"MIND" and homeopathy

[bindeweede]

As a volunteer for MIND for 7 years or so, I was appalled to come across this validation of homeopathy on their website. I have sent a message stating my concerns, and a link to John Jackson's article from the main site.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Makingsensehomeopathy.htm

If anyone else feels like adding their weight, PLEASE DO.

And as for TCM................

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Making+sense+of+traditional+Chinese+medicine.htm


Looks like my association with MIND will be ending very soon.

[Mojo]

As a volunteer for MIND for 7 years or so, I was appalled to come across this validation of homeopathy on their website. I have sent a message stating my concerns, and a link to John Jackson's article from the main site.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Makingsensehomeopathy.htm

If anyone else feels like adding their weight, PLEASE DO.

I'm sure I've discussed this elsewhere at some point. I've certainly seen it before. Appalling.

[VoodooJoe]

As a volunteer for MIND for 7 years or so, I was appalled to come across this validation of homeopathy on their website. I have sent a message stating my concerns, and a link to John Jackson's article from the main site.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Makingsensehomeopathy.htm

If anyone else feels like adding their weight, PLEASE DO.

And as for TCM................

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Making+sense+of+traditional+Chinese+medicine.htm


Looks like my association with MIND will be ending very soon.


Errm, if that upset you, you wont be liking this......

http://www.mind.org.uk/osb/itemdetails.cfm/ID/521

explore your psychosis with drumming and shamanism, only £12.99

[wooo_oops]

Before you boys n girls get too hot under the collar, consider this:

http://www.scispirit.com/psychosis_spirituality/madness_and_mysticism.htm


Our society's particular illiteracy in the area of spiritual experience contributes to the even greater isolation of the person with psychosis. In 'Recovery from Schizophrenia' Richard Warner (1985) notes that in societies where experience of the spiritual/psychotic realm is valued, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a far better prognosis than in modern Western Society. This research bears out the significance of a sympathetic spiritual and cultural context for outcome of an encounter with the unconstrued, whether labelled spiritual experience or psychosis; mysticism or madness.

Hmm? What d'ya think?

[VoodooJoe]

^^ To be honest, based on my own personal experience, i think im inclined to agree a little, Ive seen a lot of people gain comfort through religious/mystical rituals and strange illogical practices, as ridiculous as something like shamanic drumming or homeopathy may seem at first glance somebody somewhere must be getting something out of it or no-body would be doing it.

Im not going to adopt the whole woo-woo attitude of conventional=bad and alternative = good.
But i do think sometimes we dismiss things when we take a view wholly based on research and statistics, as we quickly lose sight of the needs of the individuals themselves.
If someone feels better about themselves by lighting pink candles and chanting ooga-booga to the invisble pink unicorn in the sky, then who are we to say that is wrong?

[Lemming]

Before you boys n girls get too hot under the collar, consider this:

http://www.scispirit.com/psychosis_spirituality/madness_and_mysticism.htm



Hmm? What d'ya think?

I found the argument hard to follow. Perhaps that's because I'm not well versed in either the kind of "spiritual" experiences the author is writing about, nor in clinical psychology/psychiatry. Or perhaps it's because the whole thing appears to be a loosely tied together grab-bag of mumbo-jumbo, anecdote and speculation.

I wasn't sure, either, of what the author was recommending. Is she really suggesting that someone who is, for example, hearing the voice of God or Satan speaking to him, should be encouraged to see that as a mystical experience?

There's also a hint in the opening few paragraphs (both directly and also by the ready acceptance of extreme mystical experience as being similar to, but distinct from psychotic ones) that the author might be a True Believer and so is looking only for evidence that mysticism is A Good Thing;


Our society's particular illiteracy in the area of spiritual experience contributes to the even greater isolation of the person with psychosis. In 'Recovery from Schizophrenia' Richard Warner (1985) notes that in societies where experience of the spiritual/psychotic realm is valued, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a far better prognosis than in modern Western Society. This research bears out the significance of a sympathetic spiritual and cultural context for outcome of an encounter with the unconstrued, whether labelled spiritual experience or psychosis; mysticism or madness.

Perhaps in the societies described by Warner, psychosis isn't seen as anything wrong; perhaps it's seen as evidence that the sufferer (in our terms) has been blessed by supernatural experience. BUt that isn't the case in western society. Indeed, anyone who *hasn't* been diagnosed with a mental illness but who prattles on about mystical experiences and shamanic rituals is often informally categorised as "bonkers" by those who know them. So I fail to see how if can be helpful for someone who is suffering from mental illness to encourage them to adopt belief systems which on the one hand will validate their psychosis, and on the other will make them appear even more crazy.

Just my UKP0.02

[VoodooJoe]

So I fail to see how if can be helpful for someone who is suffering from mental illness to encourage them to adopt belief systems which on the one hand will validate their psychosis,

Though of course if a psychotic belief has been validated, then its not really a psychosis anymore ^-^

You make some excellent points, especially the ones about cultures who do not view psychosis as being anything wrong, we live in a world where 98% of people believe in god(s) they have never seen or have no evidence for.
Maybe blind faith and illogical thought processes are intrinsic to human nature and when we try to escape these concepts things start to fall down(?)

[SKIRRID5]

Richard Dawkins has dealt at some length with the human diposition to faith. As I understand it he thinks it stems from the fact that young children are programmed to believe what their parents tell them, and this obviously had survival value, so it stayed with us. The trouble is, many if not most people never grow out of that phase, and continue to believe what they are told by authority figures. If you are raised, say, in a religious family in the American Bible Belt, it's easy to see how difficult it would be to break away. Or in a family anywhere in which most believe in homeopathy (like the House of Windsor!). In the world we now live in, saturated by mass media, it is only too easy for quacks, woo-woos and downright loonies to seem like authority figures. And so, they are believed.

[bindeweede]

If someone feels better about themselves by lighting pink candles and chanting ooga-booga to the invisble pink unicorn in the sky, then who are we to say that is wrong?

Yes, of course. And if people find support in spiritual belief of some kind, then that is their choice. My point was that if people are visiting the MIND site with concerns about their own or someone else's mental health, pointing them towards homeopathy or TCM is not very responsible, in my opinion.

It is a bit off the topic, but a few weeks ago I came across this site.

http://www.whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

[wooo_oops]

Don't get me wrong here, I am concerned about the promotion of alternatives, but I'm still not convinced that they would be any more harmful than the regular treatment. So aside from CBT and psychotherapy, what else is there for these unfortunate people?

Also from MIND:


Antipsychotics are often effective in controlling the symptoms of psychosis, and enable many people to return to normal life. They may lessen delusions, hallucinations, incoherent speech and thinking, and reduce confusion. The drugs can control anxiety and serious agitation, make the person feel less threatened, and also reduce violent, disruptive and manic behaviour. However, not everybody finds antipsychotics helpful, and they can't cure the problem. They can also have very serious side effects, which cause major concern to users.

Antipsychotic drugs are standard, routine treatment for people who are experiencing psychosis, and doctors believe that drug treatment should be started as soon as possible. But recent research has raised important questions about whether people might not do better without using these drugs.

Some research suggests that someone with schizophrenia, who remains on antipsychotics for a number of years, may be less likely to relapse than someone who is not taking them. But a paper published in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses in 2004 suggests that resorting to antipsychotics straight away, as a matter of routine, may worsen long-term outcomes, and that a considerable percentage of those treated would do better if they were not given drugs. This paper suggests that people experiencing their first episode of psychosis should not be treated with drugs, and that every person who is taking antipsychotics should be given the opportunity to withdraw from them, gradually. It suggests that this would dramatically improve recovery rates and reduce the numbers of people who become ill in the long term.

Sorry to keep on about it, but the over use of anti-psychotics concerns me more. I'm not saying I advocate not taking them either. I hear that the majority of mentally ill people who end up killing themselves or others are not taking the meds.
I would like to see better guidelines about self-medicating with alt. medicine on that site, but I personally don't know whether the alt. stuff would necessarily be a complete waste of time? If it is a placebo at best, then should it not help to reduce symptoms of anxiety in people whose minds are beset with magical, disordered thinking? I know of mental health patients who don't like to take their anti-psychotics because of the effect they have on the senses, they dull everything for some people. They see their disordered thinking etc as a better option sometimes...one guy I know has spent (IMO) far too much money on alternatives but who am I to tell him it doesn't work when he believes it gives him some relief from his problems?
so I'm just saying that I'm not 100% sure that telling these guys that it a) doesn't actually work and b) may be harmful, is the right thing to do.

Can anyone convince me?

[bindeweede]

Well, this has impressed me, from the homeopathy page on the website.
The amounts involved are so small that it has lead to doubts about whether they can have any effect. Studies with patients have shown that they do, but the evidence is not conclusive. Science can't yet explain how homeopathy works, but there are various theories about how energy behaves at sub-atomic levels that may prove relevant.

There's that "energy" again.

Still, they have responded to the 2 brief comments I made on Saturday evening .................
Thanks for your comments on both booklets. We will consider your opinion when we next update our booklets.

No immediate concerns, then.......?

[Mongrel]

so I'm just saying that I'm not 100% sure that telling these guys that it a) doesn't actually work and b) may be harmful, is the right thing to do.

What's the worst that could happen? Your friend, and others like him, end up on the news after they've done something messy to themselves or others...

Mental healthcare over here is a shambles, people who are a potential danger to themselves or others (through no fault of their own) are given a bottle of pills and told to take them daily. Normally what happens is they miss a dose or two and like the 'normal' them better, dump the rest of the tabs and go back to normal - which often entails alcohol and drugs along with a circle of 'friends' who are more than happy to share them.

Pharmaceuticals are only part of the solution (and should be tailored to balance effectiveness against side effects), therapy can help, supportive friends and family and removing them from environments which encourage them to relapse.

Alt-med has no evidence of efficacy in these sort of serious cases and quite often the practitioner will be naysaying the prescription drugs. Given that the patient is mentally vulnerable I really can't think of a worse combination.

[Blue Wode]

There’s a link in today’s Times that might interest you, Bindeweede:

Homeopathy - what a waste of time
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3798760.ece

BTW, do you know who wrote the homeopathy page for MIND? I’m not making any accusations, but I was wondering if a certain Dr Rob Hicks (a Maida Vale GP who practices acupuncture) might have had something to do with. He originally helped with the development of the (now deleted) CAM pages for the BBC’s website, and he has also written a lengthy piece on 'Homeopathic Remedies for Mental Health Problems' for this outfit:
http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp (http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp)</H2><H2 (http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp)

[wooo_oops]

Mental healthcare over here is a shambles, people who are a potential danger to themselves or others (through no fault of their own) are given a bottle of pills and told to take them daily. Normally what happens is they miss a dose or two and like the 'normal' them better, dump the rest of the tabs and go back to normal - which often entails alcohol and drugs along with a circle of 'friends' who are more than happy to share them. This is happening to an 18 year old we know. He 'self medicates'. He's recently relapsed.


Pharmaceuticals are only part of the solution (and should be tailored to balance effectiveness against side effects), therapy can help, supportive friends and family and removing them from environments which encourage them to relapse.
I couldn't agree more. But use of the words 'should be' means it ain't necessarily the case.


Alt-med has no evidence of efficacy in these sort of serious cases and quite often the practitioner will be naysaying the prescription drugs.
I can't think of anything more irresponsible. Although there may be something to be said for talking therapy/no meds in some cases. Can you show me a study which states no evidence of efficacy? I'm just wondering why the people at MIND are advocating alt.meds at all.


Given that the patient is mentally vulnerable I really can't think of a worse combination.
As with anything involving the workings of the human mind/brain though, can we lump em all in the same boat? People respond differently to whatever treatment. It's all about getting it right for the individual innit?

[bindeweede]

There’s a link in today’s Times that might interest you, Bindeweede:

Homeopathy - what a waste of time
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3798760.ece

BTW, do you know who wrote the homeopathy page for MIND? I’m not making any accusations, but I was wondering if a certain Dr Rob Hicks (a Maida Vale GP who practices acupuncture) might have had something to do with. He originally helped with the development of the (now deleted) CAM pages for the BBC’s website, and he has also written a lengthy piece on 'Homeopathic Remedies for Mental Health Problems' for this outfit:
http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp (http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp)</H2><H2 (http://www.healthyplace.com/alternative/dietary_supplements_8.asp)

Blue Wode

Sorry if you have already seen this. I can find no author's name, just these references -


'Clinical trials of homeopathy', 1991, J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, British medical journal, vol.302, pp.316-323
The concordant materia medica, F. van Vermeulen (Merlijn Publishers)
The organon of medicine, S. Hahnemann, 6th ed. (B. Jain)
Repertorium homeopathicum syntheticum, ed. Dr F. Schroyens (Homeopathic Book Publishers)
Thatak’s materia medica, Dr S. R. Thatak (Foxlee-Vaughan Publishing Ltd)


But there are other "useful" sites quoted, but not about the truth or otherwise of the claims. I won't quote them, as they are just links to commercial outfits selling homeopathic stuff.

Thanks for the Timesonline link. I'll ad it to my list.

[wooo_oops]

BTW (http://BTW), do you know who wrote the homeopathy page for MIND? I’m not making any accusations, but I was wondering if a certain Dr Rob Hicks (a Maida Vale GP who practices acupuncture) might have had something to do with...

From the bottom of the page:

This booklet was written by Toni Douglas-Gooden, Susan Salmon and Inez Claus...

[brodski]

From the bottom of the page:

This booklet was written by Toni Douglas-Gooden, Susan Salmon and Inez Claus...
So two homeopaths and a herbalist, with (as far as I can see) no medical qualifications between them (I'm presuming that Susan Salmon is the Yorkshire herbalist with the BSc in herbalism, not the actor, but you never know...)

[Blue Wode]

From the bottom of the page:

This booklet was written by Toni Douglas-Gooden, Susan Salmon and Inez Claus...
Thank you for that. My bad. I stand corrected.

But interesting that that information puts at least four in the dock on homeopathy/mental health issues instead of one.

[bindeweede]

Well. in view of Dr Singh's article, and MIND not wanting to change anything in their information sheet at the moment, I've sent a long email to one of the Editors on "The Times" to see if they might be interested in some sort of follow-up. Worth a try.

[bindeweede]

From the bottom of the page:

This booklet was written by Toni Douglas-Gooden, Susan Salmon and Inez Claus...

Sorry about that. I didn't go far enough down the page.:-[

[wooo_oops]

Well. in view of Dr Singh's article, and MIND not wanting to change anything in their information sheet at the moment, I've sent a long email to one of the Editors on "The Times" to see if they might be interested in some sort of follow-up. Worth a try.

It would be fantastic to see some er, 'high profile' (hey, I'm not putting you guys down;)) debate on this. Nice one.O0

[bindeweede]

It would be fantastic to see some er, 'high profile' (hey, I'm not putting you guys down;)) debate on this. Nice one.O0

Well, I've just sent more or less the same to the Guardian::) Am I just a stirrer? Now, where is Independent's address...........

[Mongrel]

I couldn't agree more. But use of the words 'should be' means it ain't necessarily the case.

I agree, as I've said the state of mental healthcare is diabolical and further complicated by patient rights, unless they are a danger to themselves or others you can't force them to visit the doctor or take their medication


I can't think of anything more irresponsible. Although there may be something to be said for talking therapy/no meds in some cases. Can you show me a study which states no evidence of efficacy?
Depends on the therapy, no meds and a qualified therapist I don't have an issue with it's when it starts getting to alt-med that things become troublesome as nearly all of them are of no clinical use.



I'm just wondering why the people at MIND are advocating alt.meds at all.

Afraid I can't answer that, I've not really had reason to view the website before today. Could it be that the people in charge have changed and are pushing through their agenda or that they've had enough queries about alt-med that they decided to print booklets but were worried about legal action from the 'professional bodies' ::) if they flat out said "It's a scam"



As with anything involving the workings of the human mind/brain though, can we lump em all in the same boat? People respond differently to whatever treatment. It's all about getting it right for the individual innit?

Once again, true but only as long as the choices are of clinically proven treatments. There are many other ways to offer a routine to someone, which is pretty much all the alt-med is doing (with maybe a bit of someone listening for 20 minutes) which are far less damaging than being told tales of magic water.

[bindeweede]

Well, I've just sent more or less the same to the Guardian::) Am I just a stirrer? Now, where is Independent's address...........

Well, I've managed to get one feeble comment in the papers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/26/do2606.xml&posted=true&_requestid=242338

(Thomas Roberts)

[Blue Wode]

Excellent! Keep chipping away, Bindeweede. If the content of that great article you linked to is anything to go by, your tenacity has every chance of paying off (eventually).

For those who didn’t click on your link, here are the introductory paragraphs of the article:




The last rites for alternative medicine?

Few experiences are more disorientating than the erosion of faith. I have seen it many times in my encounters with religious believers: the fixed smile contradicted by a flicker of doubt in the eyes; the desperate appeal to half-remembered scriptures. And then the confession: "I've been doing some... questioning."

Recently, I've heard these words many times. Troubled believers, their tongues loosened by a few glasses of Chablis, admit to what Catholics used to call "doubts".

Interestingly, many of them are women. The faith in question is the system of belief built around Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Women have always been attracted to alternative remedies. Now that faith is crumbling.

People still fill their bathroom cabinets with herbal cold remedies and nod respectfully at the words "rich in antioxidants". But, like Mediterranean peasants who still make the sign of the cross but have lost all confidence in the Church, growing numbers no longer subscribe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/24/nuni124.xml) to the doctrines of alternative medicine.

These are difficult times for CAM. For the past 15 years, a multi-billion pound industry has fed off the claims of media nutritionists, barefoot doctors, Native American shamans and homeopaths.

Suddenly, it finds itself threatened by the economic downturn: forced to choose between pricey detox courses and mortgage payments, customers have decided to put up with their toxins.

But CAM's real problem is not shortage of money; it is shortage of proof. The information technology brilliantly exploited by unorthodox therapies is now being harnessed to spread the inconvenient truth that most of them don't work.

Sceptics in the blogosphere have assembled a global daisy-chain of links exposing the falsehoods of alternative practitioners.

The BBC, which used to be strongly biased in favour of CAM, had these headlines on its website recently: "University professor criticises guides on alternative medicine backed by Prince Charles"; "Complementary therapy hampers IVF"; "Concern over HIV homeopathy role".

When did the tide begin to turn? I reckon the consumers of CAM got the shock of their lives when the case against MMR - in which they had invested so heavily, not to say hysterically - collapsed.

Read on…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/26/do2606.xml&posted=true&_requestid=242338

[bindeweede]

Well, would you believe it? My little comment produced this response.....


Thomas- I have contacted Mind myself about some of my concerns. I was surprised to hear that Mind are affiliated to Patrick Holford's Food for the Brain organisation, given that - aside from the lack of decent evidence for many of the interventions recommended by Food for the Brain - Holford uses unusual diagnostic terms such as ‘crazy’ for people with mental health problems. To the best of my knowledge, Mind have chosen to maintain this affiliation -- some details at this link link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/exit.jhtml?exit=http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/28/holford-uses-crazy-as-a-diagnostic-term-for-schizophrenic-people/)
Posted by HolfordWatch (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/exit.jhtml?exit=http://www.holfordwatch.info) on April 26, 2008 7:02 PM

[bindeweede]

There's an article related to homeopathy and degrees in quackery here.

http://www.technovia.co.uk/2008/04/the-last-rites-for-%e2%80%98alternative%e2%80%99-nutritional-therapy.html

[Skittles]

As a manic depressive with many psychotic episodes behind me, seeing MIND, one of the two leading mental health charities, publish an article which specifically claims that homeopathic treatments 'do work' for treating psychosis isn't just irresponsible, its criminal. In fact I find it quite patronising - what are they saying? We don't need 'real' drugs because there's nothing wrong with us crazy people that a sugar pill can't fix? Claiming its an affilitiation that they don't have any responsibility for is rubbish - would they publish an article suggesting that the best way to deal with schizophrenia is eugenics and forced steralization, and then say its ok because the authors are just 'affiliates', and MIND doesn't necessarily agree with what they say? So far as I'm concerned, MIND no longer has any credibility whatsoever.

[MischiefMonkey]

I have suggested MIND as a source of help to the families of people with mental health issues. I don't feel as though I can now. It is a crying shame as there are so few places that people can get help regarding mental health - a 'Cinderella' service in this country.

[Graham Lappin]

I have suggested MIND as a source of help to the families of people with mental health issues. I don't feel as though I can now. It is a crying shame as there are so few places that people can get help regarding mental health - a 'Cinderella' service in this country.

Is it right that the whole organisation should be condemned for one "crime against rationality" Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water? What mind are saying is a pretty common fallacy. Would it not be better to challenge them and try to engage them to persuade them otherwise? Just trying to put an alternative argument here ???

[bindeweede]

Is it right that the whole organisation should be condemned for one "crime against rationality" Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water? What mind are saying is a pretty common fallacy. Would it not be better to challenge them and try to engage them to persuade them otherwise? Just trying to put an alternative argument here ???

I understand. National MIND does a tremendous amount to support people with mental health issues. So do Local Mind Associations, which are separate individual charities, who can buy in to national MIND services or not.

I have tried challenging - emailed lots of links to articles on homeopathy and TCM, and was basically dismissed. Here is a quote from their article on herbal remedies.


Herbal remedies aren't covered by a standard licensing procedure (although some do have product licences). They are either classed as food supplements, or come under section 12 of the Medicines Act, which makes them exempt from licensing. They don't have to undergo the same testing procedures as pharmaceutical drugs.

But they are still being promoted. I really think they need to ask themselves some questions.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Making+sense+of+herbal+remedies.htm

[Graham Lappin]

I understand. National MIND does a tremendous amout to support people with mental health issues. So do Local Mind Associations, which are separate individual charities, who can buy in to national MIND services or not.

I have tried challenging - emailed lots of links to articles on homeopathy and TCM, and was basically dismissed. Here is a quote from their article on herbal remedies.


But they are still being promoted. I really think they need to ask themselves some questions.

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Making+sense+of+herbal+remedies.htm

I take your point. I was just reading the MIND website and I also e-mailed them to ask about their homeopathy policy. I just think that we have to keep "banging the rocks together".

[MischiefMonkey]

Is it right that the whole organisation should be condemned for one "crime against rationality" Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water? What mind are saying is a pretty common fallacy. Would it not be better to challenge them and try to engage them to persuade them otherwise? Just trying to put an alternative argument here ???

I understand what you are saying - but I would hate to point someone in the direction of the website only for them to see the herbal/TCM/Homeopathy advice/promotion and they then decide to follow that path (or advise a mentally ill friend/relative to do so) rather than seek professional help. I can't really recommend MIND but add the disclaimer "Oh, but ignore the CAM stuff".

I suppose the question is does the real help they can offer outweigh the potential for damage that the CAM promotion has?

[Graham Lappin]

I understand what you are saying - but I would hate to point someone in the direction of the website only for them to see the herbal/TCM/Homeopathy advice/promotion and they then decide to follow that path (or advise a mentally ill friend/relative to do so) rather than seek professional help. I can't really recommend MIND but add the disclaimer "Oh, but ignore the CAM stuff".

I suppose the question is does the real help they can offer outweigh the potential for damage that the CAM promotion has?

We may be saying two different things. I can't argue with your very practical viewpoint, so that's accepted. My point is that we still need to keep plugging away at challenging the woo. It's organisations like MIND that may take the point eventually. I don't want to go into details publicly but I have a similar situation with the Institute of Biology (the UKs professional organisation for Biologists). Yes - even these organisations suffer from the influences of CAM (the mind sometimes boggles - no pun intended).

[bindeweede]

Bunny

An interesting article on the omnipresence of woo has recently appeared on BadPsychics.

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=765

[MischiefMonkey]

We may be saying two different things. I can't argue with your very practical viewpoint, so that's accepted. My point is that we still need to keep plugging away at challenging the woo. It's organisations like MIND that may take the point eventually. I don't want to go into details publicly but I have a similar situation with the Institute of Biology (the UKs professional organisation for Biologists). Yes - even these organisations suffer from the influences of CAM (the mind sometimes boggles - no pun intended).

Oh yes, certainly. Keep challenging, but until they take some notice and withdraw the CAM information, I wouldn't feel comfortable directing anyone vulnerable to the MIND website.

[bindeweede]

I take your point. I was just reading the MIND website and I also e-mailed them to ask about their homeopathy policy. I just think that we have to keep "banging the rocks together".

Bunny

Julia, a member here, also contacted national MIND. She received the same, rather dismissive reply as I did. I'll be very interested to hear what response you get.

But I agree about keep banging on. Do your remember Thatcher's TINA?

Well, my avatar seems appropriate!

[Graham Lappin]

Do your remember Thatcher's TINA?

You went and mentioned Thatcher- I'll have to go back into therapy again now.>:-)

I am indeed old enough to remember Mrs T and TINA would have been a good acronym for sceptics of CAM if she had not thought of it first.

I e-mailed MIND yesterday and I wait a reply with baited breath. I'll post the reply when (or if) I get one.

[bindeweede]

You went and mentioned Thatcher- I'll have to go back into therapy again now.>:-)

I am indeed old enough to remember Mrs T and TINA would have been a good acronym for sceptics of CAM if she had not thought of it first.

I e-mailed MIND yesterday and I wait a reply with baited breath. I'll post the reply when (or if) I get one.

Bunny

The letter I received today from the ASA suggested I contact Trading Standards. I sent an A4 page earlier today - I'll just have to wait and see.

Two people from the Think Humanism forum have also sent messages to MIND. I expect they will receive the same response as I did.

[Graham Lappin]

I e-mailed MIND yesterday and I wait a reply with baited breath. I'll post the reply when (or if) I get one.

I received an interesting reply today:


Thank you for your email dated 29 April 2008.

It sounds as though you have some concerns regarding the information we have about homeopathy.

The information we provide is to empower people to make their own choices about which treatments they wish to use. We don’t make judgements about treatments which we know some people find helpful and this includes homeopathy. We are, however, reviewing the text of the booklet in light of various comments we have received.

I hope you find this useful.

Best wishes,
MindinfoLine
(Ref: 1037)

[bindeweede]

Some progress then! I'd love to know just how many comments they've received. And I wonder if there will actually be much change in the content of the booklet.

[Graham Lappin]

Some progress then! I'd love to know just how many comments they've received. And I wonder if there will actually be much change in the content of the booklet.

It implies they have had quite a few. Let's keep banging the rocks together!

[seren]

Oops, I missed this thread.

Thanks Bindeweede for bringing this up. I was horrified at that Mind info.

[bindeweede]

It implies they have had quite a few. Let's keep banging the rocks together!

I had a phone call from my local Trading Standards office this morning, asking me to point them to the article - it's still there - and to give some detail about my complaint. So I think you are right about "banging rocks".

[bindeweede]

I had a phone call from my local Trading Standards office this morning, asking me to point them to the article - it's still there - and to give some detail about my complaint. So I think you are right about "banging rocks".

So, over 2 months later, and no hint of progress. A few weeks ago I received an email from Herts.Trading Standards saying the MHRA, to whom they had referred my complaint, said it was not within their remit - they were passing it on to the ASA. But I've already been there, months ago.

A waste of time and effort, I think.

[Acleron]

So, over 2 months later, and no hint of progress. A few weeks ago I received an email from Herts.Trading Standards saying the MHRA, to whom they had referred my complaint, said it was not within their remit - they were passing it on to the ASA. But I've already been there, months ago.

A waste of time and effort, I think.

Not at all, you are not going to convince everyone of the lack of efficacy and safety of homeopathy in a short time, if ever. But, if the efforts of people like yourself push it far enough down we may yet see the closure of university courses in homeopathy, shops stop selling the water and lactose and organisations like Mind becoming much more careful of promulgating the woo.

Earlier this year there were screams from the homeopaths that the nasty skeptics were forcing them out of business. You may not win every case but the pressure appears to be working.

[bindeweede]

Not at all, you are not going to convince everyone of the lack of efficacy and safety of homeopathy in a short time, if ever. But, if the efforts of people like yourself push it far enough down we may yet see the closure of university courses in homeopathy, shops stop selling the water and lactose and organisations like Mind becoming much more careful of promulgating the woo.

Earlier this year there were screams from the homeopaths that the nasty skeptics were forcing them out of business. You may not win every case but the pressure appears to be working.

Well, that has restored my confidence, a bit. Earlier today I posted a letter to a senior member of Herts. County Council complaining about a leaflet from a nurse offering Hopi candling therapy. I included print-outs of 4 sites saying it was a heap of poo, and was potentially harmful.

Might rustle a feather or two, >:-) I suppose.

[bindeweede]

"Why he attacked (his mother) remains a mystery buried in the thought processes of the accused's disordered mind."
The judge noted that Coles had been weaning himself off his psychiatric medication with the help of his mother, who had been giving him goji juice and homeopathic treatments.
"Mrs Coles believed that fostering her son's spiritual and physical health through homeopathic treatment was far better than psychiatric treatment, including adherence to the prescribed (psychiatric drug)."
Why on earth would MIND be interested in this article?


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23997760-662,00.html