futile in the long term.  Indeed it may even open the hospital up to new attacks.  The arguments against the NHS funding of homeopathy have permeated the consciousness of the political establishment and wider society. There is little more that can be added to these arguments, they can only be restated and may in time fade through familiarity.  However, there is much yet unsaid in the popular discourse on Integrated Medicine.  The collapse of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health due to financial fraud has thrown the spotlight on the failed attempts of its bastard offspring, the Faculty of Integrated Medicine College of Medicine (see update below).  While this blighted institution has no formal links with the RLHIM, it is sustained from the same well of establishment delusion that supports many of the eccentric notions that spring half formed from the mind of the Prince of Wales and the organisations he supports.  One wonders if the unscientific notions that are will be taught at the Faculty of Integrated Medicine College of Medicine are being put into practice at the RLHIM?  If so, that may be scandal waiting to happen.

*update*

Looks like I confused my quackstitutions: copied from the comment below by Prof Colquhoun.  My argument still stands though.

<Good news, on the whole, The name change is something that Michael Baum and I urged on The UCLH Trust years ago, though our suggestion didn’t include the weasel word “integrated”.

One small correction though. The Faculty of Integrated Medicine was nothing to do with the late unlamented Prince’s Foundation. It was the Rosy Daniel/ Mark Atkinson outfit that was temporarily accredited by the University of Buckingham, but thrown out after a year. Trading Standards made then tone down their claims to “heal” cancer, after I brought the claims to their attention. The Prince’s Foundation gave rise to the “College of Medicine“, final details of which have yet to be revealed. We do know, though, that when Daniel sought a new home for the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, even the new College gave them the push. As far as I know, FIM is still homeless.

*update 2*

The Quackometer now carries an obituary for the RLHH.

There is a BBC documentary showing tonight in Scotland (BBC One Scotland 1930 or channel 971 for non-Scottish viewers) titled ‘Magic or Medicine – Homeopathy and the NHS’.  You might think that this documentary was treading old ground and that issues of homeopathy in the NHS were already well understood.  However, healthcare is a devolved matter in Scotland, and thus healthcare spending is controlled by the Scottish government so arguments have to be fought anew north of the border.  In fact the dynamics of electoral politics in Scotland are such that The Scottish Green Party bear some considerable responsibility for homeopathy on the NHS, unlike in England where they are an irrelevance.  This is why this BBC Scotland documentary is to be welcomed.

According to this BBC article by the lead reporter Scotland spends disproportionately more than England on homeopathy, as FOI requests show. Scottish lay homeopaths are also shown to be as stupid as their English cousins in offering homeopathic versions of vaccines.  This is something that the professional homeopathic societies have been ignoring, or even endorsing, for some time and now something that the medical homeopaths are creeping towards.

The Scotsman carries a piece by Dr Brian Kaplan, a medical homeopath, Harley Street physician and Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy, today defending homeoapthy on the NHS in response to the documentary, that opens with the following statement:

NO DOCTOR who uses homeopathy would support the use of such treatment as a vaccination. This may be supported by some non-doctors using homeopathy, but it is not something the medical community would advocate.

Sadly Dr Kaplan views are more conservative than those of his professional society.  The journal Homeopathy, is published by the Faculty of Homeopathy and edited by Peter Fisher, the head of the, soon to be renamed, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.  This journal recently described a homeopathic vaccine as “Similar to a conventional vaccine” before going on to argue that homeopathic vaccines have a place in medical care:

“Homeoprophylaxis with nosodes could be a bridging device in a serious epidemic for the period until a fully effective vaccine is available. In less serious diseases, it could be the only prophylaxis offered. The lack of side effects, low cost, and rapid speed of manufacture and deployment would make it acceptable for use in large populations. Coverage of animal vector populations with the nosode may also be feasible.”

and

Infectious diseases are still the bane of humanity, particularly in the developing world. Effectively reducing their morbidity and mortality using homeopathic nosodes could have immediate practical and economic impacts.

I recommend you read apgaylard’s excellent analysis of this editorial and surrounding issues. Brian Kaplan would also do well to read this before making statements that are easily shown to be untrue.

It seems the only thing that separates medical homeopaths from lay homeopaths these days is not their ethics or their reluctance to use dangerously ineffective treatments, it is NHS funding and it’s time to bring that to an end.

Andrew Wakefield is a discredited scientist who was struck off the medical register for acting against the interests of his patients and conducting research in a dishonest and irresponsible manner.  He is speaking at an event today hosted by Marta Andreasen, a United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) MEP.  Ms Andreasen is an interesting individual who was sacked by the European Commission for refusing to sign off accounts after claiming the EU accounting system was open to fraud. Since then she has campaigned for changes to EU accounting rules and in 2007 joined UKIP, becoming their treasurer, before resigning this position over the management of their finances although she remains in the party.

It is curious to see an MEP with a strong sense of ethics, even though she lacks a scientific background, supporting an event featuring as noxious a character as Andrew Wakefield.  UKIP may have an eccentric approach to scientific issues, they have not, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion on Andrew Wakefield and the discredited assumption that their is a link between vaccination and autism.  In fact they do not seem to have an official opinion on autism, even if their members occasionally try and link it to things with which they disagree, such as certain types of lightbulb.

Ms Andreasen was contacted last week about her hosting of the event with Andrew Wakefield, however she did not reply.  Thus, it is not possible to know her motivations, or her understanding of the issues.  However, there are some clues as to her involvement.

Kathy Sinnott, a former MEP and target of this blog for her association with one of Matthias Rath’s, the man who believes people do not need to take HIV/AIDS drugs, organisations is also speaking at the event.  She supports Wakefield’s discredited theories through her presidency of  ‘The Hope Project’ (PDF), a charity dealing with learning disability.

Ms Sinnott’s former press officer and brother-in-law, Richard King, now works for Ms Andreasen and is the point of contact for enquiries about the event.  As well as working for Ms Andreasen, he also worked for the Independence/Democracy group in the EU parliament, a eurosceptic grouping formerly chaired by UKIP’s Nigel Farrage and before that Kathy Sinnott.

It is possible that Ms Andreasen may be involved at the request of Mr King and Ms Sinnott and might not have been aware of the controversial nature of Sinnott’s views on autism and MMR.  It is also possible she did not reply to a statement of these concerns because she has not read it.

Regardless of Ms Andreasen’s understanding of autism, MMR and Andrew Wakefield there have been unpleasant previous associations between eurosceptic groups and fringe thinking organisations.  As well as Ms Sinnott’s association with Matthias Rath’s organisations, the Democracy Movement, who Ms Andreasen has supported, have also chosen to work with him.

Supporters of eurosceptic parties and MEPs should be worried about a growing tendency to work with some of the most odious characters working in the field of pseudoscience.  Such associations will only tarnish their credibility, even MEPs such as Ms Andreasen who are prepared to lose their job for their principles will not escape the sulphur that surrounds Wakefield and Rath.

A few months ago I posted on the very silly views of Karol Sikora in commenting on the life expectancy of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.  The words of Professor Sikora have apparently informed the US senators who are demanding an enquiry into the release of al-Megrahi.  I was interested in finding out just how a man such as Sikora, who has previously been in trouble for claiming affiliations he does not have, got involved with the reasonably competent Scottish Prison Service, so I asked them.  This the (edited) reply:

The decision of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to release Mr Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was based on advice from the Director of Health at the Scottish Prison Service, who drew on expert advice from a range of specialists. These specialists did not include Dr Karl Sikora, who has been the subject of recent media attention. The decision was also based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor.

The views of Sikora played no part in any official decision.  Any claim that they did is not compatible with this statement.

