Andy Lewis of Quackometer fame has obtained documents from the Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act indicating that the Complentary and Natural Healthcare Council, dubbed OfQuack by critics, will receive a further £409,300 of taxpayers' money to bail them out after their failure to establish a sustainable business model. Meanwhile, the regulatory body have issued a frankly ridiculous statement calling out a certain "Mr. Smith" for writing about them on the internet.
For more about their financial situation I'll direct you to Andy. In this post I want to deal with their statement, which is just plain nuts, and must surely have their expensively-hired PR company pulling their hair out:
CNHC has been saddened to see, yet again, inaccurate information widely circulated about our business by one 'Mr Smith'. Our response has been to invite the writer, whoever she/he may be, to meet with us and talk matters through - an invitation to which we have yet had no reply.
‘Mr Smith' did not have the courtesy to contact us directly or to check his/her facts but a number of individual colleagues and Professional Associations have brought the information to our attention. They unanimously expressed concern and indeed, in some instances, disgust, at such tactics being used, particularly without giving CNHC the right of reply.
The CNHC - Board and Committee members - constitutes a body of very professional people. They are attempting, to the best of their ability and without any vested interest, as they are all lay appointees, to provide an effective regulatory body for the complementary healthcare sector, in the public interest.
Whilst we appreciate that the nature of our work will attract detractors, we would always prefer to deal openly, honestly and in full with those with genuine enquiries. However, some individuals have deliberately and inaccurately used the information we provide by seeking to denigrate CNHC for their own purposes and/or for commercial reasons.
We understand that a number of the people approached via email by ‘Mr Smith'- both individuals and organisations - intend to take this matter further as they believe that the use of their personal contact details in this way constitutes an invasion of their privacy and an offence.
Our offer to meet with ‘Mr Smith' still remains and we hope that he/she will make contact with us.
Now I've no idea who this "Mr Smith" is, and the CNHC don't reference any specific claims or websites in their statment, which for me makes it a bit of a pathetic rebuttal. Nonetheless, certain points really stand out for me. The quote that I think particularly sums them up is this one:
"...some individuals have deliberately and inaccurately used the information we provide by seeking to denigrate CNHC for their own purposes and/or for commercial reasons."
I would dearly love to know which of the well-substantiated criticisms of their failure to operate transparently as promised, their poor business model, their rewriting of history, their failure to regulate the efficacy of treatments and the apparent willingness of some of their members to try and lobby on behalf of the industry they're supposed to be regulating is "inaccurate".
I'm also bemused by the idea that they believe individuals are acting "for their own purposes and/or for commercial reasons." Really? What purposes and reasons are those then? I'd really love to hear the details of this particular conspiracy theory.
And as for their preference to "deal openly, honestly and in full", this is the same body that have hidden their minutes from view after promising to display them, have attempted to rewrite history by retrospectively altering past statements, and who have failed to release even the most basic information such as the number of people registered.
But I think the most amusing part is the daft suggestion that people approached via e-mail believe the use of their e-mail address is "an offence." It's a thinly-veiled threat, a sad attempt to try to deflect criticism and scrutiny, and like the rest of the statement deeply unprofessional. This is not the sort of nonsense you would expect from a serious regulator, but then that's not altogether surprising.
http://layscience.net/trackback/601
I really must stop using the word 'bizarre', but it's utterly bizarre!
you have NO clue what the background to this is, which is unfortunate, because it gives you such a wrong understanding of some issues.
... actually, i cant be botheredo to type all this in teh dark.
d.
about your last sentence:
there are people out there who feel that unsolicited emails that attack their beliefs / work / ethics or anything else are 'spam', and even offensive. Exactly what do you find amusing and daft about this?
Dear D,
I think 'those people out there' would be wrong. Spam is electronic junk mail: an unsolicited, often commercial, message transmitted through the Internet as a mass mailing. The commercial and mass mailing parts are the defining feature. Sometimes I do things through my work which attract public notice. As a result, I receive letters, phone calls and increasingly, e-mails from members of the public. These generally attack my beliefs/work/ethics. I attempt to respond reasonably, respectfully, even humourously, to these. I would not characterise them as an offence, and to do so I find amusing and daft. I am not 'Mr Smith' but I have indeed attempted to engage with the CNHC, and have written to and about them,as is my democratic and scientific right.
Now, you imply that you know that Mr Smith has carried out actions which are bad (and therefore much beyond that described by the CNHC). I do not condone actual illegal acts or personal harassment. If such have taken place, could you provide details, even if these are anonymised examples? But as it is, on the basis of the evidence so far, I rather agree with the characterisation of this statement as amusing and absurd - even, in the description of the Board as 'all lay people', meretricious.
My guess is that there may be problems coming from "The General Regulatory Council For Complementary Therapies" (GRCCT), a group set up a reflexologist.
They are undoubtedly a commercial rival - both are businesses designed to extract registration fees from pseudomedical workers.
There is not too much love lost between these two groups.
So CHNC and GRCCT are in competition? Thanks for the tip Andy, I notice that neither acknowledges the existence of the other. I guess their chakras are not aligned on the same wavelength.
But what a wonderful example of meta-quackery! They're both trying to make money by fleecing quacks!
Ineffective organisations tricking money from gullible practitioners of ineffective treatments who trick money from gullible marks, sorry, patients.
O, delicious irony.
Surely we now need an OfQuackQuack to look after the plethora of self-regulatory, trade and "professional" associations promoting quackery?
From D:
Well, in the opinion of 'lots' of people who were sent an unsolicited email from Mr Smith, apparently a CAM practitioner, attacking their beliefs and preferences as far as how to go about their business and whether to choose to be registered with the CNHC, the email was inflammatory. May I add that 'many' CAM practitioners received this spam email, who forwarded their frustration with its content to the CNHC. Hence the 'public' response, I would imagine.
To clarify, all Mr Smith has apparently done is write and mass-send an email to CAM prcatitioners, as far as I know. Ie nothing more sinister.
If you have a look at the Appointments Commission website, and go through some application packs for posts at Boards in eg hospitals etc, you will see that 'lay' suggests a non-professional, ie someone who does not practice a certain profession or work in a certain sort of place(and soemtimes hasnt doen so for a finite amount of time).
As for the definition of spam,I choose to not consider the 'commerciality' of an email as a key attribute that would allow for the characterisation of an email as spam.
http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)
I think if you're seriously offended by a spam email from someone called "Mr Smith" you really need to get a life and thicken your skin, to be honest.
Anonymous D:
The CNHC statement merely says that people were "approached via email ", not that any abusive e-mails were sent. Since approaching people via e-mail is perfectly reasonable if you want to find out more about them, the CNHC complaint is absurd, unless they can provide some further information about what has happened. The CNHC suggest that the very use of an e-mail address is an 'offence' - this of course is nonsense.
As for having "no clue to the background of this", I find that quite an amusing statement on two counts; firstly there's nothing in the article that is even remotely debatable, and secondly if there are gaps in our knowledge it's due to the veil of secrecy that the "open" CNHC, funded with our money, operate under.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
But does the GRCCT have the support of HRH Auld Jug Ears? Do they really have 50,000 members? If that is the case, I would have thought the CNHC are dead in the water.
OfQuack's statements are hilarious. (Not sure that the comedy value they provide can justify the amount of taxpayers money being spent on this ridiculous organisation, though.) For a relatively short statement, there are quite a few WTF moments in there - "we would always prefer to deal openly, honestly and in full with those with genuine enquiries" being perhaps the best example.
Thanks for the clarification, Andy. For my part I had jumped to the conclusion that the CNHC were whining about the sceptical bloggers, not a woo rival. I think this makes it more amusing, but still absurd. I find it hard to believe that whoever drafted this statement had senior management experience.
Anonymous D: I think I take your point about the meaning of "lay" - I'll give it further thought. I think you are wrong about the meaning of 'spam' though - it does generally have a commercial component, in my view. But then, I haven't seen the e-mails from Mr Smith. Could you post one, minus any Identifying details?
I'm also bemused by the idea that they believe individuals are acting "for their own purposes and/or for commercial reasons." Really? What purposes and reasons are those then? Psychology SchoolI'd really love to hear the details of this particular conspiracy theory. social service school | Online Social Science school
As for having "no clue to the background of this", I find that quite an amusing statement on two counts;political science and public administration firstly there's nothing in the article that is even remotely debatable, and secondly if there are gaps in our knowledge it's due to the veil of secrecy that the "open" CNHC, funded with our money, operate under.Performing Arts school