Do Number 10 ePetitions ever have an effect?

Some time ago I signed an e-petition at www.number10.gov.uk - this aimed to question the establishment of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), popularly known on the blogosphere as Ofquack.  I have little sympathy with quackitioners, practising a startling array of "therapies" which pretty much all lack evidence of efficacy.  Singh and Ernst's Trick of Treatment offers a good and clear overview of the major CAM treatments out there.  The petition read:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require evicence of basic efficacy and safety for licencing by the CNHC."

Details of Petition:

"The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) issues approval certificates to Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners, but this approval is currently independent of actual evidence of efficacy or safety. It is likely that practitioners will use CNHC approval to imply efficacy and safety, even though it promises no such thing. We, the undersigned, therefore petition that the CNHC requirements be tightened to include evidence of efficacy and safety."

I signed this petition because I think it is important that bodies such as the CNHC are not allowed to give a air of respectability to bizarre ideas that lack even the most basic concordance with scientific evidence.  So what happened to the petition?  Well, on 12th June I received an email announcing a response from No 10.  And, as I kind of expected it was a rather limp response that essentially avoided the issue.  You can read it here.

I understood the petition to request that CNHC requirements be tightened to require evidence of efficacy and safety - indeed the title sentence reads "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require evicence of basic efficacy and safety for licencing by the CNHC". I mean, how clear can that be (other than the unfortunate typo!).  Unfortunately, in its conclusion the No. 10 response reads:

Regulation, whether statutory or voluntary, is about protecting the public.  For this reason, the Government fully supports the work of the CNHC.  If patients choose to use complementary or alternative therapy, the Government's advice is to choose a practitioner registered with a reputable voluntary registration body such as the CNHC.

I'm afraid I think that endorsing therapies that have no effect in effect endangers the public, especially in cases where conventional medicine is avoided in favour of quack therapies - the CNHC can therefore be seen to be engaged in an activity that has the exact opposite of protecting the public.