Print

[worelia]

http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2320

[*quote*]
30th April 2013

    HOME
    COMPLAIN
    PRINCIPLES
    RULINGS
    ARTICLES
    CONTACT US

Print Version
Case Number: 2320 CLIVE STUART AGAINST NORTH & SOUTH

Council Meeting APRIL 2013

 The New Zealand Press Council has upheld a complaint against North & South's cover article on homeopathy in its July, 2012 edition.

A registered homeopath, Clive Stuart of Tauranga, complained that the cover, the article, its illustration and an accompanying editorial, were highly derogatory, inaccurate and misleading.

He said the article was wrong to say that, "homeopathic remedies have failed every randomised, evidence-based scientific study seeking to verify their claims of healing powers".

In support of that statement, the editor of North & South cited the conclusions of a meta-analysis published in the British medical journal The Lancet in 2005. It had found "weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies" and it said this finding was "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects".

Mr Stuart supplied the Press Council with a letter from Dr David St George, Chief Advisor on Integrative Care for the Ministry of Health, who advises the ministry on the development of complementary medicine in New Zealand and its potential integration into the public health system. He was not speaking for the ministry in this case but offering a personal view.

Dr St George believed the statement in North & South's article arose from a misunderstanding of the Lancet study, which had compared 110 published placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy with the same number of published placebo-controlled trials of conventional medical drug treatments. He said most of the 110 homeopathy trials in that study were "randomised, evidence-based scientific studies" which demonstrated an effect beyond a placebo effect.

Dr St George said there was no debate about whether there were scientific studies demonstrating homeopathy's therapeutic benefit but rather, whether those studies were of an acceptable methodological quality.

In the Council's view this distinction was unduly subtle. If the studies are not of an acceptable methodological quality, it would seem fair to say, as North & South did, that "there is no scientific evidence of homeopathy's efficacy". But that would be a statement of opinion in medical research, not an accepted fact. The North & South article presented it as a matter of fact.

North & South declined to respond to the information from Dr St George since the complainant submitted it after the editor had answered his initial complaint to the Press Council and his right of reply. The Council was conscious that in considering a third submission from Mr Stuart it was departing from its declared procedure but having seen Dr St George's information the Council felt it could not close its eyes to it.

It found the article inaccurate in so far as the state of scientific research into homeopathy is not as conclusive as North & South had suggested.

Mr Stuart made a number of other complaints about the magazine's treatment of homeopathy. He said the article featured the views of two critics and only one defender, the editorial stated that homeopaths had advised patients against the MMR vaccine and promoted a homeopathic solution to Aids, the cover lines ("Do you believe in magic? - the truth about alternative medicine") were unfair, as was an illustration inside which appeared to him to be a witch.

He also complained at the treatment of a letter he sent to the magazine for publication. It appeared in the September issue where it was accompanied by a response from a critic of homeopathy, Dr Shaun Holt, who had been quoted at length in the July article.

The Council did not uphold these complaints. It said the requirements of balance are not strictly numerical. The article gave ample space to the chairwoman of the International Council of Homeopathy. The editorial's references to homeopathic advice on the MMR vaccine and Aids echoed criticism in other publications, while the July cover lines and inside illustration simply reflected the attitude the magazine had taken to the subject. Nor was the treatment of Mr Stuart's letter objectionable. It is an editor's prerogative to refer a letter to a third party for an answering view before publication.

The Council said newspapers and magazines are entitled to take a severely critical attitude to any product or practice that claims health benefits but they need to take care that the facts they present are accurate. They need to take particular care in references to medical research. The references in this case were not sufficiently accurate, balanced or fair to homeopathy and its practitioners. On those grounds the complaint was upheld.

Press Council members considering this complaint were Barry Paterson, Liz Brown, Pip Bruce Ferguson, Kate Coughlan, Chris Darlow, Peter Fa’afiu, Sandy Gill, Penny Harding and John Roughan.

Search Rulings

Links

    Report on the Review of the New Zealand Press Council
    The Australian Press Council
    The British Press Complaints Commision
    Independent Press Councils
    Complaint Line New Zealand

© 2013 New Zealand Press Councill | Website by Basium IT
[*quote*]

Copyright? There is no copyright on support for crimes!

[worelia]

Clive Stuart is a homeopath. Does he dare to claim he can treat autism? Where is his proof for such claims?

[*quote*]
Free Practicioner Listing!

If you are a homeopath who treats according to the principles laid out on this page, please click here to submit your location and contact details so parents can find you.
[*/quote*]

http://homeopathy4autism.com/?cat=4&snap=N

Doesn't this protocol call for homeopathic treatment as the only one, excluding scientific treatments?

http://homeopathy4autism.com/?page_id=30

[*quote*]
Thank you for your interest in this website.

Parents are searching for homeopaths who prescribe according to sound homeopathic principles so that their autism-affected child has the best chance of having a positive result with homeopathic treatment.

These principles, as outlined in The Organon, include:
Homeopathic prescriptions based on the characteristic symptoms of each child or adult, rather than on routine or ‘sequential’ approaches that fail to match the individualising symptoms of the patient.
Only one remedy prescribed for use at a time so that clarity of treatment is maintained, rather than the case confused by prescriptions of complexes (combination remedies) or multiple remedies in sequences.
Remedies usually prescribed in liquid form rather than as pilules so the remedy dose can be easily adjusted to suit the sensitivity of the child or adult being treated.
The prescription of a test dose at the beginning of treatment so the child or adult’s sensitivity can be determined.
Sufficient time allowed for the initial consultation so that the child or adult’s symptoms can be adequately collected and analysed; at least an hour for toddlers, and 1 1/2 hours for children or adults.
Practitioner able to be contacted by the parent or patient between appointments should minor adjustments to treatment be needed.
Only homeopathic treatment that the practitioner has not confused or complicated by the addition of other unrelated treatments or therapies.

If these features describe your practice, please register your contact details on this site so parents and their children can more easily find you and the treatment you provide.

Many thanks,

Homeopathy for Autism – Treatment of Choice
[*/quote*]

How does this conform with NZ laws?

[worelia]

What are the words, precisely, that are criticized? Is the Press Complaints Commission blindly following delusions by homeopaths?

http://sciblogs.co.nz/infectious-thoughts/tag/ministry-of-health/

[*/quote*]
Press Complaints Commission upholds homeopaths complaint
Siouxsie Wiles Apr 16

Tauranga homeopath Clive Stuart has had part of his complaint against an article on homeopathy (Homeopathy – Trick or Treatment?) by Stacey Anyan, published in the July 2012 edition of North & South, upheld by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC)*. While the PCC did not agree with his complaint that balance needed to be numerically equivalent (there were quotes from two people critical of homeopathy and one defending) or that his letter to the editor should not have been accompanied by a response from a critic of homeopathy (Dr Shaun Holt), they did uphold his complaint that the article was wrong to say that “homeopathic remedies have failed every randomised, evidence-based scientific study seeking to verify their claims of healing powers”.
[*/quote*]


Does the PCC ignore that "homeopathic remedies" either all do fail or are no homeopathic remedies? The description "homeopathic" is abused by a variety of flavors of manufacturing methods. Not a single homeopathic remedy ever was proven to be effective with respect to one of the crucial key features of homeopathy: that a higher dilution is more powerful than a lower dilution.

Which leads us to the next crucial point in all studies ever made: If a remedy can not prove that a higher dilution is more efficacious than a lower dilution, then it is not homeopathic.

In other words: No study ever was based on using real homeopathic remedies. This renders all studies from their very base to either be designed the wrong way, or, relating to studies concerning dilution problems, the studies failed either by result or by design.


Homeopathic studies are either crap by design of fraud by intention.


[de-typo-fied it, ET]

[worelia]

Clive Stuart, the homeopath, makes untrue claims.

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/letters-17-feb-2012/1275521/

[*quote*]
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters and comments from readers. Here you can read the letters we have published in your newspaper today.

"Research refutes homeopathy sceptics

It is sad that Dr Michael Edmonds (Letters, February 7) and his colleagues at the NZ Sceptics society appear to operate a policy of denial and misinformation when it comes to scientific research supporting homeopathy. Edmonds states there are no valid scientific papers to support homeopathy. This statement is false and misleading.

 Many scientific studies have been published in the world's leading medical journals that have shown homeopathy to be more effective than placebo. This research can be is on the British Faculty of Homeopathy website: www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research. This is the registering body for medical doctors practising homeopathy in Britain.

 A recent 300 page Swiss Federal Report (Swiss Health Technology Assessment) concluded after exhaustive research that homeopathy was "effective", "cost-effective" and "safe".

 Edmonds also states that there is no evidence of electromagnetic activity in homeopathic dilutions. Published research from a Nobel prizewinning scientist (co-discoverer of HIV) contradicts this assertion. Prof Luc Montagnier's experiments detected electromagnetic signals produced by biological samples at dilutions comparable to homeopathic medicines. Montagnier's research lends weight to the premise that electromagnetic activity is the key factor in homeopathy's mechanism of action.

Clive Stuart, Tauranga"
[*/quote*]

These claims are false.

[worelia]

More false claims by Clive Stuart.

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/homeopath-reply-letters-27-april/1053110/

[*quote*]
Homeopath reply

Re Professor hits out at homeopathy (News, April 20).

As a homeopath I am somewhat bemused by Prof Shaun Holt's attacks on homeopathy.

His copious press releases contain derisive generalisations and hyperbole that betray a lack of knowledge of the subject.

No doubt the reasons behind this "carpet bombing" will come to light eventually.

Holt has stated that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

This is false. Homeopathy has been shown to be more effective than placebo in many published scientific studies. These studies are listed in the research section of the the British Homeopathic Association website www.britishhomeopathic.org.

More recently, scientific research from Nobel prize winner Prof Luc Montagnier has detected substance-specific electromagnetic charges in dilute homeopathic preparations which can exert a biological effect.

Last year, Holt displayed poor judgement when he accused Christchurch homeopaths of attempting to make money from traumatised earthquake victims.

In reality they had shown admirable public spiritedness in setting up a free clinic to treat people for trauma and shock with medicines donated by themselves and homeopathic pharmacies.

Prof Holt should channel his energies into targeting treatments that are genuinely dangerous and ineffective.

Homeopathy is neither.

Clive Stuart, Tauranga
[*/quote*]


Homeopathy is not safe. Homeopathy is by design and by practice a dangerous delusion. The homeopaths' aggressiveness in abolishing scientific medicine poses an additional danger to their clients.

The homeopaths "In reality they had shown admirable public spiritedness in setting up a free clinic to treat people for trauma and shock with medicines donated by themselves and homeopathic pharmacies." is nothing else but an advertising campaign that only puts the quake victims under more bodily and psychic stress and dangers.

[worelia]

New Zealand was hit by disastrous quakes. Homeopaths took the opportunity to prey on the victims. Dr. Shaun Holt was quoted in this article.

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/witchcrafQt-warning-for-victims-of-earthquake/1026919/

[*quote*]
'Witchcraft' warning for victims of earthquake
 by Sandra Conchie  | 
 13th Sep 2010 10:53 AM 

GP/author Dr Shaun Holt. Photo: Jimmy Joe/File.

Well-known Tauranga medical researcher Professor Shaun Holt is warning the victims of the Christchurch earthquake to stay well clear of "quack potions" and describes the attempts by homeopaths to make money from their situation as "appalling and shameless".

Professor Holt's comments are in response to the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths recent statements that homeopathic products "may greatly help children, animals and adults feeling frightened and unable to sleep from the Christchurch earthquake".

Professor Holt said the statement was "shocking".

"Having previously targeted people with HIV and cancer, homeopaths are now chasing people who have been traumatised by an earthquake with their quack potions."

Professor Holt said there was not evidence that homeopathic remedies worked and promoting them as a remedy during a time when people were vulnerable and in a difficult position was "unethical".

Professor Holt said he agreed with the British Medical Association's recent statement that homeopathy was akin to witchcraft.

"Making health claims about products with no active ingredient, and targeting the most vulnerable, is in my view fraudulent and unethical."

Susanna Shelton, co-president of the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths, who is also based in Tauranga, said the medical advice given to earthquake victims was purely given in the "spirit of support" and not for financial benefit.

Ms Shelton said the claim by Professor Holt that the advice was motivated by pecuniary gain was "absolutely ludicrous" and "disrespectful" to a profession that was well established and committed to people's wellness.

She said Professor Holt appeared to be on a personal crusade.

The New Zealand Council of Homeopaths had no interest in the sale of homeopathic medicines, she said.

Ms Shelton said the council's recommendation to earthquake victims was no different than a local GP or member of the NZ College of General Practitioners recommending ways for people to deal with a difficult time.
[*/quote*]

Did the ever so big-mouthed homeopath Clive Stuart file a complaint against this article with the New Zealand Press Council?

"The New Zealand Council of Homeopaths had no interest in the sale of homeopathic medicines" Susanna Shelton, "co-president of the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths", claims. True. The big cash is made with consultations.


[de-typo-fied it, ET]

[worelia]

Clive Stuart is a homeopath. But there is another strange fellow involved: Dr David St George. His role is rather dubious, as this blog article by Siouxsie Wiles shows:


http://sciblogs.co.nz/infectious-thoughts/tag/ministry-of-health/

[*quote*]
Posts Tagged Ministry of Health

Press Complaints Commission upholds homeopaths complaint

written by Siouxsie Wiles
Apr 16 2013

Tauranga homeopath Clive Stuart has had part of his complaint against an article on
(http://sciblogs.co.nz/molecular-matters/2013/04/16/homeopathy-where-reason-is-diluted-until-none-is-left)
homeopathy (Homeopathy  - Trick or Treatment?) by Stacey Anyan, published in the July 2012 edition of North & South, upheld by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) [1].

While the PCC did not agree with his complaint that balance needed to be numerically equivalent (there were quotes from two people critical of homeopathy and one defending) or that his letter to the editor should not have been accompanied by a response from a critic of homeopathy (Dr Shaun Holt), they did uphold his complaint that the article was wrong to say that "homeopathic remedies have failed every randomised, evidence-based scientific study seeking to verify their claims of healing powers".

The article title is a reference to the excellent book
(http://www.trickortreatment.com/)
"Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial" by Dr Simon Singh and
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst)
Prof Edzard Ernst. Prof Ernst is a doctor and former homeopath who was the world's first professor of complementary medicine, at the University of Exeter. This is what they conclude about homeopathy:

[*quote*]
"Hundreds of trials have failed to deliver significant or convincing evidence to support the use of homeopathy for the treatment of any particular ailment. On the contrary, it would be fair to say that there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that homeopathic remedies simply do not work. This should not be such a surprising conclusion when we recall that they typically do not contain a single molecule of any active ingredient."
[*quote*]

But lets not take their word for it. In 2009-2010 the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee performed an
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf)
"evidence check" on homeopathy, calling defenders and critics alike to present the evidence for and against homeopathy. Their conclusion:

[*quote*]
"...the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."
[*/quote*]

It would seem from these that the scientific evidence points to homeopathy having no effect beyond placebo, when evaluated using methodologically sound protocols by people without a vested interest in homeopathy. However, the PCC:

[*quote*]
"found the article inaccurate in so far as the state of scientific research into homeopathy is not as conclusive as North & South had suggested."
[*/quote*]

If only Stacey Anyan had included the words "well-designed" in her sentence. What a difference a couple of little words would have made. There is certainly an important lesson for journalists in this debacle.

It is interesting to read in the judgement* how the PCC came to their conclusion. They seem to have been swayed by a 7 page letter from a Dr David St George. We'll get to who he is in a moment. This is what the PCC say:

[*quote*]
"Dr St George believed the statement in North & South's article arose from a misunderstanding of the Lancet study, which had compared 110 published placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy with the same number of published placebo-controlled trials of conventional medical drug treatments. He said most of the 110 homeopathy trials in that study were "randomised, evidence-based scientific studies" which demonstrated an effect beyond a placebo effect."
[*/quote*]

Actually the
(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/abstract)
Lancet study Dr St George is quoting concluded "Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

Two disturbing things come to light from this case. The first is that the PCC breached its own rules by accepting Dr St George's letter which was the third submission in this case (two submissions are allowed by both sides) so it will be interesting to see why this was allowed. The second is finding out who Dr David St George is and what he does for a living. Dr St George has a medical degree from the University of Auckland and a degree in epidemiology from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He worked as a consultant clinical epidemiologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London  and then as Director of Research and Clinical Effectiveness at Southampton University Hospital. He was also the first Director of Research at the
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince's_Foundation_for_Integrated_Health)
Foundation for Integrated Health, a controversial charity founded in 1993 by the Prince of Wales to promote alternative and complementary medicine, lobbying for its inclusion in the UK's National Health Service. The charity closed in 2010 after it's finance director, accountant George Gray, was convicted of theft and sentenced to three years in prison. It is unclear what research, if any, the Foundation undertook.

Dr St George's other "achievements" include helping Middlesex University set up an undergraduate degree in traditional Chinese medicine**, being research committee chairman of the (now defunct)
(http://www.herbalmedicine.org.uk)
Scottish School of Herbal Medicine and a former member of the
(http://baab.co.uk)
British Acupuncture Accreditation Board***. But now he is back in New Zealand and working for the NZ Ministry of Health as "Chief Advisor - Integrative Care". I wonder if this swayed the PCC at all into accepting his unorthodox, rather lengthy and over technical submission. This is what it says on the Ministry's
(http://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/leadership-ministry/chief-advisors)
website about Dr St George's role:

[*quote*]
Dr David St George’s role is to provide professional leadership, direction and advice on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and on the integration of CAM with conventional health care, particularly in the area of primary care and chronic care conditions.
[*/quote*]

Oh dear. I think we need to find out exactly what "direction and advice" Dr St George has been giving to the Ministry for Health. Because by his submission to the PCC I';m not entirely confident it will be based on unbiased methodologically sound scientific evidence. Dr Prue Williams, General Manager of Science Investments for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, announced at the recent
(http://www.scientists.org.nz/)
NZ Association of Scientists
(http://www.scientists.org.nz/2013-conference)
annual meeting in Wellington that there are plans for all ministries to have scientific advisors in place. I suggest whoever is appointed for the Ministry of Health starts by looking into Dr David St George.

[1]
It's case 2320, the judgement for which isn't up on the PCC
(http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/)
website yet

[Update: 14:20 on 16/04/2013 - judgement now available online
(http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2320)
here

[2][3]
On the subject of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Singh and Ernst conclude:
"Some elements may be effective for some conditions, while others (e.g. cupping) are unlikely to offer any benefit above placebo. Many aspects of TCM are potentially harmful. Some individual herbs used in TCM (e.g. liquorice, giner, ginko) undoubtedly have pharmacological effects.. On the other hand, some.. are toxic ...  may also contain non-herbal ingredients (e.g. endangered animals), contaminants (e.g. heavy metals) or adulterants (e.g. steroids)."

[3]
On the subject of acupuncture Singh and Ernst conclude:
"..there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the existence of Ch'i or meridians [the basis for acupuncture points]. There are some high-quality trials that support the use of acupuncture for some types of pain and nausea, but there are also high-quality trials that contradict this conclusion. In short, the evidence is neither consistent nor convincing - it is borderline."

Reference:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67177-2/abstract
Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M (2005). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 366(9487):726-32.
[*/quote*]

As for the copyright of the quoted article: please read the details in the source page:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/infectious-thoughts/tag/ministry-of-health/

Markers are a bit spoiled. The embedded URLs and special font characters are not always converted correctly.

[Thymian]

Marke: 4000