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

http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary...ay.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 ).

[Mojo]

See what Deetee's posted at JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...27#post1890927

[Admin]

Reporting suspected defects in medicines: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?I...AGE&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.