Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 2 October 2006

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Quackwatch and Talk:Quackwatch#Merge proposal 3. (Discuss)

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."

In a critical article, its role and notability have been described with these words:

"They are not a state or federal agency, therefore, they do not actually have any authority to make regulations or enforce them. But 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."

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. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). when it moved its base of operations to Massachusetts. However, the State of Massachusetts has no listing for NCAHF.

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 Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. These critics dismiss the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection by claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection . A common 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. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

In his book Racketeering in Medicine, 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."

Prominent critic of NCAHF, 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 this, 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." <ref name"NCAHF history/">

Lawsuits

King Bio suit

In 2003, 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. The trial court ruled against the NCAHF, finding that they had not met the burden of proof for these 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."

In the original 2001 trial against King Bio, the judge doubted the credibility of Barrett as an expert witness since Barrett had used the NCAHF to pay himself fees to appear as an expert witness. The judge infered that an NCAHF victory would lead to more lawsuits where Barrett can pay himself more witness fees from NCAHF funds. In light of Barrett's "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome", the judge declared Barrett to be a "zealous advocate of the Plaintiff’s position" whose "testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility".

References

1. National Council Against Health Fraud
2. Chiroweb
3. NCAHF Mission Statement
5. NHC: Health Freedom History
6. Bolen opinion piece

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
• Court decision regarding NCAHF
• Chiroweb warning about the NCAHF
• Freedom of Health Foundation (critical)
• Quackwatch Watch

• Quackery
• Skeptic organisations