Policy-based evidence. Department of Health and Prince’s Foundation censor accurate information about magic medicines

This report is really quite contentious and we may well be subject to quite a lot of challenge from the Homeopathic community if published. What on earth? The DH seems to think that that its job is not to present the evidence, but to avoid challenges from the homeopathic community! And true enough, this piece is missing from the final version. A bit later, the NHS Choices draft was censored again “A 2010 Science and Technology Committee report said that scientific tests had shown that homeopathic treatments don’t work” But again this doesn’t appear in the final version. The comment, apparently from DH, says “The DH response to this report (point 24) doesn’t support this statement though” That’s a gross distortion of point 24, which actually concludes “The Government Chief Scientific Adviser cannot envisage scientifically credible proposals for funding for research into homeopathy in the future” NHS Choices was not happy with the result Shortly before the revised page was published, Paul Nuki, Editor in Chief of NHS Choicea, sent an email to DH. Date: 7th September 2011 Time: 3:33:42 pm Hi I’ve been through the CAM articles and asked that we publish them asap as requested. XYZ has asked that we get a couple of points checked …. For the record, we will be publishing these pieces outside of the normal editorial process. Although originally signed off by a suitably qualified clinician, the time lap...
Source: DC's goodscience - Category: Professors and Educators Authors: Tags: CAM CNHC College of Medicine Department of Health George Lewith homeopathy Michael Dixon National Health Service Prince of Wales Prince's Foundation Academia alternative medicine badscience David Mattin Sunjai Gupta Source Type: blogs