Homeopathy works!

[Cuddles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5303080.stm

Homeopathic treatments can now be labled as curing specific ailments. According to the MHRA press release "The MHRA is the government agency that is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work". Presumably this means they are endorsing homeopathy as a proven treatment.

More on this topic can be found here : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62958

[Mojo]

But once the UK entered the EU in the 1970s this stalled new products coming on to the market, because the nature of homeopathic medicines meant there was not the clinical evidence to support licensing regulations. Hmm. What would it be about "the nature of homeopathic medicines" that would mean that evidence of their efficacy is not obtainable?

[tkingdoll]

I think this is a good thing, for slightly perverse reasons.

It's the vagueness of homeopathy that stops it being accountable. So, if you take it for an illness and you get worse, or die, you can't sue because it doesn't specifically say it's for the treatment of that illness.

With labels that put in writing what homeopaths have always claimed the medicine can do, they suddenly become accountable.

So, if homeopathy does not work, but the label has specifically claimed it does work for a specific illness, then customers have recourse to do something about it where before they did not.

If it does work, then this labelling is a good thing anyway, we have a new form of effective medicine, and all the skeptics will say "oh, we were wrong".

[Mojo]

I think this is a good thing, for slightly perverse reasons.

It's the vagueness of homeopathy that stops it being accountable. So, if you take it for an illness and you get worse, or die, you can't sue because it doesn't specifically say it's for the treatment of that illness.

With labels that put in writing what homeopaths have always claimed the medicine can do, they suddenly become accountable.

So, if homeopathy does not work, but the label has specifically claimed it does work for a specific illness, then customers have recourse to do something about it where before they did not.

I doubt it. No claims of efficacy are going to be made. They'll just be suggesting conditions that they could be used for, and I suspect it would be enough of a defence to show that homoeopaths use the suggested remedy for the condition in question.

[tkingdoll]

I doubt it. No claims of efficacy are going to be made. They'll just be suggesting conditions that they could be used for, and I suspect it would be enough of a defence to show that homoeopaths use the suggested remedy for the condition in question.


I thought that's what the labels already did, and that was what was not sufficient? IIRC, homeopathic remedies are already labelled with suggestions as to what they can be used for, but make no specific claim that they will have any effect on that particular illness.

[Nucular]

This might still be a good thing, in that it gets the debate out in the open once more.

But given the frankly bizarre nature of the MHRA press release, talking about making sure things work, relying of evidence, etc., I wonder if the Department of Health, of which the MHRA is a part, could intervene.


Just for the record, I have an old bottle of a homeopathic remedy I bought by mistake in about 1999, from a chemist's shop, and it's quite clearly labelled on the front


New Era
A homoeopathically prepared biochemic remedy for Hayfever & allergic rhinitis

It contains

"Active constituents (in homoeopathic potencies)"

Mag. Phos 6X, Nat. Mur. 6X, Silica 6X.

Dunno where that fits into the new legislation, but if that was allowed in 1999, it seems fair to assume the new regulations must go further?

[tkingdoll]

I think it's the difference between saying "for coughs and colds" and "cures coughs and colds".

[Nucular]

I think it's the difference between saying "for coughs and colds" and "cures coughs and colds".

I'm not sure - "remedy for Hayfever" literally means it cures or helps (remedies) hay fever, doesn't it?

Although I suppose my bottle of stuff could have been one of those in production prior to 1968, which have always been able to claim whatever the hell they liked.



Just saw Simon Singh bickering with John Saxton on News 24 (I'm off sick today, this homeopathy development is doing nothing to help me get better!) - so frustrating, I wish they'd let the man talk. Saxton at the end flat-out lied, stating "homeopathy does have the same stringent controls as conventional medicinal products", and then went on to equivocate about 'quality control' and 'safety', without mentioning 'efficacy', which was the whole point.

[Admin]

I've had a rant :angel:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=09-06

I think the point about medical claims is that they are implied. Stating that homeopathic whatever can be used to treat coughs implies that it will be effective for coughs.

I think the whole thing stinks and looks biased (dare I say corrupt? ???).

There's no way that the homeopathy fits in with the stated aims of the MHRA.

[Nucular]

Nice rant, John. I too wonder whether there's a whiff of the Charles about this one - ditto perhaps with the vet society homeopathy oddness (though being a Royal College one might expect him to have more influence over the vets).

One small question - was it shown last month that people have died of malaria after taking anti-malarial homeopathic products? Or just that it was a very, very real possibility? I thought the latter, though I would be in no way surprised to hear the former.

Anyway, all most peculiar shenanigans from the MHRA. What a joke of an organisation.

And yes, I think we dare say corrupt. I'm sure we'd all be willing in retract our judgments in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Admin]

I've already changed that bit and added a bit more.

I made the comments from memory (very unskeptical :-[) but I noticed my mistake when going through it again. People got the malignant form of malaria - they didn't necessarily die. And it was in July (which only seems like last month ;D).

[Mojo]

See what Deetee's posted at JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1890927#post1890927

[Admin]

Reporting suspected defects in medicines: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=290

This will be worth following up with a few complaints to see what the reaction is.

We need to co-ordinate the effort though. As soon as we see these newly registered remedies on the shelves we should register their ineffectiveness.

[boffin]

That's a brilliant idea! :D It's the best way to stop this sort of crap (sorry to use technical terms to describe homeopathy) spreading.

:

[tkingdoll]

Agreed. And the key is, to maintain the effort over time. They will be expecting an initial flurry of complaints, but we need to keep it up as long as it takes.

[vbloke]

Maybe we should work out a rota for complaining - 1 a week from everyone here.

There's over 200 commonly available remedies out there, so it would take us a while to do them all...

[tkingdoll]

Excellent plan!

We need a list of the 200, to start with.

[Admin]

I doubt it will change anything but I think it's worth doing simply to find out how they deal with it.

They have one initiative where they're allowing therapeutic claims (albeit small ones) for products that are known not to work, and another initiative whereby people can report medicinal products for not working.

The words 'arse' and 'elbow' spring to mind!!

[vbloke]

I'll start typing them up soon - honest... :o

[Admin]

Here's a nice little rant: http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/comment/0,,1864592,00.html

I suppose she's got a point about name calling. Perhaps it would be better and just state outright what is going on. It's fraud. State-sanctioned fraud. The selling of bogus products to the public with the government's blessing.

There - plain and simple.

The rest of her rant has little to do with the issue and is simply a 'science has been wrong before' argument.

So what? Even though it has, that in no way adds any weight to the claims of alternative practitioners.

They do like fallacious arguments don't they? ;D

[vbloke]

I can't believe she cites the Bristol study as definitive proof! That had more holes in it than Swiss cheese wrapped in a string vest!

Once the "licenced" remedies start appearing on the shelves, I'm going to try an experiment and I suggest you all try it too - gently peel the label off and mark the bottle somehow, then, send it back to the manufacturer asking if they can tell you what's in the bottle as the label came off.

It'll be interesting to see what they come back with.

[Eileen]

I actually think that she makes a good point in her article. These are supposedly some of the country's top medics making childish comments like this.

I also believe that it is not just doctors that have a sound knowledge base in subjects such as biochemistry etc. When I was at university, the best biochemistry tutor I ever had was a nutritionist. His knowledge of biochemistry was as deep as any doctor I know. One of the best anatomy tutors that I ever had was a guy who was a Sports Massage Therapist. I know that it was rather unconventional, but what he didn't know about anatomy wasn't worth knowing.

For information, I did a degree in Biomedical Sciences, so I studied conventional cadaveric anatomy as well as a course in living anatomy subsequently.

[Cuddles]

I actually think that she makes a good point in her article. These are supposedly some of the country's top medics making childish comments like this.

I also believe that it is not just doctors that have a sound knowledge base in subjects such as biochemistry etc. When I was at university, the best biochemistry tutor I ever had was a nutritionist. His knowledge of biochemistry was as deep as any doctor I know. One of the best anatomy tutors that I ever had was a guy who was a Sports Massage Therapist. I know that it was rather unconventional, but what he didn't know about anatomy wasn't worth knowing.

For information, I did a degree in Biomedical Sciences, so I studied conventional cadaveric anatomy as well as a course in living anatomy subsequently.

Of course people other than doctors know medically related things. The cases you cite are trained professionals with good knowledge of their field, as you would expect. This doesn't change the fact that homeopaths are frauds and doctors have every right to say whatever they like about them.

[Admin]

There's a good follow up today: http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/comment/0,,1865274,00.html

Whilst the original article may have had a valid point about name calling, the rest of it was just a load of fallacious nonsense.

[Nucular]

More Sturzaker nonsense from back in March: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1738048,00.html

Basically, Ernst is wrong about osteopathy not being particularly useful because a) his conclusion was only based on research, not "on cases, not on treatments" ( :confused: ), and b) there is secret research he didn't have access to which proves it.

ETA: just demonstrates her grasp of the way things work, is all.

[chillzero]

I can't believe she cites the Bristol study as definitive proof! That had more holes in it than Swiss cheese wrapped in a string vest!

Once the "licenced" remedies start appearing on the shelves, I'm going to try an experiment and I suggest you all try it too - gently peel the label off and mark the bottle somehow, then, send it back to the manufacturer asking if they can tell you what's in the bottle as the label came off.

It'll be interesting to see what they come back with.


I think I might do this - I'll send 2 bottles back, and claim that the labels peeled off accidentally. Since one is (theoretically) for a condition I have, and the other is for my partner, could they identify which is which, so that we suffer no disastrous consequences of cross-useage?

:D

I'll also discreetly mark the bottles so I know which was which, and ensure they don't just send me new bottles of each - claiming them as the originals.

Gives them a 50/50 chance to get it right - but if more of us do it ....

[Admin]

Are homeopathy bottles all the same?

I wonder if they mark their bottles in some way!

It might be a bit naughty but I wonder what advice a boots manager would give if someone phoned them up and said that their child had just swallowed 25 of the homeopathy tablets they'd just bought. ???

That would be a dilemma for them. They must know that there are no ingredients in the pills so would they pretend the situation was serious or admit that the pills do nothing to reassure the parent?

[Nucular]

Would a Boot's manager know that? Inevitably, they'd say exactly the same as if it was paracetamol - go to A&E. I don't think they'd waste a second considering whether in all good conscience they could advise medical intervention to treat an overdose of a product with no effect - they'd know that if the child died of something completely unrelated, or grew up to develop autism or something, if they hadn't advised medical advice they'd get shafted.

(Edit - I wonder what A&E would do? Probably pump the child's stomach to be on the safe side. If the parents are dumb enough to not only believe in homeopathy, but also to let their small children play with the medicine cabinet, they're probably dumb enough to keep their methadone in the homeopathy bottle and forget they put it there.)

I agree with you John, that they probably mark the bottles in some way. There's probably a 'quality assurance' policy or something which would prevent mixing up the products in the event of catastrophic label failure.

I like the idea of an orchestrated attempt by us on this board to keep complaining that the products are useless, happy to join in - except wouldn't they think it odd that the same group of people all suffer from the same 200 diseases?

[tkingdoll]

I was thinking more like we split the 200 between us ;D

[Nucular]

Ah, I see... :ponder:

[Admin]

wouldn't they think it odd that the same group of people all suffer from the same 200 diseases?


Possibly - but then again, we're all skeptopaths and skeptochondriacs! ;D

[vbloke]

I had a quick peek in Boots over lunch - of the two types they sell in the local one, one has the serial number/batch number/unique identifier printed on the label and the other has it printed on the bottle.

I'd say go for the ones with it printed on the label, that way there's no other identifying marks on the bottle (that I could see anyway). Alternatively, buy two and swap the pills around.

[vbloke]

I can't believe she cites the Bristol study as definitive proof! That had more holes in it than Swiss cheese wrapped in a string vest!

Once the "licenced" remedies start appearing on the shelves, I'm going to try an experiment and I suggest you all try it too - gently peel the label off and mark the bottle somehow, then, send it back to the manufacturer asking if they can tell you what's in the bottle as the label came off.

It'll be interesting to see what they come back with.


I think I might do this - I'll send 2 bottles back, and claim that the labels peeled off accidentally. Since one is (theoretically) for a condition I have, and the other is for my partner, could they identify which is which, so that we suffer no disastrous consequences of cross-useage?

:D

I'll also discreetly mark the bottles so I know which was which, and ensure they don't just send me new bottles of each - claiming them as the originals.

Gives them a 50/50 chance to get it right - but if more of us do it ....


I'd go the whole hog, buy 10 and peel them all off and send them back and tell them I can't remember what they are and could they tell me..?

[Mongrel]

It might be a bit naughty but I wonder what advice a boots manager would give if someone phoned them up and said that their child had just swallowed 25 of the homeopathy tablets they'd just bought. ???

That would be a dilemma for them. They must know that there are no ingredients in the pills so would they pretend the situation was serious or admit that the pills do nothing to reassure the parent?


Alll the Pharmacists I know (7) would tell the parent there's nothing to worry about, Homeopathy is just sugar pills. The Manager on the other hand should be referring these questions to the Pharmacists ;)