Tweet

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Blackmores have agreed that the Gold Cross endorsement of the Blackmores Companions range of complementary medicines will be withdrawn.

The mutual decision has been taken in view of the strong level of public concern about the proposal, based on some media reporting of the endorsement which was ill-informed and inflammatory.

The last thing the Guild would ever want to do is deplete the credibility of community pharmacists, or damage the trust in which they are held by Australians. That trust and confidence is of paramount importance to the Guild and to our Members.

The Gold Cross endorsement arrangement with Blackmores was entered in good faith, with absolutely no intention of undermining the professionalism and integrity of  articipating pharmacists. There is not now and never would be any direction from the Guild for pharmacists to be involved in unprofessional, unethical or clinically unsound conduct. The idea that community pharmacists would take part in commercial “upselling” without regard to their professional standards is offensive to our profession and rejected by the Guild.

However, perceptions are very important, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the public perception of this endorsement was damaging to the reputation of community pharmacy. Both the public, and sections of the broader pharmacy industry expressed strong concerns about the proposal.

The Guild has listened to these concerns and accepts – mutually with Blackmores – that the best course in all the circumstances is to withdraw the endorsement arrangement. The Guild regrets any damage done to the image of community pharmacy and will do everything possible to ensure the public maintain their trust in community pharmacists as the custodians of medicines and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The National President of the Guild, Kos Sclavos, said: “We entered this arrangement in good faith, but we have now agreed with Blackmores that the furore that has been created is doing damage, and must be dealt with before it further damages community pharmacists and the patients they serve. The only alternative is to cancel the endorsement, and this has been done. I add my personal apologies for any distress this has caused to pharmacists.”

Gold Cross, a fully owned subsidiary of the Guild, had agreed to endorse a range of Blackmores products, which meant that the range of four Companions products would have the Guild’s Gold Cross on their packaging.

Additionally, an optional prompt containing clinical information for the patient to consider in relation to one product of the Companions range was to be available through the dispensary IT programs, on a pilot basis. The software pilot was not intended to commence until at least November, and will now not proceed.

Blackmores products are well-established, and marketed by one of the best known and respected names in evidence-based complementary medicine. Many doctors, pharmacists and other health professionals make recommendations for these types of products frequently.

Blackmores developed this range of four to be available exclusively through pharmacies so that consumers would always obtain the appropriate information and advice.

Contrary to some media reports, there was never any compulsion whatsoever on pharmacists to sell these products, nor was there any direct incentive to any pharmacist to sell them. At all times, community pharmacists would continue to be free – and indeed expected – to exercise their professional and clinical judgement in relation to these products.

Media inquiries: Greg Turnbull 0412 910 261

Bad Universe will be screening here in 2011 on Foxtel/Austar. I’ve just been advised that the first episode, Asteroid Apocalypse, will screen on Discovery Channel on Sunday January 16th at 7:30 pm. Alien Attack follows a week later (7:30 pm on 23 January 2011) then Death Stars on 30 January 2011 also at 7:30 pm (check local guides for details).

Don’t miss the first episode where Phil destroys Sydney with an asteroid. Don’t blame him, it was the producers idea. Sure Phil. Holy haleakala to you too.

Thank you to Mark Dawson for the tip off.

Cartoon by Richard Saunders

Tweet

The performance sports bracelets, which have gained considerable popularity via high profile athlete endorsements, have become an essential fashion accessory around the globe, making millions for the company. Their popularity has also sparked dozens of copy cat products, to such an extent that the company established a section on their website where consumers can report a fake.

The bracelets cost between $30 and $60 AUD and the pendants $90 and are claimed to increase strength, performance and flexibility. The “magic” is in the embedded hologram which is designed to “resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body”. But when asked to provide evidence for such claims, Power Balance admitted that “there is no credible scientific basis for the claims and therefore no reasonable grounds for making representations about the benefits of the product”. A toll free Power Balance refund line has been set up and refunds are bring offered to all consumers who felt they have been misled.

In a press release today, the ACCC announced that claims made by Power Balance had been found to breach section 52 of the Trade Practices Act and as such the following undertakings were to be made. Power Balance must:

• remove misleading claims from their website and packaging

• publish advertising informing consumers that they made claims that could not be substantiated

• offer refunds to all consumers who feel they may have been misled

In a further unprecedented move, the ACCC has also instructed the company to remove the words “performance technology” from the band itself, presumably meaning they will have to manufacture new stock.

And in a further shake up, the ACCC has indicated that retailers who continue to sell the bands in their current form also risk prosecution. This is certainly a blow for the company, as it effectively means they will have to withdraw all their current stock during a period when many manufacturing companies are winding down for the Christmas break.

Tweet

In the press release, ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said, “Suppliers of these types of products must ensure that they are not claiming supposed benefits when there is no supportive scientific evidence,”

“Consumers should be wary of other similar products on the market that make unsubstantiated claims, when they may be no more beneficial than a rubber band.”

It appears Power Balance may have already begun to comply with the ruling as a visit to the “learn more” section of the Australian website turns up a “coming soon” (the US site still contains information such as “optimizing the body’s natural energy “and “the hologram in Power Balance is designed to resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body.”)

The bands have been the subject of considerable media attention in 2010, not all of it flattering, however it apparently hasn’t made much of a dent in their sales. When Richard Saunders showed unequivocally that the bracelets didn’t work in a blind test on national television, the website crashed from increased traffic.

In October, Choice magazine awarded them a Shonky for the “stronger, bendier, balanceder, dumber” product of 2010. Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn described the product as “the only effect that the power balance band has is in emptying your wallet”. They were later named “a bare faced con” by Channel Nine’s A Current Affair.

The ACCC ruling might be the first move to make a dent in the enormous success of this expensive placebo in Australia. Unlike the HCCC and the TGA, the ACCC has a history of taking legal action against companies that continue to practice misleading and deceptive conduct. This includes the alternative health providers Advanced Allergy Elimination and NuEra.

Since Power Balance bands will likely be off the shelves of Australian stores for a while, why not get yourself a Placebo Band. They’re only two dollars, all profits go to charity, and they’re honest about what they do!

Want to know how the tricks tricks used by Power Balance and other similar products work? Watch the video on applied kinesiology below.

—
A big hug to Richard Saunders who has worked tirelessly to expose the shonkiness that is Power Balance.

UPDATE: Power Balance have now published this corrective ad on their website.

UPDATE 02/01/10: There have been many copy-cat products produced as a result of the huge success of Power Balance. One such product is HotBand which Richard Saunders wrote about here .

Our mate Chris Higgins decided to take up the challenge to get a large chain of discount pharmacies to remove these from their shelves and today we can report he has had some success. Chris writes on his blog today that he was informed the bracelets have been “recalled” and are no longer sold by Chemist Warehouse. Win!

The AVN was targeted in the statement in which AMA Vice President, Dr Steve Hambleton said that recent media reports outlining the views of the AVN show that this organisation has drawn the fire of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

“While we all value freedom of speech in our society, groups that promote what the NSW HCCC has described as misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information about immunisation, under the guise of ‘pro-information’ and ‘pro-choice’, are putting Australians at risk of diseases that can be prevented through vaccination” he said.

The AVN have previously been in legal strife with the AMA. Back in 2007 they published an advertisement on mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in NSW which made some rather spurious claims about the AMA. The ad had been submitted to NSW Doctor magazine but was rejected upon the committee checking the AVN website and “finding out that we only had one medical practitioner listed amongst our Professional Members”.

So the AVN published it on their website, until the AMA’s lawyers got a gander at it. The AVN was forced to remove the ad and publish a retraction in its place which said (in part):

In particular it has been brought to the attention of the Australian Vaccination Network, the the Australian Vaccination Network accepts, that:

1- AMA (NSW) does not obtain any of its funding from pharmaceutical companies;

2- AMA (NSW) has not published any advertisement or advertorial for a pharmaceutical company in the NSW Doctor for a period of at least four years, and at no time has the advertising in NSW Doctor been almost exclusively that of pharmaceutical companies;

3- AMA (NSW) does not actively censor information made available to its members.

The Australian Vaccination Network unreservedly apologises for any offence or embarassment the publication may have caused AMA (NSW), its officers and employees.

Ads being rejected sight unseen by publishers is something the AVN are also familiar with. Remember when Sydney’s Child also rejected an ad from them back in April?

Today’s statement from the AMA is reproduced in full below. There is a link to the AMA story here.

—

Misleading claims about vaccination putting Australian lives at risk

2 August 2010 – 2:15pm

Vice President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said today that the AMA is greatly concerned that groups that are promoting discredited theories about immunisation are exposing Australians to the devastating effects of preventable illnesses.

Dr Hambleton said that recent media reports outlining the views of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) show that this organisation has drawn the fire of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

“It is important for parents to have their children immunised. Immunisation saves lives,” Dr Hambleton said.

“While we all value freedom of speech in our society, groups that promote what the NSW HCCC has described as misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information about immunisation, under the guise of ‘pro-information’ and ‘pro-choice’, are putting Australians at risk of diseases that can be prevented through vaccination.

“We are now almost two generations away from deadly diseases such as tetanus, diphtheria and polio. Our grandparents will still remember how bad it was.

“Parents who choose not to immunise their children need to consider that they are putting not only their own children at risk, but they are also risking other children, with potentially fatal consequences.

“If immunisation rates fell because many parents relied on the efforts of other families to vaccinate their children, under the misapprehension that this would provide sufficient protection to the whole community, there would be new epidemics of old illnesses.

“The last outbreak of measles occurred in a school in an area with low immunisation rates. The outbreak was so severe that it interrupted the educational curriculum.

“The NSW HCCC’s findings and concerns regarding the AVN released last month are consistent with the views of the medical profession.

“It is critical that Governments promote the evidence and benefits of full immunisation and run an ongoing public education program that informs the public about the devastating effects of diseases that can be avoided through vaccination.

“The AMA welcomes the announcement last week that seasonal flu vaccination of young children can now be resumed, and commends the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer for taking early action to investigate this matter and the latest advice, which means we can maintain confidence in our vaccination program,” Dr Hambleton said.
—

Follow the AMA on Twitter.
Image screen capped from Vaccination Awareness and Information Service

The public statement was issued after a fortnight’s grace during which time the AVN were instructed to issue a disclaimer on their website stating that;

• • The AVN’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination, in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere.
• • The information provided by the AVN should not be read as medical advice.

The public warning follows a 12 month investigation into the AVN after 2 complaints were received.

The Commission’s investigation of the complaints focussed on the material presented by the AVN on its website www.avn.org.au. The Commission established that the AVN website:

• • provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
• • contains information that is incorrect and misleading
• • quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

The AVN was given 2 weeks to post the disclaimer in a prominent position on their website. When the deadline passed, the HCCC was forced to issue the public statement.

Meryl Dorey, media spokesperson and immediate past president of the AVN responded by repeating she does not believe the HCCC has jurisdiction over the AVN and she is seeking legal advice in this regard. (She has been “seeking legal advice” about this matter for what seems like the duration of the investigation).

In a blog post entitled “AVN vigorously opposses HCCC notice” Meryl (who refers to the AVN as a “consumer advocacy and vaccine safety watchdog group”), states:

“Three times since this investigation started last September, the AVN has provided the HCCC with information on their lack of jurisdiction. Each time, this information has been ignored.”

“The HCCC states that our information is misleading because we do not include data on the benefits of vaccination,…..nobody would expect……those who argue against fluoridation of the water supply to write reports about the benefits of mass medication without individual consent.”

So apparently fluoride in drinking water is “mass medication” now?

But it gets even more hilarious.

“The AVN is currently in discussions with our legal advisors….. to defend against the unsubstantiated allegations that our information is anything but complete, unbiased and fully-referenced from the medical literature.” (emphasis mine).

Unbiased and fully-referenced? Meryl, surely you jest. Even you have admitted you don’t tell both sides of the story. And as for fully referenced? Well the HCCC had something to say about that too.

Fully referenced also might not mean what you think it means Meryl. For example, copying and pasting incorrectly attributed references from whale.to is not considered “fully referenced”.

Meanwhile Meryl is still screeching “free speech” and “democracy”. A comment left on her blog offered a much more sinister reason for the HCCC “witch hunt”.

Tracy says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:51
Doctors are hired assassins for the pharmaceutical companies and the government. Paid to kill and injure … method of death and grievous bodily harm … vaccinations. I tell you, there is something very sinister going on that they are going to such extraordinary lengths to silence the truth!

Hold on to your tin foil hats people!

Not only do the Australian public now know the true nature of the AVN‘s agenda, Meryl appears to have got herself in some hot water over scanning and posting a pro-vaccine magazine article on her blog. The article, published in Cosmos Magazine, got her ire when she was apparently misquoted after declining to be interviewed. The publishers are now seeking legal advice about the breach of copyright and will be taking action to have the article removed.

And in another schemozzle, Meryl appears to have passed on the email list from her subscriber base to a third party, which breaches email privacy laws in Australia. Although in a blog post published today she denies this is the case.

This came about with the distribution of a media release from the International Medical Council on Vaccination, announcing their support for the AVN and “condemning the attempts of an Australian Government body to censor and suppress their work.” It was signed by well known anti-vaxers Sherri Tenpenny, VacTruth, Moms Against Mercury, and even Judy Wilyman, amongst others.

AVN readers have already begun to write to the HCCC complaining about the findings. One suggested:

• “The HCCC’s purpose is to provide misleading information about the importance and efficacy of vaccination, in order to perpetuate the substantial amount of one-sided, pro-vaccination information available everywhere.”

Or perhaps the science tells us that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks? There’s no debate about that.

The commission concluded that the AVN provide misleading information about vaccination and must post disclaimers on their website clearly stating they are anti-vaccination.

The report found evidence that the AVN misleads readers by using reliable and peer reviewed literature but selectively quotes from it, often in contradiction to the conclusions or findings of the studies. The AVN also gives non-peer reviewed and anecdotal material the same authority as peer-reviewed literature.

Ms Dorey responded to these accusations by saying:

“It is true that often times our information will contradict the conclusions of studies. This is because, as opposed to most doctors and government officials, we actually read the studies…that disconnect (between the data and conclusions) can be explained by the financial links between the study’s researchers and the companies whose products are being studied…This is not selective reporting, it is accurate reporting.”

Wow, talk about a disconnect. Firstly, it’s the old Big Pharma conspiracy theory again. When you got no evidence to support your claims, its time to roll out the Big Pharma Shill canard. *Yawn*

But this is interesting – she claims to have actually read the studies? This was not the impression Tom Sidwell gleaned when he analysed one of Meryl’s responses to the HCCC a few months back. Unless she intended to copy/paste mistakes, which were traced back to whale.to and other anti-vax conspiracy websites.

From Tom’s article: “At best she hasn’t read the papers she cites and includes them out of ignorance, and at worst she is being deliberately deceptive – and I spelled this out very clearly in the analyses I sent to the HCCC.”

See The Truth Behind the AVN Claims for the full details

—

The complaint, authored by Ken McLeod, included accusations such as:

• The AVN claims to support “informed choice” but only provides information designed to dissuade people from vaccinating

• State on their website that there are links between vaccination, autism, Crohn’s disease irritable bowel syndrome and shaken baby syndrome

• Cherry picking data to suggest that Gardasil has killed young women

• Bacterial meningitis has increased since the introduction of the meningococcal vaccines

• Autism is caused by mercury in vaccines

• Vaccination is unnecessary since homeopathy can be just as effective

• Misrepresenting the facts surrounding the death of Dana McCaffery and harrassing her parents

—–

The AVN are considered Health Care providers under the public health act

This case was somewhat of a test for the HCCC, since it was not immediately clear if the AVN even fell under the HCCC legislation. Initially the Commisssion had to establish if the AVN could be classified as “health care providers”.

Mrs Dorey had this to say;

“The complaint alleges that both the AVN and myself are “health service providers” because we are providing “health education services to the public” for the purposes of the health care complaints act 1993…Neither the AVN or Meryl Dorey are health care practitioners as the term is generally understood colloquially or have we ever claimed to be.”

Yet the commission disagreed with this, noting “the provision of health education was evident” on their website and also “Mrs Dorey participating in pregnancy discussion groups and in lecturing at universities” did indeed constitute health education.

Even more embarrassing for Dorey was her own constitution which stated the purposes of the AVN were “the advancement and promotion of education and learning amongst the public”.

Plus, the legislation is quite clear about the definition of a health care educators/provider, nothing “colloquial” about it. Yet, despite the Commission findings and the fact that she lectures at uni, Dorey still denies they are considered health educators. From the Lateline report;

“We do not agree that the HCCC has jurisdiction over us and we have been saying this from the very beginning and we are seeking legal advice over this issue.”

She now claims to be seeking legal advice on this caveat, despite the fact that she has already had 12 months to do so? Odd.

—-

The Commission focussed cheifly on the issues raised by Mr McLeod and Mr and Mrs McCaffery in relation to the AVN website. Here they examined the post “10 reasons why parents question vaccination” which consists of such statements as “vaccines have never been tested”, “vaccines contain toxic additives and heavy metals” and “vaccines do not necessarily protect against infectious diseases”. They asked Mrs Dorey to provide evidence for these claims.

The Commission analysed references provided by Mrs Dorey and noted many were not relevant to her claims, she was guilty of cherry picking or omitting data to support her claims and other information was demonstrably false.

Of note is her citation of an article about Gardasil from Natural News. com – yes that guy – where she omitted paragraphs to reinforce the claim that the vaccine had been linked to deaths in young women.

On other vaccines the report stated; “The AVN has selectively quoted information to suggest vaccination against meningococcal disease has been ineffective when there is no evidence of this”.

And “The AVN claims that vaccination is linked with a range of long term side effects however has provided no evidence to support this”. (My emphasis)

The AVN is anti-vax and must declare this on their website

The Commission has recommended that The Australian Vaccination Network include an appropriate statement in a prominent position on its website which states;

1. The Australian Vaccination Network’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere
2. The information provided should not be read as medical advice
3. The decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider

If the AVN fails to comply the commission will issue a public statement. Of course we had hoped the HCCC could have done more to limit the dissemination of false information by the AVN, but at least the resulting media coverage will shine some light on the true nature of the AVN.

Surprisingly, in her own response to the Commission, Meryl Dorey in fact admitted to being anti-vaccination, stating there is a need to provide an alternative to mainstream vaccination information.

According to the final report:

“In her response to the commission Ms Dorey conceded that provides anti-vaccination information. Ms Dorey stated there is a need to provide information about vaccination, alternative to that disseminated by the government.”

No longer can Ms Dorey hide behind “we are not anti-vax we are pro choice” which has always been her public persona.

Meryl has already issued a press release stating that the report constitutes an “outrageous attack”; “the threat to freedom of speech and the implications regarding loss of medical choice inherent in this decision make this an issue that cannot go unchallenged”. Interestingly, all references to skeptics with a capital “S” (thereby inferring Australian Skeptics) have been removed and replaced with Stop the AVN and their supporters.

The story has also been reported on 6 minutes here which contains a link to the full article as a pdf.

There is already a comment from Age of Autism UK editor John Stone, the same website who recently referred to the action as “fascist“.

—-

UPDATE #1

Apologies for any errors in the initial post, I am currently at TAM8, and am suffering from severe sleep deprivation! Plus, the post was written between the hours of 2 am and 5 am Las Vegas time (yawn).

Since then, I have had 4 hrs sleep and made some changes, plus others have now blogged the story.

See the story on YouTube
Podblack has a report here
ABC news has a related story here
Orac chimes in
Adelaide Now
Northern Star
Mia Freedman’s Mamamia
Immunisation – getting the right advice audio on 2UE
The World Today Top doctor backs disclaimer for anti-vaccination site
AAP story from Danny Rose

—-
Dear Margaret Allen, If you do read this, please follow this link to see the nature of the AVN’s material. As a librarian of experience, I expect you have researched this group prior to agreeing to host them. If not, and I understand you are very busy, then it might be of interest.
—

Well done to Margaret Allen, CEO of the library, who was apparently responsible for this lapse in judgement and now has the dubious honour of putting the health of WA children at further risk. I hope she is pleased with her decision to host a “controversial” group that is the AVN.

Message to Margaret Allen: there is nothing “controversial” about vaccines, except that which exists in the minds of the anti-vaxers.

Over 200 people attended the event, including the brave sceptics @podblack, @luminousmonkey and @danbuzzard who live tweeted and blogged the event. (They must have stronger stomachs than do I). If you want to follow the course of events as they unfolded you can search twitter for the hashtag #stopAVN.

The seminar itself featured a talk from PhD candidate Judy Wilyman from Murdoch University Perth and Meryl Dorey, media spokesperson (and immediate past president) for the AVN.

There is a history to this talk – it is the second time the AVN have scheduled a public lecture in Perth in recent weeks. The first time, their booking was cancelled at the eleventh hour owing to the Uniting Church in the City (responsibly) deeming that hosting the AVN was not within their charter and ethos and “..there may be a public perception that the Church does not support childhood vaccinations“.

Unfortunately for Meryl, she was informed of the decision as she was about to board a plane to Perth from the Gold Coast, and was forced to forfeit her airfare and return home with her tail between her legs. What a shame.

This time, the library assured Meryl they would not repeat such a cancellation. And so they kept their promise with Margaret Allen responding to emails of complaint with the same form response;

“The State Library of Western Australia provides facilities and services to the community of Western Australia as a whole; inevitably from time to time this may include interest groups with views that some may find controversial.
.

The State Library does not make any judgment about individuals, groups or organizations, unless there is a clear breach of law, policies or procedures, in which case we may act to exclude clients.”

I personally called the WA Dept of Health to ask them to explain themselves, but was informed that the matter had been passed to the Minister for the Arts and Culture since the majority of complaints pertaining to the event, were about the use of a state tax-payer funded facility.

So it was apparently out of their hands.

I think they should have made it their job to put a stop to this, and I informed them of such (I am not shy), but despite them agreeing with all my points about the AVN, they sat on their hands. They did however have a meeting with Meryl Dorey and Judy Wilyman the evening prior to the event, which I was told was a routine event offered to anyone requesting so. I imagine Meryl taught them much about vaccines.

I’m certain the head of the Immunisation Programme for WA Health, Dr Paul Effler can’t possibly know as much as someone touted as “Australia’s Leading Expert in Vaccination” whose qualifications are a “brain”.

Perhaps because of the current government departments sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “TROLOLOLOLOL” the Shadow minister for Culture and the Arts, John Hyde got mad. I don’t know if he knows the AVN’s work, but he was quoted in a West Australian newspaper article entitled “Anti-vaccine forum causes row” saying the Barnett Government had opened the floodgates for any group to use the library’s facilities to push their agendas.

“Does this mean that the Liberal Party can hold a membership drive there, or for that matter the Ku Klux Klan or a bike gang?” Mr Hyde said.

“Why should a group that endangers the lives of WA children be allowed to speak and promote their cause at a taxpayer-funded venue dedicated to learning?” Mr Hyde said.

He also informed a colleague in a personal communication that he would be asking Ms Allen and the Minister to explain their policies with respect to allowing groups like the AVN free rein of State funded facilities in parliament today. I look forward to hearing their explanation.

Channel 7 news reported the story where Mr Hyde said:

“Our state library shouldn’t be subsidising or promoting propaganda that puts the lives of our children at risk.”

Professor Fiona Stanley was less polite, simply stating: “This misinformation will lead to the deaths of children.”

As for CEO Ms Allen, the resident sceptics last night reported that Channel 7 was forbidden from filming inside the venue and that this was at the request of Ms Allen, not the AVN. It seems strange to me that Ms Allen is happy to host “controversial” groups, but doesn’t want anyone to know what they say. Either way, she now has a lot of explaining to do.

Tweets such as this:
Hey @statelibrarywa good job on hosting an anti-vaxer and HIV/AIDS denier. Australia’s children thank you #stopAVN #FAIL

Very nice of AVN to talk about free choice, sorry, if your choice means a child dies, you don’t get to be free on that.

were appearing all over their twitter page last night as the seminar progressed.

Leading up to the event and because of the previous last minute cancellation,  Meryl was constantly screeching about “free speech” and democracy. Well, I want to be free to say “I HAVE A BOMB” on a plane, but for sake of public safety I wouldn’t, I can’t and I don’t. Much the same as yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema when there is no fire.

Meanwhile a report which appeared in the West Australian last week claimed that more WA parents were opting out of vaccinating their children, with the number of youngsters not fully immunised in the national program doubling over the past five years.

But according to the Dept of Health this report was exaggerated. Medicare figures show WA has the lowest rate of childhood vaccinations in the country for children aged 12 to 15 months, but only by 0.2%.

The percentage of children 12-15 months of age (age calculated at 31 December 2009) assessed as fully immunised. Date of processing 31 March 2010.

ACT 92.8%, VIC 92.0, QLD 91.5%, SA 90.6%, WA 89.2%, TAS 93.0%, NT 89.4%, AUS 91.4%.

Similarly, the percentage of children 24-27 months of age (age calculated at 31 December 2009) assessed as fully immunised is lower by a difference of 2.3%.

ACT 93.9%, VIC 92.3, QLD 92.6%, SA 91.6%, WA 89.9%, TAS 93.5%, NT 92.0%, AUS 92.0%.

And according to Dr Paul Effler, the medical co-ordinator of the immunisation program in WA, the state is consistently lower than the rest of the country largely because the State had the fewest GPs, who give 63 per cent of immunisations, per capita.

I’ll bet you can’t guess where the lowest rates of immunisation nationally might fall. Go on, guess. And here’s a clue, the  AVN are based in Bangalow, an area know as the Northern Rivers.

From the most recent Medicare figures reporting the rankings for Divisions of General Practice in descending order based on immunisation coverage rates calculated from the General Practice Immunisation Incentives scheme. Rated for the May quarter 2010, from 1 (first) – (last) 113.

113. NORTHERN RIVERS GENERAL PRACTICE NETWORK 79.6%

Is it a coincidence that this is the region where the AVN are based?

Discuss.

Congratulations to Meryl Dorey and the AVN for campaigning hard and long, and succeeding in discouraging parents from vaccinating their children. First place in the lowest vax uptake in the country is nothing to be proud of.

And congratulations must also go to the WA government for allowing this dangerous group to spew their “controversial” BS all the way to Perth.

And what will be the prize? Mumps, whooping cough, pick your favourite communicable disease. They’re all in the running now.

Please see @podblack’s blog here for more information. Also a blog has been established for this event.

Apologies for not blogging this properly. I have just written an article for someone else, and can’t post the same text here. I will endeavour to do so in the next few days.

In the meantime, here are the findings on Wakefield from the GMC.

SPOILER ALERT:

Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. The Panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.

.

The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Wakefield exercises his right of appeal, his name will be erased from the Medical Register 28 days from when formal notice has been deemed to be served upon him by letter to his registered address.

—

Date: 24 May 2010

Dr Andrew Jeremy WAKEFIELD

Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction:

The Panel has already given its findings on the facts and its reasons for determining that the facts as found proved could amount to serious professional misconduct.

It then went on to consider and determine whether, under Rule 29(1) of the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order of Council 1988, the facts as admitted or found proved do amount to serious professional misconduct and if so, what, if any sanction it should impose. It has accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice in full as to the approach to be taken in this case, and has looked at each doctors’ case separately but, when considering whether Dr Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct, has looked at the heads of charge found proved against him as a whole. It has not confined its consideration to the heads of charge; it has also had regard to the evidence that has been adduced and the submissions made by Ms Smith on behalf of the General Medical Council. On behalf of Dr Wakefield, no evidence has been adduced and no arguments or pleas in mitigation have been addressed to the Panel at this stage of the proceedings. In fact Mr Coonan specifically submitted:

“……we call no evidence and we make no substantive submissions on behalf of Dr Wakefield at this stage.” “…I am instructed to make no further observations in this case”.

Nevertheless, the Panel considered the totality of the evidence in Dr Wakefield’s case including the reference dated 27 October 1995, from Professor Leon Fine, the then Head of the Department of Medicine at the Royal Free Hospital, when reaching its decision at this stage, having been asked to consider that as part of Mr Coonan’s submissions at Stage 1.

Serious professional misconduct has no specific definition but in Roylance v General Medical Council [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 139 at 149 Lord Clyde, in giving the reasons of the Privy Council, said:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances…”

Lord Clyde went on to say:

“The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the misconduct to the profession of medicine. Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious.”

The Panel has acted as an independent and impartial tribunal and exercised its own judgement on these matters. It has borne in mind the relevant GMC guidance at the time, namely the 1995 Good Medical Practice and, in so far as the findings relate to events after 1998, the 1998 Good Medical Practice. It has considered what has been adduced and submitted on behalf of the doctors about the standards and procedures which were prevalent at that time.

In considering Dr Wakefield’s case, the Panel has also taken into account the passage of time before these matters were brought before it and the length of time this case has taken. It noted that the multiple sittings were for a variety of reasons including professional commitments of the Panel and requests from Counsel for reasons such as illnesses, accidents, unavailability of witnesses and preparation time.

The Panel has noted Dr Wakefield’s previous good character and taken into account everything it has heard including his qualifications, experience and standing within the profession, with patients and the parents of patients.

The Panel considered the conduct of Dr Wakefield whilst he was registered as a medical practitioner and employed by the Royal Free Hospital Medical School in 1996 and 1997, initially as a Senior Lecturer in the Departments of Medicine and Histopathology. Later, from 1 May 1997 he was a Reader in Experimental Gastroenterology and an Honorary Consultant in Experimental Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital.

The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike.

In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research. A costing proposal had been submitted by Mr Barr to the LAB containing detailed information provided by Dr Wakefield, and Dr Wakefield ought to have realised that Mr Barr would submit it to the LAB.

The costing proposal set out costs in respect of the investigation of five children. It covered each child’s four-night stay in hospital with colonoscopy, MRI and evoked potential studies. Dr Wakefield admitted that the funding subsequently provided by the Legal Aid Board had not been needed for these items because these costs were borne by the National Health Service as the patients were being admitted as NHS patients.

The Panel found that Dr Wakefield had a duty to disclose this information to the Legal Aid Board via Mr Barr. It was dishonest and misleading of him not to have done so. The Panel concluded that his intention to mislead the Legal Aid Board was sufficient on its own to amount to serious professional misconduct.

The Panel also found that in respect of £25,000 of LAB monies, Dr Wakefield caused or permitted it to be used for purposes other than those for which he said it was needed and for which it had been granted. In doing so he was in breach of his duties in relation to the managing of, and accounting for, funds.

In September 1996 Dr Wakefield made an application to the Ethical Practices Sub-Committee of the Royal Free Hospital (Ethics Committee) seeking approval for a research project involving 25 children. This was approved by the sub-Committee as Project 172-96. He named himself as one of the three Responsible Consultants, thereby taking on the shared responsibility for the information given in support of his application; for ensuring that only children meeting the inclusion criteria would be admitted to the study; that conditions attached to the Ethics Committee approval would be complied with; and that children would be treated in accordance with the terms of the approval given.

In respect of Research and Ethics Committee approval, the Panel had regard to the particular ethical guiding principles with regard to conducting research on children. It rejected Dr Wakefield’s overall contention that Project 172-96 was never undertaken; that all the investigations carried out on the children were clinically indicated and that the research elements of the project were covered by another Ethics Committee approval.

The Panel concluded that the programme of investigations that these children were subjected to was part of Project 172-96. It further determined that the conditions for approval and the inclusion criteria for that project were not complied with. The Ethics Committee’s reliance on the probity of Dr Wakefield as a Responsible Consultant was not met.

With regard to nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 5,12 and considered by the Panel, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval and thus without the ethical constraints that safeguard research. Ethical constraints are there for the protection both of research subjects and for the reassurance of the public and are crucial to public trust in research medicine. It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated. This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child. The Panel is profoundly concerned that Dr Wakefield repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research medicine. It concluded that his actions in this area alone were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct.

The results of the research project were written up as an early report in the Lancet in February 1998. Dr Wakefield as a senior author undertook the drafting of the Lancet paper and wrote its final version. The reporting in that paper of a temporal link between gastrointestinal disease, developmental regression and the MMR vaccination had major public health implications and Dr Wakefield admitted that he knew it would attract intense public and media interest. The potential implications were therefore clear to him, as demonstrated in his correspondence with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and reports which had already appeared in the medical press. In the circumstances, Dr Wakefield had a clear and compelling duty to ensure that the factual information contained in the paper was true and accurate and he failed in this duty.

The children described in the Lancet paper were admitted for research purposes under a programme of investigations for Project 172-96 and the purpose of the project was to investigate the postulated new syndrome following vaccination. In the paper, Dr Wakefield failed to state that this was the case and the Panel concluded that this was dishonest, in that his failure was intentional and that it was irresponsible. His conduct resulted in a misleading description of the patient population. This was a matter which was fundamental to the understanding of the study and the terms under which it was conducted.

In addition to the failure to state that the children were part of a project to investigate the new syndrome, the Lancet paper also stated that the children had been consecutively referred to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder and intestinal symptoms. This description implied that the children had been referred to the gastroenterology department with gastrointestinal symptoms and that the investigators had played no active part in that referral process. In fact, the Panel has found that some of the children were not routine referrals to the gastroenterology department in that either they lacked a reported history of gastrointestinal symptoms and/or that Dr Wakefield had been actively involved in the process of referral. In those circumstances the Panel concluded that the description of the referral process was irresponsible, misleading and in breach of Dr Wakefield’s duty as a senior author.

The statement in the Lancet paper that investigations reported in it were approved by the Royal Free Hospital Ethics Committee when they were not, was irresponsible.

Subsequent to the paper’s publication, Dr Wakefield had two occasions on which he could have corrected the content of the Lancet paper yet both times he compounded his misconduct.

First, in a published letter in response to correspondents who had suggested that there had been biased selection of the Lancet children, Dr Wakefield stated that the children had been referred through the normal channels, a response which was dishonest and irresponsible. He provided an inaccurate statement which omitted relevant information when he knew that the description of the population in the study was being questioned by the scientific community.

Second, at a meeting of the Medical Research Council, the Chair, Professor Sir John Pattison referred to the seriousness and importance of the implications of Dr Wakefield’s research and its major public health implications. At that meeting and on the issue of bias in generating the series of cases, Dr Wakefield stated that the children had come by “the standard route”, a response which was dishonest and irresponsible.

Regarding the issues of conflicts of interest, Dr Wakefield did not disclose matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest. He failed to disclose to the Ethics Committee and to the Editor of the Lancet his involvement in the MMR litigation and his receipt of funding from the Legal Aid Board. He also failed to disclose to the Editor of the Lancet his involvement as the inventor of a patent relating to a new vaccine for the elimination of the measles virus (Transfer Factor) which he also claimed in the patent application, would be a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Even before the publication of the Lancet Paper, eminent professionals had expressed concerns about the LAB funding to Dr Wakefield and potential conflicts of interest. Dr Wakefield rejected these views. With regard to non-disclosure to the Ethics Committee, Dr Wakefield did in evidence accept that the Legal Aid Board funding should have been disclosed, but said that his involvement in the litigation need not, especially because of his interpretation of the questions in the application form. He said no question was asked which related to that matter and therefore felt no need to disclose. In evidence to the panel he stated:

“The form is set out expecting certain answers to specific questions and no such question exists. Therefore, since it was not asked, it was not answered.”

However, given the importance of an Ethics Committee’s reliance on the probity of an applicant, the Panel determined that this was a failure by Dr Wakefield and his actions amounted to serious professional misconduct.

With regard to the non-disclosure to the Lancet the Panel accepted evidence from the Editor of the Lancet, as to the importance of this issue. The Lancet published clear guidance in relation to the conflict of interest test that the applicant should apply and the need to discuss any issues arising from it with the Editor. The Lancet test was: “Is there anything that would embarrass you if it were to emerge after publication and you had not declared it?” Dr Wakefield chose not to declare or discuss any conflict of interest with the Editor. He stated that he was able to reconcile his position, was not embarrassed by it, and was quite proud of the position he had taken on behalf of the Lancet children.

Dr Wakefield was insistent that his involvement with the new patent had not given rise to any prior need to disclose. Despite the clear terms of the patent, he did not accept that the invention was envisaged as an alternative vaccine to MMR. He acknowledged that he had envisaged the use of transfer factor for at least a proportion of the population and that he had a financial and career interest in its success, but he said that it did not cross his mind to disclose it, and even with hindsight he insisted that there was a reasonable argument, as he put it, for non-disclosure. The Panel considered that his actions and his persistent lack of insight as to the gravity of his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the administration of Transfer Factor to Child 10, the Panel noted the admitted background of Dr Wakefield’s involvement in a company set up with Child 10’s father as Managing Director, to produce and sell Transfer Factor. Around the same time, Dr Wakefield inappropriately caused Child 10 to be administered transfer factor. The Panel accepted that information as to its safety had been obtained and that the approval to administer Transfer Factor to one child was granted in the form of “Chairman’s approval”, “on a named patient basis” in a letter from Dr Geoffrey Lloyd, Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee at the Royal Free Hospital. Nonetheless the Panel found that Dr Wakefield was at fault because the substance was given for experimental reasons, he did not cause the details to be recorded in the child’s records, or cause the general practitioner to be informed, and he did not have the requisite paediatric qualifications.

Dr Wakefield’s actions were contrary to the clinical interests of Child 10 and an abuse of his position of trust as a medical practitioner. The Panel considered these to be serious departures from the standards of a registered medical practitioner and concluded that these amounted individually and collectively to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Wakefield caused blood to be taken from a group of children for research purposes at a birthday party, which the Panel found to be an inappropriate social setting. He behaved unethically in failing to seek Ethics Committee approval; he showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer, and he paid the children £5 reward for giving their blood. He then described the episode in humorous terms at a public presentation and expressed an intention to repeat his conduct. When giving evidence to the Panel, Dr Wakefield expressed some regret regarding his remarks. The Panel was concerned at Dr Wakefield’s apparent lack of serious consideration to the relevant ethical issues and the abuse of his position of trust as a medical practitioner with regard to his conduct in causing the blood to be taken. The Panel concluded that his conduct brought the medical profession into disrepute.

Dr Wakefield defended the ethical basis for the taking of blood at a birthday party contrary to the experts who gave evidence to the Panel and who strongly condemned this action. The Panel determined that his conduct fell seriously short of the standards expected of a doctor and was a breach of the trust which the public is entitled to have in members of the medical profession. It concluded that this behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Panel has borne in mind the principles guiding a doctor as set out in the relevant paragraphs of 1995 Good Medical Practice which relate to providing a good standard of practice and care, good clinical care, keeping up-to-date, abuse of professional position, probity in professional practice, financial and commercial dealings, and the general principles of conflict of interest, followed by particular provisions as to the way in which research must be conducted. The 1998 Good Medical Practice, relevant to Dr Wakefield’s conduct at the birthday party, lists the duties of a doctor in providing a good standard of practice and care, keeping up-to-date and the issue of research and the absolute duty to conduct all research with honesty and integrity.

In all the circumstances and taking into account the standard which might be expected of a doctor practising in the same field of medicine in similar circumstances in or around 1996-1998, the Panel concluded that Dr Wakefield’s misconduct not only collectively amounts to serious professional misconduct, over a timeframe from 1996 to 1999, but also, when considered individually, constitutes multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct.

Accordingly the Panel finds Dr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct.

In considering what, if any, sanction to apply, the Panel was mindful at all times of the need for proportionality and the public interest which includes not only the protection of patients and the public at large, but also setting and maintaining standards within the medical profession, as well as safeguarding its reputation and maintaining public confidence in the profession. It bore in mind that the purpose of sanctions is not punitive, although that might be their effect.

The Panel noted the submissions of GMC Counsel that the appropriate and proportionate sanction would be erasure in light of his serious and wide-ranging misconduct. However the Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that this was only a submission on behalf of the GMC and it was for the Panel to make up its own mind. Dr Wakefield’s counsel did not make any substantive submissions on his behalf.

The Panel went on to consider whether it should, pursuant to Rule 30(1), postpone the case. It received no submissions in this regard and so went on to determine whether it was sufficient to conclude the case without making a direction or with an admonition.

The Panel made findings of transgressions in many aspects of Dr Wakefield’s research. It made findings of dishonesty in regard to his writing of a scientific paper that had major implications for public health, and with regard to his subsequent representations to a scientific body and to colleagues. He was dishonest in respect of the LAB funds secured for research as well as being misleading. Furthermore he was in breach of his duty to manage finances as well as to account for funds that he did not need to the donor of those funds. In causing blood samples to be taken from children at a birthday party, he callously disregarded the pain and distress young children might suffer and behaved in a way which brought the profession into disrepute.

In view of the nature, number and seriousness of the findings the Panel concluded it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude the case without making a direction or

with a reprimand.

It next considered under rule 31 whether it was sufficient to direct that the registration of Dr Wakefield be conditional on his compliance during a period not exceeding three years with such requirements as the (Panel) may think fit to impose for the protection of members of the public or in his interests. Conditions have to be practicable, workable, measurable and verifiable and directed at the particular shortcomings identified. The Panel concluded that Dr Wakefield’s shortcomings and the aggravating factors in this case including in broad terms the wide-ranging transgressions relating to every aspect of his research; his disregard for the clinical interests of vulnerable patients; his failure to heed the warnings he received in relation to the potential conflicts of interest associated with his Legal Aid Board funding; his failure to disclose the patent; his dishonesty and the compounding of that dishonesty in relation to the drafting of the Lancet paper; and his subsequent representations about it, all played out against a background of research involving such major public health implications, could not be addressed by any conditions on his registration. In addition, the Panel considered that his actions relating to the taking of blood at the party exemplifies a fundamental failure in the ethical standards expected of a medical practitioner. It concluded that conditional registration would not mark the seriousness of such fundamental failings in his duty as a doctor.

The Panel next went on to consider whether it would be sufficient to suspend Dr Wakefield’s registration for a period not exceeding twelve months. Dr Wakefield has demonstrated a persistent lack of insight and has insisted in many instances on his ethical propriety: in the context of the referral process and the treatment of the children in the research project in which he was engaged; in the context of the funding of the project; with regard to the terminology of the Lancet paper; with regard to his non-declaration of interests; with regard to not acting in the best clinical interests of the Lancet children and with regard to obtaining blood from children at a birthday party.

The Panel noted that the sanction of suspension may be appropriate for conduct that falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration; where there is no evidence of harmful deep-seated or attitudinal problems; and where there is insight and no significant risk of repeating behaviour. Although these points have been set out in the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance which was published subsequent to these events, the Panel considered that the guidance outlines the type of sanction appropriate to the gravity of misconduct and that the same principles are applicable to Dr Wakefield’s actions at the material times. The Panel considers that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to the facts found falls seriously short of the relevant standards and that suspension would not be sufficient or appropriate against a background of several aggravating factors and in the absence of any mitigating submissions made on his behalf. Dr Wakefield’s continued lack of insight as to his misconduct serve only to satisfy the Panel that suspension is not sufficient and that his actions are incompatible with his continued registration as a medical practitioner.

Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. The Panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.

The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Wakefield exercises his right of appeal, his name will be erased from the Medical Register 28 days from when formal notice has been deemed to be served upon him by letter to his registered address.

Dr Wakefield is presently not subject to any interim order on his registration. The Panel will hear submissions on whether an immediate order of suspension should be imposed upon him pending the outcome of any appeal, first from Ms Smith on behalf of the General Medical Council and then from Mr Coonan on behalf of the doctor but will do that at the conclusion of the reading of all three determinations.

Hundreds of members at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference of junior doctors have passed a motion attacking the alternative medicine and other remedies they claim have no scientific basis to support them.

Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in England, told the conference:

“Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a homeopathic hospital paid for by the National Health Service (NHS)”.

The NHS is the equivalent of Medicare in Australia.

The announcement supports recommendations from the The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee after a parliamentary enquiry called an “evidence check”. In a 273 page report, summarising the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, the committee concluded that

* The NHS should cease funding homeopathy
* Recommend no further clinical trials of homeopathy.
* Evidence shows homeopathy doesn’t work.
* Explanations for why homeopathy works are “scientifically implausible.”
* Committee views homeopathy as placebo.

The report was tabled with evidence from hundreds of submissions from scientists.

From the report, the Committee wrote;

“In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.”

The Committee concluded;

“Given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.”

“We do not doubt that homeopathy makes some patients feel better. However, patient satisfaction can occur through a placebo effect..When doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.”

Gordon Lehany, chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in Scotland, said it was wrong that some junior doctors were spending part of their training rotations in homeopathic hospitals, learning principles that had no place in science.

He told the conference in London:

“At a time, when the NHS is struggling for cash, we should be focusing on treatments that have proven benefit. If people wish to pay for homeopathy that’s their choice, but it shouldn’t be paid for on the NHS until there is evidence that it works.”

The UK currently had four NHS funded homeopathic hospitals, in Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow and London. A fifth hospital in Kent closed in 2009 when NHS funding was withdrawn. Latest figures show 54,000 patients are treated each year at four NHS homeopathic hospitals at an estimated cost of £4 million.

Homeopathy was invented 200 years ago by the German physician, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, and is based on a ‘like-treats-like’ concept: that the symptoms of an illness can be treated by minute quantities of the same substance that caused it. But remedies are diluted to such a degree, there is virtually no chance of the active ingredient existing in the final product.

The concept of “Homeopathy, there’s nothing in it” made headlines around the world last year when mass homeopathic overdoses were conducted outside of pharmacies across the globe. The campaign was organised in protest at the highly respected Boots chain of pharmacies in the UK selling their own range of homeopathic “remedies”.

During the parliamentary evidence check, the professional standards director for the Boots high street pharmacy chain, Paul Bennett admitted to selling homeopathic remedies because they are popular, not because they work. In a statement, which has since been referred to as a huge foot-in-mouth, he said;

“There is certainly a consumer demand for these products,” but “I have no evidence to suggest they are efficacious”.

Homeopathy also publicly funded in Australia

In Australia, homeopathic consultations are not directly covered by Medicare, but GPs can bill for any consultation deemed “by the majority of professional peers as clinically relevant”, a Medicare spokesperson said.

Dr Ken Harvey, of the school of public health at La Trobe University, objects to the use of public money on placebo;

“I don’t believe there’s an evidence base to homeopathy, and I don’t think it should be financed by public money,”

“If a doctor wants to offer homeopathic consultations then it should be done separately…at the patient’s own expense.”

Dr Harvey referred to a New South Wales GP who offers homeopathy consultations as being fully reimbursed by Medicare. The GP, Dr Michael Cleary was adamant;

“The people who are using [homeopathy] are [also] taxpayers,” he said.

“If I was a person who wasn’t allowed to get a Medicare rebate from seeing my [homeopathic] doctor, I’d be wondering why I’m paying the levy.

Professor Mike Daube, president of the Public Health Association of Australia, also called on the TGA and Department of Health to conduct a review of homeopathy.

“There’s a long history to homeopathic practice, but we need to know whether it’s appropriate in the light of 21st-century science,” he said.