The Nightingale Collaboration

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

Loads there to complain about! Not direct claims, but still things that mislead the visitor:

Healing illness has never been simple but homeopathy offers by far the most thorough and comprehensive approach to date.

Homeopathy is a natural and safe system of medicine, that works with your body's own healing processes. It recognises that disease is simply the body's way of showing that it is out of balance and that it is therefore the patient who needs treatment not the disease.

It's none of these things - it is not a 'system of medicine' - it's not medicine and the advertisers should be challenged on that. That's a claim that will mislead people into thinking it's just a system of medicine that's simply an alternative to proper medicine and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.

Ditto with this nonsense:

Working with nature
All symptoms of illness are the body's first attempt to heal itself. A homeopath respects this natural tendency, and attempts to work with it rather than against it. He seeks therefore to understand the whole patient and not just isolated illness.
This is quite different from the orthodox approach, which tries to suppress individual symptoms whenever they arise, with little understanding of their wider context and of the disruption and suffering this will inevitably cause.

This denigrates proper medicine by giving utterly false and misleading information about it. The irony of the claim that the 'orthodox approach' has little understanding of the wider context of the symptoms!

Based on treatment of the patient as an individual.
Scientists study disease as if the people that have them do not exist. A homeopath on the other hand, looks for the complete collection of symptoms the individual displays.
These symptoms will be mental, emotional and physical regardless of where the complaint is centred, for it is only by treating the complete collection of symptoms that a real and lasting cure can ever be accomplished.

This is the usual canard: conventional medicine bases treatment on individuals; homeopaths bases treatment on imaginary pre-scientific ideas about how the world works. This is misleading.

Safe and gentle
Homeopathic medicines have all been tested thoroughly on human volunteers (not on animals). They are non-toxic, have no side effects and are not addictive.

This could mislead the public into thinking they have been tested for efficacy: they haven't. The 'testing' they are talking about is their mis-named 'provings' which are utter nonsense and in no way give any indication of efficacy. Are they safe? Directly, possibly (but not categorically). Indirectly? No.

http://www.homeopathy.iofm.net/page2.html

Up to date
Unfortunately little has changed to date, and in spite of numerous clinical audits which demonstrate how well homeopathic treatment works in practice, the establishment will not forsake its dogma.
Like religion, it seems the scientific community has its fixed beliefs, and will not change in the face of contra-evidence, even when this attitude deprives the sick of the best treatment available.
Yet homeopathy has continued to flourish despite this bigotry, and according to the World Health Organisation, is now the second most popular health-care system globally and the fastest growing.

'how well homeopathic treatments work'? You've got to be kidding - there are no robust scientific trails that show homeopathy more effective than placebo - and that's what the ASA are interested in, not some airy-fairy proving!

Other stuff on that page is also misleading.

http://www.homeopathy.iofm.net/page3.html

Wisdom of the body
This principle is practically illustrated in the relationship between childhood eczema and asthma. Eczema is often treated conventionally with powerful steroid creams, but these have the effect, not of curing, but of "burying" the problem more deeply. After treatment the patient's skin symptoms have been removed, but all too often, asthma symptoms develop in their place.
The problem has just been moved to a deeper and more serious level.
A homeopath would expect to see a reverse of this process, so that successful treatment would usually involve the eczema reappearing briefly at some point, as the vital force retraces its steps towards health.

I doubt the advertiser could substantiate what he says about conventional treatment - it sets up a straw man just to mislead the visitor.

http://www.homeopathy.iofm.net/page4.html

He will then try to match this "picture" with thousands of other cured cases recorded in the homeopathic materia medicas.

This gives the misleading impression that people have been cured by homeopathy.

I hope this gives you some food for thought! If you want any help drafting anything, just let me know!

Remember to include some of the stock phrases: http://www.nightingale-collaboration.or ... month.html

[getreal]

I've been checkimng a few up here and they seem to be very coy about what they claim. In fact they don't seem to claim anything. They just explain what homeopathy "is". Do you think they are being more catious after the Simon Singh affair?*


*I think that was the name of the 4th Bourne film


X posted with Alan. I am perhaps being less rigerous than I could be. I shall go back and re check these sites in light of your post.

[Alan H]

Then there's:

http://harley-homeopaths.co.uk/

+ recurrent infections such as colds, tonsillitis, cystitis and ear infections
+ skin conditions such as eczema
+ allergies, intolerances and sensitivities
+ asthma
+ menstrual and menopausal problems
+ chronic fatigue and low energy levels
+ migraine and headaches
+ stress related symptoms such as anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and grief
+ depression, low confidence and worry
+ behavioural and developmental issues in children
+ Infertility, pregnancy and child birth
+ Feeding and sleeping problems in children
+ IBS
+ Joint problems

This one might be a good one to get you started!

Just realised that if you Google "[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=homeopath+OR+homeopathy+isle+of+man]homeopath OR homeopathy isle of man" Think Humanism is the eighth hit!

Or, just across the water:
http://www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk/

Eczema
Anxiety,
Addictions,
Exam Nerves
Stress,
Trauma,
Grief
Depression,
Hay Fever,
Migraines,
Hormonal conditions, Menopause, PMT
Asthma,
Reoccurring Colds,
Coughs,
Earaches,
Flu,
Molluscum Contagium,
Psoriasis,
Insomnia

[Alan H]

I've been checkimng a few up here and they seem to be very coy about what they claim. In fact they don't seem to claim anything.

Clear direct claims to treat are great and relatively clear cut. The more indirect claims are not as clear cut and it's possible the ASA will say they are the advertiser's opinion (which is allowed) or it's not clear what is meant or that they don't think it is misleading. But always look at it from the point of view of the general public who will know little about homeopathy and will be misled by claims and 'systems of medicine' and other such sciency-sounding words. Make a case for your complaint, lead the ASA through your argument as to why you believe it can be misleading.

[Dave B]

I note careful wording on the Southport site, Alan:

Although a consultation is holistic, in that it treats the whole person, conditions I am frequently consulted for are:-

One may "consult" with anyone regarding a disease perfectly legally, but that is not a claim that any efficacious "treatment" may be offered. The lady makes no public claim of her skills at curing anything by my reading.

However reading further (which I should have done before) she does seem to quote a load of clinical trials findings in favour of homoeopathy as a treatment - do you have any knowledge of the validity of those trials Alan?

[Nick]

Great post, Alan!

I expect you've posted the answer to this somewhere else already, but I can't lay my hands on it for now. What are the criteria we can use under the new rules? Misleading, untrue, unproveable.....? Is there a list we can refer to?

There will also be some protection for fair comment, etc. Any guidance on that? They wouldn't support a complaint against a church for mentioning God, for example.

Thanks in advance.

[sandymere]

Just done my first one, not as bad as I thought, I admit I picked an easy one to cut my teeth on and do a little for the pet owners out there.
http://www.dorwest.com/Catalogue/Homoeopathic-Remedies

Next I'm off to look at a woman in Bideford who offers many wonderful "therapies" on her web site.

[Tetenterre]

The more indirect claims are not as clear cut and it's possible the ASA will say they are the advertiser's opinion (which is allowed) or it's not clear what is meant or that they don't think it is misleading.

The tack I have been taking is this:

3. Although [homoeopath] does not specifically say so, the implication of the citing of these conditions for which she has been consulted is that her business is capable of treating them.

4. She does not cite any any instances of her failure to successfully treat the conditions about which she was consulted, so we are invited to infer that her treatment was successful.

[Dave B]

The more indirect claims are not as clear cut and it's possible the ASA will say they are the advertiser's opinion (which is allowed) or it's not clear what is meant or that they don't think it is misleading.

The tack I have been taking is this:

3. Although [homoeopath] does not specifically say so, the implication of the citing of these conditions for which she has been consulted is that her business is capable of treating them.

