• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Regulating fantasies

Well I'm not, even though I signed last week. Did the email linky and everything, too.
:(

Mind you, I have achieved FAME at last!
I appear on Whale.to on the list of evil scientists, rubbing shoulders with Ben Goldacre and co.
Sheer bliss - it made my day!
 
Last edited:
I just noticed the exact wording of the petition.

The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) issues approval certificates to Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners, but this approval is currently independent of actual evidence of efficacy or safety.


I note that "The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council" has its initials given as well (CNHC), but the authors haven't done that with their choice of terminology for the methods they are objecting too. Subtle, or what? I love it.

Rolfe.
 
Some responses to the letter in the Times.

In this link, Professor Colquoun and colleagues are accused of "Stalinist repression", and Michael Dixon (Medical Director, Foundation for Integrated Health) claims that the Government is “in no position to dictate which therapies are proven or disproven because conclusive evidence often does not exist”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article5644142.ece

And this is the title of a letter which was published in yesterday’s Times:
“Medieval views about alternative medicines”:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5634207.ece
 
And this is the title of a letter which was published in yesterday’s Times:
“Medieval views about alternative medicines”:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5634207.ece


While the author of the first letter objects to Colquhoun et al allegedly trying to "ban further discussion of the subject", he's also had a letter published in the JRSM in which he appears to imply that Edzard Ernst's research is a waste of resources.

You've got to love the "this is not a polemic against research but..." with which he starts the second paragraph, followed by an attack (via a strawman) on Ernst's research.
 
Thanks to everyone for signing - we're up to about 130 signatures now, and I recognise a few big names in there, which is nice.

I'm afraid that there are probably too many people for me to buy everyone a pint at TAM London, but I'm prepared to buy a pitcher of beer and 130 straws...
 
I am posting this with a deep sense of weariness. Yes, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council opens its doors today. BBC news story here.

Something to cheer you up, Asolepius. Although it’s been officially open for only a fortnight, it looks like OfQuack’s feeling the pressure already…
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/ofquack-is-deflated.html

The same for many alternative therapists who, according to this week’s Private Eye, will be expected to join the OfQuack register:
The Foundation for Integrated Health exists to promote aromatherapy, reiki, massage therapy, reflexology, homeopathy and a dozen or so other techniques. The treatments share a common absence of double-blind trials which can prove to the paying customers that they actually work.

Now the Foundation has established the Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council to regulate practitioners and assure the public they will receive a “positive, safe and effective experience”.

Who could possibly think they could get away with this? Step forward, the man behind the Foundation for Integrated Health – His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales.

The Prince's intervention has caused fury and hilarity among straight doctors. The science writer Andy Lewis has dubbed the Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council “OfQuack”. Some wag – no names, no pack drill – has even rigged the internet so that when you type www.ofquack.org.uk into an address box, the Prince’s site pops up under the headline of “Ofquack – making quacks look professional since 2008”.

Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, is not impressed by the Council. He told the Eye: “This is ridiculous. It really is a farce.

“All they will need to provide is that they are following an established technique they believe to be appropriate,” he added. “It’s a ludicrous system.”

And yet the therapists are treating HRH with extreme caution. The Society of Homeopaths, for example, declared that it had “yet to assess the suitability and standards of the Natural Healthcare Council for the purpose of providing regulation of homeopaths”. In other words, “we’re not co-operating”.

Meanwhile, the aromatherapists who gather at the website www.aromaconnection.org lamented: “Within aromatherapy, the low educational entry requirements and abysmal course standards set in UK colleges are a national joke, so setting minimums standards for practitioners will presumably be a great source of material for satirical magazines such as Private Eye.”

…and no doubt for several skeptic forums, websites and blogs too. Indeed, just to help kick things off, a response to the whole sorry affair is keenly awaited from the Health Minister, Ben Bradshaw, here:
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-wish-to-register-complaint.html
 
Last edited:
And there’s some good, additional comment here:
Unlike the bodies that oversee doctors and nurses, the CNHC takes no interest in whether its practitioners’ efforts actually work.

-snip-

In the Journal of the Scottish Law Society, Douglas MacLaughlin, a Glaswegian lawyer, points out that consumer-protection laws new in 2008 specifically forbid false claims that a product can cure a disease. This could make life difficult for purveyors of alternative medicine, much of which does not work or has never been tested. That one part of government licenses alternative medicine while another bans its main sales pitch reflects a wider chaos.

Britain simultaneously licenses alternative medicine and outlaws it
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12998201&fsrc=rss


The readers' comments to that story are quite fun as well:
http://www.economist.com/world/brit...98201&fsrc=rss&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
Currently on their 6th page...

The original Journal of the Law Society of Scotland article is in the August 2008 issue, by the way (article on page 56 of the pdf document).
 
I've finally been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the online social networking world, and have set up a Facebook group called "Oppose UK Quack Medicine" which may get some more interest.
 
Bump.

Thanks to everyone for signing - we're up to about 130 signatures now, and I recognise a few big names in there, which is nice.

I'm afraid that there are probably too many people for me to buy everyone a pint at TAM London, but I'm prepared to buy a pitcher of beer and 130 straws...

…make that 296 straws:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CNHCsafety/

So Michael Dixon is chief quack for our king in waiting now? He who waves hands at patients? It's now clear as to the extent of his departure from anything resembling reason. Watch the next official honours list for another gong to add to his OBE. He has all the qualifications.

Michael Dixon is in the news again:
Academics and NHS Alliance clash over complementary medicine
24 Feb 09

The NHS Alliance has been embroiled in a furious row over its stance on complementary medicines, after being attacked by leading academics for giving out ‘misleading information’.

A strongly worded letter [http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=39&storycode=4121980 ] sent to Pulse by Professor Edzard Ernst claimed the NHS Alliance was potentially breaching GMC guidance by making ‘misleading or incorrect’ statements on complementary medicines.

-snip-

War of words

Professor Edzard Ernst, Peninsula Medical School

‘They are misleading to the degree of being irresponsible. If I was a GP or a PCT manager and my sole source of information was the NHS Alliance I would get a picture that would not be the truth about complementary medicine.’

Dr Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance

‘This boring rant is graceless and predictable. The NHS Alliance has members who are for and against complementary medicine, but it is not actually a big issue.’

More…
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=35&storycode=4121964

It certainly is a big issue if Dr Dixon isn’t prepared to play fair:
Dr Dixon ended his presentation with some reminiscences about his father, who was a Swordfish pilot during World War ll. These pilots set out to bomb the Bismarck. Visibility was very poor and the waves very high. They set off in a machine that looked like something from World War 1, to attack a ship with the most modern technology in history. He likened CAM practitioners to those Swordfish pilots, making their way through the fog. They have ancient skills, but lack the evidence base that orthodox clinicians think appropriate; the doctors, on the other hand, have the modern technology and the NICE appraisals to back their work up. His father was given orders to return to base and not to proceed. He disobeyed and so succeeded in his task. ‘I’m not advocating mass civil disobedience, but if you are going to win the game, you have to not always play be the rules of other people. We are going to have to invent our own set of rules and not accept anything as a given.’ he concluded.

(Page 5)
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/sih/pdf/1st seminar report - CGCAMN.pdf
[Bold used for emphasis]
 
Last edited:
“Patients are not lab rats”

The spat between Professor Edzard Ernst and Dr Michael Dixon, OBE, Medical Director of HRH’s sCAM lobby group, continues in today's news…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7974880.stm

See here for the relevant Ernst blog post:
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4122268
(Registration is free. To read Ernst’s other posts, click on ‘blogs’ in the left-hand sidebar.)

For drive-by readers, you can learn more about Michael Dixon here,
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/graceless-dr-michael-dixon-obe.html
and here:
http://majikthyse.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/michael-dixon-caught-red-handed/
 
I have submitted a comment but very much doubt the BBC will publish it. Dixon is either deranged or chasing a another gong to add to his OBE.
 
"Patients are not lab rats". True.

Why, then, subject them to treatments such as homoeopathy which have failed, after 200 years, to provide any evidence that they have an actual biological effect on the body? Most SCAM is in the category of "we don't know if it works or not". So how is using these techniques on patients not treating them like "lab rats"?

Rolfe.
 

Back
Top Bottom