Sikora was interviewed for The Observer yesterday.  Here is an excerpt:

“What I find difficult is the idea I took the key and let him out. I provided an opinion, others provided an opinion, and someone else let him out. That decision of compassionate release is nothing to do with me. No one asked me, ‘Should we let him out?’ All they said was when do you think he will die?”

Maybe Sikora is genuine in assuming that his views were considered, perhaps this is why he feels he should distance himself from a decision that it is denied he had any part in.  If so he should probably be relieved at the Scottish Government’s insistence that he played no part, his conscience is clear.

There is another possibility of course, that maybe Sikora is using his peripheral involvement as a medical advisor (paid for by the Libyans), whose advice was not considered, as an opportunity for self-promotion.  In this Sikora has caused distress to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, facilitated the misinterpretations of US senators and failed to correct erroneous assumptions.  Just to see his name in lights.

The MMR vaccine, since it was wrongly and fraudulently associated with autism, has been a favourite of media scare stories concerning healthcare.  A recent example was the Mail on Sunday’s recent story linking a legitimate and successful claim for compensation following a possible injury caused by the vaccine to autism, despite this forming no part of the claim nor the reasons given for its award. Both Evan Harris and Martin Robbins have good analyses of this story in the Guardian’s new science blogs section, citing statements by Nadine Dorries, MP, a member of the Health Select committee, suggesting that she, despite having responsibilities as a politician, in intent on fanning the dying embers of a seemingly settled controversy.

Dorries has some ability to attract press attention thanks to questionable judgement and simplistic, and factually wrong, moral judgements but she shows little sign of being much of a threat to society’s understanding of healthcare via her political career.  She is not an obvious choice for any ministerial or lesser government role and has shown a reluctance to attend the meetings of any committee of which she is a member.

However, the views of politicians can have an impact on healthcare.  Tony Blair, the former Labour Prime Minister, whose willingness to indulge his wife, Cherie’s, association with alternative health gurus, who are typically associated with anti-vaccination views, has been accused of giving credibility to opponents of MMR when he refused to say whether or not his son, Leo, born when he was in office, was vaccinated despite eventually issuing a statement following press attention.

The reason we have refused to say whether Leo has had the MMR vaccine is because we never have commented on the medical health or treatment of our children.

The advice to parents to have the MMR jab is one of scores of pieces of advice or campaigns the government supports in matters ranging from underage sex to teenage alcohol abuse or smoking, to different types of advice for very young children on a huge range of activities from breastfeeding to safe play.Once we comment on one, it is hard to see how we can justify not commenting on them at all.

However, the suggestion that the government is advising parents to have the MMR jab whilst we are deliberately refraining from giving our child the treatment because we know it is dangerous, is offensive beyond belief.

For the record, Cherie and I both entirely support the advice as we have consistently said throughout.

It is not true that we believe the MMR vaccine to be dangerous or believe that it is better to have separate injections, as has been maliciously suggested in the press, or believe that it is linked to autism.

We now know that, according to Cherie Blair’s autobiography, Leo was vaccinated and a Daily Mail report on Tony Blair’s autobiography suggests that the press were briefed off the record at the time that this was the case, although he appears to regret that he had not been clearer on this issue.

Tony Blair is yesterday’s man though, and while his past actions may influence current events he is no longer a frame of reference for current UK politics.  He is out of parliament and out of favour with respect to his party, the press and the public.  We have a new government, a coalition between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, whose views will now influence public health care.  Given that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has a new baby it is inevitable that some questions of infant healthcare will be framed with reference to his new born daughter.  With this in mind it is worth considering his and his party’s previous views on MMR.

In the past Cameron has stated that his children have had the MMR but that he supports the option of single vaccines if vaccine uptake continues to fall.  This support for single vaccines was a feature of the Conservatives when they were in opposition with the then shadow, and now current Health Secretary Andrew Lansley sharing these views.  Single vaccines are regarded as being no safer than the MMR vaccine, and carry additional risks with respect to intervals between vaccinations, and single mumps vaccines are now not licensed for use in the UK.  By contrast the Liberal Democrats, primarily via Evan Harris, then an MP, have supported the MMR vaccine as the best option.

However, as supporters of the coalition government often argue, positions held in opposition are often lost in the compromises that come with the wielding of actual power and there is little sign that the current government is going to change policy on MMR, despite the Conservative Party’s previous views.  Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative MP, recently asked the Health Secretary if he would ‘assess the merits of reintroducing a license for the single mumps vaccine?’.  The answer was to defer to the MHRA – which typically uses an evidence based approach to drug licensing and has opposed single vaccines in the past.

The Daily Mail remain opposed to MMR, despite all the evidence of safety and the punishment inflicted on the disgraced Andrew Wakefield, and it would be wise of politicians not to give credibility to their views.  I hope that questions with respect to MMR will not be asked of Cameron, but that if they are he answers sensibly and in accordance with the evidence.

The Quackometer has blogged on an astonishing secret email from the Abha Light Foundation in Kenya that boasts of unethical human experimentation, endorses homeopathy as a cure for malaria and actively undermines the use of effective and efficacious medicine for malaria, TB and HIV. Andy Lewis right calls for the criminal prosecution and deportation of the homeopaths of the Foundation.  However, as he also points out, it is the UK homeopaths who help fund and organise these activities, and these show no sign of giving up their delusions. The Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the charitable arm of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are continuing to fund projects in the developing world and the SoH have organised a seminar by Jeremy Sherr, as part of the professional development of their members.

Jeremy Sherr is the homeopath who boasted of treating and performing research on AIDS sufferers in Tanzania while falsely claiming the support of academic institutions.  In response to this, and other examples, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that homeopathy has no role to play in the treatment of malaria, TB or AIDS.  In relation to Sherr, the SoH claimed that he was not a member and they did not endorse behaviours that were in breach of their Code of Conduct.

Now they have decided to invite him to give a seminar.

International teacher Jeremy Sherr will focus on the philosophical and practical approach to epidemics in this two-day seminar, which will include video and paper cases, new remedies and a fresh look at old materia medica.

According to Jeremy, acknowledged as a brilliant and creative thinker, “epidemics
are an advanced stage of homeopathic treatment that leads to a deeper understanding of individual treatment, proving and miasms.” This, he says, “is a subject we will all need to be versed in, with the return of many major epidemics to the west.”

This lecture will be based on the principles of the Organon and practical experience in this field. Jeremy has proved many new remedies and included in this two days will be Cryptococcus, Dama dama and Pomegranate.

As a homeopathic practitioner, Jeremy is known for his unprejudiced clarity and profound insight. His lectures are an inspiring blend of classical homeopathy and original thought, delivered with vitality and humour.

He has been a leader in homeopathic thinking and education for three decades. He taught in most British schools, before establishing the Dynamis School in 1985. Jeremy has taught the
Dynamis curriculum throughout Europe and North America, and has lectured in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, India and China, and was the first to re-develop the science and
art of provings after a century of near silence with his first proving – Scorpion. Since then he has completed 34 Hahnemannian provings.

Jeremy was born in South Africa and grew up in Israel, beginning his studies at the College of Homeopathy, London, in 1980, and completing a degree simultaneously in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Though he practices classical homeopathy exclusively, his knowledge of Chinese Medicine shines through his homeopathic thinking.

Such hypocrisy is a feature of the homeopathic movement and barely worth remarking on these days.  What is though is that the SoH have managed to attract sponsorship from two reputable multinational insurance companies, Royal and SunAlliance PLC and Lockton Companies International Ltd.

I tried to contact these companies giving them details of the activities of Mr Sherr, the WHO statements and the ongoing controversies regarding homeopathy in the UK to see if they would reconsider their sponsorship.  They did not reply.

If any readers would like to write to them then let me know if they respond.

I have no reason to believe that these companies endorse the views of Mr Sherr, or are indeed in any way aware of just what it is they are sponsoring.  Both of these provide insurance to homeopaths and I assume their involvement is related to that.  While this does not excuse their association, it does perhaps point to a wider problem in society, that many people who involve themselves in the activities of homeopaths are unaware of how they really behave and what they really think.  This is a concern given that the governments response to the Science & Technology committee’s evidence check on homeopathy is so lack lustre (my quick thoughts here).  Regardless of the science, the behaviour of homeopaths with respect to the developing world is genuinely disturbing to most people.  Perhaps more attention should be spent highlighting the problems with homeopaths, and other practitioners of alternative medicine, in their ethical conduct if we are to argue that such things have no place in a healthcare system.

I, and other bloggers (here, here and here), have previously covered the collapse of Dore, a business promoting an unscientific and ineffective treatment for dyslexia and other specific learning disorders, into administration and their subsequent reincarnation, fronted by former rugby player, Scott Quinnell, as Dynevor CIC, a Community Interest Company (CIC), under the Dore brand.  Now Dynevor have released their accounts and it looks like the new business is in as much financial trouble as the old one was.

Despite an £810,000 investment from shareholders, the liabilities of Dynevor outstrip their assets by £215,462 as of 31st December 2009.  However this calculation assumes that the Intellectual Property (IP), the Dore method and branding, is worth £115,046.  It is not specified how Dynevor calculated this figure, but it can only be an estimate as IP is essentially intangible and its value can only be inferred from its potential to increase profitability.  Given that Dynevor’s IP is not considered credible by experts in learning disorders and the failure to create a profitable business out of it it can be reasonably inferred that Dynevor’s estimate of its worth is highly optimistic. It is thus likely that assets minus liabilities as given is an underestimate.

The accounts also point to problems with establishing a profitable client base.  The companies debtors (presumably mainly customers paying via finance schemes) and cash in the bank are worth £102,023 and £105,110 respectively.  They owe their creditors £212,357 within one year, a deficit of a few thousand pounds that only results in a positive value for net current assets as they have ~£30,000 of stocks, which naturally depreciate.  Given that the programme costs ~£2,000 pounds this implies a client base of little more than 100 customers at most.  While this might sound like a lot for a small business, there are likely about 15 staff on the payroll, it is clearly not enough to be profitable and even if they pay their staff no more than £10,000 it is hard to see a steep rise in profits any time soon.  This seriously questions their survival given that they owe ~£500,000 in the long term.

Dynevor were asked to comment on their profitability but did not respond.

I would not be surprised if Dynevor were to enter administration soon, just as Dore did.  The only possibility for long term survival would be for further loans, presumably from the shareholders as I doubt banks would consider it a safe investment, in the hope that business improves.  However, unlike Dore, whose owner, Wynford Dore – a multimillionaire, had sufficient personal investment in his business to prop it up for many years, the current shareholders may be more hard headed about cutting their losses.  These shareholders are rather mysterious – the directors of Dyenvor, Scott Quinnell and Glen Allgood, own a small minority of shares (respectively ~3% and ~2.5% of the total), placing the business outside their overall control beyond day to day decisions.  It is not their decision whether or not it survives.

Last time Dore collapsed existing clients were left with substantial losses, they were low down on the list of creditors and Dore made little effort to keep them informed.  Should Dynevor collapse it is likely that clients will be in an even worse situation.  This is because Dynevor is CIC, this means that its assets are ‘locked’ and are not availably should the company be wound up or go into administration, instead they would be transferred to a nominated body, in Dynevor’s case the inactive charity ‘The Dore Foundation’. This would leave Dynevor’s creditors with nothing.

I have previously examined the problems with Dynevor’s application to become a CIC, including unjustified claims of efficacy and the lack of published accounts.  This latter concern, now that we have the accounts, points to a serious problem with the CIC regulator, the official that confers CIC status.  The CIC guidelines state that companies financial situation, especially the Current Ratio (Current Assets/Current Liabilities), should be considered.  As Dynevor’s Current Ratio is ~1 (2 is usually considered healthy) it is possible that had the CIC Regulator seen their accounts their approval would not have been given.  That they granted CIC status without checking Dynevor’s financial situation is a failure, and one that will be costly to Dynevor’s clients should the company go into administration.

The CIC Regulator is supposed to be a ‘light touch regulator’, but the situation with Dynevor suggests neglect rather than a light touch and raises serious concerns about oversight of this entire sector.

Last week I mentioned that David Tredinnick, Conservative MP for Bosworth, was being a bit silly in the lead up to his adjournment debate on integrated healthcare.  At the time I boldly suggested that if Tredinnick was the best ally alternative health had in the Houses of Parliament then it was in a great deal of trouble.  Sadly I may have been too confident.  The transcript of the debate is now available and Tredinnick’s contributions are as fanciful as you would expect.  However, it is not these that cause me concern, the man is not a credible figure and his voice carries little wait in tilting the healthcare debate one way or another, it is Anne Milton, the Under Secretary of State for Public Health, whose replies are troubling in many respects.  Readers may be interested in her pronouncements about ‘service providers’, and changes to the structure of NHS healthcare, which suggest some hard questions about their commitment public healthcare need to be asked of the new government.  My focus though, as usual, will be on those replies more pertinent to quackery and its regulation.  While Milton is clear and sensible on the need to defer to NICE and the evidence base, especially in these uncertain economic times where finite NHS resources are already strained and further threatened by the enthusiastic swishing scalpels in the Treasury, there are nevertheless some arguments that offer succour to alternative practitioners.

From her second paragraph:

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that although I trained as a nurse and worked in the NHS for 25 years in conventional medicine, my grandmother trained at the homeopathic hospital in London, and was herself a homeopathic nurse. Later, she became a Christian Scientist. I am therefore not without my own roots in alternative therapies. My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that my grandmother never, until her death at the age of 89, took any conventional medicine.

While this may be an opening gambit of flattery, designed to lessen the rejection of Tredinnick’s ideas, the claim about her grandmother does not seem particularly appropriate.  While good health, of the sort that lets you live until 89, may not require conventional medicine so much as luck, in both genes and environment, it is undeniable that many lives are saved by its use.  To imply by anecdote, not the most reliable of measures, that homeopathy may allow one to live long in the absence of accepted healthcare is unbecoming of a health minister upon whose decisions the health of millions rests. Worryingly the following paragraph suggests the the Minister may indeed have some mistaken opinions about the benefits of an agitated sugar pill.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of homeopathic hospitals and his concern about them. I understand that there are five such hospitals in the United Kingdom, based in London, Bristol, Tunbridge Wells, Liverpool and Glasgow. However, the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital stopped providing services in March 2009 owing to the primary care trust’s decision to end funding. All the hospitals have experienced a reduction in the number of referrals over the past three years, and it has been claimed that all of them are now in a precarious position as a result of such significant funding losses. That is a matter of concern, given that they have clearly offered valuable treatments to patients.

I would like to know the evidence that showed clear benefit from these relics.  It certainly isn’t in the Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy, which the Minister claims to be considering:

I note my hon. Friend’s comments on the Lords [sic] Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy, and I am aware that it caused quite a lot of concern. It was published on 22 February, and we are still considering it and will formally respond in due course. He raised considerable concerns about the report, and highlighted the low cost of many alternative therapies and the important contributions they make. He also made reference to experiences from around the world-he mentioned Australia in particular, and also the USA-and he made an important point about the open-mindedness of some countries to alternative therapies.

In considering outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures must be an important factor. As my hon. Friend rightly said-and as I mentioned-individuals’ own experiences are very important, and if we want to achieve the best outcomes, one step we must take is to ask the patient whether they actually got better.

In conclusion, I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate and to suggest that perhaps the picture is not as bleak as he fears-I noted a certain weariness in his voice; he feels that he has raised this issue on so many occasions and it has fallen on deaf ears.

I do not expect the government to fundamentally disagree with the reports recommendations, that would be a foolish fight to choose given homeopathy’s many vociferous critics, however the comment about patient-reported outcome measures intrigues.  As mentioned in the previous post on Tredinnick, these are the brain child of Boo Armstrong, ex-writer for an AIDS denialist magazine and former Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), and a rather curious thing for the Minister to pick up on.  While an inherently weak form of evidence that NICE would not normally consider, they are amenable to misinterpretation by those seeking to attribute what most would consider human bias to unscientific modalities, or magic if you prefer.  One wonders who briefed Anne Milton before this debate and why she considers that alternative therapies are not as threatened as Tredinnick fears?

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the new government’s views on regulation:

The issue of regulation was raised, and it is a thorny one. When I was a shadow Health Minister, I met on numerous occasions psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors who were very concerned about the regulation of their professions. Across the professions allied to health care, there are those who are keen on regulation and those who feel regulation would be wrong and would be unable to deal with the intricacies of their work. There is no doubt that vulnerable people are often preyed upon by unskilled and unscrupulous practitioners, and I think that professions wanting to achieve the highest standards will welcome proper regulation. The issue for Government is always whether statutory regulation is the most appropriate way of dealing with that risk, or if a lighter-touch approach would be more appropriate. That is why, as I understand it, last year the Department of Health, along with devolved Departments, consulted on the regulation of practitioners of acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the consultation closed in November, and more than 6,000 responses were received. The high response rate is a testament to the strength of feeling about public access to complementary and alternative medicines; I am sure I am not alone in having received a huge number of letters on the subject.

The consultation examined in detail the options for regulation, including alternatives to statutory regulation. Once the Government have considered the consultation responses, we will make clear the next steps in the regulatory process. In acknowledgment of my hon. Friend’s keen interest in the matter, I am very happy to keep in touch with him about it. In the meantime, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council [CNHC] provides for voluntary registration for practitioners from nine complementary therapy disciplines. I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels that that is not sufficient, but that is in place for the moment while we consider the consultation that has taken place and make a decision on what the next steps should be.

While there is no firm commitment to any particular position here there are two things the Minister needs to consider.

1) ‘light touch’ regulation does not work.

The CNHC have declared that they will ignore complaints from some members of the public, and have been utterly ineffectual in what little concerns they have considered. Not only that they have had to tolerate some outrageous conspiracy theories and false accusations widely circulated by email.

2) Statutory regulation does not work.

Consider the Chiropractors, The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) are supposed to be the statutory body that regulates Chiropractic.  However, since one of the GCC affiliate associations decided to unsuccessfully sue Simon Singh, the profession has found itself under considerable scrutiny, with many of its members subjected to professional standards complaints.  The GCC have been obstructive, inconsistent, dishonest and completely ineffectual in dealing with these.

The regulation of quackery requires some fresh thinking and if the government chooses either of the options above then there will only be chaos from quacks and complaints from skeptics.  Whatever their choice it looks like the eternal battle between reason and woo will continue.  With the collapse of the FIH, quackery is in search of new allies and its former employees may already be making contacts.  As the governments ideologically enthusiastic and economically necessary cuts bite, the temptation to favour cheap placebos may lead many astray.  Anne Milton may not yet have chosen her side, but her lack of commitment is telling, the dark mutterings of the deluded are being listened to if not yet obeyed.

As regular readers will know I have been covering the funding of homeopathic AIDS trials by the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT), the charitable arm of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), for some time.  HAT have been aware of my coverage and even invited a reader of my blog, Angus Wood, to give a presentation to them about the issues raised by their activity.  The World Health Organisation (WHO) have even criticised these kind of activities.

This did not change anything.  Their latest accounts are now available at the Charity Commission website and it is clear that they are still funding homeopaths who believe that sugar pills can successfully treat AIDS and malaria and are now expanding into India.

Health in Africa project
The charity has been fundraising to meet the requirements of what is now the Tanzanian project. With an annual volume of 12,000 patients in the Natural Therapies Centre, Dar Es Salaam, consultant Mr. Sigsbert Rwegasira, experienced in treating patients with homeopathy, is working closely with the team.

Africa Project
The projects are now undertaking a new series of research initiatives in Africa and India and are also putting in place a low cost clinic education and support structure for Africa, which involves special remedy kits, training manuals and clinical support. We have assured funding for this for the next year and we are also applying to the Gates Foundation for more funding and also the EU.

The Swaziland Homeopathy Project is one of HAT’s initiatives.  In their objectives they very clearly state their intent to perform medical trials on people with an incurable disease who do not have access to appropriate healthcare:

carry out a scientifically verifiable study on the effect of Homeopathy as a treatment for the side effects of the ART

This study, like previous HAT projects, appears to be in breach of the ethical requirements for human trials, not least The Declaration of Helsinki.

The homeopaths at HAT and the SoH are medical fantasists and cargo cult researchers, anybody who thinks they have a role to play in healthcare is very, very wrong.

The Guardian are reporting today that the British Government regards the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, as a ‘mistake’, but a matter for the Scottish Government.  This is consistent with their views in opposition.  Hilary Clinton is also reported as looking into claims by Democrat senators that BP lobbied Libya.  This is politics, the US is rapidly expanding its business ties with Libya and it is incoherent to criticise the release of a terrorist while doing business with the government under whose instruction he acted.  But that is not my interest.  The Guardian state that:

New York Democrat senators Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and New Jersey Democrat senator Robert Menendez called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert, who backed the three-month prognosis, now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.

But yesterday, professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, said his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were “less than 1%”.

He said: “There was a greater than 50% chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less.

“So the chances of living 10 years is less than 1%, something like that.”

Sikora was one of the doctors who originally examined Megrahi and claimed last year that his 3 month estimate was made on the request of the Libyans.  This was not the first time Sikora has found himself in trouble.  Imperial College sought legal advice to prevent Sikora from erroneously claiming he was an honorary professor at the instituition.  He was also Dean of  the Faculty of Integrated Medicine until it has its contract terminated by the University of Buckingham, where Sikora is also Dean of the Medical School.  Sikora was also involved with the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, Prince Charles’ pro-quackery charity until it collapsed due to financial fraud.

With respect to the claims above about the chances of living 10 years as being less than 1%, according to Cancer Research UK (CRUK), in England & Wales (Scotland is similar) 10 year survival rates are approximately 70%.  The one year survival rates are close to 90%.  Sikora’s claims appear to be inconsistent with this.

It remains a mystery to me why figures such as Sikora are employed by governments and universities.

*Update*

A commentator has pointed out that al-Megrahi had metastatic prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 9 so the figures I quoted above do not apply.  This is quite correct.  Men with metastatic prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis and with a Gleason score of 9 have a 20% chance of surviving for 10 years for someone of Megrahi’s age.  Sikora is still out by a factor of 20 and my criticism stands.

Just another point, I do not intend to let the comments descend into conspiracy theories and will delete those that persist in posting them.  My focus here is on the public credibility of Sikora, not the wider detail surrounding the Lockerbie bombing or the politics behind the extradition of al-Megrahi.

Sometimes paranoia is rational, sometimes they really are out to get you and sometimes you can prove it.  But in situations like this you should ask yourself what it is you are hiding that you don’t want them to find out?  This seems to be the position homeopaths in the UK now find themselves.  Delusions of big pharma funded conspiracies of doctors ranged against the profession have long been prominent in their thinking, now it seems there may actually be an organised movement against them. The following excerpt is from an email posted to the Minutus mailing list:

Two months ago I accepted a position as research assistant to a London based office.

It has quickly become apparent that their sole remit is to discredit complementary medicine and the current focus is homeopathic education and the London Homeopathic Hospital.

In accordance with a very structured plan a bbc science correspondent has been hired to infiltrate homeopathic education. I am aware that he has been funded to attend a college in east anglia as an apparent homeopathic student. Last month he has been told to find fabricated reasons to move to another college. The college chosen for him to go to next has links to the Royal London Homeopathic hospital and he has been told to gain access to this hospital and to prepare articles to entirely discredit the treatment given there to pave the way for the hospitals closure. The new college chosen to receive this man is the biggest college and therefore when it is discredited and dragged down by this man and his articles the plan is that it will take all homeopathic education down with it.
Incidentally I saw part of his presented report on his present homeopathic college in east anglia and it is scathing of “magic black box sugar pills given to the vulnerable sick and dying”.

My reason for contacting you is that I feel an enormous debt to homeopathy and feel that this is an opportunity for me to give something back to homeopathy itself.

[...]I can only tell you to treat this with utmost care – the funding is very large and the people involved determined.

Now I have no knowledge of this investigation, I cannot confirm the veracity of the claims, it may be a spoof for all I know but the response from the homeopaths is telling.  Remember this is a profession whose educational colleges and degree courses have been ruthlessly exposed as presenting a dangerously misinformed understanding of scientific and medical realities by David Colquhoun.

Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, would prefer that the public’s knowledge of homeopathy is carefully managed:

we need to be extra vigilant in all matters relating to how we communicate with the public.

while Fran Sheffield of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) is more critical:

Well, if this is true, and if there really is a college that is preparing standard remedies by radionics, it deserves to bite the dust for leaving the whole profession exposed, let alone the standards it is passing on to its students. There is no way responsible and respectful homeopathy can protect itself if associated with this practice.

And if this does result in a great deal of damage to homeopathy it won’t be the fault of the people involved in the sting but with the sloppy standards and behaviours engaged in by those who will do this because ‘it doesn’t matter’. It is like a decay within our profession.

It’s not so much the radionics that is the problem but the covert way they are used and the rationale (is there any rationale for standard remedies) behind a college that would do this with its students and a trusting public using its clinic. It’s about time this sort of thing did come out in the open and was weeded out.

And these comments are coming from someone who has no problem with radionically prepared remedies as a second best option when traditionally prepared ones are not available – just as long as everyone knows what is being done and the limitations involved.

Radionics is based on a belief that ‘energies’ can be tuned by a machine to remotely confer healing properties to an object or person.  It does not have a scientific basis and does not work.  Presumably this is the ‘magic black box’ referred to in the original email.  Ms Sheffield clearly believes that such a process is less efficacious than banging a sequentially diluted solution, to the point at which no molecule of the original solution survives, 50 times against a leather bound board.

Those friends of homeopathy in high places should be concerned by the attitudes revealed in these responses.  Ms Mont, who leads the second largest professional homeopathic body in the UK, is it seems dedicated to a culture of secrecy that is determined to keep the realities of a homeopathic education out of the public domain.  The apparently more considered views of Ms Sheffield should be seen in the context of her belief that ‘responsible and respectful’ homeopathy is defined as telling the public that vaccines cause autism and homeopathy can protect against the lethal diseases of childhood, from diptheria to whooping cough. Ms Sheffield is more concerned with ideological point scoring, there is ongoing debate with radionics vs succussion in the community, than actually examining the perception of homeopathy in public and its related problems.

However, assuming the veracity of the email, it is not just the behaviour of homeopaths themselves that is concerning, it is that their supporters are prepared to leak information to them and are in a position to do so.  One imagines that conspiracies are undertaken with a relative degree of secrecy, so having them leaked is unfortunate.  I am not bothered about the success or failure of any BBC report, rather that supporters of homeopathy seem to be present in organisations combating alternative medicine, whether mysterious London based offices, or the BBC.  My concerns are not those answerable by McCarthyesque interviews, but that despite all the exposes, scandals and reports into homeopathy it still has supporters willing to risk their jobs for the cause.  It seems the concerted efforts of the 10:23 campaign, bloggers, Ben Goldacre and the Science and Technology Committee have failed to quell the passion some feel for a well shaken sugar pill.
This then raises questions about the best ways to deal with a profession whose beliefs are dangerously wrong.  I have a lot of tolerance for people who hold views at odds with the evidence, I am sure facets of my own thinking could be described in this manner, but it is a problem when practiced by those with responsibility over others.  In the case of homeopaths this is primarily their patients so is a matter for the regulators of the profession.  It will be interesting to see if the new government offer any fresh thinking on this issue, the last government recommended regulation by the CNHC, something that split the homeopathic community.  It will also be fascinating to see if any of the new crop of MPs are avid supporters of homeopathy and are prepared to attempt to water down regulatory options, if they are inclined this way then informing them about the response of homeopaths to investigations will be necessary. Perhaps this will occur through a BBC report, I look forward to finding out.

David Tredinnick, Conservative MP for Bosworth, fulfils a traditional role, required of those who are outliers to the left of the ability curve, in the Westminster Village.  The idiot.  This has enabled him to have a long undistinguished career, previously he was best known for his role in the ‘cash for questions‘ affair, taking a cheque for £1,000 to ask a question in parliament, now his concerns are quacks and their questions.

In an ePolitix article, to promote his adjournment debate on integrated healthcare, Mr Tredinnick presents all the ability and skills that have kept him out of the 3rd reserves for the Conservative front bench.  An ungracious observation about Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and Abingdon, one of the previous parliaments most rational and respected members is followed by much crowing about the poor performance from one his challengers in Bosworth, the science writer Dr Michael Brooks.  Mr Tredinnick’s reasoning then goes the way of his charm with the following paragraph:

Surveys show that support for a healthcare model that allows doctors to refer to other therapists such as herbalists, acupuncturists, homeopaths and aromatherapists is increasing. The new coalition government seeking to both give more say to doctors and more choice to patients should embrace integrated health care as its model.

This is presumably referring to the infamous Northern Ireland Trial.  This was carried out by a marketing company, hired by a lobby group fronted by Boo Armstrong, who used to write articles for an AIDS denialist magazine and was latterly Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), until it fell victim to fraud.

Tredinnick would like the new government to consider this report.  He would also like them to consider regulating alternative therapists through the Health Professionals Council (HPC), rather than the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC).  This is interesting as the CNHC, an offshoot of the disgraced FIH, has been struggling to recruit enough members to survive, and has already been rejected by herbalists and the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), who have previously collaborated with Tredinnick. Is this a move by these alternative elements and their political proxy reflecting a power grab in the alternative healthcare sector?

And what of Boo Armstrong, now that the FIH are disgraced she must be looking for a new job, is she in league with the legions of the dumb?  Is it coincidence that Tredinnick has cited her report?  Time will tell.  However, such an alliance would be a reflection of the fall of alternative medicine in recent years.  The collapse of the chiropractors, thanks to an ill advised libel claim, as well as the damning Select Committee report on homeopathy has put tremendous pressure on this sector.  Once Boo Armstrong and alternative medicine had the ear of Peter Hain, a former government minister of some considerable standing, now they have the ear of David Tredinnick, a minister only in his imagination.

I have not blogged about the election.  I was going to but other things got in the way and I decided not to.  However, if some really stupid MPs are elected then I will be sure to comment from my usual perspective.

If anyone is interested my voting intention is described on my posterous page.

http://gimpyblog.posterous.com/

Any comment should be left there.

The British Chiropractic Association have dropped their legal action against Simon Singh.

Many congratulations to Simon Singh and all those who have supported him.  However, Simon is going to be out of pocket by a considerable amount, even though the BCA are apparently liable for his costs.  Simon has succeeded not because he is right, but because he is both right and rich, and this is why we should still support libel reform.  Until libel claims are judged solely by the weight of evidence and not by the balance of wallets libel will remain a tool used primarily by the wealthy to silence criticism.

The fact that it takes hundreds of thousands of pounds and a particular blend of stubborness and stupidity to show that there is not a jot of evidence for the claims of chiropractic, an obvious quackery, is an obvious reason to sign Libel Reform Campaign Petition, so if you have not done so, do it.

As well as appointing a Chief Executive who wrote for an AIDS denialist magazine, the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) have also come under scrutiny for alleged financial irregularities and channeling money from a disgraced politician, Dame Shirley Porter, to fund a commissioned report, the Smallwood Report.  Motivated by this I have examined the accounts for the FIH and some of the various bodies that have funded them, including the Porter Foundation- Dame Porter’s charitable organisation. This has revealed some unusual transactions.

The Smallwood Report was originally to have been funded by the FIH but ended up being directly commissioned by the Prince of Wales who, apparently, wished to remain discrete about the fact that it was funded by Dame Porter.

The 2005 accounts from the Porter Foundation show that £50,000 was given directly to the FIH as a grant, subsequent accounts from the Porter Foundation reveal that this was a one off payment and they did not fund the FIH further.  There is nothing untoward in the Porter Foundation accounts as far as I am aware.  However, there are some strange entries in the accounts for the FIH in this period.

The 2005 accounts for the FIH shows that £48,104 was received as a grant from the Prince’s Charities Foundation, another of the Prince of Wales’ charity organisations, to fund the Smallwood report.  This precise sum is listed in both the incoming and outgoing resource columns for that year, as well as in the incoming grants section, suggesting the money was spent or transferred outside the FIH.  There is no record of the £50,000 from the Porter Foundation in the accounts for this year.

There are also other incidences of discrepancies between the entries for incoming funds, and the accounts of these funders.

In 2004 the Prince’s Charities Foundation donated £447,500 to the FIH, yet the FIH accounts list a donation of £400,000 from this foundation.

In 2005 the Prince’s Charities Foundation donated £525,038 to the FIH, yet the FIH accounts list a donation of £598,014.

This information is taken from the FIH’s 2005 accounts and the 2004/05 accounts of the Prince’s Charities Foundation.

Curiously only the 2005 accounts from the FIH list the specific contributions from the Prince’s Charities Foundation, although the latter’s accounts make clear that they have donated large sums of money to the FIH in the form of grants, as follows:

2004 £447,500

2005 £525,038

2006 £587,604

2007 £528,742

2008 £400,052

2009 £250,000

These grants are roughly split in half each year as restricted and unrestricted funds. Their absence from the accounts maybe because these donations have been included as part of the voluntary income of the FIH, rather than listed as grants.  However, the accounts from all years do list specific grants of Restricted Funds as income, with the exception of 2005, there is no record of donations from the Prince’s Charities Foundation as Restricted Grants in the FIH accounts.  The Prince’s Charities Foundation have given the FIH £2,738,936 over 6 years and there is almost no record of this within the FIH accounts.

In summary;

1. the FIH have not listed grants from the Porter Foundation, despite this organisation clearly indicating it gave the FIH money
2. the money spent on the Smallwood report does not match that received from the Porter Foundation
3. in 2004/05 the sums received from the Prince’s Charities Foundation do not match those listed in the accounts
4. in all other years there is no record of grants from the Prince’s Charities Foundation, despite the latter donating almost £3million to the FIH

I have asked the FIH to specifically comment on these discrepancies for nearly two weeks.  They have not responded despite repeated requests for comment.  This may be indicative of wider problems at the FIH, they still have not submitted their most recent accounts to the Charities Commission, they now have less than 10 days to submit them before the Charity Commission is obliged to take action.

If, despite reminders, a charity’s accounts and Annual Return or its Annual Update have not been received 4 months after the end of the 10 month period in which they are required to submit the documents, it is a strong indication that they are no longer operating. The charity is notified at this point that if we do not receive their due documents in the following 2 months they may be removed from the Register or subject to further action.

Are the FIH still operating?

The implications of the FIH ceasing to operate would be enormous.  This is not a minor charity run by some incompetent quacks, this a charity whose founder and President is the UK’s future King, the Prince of Wales, and run by some of the most respected and influential advocates of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the country.  The charity helped to set up the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), a regulatory body for CAM practitioners, as well as being a powerful lobby for the acceptance of CAM.  Without the FIH, the CAM community would find its influence in the elected and unelected of the Houses of Parliament compromised.  There would also be awkward constitutional issues raised, the Prince of Wales and the FIH have already been attacked for a ‘vendetta’ against Professor Edzard Ernst, despite the Prince being required not to involve himself in politics.  If it turns out that the financial discrepancies were part of a larger, very serious, problem then there would be considerable questions over the Prince’s judgement as well as character and his many critics would demand a full investigation.  This could result in the unprecedented investigation of a future monarch as part of a wider investigation into financial fraud.

We should find out the likelihood of this in 10 days.

*update*

The Quackometer has some analysis of the position the FIH finds itself in as well as strong words of condemnation for its actions.

The Quackometer has reported the recent departure of the Chief Executive, Paula Ross, from the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), sharing with us some of the more egregious examples of homeopathic conduct during her tenure. These include their inept strategy for dealing with homeopaths who claim their pills can treat or cure malaria as well as a misguided attempt to sue the Quackometer for reporting one of their members claims about malaria. Curiously, although having removed almost every reference to Ross on their website, the SoH have not yet issued a public statement on her departure, which comes just before this weekends AGM.  However, they did release the following statement to their members a few weeks ago:

Following a Board meeting on Friday 9th April, The Society of Homeopaths and its Chief Executive, Paula Ross, have agreed to part company amicably. The Board wishes to extend its thanks to Paula for all the hard work she has put into the Society over the last 7 years, and notes in particular that the Society is in a much healthier financial position than when she arrived.

With the AGM coming up this Saturday, there will be 4 new directors elected. The Board looks forward to the beginning of a new era for The Society, which will look to build on the solid foundations that Paula has laid in so many areas of its work.

The Society also intends to support and build on its long traditions of high standards in homeopathic education, as well as continuing to support the transition to independent accreditation for Course Providers.

The Board is looking forward to working in close harmony with other registering bodies, and all homeopaths and organisations who would wish to see the benefits of homeopathic treatment be made clearer to the public.

The Board wishes to take time to reflect on the best way forward following Paula’s departure, and will be exploring various options as a matter of high priority. Interim arrangements are already in place to ensure the smooth running
of the Society on a day-to-day basis, and all the usual membership services remain fully in place.

The Board also wishes to emphasise at this time its full support for all the staff who are carrying on their splendid work in the smooth running and operations of all aspects of the Society’s work.

Finally the Board wishes to reassure members that it is confident of continuing to deliver great value for money, and is looking to make The Society one in which its members can continue to feel proud as it prepares to deliver a clearer
and stronger homeopathic message to the public. May we all feel we can unite behind that vision.

Diane Goodwin
Zofia Dymitr
Caroline Jurdon
Phil Edmonds
Felicity Lee
Graz Baran

Diane Goodwin RSHom., PCH
Acting Chair
Director

While no reason for the departure of Ross is given, this statement is notably conciliatory on an issue that the SoH has taken a hardline on previously.  In the past the SoH has been keen to spike the regulatory guns of the other registering bodies, particular the ARH, now they call for harmony.  This position is also remarkably different from that expressed in their Annual Report of a few weeks ago, where there is much boasting of their increased market share of registered homeoapths in 2009 and this firm commitment for 2010:

Aim to increase our current market share of 65% of members registered with the 3 largest homeopathic organisations

This remarkable turnaround, correlated with the departure of Paula Ross, could be a sign that the homeopaths have finally realised that the divide and conquer tactics of Paula Ross, not a homeopath but a business woman, offer only short term gains at the expense of the profession as a whole.  Perhaps the SoH believe that no one can do better than the homeopaths themselves when it comes to saving the profession?

Sadly this view would be misguided.  The original article by The Quackometer that the SoH found so objectionable, ‘The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing‘, contained this criticism of a homeopathic clinic in Kenya:

The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for ‘treating’ various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked practice recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let’s remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

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.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

The SoH have consistently supported and funded the use of homeopathy in Africa for years but under the PR savvy leadership of Ross they did not draw much attention to this following the Quackometer’s article.  This may now change.  Didi Ruchira, the director of Abha Light, has recently made the following claims:

in my own correspondence with my UK and USA homeopath colleagues, I’m advised to tread carefully and silently about malaria. The skeptics have them on the run in UK and we had better not shout too much of our successes. A bit odd, but that is the way to fight a battle sometimes.

Please, dear reader, just because UK homeopaths have decided it’s presently strategic to keep silent on Malaria, HIV and TB, doesn’t mean that we in Africa have stopped work in these fields. We are just working quietly, that’s all. This battle will be won ultimately by homeopathy, because drug-based medicine is running out of steam. Those of us working tirelessly on the ground for the benefit of humanity need your support, both morally and financially. I will suggest to you to select your favorite pioneering project in any country in Africa, South America or Asia and support it wholeheartedly.

Without the leadership of Ross it is likely that the membership of the SoH, believing as they do that conventional medicine is a big pharma conspiracy and that homeopathy cures everything, will give more prominence to views such as these.  Views that kill.  It is hard to see how this will be helpful to the reputation of homeopathy in the UK.

The attempted regulation of herbalism looks doomed to failure with a clear difference of opinion between government and practitioners, the latter prefer statutory regulation which has been rejected as an option by government.

Last week the Department of Health (DoH) recommended that the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC/Ofquack)  regulate herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and acupuncture.  Minister for Health, Andy Burnham, said:

“Emerging evidence clearly demonstrates that the public needs better protection, but in a way that is measured and does not place unreasonable extra burdens on practitioners.

“I am therefore minded to legislate to ensure that all practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines to members of the public in England must be registered with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC).

The CNHC have expressed their pleasure at this announcement:

CNHC is pleased to be asked by The Secretary of State for Health to register practitioners supplying herbal medicines to members of the public in England.

The Council already registers a significant range of practitioners in complementary healthcare who meet its standards and is well positioned to expand its public protection role in this way. Since 2008 CNHC has established its reputation as a regulatory body with robust and effective standards for registration and fitness to practise. It has positive and collaborative links with the statutory healthcare regulators.

This is probably regarded as good news by the CNHC, they have had a well documented struggle for funding and have trouble attracting some of the more popular forms of quackery.   Regardless of this, the CNHC are not fit for purpose, they have recently told sceptical blogger Simon Perry that they will not consider his complaints for the next 6 months:

I began making complaints to the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council about reflexologist members who happily promote their bogus treatments despite the fact that there was not a jot of evidence to support them.

The CNHC has now informed me that for the next six months, they will no longer be processing any complaints that are similar to the ones I’ve submitted. By similar, I take this to mean complaints regarding practitioners who mislead their clients by making unjustifiable or false statements, including practitioners who have already been cautioned by the CNHC for doing it before.

The CNHC was set up under the aegis of Prince Charles’ Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) to be a self-regulatory body for alternative health, now it is one that is not prepared to regulate.  However this is not unexpected.  Organisations purporting to regulate quackery rarely do so beyond upholding the doctrines and articles of faith of the respective field of quackery, managing risks to consumer health are generally not a priority.

It would be a concern for those with an interest in exposing the practices of alternative medicine if the CNHC were to regulate herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture.  This, despite the recommendations of Andy Burnham, is unlikely to happen for two reasons.

1) The government is unlikely to exist in its current form within a month or two.  A general election is expected early in May and the Labour party are unlikely to win, if they are to remain in power it will be in a coalition but it is more likely that the next government will be formed from the Conservative party.  None of the major parties have a clearly stated policy on the regulation of alternative medicine, nor is it likely to be a major election issue, so the Department of Health’s current proposals are likely to be mothballed for some considerable time.

2) Herbalists  and TCM practitioners do not want CNHC regulation.

This latter point is the most important.  The European Herbal & Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association (EHTMPA), the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine (RCHM), the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ATCM), and the National Institute of Medical Herbalists (NIMH) amongst others in the alphabetical smorgasbord that represents the various denominations of herbalism, have all campaigned for statutory regulation.  Their intent was to be regulated by the Health Professionals Council (HPC), a more serious organisation than the CNHC, that regulates practitioners in proven fields of health.  This statutory regulation would confer protected status on their profession, restricting the title of Herbalist to those regulated by its rules.

By and large these organisations are disappointed with the DoH’s announcement:

the CNHC (the proposed regulator) was formed to regulate complementary health practitioners on a voluntary basis, and as currently constituted, is not equipped for statutory regulation.

the government seems to have failed to deliver its promise, and has changed its mind from HPC as our regulatory body to CNHC. We would like to demand an explanation from the government on what ground it has changed its mind, as CNHC is only a voluntary body with no statutory power. From the rather short DH press release which lacks details, we doubt whether the government still wants to introduce statutory regulation, or decides to go for an alternative.

Herbalists should be regulated like other statutory regulated healthcare practitioner or, the public will lose access to properly regulated herbalists and a wide range of herbal medicines. The Government must give detailed assurances that the legal and structural basis of statutory regulation is fit for purpose or it will betray the millions of people who regularly consult herbal practitioners. So far the Government has singularly failed to provide these guarantees.

As the CNHC is voluntary these organisations have no need to insist that their members sign up, in fact as they are holding out for statutory regulation it is unlikely that they will be willing to express any support for the CNHC, to do so would undermine their campaign.  This will damage the CNHC’s longterm viability, no new members means no new funding sources, and with the homeopaths mired in infighting the herbalists represent their last decent chance of acquiring new members in the medium term.

This is good news for those that are concerned about poor practice in alternative medicine.  The collapse of the CNHC will further damage the reputation of alternative medicine.  Hopefully a new government will take stock of the intransigence of the herbalists, the infighting of the homeopaths and the inability of the CNHC to regulate and instead apply a more robust external form of regulation for quackery.

The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) have been in the news recently for all the wrong reasons.  £300,000 has apparently gone missing from their accounts, the police are now investigating, and it is claimed their 2006 Smallwood report was funded by shamed politician, Dame Shirley Porter.  They have now appointed a former writer for an AIDS denialist publication as their new Chief Executive.

According to the Daily Mail report linked to above, the disappearance of £300,000 from the charities accounts is the explanation as to why their most recent financial report has not been filed with the charities commission.  While officially no members of the FIH staff have been suspended there has been a shakeup in the upper echelons of the organisation, with the most notable changes being that former Finance Director and acting Chief Executive, George Gray, is no longer with the charity, having been replaced by a new Chief Executive, Boo Armstrong.  Ms Armstrong used to write articles extolling the virtues of alternative approaches to health in Continuum, a magazine with an editorial position denying the link between HIV and AIDS as described by science.  The FIH have been aware of these articles since at least  the summer of 2009.

