The National Council Against Health Fraud
196997
221798537
2008-06-26T04:01:34Z
Fyslee
700244
/* Usefulness as a source */ ACS ref
[[The National Council Against Health Fraud]] is a [[501(c)#501(c)(3)|501(c)(3)]] non-profit,<ref>per {{cite web
|url=http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=guidestar&npoId=208937 | title = GuideStar: The National Council Against Health Fraud | publisher = [[Guidestar]]}}; site log-in required</ref> US-based organization registered in California,<ref name="calbiz">California Secretary of State, California Business Portal, ''Corporations''. Access date: January 16, 2008. [http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C0834009 available online]</ref> that describes itself as a "private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems."<ref name="NCAHF_website">National Council Against Health Fraud [http://www.ncahf.org/ official website]</ref> 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.
== History ==
{{Expand|date=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.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ncahf.org/about/history.html
|title=NCAHF's History
|accessdate=2007-10-29
|format=
|work=
}}</ref>
== 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.<ref name="NCAHF_mission_statement">NCAHF Mission Statement [http://www.ncahf.org/about/mission.html available online]</ref>
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.<ref name="NCAHF_mission_statement"/>
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.
==Position on health issues==
====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.<ref>NCAHF position paper on acupuncture. [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html available online]</ref>
====Amalgam fillings====
There has long been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists,<ref>Hyson JM Jr. 1: J Calif Dent Assoc. 2006 Mar;34(3):215-29. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16895078 Amalgam: Its history and perils.]</ref> 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".<ref>CDC Factsheet on amalgam [http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/amalgam.htm available online]</ref> The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain.<ref>Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions about Hal A. Huggins, D.D.S. [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/huggins.html available online]</ref> 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.<ref>NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/amalgampp.html available online]</ref>
====Chiropractic====
The NCAHF contends that chiropractic can be dangerous and lead to injury or permanent disability.<ref>NCAHF - Position Paper on Chiropractic - Hazardous Practices [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html#hazardous available online]</ref> 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]].<ref>NCAHF - Position Paper on Chiropractic - Treating "Cause" Versus "Effect" [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html#cause available online]</ref> 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.<ref name="chiropactor_description">NCAHF'S Description of a Scientific Chiropractor [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html#ncahf available online]</ref>
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]], [[Enema#In alternative medicine|colonic irrigation]], computerized nutrition deficiency tests, [[cranial osteopathy]], cytotoxic food allergy testing, DMSO, [[Gerovital]], glandular therapy, [[Hair analysis (alternative medicine)|hair analysis]], herbal crystallization analyses, [[homeopathy]], internal managements, [[iridology]], laser beam acupuncture, [[laetrile]], [[magnetic therapy]],and so forth.<ref name="chiropactor_description">NCAHF'S Description of a Scientific Chiropractor [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html#ncahf available online]</ref><ref>NCAHF - Position Paper on Chiropractic - Recommendations [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html#recommendations available online]</ref>
====Diet advice====
The NCAHF is opposed to dietary recommendations and practices not supported by scientific evidence that NCAHF recognizes, including behavior-related claims.<ref>NCAHF Position Paper on Diet and Criminal Behavior. [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/diet.html available online] NCAHF. April 17, 1983.</ref> Unverified assessment methods such as iridology, [[applied kinesiology]], and routine [[hair analysis (alternative medicine)|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.<ref>Commercial Weight-Loss Promotions. [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/wtloss.html available online] NCAHF. 1987.</ref>
NCAHF also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of [[dietary supplement|herbal supplements]]. Herbal preparations are regulated as foods, rather than as drugs, in the United States.<ref>Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. [http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html available online] Accessed from the [[Food and Drug Administration]] website, 5 January 2007.</ref> 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.<ref name="herbal">NCAHF Position Paper on Over-the Counter Herbal Remedies. [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html NCAHF available online] NCAHF. 1995. accessed online 31 Dec 2006.</ref>
====Diploma mills====
The NCAHF claims that many unqualified practitioners are able to mislead the public by using [[diploma mill]]s 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.<ref>NCAHF position on diploma mills [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/dipmill.html available online]</ref>
== Usefulness as a source ==
{{Expand-section|date=September 2007}}
The National Council Against Health Fraud is mentioned as a useful source for information by
the [[United States Department of Agriculture]],<ref name=USDA>[http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=4&tax_level=2&tax_subject=256&level3_id=0&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&topic_id=1349&&placement_default=0 Fraud and Nutrition Misinformation: Dietary Guidance. Nutrition Information on the Internet]. [[United States Department of Agriculture]]</ref> the [[American Cancer Society]] in their book "Cancer Medicine",<ref name=ACS>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=cmed6.table.18497 Reputable Sources of Information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies] - [[American Cancer Society]]</ref> and others.
<!--
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/nutrlist.html
http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/weblinks.html
http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=4&tax_level=2&tax_subject=274&topic_id=1320
http://www.nypl.org/health/evaluating.cfm
http://library.smc.edu/research/topics/alternative_medicine.htm
http://www.nutrition4texas.org/resources.asp
http://www.med.yale.edu/library/consumer/alternative.html
http://www.upstate.edu/library/healthinfo/hic_links.shtml
http://www.d.umn.edu/~meberhar/ref/health/consumerhealth.htm
http://www.southshorehospital.org/health_info/links.htm -->
The journal Dynamic Chiropractic, while highly critical of NCAHFs views on chiropractic, 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."<ref name="chiroweb">[http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/08/21/09.html National Council Against Health Fraud], ''Dynamic Chiropractic'', October 10, 1990, Volume 08, Issue 21. Available online</ref>
== Criticism ==
The NCAHF has been criticized by the supporters of the treatments it opposes, including practitioners of [[chiropractic]], [[homeopathy]], [[acupuncture]], [[herbalism]], and [[naturopathy]].<ref name="chiroweb"/><ref name="NCAHFhistory">National Council Against Health Fraud - History and Evolution [http://www.ncahf.org/about/history.html available online]</ref><ref name="PBS">PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors [http://www.chirobase.org/15News/saf.html available online]</ref><ref name="whitaker">Letter to Lyns Behrens from Julian M. Whitaker - [http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/quack.html Persons on the Quack List Data Base]</ref>
U.S. Representative [[Dan Burton]], described by the ''New York Daily News'' as a "powerful friend" of the [[dietary supplement]] industry,<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/377636p-320846c.html "Lobby Holds Sway on Capitol Hill"], by Michael O'Keefe, published 25 December 2005 in the ''New York Daily News''. Accessed 5 Jan 2007.</ref> 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.<!--- What is his exact quote? --><ref name="chiroweb"/><ref name="Burton">Written Submission by Rep. Dan Burton and Hearing [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Hearing/burton.html available online]</ref>
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.<ref name="PBS">PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors [http://www.chirobase.org/15News/saf.html available online]</ref><ref>Response to the ACA [http://www.chirobase.org/15News/saf2.html available online]</ref> 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."<ref name="PBS_response">[http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/5_cool/galapagos/g13_team.html#graham Chedd-Angier.] [http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/forum.htm Producer's response], June 11, 2002.</ref>
== 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.<ref name="Aroma_vera_stipulation">[http://www.ncahf.org/legal/mehrbansettlement.html Stipulation for Judgment]. National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., v. Aroma Vera, Inc., et al. Superior Court No. BC183903. Sept 24, 2000</ref>
===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.<ref name="Judge Fromholz">Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001)</ref> 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.<ref name="Judge Fromholz">Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001)</ref>
Plaintiff had no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.<ref name="Findlaw">''National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King BIo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'', 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1378, Cal. App. 4th (2003). [http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/b156585.html ''Available at'' Findlaw]</ref> 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''.<ref name="Judge Fromholz">Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001)</ref>
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."<ref name="Judge Fromholz">Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001)</ref>
King Bio subsequently won the 2003 appeal.<ref name="Findlaw">[http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/b156585.html ''National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King BIo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'', 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1378, Cal. App. 4th (2003). ''Available at'' Findlaw]; </ref>
== See also ==
* [[Evidence-based medicine]]
* [[Medical ethics]]
* [[Scientific skepticism]]
==References ==
{{reflist}}
== External links ==
* [http://www.ncahf.org/ National Council Against Health Fraud] - Official site
[[Category:Skeptic organisations|National Council Against Health Fraud]]