Baby death: call for homeopath rules

[Richard]

Baby death: call for homeopath rules

November 19, 2007 - 5:33PM

The NSW Coroner has found there is sufficient evidence for the
Director of Public Prosecutions to consider laying charges against the
parents of a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic
remedies.

More at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/\
19/1195321684868.html

[athon]

There was an interesting case on the Gold Coast a number of years ago which echoes this one. I was working in pathology at the time and involved with the situation - not pretty.

I seriously hope that this starts some sort of national debate...however I have my reservations. I wonder how we can add fuel to this fire and make an agenda out of it. I have friends in the sci-com industry, but I wouldn't even know where to start with it.

Athon

[Zep]

If there's any way I can help, let me know. Frankly, it needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

ETA: Link fix (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html)

[Blue Wode]

It’s so good to see Australia starting to address some of the bigger problems with homeopathy - not least its Skeptics who are currently helping to stamp out bogus homeopathic meningiococcal ‘vaccines’:

http://stargoss.co.uk/badhomeopathy/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8

(Scroll down for the video news clip)

[Rolfe]

"I therefore recommend the NSW Department of Health consider introducing a mandatory system of registration for persons practising or wishing to practise homeopathy," Ms Jerram said.


The trouble with this well-meaning suggestion is that we all know who'll do the registering (the local homoeopathic club/pressure group), and all it will achieve is validation and legisimisation of their methods.

The one useful attribute which migh make a homoeopath reasonably safe is mandatory training in recognising actual illness which needs treated by real medicine, and mandatory referral to a real doctor in such cases.

Even that isn't foolproof - diagnosis is the most difficult part of any medical course, and the thing in which it is most difficult to train any lay person. While some things are relatively obvious, some serious conditions have subtle presenting signs which no non-medically-trained person is likely to recognise.

And it wouldn't have saved this child anyway, as it was a case of the parents treating their own child.

Rolfe.

[Richard]

ETA: Link fix (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html)

Ah.. thanks for that. Just got home after the Australian Skeptics National Convention and I'm a bit tired.... and I'm now facing doing the DVD! A report on the convention on the TANK soon.

[Blue Wode]

The trouble with this well-meaning suggestion is that we all know who'll do the registering (the local homoeopathic club/pressure group), and all it will achieve is validation and legisimisation of their methods.



Interesting you should say that, Rolfe. In this week’s Swift newsletter, James Randi offers a similar opinion:

Coroner Jerram said the evidence showed that the parents caused Gloria's death and that their negligence warranted criminal punishment.

Nonsense. The responsibility lies elsewhere. I ask: Is the practice of homeopathy accepted by Australian health authorities? Are homeopaths allowed to practice in Australia as professionals? Are homeopathic preparations legally sold in stores in Australia? Is homeopathy legally advertised via the media in Australia? If the answers to any of these questions are “yes,” then the practice of homeopathy is not illegal in that country, and Thomas Sam – obviously convinced that homeopathy is effective, certainly was within his rights to administer what he believed was appropriate medical care to his daughter, and was doing what he thought was proper and correct!

-snip-

I am suggesting that the fact that homeopathy is not considered – by the Australian authorities – to be a serious danger to human life because it can replace proven, evidence-based medical treatment – is a mistake, a lacuna in thinking that should be addressed, in Australia and around the world. Homeopathy is a very insidious notion; it appears to be possibly beneficial at best, and innocuous at worst. It is neither. It is quackery in its most virulent form.

Coroner Jerram said, as if to recommend a procedure for at least trying to remedy this situation:

I… recommend the NSW Department of Health consider introducing a mandatory system of registration for persons practicing or wishing to practice homeopathy.

Registration of quacks? As what, Ms. Jerram? Dangerous persons? Harmless eccentrics? Fun-seeking crackpots? Why not simply look into the abysmal record of homeopathy – the actual facts, the evidence, and not the endless anecdotes and “testimonials” so preferred by these amateurs – and issue a statement that tells Australians what total, mystical, pseudoscientific claptrap homeopathy really is, and warn them against using it for anything but amusement? Or would that not be politically correct?

More…
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/131/1/#i2

[skeptigirl]

I have begun calling all this stuff, "superstitious medicine" and add, as opposed to "evidence based medicine". The names we apply to these things matters just as the idea regulating and licensing adds legitimacy rather than safety.

[Aepervius]

How about a disclaimer in black letter pica 28 like on cigarette package "WARNING : SMOKING IS RELATED TO LUNG CANCER".

Maybe force every homeopath prescription to have :
"WARNING THIS IS NOT A MEDICAMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SUBSTITUTION TO REAL TREATMENT"
"CONTAIN ONLY SUGAR. NOT DEMONSTRATED TO WORK IN DOUBLE BLIND STUDY"...

[skeptigirl]

I like that idea.

[fls]

I have begun calling all this stuff, "superstitious medicine" and add, as opposed to "evidence based medicine". The names we apply to these things matters just as the idea regulating and licensing adds legitimacy rather than safety.

I like that one. "Alternative" and "complementary" don't capture the nature of why these medicines aren't mainstream, and they add a patina of legitmacy. I've been giving DIM a try (click on my signature for an explanation).

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923

[PeterB]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

Of course it is. Anyone who believes in homeopathy must, by default, be opposed to vaccines. Conversely, I have never met an anti-vaccination liar who didn't believe in quackery in all its forms.

As for abbreviations, I prefer Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or "SCAM" for short. (Putting that up on a screen at a conference just before someone from a quackery industry body was about to give a talk was one of the contributing factors to the phone call I got from that organisation the following Monday: "I'm sorry, your debate at the Alternative Health Expo has had to be cancelled".)

[Zep]

I wonder if they checked first if the child was actually vaccinated. Homeopaths are renown for refusing vaccinations - the father may have joined that crowd. If true, it would leave their little rant with no leg to stand on.

Of course, they are also ranting that the father was a bad homeopath, and that he didn't treat properly or in time.

And yet they accuse "science" of concocting tall tales! Highly amusing if it wasn't so tragic.

[Rolfe]

<sarcasm>

But Peter, doncha know that vaccination proves that homoeopathy is scientifically valid, because an infinitesimal dose of like cures sorry, prevents like?

</sarcasm>

Rolfe.

[Kell]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923

Yes, I saw that thread linked from Ben Goldacre's blog sidebar. Not at all surprising to see Rolfe's old pal Snoopy right there in the thick of it.

I hate these people, without apology.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, I saw that thread linked from Ben Goldacre's blog sidebar. Not at all surprising to see Rolfe's old pal Snoopy right there in the thick of it.

I hate these people, without apology.

But they have made up some cool words. For example:

Simillimum

Try saying that three times in a row quickly.

[Ocelot]

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923

Only if we could know, the list of medicines the doctor prescribed for his child....


Water you flitwit, water. That's all they ever prescribe.

[Rolfe]

And sugar pills. And alcohol, actually. They can't quite seem to decide whether the solvent for the potentisation should be water or alcohol. I've asked those of them boasting about how pure the water is that they use, what sort of pure water Hahnemann used (and if he didn't have such a source as theirs, how come it was so important now), and had various answers. However, I think Hahnemann actually used alcohol. I think.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

However, I think Hahnemann actually used alcohol. I think.

I bet he did.

[Rolfe]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923


Oh my sainted aunt! Have you ever seen a more pathetic bunch of navel-gazing inadequates in your entire life? The bit where they start to fight like ferrets in a sack is especially entertaining.

It's all the miasms the poor kid inherited from her great-great-great grandfather.

Rolfe.

[Professor Yaffle]

I find them very mild and amusing, but then I have been reading the "Jabs" site lately..... Now that's a scary bunch of fanatics!

[Madalch]

But they have made up some cool words. For example:

Simillimum

Try saying that three times in a row quickly.

They didn't make that up- they read it off of the spine of the book right next to "The Lord of the Rings" in the library, but couldn't pronounce it properly.

[Kell]

They didn't make that up- they read it off of the spine of the book right next to "The Lord of the Rings" in the library, but couldn't pronounce it properly.


Hobbiteopathy? The Two Tinctures?




sry :blush:

[skeptigirl]

I like that one. "Alternative" and "complementary" don't capture the nature of why these medicines aren't mainstream, and they add a patina of legitmacy. I've been giving DIM a try (click on my signature for an explanation).

Linda[side track]Harriet the Skep Doc and I have been tossing terms around. Can we apply DIM to the untested? Otherwise I like it. Superstitious requires a bit of explaining, but in the long run, it does describe the decision making criteria. I'll have to go back through my emails to find the term Harriet liked the most.

I think it's important we find and promote the right label here. I'll be tickled if I get the label, "superstitious", widely adopted.

[Madalch]

Oh my sainted aunt! Have you ever seen a more pathetic bunch of navel-gazing inadequates in your entire life?

I may have to add this bit to my sig:
"iatrogenesis is a distinct aetiological category. if you don't understand that, then you need to go back to school."

(After I figure out what iatrogenesis and aetiology are.)

[skeptigirl]

Of course it is. Anyone who believes in homeopathy must, by default, be opposed to vaccines. Conversely, I have never met an anti-vaccination liar who didn't believe in quackery in all its forms.

As for abbreviations, I prefer Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or "SCAM" for short. (Putting that up on a screen at a conference just before someone from a quackery industry body was about to give a talk was one of the contributing factors to the phone call I got from that organisation the following Monday: "I'm sorry, your debate at the Alternative Health Expo has had to be cancelled".)SCAM, that was Harriet's choice if I recall now. But like DIM, the acronym is a short cut to the message, but to the believer, it becomes a simple insult. It doesn't offer that key 'frame' which explains what the problem is. The D in DIM has that key. I'm just not sure it really applies to everything non-evidence based.

Trouble with these terms..

Alternative implies alternative to evidence a suggests that's OK. It's like equating science to a religion. This one is as good as that one, the difference is arbitrary. This is just plain false.

Complementary also implies 'benefit' and/or legitimacy.

Those were both useful terms when introduced 30+ years ago. At the time the medical community was looking to get this stuff out of the closet. Patients were coming in and not admitting to using these things in the medical history. For the provider it was better to know what you might be mixing with your prescriptions than to ignore the stuff.

Now, however, there has been sufficient time to actually do the research on these interventions. Either they passed muster, failed (most often) or perhaps remain unconfirmed one way or the other. And 'Western' medicine vs "Eastern" or "traditional" or "alternative" have all been replaced by "evidence based medicine". There is no reason to have a special category. It is either evidence based or it isn't.

The simpliest term is non-evidence based. But I find that says what the stuff isn't without saying what it truly is. I'm not completely happy with 'superstitious' because it also sounds like a simple put down. But if one asks for an explanation, it is very defensible in that it does describe the decision making criteria fairly accurately. It still leaves out the believer who believes his superstitious beliefs are evidence based. But for the fence sitters, I think it triggers a eureka moment about what is evidence based and what is based on superstitious thought processes.[/sidetrack]

[skeptigirl]

I may have to add this bit to my sig:
"iatrogenesis is a distinct aetiological category. if you don't understand that, then you need to go back to school."

(After I figure out what iatrogenesis and aetiology are.)

iatrogenic -> caused by the treatment or intervention.

aetiology -> etiology -> the cause of the illness.

You might also like to add:

nosocomial -> an infection acquired in or from the medical system such as the germs in the hospital infecting your surgical site.

[skeptigirl]

Hobbiteopathy? The Two Tinctures?




sry :blush:That's great. :D If we had nominations for the funnies I'd nominate it.

[geni]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923

Well it either had to be that or "It wasn't homeopathy".

[Wildy]

But they have made up some cool words. For example:

Simillimum

Try saying that three times in a row quickly.

What the hell is "simillimum"?

Is that supposed to be like 'crisis' in hippocratic texts?

People do anything to try and sound smart.

[Mojo]

What the hell is "simillimum"?


The last remedy they try.

[fls]

[side track]Harriet the Skep Doc and I have been tossing terms around. Can we apply DIM to the untested?

Yes. We know enough now to expect a low rate of return. We have discovered that wild guesses, ideas based on ignorance, uncontrolled observations, multi-step extrapolations, wishful thinking and happenstance serve us very poorly when it comes to identifying truly useful therapies. It is the use of these methods that is demonstrably ineffective, therefore therapies whose puported usefulness depends on these methods (i.e. the use of susperstitious rather than scientific thinking) can be assumed to be demonstrably ineffective until proven otherwise. Out of all the things we could try for a particular condition, very few (if any) will have an effect. I like the story of the search for a new malaria drug using chinese herbal medicine for malaria as a starting point, as an example - 200 herbs listed, only one was effective.

Otherwise I like it. Superstitious requires a bit of explaining, but in the long run, it does describe the decision making criteria. I'll have to go back through my emails to find the term Harriet liked the most.

I think it's important we find and promote the right label here. I'll be tickled if I get the label, "superstitious", widely adopted.

I agree that this is the way to go - emphasize that it is not about the lack of a 'proper' clinical study (as though it's a matter of form), it's about the use of a kind of thinking that prevents us from discovering when we are wrong. And with hundreds of ways to be wrong for every way we are right, we need the tools that tell us when we are wrong.

Linda

[Ladewig]

The trouble with this well-meaning suggestion is that we all know who'll do the registering (the local homoeopathic club/pressure group), and all it will achieve is validation and legisimisation of their methods.

But imagine a registration process where the homeopath must identify four different remedies using whatever reference materials and apparatus that he chooses. If the registration process were as rigorous as the process used for pharmacists, could any homeopath pass the test.

[Rolfe]

Dream on.

Rolfe.

[kittynh]

It's odd. Our local "new age" pharmacy (that's what they call themselves) demands that their products be respected and treated like REAL MEDICINE! They make claims go beyond what any normal medication makes, and no side effects! But don't you dare talk about the homeopathic remedies and other herbal treatments with one tad less respect (and in fact they want MORE respect) than conventional medication.

BUT... they also don't want to be subject to the same controls as the medicine they claim to be the equal (or more) of. Not even purity or quality control. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

In Vermont some of my friends treat you like you are an idiot if you still see a regular physician. Several have the bumper sticker "Doctors Make Me Sick". You are living in the dark ages if you are still putting the POISON in your system.

Hello? Many of them have very good health as they follow vegan diets and believe in exercise. But, they are ostriches with their heads in the sand. The problem with real medicine is they make limited promises and are open about side effects. Homeopathy, why there are no side effects, except that one called "death".

[PeterB]

SCAM, that was Harriet's choice if I recall now. But like DIM, the acronym is a short cut to the message, but to the believer, it becomes a simple insult.


I've been using it for years. The difference in my SCAM and others is that in mine the "S" stands for "Supplementary" and I let the listener build the acronym.

As for insulting people I don't care about about true believers, only their victims. Here is something I wrote in another thread on this forum:

I receive enough positive emails from The Millenium Project (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/)to encourage me that there are people out there who will listen. I don't expect to change true believers, but they aren't my targets; the targets are people who have suspicions or doubts and are prepared to weigh evidence and argument.

Every time I get an email saying something like "I keep hearing about the dangers of vaccination but I saw what you had to say about the liars and now all my kids have had their shots" or "My friend wanted me to join [any pyramid scheme you can name] but what you wrote convinced me that they are a scam" or "Thank you for warning people about cancer quacks. My wife has cancer and we are tired of being offered miracle cures" then I know that I can make a difference.


Despite this, I am unfailingly polite when talking to the perpetrators of garbage. As an example, when I ask the following questions of anti-vaccination liars I always ask politely:

1. Why do you lie about vaccines?

2. How many dead children in a pile do you need to trigger a spontaneous orgasm?

3. When unloading dead children from a truck into a mass grave, do you prefer a mechanical shovel or do you like to get personal and use a pitchfork?

Alternative implies alternative to evidence a suggests that's OK. It's like equating science to a religion. This one is as good as that one, the difference is arbitrary. This is just plain false.


I abhor the misuse of the word "alternative" in this context. There is medicine and there is an alternative, but something cannot be both

Complementary also implies 'benefit' and/or legitimacy.


When the quack supporters talk about the wide-spread acceptance and use of quackery, they always include things which actually are complementary but are recognised and recommended by doctors: vitamins, exercise, massage, ...

It is either evidence based or it isn't.


Yep!

Whenever I am accused of being opposed to "alternative medicine" I simply point out that i want everyone to play by the same rules. Quacks hate those rules.

[Mojo]

But imagine a registration process where the homeopath must identify four different remedies using whatever reference materials and apparatus that he chooses. If the registration process were as rigorous as the process used for pharmacists, could any homeopath pass the test.


Did any homoeopaths notice this (http://dcscience.net/?p=196)? I think we should be told.

[Blue Wode]

Baby death: call for homeopath rules

November 19, 2007 - 5:33PM

The NSW Coroner has found there is sufficient evidence for the
Director of Public Prosecutions to consider laying charges against the
parents of a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic
remedies.

More at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/\
19/1195321684868.html


In today’s Australian news:



Watchdog to oversee alternative therapy

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

-snip-

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

-snip-

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

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




What I don’t understand is how can these requirements be effectively enforced when most of these alt-med therapists will not be medically trained and will almost certainly rely on DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) to ‘treat’ their clients. Presumably, the HCCC will have to turn a blind eye to the ethical dilemmas at the heart of alternative medicine (either that, or it's going to be kept busy):

...In the absence of specific research, it seems reasonable to suppose that individuals who are susceptible to placebo effects, will get the best results if their treatment is surrounded by as much impressive mumbo jumbo as possible.

This suggests that, in order to maximise the placebo effect, it will be important to lie to the patient as much as possible, and certainly to disguise from them the fact that, for example, their homeopathic pill contains nothing but lactose.

Therein lies the dilemma. The whole trend in medicine has been to be more open with the patient and to tell them the truth. To maximise the benefit of alternative medicine, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible.

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

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


[My bold]

[Rolfe]

Don't knock it. At least a proper regulatory authority has been given the job, rather than a woo club. This might shake up a few people, and who knows where it could go.

Rolfe.

[Blue Wode]

Don't knock it. At least a proper regulatory authority has been given the job, rather than a woo club.


I take your point, however the article doesn’t say what body (or bodies) the practitioners should be registered with:

Ms Meagher released a draft code of conduct that will give the HCCC powers to crack down on unregistered health practitioners such as counsellors, psychotherapists and Reiki therapists.

As part of the code, unregistered health practitioners must not claim they can cure cancer or other terminal illnesses.

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




Also, I don’t see how Ms Meagher can say this…

The overwhelming majority of unregistered health practitioners are honest, competent and caring


…when most CAM practitioners, registered or not, are providing therapies which have little or no scientific evidence to support them. Back to David Colquhoun:

The whole trend in medicine has been to be more open with the patient and to tell them the truth. To maximise the benefit of alternative medicine, it is necessary to lie to the patient as much as possible.

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

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




and

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

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



[My bold]

ETA: Basically, I don't see that being a registered practitioner makes much more difference than being an unregistered one. See here:

'Registered Osteomylogist, Robert Delgado, Is Found Guilty of Misleading People. So What?'
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/registered-osteomylogist-robert-delgado.html

[Ashles]

The response to this incident by (some) homeopaths is to blame vaccination for the child's death.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6923

Oh my goodness - some of the morons on that forum...

Still it did generate this:
Of course we all are humans ( no matter in Europe, in Armenia, in INDIA, US, UK anywhere)... and we all are the CARRIERs of our genetically inherited through the hundreads of predecessors predispositions, illnesses, traces ect... and i believe not only Psora, Tuberc,Medho, Syphil., but also genetic codes of the PLAQUE epidemics of the past , for example!!!!
I think we all remember reading about the horrific PLAQUE outbreak in ENgland in 1665.
Millions of teeth had to be cleaned.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh my goodness - some of the morons on that forum...

Still it did generate this:

I think we all remember reading about the horrific PLAQUE outbreak in ENgland in 1665.
Millions of teeth had to be cleaned.

Will no one think of the TEETH!!!

Homeopathetic prevention of caries. Use a laser beam to drill little, teeny, tiney holes in them. (Patent maybe pending). :D

[Blue Wode]

I wonder if the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)/advertising authorities in Australia will have anything to say about the World Homeopathy Awareness Week ad which is apparently about to hit Australian cinemas:

Courtesy of this blog…
http://podblack.wordpress.com:80/2008/03/24/homeopathy-week-defying-science-for-250-years/

…which linked to here…
http://www.homeopathynsw.org/documents/WHAW_Campaign_2008.pdf

…you will find that the ad can be viewed by clicking on ‘general interest’ in the left sidebar of the following link, and then clicking on ‘WHAW resources' in the bottom left box (look for the cinema ad link):
http://www.homeopathyoz.org/

[Mojo]

Will no one think of the TEETH!!!


"Tried Everything Else, Try Homoeopathy"?