From: john on
22 February 2010
Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths


PRESS STATEMENT
For Immediate Release

Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation

If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
experience of homeopathy has been. In fact, the patients' voice has been
totally excluded from the investigation! This is strange, because according
to the Government White Paper (January 2006) 'Our health, our care, our say:
a new direction for community services,' 'patient centred healthcare' is
supposed to be at the heart of NHS delivery. Or is this a commitment which
is upheld, only when it's politically expedient?

Recently, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (HoC S&TC)
were charged to investigate the available evidence in support of the
efficacy of homeopathy. Their survey comprised a combination of written
submissions and oral presentations. Now you would think that a specially
convened committee of this nature, would be keen to access information from
every possible source. You might even think that, given the recent
parliamentary expenses scandal, a parliamentary special committee would want
to conduct its business in an open, transparent and even handed manner, and
show that it is using taxpayers' money in a responsible manner. But you
would be wrong!

Most of the homeopathy profession were not informed directly that an enquiry
was to take place, and only learned of it via the media, with less than ten
days to prepare a submission. Is that a serious way to treat an 'evidence
check'? The majority of individuals invited to give oral evidence were from
the anti homeopathy lobby. Only one practising homeopath was allowed to
speak (there are about 2,500 registered homeopaths in the UK), and not a
single patient was asked for their view (there are about 6,000,000 patients
using homeopathy in the UK). Does this sound as though the oral submissions
represented a balanced perspective?

But wait, there's more! It has been said that this 'evidence check' was
instigated by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, one of homeopathy's most
vociferous detractors. Dr Harris belongs to a self appointed pressure group
that calls itself 'Sense About Science' (SAS, get it?!!) If you want to know
the particular allegiance of this group, just take a look at who comprises
SAS's Board of Trustees, and the industries they represent. Did you know
that Dr Harris was one of the fourteen members of the S&T Committee? Shortly
after the inquiry closed, Dr Harris took part in a very public demonstration
against homeopathy. Is this the correct way for an individual in a
privileged and responsible position to behave? Should someone showing such a
clear bias from the outset, be allowed to sit on a committee of this nature?
One could be forgiven for thinking that our parliamentary process has been
hijacked by this influential pressure group, which seems to have succeeded
in subverting the S&T Committee into convening a 'kangaroo court' with just
one predetermined agenda; to discredit homeopathy.

As Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths said;
'Millions of patients in the UK know that homeopathy works for them, yet
they are being totally ignored. Also, we see the most amazing results when
homeopathy is used on animals, but this Committee seems intent on denying
all the supportive evidence with which it has been presented. If their
recommendations are acted upon by Government, patients will be denied the
choice they have a right to receive within the NHS. In short, if they can't
afford to pay for their homeopathic treatment privately, they'll have to go
without!'

It appears that hundreds of positive trials, thousands of hospital reports,
a successful mass immunisation programme in Cuba, and a recent pilot project
in Northern Ireland, all showing homeopathy to be efficacious and cost
efficient, don't count as evidence. In fact the conclusions of the S&T
Committee are so one sided, you could ask if they actually read any of the
submissions presented to them? The experience of patients obviously doesn't
count either, because they weren't even invited to contribute to the
enquiry. This is a sad day for our citizens. It makes a mockery of genuine
scientific enquiry, it brings the democratic process into disrepute, and it
has the potential to deny patients access to a system of medicine which is
gentle, safe, effective and cost efficient.


ENDS


CONTACTS FOR EDITORS

Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
Millbrook, Millbrook Hill, Nutley
East Sussex. TN22 3PJ
Tel: 01825 714506
Email: info(a)a-r-h.org
Website: www.a-r-h.org

Registered Office
Steve Scrutton
Registrar and Media Officer
Alliance of Registered Homeopaths.
15 Manitoba Close, Corby,
Northamptonshire. NN18 9HX
Tel: 01536 744520
Email: steve(a)a-r-h.org

THE ALLIANCE OF REGISTERED HOMEOPATHS

INFORMATION FOR EDITORS

The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) is a UK professional
organisation that supports and promotes a high standard of safe, effective
homeopathic practice. It currently represents over 700 practising
homeopaths.

We are committed to:
... ensuring that quality homeopathy is available to all who wish to use it
... raising public awareness of the potential of homeopathic treatment
... encouraging a high standard of education for homeopaths
... supporting the ongoing professional development of our Members
... encouraging co-operation between our Members and other healthcare
professionals, for the benefit of patients
... engaging in research, publishing and other activities that enhance our
understanding of homeopathy
... acting as an information base for the general public.


From: dr_jeff on
john wrote:
> 22 February 2010
> Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
>
>
> PRESS STATEMENT
> For Immediate Release
>
> Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
>
> If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
> for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
> called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
> released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
> 'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
> experience of homeopathy has been.

The way the patient's have a voice is in good peer-reviewed articles
that show how effective or ineffective homeopathy is.

Otherwise, all you have is testimonials and anecdotes, which are
scientifically nearly useless.

Jeff
From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:38:06 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:


>If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
>for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
>called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
>released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
>'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
>experience of homeopathy has been.

Patients could, and did comment and their comments were recorded in
the final report at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

>In fact, the patients' voice has been totally excluded from the investigation!

It appears the homeopaths understanding of what went on is as warped
as the list of "studies" they submitted to the Committee.

>a new direction for community services,' 'patient centred healthcare' is
>supposed to be at the heart of NHS delivery. Or is this a commitment which
>is upheld, only when it's politically expedient?

"Patient Centred Healthcare" means supplying effective proven
treatment, not listening to the latest fad or make believe.

>You might even think that, given the recent
>parliamentary expenses scandal, a parliamentary special committee would want
>to conduct its business in an open, transparent and even handed manner, and
>show that it is using taxpayers' money in a responsible manner. But you
>would be wrong!

They held on their hearings not merely in public (anyone who chose
could attend and listen) but televised in full on public TV. Is that
not about as open and transparent as you could get?

>Most of the homeopathy profession were not informed directly that an enquiry
>was to take place,

Why didn't those homeopaths who knew bother to tell the others?
(Actually the intention to hold the hearing was publicised months
previously).

>Only one practising homeopath was allowed to
>speak (there are about 2,500 registered homeopaths in the UK),

A number of homeopaths submitted written evidence
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/contents.htm

>and not a >single patient was asked for their view

a number of patients did likewise.

>Should someone showing such a
>clear bias from the outset, be allowed to sit on a committee of this nature?

The author is now showing the common problem amongst homeopaths of
being unable to distinguish between the message (supported by
evidence) or the messenger, who is unimportant.

>Also, we see the most amazing results when
>homeopathy is used on animals,

Pity she has no evidence to support this. On the other hand a major
study over several years showed homeopathic remedies to be completely
ineffective in cattle.
The University of Bristol (2005) The use of homeopathic nosodes
in the prevention of mastitis within organic dairy herds. Final
Report to Defra on project OF0186


>The experience of patients obviously doesn't
>count either, because they weren't even invited to contribute to the
>enquiry.

Yes they were :-

"The Committee invites short submissions by Friday 6 November on the
following issues:
- Government policy on licensing of homeopathic products
- Government policy on the funding of homeopathy through the NHS
- the evidence base on homeopathic products and services. "


>The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) is a UK professional
>organisation that supports and promotes a high standard of safe, effective
>homeopathic practice.

These were the people who published the following article on malaria.

http://www.a-r-h.org/Publications/Journal/sampleArts/Malaria%20Prophylaxis.pdf

or this one on acute illness

http://www.a-r-h.org/Publications/Journal/sampleArts/Grace%20DaSilva%20Hill.pdf

Did you know your large bowel organ clock time is 5 to 7AM or that
your kidney time was 5-7PM?

