Latest post of the previous page:
seantellis wrote:I do indeed. Never post to forums when you're tired and have 15 tabs open.
Latest post of the previous page:
seantellis wrote:I do indeed. Never post to forums when you're tired and have 15 tabs open.
We know that OfQuack were set up with money from the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH), but their tie-up continues. Their domain name is registered to:********************************************************************************
CNHC - Mission and Values
CNHC's key values are that:
* We are professional and strive for excellence
* We are impartial, fair and balanced.
* We are open and transparent in our business
* We behave ethically, with integrity and show respect
* We take pride in delivering quality and value for money
* We are accessible for all who meet, or seek to meet, our standards
[Retrieved: Thu Mar 12 2009 23:56:06 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]
This address is the address of FIH and George Gray is their Acting Chief Executive. Impartial, fair, balanced, open and transparent, eh?Registrant:
33-41, Dallington Street
The CThA say they are: "a leading organisation representing over 9,000 Complementary Therapists in the UK and Ireland." So exactly how do they know the character of all their paying members?6. I agree to the CThA providing an independent Good Character Reference on my behalf to the CNHC.
Another trade body they trust implicitly is the London and Country Society of Physiologists (LCSP) Register of Remedial Masseurs and Manipulative Therapists.Alan H wrote:This is the one where OfQuack abrogate their responsibilities by allowing an AltMed trade body to 'guarantee' the good character of their own paying members!
Additionally, they continue to make meaningless PR statements. One was headlines in all the newspapers that we were going to be "legal". Not so. We are being regulated voluntarily. All these incorrect statements only serve to embarrass the more professional therapist and provide ammunition to the media which has already labelled CNHC 'offquack'. And that was by their own admission !!! When has the Department of Health stated it 'approved' or for that matter 'disapproved' of any regulator? If you have seen this written down somewhere - I should be much obliged if you could direct me to it.
But whatever, OK lets play the PR game. Department of Health 'approval' - what does this mean to the Practitioner? What do you think it means ? From where I sit, it means NOTHING! There is NO promise of NHS referrals from GP's. No assurance under National healthcare provision. No credibility from anyone or anywhere. Zip, naught, nothing for the practitioner. If you read all the information that is readily available. The medical profession will NOT refer to us because they say there is insufficient evidence that what we do is effective. Of course W know that not be true. WE see the evidence every day in our practices. However, THEY say they need evidence first. The likes of our "friend" Edward Ernst is the biggest instigator of pouring water on those coals. Going back to the House of Lords Report in 2000. It makes the point quite clearly. We will NOT be integrated. We will NOT get the referrals until we provide the evidence and it is recommended that this is where we put our efforts. There are many therapists who will say they are doing the research. What do THEY say> We haven't done it under random controlled trials - therefore they are worthless. I was at a Conference at the Royal Society of Medicine last year. That was exactlty the point they made. WE are not doing the research under controls which they approve. Therefore, it is disregarded.
So what does DoH approval mean in terms of voluntary regulation? NOTHING! No access to Government decision making. No special status. No role in any statutory regulatory process.
It's not looking too good for OfQuack [---][/---] they're getting attacked from all sides!At that time, it will require MORE THAN 9000 practitioners to register within 12 months in order to cover its annual running costs of 370,000 in order to break even. Well - just ask any professional organisation what they think about the prospect of sourcing that many members in 12 months. Most haven't managed to do it in their entire existence and many have been in aroun d for a long time !! It's a complete nonsense. WE (some of those representatives who sat around the Federal Working Group table) tried and tried and tried again to get them to see sense that this was a ludicrous target but would they listen ? Of course not. Time will tell. The only way that would happen is if each professional association automatically assigned their entire database over to the regulator - and they ain'g going to do that because it would put them out of business. In any case, that would create data protection problems. So, each therapist would have to register themselves. Have you ever tried to organise 9 000 people to do something in that space of time ? It's a joke.
Its no wonder we are all known as quacks, we cant seem to get along can we?
We arent quacks, but we do need to get our house in order.
Meanwhile all this in-squabbling between the GRCCT and the CNHC is going to make us look as if we don't know our ***es from our elbows. So what's the answer? Also by the way - do we REALLY want integration into the NHS? I would hate to think that I would be closely monitored in the Reflexology treatments I give to clients (would we have to call then "patients"?). How do you measure intuition? Would we have to have regular "supervision" and "team meetings"? Yuck! Well that's just my opinion.... Any comments?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Hilarious.Add to this the following statement that I found lurking in on one of the CNHC job specification links that did work…. The additions in brackets are mine.
‘The CNHC Register will go “live” on 19 January 2009. Over the next 15 months, CNHC needs to register 10,000 practitioners, from a range of disciplines including Massage Therapy (No surprises here – Chair of the Massage Council is Chair of CNHC– but most of the massage organisations are not recommending it)
Nutritional therapy (Has withdrawn from CNHC),
Alexander Technique (1000 practitioners and not yet ready to be regulated),
Bowen Technique (800 practitioners and not ready to be regulated until April 2009 -earliest),
Cranial Therapy (Less than 500 practitioners),
Naturopathy (800 practitioners and not ready to be regulated),
Shiatsu (1000 practitioners not ready to be regulated)
Yoga Therapy (Not even close to being ready – estimate another 2 years).’
I think we can deduce two things from the above statement:
Firstly - Nobody at CNHC has the most vague idea how long it will take to convince CAM practitioners that it is worth joining a regulator which is run by a bunch of Nurses and which none of the major therapies support
Secondly - Nobody at CNHC can use a calculator.
By my calculations (excluding massage) if every single member of every organisation in all their listed therapies joined (assuming they miraculously became ready) within 15 months they would have only 4000 registrants. That only leaves 6000 massage therapists to recruit… the Massage Council only managed 600 in three years!... To achieve 10,000 in 15 months CNHC need to recruit 157 individuals each and every week for 64 weeks from January 2009 all the way through to April 2010…..and don’t forget that is at a cost to each therapist of £80 - £125….. GET REAL GUYS!
I find it most frustrating that whenever Complementary Medicine does something with unity and professionalism some group of self-serving idiots, unfortunately usually from the orthodox medical profession, pops up to muddy the waters and again make us look incompetent.
(My emphasis)The Published Register
CNHC will make part of your register entry available to any enquirer as part of the published register.
The public can inspect the following information on the online register:
* Your full name
* Your profession or practice discipline
* Your approximate work location
* Your registration number
* Any restrictions imposed on your registration
Oh yes they are!Your home address, contact details, date of birth and other data are not available to the public.
All the usual stuff here, but it's the last section on transfers that is interesting. All other seven purposes have the same statement saying that they will not be transferring any data outside the EEA. (The EEA is the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.)Purpose 4
Licensing and Registration
The administration of licensing or maintenance of official registers.
Data subjects are:
Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers
Complainants, correspondents and enquirers
Offenders and suspected offenders
APPLICANTS FOR A LICENCE OR REGISTRATION
Data classes are:
Goods or Services Provided
Offences (Including Alleged Offences)
Criminal Proceedings, Outcomes And Sentences.
Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):
Data subjects themselves
Business associates and other professional advisers
Employees and agents of the data controller
Suppliers, providers of goods or services
Persons making an enquiry or complaint
Financial organisations and advisers
None outside the European Economic Area
So, their nameservers are owned by force9, which is owned by plusnet, which is owned by BT. Force9 are based in Sheffield, UK. The DNS A records give three hosts: 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168. Looking these up gives Sheffield, UK as the location for the first IP address, Newark, Delaware, USA for the second and Sheffield, UK for the third. Any of these servers could be access by anyone visiting OfQuack's site at http://www.cnhc.org.uk [---][/---] test this by refreshing this page repeatedy and see each of the three servers come up.DNS servers
cnhc.org.uk 1 A 22.214.171.124
cnhc.org.uk 1 A 126.96.36.199
cnhc.org.uk 1 A 188.8.131.52
So, are OfQuack using a Safe Harbor company? Checking the list of Safe Harbor companies listed for Delaware (where the Mita Residential server is based) shows none of the five listed companies look like they have anything to do with Mita Residential:The USA
In the USA there are laws that apply to specific industries which provide some protection for personal information, but there is no general data protection law. The Privacy Act 1974 establishes certain controls over how the executive branch agencies of the federal government gather, maintain, and disseminate personal information. The Privacy Act can also be used to obtain access to information, but it applies only to records the federal government keeps on US citizens and lawfully admitted resident aliens.
However, the European Commission considers the ‘Safe Harbor’ scheme to provide an adequate level of protection. When a US company signs up to the Safe Harbor arrangement, they agree to follow seven principles of information handling and that they can be held responsible for keeping to those principles by the Federal Trade Commission or other oversight schemes. You can find a list of the US companies signed up to the Safe Harbor arrangement on the US Department of Commerce website at http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/doc_sa ... _index.asp.
Website access to quack's personal data and Data ProtectionAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Fort Hill Company1
Mind Candy Inc
So, by making their quack register available on the Internet, they are transferring data outside the EEA [---][/---] unless they somehow block anyone outside the EEA from accessing it. However, using a proxy server based in the USA, I can still get the personal details from their search page, showing that they are not stopping someone outside the EEA from accessing the personal details of their registered quacks. But their Data Protection Register entry says they won't be transferring any data outside the EEA!Putting personal information on a website will often result in transfers to countries outside the UK. The transfers will take place when the website is accessed by someone outside the UK. If you load information onto a server based in the UK so that it can be accessed through a website you should consider the potential for a transfer to take place and whether that would be fair for the individuals involved given the potential effect on them. If it is your intention that the information will be accessed outside the EEA, then this is a transfer.
I've already given up the engineering...Alan C. wrote:I think he should give up electrical engineering, and go into investigative journalism.Maria wrote:
Anyone else wondering if Alan has a life?
For some reason, they only have one A record in the DNS, so there are no backup websites, just this one. I suspect that's because that is where the only copy of their database is stored. With the multiple servers I talked about above, although it's a good idea to have multiple servers, I suspect it's more bother than it's worth because of the extra work required to keep them all synchronised.OrgName: HostMySite
Address: 650 Pencader Drive
Of course! I had started an email, but I accidentally forgot to save it before I rebooted my PC...I'll try to get it re-written and off tomorrow.seantellis wrote:Once again, excellent detective work, Alan. Are you passing this on to the Data Protection people?