Homeopathy gets "regulated"

[Toad]

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

While the article doesn't say so explicitly, I take it this group will be paid for with public money....

Either way, it seems that homeopathy will be ascribed yet more credibility.

Toad.

[zeno]

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

While the article doesn't say so explicitly, I take it this group will be paid for with public money....

Either way, it seems that homeopathy will be ascribed yet more credibility.

Toad.Yes, it'll get trotted out on every occasion to further fool the gullible! I am having a discussion with the Advertising Standards Authority over claims made by the Chinese 'medicine' chain Dr & Herbs and this came up in discussion. I'll post details about it in a more appropriate thread.

I'm off to see if there's an 'Introduction' thread...

[bindeweede]

Interesting news......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7215470.stm

[DrS]

That's excellent news. O0

I'm not surprised at the confidence expressed in the quote given by one Peter Fisher, though, and can well imagine what his "various reasons" are. ::)

[Mongrel]

Good news indeed :smiley:

I was a little perturbed at this quote though as it seems to imply that there's still dissent* :undecided:


and some scientists argue the solution is so diluted it does not contain any active ingredients at all.


*Homeopathic apologists not withstanding

[Matt]

*Homeopathic apologists not withstanding

Even the appologists agree that a 12C solution contains noe of the active ingedient. The waffle on about succussion, "quantum imprints", "water memory" or somesuch..

[Mojo]

I was a little perturbed at this quote though as it seems to imply that there's still dissent* :undecided:
And they've included the usual argument that (presumably because it's comparatively cheap) it's "good value for money".

They haven't included this comment from Edzard Ernst in the Pulse story (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4116950&c=1):
There can be no cost-effectiveness without effectiveness

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Even the appologists agree that a 12C solution contains noe of the active ingedient. The waffle on about succussion, "quantum imprints", "water memory" or somesuch..

Yeah, for their sakes, let us hope they don't use any water that has been through the sewers then.

[Matt]

Yeah, for their sakes, let us hope they don't use any water that has been through the sewers then.
Ah but that's ok so long as it hasn't been succussed. Hitting it does something to the quantums apparently.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hmmm, I don't know. I think I'd find it hard to forget if I'd been in close contact with fecal matter. Why should water be any different?

This discussion is totally absurd, so a bit like homeopathy then.

[Matt]

Hmmm, I don't know. I think I'd find it hard to forget if I'd been in close contact with fecal matter. Why should water be any different?

Because Hahnemann says so. The process of succussion or dynamization realeases the immaterial and spiritual powers of the substance. Hahnemann warned his fellow homeopaths against keeping potentized medicine in their waistcoat pockets lest they inadvertantly make them too powerfull.


This discussion is totally absurd, so a bit like homeopathy then.

It's ridiculous to use but we should remember that it makes perfect sense to the homeopaths. In the words of Edward De Bono

A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.

[bindeweede]

Just another little nail in the coffin........




This article appeared in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian) on Wednesday January 30 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/jan/30) on p10 of the UK news (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/jan/30/mainsection/uknews4) section. It was last updated at 00:12 on January 30 2008.


Over a fifth of NHS hospital trusts have cancelled or reduced funding of homeopathy in the past two years, after a campaign by leading scientists to remove the alternative therapy from the NHS.

In two open letters to primary healthcare trust managers in May last year, the scientists lambasted homeopathic remedies because they lack a robust scientific basis: "We must consider the cultural and social damage of maintaining as a matter of principle expenditure on practices which are unsupported by evidence."

Homeopathy remedies involve diluting active substances so that there is not a single molecule of the original chemical left. Practitioners refer to a "memory" left in the water. But the signatories - which included a Nobel prize winner and six fellows of the Royal Society - say there is no convincing evidence that homeopathy works any better than a placebo. A survey by Pulse magazine has found that 22% of PCTs have reduced or cancelled spending on homeopathy in the last two years. The Royal London Homeopathic hospital is facing difficulties after eight trusts cancelled contracts over the past year and a further six reduced referrals.

Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London, who signed one of last year's letters, described homeopathy as "cheap and nasty medicine" and a "cruel deception".

He urged the 37% of PCTs which still had contracts for homeopathic services to cancel them. Peter Fisher, clinical director of the London Homeopathic hospital, said: "We are certainly having a difficult time... it's simply not true to say there's no evidence." Richard Hoey, deputy editor of Pulse, said: "If the NHS is now going to stop providing homeopathy, that needs to be a decision taken in the full glare of public debate, and not made in the committee rooms of cash-strapped trusts."

