UK medicines regulation is now officially non-scientific

[Asolepius]

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. [snipped as too boring] "Sense about Science" should keep out of medicine.

Aha, so now we have it. I can see how that chip on your shoulder forces you to walk in circles. I'm not getting into an argument about John Maddox, although ideally you ought to back up your personal attack with evidence. I am interested in your hatred for Sense About Science. Please give us one example of `appalling standards'. Please justify why it should stay out of medicine. Is there anything it should stay in?

You persist in pursuing the wrong issue. Please read this carefully. This discussion is about allowing people to tell lies about their products, not about NHS provision of homeopathy. You have avoided answering the direct question, "Is it justifiable for false claims to be legally permitted?".

You have correctly detected that this is a rationalist forum. Surely critical thinking includes the process of rationalising things that have irrational factors? Are you suggesting that unreason is somehow desirable? I'm perfectly happy to accept that all sorts of supportive and palliative interventions are very helpful to patients. They may well pander to irrational beliefs, but that doesn't excuse lying to patients.

Whereas we welcome genuinely dissenting voices on this forum, you are not coming across constructively. You are sounding like a petulent maverick to whom the nasty Establishment has done a Great Wrong. I also have lots of reasons to be bitter as a result of the vicissitudes of life, but my commitment to reason just increases over time. Lighten up - there is intellectual richness here - enjoy!

 

[RationalVetMed]

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.

The intervention of a pharmacist is required for prescription only medicines or those on the pharmacy list. Homoeopathic remedies are neither so can be sold "over the counter", caveat vendor.

Yuri

 

[John Hewitt]

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.

My suggestion to you is this - accept the reality that you will not be able to stop the sale or purchase of these things and, if it true that the proposed arrangements create a free for all in spurious claims, campaign for sale arrangements in pharmacies. But, whatever you do face reality. You may be, or try to be, rational, but many people are and don't try to be. Medicine has to find a real, practical interface with that public and scientific logic will never become that interface.

 

[Nucular]

Translation:

accept the reality that you will not be able to stop the sale or purchase of these things

People will continue to put others in danger for profit whether or not we try to stop them, and so we should legislate to make it easier for them.

and, if it true that the proposed arrangements create a free for all in spurious claims, campaign for sale arrangements in pharmacies.

If you fear that profitable risk of others' safety will lead others to try similar things, campaign at individual sites by somehow making a coherent argument out of the premise "we don't agree with any of it, but we support this one because we've decided for some reason that we can't stop it, but none of the others despite there being little difference".

But, whatever you do face reality.

Believe what I say.

You may be, or try to be, rational, but many people are and don't try to be.

[unclear]

Medicine has to find a real, practical interface with that public and scientific logic will never become that interface.

People believe in magic, so that's what we should sell them.

*******************

John, I'm having a really hard time following your logic. Does this post respond to the actual issue about the new legislation allowing health claims to be made on the packaging of homeopathic products, or are you still ignoring the point and speaking generally?

Can you provide evidence for any of your claims, e.g. that campaigning on this issue will not make a difference, that campaigning on other similar issues would, or that people are unable to be logical?

 

[Mojo]

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?

 

[wollery]

My suggestion to you is this - accept the reality that you will not be able to stop the sale or purchase of these things and, if it true that the proposed arrangements create a free for all in spurious claims, campaign for sale arrangements in pharmacies. But, whatever you do face reality. You may be, or try to be, rational, but many people are and don't try to be. Medicine has to find a real, practical interface with that public and scientific logic will never become that interface.

My suggestion to you is this - never accept that people using pseudoscience should win, particularly when their bullcrap is likely to harm those who aren't well enough informed to see it for what it is. Fight them with every means at your disposal. Face reality, these people are frauds and charlatans and must be stopped, or people will be harmed. To do otherwise is unacceptable capitulation to superstition, and sets science and medicine back into the hands of witch doctors and shamans. Medicine has to find a way to stop this irresponsibility from being allowed to gain any more popularity than it already has.

 

[Asolepius]

Well said wollery. I am equally intolerant of fence-sitting, appeasement, and political correctness.

 

[asthmatic camel]

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?

Dr. Hewitt, would you care to respond?

 

[Cuddles]

My suggestion to you is this - accept the reality that you will not be able to stop the sale or purchase of these things and, if it true that the proposed arrangements create a free for all in spurious claims, campaign for sale arrangements in pharmacies. But, whatever you do face reality. You may be, or try to be, rational, but many people are and don't try to be. Medicine has to find a real, practical interface with that public and scientific logic will never become that interface.

Once again you totally fail to answer the question. The issue is not stopping the sale of these things, it is about labelling them as efficacious when they aren't!. We definately can stop this happening, and currently do. Your argument seems to be that people will believe the labels, so it is perfectly OK to lie on them. Is this seriously what you are trying to say?

 

[asthmatic camel]

I should leave this to the big boys, really but this advert was banned years ago, as it made false claims.

Now, we have a bunch of profiteering bastards claiming that "Homeopathy is good for you!", with government endorsement.

That's wrong, surely?

 

[wollery]

AC, any chance of you PMing me a copy of that story, I can't access the BBC news site from here!

 

[asthmatic camel]

AC, any chance of you PMing me a copy of that story, I can't access the BBC news site from here!

Done, (I hope.)

 

[Dave_46]

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?

Dr. Hewitt, would you care to respond?

He's not likely to, he hasn't done yet. In spite of ample opportunity.

Dave

 

[wollery]

Actually, the advertising thing raises a good point. Even though this legislation will allow them to make claims of efficacy on the labelling I assume that the ASA would still not allow them to make such claims in advertising. Surely that should be pointed out to the relevant authorities!

 

[Mojo]

Actually, the advertising thing raises a good point. Even though this legislation will allow them to make claims of efficacy on the labelling I assume that the ASA would still not allow them to make such claims in advertising. Surely that should be pointed out to the relevant authorities!

How many adverts do they place? They seem to get enough free advertising in the press as it is. Claims on websites, at point of sale or on packaging are not covered by the ASA.

 

[asthmatic camel]

How many adverts do they place? They seem to get enough free advertising in the press as it is. Claims on websites, at point of sale or on packaging are not covered by the ASA.

Mojo, that's true enough but, couldn't a shelf in Blah-de-Blah Pharmacy, with a large banner displayed above it, proclaiming that "Homeopathy will protect you from malaria" be described as false advertising?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, that's true enough but, couldn't a shelf in Blah-de-Blah Pharmacy, with a large banner displayed above it, proclaiming that "Homeopathy will protect you from malaria" be described as false advertising?

Maybe, but that type of advertising isn't covered by the ASA, but by local trading standards departments. See here.

There are some types of commercial message we don’t deal with; these include:

...

Shop window displays, claims on products and packaging and point of sale material. Misleading claims in these situations should be reported to your local trading standards department (www.tradingstandards.gov.uk).

The trading standards would (I think) have to bring a prosecution, which would put the burden of proof on them, whereas the ASA can require an advertiser to prove their claim.

 

[Mojo]

When complaints are made about adverts for homoeopaths, they often seem to be made by an organisation called The London Free Homeopathic Health Centre. I can't find any mention of them anywhere other than on the ASA website, and another thread here where I've mentioned them.

See these adjudications:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40725

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=41510

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_41554.htm

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40747

 

[Blue Bubble]

*Bump*

If I remember correctly, this issue is to be debated today (2006-10-26) in the House of Lards.

Edited to add snippet from Lards webpage:

#Medicines for Human Use (National Rules for Homeopathic Products) Regulations 2006—The Lord Taverne to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 21st July, be annulled (S.I. 2006/1952). [44th Report from the Merits Committee]​

 

[Blue Wode]

Yes, today’s the day:

MORE than 700 scientists, doctors and members of the public have criticised changes to the labelling of homeopathic treatments, prompting a debate in the House of Lords.

Last month, medicines regulators amended licensing rules, so that homeopathic remedies could indicate which symptoms or illnesses they can be used to treat.

But critics say the changes allow medicines to make unproven therapeutic claims, without the clinical evidence to back them up.

The campaign group Sense About Science contacted the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee about the objections, prompting today's debate in the House of Lords.

More here:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1584182006

Of course, Dr Peter Fisher thinks it’s all “a bit of a storm in a teacup”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6085242.stm

(For those not familiar with Peter Fisher, he is clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and official homeopath to Her Majesty the Queen.)