The Homeopathy Paradox. Use it and you can go to jail; defend and promote it, and you might be rewarded.

The Homeopathy Paradox. Use it and you can go to jail; defend and promote it, and you might be rewarded.

You can make it, sell it, teach it, promote it, defend it etc. but if you actually use homeopathic remedies you can go to jail. A tragic example of this was reported a couple of years ago. Parents were sent to jail after their child died because they opted for a homeopathic treatment instead of an evidence based effective treatment. What makes it even more tragic is that the father is (was) a lecturer in Homoepathy. You can teach it but you cannot use it, because it is ineffective and can cause you or your children harm – and this is paradoxical. The sad thing is that this is not an isolated case, there are many more cases – you can find more examples here.

As far as I can tell the father of the deceased received his Masters in Health at Western Sydney University (WSU), and this brings me again to my alma mater. WSU hosts the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM) who promotes and defends all types of complementary medicines, including homeopathy. When the well-known and definitive NHMRC report on Homeopathy was released, they quickly published a statement that made this report suspect and they simply defended homeopathy – and they still do. At the time this prompted me to investigate the reasons for releasing this remarkable statement.

It turns out that the NICM is partly sponsored by homeopaths who also promotes all other types of disproven and unproven complementary medicines. They accepted a couple of million dollars from the Jacka Foundation of Natural Therapies and in order to extend this financial relationship, the university management decided to confer an honorary fellowship to the founding member of this foundation. It paid off, because a couple of years later they again donated millions of dollars. And this is a problem. If you, as a university, accept funding from an organisation such as the Jacka Foundation you legitimise whatever these people do and to protect your (future) income you will continue to defend what they do (at the time of accepting the funds the foundation promoted this list of treatments). That the Jacka Foundation links to anti-vaccination proponents and that they themselves promote everything from homeopathy to energy medicine is a dangerous step for any university.  To then go and reward them for it is even worse and makes a laughing stock of the academic system.

But, because the NICM is hosted at a university they cannot always say what they want to say – or at least, they cannot put it on paper. They therefore associate themselves with organisations such as Complementary Medicine Australia (CMA) who can say what they want (they are industry funded). According to the NICMs ‘communication strategy’ they will use the CMA to respond to any negative media reports concerning homeopathy, because it has never occurred to them that they have a responsibility to inform the Australian public that homeopathy doesn’t work. So, in response to the NHMRC report the CMA published their infamous “The NHMRC Review on Homeopathy had Five Fundamental Flaws” (this statement is currently being used all over the world by Homeopaths to continue to defend homeopathy). They basically state that any report indicating that homeopathy doesn’t work, is unacceptable. It ends with the rather aggressive statement that “Homeopathy has been around for hundreds of years, and I am sure will be around a lot longer than some of the critics.”

But the rabbit hole goes deeper. One would expect that an organisation such as the World Health Organisation would at least be able to provide the best scientific and evidence based advice regarding complementary medicines including homeopathy. But they don’t. In their “WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy, 2014-2023” they call for the better integration of homeopathy (and other complementary medicines) with conventional healthcare. This is shocking, but not unexpected especially if you look at who compiled the report. Michael Smith, naturopath and an adjunct of the NICM. This WHO report was, of course, accepted with open arms by the NICM and other complementary medicine proponents.

To put all this in perspective. I am writing this article in a restaurant and about 100 m from me there is a registered homeopathic clinic. In South Africa, homeopaths register with the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa (AHPCSA) and any complaints, such as homeopathy does not work, should be submitted to this council. Problem is; the executive of the AHPCSA consists of chiropractors, naturopaths, homeopaths etc. Adjacent to the homeopath’s practice is a large pharmacy that has the appearance of a corny, cheap warehouse selling everything you can think of, including a large array of homeopathic products. One product is labelled as “every home should have one” – the Blue Box Homeopathic treatment kit.

Because I visited a game farm a week or so ago and managed to get myself stung by a scorpion, I found the homeopathic remedy for serious bites quite interesting, although shocking. It simply states “bites 30C – serious bites i.e. spider, scorpion, snake, dog bite”. A 30C dilution does not contain anything except the solvent. If you consider the large number of deadly snake species in South Africa, this homeopathic remedy can have deadly consequences, because it is nothing more than a placebo.  The kit also contains deadly nightshade to be given to babies for teething issues, but again in a 30C dilution. Let us just hope that they get their dilutions right otherwise we might end up with a similar incidence as in the US where 10 children tragically died after taking incorrectly diluted  homoepathic teething products containing deadly nightshade.

Can I now go and complain about this, because they are knowingly putting people’s lives at risk (the kit also contains a 200C natural antibiotic) for the sake of making money? I don’t think it will work, considering that I have to lodge my complaint about homeopathy to a homeopath.  As long as loads of money is being pumped into universities, as long as homeopaths wiggle themselves into the regulatory agencies, I fear that the homeopathy paradox will be with us and it might even get worse in future. If you are up against an extremely well organised and highly complex system or dare I say an organised criminal syndicate, then it will take a very long time before any progress will be made.  But, we have to try!

Western Sydney University capitulates against the $10 million Blackmores tsunami. Cheerio science!

Western Sydney University capitulates against the $10 million Blackmores tsunami. Cheerio science!

We’ve seen it last year and now we see it again. Early in 2016, Western Sydney University (WSU) awarded an honorary fellowship to Judy Jacka. She is the founding member of the Jacka Foundation of Natural Therapies with links to notorious anti-vaccination groups and who openly and fully support all types of quackery, from energy medicine to horse shit as medicine. Any scientist might now want to know why would any university do such a thing. As always, the world revolves around money. If you donate a substantial amount of money to WSU, a couple of million dollars in Judy’s case, it seems that WSU will then add their weight behind whatever you stand for, and hence give it credibility and legitimacy, and they will even reward you for it with an honorary “award” – probably because they hope that you might donate more money in future.

2017 is however quite interesting. A couple of weeks ago the Vice-Chancellor of WSU gave a speech where he proclaimed that universities should stand up for facts and the truth because “if we don’t, who will?” Interesting, because he is fully aware of the attempts by a few brave scientists over the past couple of years, to indeed stand up for the truth and who are trying to persuade WSU that it is not in the best interest of science, scientific training and the Australian public, to support and give credibility to pseudoscientists such as Judy Jacka – but WSU simply squashed all these (ongoing) attempts.  His failure to stand up for the truth led to a nomination for the “Bent Spoon” award bestowed upon the “perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle” – and they even tried to squash this as well. The good news, however, is that their attempts to squash this, failed spectacularly – you can read about it here, here and here.

So, WSU could have actually stood up for the truth after their Bent Spoon debacle but, no, it seems that such a brave move would have cost them too much money. The big news was published a week ago. The controversial supplement company Blackmores, who made the headlines recently for grossly misrepresenting research results, donated a cool untied $10 million to WSU. And in a show of force, indicating that WSU has learned nothing, and in all likelihood, will never put science and the health of the Australian public before money, bestowed an honorary doctorate upon Marcus Blackmore, the founder of Blackmores – maybe because he is ‘loaded’?

WSU has now made it as clear as daylight. They have capitulated against the big money, making them nothing more than a for-profit company – who will now stand up for facts and the truth, Mr Glover?  As long as you give us a substantial amount of money we will promote and defend whatever you are trying to sell – simple stuff. Surely, WSU and the National Institute of Complementary Medicine, who received these funds with open arms, and who continue to mislead the Australian public deserves another Bent Spoon nomination in 2017?  You can find the nomination page here.

“Swallowing It!” The ABC’s ‘Four Corners’ takes a look at the Australian vitamin and supplement industry. And the NICM’s role in all of this?  

“Swallowing It!” The ABC’s ‘Four Corners’ takes a look at the Australian vitamin and supplement industry. And the NICM’s role in all of this?  

Swallowing it: How Australians are spending billions on unproven vitamins and supplements.” A catchy title and a very important subject to investigate. It is however unfortunate that the term ‘unproven’ is used, instead of ‘disproven’. There is a major difference between these two terms.  The former means that vitamins and (mineral) supplements has not been tested, and therefore it is unknown if it is beneficial or not, whilst the latter indicate that it has been tested, to infinity and beyond, and it was shown not to be beneficial for most people, but for a select small group of people and for very specific conditions (e.g. vegans, pregnant women etc.). In reality, it has been tested, over and over – very little benefit and it might even carry a risk. It is therefore mainly disproven.

Herbal supplements are somewhat different. Many, such as St Johns Wort and Gingko biloba, have been tested thoroughly, whilst many haven’t. Therefore, we have a combination of unproven and disproven herbal supplements and very few that might actually be beneficial. Having said that: this does not matter one iota for the Complementary Medicine (CM) Empire – they just couldn’t care less. Why do I call them an Empire? Because of the remarkable similarities between their modus operandi and that of the well-known gangster, Al Capone. You can read about it here and here.

To say that a specific CM does not work, and that the public should stop taking it, is for these people totally unacceptable.  Here is a simple example of how it works:

A large clinical trial, called SELECT, (involving more than 35 000 men) was conducted to test if Vitamin E and Selenium prevents prostate cancer. It was stopped prematurely because not only did it not prevent prostate cancer (no benefit), there were, although not significant, “….more cases of prostate cancer in men taking only vitamin E” (indicating that it might actually be harmful). Based on this information, any responsible scientist will now conclude that the benefit of taking this supplement for the prevention of prostate cancer has now been disproven (no benefit and it might even be dangerous). Simple stuff.

Therefore the ‘National Cancer Institute’ in the US provides this information on their website; “Should men take vitamin E or selenium supplements for cancer prevention?  No. Scientists do not understand how these supplements really work and more importantly, the interactions that these supplements have together or with foods, drugs, or other supplements. There are no clinical trials that show a benefit from taking vitamin E or selenium to reduce the risk of prostate cancer or any other cancer or heart disease.”

Although the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM), in Australia, did not take part in the SELECT trial, they felt compelled to release a press statement regarding the trial outcome. Whenever a negative (no benefit) result is published that might influence the sales figure of their main sponsors, they will react. In a long, and somewhat confusing, statement the NICM reaches the following conclusion and recommendation “….the precautionary principle would suggest that men over 50 and any man over 40 with a family history of prostate cancer should avoid selenium and vitamin E supplementation at doses that exceed recommended dietary intakes if not prescribed by a health professional.”

In other words; continue to buy the stuff that our sponsors sell. The well-known Australian supplement company, Blackmores, who has given the NICM more than $5 million in 2016, happily continues to sell these supplements to the Australian public. Asking Blackmores online Naturopath about the products for men with prostate issues, this is what they recommended “Blackmores has a product called Prostate Health Formula which contains both vitamin E and selenium along with a few other ingredients. Here is the product link for your information:  https://www.blackmores.com.au/products/prostate-health-formula. Frank, if you require any further information please contact the Naturopathic Advisory Service at advice@blackmores.com.au

So, is the naturopathic advisory service the ‘health professional’ that the NICM refers to in their statement?

This is a simple example of how it works. These people (and I have to exclude those very few that are conducting unbiased research into CAM’s) cannot accept that most CAM’s doesn’t have any benefit, some are dangerous and very few might be beneficial. If they do, and advise the public accordingly, their whole empire will collapse. And as usual; it is all about money and therefore it might be a good idea to keep an eye on the share price, before and after the Four Corners program airs, of the main producer of these products in Australia, Blackmores. It just might give us an indication if this program will have any sort of impact.

The Four Corners program airs tonight (13/02/2017) at 8:30 pm (AEST) but will also be archived on their website, that you can find here.

‘Officer I am not drunk, I am alternative sober!’ Skeptics stand by Bent Spoon nomination.

‘Officer I am not drunk, I am alternative sober!’ Skeptics stand by Bent Spoon nomination.

‘I reject your reality and substitute my own’ – a quote made semi-famous by Adam Savage from the TV series, Mythbusters, and obviously meant as a joke at the time. But it seems that this one-liner has caught on with some of the world’s most powerful. Donald Trump, working tirelessly to solve the world’s biggest problems, decided during his first few days in office to release a statement, via his team, that they will provide the ‘alternative facts’ regarding the number of attendees at his inauguration. Truly important stuff, resulting in a deluge of twitter comments including the hilarious ‘Officer I am not drunk, I am alternative sober’.

This article is, however, about his front-runners who has perfected the art of conjuring, disseminating and defending ‘alternative facts’ and because they were mainly allowed to do so, unchecked or unchallenged, for many years or decades they arguably assisted in paving the way for creating the current situation we find ourselves in. For example: scientists are now holding their breaths due to Trump’s plan to review current vaccination policies and for whatever might follow once this review is completed.  What kind of ‘alternative facts’ will this review reveal? Allowing ‘alternative facts’ to go by unchallenged, even the tiniest of deviations that may seemingly not have any measurable impact, creates societies that accepts ‘alternative facts’ and hence for it to become the norm.  It is about accepting it and not necessarily about the fact itself – e.g. nobody really cares about the inauguration numbers (correction; there might actually be one person who truly cares).

Nowhere is ‘alternative facts’ or ‘alternative truths’ more common than in the world of alternative medicine, in all of its different shapes and sizes. But as Edmund Burke apparently said sometime in the 1700’s “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing”. It is therefore important that men and women, specialising in different areas of science, to at least try and present the real facts when confronted with the unchallenged dissemination of ‘alternative facts’. Yes, it can get you in hot water, but it needs to be done.  In the world of alternative medicine this also seems to be a full-time job, but luckily there are a number of brave souls, and a number of organisations, who expose these ‘alternative facts’ with the real facts, as and when presented by the alternative, complimentary and integrative medicine fraternity.

One such organisation is the Australian Skeptics who annually reward the ‘best performing’ Australian with the coveted Bent Spoon award for “the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, and it serves to highlight particularly egregious instances of anti-science”.   A number of ‘alternative fact’ proponents were nominated in 2016, including Prof Alan Bensoussan, Director of the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM), Western Sydney University, Australia.  Obviously, you cannot just nominate anyone; that would be just wrong and therefore the provided incriminatory information has to be double-checked and authenticated.

In a recent newsletter of the Australian Skeptics an article appeared about the efforts by Prof Bensoussan to get his nomination removed (without providing a shred of scientific evidence!). You can read the full text of this riveting article here and below is mainly the e-mail exchange between the Skeptics and the NICM (republished with permission):

“On 22 November 2016, a few days before our National Convention where we present our annual awards, Australian Skeptics Inc President Eran Segev received an email from Professor Alan Bensoussan. It had a letter attached, and requested “that this letter is treated with strict confidence and only used for the purpose of removing the nomination”.

As will become clear shortly, we rejected this request as being unreasonable and unjustified both substantively and as the email was copied to two other parties not directly linked to Australian Skeptics Inc. However, there were parts of the letter that we accept should appropriately remain confidential, and we have chosen to redact those.

You can read Prof Bensoussan’s letter here.

On 3 December, a few days after the Convention, Eran Segev sent the following email to Prof Bensoussan:

Dear Prof Bensoussan,

Thanks for your email and letter. At the convention this weekend we have announced the “winner” of the Bent Spoon for this year, and I’m sure you’d be pleased to know that NICM was spared. The nominations for 2016 have now been removed from our website.

I wish to use this opportunity to express my ongoing concern over the uncritical way NICM presents information that is, at a minimum, dubious. The easiest example is the definition provided under “Energy Medicine”. Simply using the biologically meaningless terms “energy fields” and “biofields” puts you in the same category as some of the worst cranks in alternative medicine. As a minimum, I would have expected something like “it is claimed” followed by other qualifications that make it clear that NICM does not subscribe to these unscientific definitions. Unfortunately, a review of your site suggest that your claim that you “…do not defend the use of any complementary medicine unsupported by evidence” is false.

While you did not win the Bent Spoon this year, I reject your suggestion that the nomination was undeserved. Investigating complementary medicine in a scientifically rigorous manner is a credible scientific pursuit. Promoting it with weak or non-scientific evidence, as NICM often does, is not. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more Bent Spoon nominations for your organisation as you continue your uncritical support for implausible and evidence-free treatment modalities.

In your response to the NH&MRC review you ignored the magical pre-scientific notions that underpin homeopathy and its complete lack of plausibility, producing a statement which makes it look very much like you think this modality has some credibility, yet to be proven. The same approach permeates your site – no criticism of any alternatives to medicine in sight.

Even your warnings are mealy-mouthed: Saying “Serious forms of disease, conditions and disorders should not be diagnosed or treated without first consulting a suitably qualified healthcare professional” is not nearly good enough, when what any responsible organisation would say is “Go see your doctor” to make sure no-one sees a naturopath for a serious condition.

I also note that NICM is being sponsored by the Jacka Foundation, an organisation so uncritical of alternatives to medicine that it links to notorious anti-vaccination activists as sources of information.

I hope this will serve as a bit of a reminder of the need for scientific thinking to replace the unwavering support of complementary medicine in all its forms, which seems to inflict NICM.

Sincerely,

Eran Segev

President – Australian Skeptics Inc

Prof Bensoussan’s response on 5 December:

Dear Eran

Thank you for your update note and thoughts. We are intending to revise our website over the summer and hope to address some of the issues you have raised. However, I don’t agree with everything you say and your language is in places unnecessarily offensive.

Kind regards

Alan

And finally, Eran’s message on 5 December:

Dear Prof Bensoussan,

We at Australian Skeptics are encouraged by the news that you intend to revise the website and look forward to seeing a more measured attitude to the evidence – or lack thereof – for various CM modalities. However, until such time as NICM has clearly made a shift in its approach, we will continue to keep a sceptical eye over the Institute and its publications, and make public our criticism of the Institute when we feel it’s appropriate.

Specifically, we refer to your letter dated 22 November 2016, which we note was headed “Strictly confidential”. We suggest that this was inappropriate and that we are entitled to republish your letter if we wish.

Your letter requested us to remove text from our publicly available website. There was no confidential information in the letter which you are entitled to protect from public disclosure.

As part of our ongoing investigation of CAM, we consider that it is in the public interest to republish the nomination, your letter and our response dated 3 December 2016.

We also give you the opportunity to respond and we will publish that, assuming it is in appropriate terms and not of excessive length. If you wish to take advantage of our offer, please respond by 5 pm Friday 9 December 2016.

Sincerely,

Eran Segev

President – Australian Skeptics Inc

To date, no response has been received to this last message.

We sincerely hope that NICM will change its ways; but if past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, we remain sceptical.

The NICM’s undeclared conflicts of interest. Is there some ministerial interest in this? An update.

‘Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests

-‘Conflict of interest: There are no known conflicts of interest and no competing financial relationships exist.’

-‘Competing interests: The authors of this article do not have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence their work.’

Three examples (of the many that do exist) where no Conflicts of Interests (COI) were declared. In my previous post, it was made clear that being involved as consultants, with a ‘for profit’ organisation who donated a substantial amount of money to the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM), is a clear COI. Something that has to be declared and yet this is intentionally not being done. You can read about it here.

This COI information was send to three journal editors where the NICM published some of their acupuncture papers. It was also send to the Director of the acupuncture clinics to ask for clarification regarding the NICM’s role and any (financial) benefits coming from this – past and present. And to find an answer to a relatively simple question; is there anyone working at Western Sydney University (WSU), who hosts the NICM, that understands the problem at hand (pseudoscience being promoted and protected at WSU and the subsequent detrimental impact on science and on society) and who are willing to do something about this? The only way to find out is to ask. Therefore, this COI information was also send to about 1500 employees of WSU to ask for their opinions.

So, what happened since?

Only one journal responded, first by telling me that the info has been passed on to their ‘production team’, and a second message; that this matter is being investigated and the outcome of the investigation will be passed on to me – and hopefully the NICM and WSU. No response has yet been received from the two other journals and as for the Director of the acupuncture clinics – no response from either the director, who was send this information twice, nor from the clinics general email address.

That leaves us with the employees of WSU – but first a bit of stats. The number of views that a particular post generates is logged, as well as the country where these views originates from. Another interesting aspect is when you send this large number of emails, approximately 10-20% will immediately bounce back with an automatic out of office reply. Using these two parameters it is possible to see if the emails have actually been send and how many people (you don’t know their identities) have actually read it – or at least clicked on the article link. So, you can make a rough estimate of the number of people at WSU who have accessed your article. So, of the roughly 1500 emails (of the 4000 that I have), about 300 unique visitors viewed, on average, two articles each. The remaining 2500 emails could not be send because the out of office responses suddenly and completely dried up and the number of views from Australia flattened out. And this can only mean one thing; my email address has been blocked. This has happened before but at least a couple of hundred WSU employees have seen this information. So, the question is; did anyone respond?

A grand total of five people responded whereas four of the responses was a simple ‘please remove me from this email list’. The remaining response contained useful and thoughtful comments on this particular issue. Thus, there is at least one person, of those who have accessed this information, that was prepared to give this issue some thought. Is there anyone else out there at WSU who has some thoughts on this matter?

Great, so one might argue that it is mainly silence as usual with not that many people appearing to care much about this or all other issues raised in this blog. But there is some good news. Some journalists made contact, granted not solely because of this COI issue, but rather because of the bigger issues facing Australia regarding complementary medicine. Hopefully this will lead to something happening. But then there is a potential humdinger. Normally one would not expect the minister of health to just send you a letter out of the blue and yet this happened. Again, granted I have send all ministers of health letters regarding the NICM’s modus operandi, but that was almost a year ago – at the time some replied but most did not. So, what is going on here? Why now?

Any politician will be (or should be) concerned if the government dished out more than $600 000 to conduct another controversial acupuncture study. This particular study was even called a ‘wacky waste of cash’ in the media when it was announced. If it now turns out that this study, and most other acupuncture studies conducted at the NICM, has serious COI issues, then this has the potential to make headlines (there is a lot of taxpayers’ money involved).

And if that happens, then it is usually the minister of health that will be grilled. Hence, a simple way of avoiding this would be to say that the matter is under investigation, or that they are still gathering more info or that the matter has been deferred to a different department who can, or should be able to, better deal with this issue – importantly, this needs to be done before it makes headlines. But, the good news is that they might actually be investigating this matter. Hopefully, the investigation will not be limited to this COI issue but the whole modus operandi of the NICM and WSU and the subsequent impact on science, scientific education and the impact on society. Only time will tell.

So, no concrete progress yet, but the ball is starting to role. Let’s see if anything happens in the next week or so.

The NICM and their undeclared conflict of interest. An example of scientific misconduct!

Let’s say you are a highly experienced scientist. You’ve been an academic for decades, you’ve supervised many students and published hundreds of scientific papers. Due to your experience, you’re also on the editorial board of scientific journals, involved in your university’s management structures and you act as a consultant for, or are involved with, various governmental bodies and even with different companies and industries.

Because of your experience you are also well aware that it is of critical importance that your involvement with any company from any industry has to be declared. All scientific journals ask authors to declare any possible, financial or otherwise,  conflicts of interests (COI) that they  might have. Most universities also require academics to publicly declare any type of possible COI’s. There is nothing strange about this – everything has to be transparent and above board.

But what will happen if you intentionally fail to declare that you have a COI? For example: you publish numerous scientific research papers on products or services sold by a company, and you intentionally omit to declare that you are also a consultant for this company? Well, if people find out about this, all of your research results will suddenly become highly questionable because you intentionally did not declare your COI. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with being a consultant but there is a problem if you don’t declare it. The problem gets even bigger if you receive consultation fees or donations from this company – if this goes undeclared, then you are in serious trouble.

Unfortunately, this type of thing does happen and usually the scientists involved will be found guilty of scientific misconduct and depending on the severity of the case they might even lose their jobs. It should however be about the principle and not the amount of money involved, but having said that, a $10 dollar infringement will typically be ignored whilst a million dollar undeclared donation will get you into serious trouble.

The example given above is not hypothetical –  it is a real. It is just another example of how the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM) operates. A recent article explained the issue, that as an acupuncturist turned researcher you have a COI by default – but let’s ignore that for the moment. The acupuncture gurus at the NICM, Alan Bensoussan and Caroline Smith, never seem to declare their COI’s in their acupuncture publications – and they have been publishing quite a lot of them lately. This is interesting for a number of reasons.

-They are both highly experienced scientists and therefore they are fully aware of what a COI is and hence they intentionally omit to declare a COI,

-They are both consultants for a chain of acupuncture clinics in Australia (they tend to delete this kind of information from the website when they are caught out – you can find a screenshot here),

-The NICM did receive a substantial donation from these clinics (so there is financial gain),

Students of the NICM/WSU find employment at these clinics (info used to attract new students?),

-WSU, in all likelihood, know about this COI because donations have to go through their research office,

-Neither of the two researchers have declared involvement with these clinics in the researcher portal under ‘Consultancy’ (you can find it here and here) or in their staff profiles,

-The clinics use their research publications as well as their presence on the team as a marketing tool (Here is a wonderful example. First read how they describe it on their website and then the paper – obviously missing that important declaration of having a COI),

-WSU will probably do zilch about this, because the NICM is one of the Institutes that generates the highest amount of external income for the university – it is after all, all about money.

-WSU is known to delete information once they are exposed and are therefore brothers in crime with the NICM.

So, a clear case of a COI which was intentionally not declared. Now the question needs to be asked; why didn’t they just simply declare to have this COI?

The reason is rather simple. Scientists know that acupuncture is a pseudoscience – it doesn’t really work for the treatment of anything. As soon as the NICM publish an acupuncture paper and they include their COI with these clinics, scientists, and for that matter, anyone reading the paper will question the results – and rightfully so. Therefore, they have to look as if they are conducting their research completely independently – it is supposed to give their results a bit more credibility. But even without this COI issue, they will struggle because external scientists looked at some of their acupuncture publications and the statement was made that it constitutes scientific misconduct – and this was based only on their experimental design, results and how they market their results in an overly positive way to the public. Add the COI issue to this mix, and all their acupuncture publications becomes highly questionable.

The risk that they took by not declaring their COI is, of course, once people find out about it they will lose their credibility – or what is left of it. But then again, who will now actually go and study the modus operandi of the NICM – well, that is what we are here for!

This brings us to the current large acupuncture clinical trial at the NICM, funded by the NHMRC to the tune $ 600 000, focusing on acupuncture and IVF (this also happens to be the ‘speciality’ of the clinics for which they are consultants). When this funding was awarded to the NICM in 2013 this study was labelled “Universities in a wacky waste of cash”. That pretty much sums it up, but will the NICM declare their COI when they publish these results? Highly unlikely – for some reason they consider themselves to be above the law.

We have written a letter to the editors of three different journals where they’ve published some of their acupuncture research to ask them for their thoughts on this matter. We have also written a letter to the director of these clinics to clarify what kind of (financial) benefits the NICM receive in return for their consultation services. No response from anyone yet, but let’s give it a week or so.

The NICM and the missing $5 million. Where did it go?

Now you see it and now you don’t. Where is the $5 million donation that the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM) received from the controversial supplement company Blackmores? And for that matter, where are the two separate $300 000 donations received from the very same company? A number of weeks ago it was listed on Western Sydney University’s (WSU) researcher portal, under Prof Alan Bensoussan’s projects, but now it has been deleted. Maybe because we have written an article about this controversial issue a while ago? It puts us in a spot of bother because the said article had to be updated to clarify that this information has now been deleted from WSU’s website.

The only remaining donation from Blackmores is their scholarship funding program to the value of $330 000. The likely reason why this hasn’t been deleted is because these scholarships were reported on in the news, and once that happens it is always difficult to get rid of the information (and yes, scholarship funding is somewhat different than a fist full of cash to be spend on refining your techniques of how to hoodwink people). The same goes for the $500 000 received from the extremely controversial Jacka Foundation of Natural Therapies – this was also in the news and hence it is still listed. But this is also the reason why neither the NICM nor WSU published a press release proudly telling the world about one of the biggest ‘industry’ donations ever received by WSU – once it is in the news it is difficult to get rid of the information.

Clearly the NICM and WSU doesn’t want a public outcry similar to what happened after La Trobe university accepted millions of dollars from Swisse Wellness and more recently when the University of Sydney accepted money from Blackmores to establish a chair in complementary medicine. These two events did indeed cause a stir and there were even commentary and concerns coming from as far as the UK. No, this is not what WSU wants, so they simply delete this information and hope that no one would notice (they actually hoped that no one would notice that it was listed in the first place).

Apparently, they have learned from the mistakes made by other universities – or did they? If they did they would not have accepted this money, so no, the only thing that they have learned was to keep this information quiet – to fly under the radar, something that the other universities did not do. So, they decided not to be transparent and publicly defend their dubious decision, but at least they can now continue to mislead the public in peace and quiet without anyone noticing – or so they think (if any journalist reads this, please ask WSU what the hell they are doing – they are becoming an embarrassment for Australian science).

But the question remains – where did the money go? Maybe Blackmores decided to pull out? Unlikely, because the contract has been signed making it difficult to pull out without facing some sort of penalty. Did WSU and the NICM suddenly grew a conscience and decided to put science and the well-being of the public first?  Well, a leopard never changes its spots so this is never going to happen. The NICM will never part with a single dollar, so the money is likely still there but they have just hidden it somewhere.

Maybe it is hidden under the name of a different researcher at the NICM? Unlikely, the more money you bring in as an individual researcher relates directly to the number of gold stars you get on your forehead from the Vice Chancellor – and Alan loves his gold stars. So, looking under the names of different NICM researchers did not yield any information, as expected. Maybe they moved it from ‘projects’ to ‘consultancy’? – nope, no luck there either.

Thankfully, there is a thing called screenshots. If it wasn’t for these screenshots, that you can find here and here, nobody would have known about this $5 million funding. Searching the WSU website using the project reference number (P00023564) gave one result where this project is described. The only problem is that there is no mention of the value of the project. The same goes for the $300 000 donations. All these projects are there but none include the monetary value of the projects. The millions of dollars from Blackmores therefore remains to be hidden out of sight and this is of course done intentionally – they simply do not want the public to know about this. Strange, isn’t it?

You have to ask yourself why this is. What are they so afraid of? Well, if you read the other articles on this blog site you will see what they are afraid of. They are intentionally misleading the public, causing harm and even death, for the sake of money and they want nobody to know about this. And hence they will gladly accept the money from Blackmores as long as nobody to knows about it. If the public finds out they might receive unwanted attention which might lead some people asking probing questions that neither the NICM nor WSU wants to answer.

So, what will be their next move? It does indeed look a bit suspicious when a university delete information, especially if its information regarding millions of dollars received from a controversial company. Will they now list these projects again after this article is published? Let’s see what happens.