UK medicines regulation is now officially non-scientific

[asthmatic camel]

John Hewitt, I am not, as you point out, the most rational person on the planet. Nor am I the most intelligent. I do, however, care very deeply about my fellow beings, and hate to see them being conned. Especially when the con is potentially life-threatening.

Nonsense? Well, I can come up with a whole load of it in short order. Perhaps I should start my own clinic.

 

[Mojo]

What I have been trying to do in this discussion of homeopathy is get some comprehension that objective scientific facts are not the only issue in making such decisions. I have no trouble believing that, in many situations, a physician will find it quicker and cheaper to prescribe a worthless homeopathic remedy rather than debate the merits of homeopathy with patients. That position does not strike me as being indefensible.

Moreover, since some people in the NHS want to be able to do this, I might even suggest, horror of horrors, that those people, who actually practice medicine, might be better able to make such decisions than air headed academics who never see patients.

Logically indefensible, I feel sure, but that is my opinion.

And what I have been trying to do in this discussion to get you to comprehend the issue that is being discussed here. The issue being discussed in this thread is not banning homoepathy. It is not whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe placebos. The issue is labelling of homoeopathic "medicines" on sale to the public. Got that?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of their "medicines"? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

 

[tkingdoll]

Weird, I thought I was the one who brought up Godwins. Channel your emotional outbursts towards me, if you must, John, not Asthmatic Camel.

 

[wollery]

Actually Dr. Hewitt your position is indefensible.

I've had a discussion on this forum with homeopaths who believe that placing a single pill of Apis 30X (iir the potency correctly) under the tongue is a valid and effective treatment for anaphylactic shock.

The legislation in question will allow homeopaths to label Apis pills as an effective allergy treatment.

This is the position you are saying is okay. It is not. People die from anaphylactic shock, sometimes even if they get the correct treatment (adrenaline), and someone treated by placing a glucose tablet under their tongue will certainly die.

Homeopathic solutions are not medicines and must not be permitted to be labelled as such. If they are then there is a very serious risk that people will die as a direct result.

 

[wollery]

I have not introduced Hitler into this discussion and my web site is not a threaded discussion so that Godwin's law, insofar as it is a law, does not apply to it. On the othe hand, Asthmatic Camel did introduce Hitler by the back door, so to speak, by the act of introducing Godwin's law when Hitler had not been mentioned. Thus, paradoxically enough, by the act of invoking Godwin's law, he broke it.

Fascinating.

 

[John Hewitt]

Actually Dr. Hewitt your position is indefensible.

I've had a discussion on this forum with homeopaths who believe that placing a single pill of Apis 30X (iir the potency correctly) under the tongue is a valid and effective treatment for anaphylactic shock.

The legislation in question will allow homeopaths to label Apis pills as an effective allergy treatment.

This is the position you are saying is okay. It is not. People die from anaphylactic shock, sometimes even if they get the correct treatment (adrenaline), and someone treated by placing a glucose tablet under their tongue will certainly die.

Homeopathic solutions are not medicines and must not be permitted to be labelled as such. If they are then there is a very serious risk that people will die as a direct result.

I don't regard anaphylactic shock as a self-limiting condition.

 

[John Hewitt]

Weird, I thought I was the one who brought up Godwins. Channel your emotional outbursts towards me, if you must, John, not Asthmatic Camel.

So, it was you - well, I hope your jumper shrinks in the wash, so there!

 

[Mojo]

Hello again, doc. Any chance of answering a couple of questions that are actually about the topic of the thread?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of their "medicines"? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

 

[asthmatic camel]

Fascinating.

Worrying.

 

[wollery]

Dr. Hewitt, I must apologise.

I've read back through my posts and I realise that I have been a little over the top. I'm afraid that I get a little hot under the collar when I see people trying to profit and further their lives and careers by lying about scientific studies, particularly when they do so at the expense of others.

 

[Asolepius]

......... I might even suggest, horror of horrors, that those people, who actually practice medicine, might be better able to make such decisions than air headed academics who never see patients.

Blimey, I nearly missed this gem. I should point out that Professor Michael Baum, the lead signatory on the letter sent to NHS trusts on 23rd May, as a very senior breast cancer specialist sees patients all the time. He sees the damage people do to themselves by believing rubbish. Check your facts.

 

[Deetee]

Hello again, doc. Any chance of answering a couple of questions that are actually about the topic of the thread?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of their "medicines"? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

Quite.
Dr Hewitt, are you there.....?

 

[John Hewitt]

Hello again, doc. Any chance of answering a couple of questions that are actually about the topic of the thread?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of their "medicines"? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

In answer to your questions about my background, that is available and adequately complete in the links already posted. I am not in medicine and I don't sell remedies of any kind.


It appears to me that one could divide medical knowledge into two parts, knowledge of the efficacy of medical *treatment,* what doctors do, and knowledge of medical *care,* broadly the business of nurses. Science inputs into the validation of treatment but less so into care. Hospitals don't just treat diseases they also care for patients – real patients with real, irrational beliefs and fears which can and will lead to all manner of weird situations.

I think the main driver for introducing homeopathic remedies for self-limiting conditions is the care of patients, rather than treatment. Some patients believe in homeopathy and if they want such a remedy, and will get better anyway, then let them have it. Water costs nothing and when, at some future time, that patient has other symptoms, they are more likely go to a professional for help rather than to some quack. One might compare this with hospitals providing vegetarian, Halal or Kosher meals. Such diets have no genuine therapeutic value but will help the recovery of some individuals.

I think this group is trying to mechanistically rationalise something that is subject to many irrational factors. "Sense about Science" is charging around like a bull in an operating theatre, interfering in matters of professional expertise they do not understand. Add to that, I don't like "Sense about Science" or the establishment from which they grew. Their own professional standards are appalling and this kind of campaign distracts attention from what they should be doing, which is putting their own house in order.

"Sense about Science" is not some grass roots group, concerned about scientific standards - they are an establishment body delivering party lines, by which I mean dictatorial party lines. Take John Maddox as an example of what you can expect. He spent years as editor of "Nature," writing editorials about scientific standards and the evils of malpractice but he has provably published falsehoods and refused to correct them. This is the typical position of a dictatorship – utopian from the outside, abusive and deceitful from the inside. If those are their standards, "Sense about Science" should keep out of medicine.

 

[wollery]

And again you miss the point. This is not about whether or not NHS doctors are able to prescribe homeopathic solutions as medicine. They are already able to do that, although to do so they would either have to tell their patient that they have no proven efficacy or lie to them, which is medically unethical. Some do it anyway.

This is about whether unefficacious medicines should be available over the counter with labelling which claims them to be efficacious.

I'm genuinely surprised that you don't see the difference.

ETA I also think that comparing the supply of religiously or ethically dictated dietary requirements to the use of homeopathy in the NHS shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issues of patient care.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And again you miss the point. This is not about whether or not NHS doctors are able to prescribe homeopathic solutions as medicine. They are already able to do that, although to do so they would either have to tell their patient that they have no proven efficacy or lie to them, which is medically unethical. Some do it anyway.

This is about whether unefficacious medicines should be available over the counter with labelling which claims them to be efficacious.

I'm genuinely surprised that you don't see the difference.

ETA I also think that comparing the supply of religiously or ethically dictated dietary requirements to the use of homeopathy in the NHS shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issues of patient care.

If a car retailer claims a car does 100 miles a gallon and it doesn't, he has a problem.

If a pub claims to sell alcohol in 35ml measures but only gives you 30mls, they have a problem.

If a shop claims to sell you a kilo of apples but only gives you 800g, they have a problem.

Why should homeopaths be allowed to lie about the product they are selling when nobody else is?

It is a very simple question and the repeated refusal of John Hewitt to answer it is very odd.

 

[Physiotherapist]

John,

You said that scientific input into care is less.

Well, this is not quite the case. Most research conducted into care is conducted by nurses and is therefore published in the nursing journals rather than the medical journals. Most research such as this is likely to be published in journals such as the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

The research into care is out there if you know where to look for it.

 

[Mojo]

Hello again, doc. Any chance of answering a couple of questions that are actually about the topic of the thread?

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of their "medicines"? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

In answer to your questions about my background, that is available and adequately complete in the links already posted. I am not in medicine and I don't sell remedies of any kind.

As far as I'm aware, I haven't asked you any questions about your background. However, I'll assume that this is an answer to the question about your background that Nucular asked here.

It appears to me that one could divide medical knowledge into two parts, knowledge of the efficacy of medical *treatment,* what doctors do, and knowledge of medical *care,* broadly the business of nurses. Science inputs into the validation of treatment but less so into care. Hospitals don't just treat diseases they also care for patients – real patients with real, irrational beliefs and fears which can and will lead to all manner of weird situations.

I think the main driver for introducing homeopathic remedies for self-limiting conditions is the care of patients, rather than treatment. Some patients believe in homeopathy and if they want such a remedy, and will get better anyway, then let them have it. Water costs nothing and when, at some future time, that patient has other symptoms, they are more likely go to a professional for help rather than to some quack.

Once again, this thread is NOT about homoeopathic remedies prescribed by qualified (or even unqualified) practitioners; it is about whether manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies should be allowed to make misleading claims about "medicines" sold directly to the public.

One might compare this with hospitals providing vegetarian, Halal or Kosher meals. Such diets have no genuine therapeutic value but will help the recovery of some individuals.

Would you consider it acceptable for vegetarian, Kosher or Halal restaraunts to claim that their meals can cure diseases?

I think this group is trying to mechanistically rationalise something that is subject to many irrational factors. "Sense about Science" is charging around like a bull in an operating theatre, interfering in matters of professional expertise they do not understand. Add to that, I don't like "Sense about Science" or the establishment from which they grew. Their own professional standards are appalling and this kind of campaign distracts attention from what they should be doing, which is putting their own house in order.

Again, this is not the issue here, and your evasion and ad hominem attack has been noted. Please try to address the argument that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines" (which you have conceded are worthless) should not be allowed to make therapeutic claims on products sold directly to the general public.

"Sense about Science" is not some grass roots group, concerned about scientific standards - they are an establishment body delivering party lines, by which I mean dictatorial party lines. Take John Maddox as an example of what you can expect. He spent years as editor of "Nature," writing editorials about scientific standards and the evils of malpractice but he has provably published falsehoods and refused to correct them. This is the typical position of a dictatorship – utopian from the outside, abusive and deceitful from the inside. If those are their standards, "Sense about Science" should keep out of medicine.

You seem concerned about John Maddox "publishing falsehoods". Are you similarly concerned about the manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies publishing falsehoods?

I'll ask the questions again. Please try to answer them.

Do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of "medicines" sold directly to the general public? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?

 

[John Hewitt]

And again you miss the point. This is not about whether or not NHS doctors are able to prescribe homeopathic solutions as medicine. They are already able to do that, although to do so they would either have to tell their patient that they have no proven efficacy or lie to them, which is medically unethical. Some do it anyway.

This is about whether unefficacious medicines should be available over the counter with labelling which claims them to be efficacious.

I'm genuinely surprised that you don't see the difference.

ETA I also think that comparing the supply of religiously or ethically dictated dietary requirements to the use of homeopathy in the NHS shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issues of patient care.

I don't think it is proposed to allow these things to be sold over the counter - it they are treated as medicines they would have to be sold in pharmacies, where prospective patients have a chance of getting decent advice. I would not allow such things to be sold in supermarkets, fish and chip shops or vending machines, but I don't think that is being proposed here.

In answer to physiotherapist, I am well aware that there is a large and respectable a nursing literature. I am also aware that that literature is generally much closer to the social sciences than is the work that underpins studies into the efficacy of medical treatment. In other words, its methodologies would often be unacceptable in the "harder" sciences.

 

[wollery]

I don't think it is proposed to allow these things to be sold over the counter - it they are treated as medicines they would have to be sold in pharmacies, where prospective patients have a chance of getting decent advice. I would not allow such things to be sold in supermarkets, fish and chip shops or vending machines, but I don't think that is being proposed here.

Because, of course, no medically efficacious remedies are sold over the counter, like paracetamol, aspirin, decongestants, cough supressants......... all things that you can pick up off the shelf from a supermarket. Medicines only sold in pharmacies my arse!

Homeopathic solutions are already sold over the counter, sadly in huge quantities. This legislation is about labelling them as efficacious when they aren't! It says nothing, as far as I am aware, about stopping homeopaths from selling them, and homeopaths need have no medical training of any type, not even pharmaceutical.

 

[Mojo]

I don't think it is proposed to allow these things to be sold over the counter - it they are treated as medicines they would have to be sold in pharmacies, where prospective patients have a chance of getting decent advice. I would not allow such things to be sold in supermarkets, fish and chip shops or vending machines, but I don't think that is being proposed here.

I can walk down the street to Boots, pick up a packet of homoeopathic pills off a shelf, take it to the checkout, pay for it and leave. No pharmacist involved, no advice involved, probably no conversation at all beyond "£9.99 please".

I'll ask the questions you're avoiding again. Please try to answer them.

Dr. Hewitt, do you consider it acceptable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, to make therapeutic claims on the packaging of "medicines" sold directly to the general public? Do you think that the government should permit them to make misleading claims?