MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

The Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd (AACMA) is the “peak professional body of qualified acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine practitioners in Australia. AACMA has represented the profession since 1973 and values high standards in ethical and professional practice.”

High standards in ethical and professional practice?

Really?

Somehow, I doubt it!

Why?

Because they recently wrote to ‘Friends of Science in Medicine‘ categorically stating that I have “undeclared links to the pharmaceutical industry”.

To set the record straight (yet again), I here provide a complete list of all my links to the pharmaceutical industry, plus all my sponsorships and inducements from BIG PHARMA and elsewhere :

END OF LIST

As erring is human but lying is unethical, I herewith want to give the The Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association an opportunity to withdraw their statement and post an apology. To make sure they know about this invitation, I have sent them this blog via an email. Failing an apology I might take appropriate action and I will certainly declare the association to be neither professional nor ethical.

I am waiting – shall we say until one week from today?

22 Responses to An invitation for the ‘Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association’

  • Making an accusation is serious in and of itself. But this type of accusation is seriously stupid. This “paid by Big Pharma” gambit is becoming more and more childish, is the AACMA staff in kindergarten? I am stunned every time I see people that want so badly that their fantasies are true, that they create as many bogus arguments to fill in the gaps as possible.

    Of course, there is also another explanation. Your commitment to the truth and your negative results with respect to efficacy considerations could be in the way of their money-making efforts. I really don’t know which explanation to pick, they both are equally disappointing…

  • It astonishes me every time it happens.
    ‘Puerile’ hardly does it justice.The only reason they can possibly keep trotting it out is that, as with the US Fake President, they know their prime audience and their scorn for truth and facts.
    I’ve even been accused of this myself, and who the hell cares about somebody like me in this matter?
    I can only imagine that these types work on the basis that- as the saying goes- a lie is half way round the world before the truth has even got its pants on.

  • Good on you Edzard,
    we are sure that this association will have to tone dow these vicious and rather silly attacks. Your many friends in Australia will expect that and ready to take up appropriate actions

  • If acupuncture and Chinese medicine were really so wonderful, the first big pharma company to manufacture/stage and market it professionally would make a fortune, and all the others would follow suit. The idea that someone is suppressing this to make money is contrary to all the laws of competition.

  • Well that’s just silly (almost like you just made it up). Why don’t you show us this email Edzard. We all want to see what they wrote you.

    • read my post again, perhaps you understand then

    • one must be a bit simple to think i would invent something like this !!!
      why would anyone even think of doing this?
      and even if someone invented it, would the AACMA not show him up as a liar?
      this is the daftest idea anyone has posted for a while.

      • So you want us just to believe you Edzard? Without evidence?

        • YES;
          alternatively you might wait for the reaction of the AACMA.

        • Given Edzards history on this sort of thing, a fair question would be “Why wouldn’t you trust him in this claim?”

          If Edzard had a history of posting lies and misinformation I think it would be a fair challenge to demand the proof. In my experience of his conduct this isn’t the case though.

  • it would be helpful, if you sent them an email asking them to respond. their address is aacma@acupuncture.org.au

  • A common tactic of unscrupulous characters is called poisoning the well or pissing in the well. This is what the AACMA is doing by sowing this damaging rumour about Professor Ernst.

    The infamous president Lyndon B. Johnson is often quoted to have said: “Let them deny it” when he suggested spreading a damaging rumour about his adversaries.

    The full history of LBJ’s well-poisoning act is to be found here (I do not vouch for its accuracy but this version looks credible):
    https://masscommons.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/fear-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-make-them-deny-it/
    LBJ knew that by denying this denigration rumour, his adversary might increase the damage due to the abject nature of the claimed perversion.

    I do not think Professor Ernst will be risking the same predicament.
    They deserve to be held accountable.

  • THE AACMA have responded!!!
    Not to me directly but to the FSM group. Here is their letter:

    We refer to our letter dated 08.02.2018 responding to inaccurate statements regarding the AACMA and the Acupuncture Evidence Project made on behalf of Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) and also those attributed to Mr Ernst.
    In our letter we included the following:
    It is noted that Mr Ernst derives income from editing a journal called Focus on Alternative and Complementary Medicine that is published by the British Pharmaceutical Society and listed in pharamcologyjournals.com. Ernst has not declared his own pecuniary conflicts of interest and links with the pharmaceutical industry. I note that the FSM webpage declares that:

    ‘None of the members of the executive has any vested interests in pharmaceutical companies such that our views or opinions might be influenced. ‘

    This statement is disingenuous and deceptive if instead you base your critique on the blog of a person with such pharmaceutical interests without declaring it.

    It has been drawn to our attention that ‘Focus on Alternative and Complementary Medicine’ which is published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, listed as ‘An Official Journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’, and of which Mr Ernst is listed as the editor in chief on the journal’s web page, has ceased and is no longer accepting new submissions following its December 2016 edition. Since the Journal has ceased accepting new articles our statement that Mr Ernst derives income from editing said Journal is out of date and no longer accurate. We take this earliest opportunity to correct the above statement regarding Mr Ernst currently deriving income from the pharmaceutical industry, as it appears he is no longer in the Journal’s employ.
    Yours Sincerely

    Waveny Holland
    AACMA President
    Stephen Janz John McDonald

    What a hoot!
    They thought that my editorship of FACT was a ‘pharmaceutical interest’.
    They missed that the journal was published by Wiley, had noting to do with the pharma industry, and had ceased publishing. Moreover, they have no idea what the British Pharmaceutical Society is and seen to think that it is an organisation of the pharmaceutical industry.
    They issued their allegation that I have “undeclared links to the pharmaceutical industry” without properly checking the facts first. They furthermore omitted addressing me directly and apologising for their gross lack of oversight. They insist of referring to me as ‘Mr Ernst’. In my view, this shows how unprofessional, malicious and stupid they really are.

    But one must always look on the bright side of life! This episode has one important advantage: they obviously have tried all they could to identify a conflict of interest and failed. Now I hope it is clear for all times that I have none.

  • Good but not very good.
    FSM and perhaps prof. Ernst, should send them a stern, open letter correcting their continued fallacy and demanding an official apology to FSM and professor Ernst.
    This kind of belligerent transgression should neither be taken lightly or left unresolved.

  • to summarise the failings of the AACMA so far:
    1 no apology
    2 no direct response to me
    3 they wrongly imply that i formerly had an undeclared link to the pharmaceutical industry
    4 they provide a website that does not exist
    5 they misunderstand what the BPS is
    6 they get the name of my journal wrong
    NOT BAD FOR SUCH A SHORT STATEMENT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories