New sCAM regulatory body

[Blue Wode]

And, as you might expect, it's being backed by Prince Charles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3134337.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3134337.ece)

I wonder what David Colquhoun will have to say about it. Here’s what he had to say in 2004:


The problem is that you cannot regulate properly an area when it is not, in most cases, known whether the product being offered has no effect above that of wishful thinking.

http://dcscience.net/improbable.html#times-04 (http://dcscience.net/improbable.html#times-04)


And there's this from his excellent ethical ‘dilemmas at the heart of alternative medicine’:


To maximise the benefit of alternative medicine, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible.

As if telling lies to patients were not enough, the dilemma has another aspect, which is also almost always overlooked. Who trains CAM practitioners? Are the trainers expected to tell their students the same lies? Certainly that is the normal practice at the moment.

http://dcscience.net/?page_id=10 (http://dcscience.net/?page_id=10)



And here are Edzard Ernst’s views:


"The need for regulation has the potential for creating a potentially serious conflict. Informing patients about the best scientific evidence will, in some cases, mean telling them about the lack of scientifically proven benefit and the presence of potential risks, yet this would be overtly contrary to the personal (financial) interests, beliefs and emotional attitudes of CAM practitioners."

http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact0803a02t01.htm (http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact0803a02t01.htm)



One thing's certain, it'll give the alt-medders a lot of undeserved legitimacy.

[tkingdoll]

I have mixed feelings which go something like this:

- CAM exists
- CAM will always exist. There will always, always, be a subset of people who reject conventional medicine (or conventional anything) and want newage.
- If something is going to exist, it might as well be subject to some sort of standard rather than no standard at all
- This is better than the current 'no standard at all'

The ideal is for CAM to be subject to the same standards as medicine. However, that is not going to happen yet (or maybe even ever) as the very point of its existence is to provide an alternative. It irks me, but I have to live with it. So, if I have to live with it, I'd rather it was cleaned up.

I also have a suspicion that in trying to regulate, a lot more questions will be raised than at present, where no-one is trying to create or apply a set of standards. People ALWAYS question formal standards. So, it may turn out to be a CAM of worms...

...sorry for the pun :-[

[vbloke]

I have to agree with teek on this one (not that I normally don't, but she is a woman and probably hasn't had her regular beating yet (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1931)).

At the moment, most of CAM is unregulated - you can claim pretty much what you want (within certain laws) as to the effectiveness of your treatments. A regulatory body would be in control of what you are able to claim.

It would also be a one-stop place for complaints and legal action, should a practitioner step over the line in terms of claims, treatment or otherwise.

As teek said, formal regulations are open to scrutiny and I'm sure that even CAM practitioners won't be able to agree amongst themselves what the actual modes of action of their chosen CAM is, let alone be able to come up with a set of regulations for them. This should help expose some of te dodgier CAM practices for what they are - essentially made up.

[Admin]

I'm not sure this is a good move at all.

It's not mandatory and doesn't seem to have anything in the way of teeth. I suspect it will only serve to increase sCAM's perceived authenticity amongst the public, and practitioners will use registration as a form of advertising.

People will still be able to practise their brand of quackery whether they register or not and if someone is struck off the register they can still go on practising anyway.

To me it looks more like promoting sCAM than regulating it.

If there was legislation that really set standards, regulated the claims of practitioners, stated what they are and are not allowed to treat, and enforced the rules with strong penalties, I'd be all for it.

This, however, looks more like a 'trade association' than true regulatory legislation.

[JJM]

"Regulation" of sCAM, in the USA, is a failed experiment. It puts the inmates in charge of the asylum and gives a false sense of legitimacy. Consider naturopaths (NDs), they are the quackiest group because they incorporate every type of quackery (homeo, acupunc, herbs, detox, etc.); yet they have approved schools whose graduates are licensed (in some states) to practice like MDs. That is because the government lets them regulate their schools and licenses on the basis that they must be best able to judge themselves.

Furthermore, an ND license is a license to kill with a certain impunity. Utah licenses naturopaths, and, when an unlicensed ND was arrested for killing a patient (practicing med without a license) his lawyer complained that the the ND would not be in trouble if Utah had simply accorded him a license. Once licensed, as long as the board says he was working under the standard of ND care, the law cannot touch him. (He may be subject to civil penalties, demanded by the family of the victim).

In Arkansas, a physical therapist was accused of practicing a chiro "adjustment," rather than a PT "manipulation"(!?), and fined $10,000. The State Supreme upheld the fine, saying that it was within the board's jurisdiction.

A homeopath in Nevada (where one needs an MD license to get a homeo license) mis-treated a patient; but the medical board would not sanction him because he was practicing as a homeo on that occasion. It remains to be seen what the homeo board will do; but they have a long history of turning away complaints.

The bottom line is that "regulation" does nothing to protect the customers, and gives sCAM an air of legitimacy and protects its practitioners.

[ZERO]

??? I'm trying to think of a way a Homeopath can mis-treat someone?

[Blue Wode]

To me it looks more like promoting sCAM than regulating it.

The bottom line is that "regulation" does nothing to protect the customers, and gives sCAM an air of legitimacy and protects its practitioners.

I tend to agree with those views and, interestingly, it's more or less what The Quackometer has concluded about the situation:


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

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

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/12/curing-homeopathy.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/12/curing-homeopathy.html)

(Long analysis)




??? I'm trying to think of a way a Homeopath can mis-treat someone?

Failing to diagnose correctly, delaying appropriate medical treatment, advising against vaccination, and offering dangerous advice?

[JJM]

??? I'm trying to think of a way a Homeopath can mis-treat someone?The classic mis-treatment is delay of effective treatments (including talking people out of taking their regular meds and vaccinations).

In this case, Nevada homeopaths have a much wider scope of activity than traditional homeopaths, including prescribing real drugs, and invasive procedures (e.g., catheterization). In this case, he took a woman with untreatable brain cancer and installed a catheter and injected lots of irrational stuff. The woman's cancer had progressed to the point where she could not move, or communicate; but the sick Dr told her family he had her walking and talking.

The example is valid because he told his customers he was a homeopath; it does not matter that we recognize this as outside the tradition.

[Cuddles]

I'm with John. Chiropractors and homeopaths already have regulatory bodies, and all they do is give an air of authenticity, and even have promoting themselves stated as one of their main aims. If any regulations are applied to sCAM, they have to be exactly the same ones as are applied to all other medicine. Anything else will be worse than not having any at all.

[seren]

In this case, he took a woman with untreatable brain cancer and installed a catheter and injected lots of irrational stuff. The woman's cancer had progressed to the point where she could not move, or communicate; but the sick Dr told her family he had her walking and talking.

That it sickening, truly sickening. I almost wish I hadn't read that. Uck.

[SKIRRID5]

I love that word sCAM. What could be more appropriate?
As for Prince bloody Charles, isn't it charming to think that by the time he's king (if it ever happens), he may have been indirectly responsible for the demise of a number of his subjects?

[Pebble]

I love that word sCAM. What could be more appropriate?
As for Prince bloody Charles, isn't it charming to think that by the time he's king (if it ever happens), he may have been indirectly responsible for the demise of a number of his subjects?

Agreed, Microsoft gets this right correctig sCAM to Scam at the beginning of a sentence.

As to Prince Charles, just continuing a long an honorable tradition, though in the past methods were somewhat more direct.

[Blue Wode]

Here’s what a spokesman for Penny Brohn Cancer Care, formerly the Bristol Cancer Help Centre, had to say in a BBC report:



With 280,000 diagnoses of cancer each year, more people than ever before are seeking therapies which complement their cancer treatment.

We hope the new Council will highlight best practice, encourage research and build the evidence base. We also welcome any move to raise professional standards."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7173026.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7173026.stm)


Some hope.

Getting back to the original Times report…



Among the practices to be covered by the scheme would be aromatherapy, reflexology, massage, nutrition, shiatzu, reiki, naturopathy, yoga, homoeopathy, cranial osteopathy and the Alexander and Bowen techniques.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3134337.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3134337.ece)



…nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that the UK Reiki Regulatory Working Group’s formally withdrew from the Federal Working Group (FWG) set up by the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (PFIH) following exclusion from its September and October meetings .

Apparently the Reiki group had a number of concerns about the regulatory structure being proposed by the FWG, all of which it highlighted in a letter sent the PFIH and the FWG (copying in the Queen). See the right-hand column in this link:

http://www.reikiregulation.org.uk/ (http://www.reikiregulation.org.uk/)

One of its main concerns was:


We believe the Regulator should have an overriding duty to regulate the practitioners, but not the practices or therapies themselves, e.g. such as the teaching of Reiki in its many diverse forms

Perhaps the group’s been reading section 5.14 of The House of Lords Select Committee Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine which states that a feature of effective regulation is

"...to understand and advertise areas of competence, including limits of competence within each therapy"
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12307.htm#a29 (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12307.htm#a29)

Not that it's enforced as at least one established CAM regulator in the UK, the General Chiropractic Council, seems to have turned a blind eye to defining and limiting the scope of practice for its registrants. See these threads to learn more:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1610 (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1610)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85046&page=2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85046&page=2)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98059 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98059)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85436 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85436)

It's going to be interesting to see how all this unfolds.

[SKIRRID5]

I don't know if it's been discussed before, but some of you must have read the ghastly recent story from Australia. A baby girl's parents treated her eczema with homeopathic stuff instead of prescription drugs, and she died in agony at the age of 9 months, emaciated, and with her skin actually split in places. Homeopathy didn't kill her, but belief in it certainly did. The coroner thought the parents could be prosecuted. Can any Aussie menbers tell us what came of it?
It would be nice to have legislation under which parents who chose homeopathy (or other imaginary cures) rather than regular treatment could, if the child died, be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. It's kids who need protection most, as they can't make the decisions themselves.
In reality, I realise it wouldn't work. It would have to be established that the patient could have been cured by regular medical treatment, and the only way you could do that would be through the testimony of regular medicos. Imagine the howl of outrage from the believers: the medical establishment protecting its own market! Well, I can dream...

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

This was mentioned on the BBC news tonight, with the comment :

"THe new body will have the power to strike off anyone deemed as incompetent"

How about including ineffectual in that as well?

[ZERO]

Here is an article on it.
It also raises the issue of legitimization.

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/nsw-coroner-legitimising-homeopathy

[SKIRRID5]

Thanks for the link, Zero. So it doesn't look as though any actual action has been taken yet. I suppose it would be difficult to punish someone for using treatment which was perfectly legal. James Randi said it ought to be those who peddle homeopathy, and those who make it legal, who should suffer.
You notice the mother was an IT professional; how can someone capable of grasping IT technology (which I certainly can't!) not see the idiocy of the claimed scientific basis of homeopathy? For that matter, when I read that homeopathy is much in favour with the Royal Family, I wonder if a grumpy old cynic like the Duke of Edinburgh believes in it.

[Blue Wode]

So it doesn't look as though any actual action has been taken yet.

The latest development seems to be that the Australian Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) is being given the task of disciplining alternative therapists:


The Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) is to be given greater powers disciplining naturopaths, herbalists, homeopaths and massage therapists, NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher says.

-snip-

Practitioners must not financially exploit their clients, diagnose or treat an illness or condition without an adequate clinical basis.

-snip-

Under the draft code, the HCCC will be able to investigate complaints and take disciplinary action against practitioners who were found to be exploiting vulnerable people.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23003731-5005961,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23003731-5005961,00.html)



But, similar to the problems faced by the new Natural Heathcare Council (NHC) here, it remains to be seen how these requirements can be effectively enforced when most alt-med therapists are not medically trained and will almost certainly have to rely on scientifically unproven medicine to ‘treat’ their clients. Presumably, the HCCC (and the NHC) will have to turn a blind eye to the ethical dilemmas at the heart of alternative medicine - either that, or they're going to be kept very busy.

Once again, here's the link to those ethical dilemmas:


To maximise the benefit of alternative medicine, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible.


As if telling lies to patients were not enough, the dilemma has another aspect, which is also almost always overlooked. Who trains CAM practitioners? Are the trainers expected to tell their students the same lies? Certainly that is the normal practice at the moment.

http://dcscience.net/?page_id=10 (http://dcscience.net/?page_id=10)

Meanwhile, a little more information on the NHC.

According to this post over at JREF…
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3306609&postcount=12 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3306609&postcount=12)

…the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health is spending £2 million on establishing the new regulatory body and the results of its efforts (so far) can be viewed here:

Framework for ’62 competences’
http://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/tools/view_framework.php?id=111 (http://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/tools/view_framework.php?id=111)

However, the evidence for all the listed therapies is conspicuous by its absence.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Thanks for the link, Zero. So it doesn't look as though any actual action has been taken yet. I suppose it would be difficult to punish someone for using treatment which was perfectly legal. James Randi said it ought to be those who peddle homeopathy, and those who make it legal, who should suffer.
You notice the mother was an IT professional; how can someone capable of grasping IT technology (which I certainly can't!) not see the idiocy of the claimed scientific basis of homeopathy? For that matter, when I read that homeopathy is much in favour with the Royal Family, I wonder if a grumpy old cynic like the Duke of Edinburgh believes in it.

I work in IT. Few people I work with are competent in basic logic, never mind scientific concept.

[Atavis]

One thing's certain, it'll give the alt-medders a lot of undeserved legitimacy.

This statement is far too general. While there are obvious questions about "energy therapies", other things to be included in this proposed council are such things as massage, nutrition, herbal medicine, the Alexander Techniqe and possibly hypnotherapy.

All of the above are either biochemical, physiological or psychophysiological and not related to such things as homeopathy or shiatsu.