[Blue Wode]

Earlier today the British Homeopathic Association issued this response to the Pulse article:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000001/000147.htm (http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000001/000147.htm)


Professor Ernst’s comment that evidence fails to show that homeopathic treatment is better than placebo for any given condition is not upheld by examining the trial results. The majority of comprehensive reviews of randomised controlled trials in homeopathy suggest that homeopathy is more than the placebo effect and there have been positive meta-analyses for a number of specific clinical conditions including childhood diarrhoea, influenza, rheumatic diseases, hay fever and vertigo.

The Faculty of Homeopathy is committed to increasing the evidence base in homeopathy…


…blah, blah, blah.

[Ramontheskeptic]

I am all for them 'increasing the evidence base'. The fact that the more robust, well designed trials demonstrate a negative result should be openly discussed and inform homeopathic prescribing (i.e. curtail it!).

I have yet to hear an even remotely plausible reason why homeopathy should work - there are no chemical receptors in the body that have been found and demonstrated to respond to invisible water 'memories', and in any case, the background noise of all the kidneys that the water has ever been filtered through over millenia would surely leave us severely overdosed and suffering from every disease imaginable!?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I am all for them 'increasing the evidence base'. The fact that the more robust, well designed trials demonstrate a negative result should be openly discussed and inform homeopathic prescribing (i.e. curtail it!).

I have yet to hear an even remotely plausible reason why homeopathy should work - there are no chemical receptors in the body that have been found and demonstrated to respond to invisible water 'memories', and in any case, the background noise of all the kidneys that the water has ever been filtered through over millenia would surely leave us severely overdosed and suffering from every disease imaginable!?

Never underestimate the ability of the believer to dismiss any negative results. I agree however, that the more negative trials out there, the better. It's just the practitioners always seem to find some way to make the claim that the trial was somehow promising oddly enough ::)

[Blue Wode]

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

While the article doesn't say so explicitly, I take it this group will be paid for with public money....

Either way, it seems that homeopathy will be ascribed yet more credibility.

Toad.

Lots of tensions already though, and the new Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack) isn't even up and running. Apparently the reiki-ists are deliberating whether or not they should pay any attention to it, and the Society of Homeopaths seem to be terribly cross about it. For example, here's the Society's latest press statement:



The Editor - You And Yours
BBC Radio 4


Sir,

As the UK’s largest regulator of homeopaths, The Society of Homeopaths was concerned to hear Foundation for Integrated Health Chief Executive, Kim Lavely, announce on ‘You And Yours’ that the not-yet-launched Complementary & Natural Health Council (CNHC) intends to regulate homeopaths, wrongly stating “We have been working with the representatives of the homeopathic profession and they are very enthusiastic about the idea”.

The Society represents 60% of registered homeopaths in the UK (identifiable by their designation ‘RSHom’) and made it clear, along with the rest of the profession, as far back as 2006 that the Foundation’s proposal for a Federal Register and the CNHC was not suitable for homeopathy. This position was reiterated as recently as January 2008.
The simple reason is that there is clear blue water between the professional standards The Society has achieved in the regulation of homeopaths over the past 30 years and what this new organisation is proposing to introduce.

The Society of Homeopaths was the first homeopathy organisation to form a register of members, establish professional standards, develop educational standards and institute a Code of Ethics & Practice, with separate processes for Investigation and Adjudication.

In 2000, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology commented that ÒUnder The Society of Homeopaths, the non-medical homeopaths have organised themselves well and their professional organisation should mean the transition to statutory regulation does not present too great an upheaval. (1)

The Society has a rigorous professional conduct process with clearly defined sanctions for those who violate the code; a published, transparent complaints process for patients and is the only homeopathy organisation with a Professional Conduct Officer dedicated to upholding The Code of Ethics & Practice. It publishes its complaints statistics plus the outcomes of adjudication hearings, operates a pre-registration process (Individual Route) for practitioners from non-Society recognised courses that is contingent on satisfactory completion and has a recognition, review and development process for educational institutions providing courses in homeopathy. Two-thirds of homeopathy courses in UK are currently signed up to and formally recognised by The Society of Homeopaths.

Over the last 12 months, as a responsible regulator, The Society has continued to review and develop its registration processes; work towards degree level equivalence with its course providers and revise its professional conduct procedures. It is therefore difficult to see why any homeopath would wish to join another organisation that has yet to achieve any of these professional standards.

Contrary to suggestions made in your programme, regulation is neither about efficacy nor economies of scale. It is about regulating individual homeopaths for the safety of the public. Through The Society of Homeopaths, the public can be reassured that this is safely in hand.

Paula Ross
Chief Executive

(1) House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology, Session 1999-2000, p52

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx)

[Blue Wode]

You can listen to the Radio 4 broadcast here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/03/2008_06_mon.shtml



Better regulation on the way?

The ‘Complementary and Natural Health Council’ is to be set up to regulate complementary therapy. Will it work?

Guests:

Kim Lavely, Chief Executive of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health

Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery, University College London

Professor Julie Stone, leading policy advisor in the health sector

[Blue Wode]

At long last...



The Government plans to ask NICE to compare the cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies with other treatments, a health minister revealed this week.

The comments came after a Pulse investigation – showing over a fifth of PCTs have cancelled or reduced homeopathy contracts since 2006 – was discussed by MPs in a debate in about homeopathy provision in the UK.

More…
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4117180&c=2 (http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4117180&c=2)

[Admin]

I think NICE should be testing efficacy before looking at cost effectiveness.

Efficacy and effectiveness are not the same thing. A treatment can be efficacious without being effective or be effective without being efficacious. Ideally, of course, it should be both.

The difference is that efficacy is a measure of the actual validity of the treatment - usually determined by clinical trials; effectiveness is how well the treatment works in practice.

A proven treatment may not be effective if it's difficult to use, has side effects etc. - things that prevent its use.

An unproven/disproven treatment may be effective because people will use it and report benefits (placebo effects) even though it's not actually doing anything.

The modern approach to (especially accountable as the NHS is) medicine is that it should be based on efficacy and effectiveness. i.e. the treatment has to be shown to actually work before it is used and it has to be shown to be effective for its use to continue.

Homeopathy is a cost-effective treatment; but only compared to other more expensive treatments that are used on self-limiting conditions - as long as efficacy is not taken into account. In other words: it doesn't work, but it's cheap and could keep patients happy.

To me, this does not justify using public money on homeopathy. It's known that it doesn't work and so to prescribe it, doctors face the fundamental dilemma at the heart of alternative medicine: in order to gain the maximum benefit from it, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible (http://dcscience.net/?page_id=10).

I just worry about these reports that NICE or some other body are looking into the 'cost effectiveness' of alternative medicines without taking account of their efficacy (which is invariably zero or close to it) and justifying its use because it's cheap. Cheap doesn't necessarily equate to value for money!

In fact, why are the NHS/government/NICE/etc. even bothering? We know that this stuff doesn't work - why can't common sense prevail?

If it was a new claim then yes, but this nonsense has been around for over 200 years. Do we still need to spend money researching it? I mean, is it likely that it will suddenly start working or something? ::)

[Blue Wode]

In fact, why are the NHS/government/NICE/etc. even bothering? We know that this stuff doesn't work - why can't common sense prevail?

I think the homeopathy/CAM 'debate' has reached a bit of an impasse now and anything that’ll help to move it along should be welcomed.

Interestingly, Edzard Ernst had the following to say in January 2006 about the manner in which homeopathy was presented in the controversial Smallwood Report on the role of CAM in the NHS…


Much of the information in the report is grossly misleading. Again, a few examples must suffice.

Homoeopathy is recommended as a cost-saving treatment for asthma (page 16). A Cochrane review, however, fails to demonstrate efficacy.5 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/#b5)
The widespread use of homoeopathy, it is claimed, would save $4 billion on the national prescription drugs bill (page 16). This notion is based not on controlled data but on a ‘case study’. About a dozen systematic reviews/meta-analyses fail to confirm that homeopathic remedies are more than a placebo.6 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/#b6),7 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/#b7)-snip-

‘… there is a relatively large literature on the costs and benefits of homoeopathy’ (page 56). The articles cited in support of this statement are methodologically so weak that they do not lend themselves to meaningful conclusions. At present, there are no rigorous UK studies on this topic.8 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/#b8)
‘… if 4% of GPs were to … [offer homeopathy] … a large saving (£190 million) would result’ (page 56). No conclusive data are provided to support this statement.The ‘Smallwood report’: method or madness?
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 January 1; 56(522): 64–65.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1821425 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1821425)

…and he went on to say this in March 2006:



Perhaps because of my criticism of the draft, Smallwood’s final report recommended that NICE look at CAM in some detail. For once Smallwood and I are in perfect agreement!

The Smallwood Report on the role of CAM in the NHS
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2006; 11: 14–8

http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1101a06d01.htm (http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1101a06d01.htm)

Hopefully NICE will be reminded about that “in some detail” recommendation and include testing efficacy.

[Blue Wode]

Returning to the OP of this thread, here's an interesting new press statement from the Society of Homeopaths:
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-new/press-releases.aspx)


25th February 2008

Consultation commences today on regulation of homeopaths.

The Society of Homeopaths resolves to divest regulatory framework from its membership organisation to create the UK’s first independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths.

The Society of Homeopaths, Britain’s largest professional association of homeopaths, today announced that it has begun a wide-ranging consultation as it prepares to launch the UK’s first independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths. Following a recent meeting with the Department of Health, the Board of the 30 year old Society resolved to divest its self-regulation and governance arm from its membership and continuing professional development functions in order to create a first-class regulatory body, which will govern the professional practice of an expanding number of homeopathy practitioners.

The first UK organisation to regulate professional homeopaths, The Society has taken a leadership role in self regulation for 30 years. It was the first to form a register of members, with professional standards, a Code of Ethics & Practice with Fitness to Practise procedures and separate processes for Investigation & Adjudication, educational standards, professional staff and access to insurance for registered members. Following the reorganisation, the membership arm of The Society will continue to lead the on-going development and representation of both the profession and its practitioners.

Commenting on the Board’s resolution and the consultation process, Chair designate, Jayne Thomas said: “Today marks an important watershed in our profession. The consultation is to be widespread. We are seeking the views of patients, other homeopaths, the many colleges and universities that train the professionals, other organisations in the homeopathy field and of course politicians from all parties. Our purpose is to ensure that in moving towards one independent registering and regulatory body, we address all the issues and opportunities that our peers and our colleagues can identify”.

She continued: “The resolution approved by the Board became viable after our consultation with the Department of Health and we are convinced that this big step forward will benefit patients, their families and the profession as a whole”.

Society of Homeopaths CEO Paula Ross agreed and commented: “Our track record speaks for itself. There is no other organisation that can demonstrate the continuous commitment to professionalism that we have shown over the last 30 years. One single, independent register and regulatory body is the next natural step and we are uniquely placed to take our role as leaders in achieving this for the benefit of professional good practice across the UK”.


Notes to Editors

The Society of Homeopaths

Established in 1978, The Society of Homeopaths is the largest body of professional homeopaths. With over 2,400 members, it represents 60% of registered homeopaths in the UK.
Registered members of The Society of Homeopaths are fully insured and practise in accordance with a strict Code of Ethics & Practice. A copy of The Society’s Code of Ethics & Practice plus the register is available on www.homeopathy-soh.org (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org)
In 2000, The House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology defined Homeopathy as a Group One therapy, commenting that “Under The Society of Homeopaths, the non-medical homeopaths have organised themselves well and their professional organisation should mean the transition to statutory regulation does not present too great an upheaval.” (House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology, Session 1999-2000, p52)
A 2006 survey of Society members showed that 65% of respondents would support statutory regulation for homeopaths.
Two-thirds of homeopathy courses in UK are signed up to and formally recognised by The Society. Homeopathy

The homeopathy market for 2007 was estimated to be worth £38m and projected to reach £46m in 2012. “Homeopathy is showing steady growth and this is likely to continue”. (Mintel, Complementary Medicines, April 2007)
Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA)
Homeopathy has been available on the NHS since its inception in 1948 and there are 5 NHS homeopathic hospitals in Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London and Tunbridge Wells For further details, please contact Paula Ross or Pamela Stevens, Communications



For an excellent critical analysis of this latest development see here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/empire-of-homeopaths-strike-back.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/empire-of-homeopaths-strike-back.html)

[Cuddles]

The homeopathy market for 2007 was estimated to be worth £38m and projected to reach £46m in 2012.

What a good job they're not an evil, multi-million pound industry like real medicine.::)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

What a good job they're not an evil, multi-million pound industry like real medicine.::)

And at least they don't have to make any effort to hide unpleasant side effects (other than their 'medicines' not doing what they are supposed to).