Ms Armstrong’s appointment is reflective of how wider society has treated alternative medicine in the past, with minimal scrutiny and an assumption of benefit.  She has been awarded money from UnLtd, the Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs, for pushing alternative medicine and has long been funded by the FIH before she was officially placed on their payroll.  She has also had a position on the National Clinical Audit Advisory Group (NCAAG) for some time, where her profile lauds her charity work.  She was also behind a market research, rather than scientific, project measuring the impact of alternative health in Northern Ireland.  This was instigated by former Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain, who believes that homeopathy and a restrictive diet* cured his son’s eczema and felt that this justified spending £200,000 of taxpayers money on a weak report.  At not point did any of the above investigate her articles for Continuum or even her personal views on various forms of quackery, for example she thinks that osteopaths should be considered equivalent to doctors.

However, more recently, Ms Armstrong and the FIH are becoming unstuck, quite apart from any police investigation.  Thanks to the tenacious David Colquhoun, the recent attempts by an FIH backed organisation to set up an Integrated Medicine course with the University of Buckingham has failed. In particular Ms Armstrong was rejected as a teacher because she was “not qualified to do so academically”.  The FIH have also been reported to the Charities Commission by Republic, a pro-republican pressure group, due to alleged political interference by the Charity and Prince Charles in the appointment of Professor Ernst.

Appointing a supporter of an AIDS denialist magazine as Chief Executive of a charity advocating alternative medicine is not a wise move given the long track record of denialism, unconventional treatment and unethical trials with respect to AIDS in the alternative health movement.  It is especially unwise given that the FIH are no longer operating with minimal scrutiny, both the police and skeptical bloggers, journalists and campaigning organisations taking a close look at them.

The FIH and Ms Armstrong were asked to reply to questions regarding their investigations of the content of Ms Armstrong’s articles and whether Ms Armstrong has retracted her views.  They did not respond.

*specifically a gluten and dairy restricted diet, (there is no indication that Peter Hain’s son was tested by a registered medical practitioner for gluten or dairy allergies).

After Bhargava organised a controversial meeting at a research lab in Hyderabad in 1967, he was summoned by a committee set up by the Centre to be quizzed abouthis meat-eating preferences. Golwalkar was part of the committee.

Credit: richichoraria/pixabay

The following is an excerpt from a biography of Pushpa Mittra Bhargava, currently in preparation by Chandana Chakrabarti, and from a biography of Verghese Kurien. Bhargava passed away on August 1, 2017. He was 89years old. The excerpts have been lightly edited for style.

The year 1966 witnessed a mass agitation against cow slaughter organised by the [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)]. The demand was for a complete ban on cow slaughter in the country. It culminated in a huge demonstration lead by sadhus who tried to storm the Parliament house in Delhi. While the Shankaracharya of Puri went on a fast for the cause, the frenzied mob went on a rampage. A 48-hour curfew had to be imposed to control the situation.

It was against this background that the Society for the Promotion of Scientific Temper held a public discussion at the Regional Research Laboratory in Hyderabad in 1967, on the relevance of a ban on cow slaughter, with Dr Pushpa Bhargava (PMB) chairing it. At this meeting, one of the speakers, Dr P. Ramchander, a well-known physician, said, If we dont eat the cows, the cows will eat us. This caught the headlines of newspapers the following day. The statement offended those who were asking for the ban and PMB promptly started receiving verbal threats. Questions were asked as to how could PMB organise such a meeting in a government laboratory.

Subsequently, the Government of India set up a high power committee headed by Justice Sarkar, a former Chief Justice of India, to look into the issue. Guru Golwalkar, the head of RSS, Shankaracharya of Puri, Verghese Kurien (the Milk Man of India), and H.A.B. Parpia, the director of the Central Food Technological Research Institute, were members of the committee. PMB was summoned to Delhi to give evidence before the committee.

When PMB arrived at Krishi Bhavan to appear before the committee, a man sitting in the waiting room immediately started quizzing him about cow slaughter. His questions were unending: was PMB a Brahmin since Bhargavas are supposed to be Brahmins?; did PMB eat meat?; if he does eat meat he surely does not eat cows meat?; how does the body make meat?; and so on. PMB ended up giving the man a crash course in elementary biochemistry, saying that we eat food which has proteins. Those proteins are broken down in our [gastrointestinal]tract into amino acids, which are absorbed into the blood stream, and they go to various organs, where they get reconverted to proteins. But how is milk made, the man asked. Milk is made exactly in the same way as meat, PMB replied. Then why dont you drink milk instead of eating meat, the man asked. Why dont you eat meat like you drink milk, because both are made the same way, PMB replied. To PMBs surprise, this little encounter proved to be a curtain-raiser to what unfolded when he appeared before the committee.

Inside the meeting room, Guru Golwalkar asked PMB exactly the same questions. And when PMB replied to Golwalkars question, as to why he did not drink milk instead of eating meat, with another question that is, why by the same logic did Golwalkar not eat meat instead of drinking milk Golwalkarwent into a fit of rage. It took quite a while for the chairman and Sankaracharya to calm him down. Shankaracharya pleaded with Golwalkarthat he was spoiling their case. After PMB came out, he got a slip from Justice Sarkar asking to meet him before he left. Justice Sarkar cheerfully told PMB that he was fantastic and added that the only person who did better than PMB was a professor of Sanskrit who appeared before the committee and quoted from ancient Indian literature on the advantages of eating beef.

As it turns out several years later, while collecting material for a joint paper on biology in India from ancient times to 1900, PMB and I stumbled across the following statement made in the Charaka Samhita:

The flesh of the cow is beneficial for those suffering from the loss of flesh due to disorders caused by an excess of vayu, rhinitis, irregular fever, dry cough, fatigue, and also in cases of excessive appetite resulting from hard manual work.

Three decades later, PMB went to see Kurien in Anand, Gujarat, along with a friend. When PMB reminded Kurien about the incident, Kurien told him that over the years when he and Golwalkar became close friends, the latter admitted to him that the cow protection agitation was only a political agitation which he started to actually embarrass the government. Kurien would later describe this episode in his biography, which was titled I Too Had a Dream.

One day after one of our meetings when he had argued passionately for banning cow slaughter, he came to me and asked, Kurien, shall I tell you why Im making an issue of this cow slaughter business ?

I said to him, Yes, please explain to me because otherwise you are a very intelligent man. Why are you doing this ?

I started a petition to ban cow slaughter actually to embarrass the government, he began explaining to me in private. I decided to collect a million signatures, for this work I traveled across the country to see how the campaign was progressing. My travels once took me to a village in Uttar Pradesh. There, I saw in one house a woman who, having fed and sent off her husband to work and her two children to school, took this petition and went from house to house to collect signatures in that blazing summer sun. I wondered to myself why this woman should take such pains. She was not crazy to be doing this. This is when I realised that the woman was actually doing it for her cow, which was her bread and butter, and I realised how much potential the cow has.

Look at what our country has become. What is good is foreign;what is bad is Indian. Who is a good Indian? Its the fellow who wears a suit and a tie and puts on a hat. Who is a bad Indian? The fellow who wears a dhoti. If this nation does not take pride in what it is and merely imitates other nations, how can it amount to anything ? Then I saw that the cow has potential to unify the country she symbolises the culture of Bharat. So I tell you what, Kurien, you agree with me to ban cow slaughter on this committee and I promise you, five years from that date, I will have united the country. What Im trying to tell you is that Im not a fool, Im not a fanatic. Im just cold-blooded about this. I want to use the cow to bring out our Indianness. So please cooperate with me on this.

Chandana Chakrabartiis a biologist, consultant and joint secretary of the P.M. Bhargava Foundation, Hyderabad.

What to read next:

Categories: Featured, History, Politics, Science

Tagged as: beef, biochemistry, Cow slaughter, Guru Golwalkar, Justice Sarkar, nationalism, Pushpa Mittra Bharghava, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Verghese Kurien

Continued here:
When P.M. Bhargava's Biochemistry Lesson on Beef Threw ... - The Wire