Atavis

[Blue Wode]

One thing's certain, it'll give the alt-medders a lot of undeserved legitimacy.
This statement is far too general. While there are obvious questions about "energy therapies", other things to be included in this proposed council are such things as massage, nutrition, herbal medicine, the Alexander Techniqe and possibly hypnotherapy.

All of the above are either biochemical, physiological or psychophysiological and not related to such things as homeopathy or shiatsu.

According toThe Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2nd edition (2006) http://www.elsevierhealth.co.uk/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0723433836 (http://www.elsevierhealth.co.uk/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0723433836)
all of those therapies, except for nutrition, fall under the banner of ‘complementary and alternative medicine’.

With regard to their legitimacy, the first two are well known to be associated with quackery…

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/massage.html (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/massage.html)

http://www.nutriwatch.org/ (http://www.nutriwatch.org/)

…and the third, herbal medicine, is potentially redundant due to there being only seven herbs which have some evidence to support them (and which, as a consequence, stand a good chance of eventually being absorbed into pharmacology/conventional medicine):



There are 7 herbal drugs whose use is supported by the type of evidence used in orthodox medicine at this point in time.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3049699&postcount=197 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3049699&postcount=197)




St. John's Wort, Ginkgo Biloba, Saw Palmetto, Devil's Claw, Salix, Hawthorn, Valerian.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3050506&postcount=208 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3050506&postcount=208)



The above two quotes are lifted from this 10-page JREF thread:
‘Herbal Medicine – most remedies useless’
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95114 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95114)

Also see here:



A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication

Conclusion: Individualised herbal medicine, as practised in European medical herbalism, Chinese herbal medicine and Ayurvedic herbal medicine, has a very sparse evidence base and there is no convincing evidence that it is effective in any indication. Because of the high potential for adverse events and negative herb–herb and herb–drug interactions, this lack of evidence for effectiveness means that its use cannot be recommended.

R Guo , P H Canter , E Ernst, Postgraduate Medical Journal 2007;83:633-637
http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/984/633 (http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/984/633)



As for the Alexander Technique, it is unclear whether it has any specific therapeutic effects, however I will concede that there is evidence that hypnotherapy is beneficial for pain relief and anxiety.

That said, I stand by my original statement as I fail to see how the Natural Healthcare Council is going to be able to effectively regulate all these various therapists unless it defines and limits their respective scopes of practice.

[Blue Wode]

Hot off the presses:

‘Ofquack’
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/01/prince-charles-ofquack-is-dead-duck.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/01/prince-charles-ofquack-is-dead-duck.html)

[Admin]

Excellent post from the quackometer there. O0

I guess many people, including me, assumed that alt. meddlers would jump at the chance of registering with OfQuack (love it!!!) because of the increased legitimacy it could give them (and advertising potential) but of course they have their own self-regulatory systems that serve their interests well already.

[Admin]

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/nsw-coroner-legitimising-homeopathy


Thanks for the link, Zero. So it doesn't look as though any actual action has been taken yet. I suppose it would be difficult to punish someone for using treatment which was perfectly legal. James Randi said it ought to be those who peddle homeopathy, and those who make it legal, who should suffer.

Yes, this is the ridiculous paradoxical situation that legalising and legislating things that are known not to work gives rise to.

So sCAM is legal, often endorsed by government (homeopathic hospitals, MHRA endorsing and promoting homeopathy (http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=09-06#mhra), etc.) but if someone is treated using sCAM and they die because it doesn't work, then you can be prosecuted for causing death by neglect (or whatever).

[JJM]

According toThe Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2nd edition (2006) http://www.elsevierhealth.co.uk/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0723433836 (http://www.elsevierhealth.co.uk/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0723433836)
all of those therapies, except for nutrition, fall under the banner of ‘complementary and alternative medicine’.

{snip}It is difficult to determine how much quackery there is in massage these days. Traditionally, it was simply offered as a pleasant adjunct to relaxation.

As for nutrition, the real thing is scientific; but quackery abounds. There are "detoxification" diets, "alkaline" diets, vegan diets (which can be nutritious; but whose value is grossly overrated by proponents) etc. I recently heard a quack say that fish oil prevents cancer; whereas the latest information (MacLean CH, Newberry SJ, Mojica WA, et al. “Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acids on Cancer Risk: a Systematic Review” JAMA 2006; 295:403-415) says it does not. "Nutrition" information has become a minefield.

[Blue Wode]

Some more reaction to the proposed regulatory commission:

'Quackery and superstition - available soon on the NHS'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2236975,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2236975,00.html)
(Polly Toynbee in yesterday's Guardian)

and a defiant Press Statement from the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) regarding the Guardian article:
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx)

For readers not familiar with the SoH’s previous shenanigans, see here:
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/?s=society+of+homeopaths (http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/?s=society+of+homeopaths)

Since the reiki therapists are also rebelling against voluntary self-regulation, it looks like The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health may be patting itself on the back a little prematurely:


The formation of the NHC is the successful culmination of many years of work on the part of the complementary healthcare professions themselves and of FIH, which steered and facilitated the process through its Federal Regulation Working Group, chaired by Professor Dame Joan Higgins.

http://www.fih.org.uk/media_centre/natural_healthcare.html (http://www.fih.org.uk/media_centre/natural_healthcare.html)

[Blue Wode]

An unfortunate new development:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2238067,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2238067,00.html)


but, thankfully, the Black Duck is tracking the situation:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/01/is-statutory-self-regulation-answer-for.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/01/is-statutory-self-regulation-answer-for.html)

[Blue Wode]

The website of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council has now gone live:
http://www.cnhc.org.uk/index.html

Don’t bother searching the few pages that are currently available for the word ‘evidence’. I did, and it didn’t turn up anything.

[tkingdoll]

New for 2008! Websites with no images whatsoever!

What is this, the homeopathic approach to marketing? Idiots.

[Blue Wode]

Here’s the latest from the Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) on the new Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack) which is due to open its register in the summer…
http://www.fih.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/our_regulation.html (http://www.fih.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/our_regulation.html)


…for the next 12 months the FIH will continue to work with six of the therapies that are already part of the regulation programme and for the next two years with three more therapies whose members are interested in moving towards self-regulation.

As before the emphasis is on setting a standard so that practitioners of these therapies are safe and competent. Self-regulation does not imply that a therapy has been proved to work for particular conditions. It will mean that members of the public are safe from dangerous practices and exaggerated claims.
The public will be safe from exaggerated claims?

Well, here’s an example of one group that’s going to be helped towards self-regulation:

Auricular/microsystems acupuncture
There is a form of acupuncture that covers just one part of the body - often the ear (auricular) or perhaps a hand or foot. Practitioners of this form of acupuncture do not need the 3 year-long honours courses undertaken by practitioners of full body acupuncture. Because their training is less in-depth, they will not be statutorily regulated along with other acupuncturists and they are therefore hoping to self-regulate as a separate profession.
And here’s what Rose Shapiro has to say about ‘auricular therapy’ in her recently published book Suckers: How alternative medicine makes fools of us all (page 63):

Ear acupuncture…is a wholly modern European creation not found in ancient Chinese texts. Often given the more impressive title of ‘auricular therapy’ it transposes a map of the body on to the ear. The image superimposed is that of an inverted foetus with the lobe representing the head area, the outer edge of the ear the back and legs, the body organs within the central or concha area of the ear. The associated claims are similar to those of whole body acupuncture such as balancing or unblocking the flow of Qi. Specific areas will be needled or massaged depending on the trouble.

-snip-

Ear acupuncture was invented in the 1950s by a French doctor working in Lyons called Paul Nogier. The rather implausible story goes that Nogier encountered several people who claimed to have been cured of sciatica after having their ears cauterised by healers (known as guerisseurs) in Marseilles. This somehow led him to theorise that the ear was I some way correlated to every other par of the body. It is thought that the Chinese learned of Dr Nogier’s work and then developed their own auricular mappings. ‘This correspondence system was easy to teach “barefoot doctor” acupuncture technicians to readily assimilate into their paramedical practices’, according to the American journal Medical Acupuncture.
This from Prof. Ernst as well:


One might be forgiven for assuming that auricular acupuncture is a form of traditional Chinese medicine, like body acupuncture. Few readers are probably aware that it was developed only in the 1950s by a French physician, Paul Nogier.3 (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/9/1307#R3-21#R3-21) Although some experts believe that ear points were also used in traditional Chinese acupuncture, Nogier's auricular acupuncture is not based on traditional Chinese medical theory. Instead, an assumption that all internal organs are represented in the ear is the basis for auricular acupuncture. Therapists use maps that demonstrate these representations. One of the many problems with auricular acupuncture is that many such maps exist and little agreement exists regarding point location. Another problem is that all correspondence or reflex systems (e.g., auricular acupuncture, iridology and reflexology) fly in the face of our knowledge of anatomy and physiology.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/9/1307 (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/9/1307)


So what are these auricular therapists going to tell their patients about the non-existent evidence base for their therapy? That there’s “evidence by extension”?

:liar:

Thanks to tolman for the imagery:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=36691&postcount=2 (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=36691&postcount=2)

Read on to learn about the regulatory proposals for hypnotherapy and ‘UK Healers’…
http://www.fih.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/our_regulation.html (http://www.fih.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/our_regulation.html)

[Blue Wode]

Who’d have believed it possible? David Colquhoun is now a member of OfQuack’s Conduct and Competence committee:

25 September 2008. Surprise! The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (http://dcscience.net/?p=215) advertised jobs on its Conduct and Competence committee. So I applied because I was interested to see what excuses they would use to turn me down. They didn’t, so now I am a member of that committee. It should be interesting. And I shall no longer be able to refer to the CNHC as “OfQuack (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/01/prince-charles-ofquack-is-dead-duck.html)“.

http://dcscience.net/?page_id=237#latest (http://dcscience.net/?page_id=237#latest) (scroll to end of link)


Definitely one to watch.

[Mongrel]

Definitely one to watch.

Should be a giggle ;D

[Tim the Mage]

When I launch my revelation that soft fruit can cure cancer, is it subject to this 'regulatory' council?

[She_Liger]

Who’d have believed it possible? David Colquhoun is now a member of OfQuack’s Conduct and Competence committee...
...Definitely one to watch.


Should be a giggle ;D

Indeed? And do you believe that it is really funny? :confused:

[Mongrel]

Indeed? And do you believe that it is really funny? :confused:
Yes

[She_Liger]

Yes

Yes? I agree. ;) But it is funny rather for me, but not for all of you.^-^
We shall laugh in the result, not you.
Must I explain? OK.
Do you know how many universities have anti-scientific courses in their structure? Edzard Ernst has counted that there are 43 universities with 155 different courses in "alternative sciences", i.e. simply in quackery.
Do you believe that Colquhoun will be capable to close though one of them?
Oh, yes! He will! He will really close one-two of such courses! He will do it with huge boom and pageantry, as he can it. With triumph articles in press!
And all you will rejoice and laugh. And it will be very funny for us.
But a bit time hence, he with his ally Edzard Ernst (who is a professor of Complementary Medicine, if who forgot), will open secretly (!) another 20-30 courses of anti-science in different universities of Britain! Do you say that he will not do it? He will do it. He will be forced to do it, because he work in quackery organization.
And then we shall laugh at you. Because it will very funny for us, cynics, how sceptics will cry bitter tears...

Can you say exactly for whom Professor Colquhoun works, if he demonstrates double moral? Who is he? Honest scientist or hidden quack?
And who is Edzard Ernst actually?

When you will know it exactly, you will say so decidedly your "yes".
But now...

[Mojo]

Can you say exactly for whom Professor Colquhoun works, if he demonstrates double moral? Who is he? Honest scientist or hidden quack?
And who is Edzard Ernst actually?
Do you have any evidence to support your innuendo?

[She_Liger]

Do you have any evidence to support your innuendo?

Evidence?! Why on earth? :shocked::confused: Or am I a quack?! It is your Colquhoun, who is a quack now!! >:-) So - demand an evidence from him!!! >:-)

And if you dislike my words, sue me on the basis of your "favourite" Britain libel law (against which you protested else some time ago!)! And then we will talk about evidences! Maybe!.. >:D If you venture to sue against me!!
(By the way, I have evidence. It is my private correspondence with Colquhoun. And I can present it here. Ask agreement from him too!)

I repeat - require evidences and vindications from your Colquhoun! Though I can't imagine even - what vindication can be for his low action! This person was a leader of quackbasres in fact! He wrote magniloquent papers in "Nature" and articles in liberal press, teaching us how we must live! He battologized to us about dishonesty and idiotism of quackery! And we believed him. Half world believed him and thought that David Colquhoun is a honest person!
And what now? David Colquhoun became a quack!!!
Evidence? Let this "great doer" present an evidence that his hitherto words were not a lie after his dishonest action!
We BELIEVED him! We esteemed him as honest scientist and man! Why has he betrayed us?!!

Oh, how you started "to sing"!!
"Evidence"! Then - if person behaves dishonestly, we have not the right to ask him why he did it! Moreover we must fear to ask him! Worse, he is protected by law!
Devils!!>:-)

Ask evidence from him that his action is not a banal dishonesty of coward!

[She_Liger]

And generally...
I think that there is only one action, which can solve this problem.
David Colquhoun must resign from OfQuack.

Without any discussions and debates!
To resign!

That's all.

[Mongrel]

WTF?!

Did I miss something? ???

[Sarama]

WTF?!

Did I miss something? ???

ehm, yes...
but so did the rest of us, not to worry

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Makes more sense when read in the style of Yoda.

[Croydon Bob]

It seems that "She_Liger" is a practising mentalist...

[She_Liger]

No, boys and girls :tongue: I am not busy in glorious art of illusions. It is your Coquhoun is an actor. And all you are his stu.. mmm...::) gullible public! :tongue2:>:D

[brodski]

No, boys and girls :tongue: I am not busy in glorious art of illusions. It is your Coquhoun is an actor. And all you are his stu.. mmm...::) gullible public! :tongue2:>:D

he didn't say you were an illusionist, he called you a mentalist.

Can you clearly, concisely and without the use of odd capitalisation, excessive emoticons or brightly coloured fonts, state what the hell it is that you are going on about?

What has offQuack got to do with university courses? What makes you think that Ernst will open 20-30 "anti scientific" university courses?

if English isn't your first langue you man want to ask someone to help you with your translation, as your message (whatever that may be) seems to get a little muddled in your use of language.

[She_Liger]

he didn't say you were an illusionist, he called you a mentalist.

Can you clearly, concisely and without the use of odd capitalisation, excessive emoticons or brightly coloured fonts, state what the hell it is that you are going on about?

What has offQuack got to do with university courses? What makes you think that Ernst will open 20-30 "anti scientific" university courses?

if English isn't your first langue you man want to ask someone to help you with your translation, as your message (whatever that may be) seems to get a little muddled in your use of language.


Mentalism=Illusionism. And where can mentalism been used? In circus only! ;) In other places mentalism is an equivalent of nonsense.
You are right about language. My first language is not English. But it seems your first language is not English too. Or else why did you name yourself "Brodski" :smiley: Are you Russian? Pole?

My mistakes in English is not important thing. Clever man will understand, and explaining for fools is useless business :tongue: And why do you ask this question? Do you want to be my translator? ;)

And as for OfQuack, Ernst and Colquhoun... I think that quackbaster must be honest. And if he quack himself, can we believe him? He will be dishonest in ANY question, which quackbasters try to solve.

[brodski]

Mentalism=Illusionism. words can have mroe than one meaning.


In other places mentalism is an equivalent of nonsense. now you're getting it.

[wuote]But it seems your first language is not English too. Or else why did you name yourself "Brodski" :smiley: Are you Russian? Pole?[/quote] my first language is English.



My mistakes in English is not important thing. Clever man will understand, and explaining for fools is useless business :tongue: And why do you ask this question? Do you want to be my translator? ;) someone needs to translate for you, because at the moment you're not making a whole lot of sense. Hopefully this is just the langue barrier.



And as for OfQuack, Ernst and Colquhoun... I think that quackbaster must be honest. And if he quack himself, can we believe him? He will be dishonest in ANY question, which quackbasters try to solve. What makes you think that Ernst and Colquhoun deserve the labels "quack"? So far you are just repeating your ill-defined accusations, rather than supporting them.

[She_Liger]

To brodski
Say me, buddy;), why do other English-speaking persons (and journals, newspapers, forums, etc) understand me well, but you can't get a sense of them, eh? Maybe it is your OWN language problem? :tongue:
Sorry, but I shall not answer you longer. I don't like idle demagogy.


http://ukskeptics.com/forum/album.php?albumid=3&pictureid=3

[MischiefMonkey]

She_Liger,

I too am having some trouble understanding your posts.

However, if I may, I think you are saying that because Colquhoun is now a member of 'OffQuack', you believe him to be an advocate of CAM. Gone over to the 'other side' so to speak.

If my understanding of your posts is correct, then I think perhaps you have misunderstood Colquhoun's intentions in joining them.

[Admin]

Sorry She_Liger, but I'm not sure what your point is either.

Are you a medic of some description and you're dismayed that Prof. Colquhoun has joined OfQuack?

Or would you happen to be involved in quackery yourself and you're frightened that someone with the eminence of David Colquhoun could now have a major influence on alternative medicines from the inside?

Why not just state your position clearly then we can debate it. O0

[brodski]

To brodski
Say me, buddy;), why do other English-speaking persons (and journals, newspapers, forums, etc) understand me well, but you can't get a sense of them, eh? Maybe it is your OWN language problem? :tongue:
Sorry, but I shall not answer you longer. I don't like idle demagogy.


http://ukskeptics.com/forum/album.php?albumid=3&pictureid=3

If you can communicate clearly in English, then why have your decided not to do so in this thread?
Please, complete this sentence:
“DC joining offQuack is a problem because….”

Remember to back up any of your assertions with references or other evidence.

[She_Liger]

However, if I may, I think you are saying that because Colquhoun is now a member of 'OffQuack', you believe him to be an advocate of CAM. Gone over to the 'other side' so to speak.
If my understanding of your posts is correct, then I think perhaps you have misunderstood Colquhoun's intentions in joining them.

Do you have a special translator? ;) Or simply do you know English better than "brodski"? (sorry ::)).

And do you think that Colquhoun will venture to be an advocate of CAM openly? Rather - no! It is not likely that he is so bold and impudent creature. Do you agree?
But then - why did he become a member of OfQuack?
Two ways are possible.
1) To fight against quacks "within their den";
or
2) to advocate quack policy secretly, unknownly to sceptics.

You state the first. But I suspect the second. Who of us is right?
I state that fighting against quack policy within OfQuack, i.e. being a member of OfQuack is silly and useless affair! And if you think that it is Colquhoun's intentions in OfQuack, then you consider him as a fool. I don't think that he is such idiot (despite of his attempts to persuade us in it - look at his blog:
http://dcscience.net/?page_id=237#comment-3584
it seems he try to play a fool ;) But don't believe him... He is more clever and sly person than he try to look) .
And if you, MischiefMonkey, think that honest member of OfQuack can change bad quack's policy, then you make a tragic mistake. Sorry.

Well. But then - only second way is possible. Colquhoun's intentions as new member of OfQuack are dishonest. Moreover these dishonest intentions are secret. I suspect it. And that is why I speak about his treachery. Moreover - I think that if he did it, he did it because of his cowardice and poverty (comparative).

Well! I see that sceptics don't believe in the second terrible possibility. OK! I don't want to believe in it too. And I don't want to know that it happened/will happen.

That is why I would like to speak to David Colquhoun himself just now and here:

David Colquhoun, if you think that you can change OfQuack policy, you make a mistake. These hopes are silly and useless. You will waste time and energies. Moreover, your thoughtless action harms your friends-quackbasters (for example, the quackbasters who was sued by quacks; the quackbasters, who is fighting now against quackery courses in universities; etc).
Please! Don't work in OfQuack. Don't plunge into this muck! Resign from OfQuack!
Moreover, if you, joining OfQuack, has acted dishonestly, then you must correct your terrible mistake. And in this case you must also come away from OfQuack immediately!!!
Please! We hope that you will adopt the only right decision. We hope that you will leave OfQuack.


I hope that Colquhoun have enough smarts to decide rightly. Otherwise just English-speaking people will sup sorrow first of all! I don't live in Britain at all! And only you will trouble because of your mis-understanding of my "poor English" >:D Though finally science is international, and echo of your trouble will reach my country too ... :(
Why am I doing it? I was an ally of Colquhoun and I want to remain his ally. I love him and I don't want to be disappointed at him. I believed him and I hate when people betray me. At last I hope that I shall come to work in Britain somewhen. And I don't want to see quackerish dirty in Britain/American science and medicine.

That's all.

PS. And you hope in vain, that OfQuack will turn into OffQuack with appearance of Colquhoun there! ;)

Thank you all.

[Sarama]

*Sarama is trying desperately to stop her own head from spinning. The rest of you are on your own!*

So just to summarise in the hopes of gaining some clarification. Some of us are very much looking forward to David Colquhoun's contributions to OfQuack, while it would seem others do not see his appointment to this regulatory body as having any benefit what so ever, but the opposite in fact, is that right She_Liger?

Fine, all that aside I see this regulartory body is somewhat farcical, if they were truly setting up such a body in the interests of the public, then anyone dealing with the public in the health related industries would not be exempt, nor would it be voluntary. As John said, it "lacks teeth".

The best interests and truly the welfare of the public would be best served if all sCAM artists had someone, hell anyone to answer to. As it stands now, they do not. I agree that this is something that is and industry that is not going to simply go away. It seems more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care, so it needs to be regulated or the practitioners need to be vetted at the very least in some way. This latest supposed regulatory body does not seem to be the answer at all.

[Admin]

Colquhoun's intentions as new member of OfQuack are dishonest. Moreover these dishonest intentions are secret.

Can you spot the flaw in your reasoning there?

[She_Liger]

Can you spot the flaw in your reasoning there?

Only - poor English language in first sentence ;)

And can you spot the flaw in Sarama's reasonings about teeth and Alternative Medicine? No, you can't. I'll do it myself.
If "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", then rather Britain sceptics "lack teeth", but not quacks!
Are your quacks toothless? Look at a lot of legal cases of quacks vs. sceptics, scientists, academics, journalists. Look at your universities. 43 universities with 155 quackery courses!
Alas! Your quacks have huge teeth. But Britain sceptics are a team of weak, toothless, shy persons. You can merely talk in blogs and forums that "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", but you can do nothing.
Am I right?
Sadly.:-[

[Admin]

Only - poor English language in first sentence

Nearly. If Colquhoun's intentions are secret, how can you know whether they are dishonest?

You're talking a load of crap, in other words.


But Britain sceptics are a team of weak, toothless, shy persons. You can merely talk in blogs and forums that "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", but you can do nothing.
Am I right?
Sadly.:-[

Yes, ranting and raving about stuff on blogs and forums is pretty much a waste of time when it comes to getting anything done.

That's why it's a good job there are people like David Colquhoun, Ben Goldacre, etc., who are in a position to do more to influence things than the rest of us.

By the same token, how much effect do you think you're having posting on this forum?

[MischiefMonkey]

Only - poor English language in first sentence ;)

And can you spot the flaw in Sarama's reasonings about teeth and Alternative Medicine? No, you can't. I'll do it myself.
If "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", then rather Britain sceptics "lack teeth", but not quacks!
Are your quacks toothless? Look at a lot of legal cases of quacks vs. sceptics, scientists, academics, journalists. Look at your universities. 43 universities with 155 quackery courses!
Alas! Your quacks have huge teeth. But Britain sceptics are a team of weak, toothless, shy persons. You can merely talk in blogs and forums that "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", but you can do nothing.
Am I right?
Sadly.:-[

On the one hand you complain when a skeptic does do something - Colquhoun joining the CAM regulatory board - questioning his motives. You then complain that skeptics do nothing but post on blogs and forums.

Some skeptics write books and have articles published in national newspapers. Other skeptics alert the relevant authorities - usually trading standards - when laws are transgressed. I like to 'spread the word' on general interest and dog forums. I like to think every little helps.

What is it that you do to fight quackery She_Liger? And what action do you suggest we take?

[She_Liger]

Nearly. If Colquhoun's intentions are secret, how can you know whether they are dishonest?
You're talking a load of crap, in other words.


Ah, at last you started to be interested in the content, but not only the form ;)
They are secret only for the simpletons such as local sceptics!:tongue:



On the one hand you complain when a skeptic does do something - Colquhoun joining the CAM regulatory board - questioning his motives. You then complain that skeptics do nothing but post on blogs and forums.

Some skeptics write books and have articles published in national newspapers. Other skeptics alert the relevant authorities - usually trading standards - when laws are transgressed. I like to 'spread the word' on general interest and dog forums. I like to think every little helps.

What is it that you do to fight quackery She_Liger? And what action do you suggest we take?

Aha... On the one hand sceptics write "right words" in book and articles, but on the other hand they run Chairs of Quackery (Ernst!). At first they write in their blogs and papers that quackery is an evil, but then they come to work in quackery organisations (Colquhoun!). Etc, etc, etc! But if all sceptics do simultaneously two contradictory affairs - what result will they get? Zero!

What actions? Any! Any useful actions, to hell you! But - don't mix two contrary actions. Particularly if one of two mentioned actions is anti-quack affair, but the second one is pro-quack business! Understand yourselves, at last, who are you - quacks or quackbasters. And determine what you can do as a quackbasters/sceptics, and what you can't (have not the right!) do.

Is it difficult to understand? I speak about it from my first moment here!

Well.
Good night. :wavey:
1:00 a.m. in my city.

[Admin]

Is it difficult to understand?

It is because you're talking a load of incoherent shite!

If you want to make a case for something then make your position clear and support your point with evidence.

Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.

[She_Liger]

It is because you're talking a load of incoherent shite!

If you want to make a case for something then make your position clear and support your point with evidence.

Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.


No, It seems the "incoherent shite" is in other place ;)

But maybe clever people come here sometimes, so I hope that I wasted not all my time :smiley:

Good night once again!

[MischiefMonkey]

Ah, at last you started to be interested in the content, but not only the form ;)
They are secret only for the simpletons such as local sceptics!:tongue:

With respect She_Liger, your writing style is hard to follow. We are interested in the content, but I am afraid your 'form' does obscure it somewhat.



Aha... On the one hand sceptics write "right words" in book and articles, but on the other hand they run Chairs of Quackery (Ernst!). At first they write in their blogs and papers that quackery is an evil, but then they come to work in quackery organisations (Colquhoun!). Etc, etc, etc! But if all sceptics do simultaneously two contradictory affairs - what result will they get? Zero
I believe the credentials, integrity and stance of both Ernst and Colquhoun are clear. Nothing either has done would suggest they currently, nor will, support 'quackery.

You seem to be judging them on some misconception of their 'job titles' rather than their actions. And with no evidence what so ever to support your beliefs.

What has either written or done - other than to take up positions with job titles you don't like - to make you think they support CAM?



What actions? Any! Any useful actions, to hell you! But - don't mix two contrary actions. Particularly if one of two mentioned actions is anti-quack affair, but the second one is pro-quack business! Understand yourselves, at last, who are you - quacks or quackbasters. And determine what you can do as a quackbasters/sceptics, and what you can't (have not the right!) do.What do you consider a 'useful action'?

I consider scientific examination and producing meta analysis to be useful. Also publicising the inefectiveness of CAM is important, as Ernst and Colquhoun (amongst others) do. Persuading someone to inoculate their child or dog rather than to give them a homeopathic nosode is useful. Alerting Trading Standards to the malign claims of 'healers' is useful.

What specifically do you consider useful? What do you do yourself?




Is it difficult to understand? I speak about it from my first moment here!Quite frankly, yes it is difficult to understand. You have made assumptions with no evidence that I can see and gone on the attack with no discernible reason. This quite apart from your unusual writing style.

Being a skeptic, surely you would be inclined to look at the evidence, rather than make wild assumptions. This I find hard to understand - you profess skeptic beliefs yet talk like a conspiracy theorist.



Well.
Good night. :wavey:
1:00 a.m. in my city.Good night. Out of interest, what city is that?

[Mojo]

Aha... On the one hand sceptics write "right words" in book and articles, but on the other hand they run Chairs of Quackery (Ernst!).


Yea, right. The way to combat sCAM is to ignore it and let quacks like you have a free run, rather than, as Ernst is doing, to critically evaluate it.

Admit it: you can't prove you're not a quack, and you can't prove that your own secret intentions are not dishonest.

[Mojo]

But Britain sceptics are a team of weak, toothless, shy persons. You can merely talk in blogs and forums that "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", but you can do nothing.
Am I right?


How would you do better?

[She_Liger]

Admit it: you can't prove you're not a quack, and you can't prove that your own secret intentions are not dishonest.

Yes? Indeed? Listen to me, you simpleton.
I AM NOT professor of CAM. And moreover - I NEVER WORKED in CAM and I DON'T work in CAM now. And I DON'T intend to work in CAM further.
Thus I AM NOT a quack. And I WILL NEVER BE a quack. Do you want to know about my secret intentions? They are the same. I don't want to be a quack. Why? I'll say straightly (and even impudently...) - because quacks don't pay me and they will never give me the sum of money, which I WANT ( I want huge money :smiley: ). Quackery is not interesting for me and doesn't bring me a glory. So I don't want to be a quack even in my secret intentions. I want to be scientist, because just science give me money, glory and enjoyment. Yes, indeed, I act from "mercenary motives" ;), as you can see , so I shall never to be a quack.

But your Ernst IS a Professor of CAM now. And he WAS a Professor of CAM earlier. Moreover he WILL BE a Professor of CAM further.
Thus he is a quack.
And he receives money as a quack (yes! His Chair is supported as a Chair of CAM and it will never be supported in other form. So he HAS NOT other way). He likes quackery. And he has a glory as a Professor of CAM. And he never lived so well when he was a scientist. So - he can has only one secret intention - to be a quack.

[Mojo]

Yes? Indeed? Listen to me, you simpleton.
I AM NOT professor of CAM. And moreover - I NEVER WORKED in CAM and I DON'T work in CAM now. And I DON'T intend to work in CAM further.
Thus I AM NOT a quack. And I WILL NEVER BE a quack.

Prove it.

[Mojo]

Do you want to know about my secret intentions? They are the same. I don't want to be a quack. Why? I'll say straightly (and even impudently...) - because quacks don't pay me and they will never give me the sum of money, which I WANT ( I want huge money :smiley: ). Quackery is not interesting for me and doesn't bring me a glory. So I don't want to be a quack even in my secret intentions.

Prove it.

[MischiefMonkey]

She_Liger,

You are very misinformed about Ernst.

And you are very rude.

[She_Liger]

Prove it.

Let your Ernst prove that he is not a quack! :tongue:


She_Liger,

You are very misinformed about Ernst.

And you are very rude.

He doesn't deserve better. Let he cease to be a professor of CAM. And then I shall say that he is not a quack.

[Mojo]

Let your Ernst prove that he is not a quack! :tongue:

Let She_Liger provide some actual evidence that Ernst is a quack.

[Mojo]

Let he cease to be a professor of CAM.

Why do you want him to stop critically assessing sCAM?

[Mongrel]

But your Ernst IS a Professor of CAM now. And he WAS a Professor of CAM earlier. Moreover he WILL BE a Professor of CAM further.
Thus he is a quack

If you actually cared to check it out before flinging faecal matter about you'd find out that Edzard Ernst was a quack.

He was one of those rare ones who was medically trained, had a good understanding of the scientific method, was in a position to run proper clinical double blind trials or large met studies and honest enough to accept evidence that conflicted with his worldview.

Guess what - he found no evidence for most CAM and the other stuff generally gets an 'inconclusive' stamp (mostly herbal remedies IIRC).
You can check out his wikipedia page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst) and some of his published papers here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez)

[She_Liger]

Let She_Liger provide some actual evidence that Ernst is a quack.
Professor of CAM=a quack
Ernst is a Professor of CAM.
Ernst is a quack.

And let Mojo provide some actual evidence that Ernst's anti-quackery activity is not idle talk. Let your Ernst provide some actual evidence that his anti-quackery activity has real positive results.


Why do you want him to stop critically assessing sCAM?
Let Mojo provide some actual evidence that She-Liger wants just it.

[Mojo]

Professor of CAM=a quack
Ernst is a Professor of CAM.
Ernst is a quack.

Regrettably for you this is, once again, just your unsupported assertion. The evidence provided by Enst's activities as a professor of CAM strongly suggests that it is false. Conducting, and publishing the results of, research that strongly suggests that most of CAM is bunk seems to be a very odd way of promoting CAM.


And let Mojo provide some actual evidence that Ernst's anti-quackery activity is not idle talk. Let your Ernst provide some actual evidence that his anti-quackery activity has real positive results.

Well, perhaps the fact that various proponents of CAM, such as these (http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2007/05/12/professor-ernst-who-is-this-guy/) homoeopaths (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402632) (and perhaps yourself) seem to be strongly opposed to him. And how about this report (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4120112) in which a halving of homeopathic prescriptions is attributed by another of your homoeopaths to "an orchestrated ‘hate campaign’ against homeopathy that had been led by Professor Ernst"?


Let Mojo provide some actual evidence that She-Liger wants just it.

You want him to cease his current activities as a professor of CAM which, from the available evidence, involves critically assessing CAM. Here's the post in which you requested this:
Let he cease to be a professor of CAM.
Good enough evidence?

[She_Liger]

Regrettably for you this is, once again, just your unsupported assertion. The evidence provided by Enst's activities as a professor of CAM strongly suggests that it is false. Conducting, and publishing the results of, research that strongly suggests that most of CAM is bunk seems to be a very odd way of promoting CAM.



Well, perhaps the fact that various proponents of CAM, such as these (http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2007/05/12/professor-ernst-who-is-this-guy/) homoeopaths (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402632) (and perhaps yourself) seem to be strongly opposed to him. And how about this report (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4120112) in which a halving of homeopathic prescriptions is attributed by another of your homoeopaths to "an orchestrated ‘hate campaign’ against homeopathy that had been led by Professor Ernst"?



You want him to cease his current activities as a professor of CAM which, from the available evidence, involves critically assessing CAM. Here's the post in which you requested this:
Good enough evidence?

And now let you provide some actual evidence that you have a brains in your head :tongue::tongue::tongue:>:D

[Mongrel]

And now let you provide some actual evidence that you have a brains in your head :tongue::tongue::tongue:>:D


Well the evidence is pointing to the fact that you have an erroneous opinion that no amount of facts will change...

[Mojo]

Well the evidence is pointing to the fact that you have an erroneous opinion that no amount of facts will change...

I wonder if she knows Claus (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119836).

[Mongrel]

I wonder if she knows Claus (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119836).

Be fair, he's not doing too bad over at the JREF atm

[Sarama]

And can you spot the flaw in Sarama's reasonings about teeth and Alternative Medicine? No, you can't. I'll do it myself.
If "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", then rather Britain sceptics "lack teeth"...
Alas! Your quacks have huge teeth. But Britain sceptics are a team of weak, toothless, shy persons. You can merely talk in blogs and forums that "more and more people are turning to Alternative Health Care", but you can do nothing.
Am I right?
Sadly.:-[

I can spot the many flaws in my own theories and reasonings, thank you.
My post was based largely on opinion only, I do not have the slightest idea regarding the stats on those turning to sCAM, but I assure you someone does here, or I will have been prompted to find that information whenever I enter in to such debate.

The very reason I post here is to tap in to the combined wealth of knowledge that others contribute, (yes it's true, I am shamelessly using you all), the many resources offered, and hopefully to offer some of my own in the meantime. More often than not I get turned on my heel and am 'encouraged' or inspired to do further research, which admittedly I seem to enjoy.

I assure you I am one of those who writes papers, and works with authorities to promote change. Change is regrettably slow, yes. No one regrets that more than I given what I am currently working on, but we live in what we like to think is a democratic country, and let's save that for another time, and another debate shall we?

[She_Liger]

Well the evidence is pointing to the fact that you have an erroneous opinion that no amount of facts will change...

Well... Well, sceptics.
You can do what you want. Allow Ernst to be quack, if you want. Allow Colquhoun to work with quacks, if you want. Bear with existence of 43 universities with quackery courses, if you like it! And love your "democratic country" (you've named it so yourselves, not me!), where you fear even to call your real name openly! I've said above that your people will in troubles because of their mistakes yourselves first of all. I don't live in Britain.

And if Colquhoun doesn't want to leave OfQuack, then let he "stick" there and do what he wants! He will answer for his mistakes (for his stupidity!) himself.

[Mongrel]

Well... Well, sceptics.
You can do what you want. Allow Ernst to be quack, if you want. Allow Colquhoun to work with quacks, if you want. Bear with existence of 43 universities with quackery courses, if you like it! And love your "democratic country" (you've named it so yourselves, not me!), where you fear even to call your real name openly! I've said above that your people will in troubles because of their mistakes yourselves first of all. I don't live in Britain.

And if Colquhoun doesn't want to leave OfQuack, then let he "stick" there and do what he wants! He will answer for his mistakes (for his stupidity!) himself.

So still no evidence then?

No reading of the links?

Just flinging enough poop and seeing what sticks

[She_Liger]

OK.
Since you don't understand, I shall try to explain by other way.
Answer, please, sirs sceptics, why has OfQuack allowed Colquhoun to become their member? Why have they taken for position in their organisation the most implacable quackbaster?
Or are quacks hopeless idiots?

[Mojo]

Answer, please, sirs sceptics, why has OfQuack allowed Colquhoun to become their member? Why have they taken for position in their organisation the most implacable quackbaster?
Perhaps they have secret intentions.

[Mongrel]

OK.
Since you don't understand, I shall try to explain by other way.
Answer, please, sirs sceptics, why has OfQuack allowed Colquhoun to become their member? Why have they taken for position in their organisation the most implacable quackbaster?
Or are quacks hopeless idiots?
Not idiots, whilst their medical acumen has always been ropey at best they're normally pretty good at PR.
Inviting one of your harshest opponents to be on one of the committees is good PR. You never know they may actually be trying to clean up their act (;D) in which case having him there will be invaluable.

Don't forget though, he's one man on one committee (Conduct and Competence) they may think they can stick him on it as a figurehead and wheel him out for functions whilst ignoring his advice. If that is the case then I predict they're going to get their fingers burnt.

[MischiefMonkey]

OK.
Since you don't understand, I shall try to explain by other way.
Answer, please, sirs sceptics, why has OfQuack allowed Colquhoun to become their member? Why have they taken for position in their organisation the most implacable quackbaster?
Or are quacks hopeless idiots?

What does it matter why the CAM Regulatory Board have taken on Colquhoun? It is their decision and in no way speaks for Colquhoun's motives in joining them.

You have been asked many questions She_Liger and have chosen to ignore them, merely throwing out more accusations and questions of your own. Why should anyone bother answering your somewhat abusive questions when you don't have the decency to give a straight answer to any of ours?

You have been asked

1. What evidence do you have that Ernst and Colquhoun are 'quacks'? Job titles are not evidence.

2. What is your position on CAM (I believe the original question was - are you a 'quack')

3. What have you done to fight quackery yourself.

4. What actions do you suggest others take to fight quackery.

Unless you give plane, clear, direct answers to these questions - especially the first - I see little point in continuing this 'debate'.

[She_Liger]

Perhaps they have secret intentions.

Why do you quote McKinley Morganfield, buddy? :smiley:These words are not about you ;)

NOT secret! They are secret only for simpletons.

[She_Liger]

To Mongrel

Yes. It is so. Almost! However the situation is more worse than you hope!


To MischiefMonkey

Switch on your brains ;) And "disrobe" your eyes :tongue: All your questions have been answered by me.

[Mojo]

Why do you quote McKinley Morganfield, buddy? :smiley:These words are not about you ;)
Do you know the context? ;)


NOT secret! They are secret only for simpletons.
Could you tell us what OfQuack's secret intentions are?

[MischiefMonkey]

To MischiefMonkey

All your questions have been answered by me.

No they haven't.

And I don't expect they will anytime soon.

[Mongrel]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/Cats/Ihavesomeiss.jpg

[She_Liger]

http://ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45478#post45478

[Mongrel]

http://ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45478#post45478


Just more snide insinuations with no evidence.

Big whoop ::)