From: Peter B on
"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:rol8o593mvn0qq4cs7sicldmoevf3rbh28(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:38:06 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work
>>best
>>for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a
>>so
>>called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just
>>been
>>released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what
>>constitutes
>>'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what
>>their
>>experience of homeopathy has been.
>
> Patients could, and did comment and their comments were recorded in
> the final report at
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf
>
>>In fact, the patients' voice has been totally excluded from the
>>investigation!
>
> It appears the homeopaths understanding of what went on is as warped
> as the list of "studies" they submitted to the Committee.
>
>>a new direction for community services,' 'patient centred healthcare'
>>is
>>supposed to be at the heart of NHS delivery. Or is this a commitment
>>which
>>is upheld, only when it's politically expedient?
>
> "Patient Centred Healthcare" means supplying effective proven
> treatment, not listening to the latest fad or make believe.
>
>>You might even think that, given the recent
>>parliamentary expenses scandal, a parliamentary special committee
>>would want
>>to conduct its business in an open, transparent and even handed
>>manner, and
>>show that it is using taxpayers' money in a responsible manner. But
>>you
>>would be wrong!
>
> They held on their hearings not merely in public (anyone who chose
> could attend and listen) but televised in full on public TV. Is that
> not about as open and transparent as you could get?
>
>>Most of the homeopathy profession were not informed directly that an
>>enquiry
>>was to take place,
>
> Why didn't those homeopaths who knew bother to tell the others?
> (Actually the intention to hold the hearing was publicised months
> previously).
>
>>Only one practising homeopath was allowed to
>>speak (there are about 2,500 registered homeopaths in the UK),
>
> A number of homeopaths submitted written evidence
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/contents.htm
>
>>and not a >single patient was asked for their view
>
> a number of patients did likewise.
>
>>Should someone showing such a
>>clear bias from the outset, be allowed to sit on a committee of this
>>nature?
>
> The author is now showing the common problem amongst homeopaths of
> being unable to distinguish between the message (supported by
> evidence) or the messenger, who is unimportant.
>
>>Also, we see the most amazing results when
>>homeopathy is used on animals,
>
> Pity she has no evidence to support this. On the other hand a major
> study over several years showed homeopathic remedies to be completely
> ineffective in cattle.
> The University of Bristol (2005) The use of homeopathic nosodes
> in the prevention of mastitis within organic dairy herds. Final
> Report to Defra on project OF0186
>
>
>>The experience of patients obviously doesn't
>>count either, because they weren't even invited to contribute to the
>>enquiry.
>
> Yes they were :-
>
> "The Committee invites short submissions by Friday 6 November on the
> following issues:
> - Government policy on licensing of homeopathic products
> - Government policy on the funding of homeopathy through the NHS
> - the evidence base on homeopathic products and services. "
>
>
>>The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) is a UK professional
>>organisation that supports and promotes a high standard of safe,
>>effective
>>homeopathic practice.
>
> These were the people who published the following article on malaria.
>
> http://www.a-r-h.org/Publications/Journal/sampleArts/Malaria%20Prophylaxis.pdf
>
> or this one on acute illness
>
> http://www.a-r-h.org/Publications/Journal/sampleArts/Grace%20DaSilva%20Hill.pdf
>
> Did you know your large bowel organ clock time is 5 to 7AM or that
> your kidney time was 5-7PM?
>

Thank you for the information, all of it. A Homerun!


From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 23, 5:07�pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> john wrote:
> > �22 February 2010
> > Steve Scrutton, Director, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
>
> > PRESS STATEMENT
> > For Immediate Release
>
> > Patients' Voice Excluded From Homeopathy Investigation
>
> > If you think patients might know about the treatment options that work best
> > for them, a parliamentary committee thinks otherwise. The results of a so
> > called 'evidence check' into the effectiveness of homeopathy have just been
> > released, and they reveal an extraordinarily narrow view of what constitutes
> > 'evidence'. For one thing, no one has bothered to ask patients what their
> > experience of homeopathy has been.
>
> The way the patient's have a voice is in good peer-reviewed articles
> that show how effective or ineffective homeopathy is.
>
> Otherwise, all you have is testimonials and anecdotes, which are
> scientifically nearly useless.
>
> Jeff

Not dr. Try http://www.Google.com
http://www.wame.org/resources/policies

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/11/ghostwrite

http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v70/n3/full/clpt200184a.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ghostwriters+and+ghostbusters:+drugmakers+routinely+hire+writers+to...-a0168737341

http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/mercks-ghostwriters-haunted-papers-and-fake-elsevier-journals/

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47239/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Ghost_authors_remain_a_chronic_problem

Results 1 - 10 of about 40,900 for peer reviewed by ghost writers.
(0.26 seconds)