Andy Lewis,

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Hi Rochelle and all,
I doubt that there are really all that many people out there voting.
Here's how to log your votes -a tactic which I'm sure the skeptics are already using, so there's no need to be secretive about it- Some pro-enthusiasts on this mailing list may wish to use the same tactics.
I use Firefox, so I'm giving instructions for that. You can figure out other browsers easily enough.
1. go to the webpage and vote
2. then go to the menu - TOOLS - CLOSE RECENT HISTORY and set it to delete cookies and cache for the last 1 hour.
3. Close the browser.
4. open it again and vote again.
5. Repeat the same till you get really tired of this sham vote by the Guardian.
ADDITIONAL - if you want to invest $30 or so for a year subscription, you can buy one of those "hide IP" proxy softwares which will change your IP when you open up your browser - Easy Hide is a good one.
Then change your proxy with every vote - making it look like the vote is coming from somewhere else- just in case the survey is actually tracking your IP from their computers.
To speed up this tedious work, temporarily set your homepage to the poll page so to save yourself a click
==
Right now, it's about 8 AM in Nairobi as I write this and I've logged in about 20+ votes, only to see the "no" side climb as I do it.
That tells me that either (a) there's some earlybird/nightowl guys/gals in UK or USA also clicking away as fast as I'm doing it  OR (b) Guardian is skewing the votes by registering all the "yes" votes as "no".
=== 
what do you think?

Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira | Director | Tels: +254 (0)733-895466   /  +254 (0)723-869133  | www.abhalight.org 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Dear Andy,
 
Thank you for contacting me about the Health and Social Care Bill. You will be aware that the significant amendments the Government is making to the Health and Social Care Bill have been welcomed by many organisations, including the NHS Confederation, patient groups, and think tanks. 
 
You asked about three specific points. First, you wanted reassurance that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of NHS services will not be abolished or passed to another body. I can confirm that the Bill, as amended, will not abolish this duty or pass it to another body.
 
Second, you wanted reassurance that private companies will not end up in charge of determining what services are provided on the NHS. I can confirm that the Bill will not allow this to happen.
 
Third, you asked for assurance that the NHS Commissioning Board will not put more emphasis on competition and choice at the expense of encouraging different bits of the NHS to work together for patients. I can confirm that this is the case.
 
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Ed Vaizey MP
Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries

Member of Parliament for Wantage and Didcot

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The homeopathic consultation will involve you visiting my front room where we will have a chat, a cup of tea and some Hobnobs. You will discuss your vague sense of unease, a headache you had last week when the kids were playing up, and how you are frightened of the chemicals they put in everything these days. At the end of the session, I will give you a little tub of sugar pills, and we can both pretend that these are a magic remedy for all of life's problems. As long as we don't get carried away and start acting as if they can cure real illnesses, then all will be dandy. I will then tell you to come back in a few weeks if life is still a bit shit.

Oh, and you will give me £75, because I have a certificate and everything for this you know.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I thought I would share with you this little conversation I saw on a homeopathic discussion site. Just to remind you (if it were needed) how completely detached homeopaths are, how separated they are from any sense of ethics, and just how bloody dangerous their advice is.

On 2011-05-30, at 2:23 PM, Dale Moss wrote:

I have a couple of new patients who've survived several decades with HIV.  Both sought alternative treatment early on and did well for many, many years.  Unfortunately, both are now on HIV drugs and experiencing their toxic side effects.  

One is on Intelence and Truvada; he also takes Levothyroxine for hypothyroidism.  

My question is:  if he responds well to homeopathic treatment, is it possible to reduce the antiretrovirals he's taking?  Has anyone had experience doing this with HIV/AIDS patients?  

Peace,

Dale

*********************************************************************************************

Hi Dale!

Have you not tried the Peter Chappel Protocol / Remedies?  Just wondering if they worked at all.

I've heard that African HIV is a different strain than American. Don't know if that's true or not….

Just curious….

Thanks for your feedback

*********************************************************************************************

I just read Jeremy Sherr's article in last month's Interhomeopathy e magazine.  Jeremy has some interesting things to say about working with HIV positive kids and adults in his African clinic,

You might find some clues there.  http://www.interhomeopathy.org/letter-from-africa

Carolyn

*********************************************************************************************

just a reminder that it has never been proved that HIV causes anything including AIDS

to keep equating them is to continue to further the lie

Yes there are AIDS and aids-like symptoms but get the HIV out of sentence as it is part of their lie and their drugs.

http://www.wellwithin1.com/AIDS.htm

treat the symptom picture as usual but as long as they are on these toxic drugs which make them ill, you probably will not get anywhere

Sheri

*********************************************************************************************

I have not tried Peter Chappell's remedies.  My understanding is that Helios was supposed to be making them, but they're not listed on the Helios website -- and the link for ordering through Chappell's website doesn't appear to be working. 

Has Chappell pulled back to avoid the pharma hounds, or is there some secret portal I don't know for obtaining PC remedies?

Peace,

Dale

*********************************************************************************************

Yes, I've read the piece.  It's fascinating, particularly what he says about CD4 counts going down after a good remedy, but the quality of the remaining cells being higher.  I've seen the neurological aspect in one patient (repeated cases of shingles), but not the fungal.  Yet.

The situation in Africa, however, is different from here.  Far fewer patients there are on antiretroviral drugs, and the general response of Africans to well-chosen remedies is amazingly quick, compared to the slower response we often see in highly suppressed* Western patients.

Peace,

Dale

* Note: 'suppressed'  is a homeopathic term for someone who has taken lots of real medication and thus has 'suppressed' their symptoms. A bad thing in their world.

*********************************************************************************************

peter chappell also wrote of the easier time treating people in Ethiopia due to less body toxicity.

it was one of the reasons he chose to work in Africa as I recall.  for that matter it is similar to the quick

response from children and young animals who have not been toxified with years of contamination.

tanya

*********************************************************************************************

I wonder whether environmental factors such as our EMF "soup" might be causing any interference, at least in some people?  Just something I've been wondering about.  

Shannon

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

ADVERTISING CLAIMS ON HOMEOPATHY WEBSITES

 

Thank you for your recent complaint.

 

As you may know, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received over a hundred and fifty complaints about over a hundred different websites for homeopathy.  Complaints cover a range of issues from specific claims made by individual advertisers to general concerns about the sector as a whole.  Because of the volume of complaints, we are sending this letter to everyone who contacted us on these issues to let you know what action we intend to take. 

 

The ASA has an established position on claims that can be made, and those claims that are not likely to be acceptable for homeopathy, based on the requirements set out in the CAP Code and previous ASA adjudications.  Although we have not historically received many complaints about advertising for homeopathy, the Code has general requirements for substantiation of claims in the health sector and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) offers specific advice on marketing health-related products and services. Further information about the requirements of the advertising Code is available on our website www.asa.org.uk and fromwww.copyadvice.org.uk.  

 

We are seeking to enforce compliance with the Code even-handedly across the sector by contacting all of the advertisers we have received complaints about as well as the bodies that represent homeopaths and homeopathy in the UK.  We will be explaining the Code’s requirements, giving advice on how to ensure advertising claims do not breach the Code, and asking advertisers to remove any claims which do not comply.  More information about what that means in practice is provided in the CAP Help Notes on Substantiation for Health, Beauty and Slimming claims and Health, Beauty and Slimming Marketing Communications that Refer to Medical Conditions.  You can find these documents on our Copy Advice website, as indicated above.  Because the ASA has only been regulating websites since 1 March many of the advertisers we contact will not be familiar with us or the work we do and will need help and assistance from us.  For that reason, we plan to monitor compliance 3 months after making our expectations of them clear. We feel that this will give advertisers, some of whom are very small and have limited resources, sufficient time to make the necessary changes. 

 

The ASA will not be publishing individual adjudications on this occasion.  We will however publish specific, up-to-date advice to the industry and its representative bodies in due course and we will work with them to ensure that advertising for homeopathy is compliant with the Code. 

 

Thank you for taking the trouble to contact us.  While you will not see immediate results please be assured that we are working hard in the background to resolve the issues that have been complained about.  

Now. This will be a good thing of homeopaths amend their web sites. I understand bodies like the Society of Homeopaths have been telling their members to remove claims about named treatments from their web sites. (Somewhat belatedly - as their code of ethics forbids this anyway.) However, I doubt we will see much major change - and this is why: homeopaths actually believe they have the evidence to justify their claims.

Homeopaths believe that because they have been 'successful' for 200 years, this justifies their practice. They also believe that the array of substandard research out there again justifies generic claims to be made.

This is step one in a long campaign to clean up misleading claims. It will undoubtedly need a second wave of complaints where individual adjudications are made - and even then, I suspect it will require the ASA to start referring individual traders to the Office of Fair Trading for criminal proceedings to be taken.

Cultish beliefs do not disappear that quickly.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Society of Homeopaths welcomes progress on advertising clarity

The Society of Homeopaths today welcomes the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) announcement that it is to set up a project to look into the evidence base for the efficacy of homeopathic medicine.

The Society, the UK’s largest regulator of homeopaths, is looking forward to working with the ASA and will be submitting the well established and growing body of research evidence that shows homeopathy to be a safe, clinically-effective and cost-effective option.

Zofia Dymitr, chairwoman of the Society, said: “We are delighted that the ASA have decided to take an evidenced-based look at Homeopathy. For a number of years now it has been difficult to advise our members on issues like wording for adverts because the ASA’s position has been inconsistent. We look forward to working with the ASA to clarify the facts around Homeopathy and, once the ASA has concluded its work, to help our members to share the knowledge of their services with potential consumers in the full confidence of the ASA just like any other business or service provider”.

It is touching that the Society think an evidence based approach will do their members any favours. However, they now have little choice in the matter. What we can expect, if the way they handled the House of Commons investigation into Homeopathy is anything to go by, that they will attempt a strategy to redefine was is meant by science and evidence. If they can move the goal posts then they might, just might be able to make some claims in adverts. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

From the libel reform campaign...

We had a great event in parliament yesterday. Thank you to all of you who urged your MPs to come along – we had a good turn out and lots of good responses from them (see below). We also heard from organisations, from Mumsnet and Facebook to Which? magazine,  the BMJ and Nature, on why MPs should support our blueprint for reform of the libel laws. You can download the blueprint, What should a defamation bill contain? here.

And huge thanks to everyone who has donated to our new appeal in the last few days. Some wonderful messages of support have been left at http://www.justgiving.com/libelreformappeal2011

We’ll be in touch next week when we know more about the Government’s draft bill.

Best

Síle and Mike

Lord Bach, Opposition Spokesperson for Justice, said that “reform of the defamation laws is clearly a cause whose time has come. This is a campaign that has massive support. I congratulate the Libel Reform Campaign on having got to this stage.”

His comments were echoed by other MPs and Peers.

David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, agreed that “we have a massive mandate for change here; there is no doubt about that. This is a once in a generation opportunity. If we get it wrong our children pay the consequences.”

Denis Macshane, MP for Rotherham, reiterated “this is not a once in a generation chance, but once in a lifetime. We cannot let this slip.”

Lord Willis of Knaresborough urged the campaign to continue to “use all of its might to make sure the Government’s bill is translated into real action.”

Lord Lester of Herne Hill said, “The problem for libel reform is we are not starting with a clean slate but with 300 years of case law.”

Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge said, “we want a system where the side that wins is the one with the truth not the one with the most cash.”

The meeting was chaired by Dr Evan Harris, former Lib Dem MP, who said, “We all accept the current libel laws are unacceptable. Everybody here wants next week's Government draft defamation bill to match the contents of our blueprint and if it fails to do so, will be urging MPs and peers to amend it.”

The parliamentarians heard from a wide range of organisations who signed up to the Libel Reform Campaign blueprint yesterday, from Mumsnet and Facebook to Which? and the journal Nature.

Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? magazine told MPs how money spent on lawyers holds back work protecting consumers. He warned that public interest should be at the heart of the Government’s reforms because "we're getting to the point where even responsible media hesitate before publishing research or expert opinion for fear of being sued."

The hosts of online discussions and social media sites told MPs the laws need to be modernised to accommodate the internet.

Richard Allan of Facebook said, “we celebrate the fact that we have created a platform for people to speak freely. The current libel laws are an accident waiting to happen.”

Justine Roberts, co-founder and CEO of Mumsnet, said, “Current libel laws are simply out of date. They are analogue laws in a digital age. Wholesale reform of English defamation law must be a real priority for our parliamentary representatives.”

Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ spoke about the impact of the laws on medical publishing. She said, “Like all editors I am aware of articles softened or pulled because of libel threats. Science and medicine require independent and rigorous debate – not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’. The current libel laws are utterly against the interests of scientists and therefore the interests of patients and the public.”

Dr Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature said the libel laws impact on the reporting of issues including research misconduct. He said, “Either we chose not to cover a story because the impact is not worth the incredible effort and time it takes or we suffer by covering the story.”

Simon Singh, science writer and libel defendant, said, “Scientists and science journalists who have been the victims of libel actions, including me, are anxious to see radical reform so that others do not have to suffer the same threats to their freedom of speech.”

Charmian Gooch of Global Witness told MPs about the impact of the laws on human rights campaigners. She said, “The need for libel reform affects NGOs working on a wide range of issues across all aspects of civic society. It is categorically not a tabloid issue.”

Naomi McAuliffe, Amnesty International UK said, “When we’re targeting companies, everything from reports to leaflets have to be checked by lawyers. This is not something that my colleagues across the world have to do; it is something we have to do in the UK. It is an expense our members should not have to pay and it is an expense that could otherwise be spent on exposing grave human rights abuses.”

Peter Noorlander, Media Legal Defence Initiative said, “We help journalists in countries such as Nepal or Ukraine defend libel cases in their countries. These journalists used to think of the UK as a safe haven for free speech - but increasingly they are threatened with libel suits in London which they cannot as a matter of practicality defend.”

Eric Metcalfe from Justice spoke about the high cost of libel litigation. He said, “In the last 21 years the libel lottery has only grown worse. The high cost has become a real threat to freedom of expression in this country.”

Richard Mollet, Publishers’ Association said, “We look forward to reading the draft defamation bill, and recognise that its publication is a crucial step in reforming our current libel laws. The book industry should not be impeded by archaic laws which deny publishers the right to be truly independent and free to express opinion and ideas in the public interest.”

Tracey Brown, Sense About Science, responding to discussion about the national media, said, “We have some of the tightest libel laws in the world and people suffer unfair damage to their reputations. Why should those people have to use anti-free speech laws and spend 18 months and £200,000 to get a correction? We need other means to resolve inaccuracy quickly. Under new law we should be encouraged to ask ‘is it true?’, rather than ‘will they sue?’”

Jonathan Heawood, English PEN said that the public interest is often best served by allowing open debate. He told MPs “We would much rather live in a society characterised by noisy imperfection than perfect silence.”

MPs also heard a statement of support for the Libel Reform Campaign blueprint signed by Jonathan Ross, Marcus Brigstocke, Nick Ross, Dr Ben Goldacre, Dave Gorman, Joan Bakewell, Professor Nancy Rothwell, AC Grayling, Shappi Khorsandi and others.

On behalf of the signatories to the statement author and President of English PEN Gillian Slovo reiterated “We all believe that any individual whose reputation is damaged by a false and defamatory publication should have recourse to the law. But beyond that we need to protect freedom of expression and the rights of citizen critics, and to prevent powerful interests from shutting down discussion on matters in the public interest.”

Summing up the discussion John Kampfner, Index on Censorship said, “We have made it clear that libel reform is about active citizens, democracy at home, journalism here and abroad, and a stronger civil society. But we must remind ourselves that nothing has changed yet and the work is ahead of us to tell law makers all we have heard today.”

What should a defamation bill contain? And the statement to parliamentarians with full list of signatories is available to download from www.libelreform.org

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

For those who think there is no war going on, here is the proof. Via Louise McLean from Sue Young.

I have several times referred to the attack on homoeopathy as a war. Here is the exposure of how that war came to pass. It goes back to the heady days of the Blair Administration of the UK. It has been a concerted effort ever since. 

The financiers of this war are the big corprate pharmaceutical giants like GSK, Aventis, Pfizer and other assorted corporate criminals, who see nothing in poisoning the populations for profit and present their "science" - now debunked in JAMA and BMJ - as the ultimate in "scienctific truth". 

We face a formidable opponent here in the UK and by extension the US and the world. If these corporations succeed in banning homoeopathy - for which purpose the Codex Alimentarius was formulated - then your and our freedom of choice will go out the window.

In the EU, a new directive has been published, banning herbal products, beginning April 2011. A campaign has been started to avoid this happening. Petitions can be signed online and many signatures have been collected already. However, the attacks are undiminished and in the UK the war is getting hotter. 

As a profession, we should be aware what is happening and who are the major players and where their funding is coming from. The article here is an excerpt from a blog by martin Walker, an untiring advocate for health freedom. 

It would be in our interest to organise ourselves along international lines, to fight this corporate menace as a collective. As long as we remain divided into different factions - even country-wise - we will pull the shorter straw and will lose this war. 

My plea to all the homoeopaths of HWC is to unite and close ranks against this corporate menace. 
~ Kaviraj.

Martin Walker's new article Science is the New Politics 

"But, most particularly, we must remind ourselves that doctors stopped being scientists when they became drug pushers and they are now some of the people who know least about science of any kind"

So here they all are - all the major skeptic players "suited and booted to fight to the death for corporate science".
~ Sue

Campaign Against Health Fraud - On April 3rd 1989 at a Steering Committee meeting held at the Ciba Foundation, two joint presidents were elected: Dr Michael O'Donnell, broadcaster and former GP, editor of GP magazine, and television and radio presenter Nick Ross. 

At that time, soon after the press launch, the leading Campaign activists included, Dr Christopher Bass, a psychiatrist and committee member of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; Dr Simon Wessely; Professor Michael Baum and his brother Professor Harold Baum, Diana Brahams and Dr Vincent Marks. 

Within a couple of months of its launch, the Campaign Against Health Fraud had produced a newsletter. It was not as professional as its American counterpart 8 but it provided a good platform for the Campaign to promote attacks and debunking projects which it had initiated.....

The Skeptic 2010: The Editorial Advisory Board members are: James Alcock/Julian Baggini/ Susan Blackmore/Derren Brown/ Scott Campbell/ David Clarke/ David Colquhoun /Brian Cox/ Richard Dawkins/ Sergio Della Sala/Richard J. Evans/ Stephen Fry Actor/ Wendy M. Grossman/ David Allen Green/ Dr Evan Harris (former MP for Oxford West & Abingdon) Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman/ Simon Hoggart/ Bruce Hood/ Professor Ray Hyman/ Robin Ince/ Paul Kurtz/ Stephen Law/ Andy Lewis/ Scott Lilienfeld/ Elizabeth Loftus/ Richard McNally/ Tim Minchin/ P Z Myer/ Mark Newbrook/ Charles Paxton/ Phil Plait Astronomer/ Massimo Polidoro/ Benjamin Radford/ James Randi/ Ian Rowland/ Karl Sabbagh/ Simon Singh/ Karen Stollznow/ Richard Wiseman

In 1997, New Labour was elected to power in a landslide general election vote. The party and Blair particularly had fought the election with the support of old Liberal hands and old Liberal money. Following the victory, while Blair got on with nothing in particular, the old Liberals, throwing in their hand with the core of the Revolutionary Communist Party about to call itself after its magazine Living Marxism (LM), completely realigned science policy in Britain and re-invigorated UK lobby organisations. 

At the Centre of this massing of troops at the start of the scientific revolution, was David Sainsbury, the billionaire GM entrepreneur who donated around £6 million to New Labour before and after the Labour victory. For part of his £6 million Sainsbury was given the job of head of Science at the Department of Trade and Industry. From this commanding position, with the help of his old Liberal buddy and PR agent for the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, by then 'Lord' Dick Tavern, Sainsbury built a covert lobby for science, technology and industry that has continued throughout the last decade. The stratagem and ultimately the policies they acted out were closely linked to US neo-liberalism and conspiratorial world government organisations such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral, which the major players attended. The chosen Liberal Peers, aided in this task by LMs 'grass-roots activists', funded mainly by the largest corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies, a range of 'covert' black propaganda organisations. These organisations were set up by Liberal Peers and staffed by LM activists. The initial impact of this corporate lobbying style of government can be gleaned from Greg Pallister’s brilliant book The Best Democracy that Money Can Buy.14 

However, as the government settled in, the Liberals, ex-Liberals, LM activists, assumed a steadier and more covert role and steered science policy steadily in the direction of corporatism. 

The joint forum included, Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick, with his 20-year history in Revolutionary Communism and Lord Taverne QC, previously top PR man for GlaxoSmithKline. Other members of the Joint Forum included people influential in academia and media; Peter Bell, former controller of policy, BBC News; Philip Harding, controller of editorial policy, BBC; Steve Connor, science editor, The Independent; Dr. Graham Easton, GP and ‘senior broadcast journalist’, BBC Science Radio; Professor Susan Greenfield, director, The Royal Institution.21 

The Guidelines,22 when they were published, were perhaps the most devastating subversion of British democracy ever. They gave complete control of media reporting on 'health' to a gang of corporate 'experts' all in the orbit of the pharmaceutical corporations. In fact this was corporatism at its most severe in relation to health and the media. It was, however, essential for corporate science if it was to gain the upper hand in, for instance, the battle over MMR and the role of the GMC and Dr Wakefield. 

With the setting up of a whole group of other organisations, such as the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science, grass roots skeptics and the renovated HealthWatch, the main corporate lobby groups were re-invigorated. Along with the groups came the individuals, chancers like Dr Ben Goldacre and Dr Simon Singh, who emerged out of thin air and were given high profile places without previous experience; suited and booted to fight to the death for corporate science.

By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, together with various regulatory bodies such as the GMC and the MHRA, these groups and individuals had decimated alternative health and destroyed the careers of a number of caring and thinking doctors and practitioners.....

During his parliamentary career, Evan Harris declared some of his obvious ties to industry: he was funded by vaccine manufacturer Aventis Pasteur as a member of an all-party group that attended a Chicago conference, and the corporate lobby group Sense About Science, funded by, amongst others, vaccine manufacturers GSK and ABPI, provided Harris with a secretary/research worker. 
His more complex ties to corporate science and industry, remained hidden because the corporate science lobby pretends that they do not actually represent conflicts of interest....

After he lost his parliamentary seat Evan Harris became President of Westminster Skeptics in the Pub group, some of the other high flyers in the skeptics movement, like Ben Goldacre and the LM leftovers from the Science Media group and SAS are also attenders at these meetings. Harris is on the large Advisory Board of the British Skeptics magazine, that throws him cheek by jowl with such notable science cranks as: Susan Blackmore, David Colquhoun, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Wendy Grossman, Paul Kurtz, Andy Lewis, James Randi, Karl Sabbagh and Simon Singh.In November 2009, Harris attended a meeting 'Evidence-Based Policy or Policy-Based Evidence?' and later had his photograph taken with Goldacre and Professor David Nutt. 

In January 2007 Harris entered in the parliamentary Register of Members Interests, 'I have been provided with the services of an intern to conduct research work and co-ordinate a project by Sense About Science, an independent charitable trust.' In June 2003 Laure Thomas was Evan Harris's secretary. Throughout 2007 Laure Thomas was writing film reviews for the Institute of Ideas, an LM off-shoot funded by Pfizer that also organises a web site called Culture Wars.85 In October 2007, Thomas was still senior Press officer at the Medical Research Council, where in 2008 she was a finalist in the 'Debating Matters Competition', another LM Pfizer subsidised educational opportunity! 
Later that year, however, she was back working for the science czar at the BIS,86 which is where one assumes she probably started in the first place, during the high and balmy days of David Sainsbury.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This is essential viewing. Available for a few days more on BBC iPlayer, this Week In Week Out investigation shows how the University of Wales validates a huge range of colleges, both in the UK and abroad, to provides its degrees. These colleges range from offering evangelical christian courses to bonkers alternative medicine. You can see contributions from AC Grayling and David Colquhoun. The University has created a huge business, gaining lots of fees, from underwiting the 'quality' of courses offered by people with bogus doctrorates and dodgy academic practices.

The University of Wales is Responsible for Enabling Bogus* Chiropractic Claims to be Made

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This week in the New Statesman Magazine, an article by Edzard Ernst will be appearing that responds to a dreadfully misleading advert by the homeopathic charity HMC21.

I was shocked by an advertisement in the accompanying supplement, "Social Care: Who Pays?", referring to me and my work. Rarely had I seen an advert so inaccurate and borderline libellous in a respected publication. The advert, which appeared to breach the British Code of Advertising, was by a lobby group called Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (H:MC21). It contained unjustified attacks on myself and colleagues, including statements that gave a dangerously false impression of homoeopathy's therapeutic value.

There is now no mention of Alderson. What could have happened? Have the Society removed him as a Director? Or are they just removing information about him ahead of the innevitable repurcussions?

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-the-society/Bod.aspx

Companies House list William Alderson's appointment as a director, but not his removal. Curiouser and curiouser... http://bit.ly/bvDXlY

I do wish I was a fly on the wall.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »