• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Testing homeopathy - an idea

Asolepius

Graduate Poster
Asolepius
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
1,150
Forgive me if this has been tried before. I'm not talking about tests of efficacy, but of quality. For orthodox drugs, not only do they have to pass all the familiar tests to show that they work and they are safe, but the actual finished products have to show conformity with specification. They must all have a certificate of analysis, from independent lab testing, showing that they contain the claimed ingredients, in the stated concentrations.

Now I know that the FDA has exempted homeopathy from such testing because it says these products don't contain anything. But what if I went into a shop, and took off the counter one of Nelson's bottles labelled `aconite 30c' or whatever? I then find a shop assistant and say "I think this product is a fake, and I'm reporting you to Trading Standards". How are they going to prove it's not a fake? Well in a broader sense it is, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. There is absolutely no way that anyone can prove that it contains what it's labelled to contain, so ergo all these products will be fakes.

Now I know the woos will resort to their `provings' and all sorts of other rubbish to support what they claim, but the key part is in the independent testing. In such a case the manufacturer's own data will not be adequate on their own. There must be independent lab testing. That means independent of biassed homeopath testers.

Just a thought.
 
It is an interesting way of looking at it however I would have thought the "legal argument" used by the manufacturers would be to show their preparation methods.

If they could demonstrate their mother tincture was at concentration X and they went through a dilution series of Y and that they had good QA in place then they can support their claim that it is "30c Berlin Wall". (Although of course anyone with an understanding for the science behind the dilution series would realise it is a rather meaningless statement.)

So the fact that no-one can take any homeopathic remedy and tell you what the mother tincture was can be side stepped.
 
Asolepius said:
But what if I went into a shop, and took off the counter one of Nelson's bottles labelled `aconite 30c' or whatever? I then find a shop assistant and say "I think this product is a fake, and I'm reporting you to Trading Standards". How are they going to prove it's not a fake? Well in a broader sense it is, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. There is absolutely no way that anyone can prove that it contains what it's labelled to contain, so ergo all these products will be fakes.
Click to expand...
It depends on where the burden of proof lies. I suspect that for a successful prosecution the trading standards people would have to prove that the product was a fake, and there they'd come up against precisely the same problem that the manufacturers would have proving that it was genuine. While there's no way of proving that the product is what it's labelled to be, it's equally impossible to prove that it isn't. The label information on a 30c aconite preparation is essentially meaningless as far as actual content goes, as all the aconite would be long gone: it just refers to the way it is alleged to have been prepared.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if you said,"This is a fake, it is nothing more than sugar pills!" Wouldn't the company then have to prove it was more than a placebo? I'm pretty sure selling a placebo in place of "real medication" isn't kosher.
 
clarsct said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if you said,"This is a fake, it is nothing more than sugar pills!" Wouldn't the company then have to prove it was more than a placebo? I'm pretty sure selling a placebo in place of "real medication" isn't kosher.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, if they were to actually claim that it worked they would probably be in trouble. For a start, the MHRA registration scheme for homoeopathic medicines states that they must make no therapeutic claims. See their note about labelling of homoeopathic products.

But all they will be claiming is that it is prepared in a certain way. Even if the trading standards proved that they were just sugar pills, this wouldn't prove that they weren't a 30c preparation. You would expect a 30c preparation to be nothing but sugar pills!
 
It is the clear attitude of main street chemists like Boots that they "wish to offer choice to their customers". (Read- hey , people pay over a pound for bottled water from Evian and this is just less of the same).
In short, so long as it's a no-hassle sale, they will sell the stuff.

If Asolepius' idea means that they no longer perceive it to be a no-hassle sale, they might find it financially expedient to be more selective.

Doubtless it would be reported as "Closed minded bigots reduce customer choice".
 
clarsct said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if you said,"This is a fake, it is nothing more than sugar pills!" Wouldn't the company then have to prove it was more than a placebo? I'm pretty sure selling a placebo in place of "real medication" isn't kosher.
Click to expand...
Now I think about it, they might be in trouble if you managed to demonstrate that their 30c preparation wasn't just sugar pills! :D
 
It's an interesting idea. What if one claimed that one had been sold an unmedicated bottle of the stock sugar pills, and supported this by maintaining that the pills had no effect when taken?

