Category Archives: Biochemistry

Following Mr Haw’s diagnosis, fans of David Icke, a notorious conspiracy theorist, took charge of fund raising for his treatment in Germany, via the Shen Clinic.  The Shen Clinic believes in, and has promoted, the theories of Tulio Simoncini.

Dr. Simoncini’s therapy uses Sodium Bicarbonate to destroy the fungus colonies which he believes are the cause of both cancer and mastatasis[sic]. Although controversial, many have personally witnessed the dramatic drop in cancer markers following his therapy, even in some advanced cases. He also recommends the use of natural and complementary medicine such as nutrition, homotoxicology, acupuncture and others.

 
Mr Simoncini is banned from practising medicine and has fraud and wrongful death convictions in his native Italy.

Despite the clarity of the evidence against Mr Simoncini, his theories and his outcomes, Mr Haw moved to Germany to undergo therapy.  Reports in April of this year asserted successful treatment.

Brian Haw is currently living in my flat in Germany while having treatment for his lung cancer – the good news is that he had an MRI scan this week and he’s on the mend – by the way, his treatment consists of intraveneous Vitamin C and Sodium Bicarbonate (not at the same time!) – THIS IS ILLEGAL IN THE UK !!!! – WTF !!!! – IT’S VITAMIN C !!!! – AND BAKING SODA !!!!

This was sadly optimistic.

Mr Haw’s cancer was almost certainly incurable, but rather than spending his final days being cared for by medical professionals in the UK, he was sent to Germany by conspiracy theorists, offered the false prospect of a cure, and was subjected to unnecessary and ineffective treatments.

There is certain to be a resurgence of debate about Mr Haw’s principles, politics and behaviour as a result of his death, but probably little on the circumstances surrounding it.  Regardless of what you may think of Mr Haw, perhaps the greatest injustice he has undergone in the last decade is not the disruption, court actions and parliamentary discussion surrounding his protest, all of which have been debated and ruled on by a transparent democratic and legal system, but the falsities told to him by supporters of alternative medicine in denial of the facts. 

There is a fine piece of investigative journalism in today’s Independent from Melanie Newman and Alex Chepkoit who have investigated the Abha Light Clinic in Kenya, where homeopaths have been advising patients not to take anti-retroviral drugs to stave off HIV, instead suggesting that homeopathy is a suitable substitute.

The Quackometer has the full story and is a must read.

A homeopath claiming to treat HIV/AIDS with sugar pills is sadly not an isolated event.  Homeopathic societies have featured guest speakers on the subject, funded unethical trials, and even awarded fellowships to those who believe that the AIDS epidemic can be halted through homeopathy.

This is a belief that runs deep in the profession.

In response to this expose, homeopaths on internet forums such as Minutus, have shown absolutely no awareness of the egregious nature of their behaviour in Kenya.  Karin Mont, Chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths – the second biggest organisation representing lay practitioners in the UK, has said ‘Here we go again. The trashers are about to have another feeding frenzy!’.

More worringly, the head of the Abha Light Clinic, Didi Ruchira, has posted the following:

Please remember that the African-based projects are being used as “cannon fodder” for the UK battle. We (all the African projects) continue to need your support and welcome it.

The article was first published in nairobi on 1 May, but is originated from Melanie Neumann for the Independent. We were given right of reply, but it seems that they mostly ignored our points. I will post more information as I can organize it.

Needless to say, the articles are full of distortions and “un-facts”. The only fact I can stand by in that article is the mention that ALF started 1998 and “it runs the country’s largest homeopathic pharmacy“

1 May, Sunday Standard, Kenya
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000034272&cid=159&story=Concern%20over%20NGO%27s%20HIV/Aids%20%27treatment

3 May, The Independent, UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/an-alternative-for-kenyas-hiv-patients-ndash-or-a-health-scandal-2278049.html

Abha Light Foundation is one of the oldest organizations working for the promotion of homeopathy in Africa. We started in 1998. It is through ALF that homeopathy has grown in presence in Kenya until there are now more that 4 organizations/groups regularly working here to promote homeopathy and 3 schools.

Between the expat community, Indian-trained or EU-trained Kenyans and the locally trained homeopaths we can count about 100-150 trained homeopaths working in Kenya.

ALF is not the first presence of homeopathy in Kenya. The first homeopath in Kenya came in 1928 from now-Pakistan. His son (now in his 80′s) and his grandson are both homeopaths. But it wasn’t until ALF organized in 1998 that there was a steady outreach and popularization into the local communities.

Although traditional African herbal medicine has always been used here, when I first came to Kenya, few people had awareness about alternative medicine or homeopathy. But over the years, Kenyans – even from the poorest to the richest- are increasingly turning away from allopathy due to its ineffectiveness and side-effects.

That last sentence is chilling.  Allopathy is a derogatory term homeopaths use to describe conventional medicine.  It is clear there is a missionary zeal at play here, but rather than save the souls of Africans, homeopaths intend instead to  sacrifice their bodies by turning them away from lifesaving medicine and towards their ineffective sugar pills.

The average life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is 30 years less than that of the developed world.  This represents a humanitarian problem of immense proportion that will take much wealth, effort and ingenuity to solve.  It requires the production and dispersal of life saving medicines and the cooperation of the United Nations health agencies and often unstable governments.  What it does not need is are homeopaths from Europe and America whose persistent delusions, and idiotic confidence, can and will kill.

Luc Montagnier is a winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.  Since then his achievements have been more ignoble; he has asserted that nutrition can be used to clear the body of HIV on camera in an interview for a film denying the link between HIV & AIDS and has patented a machine that he claims is capable of detecting radio waves from the DNA of pathogenic bacteria.  This latter invention turns out to have been identical to a machine created by discredited scientist Jacques Benveniste, who believed it could be used to transmit homeopathy down telephone wires.  Montagnier has even claimed that this machine can be used to detect the presence of HIV derived DNA in tissue samples, including in red blood cells, which do not have any DNA.  Montagnier is clearly sincere in these nonsensical beliefs as he presented this research at a meeting of fellow Nobel Prize winners, to incredulous muttering and a minima of polite applause – damning criticism considering the audience.

Now Montagnier is preparing a research project that combines these eccentricities and adds to them extraordinary ethical breaches.

In conjunction with the Autism Treatment Trust (ATT) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI), both of whom support unorthodox and sometimes dangerous treatments for autism, the following research proposal has been advertised:

We are finally in a position to run some very exciting investigations/interventions with the support of Professor Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (for the discovery of HIV) and Dr. C. Skorupka a DAN! practitioner from Paris and long time friend. The project proposes to look at potential bacterial and viral chronic infections in autism. Prof Montagnier is of the view that some abnormalities in autism as well as in a whole range of neurological conditions, such as chronic fatigue and multiple sclerosis may be caused by potential infective agents. These would be difficult to the immune system to track down and would affect cell function thereby contributing to the development of the pathologies. He has developed a new technique that detects, by resonance, the genetic material of these potential infective agents. Additionally, using a very sensitive PCR assay, he can screen for a range of gram positive and gram negative bacteria as well as mycoplasma and borrelia (Lyme disease). He can also look at viruses (PCR assays under development). We are not alone in believing that this approach can help develop our understanding of the causes of autism and enable it to be treated more effectively. The proposed treatment combines a succession of antibiotics with basic biomedical supplements and probiotics. These antibiotics block cell division rather than kill bacteria, thereby avoiding potential side effects. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no funding available to cover the costs of this project, but we are hoping to use the data collected to help us obtain funding for future research.

We offer your child the opportunity to be part of this project and to access to the Montagnier Infection Screen protocol. There will be medical follow up from Dr. Skorupka. The details of the project are outlined below. The total cost per child is likely to be around £1800, spread over a six-month period (details below). The antibiotic treatment is not included and may cost some £30- £60 a month, depending of the particular antibiotic selected. Every two months each child’s progress will be reviewed by Dr. Skorupka and Dr. Amet at ATT with interim progress reviews carried out by phone.

The project involves 2 blood tests, one at the start and the other after 6 months of treatment. Also integral to the project are a standardised behavioural evaluation (ADOS) and Vineland Test, both at the start and at the end of the project. If you are interested in participating in this project please contact us as soon as possible. We intend to commence testing on the 14th and 15th of September. We will be able to accommodate 12 children at first, but will consider including additional participants if demand is high. Please note that there is absolutely no obligation to continue with the full proposed treatment if your child clearly does not benefit from it, but we recommend at least 3 months of treatment in order for you to evaluate of potential benefits, and of course the treatment will depend on the laboratory findings and clinical evaluation of each child.

Aims of the project:

1- Investigate the possibility that some cases of autism are associated with a range of bacterial infections, based on laboratory testing and clinical examination conducted by Dr. C. Skorupka in Edinburgh.

2- Assess the ASD children for the presence of nanobacteria following Prof Luc Montagnier’s protocol of investigations. The protocol would require a blood draw conducted at the clinic with the help of our nurse. The blood normally has to be centrifugated immediately and the supernatant extracted, then frozen to -80C and shipped on carboice to France.

3- Evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic intervention as well as behavioural evaluations (ATEC and ADOS). This would involve meeting with Dr Skopurpka and Dr. Amet every 2 months and reviewing progress over the phone in the interim month.

4- Report outcomes.

Montagnier believes that his resonance machine can detect the distinguish the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.  There is no evidence, other than a non-peer reviewed paper Montagnier self published in a journal he edits, that this is possible.  This paper makes  most extraordinary claims that remain unreplicated – a basic requirement for research to be considered worth responding too, much less accepted.  Therefore it would be unwise to consider it real, and mistaken to use it as a basis for a treatment protocol.

However parts of the protocol are rational from basic scientific point of view.  PCR assays can be used to detect bacterial and viral DNA present at low levels and it may be the case that antibiotics that block cell division in bacteria have reduced side effects, if the side effects are caused by the toxic byproducts of bacteria dying.  Arresting their growth would theoretically allow various immune mechanisms to act with greater efficiency.  Unfortunately there is no evidence that bacterial or viral infections have a part to play in the causes of autism.  It is not good practice to base a research protocol on assumptions that are inconsistent with observations.

Perhaps the most fatal flaw is that there appears to be no control group.  There is no means of determining whether this treatment, nonsensical as it may be, has caused changes in a treatment group compared to control.  By design it cannot produce meaningful data.

The most disturbing part of this protocol is not it’s flawed premise, disregard of existing data, the use of implausible technology or even the lack of a control group but that it will cost £1800, plus an additional £180 – £360 for participants.  This suggests an extraordinary disregard for ethics, to charge parents of autistic children, desperate for succesful intervention, large sums of a money to participate in a useless trial  is ethically questionable at best.  This leads to the question, was ethical permission sought for this trial?

Most research trials involving humans are passed through an ethical review process, and in some cases this is a statutory requirement, as the MHRA make clear:

Clinical trials in the UK are regulated by The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (SI 1031) as amended. These regulations implement Directive 2001/20/EC (‘The Clinical Trials Directive’).  According to the Clinical Trials Directive, clinical trials of medicinal products in human subjects requires authorisation by the competent authority (MHRA in the UK) and a favourable opinion by an ethics committee. This authorisation is granted in the form of a clinical trial authorisation (CTA).

The criteria for coming under the authority of the MHRA are laid out in this document below.

This research may need MHRA oversight with respect to the answers to  A.1, B.1, C.1, D.1 & E.1-5.  It is a study involving human patients investigating the use of medical products aimed at treating disease to determine their effects in a non-standard manner.  There is no indication that this research has been approved by the MHRA and attempts to contact the Autism Treatment Trust have been unsuccessful.  If this research should have been overseen by the MHRA and has not then there will be a clear breach of legislation.  This trial, and those who run it, will be breaking  the law.

Luc Montagnier’s eccentricities have led him to a situation where vulnerable people will be exploited and the possibility that criminal acts will be committed.

This is the inevitable end point of quackery.  Staunch believers in unorthodox medical treatments and theories inevitably run foul of acceptable ethics, whether it’s homeopaths in Tanzania or  Nobel Prize winners in Paris.  It doesn’t matter how respectable the person or how prestigious their prize, quackery corrupts the mind and corrodes the reputation.  Their belief in the fundamental correctness of their thinking eventually leads them to actions where the norms of ethics and the rule of law are secondary considerations or no consideration at all.  This is why quackery should be challenged and those who associate with it discouraged.

Update

Anthony Cox has also blogged this and has made enquiries to the MHRA.

It has been reported that Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, is to alter the powers of the National Institude for Clincial Excellence (NICE) so that it cannot turn down new medicines for use on the NHS.  NICE was set up to provide an evidence based approach to healthcare advice and take often difficult drug funding decisions so that NHS healthcare is as equal as possible.  According to The Guardian:

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, believes that Nice, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, should continue to write guidelines for doctors on the best treatments for their patients, but the Guardian understands he will remove its controversial power to ban the use of drugs it considers too expensive for the benefit they offer.

This is a hugely significant change as it could allow influence from patient lobby groups, pharmaceutical companies or newspaper headlines to undermine evidence based treatment decisions.  It is difficult to predict the outcome of any such change directly, especially as scarce detail is available of checks and balances one would assume would play a part.  However, we can look at how politicians use healthcare funds that are independent of NICE as a model to hypothesise about the future.  One such fund is the Cancer Drugs Fund, set up by recently by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government:

A Cancer Drugs Fund of £200 million a year to help cancer patients get greater access to cancer drugs that their doctors recommend for them was confirmed today by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.The announcement follows the Coalition Government’s commitment to create a Cancer Drugs Fund to commence from 2011 to help thousands of patients get increased access to innovative new cancer drugs that extend life or improve quality of life. Following the Spending Review, £200 million a year in funding will be available for cancer drugs from April 2011 to the end of 2013.

In addition to this commitment, £50 million has been available since 1 October, until the end of March 2011, with clinically led panels now set up in each region. These panels put doctors in charge of deciding how this funding is spent for their patients locally, together with advice from patients’ cancer specialists.

The government have claimed that this fund will increase cancer survival rates.

we would save 5,000 lives a year. If we were to achieve cancer survival rates at the European best, we would save 10,000 lives a year.

The Department of Health (DoH) were asked ‘if this costing has been assessed by NICE, if not could you indicate if it has been subjected to external scrutiny by another body?‘. The reply:

The Department has not asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) or any other external body to assess its costings

However information was provided on the reasoning behind the claim about survival rates:

As background information, we are not suggesting that the £164 million investment will result in a specific number of lives saved. We have said that we will aim to save between 5,000 and 10,000 cancer patients’ lives each year – 5,000 by bringing England in line with the European average and 10,000 by bringing survival rates in England in line with the best in Europe.
Increase detection through a revolutionary new bowel cancer screening technology flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) – a£60 million investment over the next four years to incorporate the latest breakthrough in bowel cancer screening into our existing national programme – saving 3,000 lives a year. A randomised controlled trial funded by Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and NHS R&D took place in 14 UK centres between 1994 and 2010, and evaluated screening for bowel cancer using a single FS between 55 and 64 years of age, removing small polyps by FS and providing colonoscopy for patients with high risk polyps.

The study reported in The Lancet in April 2010 and concluded that FS is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and long-lasting benefit. The report showed that men and women attending a one-off FS screening test for bowel cancer can reduce their mortality from the disease by 43% (31% on a population basis) and reduce their incidence of bowel cancer by 33% (23% on a population basis)[1]. Based on these figures, the programme would prevent around 3,000 cancers every year ( FOB testing has never been shown to reduce the incidence of bowel cancer).

The Lancet paper can be found here and its findings are reported accurately by the DoH, however they omitted that the research found that ‘the numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145—277) [for rectum cancer] and 489 (343—852) [for sigmoid colon cancer].‘. To save 3,000 lives ~2,000,000 people would have to be screened. Given that £60m is earmarked for this fund then the approximate costs per person screened would be ~£30. There is no recent data for the costs of the procedure, but a 2003 paper found as follows:

The health service costs of a flexible sigmoidoscopy was estimated at £56. The total costs of screening (including private costs) averaged £82 per person screened, although costs varied by center. The total health service costs of screening and subsequent management averaged approximately £91 per person screened, again with variations between centers.

Perhaps there has been a massive fall in prices since this paper was published, otherwise this money cannot possibly achieve the desired outcome. The private sector cannot be seen as an alternative as it offers the procedure at £650 – £1,075 according to some estimates.

The DoH also claim that they will:

Provide cutting-edge cancer therapies , through our commitment to invest £50 million in additional cancer drugs this year. The Rarer Cancers Foundation has estimated this would benefit over 2,000 cancer patients this year alone. We will also be consulting shortly on our proposals for the Cancer Drugs Fund from April 2011. Rarer cancer report:

http://www.rarercancers.org.uk/news/current/exceptional%20funding%20-%20final.pdf

The Rarer Cancers Foundation (RCF) is a charity set up to

draw together people with rare and less common cancers, thereby giving them a bigger collective voice to exact better services, and enabling them to support one another;
make all health professionals aware of issues related to rarer cancers, such as the often slow diagnosis and the need for successful treatment and symptom control pathways to be shared;
work with the Government, the NHS and Primary Care Trusts/Health Boards to ensure that people with rarer cancers have access to the best possible services across the United Kingdom.

While their report is not peer reviewed it does come from a charity claiming to represent patients who might normally struggle to be heard and it is right that politicians and civil servants pay attention to it. In particular they want the government to pay for more cancer drugs sooner.

Despite our strong support for the commitment in the Coalition’s Programme for Government, we were, however, concerned that the potential benefits the proposed Cancer Drugs Fund would bring to patients would be unnecessarily delayed by a year to April 2011, resulting in thousands more patients being denied the treatments they need. To put the pressing nature of the issue in context, to date NICE has rejected, or announced that it is minded to reject, 10 cancer treatments since the 6 May 2010 alone. A full list of the NICE appraisals published since the General Election is included in Annex 1.
The RCF therefore wrote to the Prime Minister on 19 July 2010 to ask him to bring forward the introduction of the fund.

The Prime Minister did indeed bring forward the introduction of the fund.

The list of drugs cited by the RCF, rejected by NICE, but presumably available to the Cancer Fund are listed below along with their manufacturer.

Sorafenib – Bayer
Lapatanib – GlaxoSmithKline
Trabectedin – Johnson & Johnson
Erlotinib – Roche
Pemetrexed – Eli Lilly & Co
Ofatumumab – Genmab
Imatinib – Novartis
Everolimus – Novartis
Trastuzuma – Roche
Bevacizumab – Roche
Mifamurtide – Takeda

Below are the sources of funding for the RCF from their last accounts.  The careful reader might note that not only is almost all of their funding from drug companies, but that many of those companies manufacture the drugs that the RCF want the government to pay for, against the advice of NICE.

The RCF is undoubtedly a lobby group whose interests align with those of its funders, the pharmaceutical industry.

If the Cancer Drugs Fund is to be used as a model for predicting the impact of the proposed changes to NICE then Lansley’s reforms are problematic.  The fund has not only got its sums wrong, but is swayed by lobbying from pharma funded charities disgruntled at evidence based assessments declining the products of said funders.  I hope that opposition politicians and members of the government committed to evidence based healthcare oppose these plans, the consequences of failing to do so could be disastrous.

Andrew Wakefield is a discredited scientist who was struck off the medical register for acting against the interests of his patients and conducting research in a dishonest and irresponsible manner.  He is speaking at an event today hosted by Marta Andreasen, a United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) MEP.  Ms Andreasen is an interesting individual who was sacked by the European Commission for refusing to sign off accounts after claiming the EU accounting system was open to fraud. Since then she has campaigned for changes to EU accounting rules and in 2007 joined UKIP, becoming their treasurer, before resigning this position over the management of their finances although she remains in the party.

It is curious to see an MEP with a strong sense of ethics, even though she lacks a scientific background, supporting an event featuring as noxious a character as Andrew Wakefield.  UKIP may have an eccentric approach to scientific issues, they have not, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion on Andrew Wakefield and the discredited assumption that their is a link between vaccination and autism.  In fact they do not seem to have an official opinion on autism, even if their members occasionally try and link it to things with which they disagree, such as certain types of lightbulb.

Ms Andreasen was contacted last week about her hosting of the event with Andrew Wakefield, however she did not reply.  Thus, it is not possible to know her motivations, or her understanding of the issues.  However, there are some clues as to her involvement.

Kathy Sinnott, a former MEP and target of this blog for her association with one of Matthias Rath’s, the man who believes people do not need to take HIV/AIDS drugs, organisations is also speaking at the event.  She supports Wakefield’s discredited theories through her presidency of  ‘The Hope Project’ (PDF), a charity dealing with learning disability.

Ms Sinnott’s former press officer and brother-in-law, Richard King, now works for Ms Andreasen and is the point of contact for enquiries about the event.  As well as working for Ms Andreasen, he also worked for the Independence/Democracy group in the EU parliament, a eurosceptic grouping formerly chaired by UKIP’s Nigel Farrage and before that Kathy Sinnott.

It is possible that Ms Andreasen may be involved at the request of Mr King and Ms Sinnott and might not have been aware of the controversial nature of Sinnott’s views on autism and MMR.  It is also possible she did not reply to a statement of these concerns because she has not read it.

Regardless of Ms Andreasen’s understanding of autism, MMR and Andrew Wakefield there have been unpleasant previous associations between eurosceptic groups and fringe thinking organisations.  As well as Ms Sinnott’s association with Matthias Rath’s organisations, the Democracy Movement, who Ms Andreasen has supported, have also chosen to work with him.

Supporters of eurosceptic parties and MEPs should be worried about a growing tendency to work with some of the most odious characters working in the field of pseudoscience.  Such associations will only tarnish their credibility, even MEPs such as Ms Andreasen who are prepared to lose their job for their principles will not escape the sulphur that surrounds Wakefield and Rath.

There is a BBC documentary showing tonight in Scotland (BBC One Scotland 1930 or channel 971 for non-Scottish viewers) titled ‘Magic or Medicine – Homeopathy and the NHS’.  You might think that this documentary was treading old ground and that issues of homeopathy in the NHS were already well understood.  However, healthcare is a devolved matter in Scotland, and thus healthcare spending is controlled by the Scottish government so arguments have to be fought anew north of the border.  In fact the dynamics of electoral politics in Scotland are such that The Scottish Green Party bear some considerable responsibility for homeopathy on the NHS, unlike in England where they are an irrelevance.  This is why this BBC Scotland documentary is to be welcomed.

According to this BBC article by the lead reporter Scotland spends disproportionately more than England on homeopathy, as FOI requests show. Scottish lay homeopaths are also shown to be as stupid as their English cousins in offering homeopathic versions of vaccines.  This is something that the professional homeopathic societies have been ignoring, or even endorsing, for some time and now something that the medical homeopaths are creeping towards.

The Scotsman carries a piece by Dr Brian Kaplan, a medical homeopath, Harley Street physician and Member of the Faculty of Homeopathy, today defending homeoapthy on the NHS in response to the documentary, that opens with the following statement:

NO DOCTOR who uses homeopathy would support the use of such treatment as a vaccination. This may be supported by some non-doctors using homeopathy, but it is not something the medical community would advocate.

Sadly Dr Kaplan views are more conservative than those of his professional society.  The journal Homeopathy, is published by the Faculty of Homeopathy and edited by Peter Fisher, the head of the, soon to be renamed, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.  This journal recently described a homeopathic vaccine as “Similar to a conventional vaccine” before going on to argue that homeopathic vaccines have a place in medical care:

“Homeoprophylaxis with nosodes could be a bridging device in a serious epidemic for the period until a fully effective vaccine is available. In less serious diseases, it could be the only prophylaxis offered. The lack of side effects, low cost, and rapid speed of manufacture and deployment would make it acceptable for use in large populations. Coverage of animal vector populations with the nosode may also be feasible.”

and

Infectious diseases are still the bane of humanity, particularly in the developing world. Effectively reducing their morbidity and mortality using homeopathic nosodes could have immediate practical and economic impacts.

I recommend you read apgaylard’s excellent analysis of this editorial and surrounding issues. Brian Kaplan would also do well to read this before making statements that are easily shown to be untrue.

It seems the only thing that separates medical homeopaths from lay homeopaths these days is not their ethics or their reluctance to use dangerously ineffective treatments, it is NHS funding and it’s time to bring that to an end.