Download Lectures on Biostatistics (1971). Corrected and searchable version of Google books edition
Download review of Lectures on Biostatistics (THES, 1973).
CAM
The Newsnight TV programme did an undercover investigation. Ten out of ten homeopaths, including two big companies Nelsons and Helios, told patients that malaria could be prevented by homeopathic pills alone. So much for the idea that homeopathy is harmless.
It is often said that, although homeopathy does no good,at least it does no harm. But that is not true if using homeopathy delays diagnosis of serious disease like cancer. It is not true if homeopaths persuade you not to be vaccinated, and as a consequence you get smallpox, mumps, measles, and spread them in the community. And it is not true if you listen to the ill-informed advice that is given by many homeopaths about how to avoid malaria when you visit countries where it is common.
The Newsnight programme on BBC2 TV (13th July 2006) did a marvelous bit of secret filming.
“Newsnight followed up their research with a hidden camera. A researcher went to Nelsons Pharmacy off Oxford Street in London, which claims to be Britain’s biggest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies – and that was all they recommended for malaria.
Even when the researcher said she planned to go to Malawi – a high risk area – Nelsons only suggested the addition of garlic, oil of citronella and vitamins rather than a trip to the doctors.
The Nelsons adviser told the researcher that the homeopathic compounds would protect her. “They make it so your energy doesn’t have a malaria-shaped hole in it so the malarial mosquitos won’t come along and fill that in.” ”
This last bit of advice means nothing whatsoever. It is sheer gobblydegook. It would just be silly if its effects were not so potentially serious.
On the programme, Melanie Oxley, from the Society of Homeopaths, wriggled uncomfortably when faced with the evidence (and Simon Singh). She protested that members of her organisation do not advise against proper malaria prevention, or against vaccination (and here). Well, they DO. So much for “professional regulation”. You cannot regulate the delusional. and the attempts of organisations like Oxley’s clearly don’t work. Apart from their inability to stop their members giving lethal advice, the regulators themselves are deluded.
Peter Fisher (see here and here), from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (and here) said “I’m very angry about it because people are going to get malaria – there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won’t find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.” The Queen’s homeopathic physician has the sense to acknowledge that homeopathy does not work for serious conditions, yet persists in his delusion that it works for milder illnesses.
What the homeopaths recommended
Malaria nosodes 30C
The source material is so diluted that not a single molecule is left. The medicines therefore contain no medicine. They are nothing but sugar pills. To sell pills that contain nothing whatsoever and to pretend that they will protect you against malaria strikes me as nothing short of criminal. In the EU in 2000, 15 528 cases of malaria were reported to the World Health Organization in returning travellers. The source material is, incidentally, not stated. One source says it is made from “African swamp water containing impurities, algae and plants as well as mosquito slough, larvae and eggs.” Luckily there is none of it left in the pill you get.
China
China Off is made from Cinchona bark which should contain quinine (how much is not stated. China Sulph is made from quinine itself (presumably purified, it is not stated). Quinine in large (potentially toxic) doses can cure malaria but is not a recommended treatment. But these preparations contain only minute amounts of quinine that cannot possibly have any effect at all. There is not the slightest reason to think that these pills could protect you against malaria, and to recommend them for that purpose is no more than fraud. The only recommended use for quinine is for treatment iof malaria in pregnant women. The dose is 600 mg, three times a day. because of the inadequate labelling it is impossible to know exactly how much quinine is present in China Sulph 8X,, but it is probably about 100 millionth of the recommended dose.(less than 1 nanogram)
The consequences.
“The fourth case was a 26-year-old man who visited Ghana and Burkina Faso in October and November 1994. He used China D-6 for prophylaxis. This is a homeopathic preparation of the bark from the cinchona tree. Not even trace amounts of quinine were found in the tablets with a very sensitive high-performance liquid chromatographic method.2 Four days after returning from Africa he fell ill with P. falciparum malaria ” (Quotation from Carlsson et al. J Travel Med. 1996 Mar 1;3(1):62. (PMID: 9815426)
In another case of a patient who resorted to homeopathy “for two months she received intensive care for multiple organ system failure due to P falciparum .This case confirms the inefficacy of homoeopathic drugs for malaria prevention and treatment. ”
Natrum Mur.
Natrum Muriaticum is sodium chloride. Just common salt (except that it is so dilute that there is little or no salt there). If you believe this will prevent malaria, you will truly believe anything. Yet it is being recommended and sold.
What the papers say about it
“Malaria risk for tourists who trust alternative practitioners”. A long report by Mark Henderson, in The Times.
“Homoeopathy: voodoo on the NHS” by Jamie White in The Times on the next day (July 15th)
“It is outrageous that the NHS should knowingly promote this quackery. And it is knowing. The NHS Direct website points out that homoeopathy is contrary to everything we know about chemistry and medicine, and that there is no experimental evidence to support its preposterous claims. Yet the NHS still promotes it, because “despite the lack of clinical evidence, homoeopathy remains one of the most popular complementary therapies in the UK”.”
“Homeopaths ‘endangering lives’ by offering malaria remedies” in The Guardian
“Do not rely on homeopathy to protect against malaria, doctors warn”. Excellent health advice (for a change) in the Daily Mail. They quote Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem) of the all-party parliamentary malaria group, as saying
“This sort of outrageous quackery is unacceptable. Vulnerable people are being duped into handing over cash for useless remedies and are having their health put at risk through grossly inadequate advice. People need to consider homeopathy in the same way as the treat faith-healing and witchcraft – that is not to risk their life or health on it.”
Talk show interview, DC with Tania Shillam on Colourful Radio (“Colourful is a new national digital Talk, cross-cultural radio station. Launched on 30 May 2006, the station’s format is a rich mix of news, current affairs and journalism, agenda-setting coverage, short documentaries, drama, panel discussions, phone-ins and a liberal sprinkling of music”). Listen to it.
Originaly posted on the oldl IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
George Lewith, who is an advocate of CAM research, appears to have rather different standards in his private clinic.
Some interesting emails have come into my possession recently. They concern the Centre for Complementary and Integrated Medicine, which gives its address as Harley House, Brunswick Place (Formerly Upper Harley St.), London NW1 4PR (don’t you just love “formerly Upper Harley Street”?).
This centre lists its doctors as Dr Nick Avery, Dr Mike Clark and Professor George Lewith.
Their web site claims “There are several approaches that we use in complementary medicine that may be of help to people with fibromyalgia. There is at least one positive clinical trial that indicates that homeopathy can help this condition.”
An enquiry was sent to the clinic, as follows.
| My GP diagnosed my pain as fibromyalgia almost 2 years ago, but I have not had much relief from the treatment I’ve had so far. I have never tried alternative treatments, but I have looked at your web site and I see that you say “There is at least one positive clinical trial that indicates that homeopathy can help this condition”. I wonder if you could give me some more details about that before I commit myself to trying it? |
After some delay, a polite response came from Dr Avery.
| We treat an enormous number of patients with fibromyalgia and there are many things that can help. In practise [sic] we tend to use combinations of diet, nutrition, homeopathy and acupuncture.In my experience fibromyalgia patients are almost all suffering from magnesium deficiency which, once corrected, can have an enormous impact on symptoms. If this is not corrected, then conventional treatment cannot help. Homeopathy seems to be a fundamental part of treating the (whole person) and it is the combination that seems to be so helpful.If you would like to come and see me then please ring my receptionists |
But no mention there of a trial. A second enquiry gave a fascinating
result.
| I am forwarding you the information you requested about the clinical trial for homeopathy used in helping with Fibromyalgia. I will pass Dr. Lewith’s reply to Dr. Avery who will be able to write to you with more detail when he’s at the clinic this Thursday. Best wishes Catherine (Reception) —– Original Message —– From: “Lewith G.” < gl3@soton.ac.uk> To: “CCIM” < harley@complemed.co.uk >; < nickavery@tiscali.co.uk> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:50 PM Subject: RE: Message from Dr Avery Its a BMJ paper in the late 1980’s by Peter Fisher. He used Rhus Tox 6C and it was a small positive trial.He will have it. G |
This paper must be the one that I was asked to check by the producer of a television programme (QED), (Fisher, P., Greenwood, A., Huskisson, E. C., Turner, P., & Belon, P. (1989). Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia) British Medical Journal 299, 365-366.).
But surely some mistake here? The problems with this paper have already been here. Fisher et al. had made a naive mistake in their statistical analysis, and in fact the homeopathic treatment had no demonstrable effect whatsoever, a result that was published soon after in the Lancet: Colquhoun, D. (1990), Reanalysis of a clinical trial of a homoeopathic treatment of fibrositis. Lancet 336, 441-442.). [Get the pdf]
So why does Professor Lewith cite the Fisher paper without mentioning that it provides no evidence at all? Professor Lewith says that he was unaware of this history. That does seem odd for someone who is devoted to assessment of CAM (all you have to do is search for ‘fibromyalgia and homeopathy’ in Medline). Very baffling.
Despite these puzzles, when I showed a draft for this site to Prof Lewith he said “Nick [Avery] and I have thought very carefully about the responses and we are very happy with them”.
| There are now more papers on the treatment of fibromyalgia, as Prof Lewith has pointed out to me. They are all from the University of Arizona, and all appear to refer to the same set of patients. One of these suggests that homeopathic treatment is effective (Bell IR; Lewis DA; Brooks AJ; Schwartz GE; Lewis SE; Walsh BT; Baldwin CM, Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology. 2004; 43: 77-582). But a second paper about the same patients seems much less sure. The trial was organised as an ‘optional crossover trial’, and there was no significant difference between the proportion of patients who opted to swap treatments between those who were initially on placebo and those who were initially on homeopathy. Evidently they couldn’t tell the difference! (Bell et al., 2004, J. Alt Comp Med, 10, 269 383). |
 |
Both of these papers, incidentally, have as a co-author the famous (or perhaps infamous) Gary Schwartz, of the “Centre for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science”, which is, believe it or not, part of the University of Arizona, and which, even more incredibly, gets NIH funding. He “photographs” non-existent “energy fields” and claims to be able to communicate with the dead (critique here).Well I guess the immortality is an even better seller than homeopathy. The picture on the right is what the “Biofield science” centre uses on its web site.
The AMI test and the Vega test
Dr Avery also sent “our information leaflet on Fibromyalgia”. This document was rather interesting.
| We find that a lot of patients with this condition suffer from food intolerance, which can be identified and treated. . . .Other measurements using the “AMI” which measures imbalances in the body can also indicate the whereabouts of the most significant internal dysfunction.Dietary and nutritional approaches can be enhanced by using acupuncture, classical and, in particular, complex homeopathy. Remedies can be identified using the Vega test, which measures energetic imbalances in the body, helping the practitioner to target the most appropriate areas in each individual patient. |
The Vega test and the AMI machine
What are these tests? The Vega test is one of the older con tricks. Dr Avery seems to be misinformed. The Vega test does not measure “energetic imbalances” (whatever that means), it measures skin conductance. So it resembles the infamous lie detector (perhaps it should be tried on its advocates). It has been the subject of several legal actions (listed here, by the Quackwatch site). Here are three of many examples.
- In 1985, the FDA notified a distributor that Vegatest devices could not be marketed as a medical devices without FDA approval (which they do not have).
- In 1990, the New Zealand Medical Journal described how a homeopathic physician had used a Vega device to diagnose allergies in three infants. In each case, the device was applied to the mother with the child on the mother’s lap or roaming about the examining room. The doctor also diagnosed “miasms,” which, if not removed, would prove fatal later in life. The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee ordered that he be censured, pay a penalty of NZ$900 plus NZ$25,000 for costs and expenses, and follow certain standards of care for three years
- In 2002, the British Advertising Standards Agency concluded that a leaflet offering Vega testing as a “complete test for hidden problems” was misleading and advised the advertiser to withdraw it .
In 2003, the BBC did its own investigation.
“We sent Inside Out’s Chris Packham to three Holland and Barrett stores across the South to find out more.
Chris took the Vega test in Newbury, Chichester and Farnborough, only to discover that his allergy results differed from store to store.
In total, Chris was sensitive to over 33 different foods, including staples like wheat, potatoes, milk, tomatoes, tea and coffee. But out of the 33 products, there was only two that all three testers agreed on – cheese and chocolate.
Chris was also advised by Holland and Barrett staff to take a total of 20 different vitamins and minerals. But again, the testers can’t seem to agree and all three testers advised different supplements.
It seems your allergies may not be determined by food alone, but also your location.
”
Professor Lewith told me, when I asked about the Vega test,
“I use it to help with homeopathic diagnoses, your next question of course is why on earth would you want to make an irrational diagnosis about a completely irrational subject.”
Yes, indeed it is! But that question has not been answered.
To make matters still odder, Professor Lewith has himself published a paper showing that the Vega test does not work. Why, then, does he use it in his private clinic? The paper in question is in British Medical Journal, 2001;322:131-4. It concludes “Electrodermal testing cannot be used to diagnose environmental allergies.”
Despite his own conclusion in the BMJ, the homeopathy page of the Rosedale Clinic concludes
The Vega offers one of the most exciting advances in modern medicine to appear in recent years, an accurate method of non-invasive deep physiological investigation
I would like to dedicate this section to Dr’s LEWITH, KENYON and SCHIMMEL for their tuition and helpful guidance with the Vega technique.
Wow!
The AMI machine is much less well-known. It presumably refers to “Apparatus for Measuring the Functions Of the Meridians and Corresponding Internal Organ”. Again it is said the the mysterious and undefined “imbalances”. The most likely interpretation seems to be that it just another galvanometer.
For a sane description of bizarre ‘allergy tests’, look here.
A lovely article by Dominic Lawson, in The Independent.
[moved from the old IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.]
Can you tell the difference between homeopaths and witch doctors?
The answer is: witch doctors are not publicly funded within the NHS. Not so far, anyway
Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 26 May 2006 gave support to the letter (though I get very uncomfortable when I get branded as part of the establishment). [Get whole article]
“Hence homeopaths believe – they really do -that the most effective remedy is one in which there is no longer a single molecule of the active ingredient in the water. However – please bear with me – the water has “a memory” of the active ingredient, and it is this which will cure the sufferer.
As the Australian Council Against Health Fraud remarks: “Strangely, the water offered as treatment does not remember the bladders it has been stored in, or the chemicals that may have come into contact with its molecules, or the other contents of the sewers it may have been in, or the cosmic radiation which has blasted through it.” I suppose you might say that the medicinal water of the homeopath has a selective memory.”
This an essay by Alan Sokal, published in Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, edited by Garrett G. Fagan (Routledge, 2006), pp. 286-361. It is available on-line.
This is a wonderful essay. It could hardly be more relevant to the Barry paper. It explains why so much of the philosophy science has moved so far in a relativist direction that it has become barely distinguishable from CAM and astrology, apart from the more pretentious language of the former. Little wonder that it is almost entirely ignored by scientists.
Here are some quotations.
| IntroductionIn this essay I propose to investigate the paradoxical relation between two broad categories of thought: pseudoscience and postmodernism (both will be defined more precisely in a moment). At first glance, pseudoscience and postmodernism would appear to be opposites: pseudoscience is characterized by extreme credulity, while postmodernism is characterized by extreme skepticism. More specifically, adherents of pseudoscience believe in theories or phenomena that mainstream science considers thoroughly unsupported by evidence (at best) or even preposterous, rejects as utterly implausible, while adherents of postmodernism withhold belief in theories that mainstream science considers to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Or rather, postmodernists profess to withhold such belief. Whether they actually do so in practice for example, when they are seriously ill and must decide which type of medicine to follow is a different question. And yet, I will argue, there is, at least in some instances, a curious convergence between pseudoscience and postmodernism. Part of conclusions I am indeed mildly disconcerted by a society in which 50% of the adult populace believes in extrasensory perception, 42% in haunted houses, 41% in possession by the devil, 36% in telepathy, 32% in clairvoyance, 28% in astrology, 15% in channeling, and 45% in the literal truth of the creation story of Genesis. But I am far more profoundly worried by a society in which 21-32% believe that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, 43-52% think that U.S. troops in Iraq have found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda, and 15-34% think that U.S. troops have found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And if I am concerned about public belief in clairvoyance and the like, it is largely because of my suspicion that credulity in minor matters prepares the mind for credulity in matters of greater import — and, conversely, that the kind of critical thinking useful for distinguishing science from pseudoscience might also be of some use in distinguishing truths in affairs of state from lies. The degree of validity (if any) of this conjecture is an empirical question, which merits careful investigation by psychologists, sociologists and educational researchers. |
And finally
For a bit of fun, try the post-modern essay generator.
Click the link at the bottom to generate a new essay in a moment. If you are worried about your RAE rating you could always try submitting one to a journal.
The Prince of Wales addressed the World Health Organisation in Geneva. Some bits were excellent, but in the end it was irresponsible, dishonest, and perhaps unconstitutional too.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
This letter was sent to the chief executives of 476 NHS Trusts (acute and primary care trusts). It was the main headline in The Times, and the lead item on the BBC’s Today Programme.
| From Professor Michael Baum and others 19th May 2006 Dear Re Use of ‘alternative’ medicine in the NHS We are a group of physicians and scientists who are concerned about ways in which nproven or disproved treatments are being encouraged for general use in the NHS. We would ask you to review practices in your own trust, and to join us in representing our concerns to the Department of Health because we want patients to benefit from the best treatments available. There are two particular developments to which we would like to draw your attention. First, there is now overt promotion of homeopathy in parts of the NHS (including the NHS Direct website). It is an implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness. Despite this, a recently-published patient guide, promoting use of homeopathy without making the lack of proven efficacy clear to patients, is being made available through government funding. Further suggestions about benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma have been made in the ‘Smallwood Report’ and in another publication by the Department of Health designed to give primary care groups “a basic source of reference on complementary and alternative therapies.” A Cochrane review of all relevant studies, however, failed to confirm any benefits for asthma treatment. Secondly, as you may know, there has been a concerted campaign to promote complementary and alternative medicine as a component of healthcare provision. Treatments covered by this definition include some which have not been tested as pharmaceutical products, but which are known to cause adverse effects, and others that have no demonstrable benefits. While medical practice must remain open to new discoveries for which there is convincing evidence, including any branded as ‘alternative’, it would be highly irresponsible to embrace any medicine as though it were a matter of principle. At a time when the NHS is under intense pressure, patients, the public and the NHS are best served by using the available funds for treatments that are based on solid evidence. Furthermore, as someone in a position of accountability for resource distribution, you will be familiar with just how publicly emotive the decisions concerning which therapies to provide under the NHS can be; our ability to explain and justify to patients the selection of treatments, and to account for expenditure on them more widely, is compromised if we abandon our reference to evidence. We are sensitive to the needs of patients for complementary care to enhance well-being and for spiritual support to deal with the fear of death at a time of critical illness, all of which can be supported through services already available within the NHS without resorting to false claims. These are not trivial matters. We urge you to take an early opportunity to review practice in your own trust with a view to ensuring that patients do not receive misleading information about the effectiveness of alternative medicines. We would also ask you to write to the Department of Health requesting evidence-based information for trusts and for patients with respect to alternative medicine. Yours sincerely   and Professor Frances Ashcroft FRSUniversity Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford Professor Sir Colin Berry Professor Gustav Born FRS Professor Sir James Black FRS Professor David Colquhoun FRS Professor Peter Dawson Professor Edzard Ernst Professor John Garrow Professor Sir Keith Peters FRS Mr Leslie Rose Professor Raymond Tallis Professor Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS |
As soon as this appeared the phone started ringing.
Michael Baum did an excellent job on the Today Programme, and on BBC Birmingham, BBC55, BBC world service, ITN news (interviewed for 20 minutes outdoor in the rain), Sky News live, and as well as all that he saw patients, and missed lunch while in the operating theatre. Michael comments ” How was your day your Royal Highness? “.
Leslie Rose did BBC Breakfast TV interview and various radio stations.
I did interviews for BBC News24, BBC1 News, Chanel 5 News, Sky news, the Jeremy Vine Show (radio 2), BBC Radio Solent, and wrote something for the Scotsman. Today it’s Radio London at 10.35 pm and tomorrow, Radio Foyle (Derry).
Listen to the Today Programme 08.10 interview
John Humphrys, on the Today Programme, interviews Michael Baum (lead signatory on the letter), and Peter Fisher of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (For more on Peter Fisher, see here, and here, and here). Listen to the interview [mp3 file, 4.4 Mb]
Leslie Rose interviewed on BBC
Breakfast TV. Watch the interview (Realplayer file).
Interview for Sky News.
The Jeremy Vine show interview (Radio 2)
The Late Show on BBC Radio London (24 May), host Stephen
Rhodes, DC versus Gary Trainer: click to listen
Radio Foyle (N. Irelend) Talk show with Mark Patterson. The local health
food shop manager told me that ‘arthritis is a build up of toxins in the body’,
and that glucosamine and chondroitin are herbal! Click to listen
Michael Baum’s 2004 Open letter. “An open letter to the Prince of Wales: with respect, your highness, you’ve got it wrong”. Download pdf file.
Coverage in The Times, 23 May 2006. The front page headline.
New International has forced me to remove the pictures of the front page, but the front page headline was
NHS told to abandon alternative medicineTop doctors say money should go to conventional treatment |
Here is Mark Henderson’s article.
NHS told to abandon alternative medicineBy Mark Henderson, Science Editor Top doctors say money should go to conventional treatment A GROUP of Britain’s leading doctors has urged every NHS trust to stop paying for alternative medicine and to use the money for conventional treatments. Their appeal is a direct challenge to the Prince of Wales’s outspoken campaign to widen access to complementary therapies. Public funding of “unproven or disproved treatments” such as homoeopathy and reflexology, which are promoted by the Prince, is unacceptable while huge NHS deficits are forcing trusts to sack nurses and limit access to life-saving drugs, the doctors say. The 13 scientists, who include some of the most eminent names in British medicine, have written to the chief executives of all 476 acute and primary care trusts to demand that only evidence-based therapies are provided free to patients. Their letter, seen by The Times, has been sent as the Prince today steps up his crusade for increased provision of alternative treatments with a controversial speech to the World Health Organisation assembly in Geneva. The Prince, who was yesterday given a lesson in crystal therapy while touring a complementary health unit in Merthyr Tydfil, will ask the WHO to embrace alternative therapies in the fight against serious disease. His views have outraged clinicians and researchers, who claim that many of the therapies that he advocates have been shown to be ineffective in trials or have never been properly tested. The letter criticises two of his flagship initiatives on complementary medicine: a government-funded patient guide prepared by his Foundation for Integrated Medicine, and the Smallwood report last year, which he commissioned to make a financial case for increasing NHS provision. Both documents, it is claimed, give misleading information about scientific support for therapies such as homoeo-pathy, described as “an implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness”. The letter’s signatories include Sir James Black, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1988, and Sir Keith Peters, president of the Academy of Medical Science, which represents Britain’s leading clinical researchers. It was organised by Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at University College London, and other supporters include six Fellows of the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, and Professor Edzard Ernst, of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, who holds the UK’s first chair in complementary medicine. The doctors ask trust chief executives to review their policies so that patients are given accurate information, and not to waste scarce resources on therapies that have not been shown to work by rigorous clinical trials. They conclude: “At a time when the NHS is under intense pressure, patients, the public and the NHS are best served by using the available funds for treatments that are based on solid evidence.” Professor Baum, a cancer specialist, said that he had organised the letter because of his “utter despair” at growing NHS acceptance of alternative treatments while drugs of proven effectiveness are being withheld. “At a time when we are struggling to gain access for our patients to Herceptin, which is absolutely proven to extend survival in breast cancer, I find it appalling that the NHS should be funding a therapy like homoeopathy that is utterly bogus,” he said. He said that he was happy for the NHS to offer the treatments once research has proven them effective, such as acupuncture for pain relief, but that very few had reached the required standards. “If people want to spend their own money on it, fine, but it shouldn’t be NHS money.” The Department of Health does not keep figures on the total NHS spending on alternative medicine, but Britain’s total market is estimated at £1.6 billion. |
There’s no remedy for the Prince of Quacks
This is the title of a piece by Francis Wheen in the London Evening Standard, 16 May 2006. Francis Wheen is the author of the Top ten delusions.
“Prince Charles travels to Geneva next week to deliver the keynote speech at the annual assembly of the World Health Organisation. Some mistake, surely?” “The WHO describes Charles as the president of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health and “patron of a number of health charities”. It omits to add that his views on medicine are barmy – and pernicious. ”
“WHO delegates from 192 nations have plenty to discuss during their five-day meeting – HIV/Aids, sickle-cell anaemia, preparations for a flu pandemic, the eradication of polio and smallpox. Why waste precious time listening to the heir to the British throne, who has spent more than 20 years displaying his ignorance of medical science?”
“The prince has never met a snake oil vendor he didn’t like. A couple of years ago he urged doctors to prescribe coffee enemas to cancer patients, a suggestion which provoked this rebuke from Professor Michael Baum of University College London: “The power of my authority comes with a knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth.” ”
The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health publishes Complementary healthcare: a guide for patients which is full of wishful thinking. For example, it tells the unfortunate patient that
“Homeopathy is most often used to treat chronic conditions such as asthma; eczema; arthritis; fatigue disorders like ME; headache and migraine; menstrual and menopausal problems; irritable bowel syndrome; Crohn’s disease; allergies; repeated ear, nose, throat and chest infections or urine infections; depression and anxiety.”
but says nothing at all about whether or not they work. That is just irresponsible. And to describe pills that contain no trace of the substance on the label as ”very diluted” is plain dishonest .
This item was transferred from the old IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
This is a topic that I have kept well away from, because I have an obvious vested interest: “no pipe, no algebra”. But the topic does make an interesting example of the effect of political correctness on people who are otherwise impeccable in there attitude to evidence. Tim Luckhurst writes about this in The Independent (2 May, 2006).
“On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: “The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: “The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality.” ”
The paper in question is ‘Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98’, James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat 2003, BMJ , 326, 1057 . The publication was followed by a torrent of abuse, more
reminiscent of religious zealotry than of science. The responses have been analysed in an article in Public Understanding of Science (2005, 14, 5–23) by Ungar and Bray, ‘Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke’ [ download pdf ].
I don’t know what the final answer will be about the risks of passive smoking, but as a pharmacologist, the higher levels of damage reported seem barely credible, bearing in mind that
“Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself.”
It does seem that it is not only big drug companies, and deluded homeopaths, who are happy to distort evidence for their own purposes. Well-meaning zealots can do it too. That is just as scary.
“Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s 40-a-day cigar habit is held responsible for some of the greatest triumphs of British engineering. Unfortunately, it also represents an upturned middle finger towards the politically-correct mandarins of modern academia. With this in mind, Brunel University has removed the famous stoogie from a new, life-size statue of the eminent Victorian. The bronze is based on the National Portrait Gallery’s iconic photograph of Brunel standing next to the launching chains of his ship, the SS Great Eastern, in 1857. It was unveiled last week, revealing a close likeness, but – to the annoyance of Brunel fans, historians and the smoking lobby alike – no cigar.” The Independent , 18th July 2006.
Some scientific heros. Their longevity tells you absolutely nothing.
Transferred from the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
Follow-up
A bizarre organisation called the NHS Trusts Association promotes not only homeopathy, but even wackier things like ‘crystal therapy’.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
An Edinburgh hospital is to supply aromatherapy on the NHS.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
The Amsterdam Medical Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off one doctor and suspended two others for their exclusive use of complementary treatments, resulting in the death of a woman.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
Trust Boots
Boots the Chemists (now Alliance Boots) is a very big business in the UK. There have 1,450 pharmacies in the UK and employ over 100,000 people.
I posted the item below a while ago, on the old Improbable Science page. I thought it deserved a bit more publicity, for the following reason. The quackometer has posted about Boots too,
I mentioned it during the debate with Felicity Lee at the British Pharmaceutical Conference (2007) (Ben Goldacre’s interview with Felicity Lee is a gem). After the talk I was approached by two heavies. Well, two men in dark suits anyway. It turned out that one was from Boots and the other from Alliance Pharmacies, now merged to form Boots Alliance. They seemed rather bothered by the fact that I’d criticised Boots, but were not entirely unreasonable. They claimed to be on the scientific side and said they’d investigate the matter. I wrote to the Boots man on 10 September, but got no reply, After a reminder on 29 October, I got this.
| Dear David Thank you for your email and reminder. We have investigated the points you raised in your blog. I was informed that it was an old leaflet and has not been reprinted (to my knowledge). However on a point of principle, I have raised the wider issue of clinical validity in my department. This will take its course through to the commercial/buying team. |
| Dear David Thank you for pointing this out. I’ve had a quick look and it is an educational website looking at all aspects of medicine and therapy, including alternative medicine. It is not a direct sales message to the public. I hope this helps |
Corporate Social Responsibility
Boots web site makes a big point about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
“TRUST BOOTS
As you may have noticed, that’s the tagline which in 2005 we adopted as the sign-off to all our advertising. But it’s much more than just a slogan. It’s a concise statement of our entire corporate strategy. Our aim is to make Boots the world’s best health and beauty retailer, and we’re 100% clear that the unique trust in which we are held provides the key to achieving this. Which means, of course, that those two words are also the rationale for all our CSR activities. Everything we do that builds trust is good for our business; anything which could compromise it, a risk we can’t afford to take.”
Trust Boots to provide straight answers.
At one time. Boots were sufficiently ethical not to deal in homeopathy. But no longer.
When asked for evidence that the things they sell actually work, the Boots help desk is astonishingly coy, as related here (thanks to ebm-first.com for giving publicity to this report).
When Boots were asked about their ‘Alternatives Hayfever Relief Tablets’, the answer came, after some delay, “This is a homeopathic product, further information on homeopathic products is available from the Nelson company who make this
particular product for Boots. ” This company has been making homeopathic products for many years and
may well be able to help you further. You may also find general
information about homeopathic medicines in reference books in the public
library”. The email address that they gave me for Nelson’s did not work, and writing to another Nelson’s address produced no reply at all. Clearly any letter that contains the word “evidence” arouses suspicion and is simply deflected.
Dangerous advice from Boots: a small sting.
I have been into several Boots stores, sought out the most senior pharmacist that I can find, and asked them the following question. “I have a 5 year old son who has had diarrhoea for three days now. Please can you recommend a natural remedy”. The response was interesting. In every case but one, the pharmacist reached for a copy of the Boots pamphlet on homeopathy, and thumbed through it, while desperately, but unsuccessfuly, trying to retain an air of professional authority. Then one or another homeopathic treatment from the booklet was recommended. In only one case out of six did the pharmacist even mention the right answer (GP and rehydration). One pharmacist, who turned out to have qualified in Germany, was very insistent that homeopathic treatment was inappropriate and that I should should start rehydration and take the child to the GP. The other five, including one who had an impressive-looking badge saying “consultant pharmacist”, did not even mention rehydration.
Conclusion The education of the pharmacists was clearly insufficient for them to give reliable advice. On the contrary, their advice was downright dangerous.
Miseducation by Boots the chemists
Boots also run an “educational” web site for children, the ‘Boots learning store’. Click on the section for ‘pupils’, and then ’16+’ and you find their education about alternative medicine (do their pharmacists do this course, I wonder?). The slide show that follows is an insult to human intelligence,
|
 |
Then follows a totally misleading slide about enzymes.
There is nothing wrong with the enzyme bit, but the analogy with homeopathy is baseless and misleading. Enzymes don’t work when there are no molecules present.
But in the next slide, enzymes and catalysts are forgotten anyway, This is how it works.
This meaningless mediaeval gobbledygook about ‘vital forces’ is being peddled as ‘education’ by the biggest retail pharmacy chain in the UK. What hope is there for kids?
But there is more. Now for the exam. If you click on the ‘teacher’ section you can download the students’ notes and the test. The ‘Student Notes’ include the following direct claim that homeopathy can cure diseases.
Now take the test, Here is question 1, and the answer.
I suppose that if the educators at Boots classify Hahnemann’s provings as a ‘clinical trial’ it goes a long way to explain the quality of their learning store, and the quality of the advice given by their pharmacists.
Boots Alternatives also sells a “snoring remedy”
The evidence for effectiveness of this herbal product is very dodgy, as described here earlier. This was an interesting saga that involved bad statistics, inappropriate controls and concealed financial interests. It eventually appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme, You and Yours.
Postcript: “Nurses and pharmacists are to be given greater powers to prescribe drugs”
The foregoing history does not give one much confidence in the government’s latest money-saving wheeze. [BBC]
“The latest measures mean nurses and pharmacists will be able to prescribe treatments for more serious conditions such as heart disease and diabetes – traditionally the domain of GPs.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said: “Nurse and pharmacist independent prescribing is a huge step forward in improving patient accessibility to medicines from highly skilled and well trained staff.”
And Chief Pharmaceutical Officer Dr Keith Ridge added: “For pharmacists, this is the dawn of a new era. It will help transform the public’s perception of pharmacy and the services they deliver to patients.”
This item was first posted on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
Here is a link to a fascinating collection of essays that discuss “disease mongering”.
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.
In the discussion of magnets on the Badscience site, a Michael King says that 4ulcercare will be included in Part IX of the Drug Tariff because it meets the criteria of the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA)
.
I presume this Michael King is Director of Planning and Corporate Affairs at the PPA, though he does not say so.
Michael King says
?There is no judgement offered about whether a product in the Drug Tariff
is more (or less) efficacious than any other, or the placebo effect.?
The criteria for inclusion in
Part IX of the Drug Tariff () include, in section 10 iii, ?They are cost
effective?
Will he please explain how a device can be cost-effective, if it is ineffective (relative to placebo)?
What the PPA says
Michael King has replied to my question by email (1 Mar 2006). He says
“The cost-effectiveness threshold for inclusion in the Drug Tariff is met if the ‘effectiveness’ of the device, as seen in data submitted by the manufacturer in support of the application, exceeds its cost to the NHS. ”
Sadly this is still ambiguous. It seems to suggest that that whatever data
are submitted by the manufacturer are taken at face value, without any attempt
to evaluate their quality. So I phoned King to ask if this was the case. He
was helpful, but he said that it was not the case. He told me that
the data were subject
to some sort of low level evaluation, short of the sort of evaluation that
NICE would do. This seems to contradict his earlier statement (above) that
inclusion in the Tariff implies no judgement about whether a device is better
than a placebo.
King said also that listing in the Tariff
“. . . is not a licensing decision nor a recommendation akin to the outcome of a NICE review”
The problem is, of course, that listing is seen as a recommendation by the public, by the Daily
Mail, and certainly by the manufacturer.
One thing, at least, is clear in this case. Whatever evaluation was done,
it was done very badly. But in order to try to find out exactly what evaluation
was done, and by whom, I’m having to resort to the Freedom of Information Act.
Watch this space.
What NICE says
Fraser Woodward (Communications Manager, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)) writes as follows.
“The test of “cost effectiveness” applied by the PPA when determining whether or not a device should go on the tariff is very different to the way cost effectiviness is assessed by NICE”
That is pretty obvious, but how is the public meant to know that, when they hear that the NHS has declared a treatment to be ‘cost-effective’, that statement can mean two entirely different things according to which part of the bureaucracy the statement comes from?
Emails in my possession show that the Chiron Clinic is able to decide that nutritional supplements are needed for leg ulcers on the basis of an email (as well as magnets of course).
Read full entry on the original IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.