Safety and Efficacy at the CNHC
The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) is the UK Government's attempt to regulate "alternative therapy". But it does not even require evidence that certified treatments are safe, or actually work.
On 19 January 2009, the UK Government set up the CNHC, ostensibly to regulate Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (SCAM) practitioners.
Double Standards
The actual effect will be to create a double standard for treatments.
In "normal" medicine, therapies must undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficetiveness, and may not be licensed even if preliminary data seem good. A good example of this is the drug Herceptin, which was not licensed for use in the UK because the early promising trials did not pan out. This is good - I don't want some drug being administered to me on the sole say-so of the company that made it, and if it costs the drug companies millions to prove that it's OK, then so be it. What is the price of a human life?
However, market your cure-all nostrum as a supplement, herbal remedy or traditional medicine, and the sole-say-so rule is exactly what happens. A SCAM practitioner can get accreditation from his or her "professional body" - an association of other true believers, usually - and a certificate of insurance, and become government accredited for £45.
Worthless Certification
The CNHC does spell out what they do and do not claim about those on its register, but this is hardly likely to be read by the general public. SCAM practitioners will undoubtedly use CNHC certification to imply safety and effectiveness. In fact, the CNHC referring to their little logo as a "kitemark" reinforces this belief, as a kitemark usually refers to the mark of the British Standards Institute, a well-respected and trusted body.
And it turns out that this implication is a step too far for the BSI. The term "kitemark" is a trade mark of the BSI, and the CNHC have had their wrists slapped over the use of the term, through the medium of a cease-and-desist letter from the BSI's lawyers.
Petition
I have set up a petition at the Government's Petition Website, asking them to amend the requirements for CNHC certification to include evidence of efficacy and safety - please sign it.
Petition Response
The Government have now responded to the petition, on the Number 10 Website.
One word summary: Flannel.
This is just a reiteration of the CNHC's remit - it does not address the reason why the remit fails the consumer. I particularly liked the juxtaposition of the first two sentences:
- The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) does not promote the efficacy of disciplines practised by its registrants.
- The aim of the CNHC is protection of the public.
How can the CNHC protect the public if it has no way of ensuring that interventions are effective, or even safe?
Other Sites
Here are links to some other pages that discuss the petition.
- EBM First
- Think Humanism
- JREF Forum
- Shetlink
- Thinking is Dangerous
- HealthyPages - someone seems to be sending this around by email, to SCAM practitioners, and crediting it to David Bender from UCL. Just for the record, I am not David Bender, and never have been.
- Christopher Hansard Courant
And some places where I have added comments to blogs and the like: