Revision as of 00:10, 10 December 2006 editRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 editsm →Criticism: ref clean up - good solution, clearly this is a common criticism and Rosenthal is a notable critic of NCAHF← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:12, 10 December 2006 edit undoHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,994 edits rv per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
*In his book ''Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives'', James P. Carter M.D. makes the following charges: ''"the NCAHF...receives funds from pharmaceutical manufacturers,"'' and the NCAHF does not represent the consumer but rather ''"the interests of a select group of health-care providers - physicians in the private practice of medicine - and they represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies."'' <ref>''Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives'', by James P. Carter, M.D., published by Hampton Roads Publishing Co. Inc., 1993, (ISBN 1-878901-32-X)</ref> | *In his book ''Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives'', James P. Carter M.D. makes the following charges: ''"the NCAHF...receives funds from pharmaceutical manufacturers,"'' and the NCAHF does not represent the consumer but rather ''"the interests of a select group of health-care providers - physicians in the private practice of medicine - and they represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies."'' <ref>''Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives'', by James P. Carter, M.D., published by Hampton Roads Publishing Co. Inc., 1993, (ISBN 1-878901-32-X)</ref> | ||
* Ilena Rosenthal states: | |||
:The state of California suspended the corporate license of NCAHF in 2003.<ref>California Business Portal </ref> No listing in the Massachusetts Corporate website indicates that the NCAHF is operating legally there. For a non profit foundation soliciting funds and claiming to be "anti-fraud," this information seems extremely relevant to NCAHF and their operations.<ref>State of Massachusetts corporate database</ref> | |||
*In a letter to Lyn Behrens, PhD President of Loma Linda University, Julian M. Whitaker, M.D. explains how the NCAHF and some of its members have acted against numerous medical practitioners who were listed on their "Persons on the Quack List Data Base" containing 2,551 names. He writes: ''" Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the 'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441 others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS, DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even textbooks. Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD. "'' <ref> - Letter to Lyns Behrens from Julian M. Whitaker </ref> | *In a letter to Lyn Behrens, PhD President of Loma Linda University, Julian M. Whitaker, M.D. explains how the NCAHF and some of its members have acted against numerous medical practitioners who were listed on their "Persons on the Quack List Data Base" containing 2,551 names. He writes: ''" Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the 'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441 others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS, DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even textbooks. Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD. "'' <ref> - Letter to Lyns Behrens from Julian M. Whitaker </ref> | ||
Line 60: | Line 56: | ||
:"The judge's conclusion about bias was based on his concern that the experts presented to the court were NCAHF board members and that he did not perceive them as sufficiently independent to testify. In addition, the judge didn't permit testimony on grounds that what the judge believed he would be asked would be redundant. King Bio's request to the court for attorneys fees was denied." <ref></ref> | :"The judge's conclusion about bias was based on his concern that the experts presented to the court were NCAHF board members and that he did not perceive them as sufficiently independent to testify. In addition, the judge didn't permit testimony on grounds that what the judge believed he would be asked would be redundant. King Bio's request to the court for attorneys fees was denied." <ref></ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 01:12, 10 December 2006
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The National Council Against Health Fraud is a US-based organization that describes itself as a "private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems." The NCAHF and its co-founder Stephen Barrett have litigated against advocates of alternative medicine with mixed results.
Mission statement
According to NCAHF's mission statement, its activities and purposes include:
- Investigating and evaluating claims made for health products and services.
- Educating consumers, professionals, business people, legislators, law enforcement personnel, organizations and agencies about health fraud, misinformation, and quackery.
- Providing a center for communication between individuals and organizations concerned about health misinformation, fraud, and quackery.
- Supporting sound consumer health laws
- Opposing legislation that undermines consumer rights.
- Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws.
- Sponsoring a free weekly e-mail newsletter.
NCAHF's positions on consumer health issues are based on ethical and scientific principles that underlie consumer protection law. Required are:
- Adequate disclosure in labeling and other warranties to enable consumers to make proper choices;
- Premarketing proof of safety and efficacy for products and services that claim to prevent, alleviate, or cure any disease or disorder; and
- Accountability for those who violate consumer laws.
NCAHF states that its funding is primarily derived from membership dues, newsletter subscriptions, and consumer information services. Membership is open to everyone, with members and consultants located all over the world. NCAHF's officers and board members serve without compensation. NCAHF states they unite consumers with health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others.
Criticism
- The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicine professions such as chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and naturopathy. Some critics state the NCAHF is a front for corporate medical interests.
- A criticism of the NCAHF is that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.
- In his book Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives, James P. Carter M.D. makes the following charges: "the NCAHF...receives funds from pharmaceutical manufacturers," and the NCAHF does not represent the consumer but rather "the interests of a select group of health-care providers - physicians in the private practice of medicine - and they represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies."
- In a letter to Lyn Behrens, PhD President of Loma Linda University, Julian M. Whitaker, M.D. explains how the NCAHF and some of its members have acted against numerous medical practitioners who were listed on their "Persons on the Quack List Data Base" containing 2,551 names. He writes: " Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the 'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441 others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS, DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even textbooks. Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD. "
- Tim Bolen states :
- "The NCAHF is a front organization used by Barrett, Baratz and their other associates whose purpose is to solicit jobs so that they can act as expert witnesses against doctors who practice alternative and complementary treatment methods ... Quackwatch, and National Council against Health Fraud although independently incorporated, are one of the same, in that they have common directors, administrators, members, contributors and beliefs and collaborate together to the benefit of Barrett, Baratz and their other associates."
The NCAHF denies all of these charges, saying:
- "Such charges are apparently designed to draw attention from the true issues. NCAHF believes that consumers have a right to the information they need to make proper decisions, and that those who supply health products and/or services have a moral obligation to be truthful, competent, and accountable. NCAHF does not take sides in turf battles; it believes in one standard for all. Other than the common bond among those who believe that medical care should be based on science, NCAHF has no organizational ties to either organized medicine or the pharmaceutical industry. Nor has it ever received financial support from them. In fact, NCAHF is openly critical of the failure of organized medicine to take a more proactive consumer protection role and believes that medical discipline needs strengthening. NCAHF is also very critical of drug companies that market supplements, homeopathic products, and herbal products that are worthless, questionable, and/or unsafe. When pharmaceutical companies have marketed these products deceptively, NCAHF has exposed such activities and incurring the wrath of vitamin trade groups."
Lawsuits
Aroma Vera suit
In 1997, the NCAHF filed a lawsuit in California against Aroma Vera, a manufacturer of aromatherapy supplies, asserting false advertising. In 1998, the judge ruled that NCAHF lacked standing to file such a suit. In 1999 this ruling was reversed on appeal. In 2000, Aroma Vera settled out of court on the stipulation they would not make 57 of the disputed claims in advertising within California.
King Bio suit
In 2001, the NCAHF filed a lawsuit in California against King Bio, a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies, asserting fifty causes of action for false advertising and unfair competition. King Bio argued that the NCAHF's suit should be dismissed based on California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. The trial court ruled against the NCAHF, finding that they had not met the burden of proof for their claims; this ruling was upheld on appeal . The appellate court's ruling stated (PDF file ):
- "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement. King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility."
Barrett's response:
- "The judge's conclusion about bias was based on his concern that the experts presented to the court were NCAHF board members and that he did not perceive them as sufficiently independent to testify. In addition, the judge didn't permit testimony on grounds that what the judge believed he would be asked would be redundant. King Bio's request to the court for attorneys fees was denied."
References
- National Council Against Health Fraud
- ^ NCAHF Mission Statement
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
chiroweb
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - NCAHF History (Misrepresentations answered)
- PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors (complaints of NCAHF involvement)
- Burton hearing
- Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives, by James P. Carter, M.D., published by Hampton Roads Publishing Co. Inc., 1993, (ISBN 1-878901-32-X)
- Persons on the Quack List Data Base- Letter to Lyns Behrens from Julian M. Whitaker
- Opinion of Tim Bolen
- NCAHF's History- NACHF website
- Aromatherapy Company Agrees to Stop False Advertising
- Barrett's response added by himself to this article.
See also
- Alternative medicine
- Consumer protection
- Evidence-based_medicine
- Medical ethics
- Pseudoscience
- Quackery
- Quackwatch
- Scientific skepticism
- Skepticism
- Stephen Barrett
External links
- National Council Against Health Fraud - Official site
- Dynamic Chiropractic criticizes the NCAHF (critical)
- Freedom of Health Foundation (critical)
- Quackwatch Watch (critical)
- Quackpot Watch - (critical)