The National Council Against Health Fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Council Against Health Fraud is a 501(c)(3) non-profit,^[1] US-based organization registered in California,^[2] that describes itself as a "private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems."^[3] The NCAHF and its co-founder Stephen Barrett have occasionally litigated against practitioners of alternative medicine and producers of products whom they believe to be in violation of the organization's governing principles. The litigation has had mixed results.

Contents 1 History 2 Mission statement 3 Position on health issues 3.1 Acupuncture 3.2 Amalgam fillings 3.3 Chiropractic 3.4 Diet advice 3.5 Diploma mills 4 Usefulness as a source 5 Criticism 6 Lawsuits 6.1 Aroma Vera suit 6.2 NCAHF v. King Bio 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] History

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2007)

According to its official website, the NCAHF evolved from three separate organizations, the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, Inc. (LVCAHF, now called Quackwatch), Southern California Council Against Health Fraud (SCCAHF), and an unnamed group in northern California.^[4]

[edit] 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.^[5]

NCAHF's positions on consumer health issues are based on what they consider 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.^[5]

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.

[edit] Position on health issues

[edit] Acupuncture

The NCAHF asserts that acupuncture is scientifically unproven as a modality of treatment. The NCAHF says (as of 1990) that research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease. Perceived effects of acupuncture are, argues the NCAHF, probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion and other psychological mechanisms. The NCAHF points out that acupuncture was banned in China in 1929 but underwent a resurgence in the 1960s. The organization also advocates that insurance companies should not be required to cover acupuncture treatment, and that licensure of lay acupuncturists should be phased out.^[6]

[edit] Amalgam fillings

There has long been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists,^[7] because the amalgam contains mercury. Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF cites the CDC in stating that there is no evidence that "the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised" or that "removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health".^[8] The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain.^[9] NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.^[10]

[edit] Chiropractic

The NCAHF contends that chiropractic can be dangerous and lead to injury or permanent disability.^[11] However, the NCAHF does not categorically oppose the practice. NCAHF differentiates between what it considers good and bad chiropractic practices. The former should advance only methods of diagnosis and treatment which have a scientific basis. For example, NCAHF claims there is no scientific support for vertebral subluxation.^[12] Their view is that chiropractic doctors should restrict their scope of practice to neuromusculoskeletal problems such as muscle spasms, strains, sprains, fatigue, imbalance of strength and flexibility, stretched or irritated nerve tissue, and so forth. Chiropractors should refer cases involving pathology to qualified medical practitioners.^[13]

In contrast, what the NCAHF considers bad are those chiropractors who believe the spinal adjustment will cure or alleviate a variety of diseases, such as infection, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, nutritional deficiencies or excesses, appendicitis, blood disorders, or kidney disease. These practitioners may use unproven, disproven, or questionable methods, devices, and products such as adjusting machines, applied kinesiology, chelation therapy, colonic irrigation, computerized nutrition deficiency tests, cranial osteopathy, cytotoxic food allergy testing, DMSO, Gerovital, glandular therapy, hair analysis, herbal crystallization analyses, homeopathy, internal managements, iridology, laser beam acupuncture, laetrile, magnetic therapy,and so forth.^[13][14]

[edit] Diet advice

The NCAHF is opposed to dietary recommendations and practices not supported by scientific evidence that NCAHF recognizes, including behavior-related claims.^[15] Unverified assessment methods such as iridology, applied kinesiology, and routine hair analysis for assessment of nutritional status are routinely criticized or castigated. NCAHF and some of its members have long opposed implementation of beliefs that they characterize as unfounded or unscientific.^[16]

NCAHF also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Herbal preparations are regulated as foods, rather than as drugs, in the United States.^[17] The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) with an adverse reaction surveillance program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.^[18]

[edit] Diploma mills

The NCAHF claims that many unqualified practitioners are able to mislead the public by using diploma mills or "degree mills" to get "specious degrees". Diploma mills are not accredited, and frequently engage in "pseudoscience and food faddism". NCAHF also alleges that "at least some of the 'faculty' or 'academic' advisors at several of these schools have criminal convictions in the area of health fraud". NCAHF considers diploma mills harmful to the "students" and to the public.^[19]

[edit] Usefulness as a source

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

A major foe has written: "The National Council Against Health Fraud is considered a valuable information source for many agencies nationwide. They are well networked and, as demonstrated by their past history, are able to influence the efforts of various agencies and insurance carriers. The NCAHF's ability to publish its opinions and hold these types of conferences does make them a substantial "player" in the area of health fraud."^[20]

[edit] Criticism

The NCAHF has been criticized by the supporters of the treatments it opposes, including practitioners of chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, and naturopathy.^{[20][21][22][23]}

U.S. Representative Dan Burton, described by the New York Daily News as a "powerful friend" of the dietary supplement industry,^[24] has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.^[20][25]

The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticised the NCAHF for its involvement in the PBS broadcast of a 2002 episode on chiropractic. Daryl D. Wills, D.C.(ACA president) responded to PBS officials stating (in part): "I find it ironic that a program titled 'Scientific American Frontiers' would completely ignore the scientific foundation of the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic portion of the June 4 episode titled 'A Different Way to Heal?' irresponsibly characterized chiropractic care -- a legitimate, research-based form of health care -- as a fraudulent hoax." and that "[t]he producers of your program could not have expected objectivity" from the NCAHF.^[22][26] The producer of the program replied in detail and explicitly denied these allegations: "The segment did not claim that chiropractic is fraudulent and did not attempt to prove or disprove that chiropractic "works," but it does state that chiropractic has no basis in science. This conclusion is entirely justified by both current research and generally accepted views of human anatomy."^[27]

[edit] Lawsuits

[edit] 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.^[28]

[edit] NCAHF v. King Bio

In 2001, NCAHF (Plaintiff) sued King Bio Pharmaceuticals (Defendants), a homeopathic pharmaceutical company, for false advertising and unfair business practices. The court granted a directed verdict for Defendants, after Plaintiff presented its case.^[29] Plaintiff suggested in its initial trial brief that it could not prove the elements of its claims, and argued that none or only "slight" evidence should be required to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant. Id. The court explained the general principle in civil actions - that one filing a lawsuit has the burden to prove its claims by a preponderance (51%) of the evidence.^[29]

Plaintiff had no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.^[30] The court stated that the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. The court also questioned their credibility in the case as "zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts (...) they are themselves the client." Id.^[29]

The Court concluded with a sharp rebuke:

"The logical end-point of Plaintiff’s burden-shifting argument would be to permit anyone with the requisite filing fee to walk into any court in any state in the Union and file a lawsuit against any business, casting the burden on that defendant to prove that it was not violating the law. Such an approach, this Court finds, would itself be unfair."^[29]

King Bio subsequently won the 2003 appeal.^[30]

[edit] See also

• Evidence-based medicine
• Medical ethics
• Scientific skepticism

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• National Council Against Health Fraud - Official site