By David Tredinnick MP - 2nd June 2010
David Tredinnick MP writes for ePolitix.com ahead of his adjournment debate on integrated healthcare.
For the first time in a general election integrated health care and more specifically homeopathic medical treatments were issues. The arch critic of homeopathy, Evan Harris (Oxford and Abingdon) lost his seat by 176 votes. Not only had he angered many voters by his illiberal, and some say irrational, views, but a number of therapists actively campaigned against him – and with spectacular results.
In my own constituency the Science Party candidate who campaigned against my support for integrated health care, complementary medicine and, yes, homeopathy, lost his deposit.
Surveys show that support for a healthcare model that allows doctors to refer to other therapists such as herbalists, acupuncturists, homeopaths and aromatherapists is increasing. The new coalition government seeking to both give more say to doctors and more choice to patients should embrace integrated health care as its model.
The proposed Independent NHS Board, there to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidance, should offer guidance on integrated health care, and to GPs who will be allowed to commission services on behalf of patients - the better the regulation the more likely GPs are to refer.
The new government must attend to the unfinished business of the old, and in particular the regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncturists which has been the subject of several enquiries in recent years. The last government's proposal to regulate practitioners through the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) instead of the Health Professionals Council (HPC) was a mistake. The bodies representing the Chinese medical community, such as the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ATCM) want the higher standards of the HPC.
The homeopathic practitioners have different issues. The much criticised Science & Technology Select Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy (HC45:Feb 2010)' was promoted by defeated MP Evan Harris. The criticism set out in EDM 908, signed by 70 Members, centred on the report's failure to take evidence from practitioners, that it ignored successful randomised controlled trials, and that it took no account at all of the widespread and increasing use of homeopathy in Europe and elsewhere. For example, in France homeopathy is taught in seven medical schools and practised by 25,000 doctors. In India there are 180 colleges teaching homeopathy and over 300,000 practitioners.
Other issues to be considered include food supplements and other related EC legislation, the need to facilitate the statutory or voluntary regulations of therapies including aromatherapy, hypnotherapy and reiki.
Finally, the last Conservative government took the first steps towards integrated healthcare when in 1990 the then parliamentary under secretary of state for health, Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) allowed doctors to refer to complementary therapists provided they accepted clinical responsibility. This government can complete the process by putting in place sound regulations, by providing good advice and direction. And by ensuring that cost effective and medically effective acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy and other therapies form part of a truly integrated health service.
Article Comments
I agree that this is a simplistic view - this is, after all, the comments section of a blog, not a peer-reviewed journal. However, the consensus opinion among those who have reviewed the literature is that there is no measureable effect from homeopathy, acupuncture is good for some kinds of pain but doesn't work the way practitioners claim, and so forth. I will happily defer to the scientific consensus on this one.
Sean Ellis
3rd Jun 2010 at 11:20 am
Future headline: Local MP in magic beans scandal?
There is no clear, repeatable evidence to suggest this works.
Would you suggest that we try to cure cancer with Faith healing instead of radiography?
Will you explain to the dying patient and his family why he's unable to get proven treatment for his condition?
Jack Holroyde
3rd Jun 2010 at 10:56 am
If only conversation were a cure all but of course this is not the case!
This simplistic 'nice chat' reasoning cannot be taken seriously and only serves to patronise the thousands of people who find relief from pain and suffering through a range of ethically based professionally recognised therapies.
To cite 'an hours relaxing chat' as the reason a particular therapy may work is also to ignore the fact that expert NHS consultants also offer take the trouble to offer long appointments and still may not find the suitable treatment. Nor will alternative therapists necessarily find the correct remedy at the first appointment - and no therapy is a catch all for all ills. They should be regarded holitically in a balanced way which is beneficial to the individual patient.
What really is so striking in all of this is the instant dismissal by the BadScience mob of anything that pertains to proof of the worth of long standing alternative therapies. Why so? Also surely patients themselves have a right to state which treatments they find to be most beneficial - but this also seems to be held in nothing but disdain to the extreme detriment of further evidence gathering.
J Bennett
3rd Jun 2010 at 12:52 am
For homeopathy, I can answer this quite specifically. I got a lot of information from the BHA itself: specifically, the portfolio of evidence that they put forward as their best evidence to the Evidence Check 2 parliamentary committee. This has been comprehensively dismantled elsewhere.
Now, it may be worth clarifying what I mean when I say that they "get better". I mean that they get better faster, more consistently or with better overall outcome than a group that has been administered a suitable placebo. This weeds out the peripheral parts of the treatment and focuses on the claims for the treatment itself. I would imagine that you get quite a lot of relief from stress by visiting a homeopath, where you have a nice relaxing chat, some individual attention, and some succussed water.
However, if the claim is that it's the succussion that's doing the work, we can test that easily by going to a homeopath for a nice relaxing chat, some individual attention, and ordinary water. If there's no significant difference between the two groups, then there's no evidence to suggest that the succussed water has any effect.
This is interesting and useful to know, not least because ordinary water is very much cheaper and easier to come by. We then get into the whole ethical minefield of prescribing placebos, which has again been adequately explored elsewhere.
Sean Ellis
2nd Jun 2010 at 9:42 pm
It is obvious that Mr. Tredinnick has not thought this through. He argues that it should be possible for GPs to refer patients to therapists "such as herbalists, acupuncturists, homeopaths and aromatherapists"; on the NHS. The quid pro quo of this is such therapists should be held accountable and subject to the same sort regulatory and legislative disciplines as healthcare professionals. Some therapies, homeopathy for example, would be destroyed by the burden of accountability and regulation. Some therapies are riddled with illegal, unethical and unprofessional pratice.
Worse still, many of these alternative therapists have it in for both the NHS and modern medicine.
warhelmet
2nd Jun 2010 at 7:19 pm
J Bennett wrote: Putting profit and power before optimum healthcare provision is actively preventing the progession of optimum healthcare.
I agree entirely that the pharmaceutical industry has many highly dubious traits. The fact that it spends far more money on marketing than research is a scandal and a travesty. I think they generally spend twice as much on marketing as R&D. This is horrifying.
But just because Big Pharma is rotten does not mean that alternative medicine is automatically in the right. I certainly believe that many people turn to alternative medicine because of a dissatisfaction with the pharmaceutical industry but on examination the alternative medicine industry shares many of the same faults.
I say alternative medicine industry because it is an industry. And it is one with links to the very pharmaceutical industry that many proponents of CAM state they despise. For example, Patrick Holford, a lifestyle guru often in the media and a keen proponent of supplements, apparently sold his pill business for c. half a million. It is still in business and is part-owned by a pharmaceutical firm.
Boiron, a homeopathic pill company, has been valued at $500 million:
http://www.boironusa.com/newsroom/press-release-5.html
In the US, people spent nearly $34 billion on CAM treatments in 2007:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56T6MN20090730
There is of course the argument that so many consumers cannot be wrong. Well, you and I would seem to have very different views on what the evidence for alternative medicine actually states but I am sure we can think of many examples where people have spent a lot of money on something that turned out to be worthless.
This is not some battle of overly-demanding skeptics vs. an impoverished group of alternative medicine proponents who would fund research but do not have the money to do so.
This is simply a case of alternative medicine being asked to hold to the same standards as the pharmaceutical industry: provide robust evidence that your therapies work and are not just a glorified placebo effect.
I agree entirely that Big Pharma is often, if not commonly, ethically dubious. I agree entirely that so-called conventional; medicine can have side-effects, although this is because it has an effect beyond that of a placebo, unlike alternative medicine.
None of this, however, proves that the alternative medicine industry - and I hope I have shown that is an industry, subject to the same commercial concerns and drive for profit as any industry; is somehow better than Big Pharma or that alternative medicine products have an effect beyond that of a placebo.
J Parry
2nd Jun 2010 at 5:43 pm
In reply to Sean Ellis. I wonder where you gain your statistical evidence that 'most people do not' get better from non pharmaceutical treatments. GPs who have also practiced/referred patients for acupuncture, homoeopathy, chiropractic etc would beg to differ. Chemically based medicines are not the sole effective treatments at our disposal and complementary therapies should indeed become integrated therapies for the greater good of so many patients.
J Bennett
2nd Jun 2010 at 5:18 pm
J Bennett wrote: "the increasingly fascisti BadScientists need to stop their rant and take a more informed view". Well, as a presumed member of the BadScientists, I'd like to point out that I think I do have an informed view. The only reason I am posting here is because the Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine industry seem to want to make an end-run around regulations and testing set up to ensure the safety of the public. Regardless of the problems with the plausibility of many of these treatments, at the end of the day, there is only one test that matters: do more people get better who have the treatment than who do not? And the overwhelming weight of evidence is that they do not. It's not a rant, and it's not fascistic. It's really pretty simple.
Sean Ellis
2nd Jun 2010 at 5:05 pm
All I want is for homeopathy to give clear, positive results in just one properly managed, honestly reported, double-blind trial and then I will accept that it is worth further investigation.
Despite Mr Tredinnick's strident claims to the counter, this has not yet happened in any single clinical trial. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient proof and so, whilst I am no fan of big pharmaceutical companies, I would rather spend the NHS's limited budget on effective medicines than giving it to assorted charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and well-meaning cranks.
"You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine"
thirdman
2nd Jun 2010 at 4:53 pm
Interesting comments. However, it should be noted that there is a wealth of evidence supporting the worth of integrated health which if adopted could save the ever escalating costs of more expensive allopathic only practices. Of course the cost hungry power base of the pharmaceutical industry holds BadScience in it's thrall. Dr Harris, Ben Goldacre et al are hell bent on savaging and sneering at anything that steps outside their narrow view of medicine to the detriment of treatments that have indeed passed independent trials and are the subject of emerging scientifically based knowledge and validation - including in US and Europe. For these are valid treatments for both prevention and cure which can be safely used alongside the pharmacy.
Indeed the Bad Science mob are unwittingly blocking progress - they need to understand that they do not know it all - and their vindictive behaviour towards practioners of chiropractic, homoeopathy, herbalism, vitamin supplements and pretty much anything that doesn't come out of a chemical pharmacy is actually detrimental to the lives of people with health needs which can be much improved by these entirely valid treatments. Indeed these may be the only choice for some who are unable to physically tolerate harsh chemical drugs and their accompanying side effects.
Putting profit and power before optimum healthcare provision is actively preventing the progession of optimum healthcare. Once upon a time the medical profession sneered at anything that did not involve leeching and bleeding and tried to block any form of new knowledge. Now the BadScientists have decreed that they are the sole artibiters of what should be deemed acceptable forms of patient care. They even confess to finding it 'fun' to have a go at treatments which so many thousands of patients have found to be so helpful. Thus they sneer at anyone who buys into such remedies and treatments with the sweeping statement that they must all be stupid enough to be taken in by a placebo affect. Given that the strongest homoeopathic pills (also the most dilute) can kill in the wrong hands and homoeopathy is proven to work on animals who know not what they are being prescribed (cyanide/smarties?) the increasingly fascisti BadScientists need to stop their rant and take a more informed view of both the human body and the world around them. For if they do not, a time will come when they look nothing but foolish.
J Bennett
2nd Jun 2010 at 4:30 pm
Mr Tredinnick appears to display a lack of humility, judgement, or common sense. I have no knowledge of whether his views are caused by deliberate misrepresentation (does he have a financial stake in peddling quackery) or idiocy. I will be kind and assume the latter. It is a shame that an individual of such limited ability chooses to attack the greatly more reasonable, rational and gifted Dr Evan Harris.
Perhaps he would like to provide details on what surveys "show that support for a healthcare model that allows doctors to refer to other therapists such as herbalists, acupuncturists, homeopaths and aromatherapists is increasing"? This would enable people to consider the methodology of those surveys and whether they agree with Mr Tredinnick's assessment of their conclusions.
Simon Baker
2nd Jun 2010 at 4:27 pm
We should be grateful that with the good use of Twitter and the Internet in general, the nonsense that people like David Tredinnick choose to spout can be seen much more transparently and easily. There have always been many people in influential and powerful positions with misguided and ignorant beliefs (and much worse). At least with the invention of the Internet (due to advances by scientists I believe!) they can be identified more easily now. The downside is their use of the internet to further spread their nonsense though.
Jason Seymour
2nd Jun 2010 at 4:03 pm
Perhaps Mr Tredinnick thinks we could also solve the financial crisis by using alchemy to boost the nation's gold reserves. It's depressing to see his sort of idiocy manage to get into parliament while sound thinking rationalists like Evan Harris are deselected (albeit by an shameful smear campaign and an unfair voting system)... :-(
Andy Pickering
2nd Jun 2010 at 3:58 pm
It's at times like these that I wonder if as a community science should just shrug and let people get on with the woo. We could continue to try and convince people it's rubbish but otherwise let evolution take its course. After all this is how we tend to be characterized as behaving, it would be nice to have the benefit of the quacks removing themselves....
It is depressing to think that this man has any degree of power.
Sam Cook
2nd Jun 2010 at 3:41 pm
Whatever next? Politicians promoting Christianity and other fairy stories?
Rob Walls
2nd Jun 2010 at 3:38 pm
It is frightening to think that someone as irrational and gullible as David Tredinnick is sitting in Parliament as an MP and making critical decisions on behalf of the people of this country. He is living proof of the sad fact that far too many MPs are scientifically illiterate. Do the constitutional changes proposed by the coalition government allow the public to swap a dud MP, such as Mr Tredinnick, for a higher quality alternative, such as Evan Harris?
Terry S
2nd Jun 2010 at 2:31 pm
To quote a favourite comedian of mine, "if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out".
This appears to be what's happened here. It's a crying shame that the deluded idiot this has happened to is sitting in parliament, possibly deciding on funding for treatments that could go to save lives, rather than being used to buy sugar pills and crystals.
Oliver
2nd Jun 2010 at 2:26 pm
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/03/mp-david-tredinnick-is-wrong-about-the-homeopathy-report.html
Carey
2nd Jun 2010 at 2:18 pm
Um. Give us a break. It's not homeopathy that lost Evan Harris his seat. It's right wing Christians in the conservative party who campaigned ruthlessly against his views on abortion and assisted dying. Also the border changes. The select committee had already made the recommendation to remove NHS funding for homeopathic remedies prior to the election. Your reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Does that sound familiar? It should.
Matt Flaherty
2nd Jun 2010 at 2:16 pm
I would simply like to reiterate the views of those other commenters who have eloquently made the point that a truly 'integrated' health service would hold up ALL treatments to the same standards of safety and efficacy. Anything else is ridiculous. I particularly appreciate Sean Ellis' idea of an 'integrated' restaurant where ancient foods are prepared in their traditional manner in contravention of all health regulation.
Neil Hughes
2nd Jun 2010 at 2:14 pm
Oh dear...
The 'spectacular results' Mr. Tredinnick celebrates have weakened Parliament by removing from office a champion of freedom and evidence-based policy - whose views, far from being 'illiberal and... irrational,' are grounded in the scientific method and rationality.
In using an argument from popularity Mr. Tredinnick commits a crass fallacy - as mentioned by Paul above, millions of people using something doesn't warrant State sanction, it merely makes scrutiny of efficacy that much more important. Incidentally, it's not true that the SciTech committee's Evidence Check 'ignored successful randomised controlled trials' - it ignored all trials that were of substandard methodology or poorly controlled.
Mr. Tredinnick's grasp of what constitutes valid evidence - where popularity surveys trump rigorous peer-reviewed scientific studies - is appalling given his stature as an elected representative. His support for an independent NHS Board clearing the way for unproven 'remedies' (or worse still, those positively proven not to work, like homeopathy) being prescribed at the taxpayers' expense, is equally out of place - all therapies must be held to the same safety and efficacy standards if they are to be available on the NHS, and unless so-called alternative medicines meet these standards it's simply unacceptable for the government to provide them - no matter their apparent popularity.
I sincerely hope that Dr. Harris' absence from the Green Benches will not diminish Parliament's ability to set policy according to evidence and not wishful thinking, rational and factual thought and not anecdotal superstition.
Teek
2nd Jun 2010 at 1:45 pm
It is perfectly possible to integrate homeopathy, acupuncture, and other supplementary, complementary and alternative medicine into the NHS under the current system.
All you need to do is subject it to the same regulation and testing as every other medical treatment.
But if, as Mr. Tredinnick seems to be arguing, you believe that these interventions should get a "free pass", then that is unacceptable.
Imagine, if you will, that we transfer this idea to another area: an "integrated" restaurant. Along with the dishes created in nice clean kitchens, under the eye of the council's food safety team, why not integrate meals prepared with no regard to food hygiene regulation? Or even better, create a new rule for these "integrated" foods, saying that as long as the food has been prepared in a particular way for a hundred years, it can have its own separate certification despite failing to meet even basic food safety standards?
Most of us would agree that this would not be acceptable. The regulations are there for a reason, and arguing that some dishes should get special treatment is a nonsense.
The same applies to alternative medicine.
The basic question that Mr Tredinnick does not adequately address is this: Why should any treatment get an exemption from the basic rules of efficacy and safety we all rely on?
Sean Ellis
2nd Jun 2010 at 1:30 pm
Regulation isn't the issue here. It's making a convincing (read: scientifically sound) argument for the efficacy of such treatments you should be concerned with. Until that happens and the scientific establishment can categorically vouch for the effectiveness of alternative medicine and therapy there is NO place for it on the NHS. Those on the front line would appear to agree:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html
The MPs may have 'lost' against you, Mr Tredinnick, but the science certainly hasn't.
Zaf
2nd Jun 2010 at 12:56 pm
The idea of "integrated" healthcare is rather a nonsense. Why not integrate tarot-reading, too? Or perhaps leeches?
Graham
2nd Jun 2010 at 12:54 pm
Just because something is increasingly popular doesn't make it right. Just because they teach homeopathy in France (at seven out of more than 50 medical schools, incidentally) and in India doesn't mean that it should be available on the state here. Until the evidence base for homeopathy's effectiveness can be set out clearly and scientifically, then it should not be available on the NHS. Otherwise, on what basis do we make any decision about treatments that should be offered? And how can we guarantee equality and reliability for patients without fully understanding the nature of the treatment?
Paul
2nd Jun 2010 at 11:55 am
I live in David Tredinnick's constituency, indeed I spoke to him after the hustings in Hinckley about this subject, and his desire to have astrology- and energy-healings on the NHS (and he were rather rude to me). In the interests of balance I think readers of this page ought to know a bit more about what he said in that meeting.
First though, he says that Evan Harris angered many voters with 'illiberal' views: I should point out (as a scientist: I have a PhD in astrophysics and work as an astrophysicist) that Evan Harris has a huge support base among the scientific community.
Anyway, on to Mr. Tredinnick's views:
First -- when questioned on science he said, and I quote (as accurately as memory allows), 'Scientists should be held to account by the government.' This extremely illiberal view seems somewhat at odds with the noises that have come out of Government recently about scientists being free to do their jobs without Governmental pressure! After the hustings I introduced myself and my profession/qualifications to Mr. Terdinnick and questioned him on this view, and in particular how non-scientist Ministers would hold specialist scientific experts to account. He explained that the problem is that many scientists are narrow minded, and don't realise that their field evolves ('Until we knew about the atom, we didn't know it existed'). On the latter a phrase about grandmothers and egg-sucking springs to mind. Every scientist I know is fully aware of how their field evolves, indeed we all want to be the one who makes the great breakthrough! On closer probing I discovered that what Mr. Tredinnick meant was, essentially, if a scientist disagrees with him they are narrow minded and wrong, and so government should be able to 'hold them to account' by which I presume he means 'ignore their advice'. As his specific example to me, he said that science can't measure 'energy healings'. To which I replied that science can, of course, measure such events (albeit not 'explain' them) -- by measuring the number of ill people who get cured by this method -- there is a distinction between measuring effect and understanding it. When I opined that, as far as I know (not specialising in health), energy healings have not shown any measured effect above the placebo effect, Mr. Tredinnick realised that I disagreed with him, dismissed me as another narrow minded scientist and walked away. (Incidentally, this was at a hustings. Just before an election. Shows what he thinks of his constituents. On a night where the Tories made big gains our seat saw a 6% swing away from the Tories. Alas Mr. Tredinnick still got in by a few thousand). Nice to know that the man calling this debate is so open minded that, as soon as anyone, including a scientists, disagrees with him on science (by the way, he is NOT a scientist), he just dismisses them.
Many scientists think that Evan Harris losing his seat was a big blow for science. Giving David Tredinnick a platform to spread his views could be just as bad.
Phil Evans
2nd Jun 2010 at 11:45 am
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.