4. She does not cite any any instances of her failure to successfully treat the conditions about which she was consulted, so we are invited to infer that her treatment was successful.

Greetings Tententerre.

I agree that simply listing those conditions that a homoeopath is "consulted" on implies that treatment is also available but is it a legal declaration of ability to treat? I would think that the ASA could only act in situation where they have a cast-iron case, where the claim to be able to treat or, worse, cure conditions is explicit.

[Tetenterre]

@Dave B: IANAL, but I suspect that Joe/Joanna Public would draw the conclusion that efficacious treatment is available. I'll report here when I find out the results of my ASA complaints.

On a completely different matter, it would seem that the Nightingale Collaboration is beginning to bite. Take a shufti at http://www.thenaturalcentre.com/Natural_Healing.html -- would it be unfair to paraphrase what is written there as: "Darn! We can no longer make unsubstantiated claims on our web site, so we'll just make them in person or on the phone instead." ?

[Alan H]

The more indirect claims are not as clear cut and it's possible the ASA will say they are the advertiser's opinion (which is allowed) or it's not clear what is meant or that they don't think it is misleading.

The tack I have been taking is this:

3. Although [homoeopath] does not specifically say so, the implication of the citing of these conditions for which she has been consulted is that her business is capable of treating them.

4. She does not cite any any instances of her failure to successfully treat the conditions about which she was consulted, so we are invited to infer that her treatment was successful.

Well put. IIRC, the ASA allow opinion, but it clearly has to be identified as such. I also don't remember any case where the ASA rejected a complaint about some medical condition that had been mentioned in an ad, however obliquely. They are well aware of the tactics of advertisers (and remember that many of the big advertisers have very large ad budgets and are adept at finding ways round any pesky restrictions) and interpret their rules very loosely.

[Dave B]

I sit corrected and am happy that the ASA are not hidebound and tied up with miles of red tape!

Nice find there, Tetenterre!

Their argument about a "self elected group" could also be pointed back at them, where is their absolute authority to peddle their claims? Many officially recognised and respected groups started with a few dedicated people. Does the Collaboration have charitable status, Alan?

OK, checked on the website - no it does not.

[Alan H]

Their argument about a "self elected group" could also be pointed back at them, where is their absolute authority to peddle their claims?

Good point.

Does the Collaboration have charitable status, Alan?

OK, checked on the website - no it does not.

Not at the moment.

[Nick]

Hi Tetenterre and welcome!

Great link I find it amusing that those in search of truth should be described as "science-fascists"

I think it is also worth quote directly from the site you referred to: [my bold]

We therefore take this opportunity to register our absolute rejection of the attempt by Nightingale Collaboration to set themselves up in judgement over the matter of truth in health or the science of health. The debate as to what does or does not work in health practice is the ongoing and non-prejudicial remit of both science and traditional knowledge, and in a fair society must not be hijacked by polemicists and propagandists on behalf of the hegemony of the conventional healthcare industry and its economic and professional interests

.What on earth is "traditional knowledge"? If it is not science, then it is just woo. Disprove that, and there's a Phd in it for you. And funnily enough, I don't think Alan has the fragile interests of Big Pharma, especially eonomic ones, uppermost in his mind.

We also advise you that though we are taking discretion as the better part of valour on this website, at present there exist no laws about what we can or cannot discuss with you in person or over the telephone. If you are interested in our point of view, or even i what we might be able to do for you

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure you can still be done for selling snake oil if you claim, even verbally, that it can cure you. Never mind prosecution if your actions lead to the death of a "patient" if your actions encourage them to reject conventional medicine. Anyone know for sure?

[Dave B]

Telephone "boiler house" selling has attracted the interest of the law. Is there any real difference between telephone scams that sell bogus financial (or any other) products and telephone "consultations" that sell bogus treatments?

[getreal]

If a site only claims that remedies can "aid" a particular condition would this necessarily conravene the ASA guidelines? Could "aid" legitimatly include the placebo response?

I'm gobsmacked that there are only 2 homeopathic vet practices listed on the voodoo vets' society British Association of Homeopathic Vets website. Maybe most vets who rip off their customers offer homeopathy are not registered with BAHV*

feel free to delet this post if it is in any way libelous

[Emma Woolgatherer]

On 1 March I saved a pdf file of one of the web pages of a homeopath called Poppy Altmann, a self-styled "warrior homeopath" based in Richmond, southwest London, with the intention of making an ASA complaint, but I put it off. The original web page said this:

People with acute illnesses such as ear infections, tonsilitis, coughs, cold and flu can be treated with homeopathy and it may be possible to avoid the use of antibiotics in these situations.

The web page now says, rather feebly:

People with acute illnesses such as ear infections, tonsilitis, coughs, cold and flu use homeopathy.

The original page said:

I have been taught to treat people with a wide range of conditions and have helped people with diabetes, thyroid problems, cancer, depression, eczema, asthma, insomnia, anxiety, eating disorders, weight problems, childhood behavioural problems to mention a few. Homeopathy always treats the person, not the disease.

It now says:

I have been taught to offer consultation services to people with a wide range of conditions and have prevously had consultations with people with diabetes, thyroid problems, cancer, depression, eczema, asthma, insomnia, anxiety, eating disorders, weight problems, childhood behavioural problems to mention a few. Homeopathy has not been proven to treat people with these diseases as it always treats the person, not the disease so you should always consult your doctor and inform them when you are using homeopathy.

The original web page said:

I have been present at two labours using homeopathic remedies as well as giving advice by phone to birth partners. I have a lot of experience helping women and their babies in the postnatal period. Homeopathy can be truly amazing at enabling women to heal themselves both physically and emotionally after the trauma of childbirth. I can help women with morning sickness, varicose veins and haemorrhoids, heartburn, miscarriage, avoiding complications during birth, pain management, post natal depression, scarring and stretch marks, engorgement, mastitis and cracked nipples, thrush and milk supply. I can also give advice and resources on vaccination issues. Homeopathy is also very effective for treating newborn babies. Please have a look at the Testimonials page to see how homeopathy can help young children, new mothers and babies.

Amazingly, that's all still there. I didn't save a pdf of the Testimonials page, but it now is headed by this paragraph, which I don't think was there before:

These testimonials represent only the personal opinions of people who have come to me for homeopathy and do not represent evidence.

So something of a contradiction there, then.

Emma

[Alan H]

If a site only claims that remedies can "aid" a particular condition would this necessarily conravene the ASA guidelines? Could "aid" legitimatly include the placebo response?

'Aid' still implies it actually does something, so I suspect the ASA would expect to see evidence that it does.

I'm gobsmacked that there are only 2 homeopathic vet practices listed on the voodoo vets' society British Association of Homeopathic Vets website.

Two in Scotland, 35 in England, one in Wales.

Have you seen The British Veterinary Voodoo Society?

[getreal]

Indeed I have, Alan.

Didn't the veterinary homeopaths complain to the BVA that they were bringing the profession into disrepute? Beyond irony!

[Nick]

Have you seen The British Veterinary Voodoo Society?

That's absolutely great!

From their links, I came across the Homeopathic Professionals Teaching Group, a page of which reveals this: [my bold]

Homeopathy has been proved to be ideal as a first-line treatment for many of the acute and chronic conditions seen in primary care and has a wide safety margin, even in pregnancy.

Seems like a good candidate for the ASA....

[Alan C.]

Homeopathy has been proved to be ideal as a first-line treatment for many of the acute and chronic conditions seen in primary care and has a wide safety margin, even in pregnancy.

Nick
Seems like a good candidate for the ASA....

Shouldn't it say "has been proven"?

We see constant references to how safe homoeopathic "treatments" are but they never explain why (no active ingredients)