Dr Ken Harvey, a lecturer at Latrobe University School of Public Health, who authored the complaint (read the full complaint as a pdf here), objected to claims on the website that “homeopathic immunisation is effective against poliomyelitis, chicken pox, meningococcal disease, hepatitis (all types), Japanese encephalitis, Hib, influenza, measles, pneumococcal disease, smallpox, typhoid, cholera, typhus, whooping cough, rubella, mumps, diptheria, malaria, tetanus, yellow fever, dysentery and many other epidemic diseases”.

The websites, classified as advertisements for the purposes of the complaint, also claimed that “recent research conducted at Swinburne University by Australian homeopath, Dr Isaac Golden confirmed that homeoprophylaxis provides the same degree, or better protection, than vaccines with none of their side effects or complications.”

About influenza, the websites state that the homeopathic preparation, “Anas Barbariae relieves the intensity and shortens the duration of flu symptoms better than anti-virals…..without the side effects” and “symptoms are sometimes removed in a few hours”.

In reference to the claims about the positive results of Isaac Golden, Dr Harvey noted these claims are directly contradicted by the thesis from where they are sourced. Golden’s thesis contains the statement; “the effectiveness of the homeopathic immunisation programme could not be established with statistical certainty given the small sample size..”. In spite of this, and in lieu of providing further evidence,  the complainant stated (in part) that the thesis had “indeed reached a positive conclusion with a high degree of confidence”.

The findings from The Complaints Resolution Panel stated that although the complainant cited references for homeoprophylaxis, they “did not provide complete copies of the papers cited.” Further, the material on the websites was deemed “misleading”, “unverified” and “abused the trust or exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers” (my emphasis).

The Panel found that none of the material supplied by the advertiser supported claims made on the websites, and therefore the information was misleading and “likely to arouse unwarranted expectations” from consumers. The Panel ruled for Homeopathy Plus! and www.d-n-h.org to remove the misleading material and issue a retraction on their websites which is to remain for 90 days. The advertiser has 14 days to comply with the ruling.

Claims about efficacy of homeopathic immunisation are in direct contravention to statements from the National Council for Homeopathy London which “strongly supports the conventional vaccination programme..”. In Australia, The Executive Director of the Australian Natural Therapies Association said “no properly qualified natural therapist would recommend homeopathic immunisation as an alternative to conventional immunisation”.

This comes at a time when NSW Health authorities have issued a warning about meningococcal disease following the death of a woman in Sydney, and a spike in cases in NSW, with eight reported in December 2009, in Sydney.

For more information about homeopathy, see the 10:23 campaign. To participate in a mass homeopathy suicide attempt in Australia, see the events page on Facebook.

(NB: I say magic because there is no known mechanism described in science to explain how these things apparently “work”, and I place work in inverted commas because these things have no effect above placebo, so technically they don’t work either).

A print advertisement and Australian website linking to the American version was found to breach the Advertising code sections 4(1)(b), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d), 4(2)(i), 4(7), 5(2), 7(3) (see box below) following a complaint by an individual.

The website, classified as an advertisement by the regulatory body, promoted a range of LifeWave patches, namely the SP6 patch, Y-Age patch, Icewave patch, Energy Enhancer patch, and Silent Nights patch. For a description of the apparent functions of these patches (and an interesting exchange with a believer), you might be interested in reading my previous blog about Lifewave here.

This is an interesting case for consideration, since The Panel first had to decide who was responsible for the advertisements as the parent website (lifewave.com) is based in the US and the website which attracted the complaint is linked to it from Australia. They concluded that the website was in fact the responsibility of the Australian distributor, given that the url had been personalised (www.LifeWave.com/bodyinharmony).

Information on retailer websites is the responsibility of the website publisher

Publishers of websites should be aware that they are responsible for the material they publish, regardless of whether they have copied that material from product packaging or other websites. Some online retailers appear to be of the view that it is acceptable to duplicate information from such sources for the purposes of advertising products for sale, but take no responsibility for the publication of the information.
Reproduced from the Complaints Resolution Panel website.

The Panel found that the claims relating to the patches being effective in appetite control, craving control, weight loss, detoxification, antioxidant boost, anti-aging, skin repair, pain relief, relief of pain from injuries, relief of chronic pain, relief of migraines, relief of arthritis, enhancing energy, enhancing stamina, reducing fatigue, and promoting restful sleep, had not been verified, were misleading, and could not be substantiated by the advertiser, therefore constituted a breach of the code [Section 4(2)(a)].

In the report published on the website, the Panel stated that;

“…they were not satisfied that the material provided by the advertiser constituted even minimally persuasive evidence that the advertised products could have the therapeutic benefits claimed in the advertisements”.

In particular the Panel targeted testimonials published on the website. As part of the code, testimonials are required to be documented, not misleading and be regarded as plausible illustrations for the potential benefits of the product. The concluded that claims such as “wow 20 seconds my pain was gone” and “90 seconds lower back pain was gone”, were indeed not plausible and therefore breached the code (Section 4.7).

The Panel did not accept photos like these as sufficient evidence that Michael Phelps uses Lifewave patches. Funny that.

The website also made claims that the patches were used by the swimmer Michael Phelps and several AFL football players, but the advertiser was unable to provide evidence for this, apart from the following statement;

“(they had) been told by LifeWave staff in Australia who hold training sessions that Michael Phelps has used the patches and that a few of the AFL teams have begun using the patches” and “there are photos on the internet that show Michael Phelps with the patches on his body.”

Then panel deemed this insufficient evidence and therefore concluded that these claims breached the code.

In Australia it is prohibited to advertise products that claim to treat or cure serious diseases/ailments, such as cardiovascular disease. The Panel deemed that the Lifewave website breached this section of the code [5(2)], by including “research” information which referred to “heart rate variability enhancement through nanotechnology” and many other references to heart rate variability, “increase[ing] glutathione levels in the body”, and other references to health issues.

In a meeting held on April 16, 2009, The Panel ruled that the advertiser was to withdraw the advertisements from further publication; and withdraw any representations that the advertised products are safe, or that they have benefits in relation to appetite control, craving control, weight loss, detoxification, antioxidant boost, anti-aging, skin repair, pain relief, relief of pain from injuries, relief of chronic pain, relief of migraines, relief of arthritis, enhancing energy, enhancing stamina, reducing fatigue, or promoting restful sleep.

The Advertiser was given 14 days to comply with this ruling and was instructed to provide evidence to The Panel of this compliance.

Which apparently the advertiser decided did not entirely suit them, since you can still find the website, in it’s shiny misleading, code breaching glory.

Which leads me to question; who is responsible for enforcing these rulings? How is it that these people get a slap on the wrist, ignore the ruling and carry on their merry way, selling products for which there is no evidence of efficacy? There should be a process whereby I can easily and quickly alert the TGA to the non-compliance and there should be substantial penalties for non-compliance.

Until there is, then the TGA Complaints Resolution Panel is about a effective as an ashtray on a motor bike = useless.

Today’s alternative medicine smack-down comes to you courtesy of a sceptical colleague, Michael, who submitted a complaint to our government regulator, The Complaints Resolution Panel, several months ago. Michael’s complaints pertained to a homeopathy website, arnicamontana.com.au which was spruiking all manner of dubious products and making equally dubious claims.

Arnica Montana sell homeopathic first aid kits, homeopathic remedies for emergencies, makes claims that homeopathy is useful for serious health conditions and also tow the anti-vax line, in articles promoting the AVN and bragging about refusing the whooping cough vaccine.

This week Michael was advised that all his complaints were upheld and as a result, Arnica Montana were instructed to comply with the following sanctions: Withdrawal of Advertisement, Withdrawal of Representation and Publication of Retraction.

Regular listeners to the Zone may remember I called these people out back in February, just after the Victorian bush fires, after a listener alerted me to a passage on their website which said the following;

“In the light of recent events in Bali and the bush fires in the Eastern States of Australia information about the use of Homeopathy by the ordinary person is knowledge that should be shared.”

I called this claim offensive, not only to the deceased in Bali and Victoria, but also to the skilled health professionals working tirelessly with the burns victims using medicine and science, not magic water. Indeed, these particular claims were questioned by Michael and upheld by The Panel. You can see the full list below.

The advertiser was given an opportunity to respond to the criticisms, and rejected the allegation that there was “anything deceptive or misleading” in the advertisement/website. They claimed that the website was “intended to be an information website to educate the public about the use of homeopathic remedies” but not to the exclusion of any other system of medicine.

But the Panel deemed the website breached sections of the code which prohibit advertisements for products that;

“abuse the trust or exploit the knowledge of consumers” and was “likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness”.

This was based on the panel’s finding that “….no persuasive evidence was provided that the advertised products could have benefits in relation to the wide range of conditions referred to”.

In response the advertiser stated that “controlled trials cannot be used for homeopathy but [that] there is a mass of unpublished evidence”. (Is this because when they are used, they almost always turn up negative?).

In any case, there have testimonials all over the website…isn’t this evidence enough? Not for the Panel, who also called these into question, by stating that the advertiser did not provide evidence that any of the testimonials in the advertisement were genuine.

According to the advertising code; testimonials “must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only”. The panel cited this testimonial as an example of a breach;

“the calendula cream I make is specific to cancer skin keratoses and I have successfully treated many of these and established melanonas by using the sage cream at night and the calendula during the day”.

Overall, Michael received 9 pages of correspondence and I waded through all of it, which I’m very glad I did because buried deep in the text was this.

The Panel noted that the advertisement breached section 4(5) of the code; “..by implying that other therapeutic goods (namely vaccines and sunscreens) could be harmful….”

So it is unlawful to imply that other therapeutic goods are harmful, like vaccines? I wonder where this places the AVN? (Although given that they do not sell therapeutic goods, to the best of my knowledge, then I don’t think they are breaching this section of the code). This is a very interesting piece of legislation and one that I will file away for future reference.

One of the big things about the decision was that The Panel deemed the entire website to be an advertisement.

Since it was clear that the website offered a range of products for sale, the Panel was satisfied it constituted an advertisement for therapeutic goods. Interestingly, the complaint summary cites the subject matter of the complaint as “website advertisement” and the sanctions as “withdrawal of advertisement”, thus implying the entire website is to be withdrawn. If you go to the website, you will see the published retraction, but the remainder of the website still functions as normal. I wonder when and if we will see the entire website removed.

Not a very happy UK homeopathy week for some…

The tragic death of a toddler in a freak accident at an alt-med clinic.

What makes this story even more sad is that the death occurred in the Favira clinic in Adelaide, which is the home of Elvira Brunt, an alternative therapist who claims to be able to cure cancer with massage. More on this is a moment, but reports say the 18-month-old girl was crushed to death by a massage table while her mother was being treated.

A police inspector who attended the scene said; “A young, 18-month-old child, a girl, has died as a result of being trapped in a component of a massage table…the child was under the table when it started to be lowered.”

Regular readers might remember the Favira alternative medicine clinic from a previous Dr Rachie when I mentioned that she has advised the father of a young girl with leukemia to feed her KFC to get her kidneys functioning again. A current parliamentary enquiry in South Australia had received several submissions from members of the public about the dubious practices of Ms Brunt. Tragically, the enquiry is ongoing, hence Elvira Brunt is still practicing.

On the same day that the child died the Enquiry into Bogus, Unregistered and Deregistered Health Practitioners report named Elvira Brunt, as a person of interest, for allegedly claiming she could cure cancer through abdominal massage, encouraging patients to stop normal treatment and requiring cash payments for services.

Other alternative therapists to be “named and shamed” were ELIZABETH GOLDWAY, for allegedly saying she could cure cancer, charging thousands of dollars for treatment and not providing receipts. MONICA MILKA, for allegedly claiming she could cure cancer with injections to “kill the worms” that were causing the problem. LUBOMIR BATELKA, who allegedly subjected a patient to “vaginal blowing” with an ozone therapy machine, saying it offered a “50 per cent cure” for cancer.

The member of parliament, Ian Hunter who tabled the report said;

“While some . . . practitioners may be delusional – convinced they are able to cure serious medical conditions – the evidence presented to the committee suggested that others are driven by greed and, in some cases, sexual gratification.” “The committee heard shocking stories from people who said their loved ones had been exploited when they were at their most vulnerable, who were given false hope and who wasted thousands of dollars on bogus treatments,” he said.

The committee stated while most practitioners were ethical, proper regulation, monitoring, and exposure of unethical behaviour was needed. The committee recommended the State Government establish legislation, similar to the code of conduct introduced in New South Wales last year, to regulate health practitioners and mechanisms to monitor them.

Although it seems likely that Elvira Brunt will be banned from practicing eventually, it will be too little too late for many, including now an 18-month-old girl. You can read the full story here.

Unfortunately, it has become all too common commonplace that SCAMs (Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine) make unsubstantiated claims about their products and services.

It has also become commonplace that they get away with making such claims, seemingly without consequence.

As was the case when I was told at the Mind Body Wallet festival that my friend’s cancer could be cured with an AUD12,000 course of fruit juice diets, detox and herbs/supplements. Claims such as these are illegal in New South Wales under section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners which states that;

“Health practitioners not to make claims to cure certain serious illnesses. (1) A health practitioner must not hold him or herself out as qualified, able or willing to cure cancer and other serious illnesses”.

So it was a surprise to see this happen today.

This is the work of a sceptical colleague, Michael, who issued a lengthy complaint to the Complaints Resolution Panel of the Therapeutic Goods Administration some time ago. Recently he received a 9 page facsimile advising that his complaints about Arnica Montana, a purveyor of homeopathy, regarding breaches of section 4(1)(b), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d), 4(2)h, 4(2)(i), 4(7) and 5(2) of the advertising code were deemed valid.

Arnica Montana  Enterprises Pty Ltd were instructed to comply with the following sanctions: Withdrawal of Advertisement, Withdrawal of Representation and Publication of Retraction. This involved publishing a  retraction on the website which appears below.

Regular listeners to the Skeptic Zone and readers of the Zoners blog may recall I called these people out back in February for issuing a statement on their website about the use of homeopathy for severe burns and recommending its use for the victims of the Victorian Bush fires, known as “Black Saturday”, the worst natural disaster in Australia’s history. The website stated; “In the light of recent events in Bali and the bush fires in the Eastern States of Australia information about the use of Homeopathy by the ordinary person is knowledge that should be shared.”

The advertiser was given an opportunity to respond to the criticisms, and rejected the allegation that there was “anything deceptive or misleading” in the advertisement/website. The advertiser claimed that the website was “intended to be an information website to educate the public about the use of homeopathic remedies” but not to the exclusion of any other system of medicine.

But The Panel found that the advertisement breached sections of the code which prohibit advertisements for products that “abuse the trust or exploit the knowledge of consumers” and was “likely to arouse unwarranted and unrealistic expectations of product effectiveness”.

This was based on the finding that “the advertisement included claims of benefits in relation to burns, scalds, pain, traumatic shock, severe burns….no persuasive evidence was provided that the advertised products could have benefits in relation to the wide range of conditions referred to”.

Evidence? Why do you need evidence? The advertiser stated “controlled trials cannot be used for homeopathy but [that] there is a mass of unpublished evidence” and stated that they “would be grateful to know which section of the Code requires published scientific evidence as a precondition to advertising”. Besides they have testimonials all over their website…but wait, they were called into question too.

The Panel stated that the advertiser did not provide evidence that any of the testimonials in the advertisement were genuine.

According to the code; Section 4(7) requires that testimonials “must be documented, genuine, not misleading and illustrate typical cases only”.  The panel found that the advertiser did not provide any evidence that the testimonials were genuine, and cited this as an example;

“the calendula cream I make is specific to cancer skin keratoses and I have successfully treated many of these and established melanonas by using the sage cream at night and the calendula during the day”.

Interesting that it unlawful to publish testimonials that are not genuine or “atypical”. This could apply to many a woo website.

But then this;

The Panel noted that the advertisement breached section 4(5) of the code;

“..by implying that other therapeutic goods (namely vaccines and sunscreens) could be harmful….”

If you search the website for vaccination, you will get hits for the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), Meryl Dorey and other misinformation that we have come to expect from the anti-vaxers. (Who would have thought, a homeopath condemning vaccination). I wonder where does the AVN website sit with respect to this? Would their website be deemed an advertisement? After all, they do sell literature and DVDS, but I suspect these products do not come under the auspices of “therapeutic goods”.

An advertisement is defined by The Code “…to include any statement, pictorial representation or design, however made, that is intended, whether directly or indirectly, to promote the use or supply of the goods”.

This is why the entire arnica montana website was deemed an advertisement; the Panel noted that it was clear that the website offered a range of products for sale, and was satisfied that the website as a whole constituted an advertisement for therapeutic goods.

Interestingly, the complaint summary cites the subject matter of the complaint as “website advertisement” and the sanctions as “withdrawal of advertisement”, thus implying the entire website is to be withdrawn. If you go to the website, you will see the published retraction, but the remainder of the website still functions as normal.

And if you think there’s no harm in homeopathy, then see this story.