• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Homeopathy banned in the Netherlands?

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
54,236
Location
Australia
Simon Singh retweeted this link today/last night:

http://www.todaysxm.com/2012/07/06/opinion-homeopathy/

POSTED: 07/6/12 11:56 AM
There is a war underway in the Netherlands between opponents that are familiar with each other: the homeopathic and the pharmaceutical industry. The Association against Quackery is elated, while 24 percent of Dutch households will have to say goodbye to the natural products they have used for decades against all kinds of ailments. That’s because Public Health Minister Edith Schippers will only allow the sales of homeopathic medicine if their health benefits have been scientifically proven. This means that 243 registered homeopathic medicines will disappear from the shelves in pharmacies and chemists.

Provisional "Yay" for the Netherlands!

However, I can't find any other mention of this on the intywebs.

Anyone want to show up my weak Google-fu?
 
I have mixed feelings about this as I think everybody has the right to put what ever they want in their own bodies, however, having homeopathy officially asked "where's the evidence?!" will bring a good amount of awareness and put in the public spotlight. I think a lot of the fans of this crap really have no idea that it doesn't follow any scientific principles whatsoever.
 
Simon Singh retweeted this link today/last night:

http://www.todaysxm.com/2012/07/06/opinion-homeopathy/

24 percent of Dutch households will have to say goodbye to the natural products they have used for decades against all kinds of ailments.


There's nothing "natural" about homoeopathic remedies. They have to have the serial dilution and exactly the right amount of magic shaking (although homoeopaths appear unable to agree on what the right amount of magic shaking is).
 
This would be fantastic if true. I've been long frustrated that a country as supposedly well developed as the Netherlands sells quackery in official pharmacies. If this passes I can be a little proud of the Netherlands again, which would be nice. :)
 
From what I gather they stuff won't be banished or anything, it just won't be covered by national health insurance anymore UNLESS there is actual proof that the remedy cures what it claims.
If you want to pay Big Homeo for a bottle of water you can still do so, just no longer at the expense of the state.
 
Simon Singh retweeted this link today/last night:

http://www.todaysxm.com/2012/07/06/opinion-homeopathy/



Provisional "Yay" for the Netherlands!

However, I can't find any other mention of this on the intywebs.

Anyone want to show up my weak Google-fu?

I checked on the site of the Dutch Association against Quackery and I found this 19 June article and this 27 June article. They're in Dutch so I can imagine you'd have a hard time reading them. I'd be happy to translate parts of it if you want some specific clarifications.

The gist of it is that this is a long-running dispute - since 2004 - over their labelling. The homeopathic "medicines" in question make claims about their benefits. Recently, the Raad van State, the highest court instance, has ruled that this is illegal. So the homeos have the choice to either remove those claims from the package or have their "medicine" disappear from the shelves. As far as I can see from the articles, it is about OTC medicines that are freely available at pharmacies, drug stores and (big) supermarkets. I'll keep an eye on it when I go shopping - the supermarket I frequent is stocked with OTC medicine. There was an earlier ruling by the Raad van State in April about one of those "medicines", called Rinileen, from homeopathic manufacturer VSM.

So I don't think this has ramifications for the governmental health budget. Alternative medicine isn't part of the UHC plan anyway, but all insurers offer additional coverage on top of the UHC plan, and most offer an additional plan including sCAM.

While looking for those articles I found another interesting article from 3 June. Health care givers are excluded from charging VAT for their services. As part of the Dutch austerity plan, this will be restricted to health care givers with a registration for a bona-fide profession and for services rendered according to that profession. So sCAM artists as well as doctors doubling as sCAMmers will have to charge VAT to their clients, which will make those services around 20% more expensive.
 
Thanks heaps, ddt! Great news!

When do homeopathy companies have to comply with the labeling requirements?
 
I have mixed feelings about this as I think everybody has the right to put what ever they want in their own bodies, however, having homeopathy officially asked "where's the evidence?!" will bring a good amount of awareness and put in the public spotlight. I think a lot of the fans of this crap really have no idea that it doesn't follow any scientific principles whatsoever.
I agree with this comment from portlandatheist. Banning things does nothing to educate people, and only leads those who used said now-banned product to believe in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as to why it has been banned, ergo:

"The Powers That Be have banned the homeopathic medicines because they know they work and they don't want people having an alternative to mainstream pharmaceuticals".

That doesn't help anybody.
 
Well, apparently, they're not actually banning homeopathy, if you read ddt's post.

I believe this will help people who aren't educated. As for those conspiracy theorists, they refuse to be educated, so are a lost cause.
 
Thanks heaps, ddt! Great news!
You're welcome! Great indeed!

When do homeopathy companies have to comply with the labeling requirements?

1 July, so last week. I'll report back when I'm home from shopping whether it already worked. :)

The VAT will be introduced per 1 January 2013, but that isn't final yet. It's part of an elaborate set of austerity measures that have been concocted within a week time to meet the EU deadline.

And then I hope politicians will finally come to their senses and legislate number 2 on the Association against Quackery's wishlist: that insurers separate sCAM and real health care in their coverage plans. Now, it happens all too often that people take out extra coverage for, e.g., more fysiotherapy sessions, and then get also stuck with sCAM coverage because it's in the same plan. They mention Health Minister Edith Schippers as one such victim. :) I remember a TV column by Ronald Plasterk, then geneticist and director of the Dutch Cancer Institute, from 2006 (?) because his insurer advised him exactly such a plan.
 
Wait! They're banning water!? :eek:

:D

With the caveat that sometimes "homoeopathic" remedies sometimes do have active ingredients, what you buy is usually sugar pills, not water. Pills that have been touched by magically prepared water (or alcohol), or touched by a pill that had the magic water on, or even just pills that have been in the same room as other pills which have touched the water. No, really; this is known as grafting..
 
Last edited:
So you like the idea of more antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Actually antibacterial cocktails are the way to combat the evolution of such. It's infinitely less likely a mutation occurs that allows a bacteria to survive two or three different antibiotics at the same time.

So...if doctors were doing it correctly, we wouldn't be in this mess. Some dork filling hisself up would use several.
 

Thanks for the correction! That's the 27 June article I meant - somehow I linked twice to the same 19 June article.

Another correction to what I wrote earlier: there has been only one court case, which ended in April, with the verdict that Rinileen had to disappear. However, the verdict also spoke about homeopathic medicine in general, and so the Minister has taken the consequence to outlaw health claims for all homeopathic medicines.

I just came back from shopping, and I looked at the shelves at the local supermarket (Albert Heijn) as well as a drug store (Kruidvat). I wanted to visit the local pharmacy too, but they're closed at 2PM on Saturdays.

I looked at the list of most popular homeopathic "medicines" from this page I mentioned earlier, as well as Rinileen, the "medicine" that the court case specifically was about. I couldn't find Alchemilla-complex, the other five were present. I only looked at the text on the packaging, I haven't opened them to see what was on the information leaflet inside.

Suprisingly, Rinileen was present in the nasal spray form. The manufacturer, VSM, has an announcement they've taken the tablets out of their catalogue, and they recommend people now to use Nisyleen instead for sinusitis. The nasal spray doesn't mention sinusitis, but it does say "to breathe more freely through the nose", and "the included Echinacea activates your immune system for a quicker recovery". Interestingly, neither variant of Rinileen is present on the current list of homeopathic medicines of the CBG, the Dutch authority on medicines.

Echinaforce mentions on its packaging: "Homeopathic medicine for a weakened immune system, for flu or the common cold"

Spiroflor: "Homeopathic medicine for use with muscle pain and joint pain, a stiff neck or back, back pain or low back pain or pain from contusion"

Nisyleen: "Homeopathic medicine for flu and common cold", and actually mentions that "The efficacy of this medicine has not been judged by the CBG on scientific criteria".

Famosan: "Menopause total", and "helps against physical problems of the menopause"

I haven't jotted down which variant of each of these "medicines" I took those slogans from: they all come in various different forms with slightly differing claims. You can download the list of registered homeopathic "medicines" at the CBG site here, and that list runs for 108 pages.

Anyway, from the above it's clear that the manufacturers still sport all kind of medicinal claims on their packaging. At the supermarket, I asked one of the employees whether she could help me with some questions - a supermarket which sells OTC drugs must have an employee with special training on staff. She couldn't answer my question whether the efficacy had been scientifically proven. I pointed specifically at the Nisyleen, and all she could do was grab the package and read the text on it. :) But it turned out she was not the one with the special training - that employee was on holiday. I tried to ask the same at the drug store, but that employee was as dumb as a brick. Her answer was "well it's herbal and stuff" - I didn't feel like correcting her. I also asked at both stores if they'd heard about the change in the rules, but no. I'll try again at the supermarket in one or two weeks when the employee with the training is back.
 
Pills that have been touched by magically prepared water (or alcohol), or touched by a pill that had the magic water on, or even just pills that have been in the same room as other pills which have touched the water. No, really; this is known as grafting..


For flip's sake, that was a depressing read.

The answerers trotted out that garbage as if it was perfectly logical and the person asking the question just accepted it.
 
I agree with this comment from portlandatheist. Banning things does nothing to educate people, and only leads those who used said now-banned product to believe in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as to why it has been banned, ergo:

"The Powers That Be have banned the homeopathic medicines because they know they work and they don't want people having an alternative to mainstream pharmaceuticals".

That doesn't help anybody.

Homeopaths should be free to sell their sugar pills as much as they want to, just as long as they market it as just what it is. The problem here is mainly one of false marketing.
 
With the caveat that sometimes "homoeopathic" remedies sometimes do have active ingredients
Yes, ignoring that for the moment (since that's not the homeopathic part)...

what you buy is usually sugar pills, not water.
Yes, but I can't imagine that they're banning sugar pills, so I have to imagine that they're banning water. After all, the water, theoretically, is the "active" ingredient.

or even just pills that have been in the same room as other pills which have touched the water.
Wow! I didn't know that trick! Still, I imagine it really is just as effective as any other method for adding "memory" to something. I mean, you can't really claim that this is the step where they lose credibility. :D
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom