More on Homeopathic Societies – This Time It’s NASH

October 23, 2007 at 10:13 am (Bad Science, Code of Ethics, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathy, NASH, Society of Homeopaths, SoH) (Bad Science, Code of Ethics, Homeopathic Remedies, Homeopathic Societies, Homeopathy, Lack of Regulation, Malaria, NASH, North American Society of Homeopaths, Vaccines)

 While reading David Colquhoun’s DC Science one day, I was disturbed to find some rather worrying comments by Kate Birch (of NASH, the North American Society of Homeopaths) relating to her book (titled ‘Vaccine Free – Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Contagious Diseases with Homeopathy’). I decided to highlight my concerns regarding Ms Birch’s advice in an email to NASH.

I sent my first email to NASH on the 17th August. On 28th August, anxious to know what action (if any) had been taken, I sent another email. This time I got a polite reply thanking me for bringing this to their attention and informing me that my message would be forwarded to the Board of Directors. It is now 23rd October and I have heard no more from them. I have, however, noticed that Prof Colquhoun has had a visitor. This – http://dcscience.net/?p=172– jogged the old memory and prompted me to write about my complaint to NASH. It’s not a very exciting post, but after the recent SoH controversy (reported by Gimpy, DC et al) I suppose I can claim that at least it is fairly topical.

Old Email Here:

Dear […],

I was disturbed recently by something I saw regarding statements allegedly made by Ms Kate Birch. (http://uclac.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2501297049, http://dcscience.net/?p=24 ).

3.01 Where the homeopath considers that the treatment is beyond his/her capacity or skill, the patient with the homeopath’s consent shall refer to or consult with a homeopathic colleague or appropriate health care practitioner. Ms Birch is (in my humble opinion) advocating treatments in a situation that is “beyond her capacity or skill”.

3.03 The homeopath shall not exaggerate the gravity of a patient/client’s condition nor make any promise as to the result of the treatment, to the patient or to anyone else. “There is a complete chapter on malaria in my book. and Homeopathy is more effective that any western medication.” – this seems to me to be a promise as to the effectiveness of the treatment, strongly implying that a positive result is to be expected.

3.04 Each patient must be informed that the goal of the professional homeopath is to help strengthen the constitution and thereby raise the general level of health of the patient/client. It is not to treat any particular disease or condition but to stimulate the vital force. See General Consent Form. Ms Birch appears to be advocating the treatment of a particular disease or condition (i.e. malaria) – not “stimulating the vital force” as 3.04 states.

5.04 The homeopath shall report all research findings and clinical experiences methodically, honestly and without distortion. All speculative theories shall be stated as such and clearly distinguished. (*Explanation below)

5.05 A homeopath shall not seek to attract business unfairly and unprofessionally, in any way which could discredit the reputation of homeopathic practice. See Standards of Practice Guidelines: Appendix B. I feel that Ms Birch is seeking to attract business unfairly and unprofessionally in a way that could discredit the reputation of homeopathic practice, by claiming that homeopathy can treat malaria more effectively than western medication. This is unproven and is therefore a speculative theory (*see 5.04 above).

Please could you comment on these claims/statements and inform me of what action (if any) will be taken?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,

[…].

Prof Colquhoun wrote about NASH here: http://dcscience.net/?p=24, here: http://dcscience.net/?p=43 and here: http://dcscience.net/?p=172.

I’ve emailed the administrator at NASH again today and am awaiting a response. I won’t hold my breath though…