If it wasn't an expensive thing to do, it would be fun to try.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
It's an interesting idea. What if one claimed that one had been sold an unmedicated bottle of the stock sugar pills, and supported this by maintaining that the pills had no effect when taken?
Click to expand...
You'd still have to prove it. And remember, the label won't make any claims about effects. They are not allowed to claim that it would have any effect.

And anyway, you know the excuses that would be trotted out. Wouldn't it just mean that you hadn't chosen the right individualised remedy, or had antidoted it by drinking coffee or going near someone eating extra strong mints or whatever...
 
I dare say the manufacturers could weasel out. If it's legal to sell, then it's legal to sell. But shops don't stock items just because they are legal, but because they are easy to sell. If they become difficult to sell because smartasses are constantly coming in demanding analyses...

Either there is no detectable belladonna in the bottle, in which case it should not be labelled "belladonna", or there is, in which case it's not homoeopathic. Either way it's false advertising.

Of course Starbuck's latte is pretty much homoeopathic coffee.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Either there is no detectable belladonna in the bottle, in which case it should not be labelled "belladonna", or there is, in which case it's not homoeopathic. Either way it's false advertising.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If it's labelled "30c belladonna," and has been prepared from a mother tincture of belladonna by 30 sequential hundred-fold dilutions and succussions, then it is accurately labelled. The fact that such a preparation doesn't actually contain any of the belladonna doesn't make the description false. Quite the opposite; you wouldn't expect a 30c preparation to contain any of the mother tincture. If it does, it must have been incompetently prepared!

This is beginning to make my head hurt. :boggled:
 
This seems like an easy way to make money. Just buy some sugar pills and bottles and start selling homeopatic remidies at 15C or higer. Who can prove that they are any differnt from properly dilluted and treated ones:) ? Just don't claim any effects and a warning that it contains laktose to warn allergical people.

Can someone plese try to stop me from trying this. It is tempting to try get a pice of the SCAM pie. I have checked around some on the web and unfortunatly you have to make a really good homepage to match the ones that are already selling stuff like this (even if they do the proper dillutions).
 
I did actually buy a bottle of "30C Belladonna" in Boots. In small letters near the bottom of the label it said "Contents: sucrose/lactose".

Rolfe.
 
Mojo said:
Not necessarily. If it's labelled "30c belladonna," and has been prepared from a mother tincture of belladonna by 30 sequential hundred-fold dilutions and succussions, then it is accurately labelled. The fact that such a preparation doesn't actually contain any of the belladonna doesn't make the description false. Quite the opposite; you wouldn't expect a 30c preparation to contain any of the mother tincture. If it does, it must have been incompetently prepared!

This is beginning to make my head hurt. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Hmm...

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
Well, yes, if they were to actually claim that it worked they would probably be in trouble. For a start, the MHRA registration scheme for homoeopathic medicines states that they must make no therapeutic claims. See their note about labelling of homoeopathic products.

But all they will be claiming is that it is prepared in a certain way. Even if the trading standards proved that they were just sugar pills, this wouldn't prove that they weren't a 30c preparation. You would expect a 30c preparation to be nothing but sugar pills!
Click to expand...
Interesting. On reading the MHRA guidance (again!), my immediate reaction was "what a monumental waste of time". I am especially interested in the requirement that "no other labelling is permitted". I seem to remember that all of the Nelson's products bear indications, but I will pop into the shop this pm and check. Also, product displays always include a stack of leaflets extolling the virtues of these products, by indication. All they have done is to separate the information physically from the product, but perceptually they are still integrated.

Overall I think there is huge scope for agent provocateur activity, which could be fun.
 
Asolepius said:
Also, product displays always include a stack of leaflets extolling the virtues of these products, by indication.
Click to expand...
If the leaflets make any unfounded or inaccurate claims, you could try referring them to the ASA
What types of ads and promotions does the ASA look into?

<snip>

Leaflets and brochures
Click to expand...
They're very hot on asking advertisers for evidence to back up their claims.
 
Mojo said:
If the leaflets make any unfounded or inaccurate claims, you could try referring them to the ASAThey're very hot on asking advertisers for evidence to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
The ASA is very good, and acts decisively and promptly, but for some reason they don't deal with shop front or point of sale advertising. The latter are covered officially by Trading Standards, but they are pitifully under-resourced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom