Desperate measures from the Society of Homeopaths

[Blue Wode]

The Society of Homeopaths continues to show its true colours.

Quote:

Many people now have written about the disgraceful and dangerous claims by homeopaths to be able to prevent and cure malaria. My contribution was “Homeopathic ‘cures' for malaria: a wicked scam”.

One of the best contributions was on the Quackometer blog, The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing.

But the post has vanished! Quackometer’s ISP has received threatening letters sent by lawyers on behalf of the Society of Homeopaths, who claim that the truth is defamatory, while being unwilling to say which statements are wrong. These threats have forced the removal of the post (for the moment), though you can still read it from the Google cache.

More…

http://dcscience.net/?p=171

A few other blogs are also carrying the story, including Gimpy's blog which has (bravely) reproduced the original Quackometer article:
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/...y-legal-means/

According to DC, we may not have heard the last of this.

[Rolfe]

Wow. Reading the cached version, that was one hard-hitting article. But surely being a little rude in one's approach while stating absolute facts cannot be libellous?

Rolfe.

[Michael C]

I think this is going to backfire on the SoH.

[shpalman]

The society of homeopaths say: "Your name in The Society register tells your patients that you have been trained in essential medical sciences and have suitable clinical training and experience; you have a thorough understanding and knowledge of homeopathic materia medica and repertory; you’re insured and that you have agreed to abide by our code of ethics and practice. In short, you’re a professional homeopath."

This kind of implies that the SoH is there to protect patients. Their behaviour in this case suggests that they care more about protecting themselves.

[fagin]

Unless there are some factual errors, which I didn't notice, I doubt any case would stack up in a UK court.

[Blue Wode]

Orac has written a magnificent commentary on the SoH’s disgraceful behaviour. He’s also joined a growing band of bloggers who have decided to reproduce the original article:

Quote:

Notice that, instead of debating, instead of presenting arguments and evidence for why they thought Le Canard Noir was incorrect, instead they tried to suppress his right to free speech by making legal threats to his ISP. Let's see, first it was nutritionists trying to get David Colquhoun kicked off his university's servers, and now it's homeopaths issuing legal threats to try to silence Le Canard Noir. I guess we know who are the cowardly thugs here.The irony would be delicious if the homeopaths' actions weren't so despicable.

Fortunately, the Internet does not allow articles to disappear so easily, and I suspect that the Society of Homeopaths will come to rue the day that it decided to descend into bullying, as the article it tried to suppress spreads far and wide, even as the Society tries to dodge taking a position on the use of homeopathy against malaria. Even now, The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing can still be found in Google Cache--at least for now. Meanwhile, Other bloggers have also reposted the article, and it's shown up in Usenet as well.

Good.

In order to add to the blog storm, below the fold, I have reproduced Le Canard Noir's article, as well as a list of links discussing this story thus far:


See here:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._host_of_t.php

[Darat]

Have you sent all of this to Randi?

[Blue Wode]

I have now.

[shpalman]

I'll join in aswell: http://shpalman.livejournal.com/4788.html.

[Randi]

I am studying the SoH situation, and I believe I will post the entire discussion that they had taken down, "A response to Abigail Marshall and the Davis Dyslexia Association/ International Society of Homeopaths make themselves look silly/The Society of Homeopaths silence criticism through cowardly legal means."

If they're so litigious, let them sue the JREF. We can handle it.

[Darat]

Great news!

[shpalman]

A note from badscience.net:

Quote:

"A response to Abigail Marshall and the Davis Dyslexia Association/ International Society of Homeopaths make themselves look silly/The Society of Homeopaths silence criticism through cowardly legal means." This should read as "The Society of Homeopaths silence criticism through cowardly legal means".
Abigail Marshall and the Davis Dyslexia Association International have nothing to do with the Society of Homeopaths or homeopathy. Abigail Marshall has responded to criticism of her organisation in a civil and courteous manner and does not deserve to be associated with the Society of Homeopaths and their egregious conduct in any way.

on behalf of Gimpy

[geni]

Originally Posted by fagin

Unless there are some factual errors, which I didn't notice, I doubt any case would stack up in a UK court.

Truth is nominaly a defence under uk law howevernot always that easy to use.

[Crispy Duck]

I love this bit of double-think from the SoH press release that Gimpy blogged about:

Quote:

Homeopathy is a holistic approach and treats each person as an individual. Allergies happen when the immune system over-reacts to substances which should not cause a problem, and with carefully selected remedies a homeopath will aim to strengthen the immune system.

Holistic? Immune system? Is there a reductionist in the house?

[gimpy]

Thanks for posting my correction shpalman.

