Comments on: The Times, the Pittilo report (and damned sub-editors)

By: One month to stop the Department of Health endorsing quacks: the Pittilo questionnaire

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:23:38 +0000

[...] The Times (blame subeditor for the horrid title), and some follow up on the Times piece [...]

By: Consultation opens on Pittilo report: help to stop Department of Health making fool of itself

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:02:34 +0000

[...] I’ve written quite a lot about the Pittilo report already, in particular A very bad report: gamma minus for the vice-chancellor, and in The Times (see also the blog version).. [...]

By: University of Central Lancashire stops its alternative medicine degrees (or does it?). Yes, it does!

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:58:40 +0000

[...] Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine are not subject to statutory regulation at present, so one would suppose that these degrees will close their doors too. However the infamous Pittilo report has proposed that they should become regulated by the Health Professions Council (HPC). The many problems of the Pittilo report have been documented here, in “A very bad report: gamma minus for the vice-chancellor“. There was also a high-profile critique of the report in The Times (and on this blog). [...]

By: Health Professions Council ignores its own rules: the result is nonsense

Health Professions Council ignores its own rules: the result is nonsense — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:46:36 +0000

[...] But then came the Pittilo report, about which I wrote a commentary in the Times, and here, A very bad report: gamma minus for the vice-chancellor, and here. [...]

By: University of Salford abandons “complementary” medicine

University of Salford abandons “complementary” medicine — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:21:17 +0000

[...] gamma-minus Pittilo report (see also. The Times) recommended more degrees in alternative medicine, but there seems to be something of a trend [...]

By: Recent Faves Tagged With "princecharles" : MyNetFaves

Recent Faves Tagged With "princecharles" : MyNetFaves — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:20:45 +0000

[...] public links >> princecharles The Times, the Pittilo report (and damned sub-editors) First saved by dkamm | 2 days ago Prince Charles’ Skin-Care Line is Sold Out! First saved by [...]

By: Dr-star-T

Dr-star-T — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:49:42 +0000

Hi DC,

Not sure if you have seen this

By: badly shaved monkey

badly shaved monkey — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:04:16 +0000

Pittilo seems to lack clarity in understanding what a field of study requires to be a “Science”.

We are often at pains to point out to SCAMmers that science is not merely a set of facts but is a method for objectively answering questions. However, Pittilo is promoting the idea of SCAMmers teaching facts without method. They should be encouraged, he says, to leaven the teaching of SCAM’s loopy philosophy and each therapy’s particular habits and rules with a few nuggets of what he calls ‘hard science’, incidentally allowing the SCAMmers to perpetuate their habit of window-dressing their woo with a few sciency words, which many of them are very keen on. He implies that his idea of a SCAM+ course will let them go on subsequently to develop evidence-based practice. As David points out this rather presupposes that the evidence will support their beliefs, whereas the evidence is sufficient in many cases of SCAM therapy to say exactly the reverse.

Speaking as a vet, I might tell Pittilo that a horse is supposed to go in front of a cart and not vice versa.

By: badly shaved monkey

badly shaved monkey — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:29:52 +0000

“Hey, what happened to the tree?”

Yes, but why is David’s top-hat missing from both pictures?!

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:27:45 +0000

“Well now, at least, I can feel I have something in common with Isambard Kingdom Brunel.”

The Royal Mint, on the other hand, left Brunel’s cigar intact.

We’ll just have to wait for your appearance on a £2 coin.

By: DMcILROY

DMcILROY — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:29:30 +0000

Hey, what happened to the tree?

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:33:44 +0000

“…give Trading Standards people the cash…”
I’d agree with that. After all, the MHRA, the FSA and Trading Standards are all limited in what they can achieve [in terms of policing dodgy remedy-pushers] by their budgets.

I wonder what Trading Standards could have done with all the cash that went to Prince Charles’s Foundation for Integrated Health for writing those dodgy guides (£37k) – and didn’t they get £900k or so for OfQuack too?

By: David Colquhoun

David Colquhoun — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:18:30 +0000

I know what you mean, but I think it would be better if the money that was to have been spent on quangos was used to give Trading Standards people the cash to allow regular spot checks for contamination. Self-regulation will never work in contentious areas like these because it is riddled with vested interests.

By: apgaylard

apgaylard — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:13:16 +0000

Well put David. I share wilsontown’s concerns but wonder whether a more rigorous application of existing consumer protection legislation might be the way to go, building on it as necessary.

By: wilsontown

wilsontown — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:02:58 +0000

I agree with the article to the extent that government should not be in the business of providing spurious legitimacy to unproven ‘treatments’. However, I think that there is a case for regulation to protect the public from harm. For example, you mention ayurvedic medicine (as approved by no less than Cherie Booth QC). Some of these medicines contain dangerous amounts of heavy metals. Regulation could actually prove useful if it prevented these things from being sold.

However, it seems clear that the regulatory framework is designed to allow the quacks to carry on as before, without bothering with all that tedious testing to find out whether their treatments work or are safe.