Friends of Science in Medicine

WHO listed 160 diseases/problems thought to respond to acupuncture treatments, although no well performed studies prove that acupuncture can cure or alter the specified pathologies. FSM successfully approached WHO who retracted the recommendations adding instead plans for further study.[30] FSM also raised its concerns regarding what they consider to be unethical promotion of acupuncture with Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) executives and the AHPRA Chinese Medicine board, but they were unsuccessful at achieving a change.[30]

As a result of the efforts of John Dwyer and the Friends of Science in Medicine, in August 2013, the chairman of the Chiropractic Board of Australia said it had removed some courses from its approved training schedule and would be randomly auditing practitioners to ensure they were not making unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of chiropractic. It also announced all registered chiropractors would be required to remove anti-vaccination claims from their websites.[31]

In April 2013, Macquarie University began discussions with higher education providers to transfer its chiropractic degrees by 2015.[32] Executive Dean of Science, Professor Clive Baldock said the initiative was first and foremost an academic one, based on a need for the Faculty of Science to build upon the University's recent major strategic investments in research-intensive disciplines such as biomedical science and engineering.[32]

Earlier in 2013, FSM sent out a series of letters about inappropriate treatment of babies and children by chiropractors who claim that spinal manipulation helps health conditions such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Asthma, allergies, bedwetting, colic and ear infection and is a substitute for vaccination. This was prompted in part by the report that government funding of chiropractic care for children under 14 was reported to have risen by 185% in four years. FSM sent letters to the Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA), Chiropractors' Association of Australia (CAA), Chiropractic Board of Australia (CBA), the Australian Spinal Research Foundation (ASRF), Chiropractic Council of NSW and Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia (CCEA). A second letter sent to the four universities teaching chiropractic, asking them to justify the 'subluxation' theory that is the foundation of chiropractic. The response by the CEO of Chiropractors' Association of Australia, Andrew Macnamara claims that there is no evidence provided to back up the concerns that chiropractic subluxations are an unjustified hypothesis,[33] however there is evidence from a 2007 systematic review published in Pediatrics and a 2009 report by four chiropractors which would back up FSM concerns that subluxations are not causally related to disease and thus have no valid clinical applicability.[34][35]

In March 2014, surgeon John Cunningham and FSM's Joanne Benhamu published an article in The Medical Journal of Australia calling for a national system for chiropractors to report adverse events in the wake of allegations that a four-month-old baby had a neck fracture following treatment for torticollis. The Chiropractors' Association of Australia responded by saying that it was in favor of a mandatory adverse reporting system but that it should apply to all health professions and be run through Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA).[36]

As of 2017, FSM has reported over 1200 chiropractors to APHRA for promoting treatments that FSM considers dangerous and not evidence based.[37] FSM has also called on the Australian Government to ban chiropractors from treating children younger than eight years old.[38]

In systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Researchers examine recent evidence for the safety and effectiveness of therapies. Edzard Ernst conducted a systematic review of reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (generally considered to be the most reliable source of evidence) in January 2010. Ernst's review, published in The Medical Journal of Australia, concluded, "The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo."[39]

Commenting in an article in The Guardian on a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) study (draft) debunking homeopathy, FSM co-founder John Dwyer stressed an area that was not investigated; the use of homeopathy for protection. Dwyer told The Guardian, "the most serious issue was the spreading of the concept that homeopathic vaccinations were harmless and just as good as orthodox vaccinations. People who believe that are not protecting themselves and their children."[40][41]

In January 2014, La Trobe University formed a A$15M partnership with vitamin manufacturer Swisse Wellness, causing a wave of controversy in the Australian medical community. One month later, Ken Harvey, Adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Public Health at La Trobe, resigned his position, stating "here were clear dangers in conducting research that was paid for by companies, and he could no longer be associated with the university given the 'fraught way' the research was being undertaken."[42]

In light of this controversy, FSM wrote to the Australian Government's NHMRC, urging them to "generate formal guidelines for research funding that would reflect the 'world's best practices,' as this is needed to protect the credibility and integrity of contracted research, particularly where the results could affect the pecuniary interests of the funder." As a result, the NHMRC is reviewing the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy and released a resource for clinicians entitled "Talking with your patients about Complementary Medicine – a Resource for Clinicians."[43][44]

FSM expressed concern after the Australian College of Midwives (ACM) endorsed the training of nurses in a range of alternative therapies, such as moxibustion for turning breech babies, as part of nurses' professional development requirements.[30][45] Alastair MacLennan of FSM argued that such therapies are "dark arts" that do not have a scientific basis.[45] In response, the ACM defended these courses, arguing that "it is essential that midwives have an understanding of practices that women are interested in, including complementary therapies", and that they believe "that all health professionals, including midwives, have the critical thinking skills to enable them to suitably analyse and assess any practice or research to determine whether it can be incorporated into their evidence-based practice".[46] However, Sue Ieraci, an executive member of FSM, noted that these courses do not review the evidence in favour of these therapies, but rather teach participants how to administer the therapy.[45]

FSM raised concerns with AHPRA's Osteopathy Board regarding the advertisement of osteopathy of the cranial field (OCF) and visceral manipulation; techniques that they consider objectionable.[30][47] Although the Osteopathy Board agreed to state in their advertising that that OCF is not backed up by scientific evidence, this did not occur.[30][47]

FSM has urged the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to improve its regulation of the advertising of therapeutic goods, arguing that the advertisement of unproven or disproven complementary medicines and medical devices is dangerous and could potentially harm consumers or delay their use of effective treatments.[48] FSM found that few product claims are actually audited by the TGA and that scientific evidence was absent for these claims in the majority of cases.[30] FSM have also expressed disappointment in what they consider to be a lack of transparency in the TGA's system of handling complaints.[49] FSM also lobbied the TGA regarding advertising relating to products such “bioresonance” devices, which were subsequently the target of a TGA crackdown due to a lack of scientific credibility of these devices.[50]