
PRESS RELEASE
(July 16TH 2007, London) The inaugural Board Meeting
of the newly formed
Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI), took place in London in June
signalling a new era
in the field of homeopathic research in the UK.
The aim of the Homeopathy Research Institute is
to promote and facilitate high-quality
scientific research in the field of homeopathy. The HRI will
be the first central resource
dedicated solely to research about homeopathy as it is practised
today. A key task of the
Institute will be to communicate about the science relating to
homeopathy to the medical
and scientific communities, the media, the general public, and
to homeopaths themselves.
The Institute will form a bridge between the scientific and homeopathic
communities
backed up by a strong PR and communications team.
The Institute was founded by Dr. Alexander Tournier
who holds a PhD in Biophysics
from the University of Heidelberg and is a fellow at Cancer Research
UK in addition to
being a qualified homeopath. This background places Dr. Tournier
in the unusual
position of being able to speak the language of both academic science
and homeopathy.
He says, “Through this institute, my aims are to strengthen
the scientific foundations of
homeopathy, and promote homeopathy as a sound system of medicine
well-deserving of
a place alongside conventional medicine."
The HRI’s Board of Directors consists of Dr.
Tournier, Clare Relton Msc, RSHom, (DH
training fellow in CAM Health Services Research at the University
of Sheffield), Marcus
Fernandez LCPH, MHMA, (homeopath and vice-principal of the Centre
for Homeopathic
Education), and Dr. Nagin Lad PhD, LCHE, (biochemist and homeopath).
The Board is
currently supported by a team of consultants including Dr. Patti
Bayliss, McHB, FRCG,
Sara Perkins Bran LCHE, (PR consultant and homeopath), and Dr.
Natasa Peric-Concha
PhD , (molecular biologist and trainee homeopath).
At the inaugural Board Meeting, the participants
established a Scientific Committee in
charge of developing the research program of the Institute. The
Scientific Committee is
headed by Dr. Tournier along with Clare Relton, and is presently
composed of Dr. Lad
and Dr. Peric-Concha, Dr. Lionel R. Milgrom PhD, FRSC, RSHom,
MARH, Dr. Mike
Emmans Dean PhD, MARH, Dr. Elizabeth Thompson MBBS, MRCP, FFHom,
and Prof.
Kate Thomas among others.
Clare Relton, who is currently developing appropriate
trial designs for homeopathy
research says, “I am very excited to be a part of the Homeopathy
Research Institute as it
will pull together ongoing homeopathy research and be a resource
for new trials.
Treatment methods, homeopathic remedies and principles, cost effectiveness,
efficacy
and safety are all areas the Institute will be examining.” The
Board also elected a PR Committee entrusted with developing the
communications
strategy of the Institute. This consists of Marcus Fernandez, Sara
Perkins Bran and
Natasa Peric-Concha.
The HRI invites participation from interested groups
and individuals. In particular, we
would like to hear from people with fund-raising expertise who
are interested in
consulting with our PR Committee. If you would like to donate
funds, find out more or
help in some way, please contact us. Contacts:
Scientific Committee:
Dr Alexander Tournier PhD, LCHE
alextournier@homeopathyresearchinstitute.org
Phone 07843275751
PR Committee:
Sara Perkins Bran BA (Hons), LCHE
sara@imagohomeopathy.com
Phone: 020 8961 5948
Or visit www.homeopathyresearchinstitute.org

Attendees of the inaugural Board Meeting of the HRI left to
right: Dr. Natasa Peric-
Concha, Dr. Patti Bayliss, Clare Relton, Marcus
Fernandez, Dr. Alex Tournier, Sara Perkins Bran, Dr. Nagin Lad.

The Board of the Homeopathy Research Institute
left to right: Clare Relton, Marcus Fernandez, Dr. Alex Tournier and Dr. Nagin Lad. |
ARH and the Register of Homeopaths
Download
this document (.pdf) | Go to
the Register of Homeopaths website
21 September 2007
Dear Colleagues,
Events over the course of the last few weeks have
moved rapidly, and it appears that sadly, a great deal of misinformation
is deliberately
being circulated by outside parties. This is at the very least
unhelpful, and acts as a diversion from addressing important
issues, such as raising the profile of homeopathy within the public
perception.
Below is an attempt to clarify matters, both as they relate to
ARH, and as they relate to the Register of Homeopaths. If having
read this, you feel you still have questions, then please do
not hesitate to ask us.
CORH
There may be a number of different perceptions relating to why
CORH has floundered and there have been various accounts describing
the demise of CORH. It is my opinion that some of these accounts
have been misleading to say the least. The ARH perspective has
already been extensively documented elsewhere (News from the
Chair, Homeopathy in Practice, Autumn 2007), but the one issue
that has proved totally irresolvable is the SoH's rigid assertion
that CORH had agreed to pay them the sum of £44,000K to
keep their 'recognition of colleges' process open, whilst CORH's
own accreditation process was in transition. This was once again
the main area of contention at the meeting held on 03/09/07,
which was convened to determine if and how CORH should finally
be dissolved. One member of CORH Council had gone meticulously
through all the minutes of CORH Council meetings held since 21/11/06
(the meeting at which the CORH budget for 2007 was set), and
the conclusion remained unchanged: There was no record
to substantiate the claim of SoH, that CORH Council had agreed
to pay them £44,000K.
Furthermore, there were no contracts, service agreements or other
documents giving authorisation from CORH Council, for CORH to
make a payment of £44,000K to SoH.
The meeting held on the
03/09/07 had to make several fundamental decisions:
- Should CORH be dissolved?
- How would CORH's debts be met?
- Who would be responsible for ensuring CORH was correctly
dissolved?
Item one – Agreement was swiftly reached
to dissolve CORH, with only one abstention (out of ten)
from CThA.
Item two – This generated a great deal of discussion. The
financial statement presented to CORH was inadequate for accounting
purposes, but it was clear that this was the most comprehensive
statement we could expect to receive. ARH were being asked to fund
CORH for a further £2,800K, but it was apparent that SoH
were short in their payments to CORH by £7,333.33. This money
had been held back by SoH, in payment towards the vigorously disputed £44,000K
the SoH claimed CORH had agreed to pay them. The discussions relating
to this unauthorised payment had reached an impasse, when Helen
Galley, ARH's honorary legal advisor (alternating for David Needleman)
suggested a compromise:
- SoH would place £4,000 of the disputed £7,333,33
back into CORH's funds
- ARH would pay the requested £2,800
- CORH's debts would be discharged
- The monies over after all debts had been settled would be
equally distributed amongst the registering bodies on a per
capita basis
- This would leave a shortfall for the SoH to pay of approximately £1200.
Following
the announcement of this proposal the meeting adjourned for a
fifteen minute comfort break. On return, and before discussions
recommenced, the SoH representatives stated that they considered
the obligations of SoH to CORH to have been fully met, and they
left the meeting altogether.
The meeting continued in the absence
of SoH, and the proposal outlined above was modified so that the
final section read: 'The
SoH shall be asked to pay any remaining balance due from it to
CORH up to an amount not to exceed £1200'. This proposal
was voted upon and accepted with six votes in favour, and three
abstentions.
Item three – Other agreements reached were that the documents
developed by the CORH working groups would be archived by all representatives
on former CORH, including the working groups and the patients association
(NAHG), and could be used in future for the benefit of the homeopathy
profession, without restriction. ARH also agreed to pay Tessa Jordon £100
loss of earnings, in order for her to represent the homeopathy
profession at a PFIH Federal Working Group meeting due to be held
on 26/09/07. Finally, four volunteers agreed to help ensure that
the final winding up proceedings of CORH were correctly discharged.
The
meeting was then formally closed. It should have been followed
by a discussion of the way forward for the profession, but the
earlier CORH meeting had run several hours late, so basically
we had no more time. I briefly informed participants of the establishment
of the Register of Homeopaths, and invited everyone to return
to
the negotiating table in the near future, to discuss how this
new initiative could serve as an intermediate step to establishing
the single register to which we all aspired.
The Register of
Homeopaths (RHom)
Background history
I was one of the founding members of CORH. Ten years ago I became
involved in the politics of homeopathy, and a somewhat informal
forum named JMORPH (Joint Meetings of Organisations Registering
Professional Homeopaths) already existed. Following the agreement
of National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy (NOS's)
a couple of years later, it seemed logical to build upon work
done to
date, and for all sectors of the profession to come together
in order
to establish a single register for homeopaths.
Over six years
ago, the late Frank Meredith (one of the founding Directors of
ARH) suggested at a CORH Council meeting, that the
first logical step towards creating a single register was to
start with a combined register. There was shock and horror expressed
by the representative of one registering association, who suggested
that standards would be seriously compromised if this proposal
was acted upon. Frank and others pointed out that we had already
agreed basic standards for the profession in the form of NOS's,
so we could build upon this over a period of time, and achieve
greater parity of standards across the profession via Continuing
Professional Development (CPD), and also via the accreditation
of homeopathic training. However, Frank's simple proposal was
rejected,
and CORH started down the path towards setting up a single register
The
emphasis changes
When CORH decided to engage an 'independent' Chair, the emphasis
of what it was trying to achieve began to change. CORH was
no longer working to establish just a single register, but
a single
register and regulatory body. The focus shifted from representing
the needs of the profession to protecting the public interest,
as though the two could be separated from each other. As
the years passed, it was apparent that the structure CORH was moving
towards was becoming increasingly process-orientated and
bureaucratic.
I voiced my concerns about the long-term feasibility of a
proposed single register that was going to have to pass on its
administrative
costs to practising homeopaths. In their turn, practising
homeopaths were not going to receive any tangible benefits from
registration
with CORH, apart from being a 'registered homeopath'. Furthermore,
since existing registers depended upon their registration
function in order to generate income, who would represent a voice
for
the profession in future, if the established registers ceased
to exist through lack of funds? The only answer to this question
offered by the independent Chair was: 'Who provides a voice
for the homeopathy profession in future is not the concern
of a regulatory
body.'
Combined or not combined
CORH Council had to decide who would be eligible to register
with the new register when it was finally established. After
much heated
debate, it was decided that all existing registrants of registers
represented on CORH could apply, subject to signing an agreement
to abide by the CORH Code of Ethics and undertake regular CPD
etc. A separate route would apply for new applicants not
yet registered
with any association. Surely this meant that at its inception,
the new single register was effectively going to be a combined
register?
CORH flounders
There have been a number of accounts describing the last few
months of CORH, some of which have been misleading to say the least.
One
positive result to manifest from the frenzied dissemination of
misinformation, is the fact that never before have so many homeopaths
been actively engaged in following the course of events. Suddenly,
everyone is interested in what is going on, which is really good
news. Below is a summary of the Board’s perceptions of the
inherent problems that eventually let to CORH’s failure:
- Differences between existing registers were never allowed
to be properly aired, thus compromising meaningful unity within
the profession
- CORH tried to have a perfect register and regulatory body
in place from the beginning, instead of starting the single register
by building upon what already existed
- The business planning of CORH was seriously flawed and its
financial management was incompetent
Problems the profession
would have faced with CORH's model of a single register:
- The bureaucracy needed to support the proposed single register
(the new council alone was going to comprise 15 people) was
going to be expensive, and the cost would have to be borne by
registrants
(£290 estimated in the first year alone)
- The single register was only going to register and regulate.
All services would have to be brought in from outside at
additional costs
- The existing registers/membership bodies would probably cease
to exist, leaving the profession without representation
and a voice.
- The creation of one register, offering no services and representing
an unknown quantity, would have resulted in the probable
destruction of other, existing registers who already offer
valuable and
necessary services to the profession
- The proposed new register had no checks or balances in
place to prevent it from becoming a monopoly
Fallout from
CORH
Prior to the establishment of RHom, the SoH had already started
to try to recruit ARH members. Following the announcement
of RHom, this campaign has intensified, and it is fronted by Paula
Ross, the non-homeopath Chief Executive of SoH. SoH have
launched
an aggressive propaganda campaign to coincide with membership
renewals to ARH. This campaign can be viewed as an overt
attempt to subvert ARH members, and recruit them as members to
SoH.
Paula Ross has also circulated a letter containing false information.
The main points are set out below:
- In a letter from Paula
Ross dated 30/08/07 to myself (Karin Mont) Chair of ARH (and
apparently first circulated on the SoH
intranet before being sent to me) the SoH claims that in November
2006, CORH Council agreed to pay the SoH £44,000K towards
maintaining its 'recognition of colleges' process. This is not
the case. A budget was agreed by CORH Council at the November 2006
meeting, but not how the income generated would be used. The issue
of the proposed payment to the SoH of £44,000K has been
exhaustively debated at all subsequent CORH meetings, and the
facts remain unchanged:
CORH Council did not authorize any such payment to the SoH, no
minutes, contracts or other documentation exists to support the
SoH's claim to receive such a payment, and only CORH Council
had the powers to authorize any such agreements.
- This letter also states 'At no point has CORH ever paid
money over to The Society'. This is an astonishing assertion that
either displays complete ignorance of basic accounting procedures
on
the part of Paula Ross, or is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The SoH withheld the payment of £7,733.33 to CORH to
set against the fee they had decided CORH was going to pay
them,
even though this had not been authorised by CORH Council.
In accounting terms, this represents a payment made by CORH
to SoH,
and furthermore, this payment was unauthorised by CORH Council.
- In the same letter Paula Ross suggests the collapse of
CORH was due to ARH not asking their members to pay £50
each, 'reporting instead their members would simply not
agree to it.' This is a false and misleading claim. ARH had already committed
to paying to CORH the amount they had budgeted for, and were
prepared to ask their members for the shortfall. ARH were
clear to point
out that as this request was for a voluntary payment, there
was no guarantee it would be forthcoming. From December 2006
onwards,
ARH repeatedly pointed out to the Chair of CORH and to CORH
Council, both in writing and verbally, that CORH was in danger
of allowing
its expenditure to exceed its guaranteed income, a warning
that went unheeded with disastrous consequences.
- Paula Ross claims
ARH were invited to attend an 'independently mediated' meeting
proposed by the SoH on 25th July 2007. The ARH
received an email circulated to all CORH Council participants
announcing the meeting. ARH were separated out from the other
groups invited,
and conditions placed upon their attendance: 'A representative
from their organisation (ARH) will be welcome to the proposed
meeting if they are in agreement with the aims as listed and
are prepared
to contribute £313.65 towards the costs of the meeting.' ARH responded by enquiring (among other things) what was being
mediated, and questioning how impartiality could be guaranteed
when the mediator being engaged for this proposed meeting had
previously worked for the SoH. ARH received no reply to these
fundamental
questions, and no attempt was made by any other party to contact
ARH to clarify matters or present an unconditional invitation.
- SoH has sent a 'Position Statement' dated 04/09/07 not only
to its own members, but also to ARH members. The statement
makes a number of inaccurate claims regarding the Register of
Homeopaths
(RHom) based upon general assumptions. At no time has the
SoH attempted to establish the actual facts. The claims made,
and the
conclusion
drawn, 'The Society would not recommend that its members
join the Register of Homeopaths', represent a deliberate attempt
to
discredit
the Register of Homeopaths.
- SoH has sent out inaccurate and defamatory information to
ARH members to coincide with ARH membership renewals. This
communication has been accompanied by information and registering
documents
inviting
ARH registered members to join SoH. This at the very least,
constitutes unethical behaviour.
SoH appear to be deliberately attempting
to discredit and defame its principal rival organisation ARH,
in order to create a monopoly.
It also appears determined to deny homeopaths freedom of choice,
by undermining RHom from the onset. By contrast, RHom has been
constituted to respect the autonomy of existing organisations,
and build upon the work of existing structures, as opposed to
destroying them, which CORH was likely to do. The majority of the
homeopathy
profession have been asking for the establishment of a registering
and regulatory body that is based upon clear, easily comprehensible
principles, is inclusive of the majority of practising homeopaths,
and is cost effective. The RHom is constituted to encompass all
these qualities, and thus has the potential to bring the profession
together in a meaningful and lasting manner. However, the SoH's
recent actions suggest that they are more concerned about preserving
their own position of power within the profession, than representing
the actual needs of practising homeopaths. The
HMA and CoRH
A recent statement from HMA seems to have thrown
everyone into
confusion. CoRH (with a little 'o') was the name that CORH
(with a big 'O') was going to change to, once the first phase
of CORH
was completed (by about July 2007). Obviously that was before
things went so badly wrong. There have been suggestions that
CoRH might be established, in order to continue where CORH
left off. HMA have proposed someone who might act as independent
chair
of this group, if it comes into being. At the moment, no new
proposals appear to be have been put forward for consideration,
however ARH will participate in any discussions that might
help the profession come back together again, and we will let
you
know what transpires.
Four practitioners come together
When CORH's financial difficulties were finally acknowledged
in the public arena, ARH members and other practitioners
began to
ask for a 'simple' single register, where everyone came together
to create a combined register. Seven years after Frank's
first proposal, the profession themselves were now asking for
a combined
register. We listened to that request, and as four practising
homeopaths who also passionately believe in the concept of
a single register, David Needleman, June Sayer, Steve
Scrutton and myself, established the Register of Homeopaths
(RHom).
RHom
is not a single register (how can it be, there are ten other
UK registers?) However, RHom has the potential of being the
central register for UK homeopaths because it accepts
registrants from
all existing registers previously represented on former CORH,
providing their registration with a primary registering body
is current and ongoing. It is up to individual practitioners
to decide if they want to register with RHom, irrespective
of the views of their primary registering body. Basically,
it is
up to registered homeopaths to support the move towards a
single register, by joining RHom.
What does RHom do?
- RHom is set up as a registering and regulatory body only.
It does not offer membership services such as journals,
events,
insurance etc. These will be provided by registrant's
primary registering body.
- RHom will run an electronic database of registered practitioners
for the public to access
- RHom will publish a printed register annually
- RHom expects its members to practice according to the
RHom Code of Ethics and Practice, and will take appropriate
action in the
event of a concern/complaint being made against a
member
registered with RHom
How is RHom set up?
- RHom is a company limited by guarantee, and is registered
at Companies House as the Directory of Homeopaths. RHom
trades as
the Register of Homeopaths.
- There are currently four Directors already known within
the homeopathic community, Karin Mont, David Needleman,
June Sayer
and Steve Scrutton.
RHom also has a fifth Director, a non-homeopath, who brings
legal expertise to the organisation, and will oversee
that correct
processes are adhered to when dealing with professional
conduct issues.
- RHom buys into the administrative services ARH can offer
on an as needs basis, thus keeping overheads down to
a minimum. The two
companies are run entirely separately, and RHom is financed
by
its own membership fees
- RHom's Code of Ethics and Practice is based upon the
CoE agreed by former CORH. Following a thorough legal
check, it has been
modified for greater clarity
- All registrants listed in RHom will have the letters
MRHom after their name, followed by the letters of
their primary
register
- The electronic and printed register will both carry
a section that states what the letters following
a registrants name
denote, and will also give a brief description
of the registering
criteria
of the registrants primary register
How does RHom propose to work with the rest of the homeopathic
community?
- RHom will be extending an invitation to all the registers
to come together to determine how RHom can be used as
the vehicle
to take the profession towards a single register. If enough
practitioners support RHom, that will help to make meaningful
unity a reality.
- RHom will communicate with all the Course Providers,
and see how links between both registration and education
can be
developed,
so the profession as a whole can be strengthened.
- RHom, in collaboration with ARH and other registering
organisations who wish to participate, will endeavour to
support the
newly formed and independent Homeopathy Accreditation
Board
- RHom will seek to liaise with DoH, PFIH and other organisations
in order to promote homeopathy in the public arena
What will RHom deliver for me?
- RHom will provide you with registration and regulation
- A member of the public who wants to receive homeopathic
treatment can refer to the register and find the most
comprehensive list
of homeopaths in their area
- RHom is set up to be inclusive.
It offers registration to all practitioners currently
registered with a register
previously represented
on CORH
- RHom offers registration at a price most practitioners
can afford, just £36 for the year
In conclusion
Rather like homeopathy itself, RHom is based upon very
simple principles. We don't pretend to have all the answers
to all the problems
facing homeopathy at the moment, but if you as practising homeopaths
want a single register, and a genuinely unified profession,
RHom is offering you the foundation upon which to build.
Ultimately
the choice is yours. You can allow fear and rumour to hold
sway, or you can follow common sense and reason. Homeopathy
is going
through an intense aggravation at the moment, and we simply
have to trust the principles of homeopathy, and look forward
to the
healing we know will follow. Best wishes,
Karin Mont, on behalf of homeopathy.
Download this document (.pdf) | Go
to the Register of Homeopaths website
|