BANT: A Profile

May 4, 2010 at 8:53 pm (NLP, Nutritionism, Supplements) (, , , )

According to the beginning of their mission statement, the British Association For Applied Nutrition And Nutritional Therapy [BANT] “act as a professional body for nutritional therapy practitioners and those working in the wider application of nutritional science”. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 6 Comments

Alt Med Societies

May 21, 2009 at 8:39 pm (Alternative Medicine, Chiropractic, Code of Ethics, Homeopathy, Legal Chill, Nutritionism, Society of Homeopaths, SoH) (, , , , , , )

Alternative Medicine societies often claim to regulate their members, they also commonly have something that they refer to as a “Code of Ethics”. Frequently, however, Alt Med societies either have inadequate codes of ethics or fail to enforce them – making a mockery of their claims to regulate their members. They are often loath to criticise what others believe to be bad practice in their field. When others criticise particular fields of Alt Med, they are sometimes subject to legal complaints from these societies. It is unfortunate that societies choose to flex their legal muscle rather than show the evidence that supports their claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 4 Comments

AltMed Responses To Criticism – from Holford to Barnett

February 11, 2009 at 5:45 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )

Here, I have some examples of the, fairly limited, debate between sceptics and proponents of Alternative Medicine – and a couple of examples of how scientists generally respond to criticism. The most recent example of a supporter of Alternative Medicine (anti-vaccinationism, with a smidge of homeopathy) responding to criticism is Jeni Barnett. She referred on her blog to incandescently stupid comments she made about MMR during a radio broadcast on LBC, and the fuss that followed the broadcast. The comments section soon included critics explaining why Jeni was so dangerously wrong. Jeni’s response to the criticism? To remove the blog post and the comments. Thankfully, it’s been preserved and is available at The Quackometer website. Further discussion at Holford Watch. LBC’s response to the original criticisms? Legal chill tactics – a pretty disgusting way to tackle legitimate criticism. Other examples of legal chill (and other threats) come from nutritionists, chiropractors, homeopaths, herbalists, and an American Christian organisation. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 10 Comments

Silence is not golden: more on Rath and the $50bn nutrition industry

September 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science, Nutritionism) (, , , , , , , , , , , , , )

Yeah, I know – I’m boring you with this stuff now. I’m sorry, but I can’t let it lie. I really can’t understand why not one member of the $50bn Nutritional Therapy industry has come out and said what so clearly needs saying: “Matthias Rath’s actions in South Africa were unacceptable and his use of legal means to stifle debate inappropriate”. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 3 Comments

BANT – no opinion on Rath [updated]

September 18, 2008 at 10:22 am (Alternative Medicine, Bad Science, Nutritionism) (, , , , , , , , )

I’ve received a response from the British Association of Nutritional Therapists to the email I sent regarding the actions of Matthias Rath in South Africa. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 8 Comments