Crispy Duck there will be a short but sweet follow up to that post tonight/tomorrow.

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by gimpy

Thanks for posting my correction shpalman.

Welcome to the forum, Gimpy.

Randi has been notified about the correction.

[David Colquhoun]

I'm trying to keep count of the number of sites that have reproduced in full "The gentle art of homeopathic killing", the missing page from quackometer on my posting at http://dcscience.net/?p=171

The page came down at 11.47 on Thursday 11 October.

I make it 14 re-postings in the first 24 hours and 10 more by 23.00 (UK time) on Saturday 13 Oct (2.5 days). So 24 in 2.5 days (and the Google cache). Pity the weekend intervened so we can't get a good time course of the spread across the net. They have appeared from UK, USA, Russia and Canada (though some sources are so anonymous that one can't be sure). But that's a pretty fast response -not a bad result for freedom of speech.

Now all we are waiting for is Randi.

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by David Colquhoun

I'm trying to keep count of the number of sites that have reproduced in full "The gentle art of homeopathic killing", the missing page from quackometer on my posting at http://dcscience.net/?p=171

Orac is also attempting to keep count:

Quote:

Blogs commenting on this issue thus far:

• Society of Homeopaths: cowards and bullies
• Blog post taken down by homeopathic complaint: a chill wind is blowing
• The Society of Homeopaths silence criticism through cowardly legal means
• A run-in with the Homeopathic Thought Police
• Society of Homeopaths
• James Randi weighs in
• The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing
• The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing
• Big altie gags the truth, or tries to
• The banished quackometer post
• How ethics works according to the SoH
• The Society of Homeopaths
• The Society of Homeopaths can kiss my arse
• Silencing critics
• Fight censorship!
• The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing - A Reprint
• Homeopathic thuggery - via Orac
• Homeopathic Killing
• BadScience.net forum
• Can't silence critics
• Big Altie attempts to suppress truth
• Homeopathy: Removing criticism increases the effect
• Homeopathic legal chill
• Homeopathy, malaria & free speech
• Blogswarm: Society of Homeopaths' Thug Tactics

If you're a blogger and have posted about the Society of Homeopath's contempt for free speech, leave a link in the comments.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20..._of_t.php#more

ETA: They are all live links on Orac's site.

[shpalman]

Orac has a couple of duplicated links. I'm trying to keep a list going too but not every link is a respost of the article.

[geni]

It used to be said that the net treats censorship as damage and routes around it. Not true of course but as far as the little guy is concerned it might as well be.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...aths-cens.html

Can I present "The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing" in full on our skeptix.ca site?

[RichardR]

The Society of Homeopaths have turned themselves into an international laughing stock with this action. Not that they weren't already. But even more so. I think it's hilarious.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.skeptix.ca/articles/medic...eoKilling.html

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

http://www.skeptix.ca/articles/medic...eoKilling.html

That's another two versions then, there and on the page at Ratbags linked to from there.

[Blue Wode]

SoH code of practice “a figleaf”.

Quote:

He [Dr Andy Lewis of the Quackometer] contacted the SoH, very politely, to ask what the problems were with his comments. No response.

Society of Homeopaths’ foul play exposed by Ben Goldacre in today’s Bad Science column:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../20/homeopathy

[Mojo]

About time this got some coverage in the actual press.

[Blue Wode]

Another update.

A highly detailed formal complaint is to be sent to the Society of Homeopaths within the next few weeks (let’s hope it gets a response):

Quote:

Society of Homeopaths break own Code of Ethics in leaflet: Part one

Posted by gimpy on October 20th, 2007

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) have recently come under a lot of scrutiny after their attempts to silence the Quackometer spectacularly back fired. The original Quackometer article now has close to 20,000 hits on google, has been replicated by numerous bloggers and has now been written about in the pages of The Guardian, circulation ~350,000, readership ~1,200,000 and on Ben Goldacre’s blog. I have previously pointed out that the SoH’s website is in breach of their own Code of Ethics and I will now draw your attention to many more breaches in their advertising pamphlets. These pamphlets are sold to homeopaths for distribution to their patients. Over the next few weeks I will analyse each pamphlet in turn and will submit a formal complaint once all pamphlets have been dealt with. The breaches of the code of ethics I am concerned with are as follows:

-snip-

The best preparation for a healthy pregnancy and birth is before conception.
Homeopathic treatment can prepare your body for a healthy start for the baby.
Difficulties in conceiving can often be helped by homeopathy and by improving
hormone function generally it can often help to reverse a tendency to early
miscarriage.

There is one study in PubMed purporting to show that homeopathy has an effect on conception difficulties. It relates to male sperm count and is of spectacularly poor quality. Also, the only published research on homeopathy and hormone function relates to menopausal and cancer treatments and not miscarriage. In fact there is no published evidence on homeopathy and miscarriage in PubMed. To imply that it can prevent miscarriage without evidence is clearly misleading and is in breach of section 48 of the Code of Ethics.


Much, much, more…
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2007/...t-one/#more-25

Go Gimpy.

[gimpy]

Ha, cheers. I don't think it'll get anywhere though, I'm sure they'll come up with some weaselly semantic get out, still no harm in drawing attention to it. It is interesting that most homeopaths websites replicated parts of these leaflets including many offending passages. If, and I don't think it likely, the SoH does decide these breach its Ethics then most homeopaths will have to change their websites.

The quackometer has a good post up on his complaints.
quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopaths-through-looking-glass_20.html
Sorry can't post links yet

[JJM]

Originally Posted by gimpy

{snip}The quackometer has a good post up on his complaints.
quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/homeopaths-through-looking-glass_20.html
Sorry can't post links yet

Link:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007...-glass_20.html

[Zep]

Is there any way the sword can be truly buried into this silly business and kill it?

[Blue Wode]

The email that the Quackometer’s Dr Andy Lewis sent to Paula Ross, Chief Exec. of the Society of Homeopaths - which has yet to receive the courtesy of a reply - has just been published in full over at Bad Science:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=554

Perhaps it's time for Prince Charles’s Foundation for Integrated Health to intervene. It claims to take the protection of the public very seriously:

‘Preventing abuse by complementary therapists’
http://www.fih.org.uk/Our+work/Regul...boundaries.htm

Quote:

The Foundation believes that in any form of healthcare, the quality of care and treatment and public safety must be the top priorities.

[Blue Wode]

For those interested, Randi has posted the original Quackometer article here:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=99&Itemid=27

He’s quite cautious about the whole issue, suggesting that homeopaths’ deliberate use of weasel words will help them to evade disciplinary action for misleading advertising:

Quote:

conditions can be “treated,” not “cured”…..the use of the phrase “seeks to address” and the verbs “helps” and “addresses” could, in my opinion, get the homeopaths off the hook…

Typical woo tactics.

[Trifikas]

I seem to recall there being some kind of motion you can file that, if someone is holding a threat of litigation over your head ("Comply or we'll sue you" - type of thing) you can take THEM to court for a put-up-or-shut-up kind of ruling. Basicaly, you can force them to either try the case or never threaten you with it again.

I can't remember what the actual motion (if indeed it is a motion, I'm no lawyer or anything), I seem to recall reading about it on some Video Game Blogs that made comments about the Phantom Console that was supposedly being created. Would something like that be 1. Useful in taking a bite out of Homeopathy? or 2. Cost-effective?

Trifikas

[shpalman]

The Society of Homeopaths has written to the Guardian newspaper, in which Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column appears: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-...-releases.aspx

[Blue Wode]

Thanks for posting those links, shpalman. The SoH’s Press Statement seems to be full of the usual feeble excuses. Particularly interesting is the claim made by its author, Andy Kirk, at the start of the final paragraph:

Quote:

During the last 30 years, The Society has been working to create a robust system of voluntary self-regulation for homeopathy, establishing professional-level training standards (both private colleges and university degree courses)

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/whats-...-releases.aspx

Now here’s what Professor David Colquhoun recently revealed about Mr Kirk:

Quote:

One mechanism that is intended to maintain the standard of degrees is the external examiner. Their identities, like almost everything else, are kept secret. In the case of the Westminster BSc in homeopathy, however, we are in luck. According to the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) site, their external examiner is the "Chair of the Society of Homoeopaths". Since April 2004, that has been Andy Kirk RSHom, a homeopath in private practice, with no degree and no scientific qualifications.

http://dcscience.net/improbable.html

So much for Mr Kirk’s assertion that bloggers who criticise the SoH...

Quote:

...are not people who are interested in real debate on the basis of either science or the public good

[gimpy]

Part two of my criticism of the SoH literature is up.

Afraid I can't post links yet but I believe my blog is linked to up thread

[dahduh]

The only homeopathic remedy proven to work is 1 part homeopath to 10 parts water.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by dahduh

The only homeopathic remedy proven to work is 1 part homeopath to 10 parts water.

Now, that's quite enough of that sort of thing...






...you know jolly well that they float, which is why we have to burn them

[shpalman]

Gimpy's blog: Society of Homeopaths break own code of ethics in leaflet Part Two.

[gimpy]

Part three of my critique is now up