• 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.

UK medicines regulation is now officially non-scientific

Asolepius said:
I think that to make this stick we would all have to buy a great many products and then complain that they didn't work. The scheme is intended for consumers and practitioners.
Click to expand...


I think it would be looking at what's available and the indications claimed.
 
I've been keeping an eye out for anything appearing under the new rules. So far, all the homeopathic preparations I've seen that have therapeutic indications on the packaging have been ones with PLRs (i.e. those that were already on the market in 1971). Were these allowed to make therapeutic claims under the old system, as distinct from those that had gone through the Homeopathic Registration Scheme, which weren't?
 
[derail]So how'd it go, Teek? I wasn't praying for you, promise.[/derail]
 
We are getting good responses now from learned societies. I have obtained under FOI request the full text of the consultation responses. This makes interesting reading. For example, the Royal College of Radiologists considered these proposals were a `very important step forward'. Considered that the detailed proposals for labelling looked `admirably clear'. There is a very strange statement at the end:
We suggest that consideration should be given to who will be involved in training people involved in healthcare (GPs, pharmacists, senior nurse specialists, hospital consultants etc), to the resource implications, and the need to overcome the ignorance and prejudice against the use of herbal medicines by doctors
Click to expand...
Signed by the President Prof Janet Husband, who clearly has no idea of what homeopathy really is.

Overall, the vast majority of science-based organisations failed to respond. Some of them even supported the regulations, especially those representing pharmacists:boggled: . In its own summary, the MHRA totally ignored all responses that were critical. The Royal College of GPs stated clearly that there is no evidence base for the efficacy of homeopathy, yet under the efficacy heading this was not mentioned.

1st September emerges as one of the blackest days for science. We must all stand up and be counted. I for one have no aspirations to a knighthood, unlike the sort of people responsible for this outrage. If you want an analysis of the responses, PM me. Sadly I only have the full text as hard copy.
 
"We suggest that consideration should be given to who will be involved in training people involved in healthcare (GPs, pharmacists, senior nurse specialists, hospital consultants etc), to the resource implications, and the need to overcome the ignorance and prejudice against the use of herbal medicines by doctors"

Oh, for pity's sake!
 
When the training of alternative therapists is equivalent to the training of doctors and scientists, then they can demand a level playing field. As it stands, any yahoo can set themselves up as an alt med practitioner, so how can they even begin to argue that the industries are equal?
 
tkingdoll said:
When the training of alternative therapists is equivalent to the training of doctors and scientists, then they can demand a level playing field. As it stands, any yahoo can set themselves up as an alt med practitioner, so how can they even begin to argue that the industries are equal?
Click to expand...
Homoeopaths aren't asking for a level playing field (depite people like Peter Fisher making idiotic comments about "medical apartheid"). They don't want homoeopathy to be held to the same standard of proof as real medicine. This strongly suggests to me that they are fully aware that it doesn't work.
 
And posted the link to another forum, might get a few more to sign up, but mostly to drive a few low-lying believers into the open.
 
Filippo Lippi said:
And posted the link to another forum, might get a few more to sign up, but mostly to drive a few low-lying believers into the open.
Click to expand...
Great! Can we have a big push this weekend please? Parliament returns on Monday and we want big support to get attention of ministers.
 
Mojo said:
Homoeopaths aren't asking for a level playing field (depite people like Peter Fisher making idiotic comments about "medical apartheid"). They don't want homoeopathy to be held to the same standard of proof as real medicine. This strongly suggests to me that they are fully aware that it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Not the same standard of proof. The same level of availability and funding. They want it to be as available to NHS patients as medicine, no?
 
tkingdoll said:
Not the same standard of proof. The same level of availability and funding. They want it to be as available to NHS patients as medicine, no?
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly. But they don't want a level playing field. They want special treatment.
 
Update. I hear there may be developments in Parliament. This is as a result of the excellent response to the statement of objection. Please keep it up. If you know anyone who is a member of an organisation with a scientific or medical remit, ask them to find out their position on this. Not only do we want more signatures, we want clear statements abjuring homeopathy.

Also does anyone have a link to the regs recently introduced in Sweden? I believe the Swedes dealt with EU pressure by banning all efficacy claims for homeopathy.
 
Asolepius said:
Update. I hear there may be developments in Parliament. This is as a result of the excellent response to the statement of objection. Please keep it up. If you know anyone who is a member of an organisation with a scientific or medical remit, ask them to find out their position on this. Not only do we want more signatures, we want clear statements abjuring homeopathy.

Also does anyone have a link to the regs recently introduced in Sweden? I believe the Swedes dealt with EU pressure by banning all efficacy claims for homeopathy.
Click to expand...

I'll e-mail you a copy of my letter from the Swedish Vet Association.
 
This scheme seems OK to me

Asolepius said:
Many of you will have heard about the new licensing regulations for homeopathy. The MHRA press release <snip> These regs were sneaked in while parliament was in recess, without a debate. Such is the apathy of most MPs that they took no notice. This scandal will not go unchallenged. Sense About Science is running a campaign to oppose it, and you can sign up to a statement of objection <snip>. IMPORTANT: Please do this before parliament returns on 9th October. Also if anyone is a member of a relevant professional organisation please PM me for further actions you can take.
Click to expand...

I took a look at this press release and I cannot see what you expect anyone to do. Homeopathic medicines are just water and you cannot ban the sale of water you can only say that it is ineffective as a medicine. I am sure the purveyors of these things, like those who sell cosmetics, use careful phrasing to stay within the law, so they can't be banned.

Medically, these things are just placebos, and doctors have prescribed such things forever t keep patients happy while their self-limiting conditions self-limit.

I think "Sense About Science" should forget this but then they don't talk sense about science anyway.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

"Sense about Science" are a supposedly independent group but they are well funded and have clear links with what might be called the British scientific establishment. For example John Maddox, formerly of "Nature" is involved, as has been Bob Ward, press officer of the Royal Society.

As a group, the scientific establishment, including that of Britain, seem to think that they "own" quality - that they can and should judge the quality of other people but that they and their work should never be subject to the judgements of others.

So, for example, if "Nature" under John Maddox, publishes plainly false and misleading papers, then that is somebody else's problem, neither "Nature" nor John Maddox have any responsibility to correct it. This has been the situation in British science for years and "Sense about Science" looks like more of the same to me. I think they should tidy their own house.

I can't insert a live link into this forum but you want documentation on "Nature" and John Maddox you can find it on my web site by doing a search for "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat." I believe Maddox is mentioned in Chapter 10 and, for the record, he never did carry out his threat to sue me, though I would still welcome the writ.

If you would like a discussion of the specific issue, cell movement, that too is fine - provided the rules of rationality and evidence apply which, so it seems to me, they don't in British science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom