Registered pharmacist John Rising recently sent a letter to Jennifer Baumgartner, PharmD – Doctor of Pharmacy – at the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education [ACPE], the national agency for the accreditation of professional degree programs in pharmacy and providers of continuing pharmacy education. John’s letter dealt with a pharmacy continuing education program approved by the ACPE that clearly promotes homeopathy as a legitimate medical treatment. Having received no response from the agency, John forwarded a copy of his subsequent follow-up letter – which you see here – to several individuals and organizations that might be interested in learning about his complaint and any response that he might receive from the ACPE. The JREF, as readers of SWIFT will know, has an active interest in following and supporting such activities. Here is the letter:Jennifer L. Baumgartner, PharmD, BCPP
Assistant Director, CPE Provider Accreditation Program
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)
20 North Clark Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60602-5109
Dear Jennifer L. Baumgartner:
On October 10, 2010 I mailed a private letter to the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) informing the organization that a 2 hour… continuing education from Postgraduate Healthcare Education, LLC and Hyland’s Homeopathy violated the ACPE’s Definition of Continuing Education for the Profession of Pharmacy and its accreditation should be revoked. The “Assessment and Management of Leg Cramps: A Homeopathic Approach. [UAN: 0430-0000-10-009-H01-P; 0430-0000-10-009-H01-T]” counts as continuing education for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. In our subsequent correspondence, you mentioned that the ACPE policy allows for a six-month window for review and possible action by the Board. It has been over six months now, and I have not received an official response.
In my letter I pointed out that homeopathic remedies do not meet the ACPE accreditation standards and guidelines as these alleged remedies are not based upon good science. The ACPE defines good science as: “evidence-based, logical, convincing, explanatory, honest, testable, and systematic.” Homeopathy is not evidence-based, logical, convincing, or explanatory. Homeopathy has failed to show any effect in all reliable scientific tests. Dr. Jack Killen, Deputy Director of the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM], has stated: “There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment.” Furthermore, the official web site of NCCAM states: “In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition.” Leading experts in physics, chemistry, and science- based medicine take even a harder stance against homeopathy.
Now I am asking again, this time publicly, that the ACPE pull its accreditation of the “Assessment and Management of Leg Cramps: A Homeopathic Approach” continuing education, or explain to the public how homeopathy meets the ACPE requirements of “good science.” What quality randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo? How is it logical or scientific that the more dilute a substance is the stronger its biological effects become? Would this not violate everything that pharmacists know about pharmacokinetics? How does a water-based solution that is so dilute that it contains no molecules of the original compound “remember” what was once in it? What scientific evidence is there that “likes cure like?” What evidence is there that biological illness is caused by miasms – imbalances of the “vital force” – rather than by microorganisms, genetics, diet, lack of exercise, or environmental toxins? These questions are relevant to any pharmacy continuing education that would promote homeopathic remedies, and the ACPE must be able to answer them. If the ACPE cannot demonstrate that homeopathy is “good science,” it should deny accreditation to any pharmacy continuing education promoting homeopathy. If it does not do this the ACPE violates its own standards.
The five simple, direct questions asked in John’s last paragraph, above, certainly deserve simple, direct, answers, but I predict that not only will several more months go by before a response may be received in this matter, but those questions will not be addressed. The ACPE will either choose to ignore this request for information, or they will simply send John a huge listing of papers that purport to support the claims of the homeopathic community, a maneuver often resorted to by such agencies. In preparing my chapter on acupuncture for my forthcoming book, A Magician in the Laboratory, I wrote to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in Washington and received a list of 308 such papers (subsequently increased to 310) – on acupuncture research, most of which were useless due to insufficient data bases, lack of double-blind protocols, or other very obvious flaws.
I encourage interested SWIFT readers to assist John’s efforts by adding their inquiries to Ms. Baumgartner’s mail…